Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere?

In Susan Walsh’s recent post The Grim Beeper, Doug1 made a comment about frivolous divorce (H/T Rmaxd):

Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.

She has in mind the much rarer kind of divorce where the husband divorces his wife for a younger, hotter model.

Susan took issue with his comment, and replied specifically to Doug1′s first paragraph:

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

Hard stats on male vs female infidelity rates are surprisingly difficult to come by.  If Susan has stats to back up her own assertion, I’d love to see them.  The consensus seems to be that men cheat slightly more often than women, but that when women cheat the implications to the marriage are more severe.

One source which backs Doug1 up is Michelle Langley, author of Women’s Infidelity.  I’ve touched on her in this post and this post previously.  On her website Langley states the following:

Women’s relationships today follow a very predictable pattern:

  •     They push men for commitment
  •     They get what they want
  •     They lose interest in sex
  •     They become attracted to someone else
  •     They start cheating
  •     They become angry and resentful
  •     They begin telling their partners that they need time apart
  •     They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.

I don’t buy all that Langley is selling, but I think there is a kernel of truth to this.  I’ve certainly seen the basic pattern.  My issue with Langley is I think she has latched on to a sense of exaggerated biological determinism to absolve her own infidelity and divorce.

Devlin wrote the following about Langley’s book here:

The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.” Sometimes this happens—which, inci­dentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A sig­nificant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step.

The issue of who really initiates a divorce is a difficult one.  As Devlin and Langley point out, women are often the initiators of divorce even if the husband files, and sometimes even if he cheatsThe woman from the Marie Claire article who married a man she didn’t love and then realized she didn’t love him after her children were born comes to mind:

Clark had dated a handsome businessman for four years before they got engaged, and although he didn’t make her heart race, she still loved him. “We were best friends, and I thought he’d make a great husband and father, even though I wasn’t ‘in love,’” she says. “I walked down the aisle thinking, What the hell? During my vows, I wasn’t making eye contact with my fiancé.”

Five years and two kids later, their sex life nonexistent, Clark wanted out. “I’d often wish he would cheat,” she says. Finally, her husband, sensing her unhappiness, ended it.

In the case of Clark, had her husband done as she hoped and cheated this still wouldn’t have fit Susan’s characterization that the reason women initiate divorce twice as often as men is due to the husband’s betrayal.  She wanted out and was hoping to drive him to cheat as an excuse to divorce.  While she wasn’t able to get him to do that, she was able to make him be the one to file.

As I’ve shared previously, Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen set out to understand why women file for divorce twice as often as men in their paper “These Boots Are Made for Walking”:  Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women:

Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children.

What they found is divorce theft and the legal incentive women perceive to divorce is the primary driver (emphasis mine):

Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia.  We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.

I’ve elaborated on the topics of divorce theft and exploitation here, but in summary during marriage there are periods when each spouse benefits more from honoring the agreement than the other one does.  In the early stages of the marriage when the wife is young men benefit more if the agreement is honored.  Later in the marriage when the wife is older she benefits more if the agreement is honored.  Because of this, women have the incentive to commit divorce theft and exploitation when they are younger, and men have the incentive to do so when their wives are older.  The latter scenario is best described by the common tale of the husband who dumps an older wife for a younger woman after years of loyal marriage.  Women’s window of opportunity for divorce theft and exploitation is primarily when they are young, although the biased legal system would seem to extend this somewhat.

Knowing when each spouse has an opportunity for divorce theft gives us an opportunity to corroborate the findings of Brinig and Allen.  If divorces occur more frequently when wives are young, this would agree with their finding that women are initiating divorce in response to the incentive to commit divorce theft, or driving their husbands to file due to exploitation (see this post for an academic explanation of the terms).   If divorces occur more when the wife is older, this would indicate that husbands are doing what conventional wisdom suggests and dumping their older wives for a younger model.

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.  Here is the most recent data from the UK:

The same pattern exists for the US:

The data I have on infidelity driving divorce is less comprehensive, but certainly doesn’t fit with Susan’s characterization and it doesn’t refute what I’ve already shown.  I’ve shared before the results from the AARP survey of men and women who primarily divorced in their 40s.  There appears to be some rationalization going on with regard to the “both of us” answer from men and women, but women responded that they had initiated the divorce 66% of the time, which is in line with the historical pattern Brinig and Allen showed:

They also asked what were the primary and extenuating reasons for the divorce.  At least for men and women divorcing primarily in their 40s (and with a much smaller part of the sample in their 50s and older at the time of divorce) infidelity was the third most frequently cited reason, named as the primary reason for divorce by 16% of respondents:

I also shared previously the results from the non scientific poll of women considering divorce at the website Should I Divorce Him.   At the time of that post, 25% of the women who took the poll admitted to cheating on their husband one or more times.  Only 19.4% of the women stated that their husband had cheated on them.  Given the tendency of people to understate their own culpability and overstate the other party’s culpability, this is an astounding result.

My final observation contradicting Susan’s assertion that men are driving the divorce epidemic through infidelity is the full court press our media is giving to women encouraging them to divorce.  Open nearly any Sunday paper and in one of the sections targeted to women there is almost guaranteed to be an article discussing how empowering divorce is to women.  The same goes for women’s magazines and movies.  The same isn’t true for men.  Women are willing customers of divorce fantasies in a way that men simply aren’t.  To suggest that women are unwillingly divorcing while simultaneously devouring divorce porn is quite simply ludicrous, especially given all of the other corroborating information.

This is what I had readily at hand regarding the question.  I’d love to see Susan’s data backing up her claim that women’s 2-1 push for divorce is driven by men cheating in far greater numbers.  In other words,

Provide stats for this or shut up.

Note:  As I’ve stated previously, I respect Susan as a blogger.  I think she is in error on this issue and I have backed my position up.  This isn’t an invitation for commenters to attack Susan personally, or to engage in “Lets you and her fight”.  Feel free however to disagree with either Susan’s or my own position and make your own case.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Data, Divorce, Scientific Paper. Bookmark the permalink.

461 Responses to Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere?

  1. YOHAMI says:

    “Provide stats for this or shut up.” + 1

    I also like Susan´s blog but the mission / bias gets in the way – it makes emphasis in all the wrong places.

  2. Madbiker says:

    It’s hard to read so much of the manosphere commentary about divorce and how women just use men up only to rob them of money and their children once they’ve gotten enough out of the relationship and not feel…insulted. It seems like there is no hope for good marriage any longer, and in some corners of the manosphere, the rage and whingeing about evil women just goes on and on.

    And women can’t help it but to take things personally, at least at first, until time passes and some processing has been done. Geez, when I first got here (not just your site but M-sphere in general) I felt guilty for getting married, for the unjust roping into marriage I committed onto my husband. How could I ruin such a good man, such a hard worker and provider?

    A woman might start to feel attacked after awhile, especially if you read a lot of Bardamu’s recent stuff about how no man should get married, ever, because it kills his spirit.

    Perhaps Susan was having a moment of emotion, a reaction to something that struck her viscerally as the source of all evil because she is a woman, and not because men ever do anything wrong. I don’t know, I can’t speak for her.

    But you are correct, Dalrock, in pointing out stats to back up your point. And stats on who cheated on whom are likely difficult to come by. I won’t argue that no-fault divorce has been a bane to society, but blaming women for every instance of separation has the feeling of an attack, not a discussion, and seldom does any of the dialogue approach anything like a solution. It’s just more complaining more often than not. I thought the manosphere was the logical and reasoned response and approach to the difficulties wrought on us by feminism. On many occasions, it just seems like more of the same, only with men on top, not women. And I’m not talking patriarchy, which has benefits for society. The male version of feminism is very, very different from what I envision as patriarchy.

  3. ybm says:

    No, whats more of the same is the appeal to victimhood you and Team Woman spew when things go wrong. You are the perect example of someone who plays for “Team Woman” making excuses for behaviours you personally would “never” do on behalf of women. Then receeding into your little bubble because the big mean boys are being MEAN.

    Grow up. Your abuse canard doesn’t hold water around here.

  4. Dalrock says:

    @Madbiker

    I can understand why it would feel the way you describe. The challenge I have is there are two primary arguments I receive regarding many of these issues. The first is vehement denial that the issues are true, often using anecdote to the point of absurdity. One example is the woman denying women’s declining SMP position as they age talking about a 79 year old knockout. Another is commenter J describing all of the women she knew who were 35 and unmarried because they were former nuns. More recently was the Christian woman denying that there is such a phenomenon as divorce fantasy for women.

    The forcefield of denial is extremely difficult to penetrate, so I at times have to break through with great force. Even though I’m countering absurd anecdote based (and as you suggest emotion based) denial with facts and statistics, I’m then often accused of being cruel for pointing out yet again what everyone already knows. I know this isn’t what you are suggesting, but it is a common accusation and given the pervasiveness of the denial quite disingenuous.

  5. Basil Ransom says:

    Most feminists and mainstream pundits ignore the available data, almost entirely, before spinning their ideological yarns. Walsh takes stock of the data, at least of that which she’s seen, and then takes on an explanation most favorable to women/sluts/divorcees/single mothers you name it. I documented this previously. She’s effectively saying, “in the absence of contradictory data, WHAT I SAY GOES.”

    We already know that women are more likely to lie about their number of sexual partners ( https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/239672/original/Alexander%252B%252526%252BFisher%252B%2525282003%252529.pdf partner counts were higher for women told they were hooked up to a lie detector).

    Among younger men and women, there is only a 5 percentage point difference between the sexes, of those who admit to cheating (men 20%, women 15% – http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-16-infidelity-research_N.htm ). The true figures could easily be even or skewed in the other direction. Plus, as any good manosphere devotee should know, a woman cheating is a lot more devastating to a relationship than a man’s. When a woman cheats, it’s usually because she is out of love with her man. The infidelity will only solidify that. For the man it’s a deviation, for the woman it’s a revelation.

    As you say, the balance of power isn’t static. The question of who cheats more or who files more will not have a uniform answer across ages and groups.

  6. Brian says:

    I recognize that this is anecdotal. But I work in an office with hundreds of engineers. Over half have at least one divorce. Not one of them filed for the divorce. I’m included in that list of divorced men. I’m just a rarity in that I didn’t have kids with either ex, I’m not paying alimony, and I’m not living in a shit-hole as a result. Fortunately, the newer hires at work are doing a better job of realizing what a bum deal getting married is for most of the men that work here.

    Leading reasons given to these men when she asks for a divorce: “you’ve changed” and “I need to find myself”.

  7. Madbiker says:

    @Dalrock,

    I understand heavy-hitting, and I appreciate it. I suppose I’ve been grated on lately by some things I read in the non-married sector of the manosphere. I know that the “don’t get married” commentary is not directed at women and men in stable relationships, who take marriage vows and promises seriously and aren’t part of hook-up culture.

    But I think always about my daughters, young (very young) as they are, and what kind of world they will inherit. If one of them was of marrying age right now, how would reading some of this stuff either inspire them or turn them off to the idea of marriage and family, which is our hope for them? How would a young woman seeking to avoid the pitfalls of divorce interpret this information and commentary?

    It falls to older, wiser women (and one day I might be one) to teach their daughters how to be good wives and mothers – as it has been and always ought to be. And it will take the removal of or radical change in divorce laws to keep marriages intact. But when your society as a whole does not value something, it is easily disposable. And I see very little value being given to women in the secular manosphere, except as sperm receptacles. And if women are to change their act, then intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are needed.

  8. Elspeth says:

    I actually tend to agree with most of what you write concerning the nature of frivolous divorce, Dalrock. I do believe men cheat slightly more than women, but that the difference is only slight. Women cheat and women are certainly more inclined to file for divorce for vague, inexplicable reasons.

    That said, I think one of my biggest issues with the comment section of the manosphere is that men aren’t give enough credit. I don’t know any man who isn’t acquainted with at least one man that has been through the divorce grinder or the child support mill. When men marry they understand the potential risks. It is not women “tricking” or “conniving”: them into marriage. No one has to get married anymore if they don’t want to, even if they have a child with a woman.

    Still, there are some men who have looked at the potential rewards/benefits and decided that it is worth the risk. Whether because of religious faith or a desire for children, or whatever. So when madbiker laments the bashing of women who have done everything in their power to buck the feminist cultural trend, I get where she’s coming from. It doesn’t bother me as much because I don’t hail from a background where women are pedestalized so the shock value is lost on me. I often laugh at the banter around here.

    Overall, this is a good post. I agree with most of it. You have a Merry Christmas, Dalrock (and your family as well).

  9. red says:

    Why is male infidelity even an issue? Historically men promised support and women promised to obey and be faithful. Men having sex with other women doesn’t enter the equation until recently.

    And what the hell is cutting off sex other than female faithlessness? Most of the married men I know can’t get their wives to put out. Why would anyone blame them for going elsewhere to meet that need?

  10. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    That said, I think one of my biggest issues with the Team Womens’ comments is that women aren’t give(n) enough credit. I don’t know any woman who isn’t acquainted with at least one woman that hasn’t been pumped and dumped or “abused” by a dead beat man. When women have sex they understand the potential risks. It is not men “tricking” or “conniving”: them into having sexual relations. No one has to have sex anymore if they don’t want to, even if they have a child with a man.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Madbiker

    I understand heavy-hitting, and I appreciate it.

    Thank you.

    I suppose I’ve been grated on lately by some things I read in the non-married sector of the manosphere. I know that the “don’t get married” commentary is directed at women and men in stable relationships, who take marriage vows and promises seriously and aren’t part of hook-up culture.

    But I think always about my daughters, young (very young) as they are, and what kind of world they will inherit.

    I wouldn’t worry about those preaching against marriage for two reasons:

    1) I think it will be ineffective. Unfortunately most young men are primed to disregard this kind of message. They are very likely to discredit the message based on the source.
    2) I think we need a decline in marriage rates as part of the solution. NAWALT may be cause for derision, but it is true. Just as true is the fact that a very large number of women really are like that. Rational informed men wouldn’t be entering into marriage with the millions of undeserving women we see them doing today. We can and should change this without harming innocent women.

    I think our only option in the near term is to teach our children well and help them make fully informed choices. The lifestyle being sold to young women isn’t just damaging to the men they eventually marry and divorce, but it is extremely damaging to the women themselves and their children.

  12. TDOM says:

    My educational background is in counseling psychology in a program designed to prepare me for the marriage and family therapist license. I didn’t go that route after graduation, but I have extensive training in family dynamics.

    While one person can often be “blamed” for the breakup of a relationship due to some perceived “wrong” it is rarely that simple. Abuse, violence, cheating, etc. each occur as a means of coping with other problems within the relationship. The path taken is frequently one learned in childhood from observing and experiencing one’s own parents. Therefore it can be quite difficult to pin the blame on one partner or the other, though the partners will usually try. In the case of divorce, it is quite likely that the one who initiates the divorce is the one who stands to gain the most regardless of what that gain actually is, financial, child custody, peace of mind, safety, etc. In today’s culture, this is most frequently the woman.

  13. Country Lawyer says:

    “It seems like there is no hope for good marriage any longer.”

    Hope is an addiction and for weak people. Hoping for something doesn’t usually make things happen.

    A couple makes a good marriage. A man should be smart in choosing a spouse if he’s going to go that route and not “hope” it works.

    A man that “hopes” for something has already failed.

    As for the cheating thing. A very simple way of looking at it that contains the answer in a very common sense way, is the same double standard for slut/stud and virgin/loser.

    Promiscous women are viewed as sluts because it is EASY to be a slut. It takes no effort to ratchet up notches as a woman. It is HARD for a man to ratchet up notches.

    The opportunites for women to cheat (at least before they’re 40+) are high, for married men they are low as the opportunities for single men are lower. There are some alpha married men that cheat easily, but most men don’t get the opportunity very often. Married women get hit on. Married men usually don’t. Married women get seduced.

    Add into the mix a complete lack of religious prohibition on cheating in western culture (oh they say its bad, but blame the man for it).

    A strong dash of the very negative penalty for men getting divorced (whch makes them fearful and less likely to cheat because of the consequences). For a man to cheat he has to think “Is she worth losing everything for her?” and the answer is usually: NO. For a women it is simply: Does he excite me.

    With a culture that celebrates women being empowered, and ditching the husband and denigrates men.

    Women cheat and they cheat MORE than men because of all the incentives, biological and societal are for them cheating.

    What is amazing is that there are women that don’t cheat given all that.

    I don’t have any animosity toward Susan, but you have to remember she plays for team women, all women do, it is in their nature to do so.

  14. Elspeth says:

    I enjoyed that, Feminist hater. It made me laugh. Well done.

    And point taken. It indeed goes both ways.

  15. ybm says:

    @Country Lawyer
    ‘What is amazing is that there are women that don’t cheat given all that.”

    I hope so too, as the truth may be to horrible even for my red-pill self to accept.

  16. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Glad you enjoyed it, a few grammatical errors I had to fix but I left most of it intact, even the misplaced colon.

  17. Madbiker says:

    No one is given enough credit, or expected to take responsibility, for anything.

    And yes, especially women, in our current climate. Acknowledging that one is an adult is supposedly acknowledging the ability to make decisions and accept responsibilities. No one has a crystal ball and can see what will happen down the road, but acting conservatively and with responsibility can mitigate potential damage. But instant gratification trumps logic. Women don’t like to be confronted with the hard facts of declining attractiveness and fertility, but eventually it will catch up with them. Women don’t want to feel responsible for ONSs and will sometimes express regret with rape charges. A get out of marriage free (and with his money, or hers as is sometimes thought not often the case) does nothing to help the situation. When the wedding, and not the marriage, is the end unto itself, you’re doomed. God help your children.

    It is sick, silly, and sorry. A thinking person cannot deny that. So we need to get more people to start thinking. That is hard to do by broad-brushing. It takes converting a few minds at a time, but those few who might convert might feel marginalized by the broad-brushing often done w/r/t betas and b*tches. A return to more traditional social expectations might help, but I’m not sure that enough people will get on board with that to effect change. I know this is a Christian blog but the concern goes beyond the bounds of faith. The secular world needs help recalibrating values, but that thought just brings me back to the question of whether values and morals can exist without a religious compass.

    Mutual duty (not mutual submission) is called for – but concepts like duty and honor are something reserved for commercials about the military, not everyday life. Another sorry situation further eroding the issues of good marriages and a good society.

  18. Elspeth says:

    I wondered why you left the typos in. Then I realized that made it even funnier.

    And now I will stop derailing Dalrock’s post.

  19. ybm says:

    @madbiker
    “Women don’t want to feel responsible for ONSs and will sometimes express regret with rape charges. ”

    I agree 100% this current society is doomed, potentially within our lifetimes. When ideas such as this have become ‘ho-hum girls will be girls’, no-one need mourn its death.

    Duty is for men, more precisely, sheep, in this climate. Women have a free pass for duty and honour. How many “woman up” articles have you seen? I’ve seen one, and it was written ironically.

  20. hurp says:

    How many “woman up” articles have you seen?

    There is one, check this out:

    http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/woman-up-revolutions/

    A female blogger by the name of “bbsezmore” apparently tried some of Private Man’s “woman up suggestions” and those are her field reports.

  21. ybm says:

    Yes, that is the article I was referring to.

  22. Madbiker says:

    I just clicked over to the linked Marie Claire article. Geez, her dress cost more than my whole wedding, soup to nuts.

    I’m MC, possibly LMC given the figures trotted out in that article. So perhaps some or most of these divorce concerns are for UMC types? Maybe just being in or a bit below the middle gives me a different mind set and a different set of values. I really cannot wrap my head around some of the things being written about, because I don’t see them everyday. With two exceptions, my circle of family and friends do not divorce or have frivolous, bend-him-over-the-bench relationships. So my irritation is as much at feeling like a target when the crosshairs are not squarely on me, as it is that this nonsense IS going on.

  23. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    No one is given enough credit, or expected to take responsibility, for anything.

    I feel this statement is untrue. Men are given very little credit for the contributions they have made and continue to make towards society’s stability. Now that men have started to feel less incentive to keep society going, the trad cons-love that phase-and the wimmenz have doubled down in shaming them to “man up” and keep doing what is expected of them, even though most men now get very little in return, almost nothing compared to what they got years ago. It’s all about getting men to perform and do what they told and to let women off the hook for their mistakes. Men take responsibility, they are forced to by the system. Simple, men go to jail if they can’t afford child payments, do women? No, they get welfare!!

    As for having a crystal ball, anyone with a brain could have foreseen the destructive path that feminism would make once it was mainstream. But, like poor Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech, those that spoke out were ridiculed and ostracised. Women broke the contract and they continue to do it. Men, with the current legal and social problems, are pretty much doing all they can. They are either getting married, to a woman they can trust by being extremely cautious when choosing her, or throwing caution to the wind and getting married to any slut and putting their hands against their ears when they are told of the risks; OR they are going their own way and letting the “man uppers” and the feminists alone to pick up the pieces.

    But, please tell me how men can be more responsible than that? I will be awaiting eagerly.

  24. Opus says:

    In much the same way that it is assumed – even by men – that it is men who inter-sex are violent against women, it is assumed that it is men who institute divorce proceedings (and even when they don’t, that the wife is justified in instituting by reason of the husband’s behaviour – so that it is still, the man’s fault).

    I get a certain amount of flack on the net by reason of the fact that (once, though not now) I acted as a lawyer in more divorce cases than is really good for one’s sanity – it makes one very cynical, to the extent that one believes that all relationships are doomed to disaster, (and perhaps cynically put me off relationships) which is certainly not the case. It does however allow me to have a vantage point as to what is really going on. My experience may not of course be typical of either England or for that matter America, but this, I would say, is what I saw:

    1. Almost all divorces are instituted by women
    2. Most Divorces are instituted by young people
    3. The usual cause for Divorce is unreasonable behaviour – NOT adultery
    4. The behaviour set out in the Petition really is of the ‘he left the loo seat up’ variety
    5. When a man institutes divorce proceedings (and when he does it is usually on the ground of adultery – the woman having vanished with her lover) it is usually because the wife can’t be bothered and some other order (say for children) is needed for some technical reason.

    May I also add in my own defence, that like a cab-driver, I acted for whoever instructed me, and no more chose my clients (whether matrimony related or otherwise) than a Doctor chooses his Patients – indeed I would surely have lost my job had I chosen to do so.

  25. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    That should read, “I will be awaiting your response eagerly.”

  26. tony says:

    You make it sound like if men “valued” marriage more, this wouldn’t be a problem. And who cares about your daughter? Why do you think some of the men are MRMs? Because they have SONS (see what im doing here).
    The theme and meme of female-centrism, team woman is evident in what you write and HUS. Women may “simply” (as in, no thought, no sense of big picture) conclude that men are team man. How I see it, we have a right to be team man (men are REALLY getting oppressed) but that is not what is really going on (that is more a strawman).
    Because women are so good at projection, they may project a “oh, hes just team man” attitude but it looks that way but in reality, we are pointing out real injustice. You have to realize that men usually come out/stand on a platform based on principles and that is directly to say that women have less principles.
    What I am trying to say is that one of the main reasons for the criticism is that women are too “team women” too “female centric”. The onus is always passed on the men. You don’t directly say it but its there. You don’t think so? Well, shouldn’t women value marriage more and one way they can show they value marriage is to actually stay pure? That is just one example in the little you wrote. And you daughter, I get you have love for your children (its natural) but why does she get to be sheltered and at whos expense? Most likely the boys her age.
    Men are pointing out that women are selfcentered…and that is just a start to the “truth”. Further down the road of truth is a woman’s purpose in life is to submit to her man and build him up. The world should be male centric and im not saying that just because im a man. Ofcouse, I would be doing the same thing women do by leaving this out but men have responsibilities too and that is to provide. Chicken and egg situation? Woman submit first. That’s the answer.

  27. Madbiker says:

    They can’t be, FH. They can’t be, and I ought to clarify from whence that opinion comes. I taught HS in the public system for several years and saw a lot of finger pointing in various situations, usually leading to the responsible party, male or female, being completely exhonorated of any culpability or responsibility: cheating, plagiarism, bullying, or just generally poor behavior or performance. It was always someone or something else’s fault: a skipped meal, a late drop-off, a power outage, a derelict parent, a stolen bookbag.

    Some of these things are not in a person’s control, but most behaviors are, and I was really taken aback by the lack of stand-up behavior either taken by or expected of students. Administrators and other teachers, too, were often culprits in the “it’s not his/her fault” line.

    My judgement is colored, and I’m sorry. In my personal life, I don’t see irresponsible behavior from men or women in my sphere. I do see it in pop culture, and you’re correct: men bear the fault even before the facts are known. A recent case of alleged murder-suicide that also involved kidnapping is a hot story in my state: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/slain_old_bridge_mother_feared.html

    I don’t know enough facts to say he or she was the most culpable party. What drove this man to these actions? Was the woman even partly responsible? No one will ever know, because she is the murder victim and is now and unassailable angel who will likely get a Dead White Girl Law named after her.

    I understand where your coming from, but I fear for the coming generation of males and females who have a lah-dee-dah attitude fostered by a school system which coddles instead of shapes. And this will be particularly detrimental for young men, because they will be expected to drop the lah-dee-dah attitude and “man-up” for something which they are completely unprepared (unless they have strong fathers at home, we can pray).

  28. ybm says:

    You are living in the past, the lah-dee-dah generation as you put it are in their mid-teens at this very moment, I am among its heralds since I was born at the start of it, and still share some of the Gen-X sensibilities of my older brothers.

    My peers and I have already been told to man-up.

    And we don’t care.

    This upcoming generation has no desire to be productive, better-betas to the Honored Matres.

  29. umslopogaas says:

    To me this looks like Dalrock has hit back with a solid and found rebuttal of Mrs Walsh’s statement (which I for one interpreted as false and insincere, trying to deflect blame once again on men). The facts speak for themselves & her assessment, imo, is at this point untenable.

    As someone who is suspicious of Mrs Walsh (and leaning somewhat to outstanding analysis of Rmaxd and others) but not having given up hope for her completely, yet, I would be very interested to observe Susan’s reaction.

    Will she have the integrity to admit she blundered here, and badly? Or will she be like so many other women who are too weak and shallow to admit it when they are wrong?

  30. BJ says:

    “He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me.”

    This assumes the guy is ashamed he cheated; then he takes the reins and initiates the divorce.

    What if the guy is not ashamed that he needed sex elsewhere? Now you, as a woman, have to shame and pressure him into divorce, or you have to initiate the divorce.

    ……thereby proving your argument moot, and you become another wife initiated divorce statistic.

  31. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    To me this looks like Dalrock has hit back with a solid and found rebuttal of Mrs Walsh’s statement (which I for one interpreted as false and insincere, trying to deflect blame once again on men). The facts speak for themselves & her assessment, imo, is at this point untenable.

    Exactly, she went emotional and Dalrock has called her out, let’s wait for her response.

    Will she have the integrity to admit she blundered here, and badly? Or will she be like so many other women who are too weak and shallow to admit it when they are wrong?

    We can hope but I’m betting on the hamster!

  32. MNL says:

    The logic…

    Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files.

    …has always bothered me. It’s the idea that since women file for divorce more frequently than men, the core fault in the marriage must lie with the man. Instead, about the only rational conclusion one can draw from the gender imbalance in divorce filing is that women tend to see or are quicker to see divorce as a better alternative to staying married. More women (than men) who experience marital problems see divorce as utility maximizing. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Moreover, this erroneous let’s-grant-innocence-to-the-party-that-filed thinking is actually part of the problem! It seems to me a fair number of divorce filings are initiated to take advantage of just this type of (erroneous) social reasoning and assignment of blame. Once the marriage appears headed towards the rocks, I know more than one party who has initiated divorce in what appears to be an attempt to throw the first punch in the court of public opinion, to cast themselves (the divorce filer) in a better light. They want to convince both themselves and others as to whom was the more honorable marriage partner; to claim themselves as the more worthy victim. The rationalization hamster runs strong in such women: “why otherwise would I have filed for divorce if it wasn’t for my cheating, abusive bastard of an ex-husband.”

    The truth in which party was indeed the greater lying, cheating, abusive spouse often has little to do with divorce initiation; rather divorce filing is often about establishing the perception that the other party was all these things.

    The higher rate of women filing for divorce is not at all evidence that men cheat more. It’s perhaps only more evidence that women put more value on social opinion and have a faster, stronger rationalization hamster. Women simply accrue more benefits from filing.

  33. susanawalsh says:

    The first thing that needs to happen here is to put the original conversation in context. Doug and readers at HUS have been speaking in recent threads about a very specific kind of frivolous divorce – one where the woman divorces her husband for infidelity.

    Here is a faithful representation of the conversation over several posts, starting with Doug’s shot across the bow:

    I think it’s kind of ridiculous for an American wife whose marriage is going pretty well and who’s not being abandoned emotionally or sexually, to suddenly feel her marriage is terrible if she discovers he’s cheated, and demand a divorce — thus achieving the very thing she worried his cheating might lead him to want. That’s irrational jealousy.

    I believe it legitimate to initiate divorce against a spouse who has broken the marriage contract with infidelity, and said so. Soon Doug1 was describing and promoting his own lifestyle:

    It’s also what I get, what I’am allowed. Two way open. We each can see other girls but neither of us other guys. Heh. Mostly we’ve had threesomes, on ongoing for a summer with some repeating. Well she doesn’t want to sleep with other guys and understands my belief/position on girls taking a lover… She feels jealousy but we sexualize it. She’s somewhat emotionally masochistic with me at times.

    Again, Doug claims that divorce in such cases is frivolous:

    There is something also inherently absurd about a woman feeling jealousy to such an extent out of fear of losing her man if he sleeps with another woman, that she kicks him out of the house and divorces him to ensure that result if she finds out he has.

    Instead, he recommends that women marry a “loving alpha” with cheating privileges to get the best possible genes for their offspring:

    The way to have them mix with optimum genes of her mate is to choose the socially acceptable high status and loving type of alpha, and keep him around by giving him a tad of just sexual freedom now and again, after awhile into the marriage. Also choosing that sort of father to her kids will tend to keep her real attracted and not want to kick him out of the same household father role. It’s also likely to keep strong resources around too.

    Open marriages that break up are the woman’s fault:

    BTW from what I can tell looking around the interwebz and some people I’ve talked to directly, when open with rules marriages break up it’s usually because they were two way open and the wife falls in love with a lover, and the dissolving of her sexual attraction and bondedness with her husband sets in, same as with female adultery.

    I think the alternatives to a woman who wants to marry [an alpha] are 1) know he will eventually cheat and maybe quite a lot, and maybe get divorce if you think like apparently you’re advocating, or 2) tame it and comprise by allowing a low frequency no deceit, discreet, she knows as much as she wants to and has veto power, sexual only freedom for him.

    And you know what, if you have the kind of semi one way (she can play with girls some too and we do threesomes) open with rules and her veto over any particular girl or budding relationship if it’s getting too emotionally intense she feels, it works pretty damn well for her too, and turns out not to be much of a sacrifice at all. Some, some jealousy issues to work with but that keeps her red hot for me as well.

    As far as women not preferring to share, as I said before, TOUGH. Marriage is or should be a compromise. I don’t prefer to have any restrictions at all on my following through on my successful flirting with other hot girls whatsoever.

    Damn feminism effused over entitled American women with all their entitlement agency thinking what they prefer should utterly rule marriage and long term relationships. As far as I’m concerned if you want to be with an alpha you’ve got to let him play some. Either turn a bind eye to his cheating, or have semi one way open (she can play some with girls too) with rules and a veto. I’d suggest the latter is the better deal and a lot safer for the woman. Though cheating men rarely leave their wives at least if they are college educated and have kids.

    For you absolute male sexual fidelity is such an overwhelmingly important requirement in marriage. Well that’s the general post first wave feminism American culture female view.
    Personally I think that’s nuts…Women can get a more sexually attractive man if they offer this in this country, because yeah it is rare HERE for women to do so explicitly or tacitly. Instead they enforce absolute fidelity with the amped up credible threat of child and money divorce theft 2.0, under our hugely unfair to men marriage laws.

    American marriage 2.0 is terrifically female centric, seeking to cater entirely to the female’s wants and little to the males. Well I guess it’s a good deal for lesser betas and betas, who can’t get sex without it or at least without a precursor LTR the girl thinks might well lead to marriage if SHE wants.

    Bear in mind…how much more often women file for divorce than men, 2.5 times as often overall, and many divorce lawyers say that in college educated couples with kids, women are the ones wanting divorce about 90% of the time.

    I find it incredulous that Doug would propose such arrangements, then attack women for shattering and blindsiding men with divorce. He even goes so far as to say that women do most of the cheating.

    The second point is about Michelle Langley. I have researched her work before and have learned the following:

    1. She has no credentials. None. She describes herself as a career consultant.

    2. She has a history of extramarital affairs, which led to the demise of her own marriage. Her book is an exercise in self-exculpation.

    3. Amazon does not stock her book.

    4. Her book, describing her own affairs as well as interviews with other cheaters, is under 200 pages, but is priced at $130.

    5. Her book is full of references to her ex-husband’s small penis, and the important of penis size in preventing a woman from cheating. This reveals her complete lack of moral integrity as well as her ignorance. It’s also a clear cheap shot of revenge at her ex.

    6. The only place her views are even discussed is in the manosphere, because she takes the “women initiate 70% of divorces” stat and runs with it, chalking it up to the desire women have to cheat, even in good marriages.

    Third, the only assertion I made is that men cheat more than women do. Here are my sources:

    Gender has been found to relate significantly to measures of infidelity. It has been found that male college students report a significantly greater incidence of prior extradyadic sexual activities than females (Hansen, 1987; Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). The gender difference detected in Hansen’s (1987) study held for all measured extradyadic activities; that is, erotic kissing, petting, and vaginal intercourse.

    http://www.cymeon.com/publications/411.pdf

    Helen Fisher on how the sexes cheat:

    “Women tend to be more unhappy with the relationship they are in … while men can be a lot happier in their primary relationship and also cheat,” Fisher tells WebMD. “Women are more interested in supplementing their marriage or jumping ship than men are — for men, it is a secondary strategy as opposed to an alternate.”.

    In one of her studies, Fisher found that 34% of women who had affairs were happy or very happy in their marriage. A greater percentage of men who had affairs, 56%, were happy in their marriage.

    http://women.webmd.com/features/why-do-women-cheat

    Infidelity is influenced by many social and demographic factors. All of the following were associated with an increased risk of infidelity: having been part of a couple for a long time; having had a high number of prior sex partners; being male or black; living in a central city; and thinking about sex several times a day (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

    More than 80% of women and 65 to 85% of men report that they had no partners other than their spouse while they were married (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).

    In fact, the rate of cheating has stayed pretty consistent, according to research expert Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey for the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
    Smith conducted the highly respected study “American Sexual Behavior,” a poll of 10,000 people over two decades. The study found that 22 percent of married men and 15 percent of married women have cheated at least once — similar to the results from the MSNBC.com/iVillage survey.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951664/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TvD8hyNWp8s

    However, most of the newer research is focusing on personality traits rather than gender. The traits most likely to lead to cheating are:

    1. Low agreeableness – lack of trust and empathy
    2. Low conscientiousness – disorganized and unreliable
    3. Avoidant attachment style (Shmitt 2004)

    There’s plenty of this to go around in both sexes.

  34. susanawalsh says:

    First comment in mod due to source links.

    I’d love to see Susan’s data backing up her claim that women’s 2-1 push for divorce is driven by men cheating in far greater numbers.

    The only claim I made is that men cheat more than women. I then asked Doug to explain how that is reflected in the 2-1 stat. I asked because I didn’t know the answer.

    Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? …I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are.

    I don’t believe you’re intellectually dishonest, Dalrock, so I’ll ask you to square your representation with what I said.

  35. Legion says:

    Madbiker says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    If you want your daughters to be more than “sperm recepticles” or childless spinsters, then why do you need more incentive. I have one son. He is told to never marry. The laws and culture need to change first. That would be my incentive to change what I’m telling him.

    As far as who will change the laws and culture, I can honestly say I didn’t break the system and since I’m MGMOW, I’m not fixing the system. If you’re interested in a diffrerent results, then you have your work cut out for you.

  36. @ybm
    “How many “woman up” articles have you seen? I’ve seen one, and it was written ironically.”
    I wasn’t being ironic at all with that triptych of Woman Up articles. I did point out some ironies such as it takes honestly strong and independent woman to embrace honest femininity. Overall, I absolutely meant what I wrote in those posts.

  37. susanawalsh says:

    @BJ

    This assumes the guy is ashamed he cheated; then he takes the reins and initiates the divorce.

    What if the guy is not ashamed that he needed sex elsewhere? Now you, as a woman, have to shame and pressure him into divorce, or you have to initiate the divorce.

    ……thereby proving your argument moot, and you become another wife initiated divorce statistic.

    No. He cheated, rendering the marriage contract null and void. She has every right to file for divorce. If there are children, that is a critical factor in her decision-making process. If he refuses to be monogamous, though, as Doug suggests, the children are better off without his infidelity as a constant source of anxiety and rejection in the household.

  38. ybm says:

    I’ll retract saying it was written ironically, I thought it was written fully acknowledging the impossibility of the task you were undertaking.

  39. susanawalsh says:

    Will she have the integrity to admit she blundered here, and badly? Or will she be like so many other women who are too weak and shallow to admit it when they are wrong?

    This is the kind of bias that makes it all work and no fun to comment here. And we haven’t even heard from the charming and delightful Rmaxd yet!

  40. ybm says:

    Poor you :( We all know how women feel about work! :(

    Maybe you can take a lesson from your sisterhood and get a man to post for you.

  41. I am a bicycle! says:

    Off topic, sort of: The always excellent Suzanne Venker has posted a National Review blog in which she genuinely explores why men are avoiding marriage.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/286160/marriage-whats-it-men/suzanne-venker#comment-422499

  42. tony says:

    Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    1. First comment in mod due to source links.
    I’d love to see Susan’s data backing up her claim that women’s 2-1 push for divorce is driven by men cheating in far greater numbers.
    The only claim I made is that men cheat more than women. I then asked Doug to explain how that is reflected in the 2-1 stat. I asked because I didn’t know the answer.
    Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? …I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are.
    I don’t believe you’re intellectually dishonest, Dalrock, so I’ll ask you to square your representation with what I said.

    I don’t know how to take in the information that I copied and pasted above. With out having read the original post and taking into context the development of the dialog of the comments up to the point where Rmaxd wrote his initial post, I will post comment on the above.
    Rmaxd came out stating ugly truths. Rather or not we have facts to back up what he says, I think we can generally agree that why he wrote is true.
    Susan’s rebuttal sounds like silencing tactics to me.
    Then the above where she stated that she asked because she didn’t know , I believe is true. Nobody knows everything so to expect Susan to know everything and then “attack” her for not knowing everything is sort of a strawman (to what degree this is happening, I don’t know).
    Continuing on, her reply in the comment makes her sound innocent. She was asking because she honestly didn’t know! It kind of looks like saving face tactics to me.
    Why do I feel this way? Because her first call for stats and the context of what she wrote was a misdirection. It feels like she was setting up a strawman from the getgo. It seems that the purpose of her comment was more denial and to shut up the truth than a request to be better informed (you can be better informed through chaos but its more ideal when its civil).
    My verdict is still out on Susan. It’s a mixed bag and I take everything with a grain of salt.

  43. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Susan, once again, you are missing the point.

    infidelity was the third most frequently cited reason, named as the primary reason for divorce by 16% of respondents…

    Women file for 66 % of divorces according to the above stats. According to the same study only 16 % claimed infidelity was the primary cause. So…how do you explain 66 % of divorces coming from women when only 16 % claim it was due to infidelity? With your reasoning that women divorce because men commit adultery. Now the study is both men and women, so I suppose there could be a measure of difference between what counts as a “primary cause” between men and women, but there is a massive gap you need to explain. Women are not using the “he cheated so I can get divorced” excuse. They are getting divorced for other reasons. like money and I’m not haaaaaaapy; OR “abuse”, probably emotional.

    Surely, if more men committed adultery than women and it was such a big deal breaker, more women would use it as the reason for their filing for divorce.

  44. susanawalsh says:

    One last thing. For the record, I left this comment on my own blog at 7:30 this morning.

    @Elmer, @Doug

    If you don’t care about marriage law flaws you don’t care about marriage.

    OK. That’s fair. Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll write a post about marriage law, exposing its flaws. Doug, if you wouldn’t mind can you please tell me which comment of yours you wanted me to consider. Elmer and anyone else reading this who knows about the topic, please feed me the facts, links, whatever I need to do a thorough overview. I will do independent research as well. Let’s figure out who’s divorcing whom, and why. Let’s look at the custodial laws.

    I’ll warn you now – the end product will never meet MRA standards. In your view I’ll have too much sympathy for women. I’ll disagree with Doug, for example, that a woman who divorces a man for occasional cheating is being frivolous. But I’ll be thorough and I’ll be fair.

    I won’t be able to get to this before the new year, but I’ll make it a priority.

    That offer goes for you MRAs too. Anyone with information and links, please shoot me an email. I’d already planned to go through Dalrock’s archives, I’m sure that will be a good source. And now I’m off to celebrate the season. Peace.

  45. @ymb
    “I’ll retract saying it was written ironically, I thought it was written fully acknowledging the impossibility of the task you were undertaking.”

    Difficult, yes. Impossible, not one bit. Our culture is remarkably flexible regarding social expectations. While we’re not very good at coping with the unintended consequences, we can certainly impart change. The average age of marriage has been steadily rising. That’s a function of changing social expectations. We did that completely independent (going against it, actually) of the biological imperative. Well, not all of us, of course. But it serves as a valid example.

    The problem is the vehicles by which social expectations are changes. In the past, a relatively small and powerful broadcast and print media could put out a consistent message regarding social expectations. A few TV talk shows, made for TV movies, some focused feature stories in print and that’s what it took to get the ball rolling. Call them common cultural touchstones and shared social experiences.

    The message is now more diffuse and spread through many different channels. The inchoate voices make it hard to gain social traction. Women still watch the primary media outlets (Oprah, Lifetime, whatever) while the men are not so easy to find anymore outside of sports and video gaming outlets. The Manosphere arose to fill a need. Thoughtful, concerned, intelligent men had no outlet. Nor did younger men desperate for accurate, if sometimes blunt, information about women.

    So, the Woman Up! meme might not find coverage on Oprah, men will get the message and spread it around through the information channels that they now use.

  46. Lavazza says:

    Elsbeth: “So when madbiker laments the bashing of women who have done everything in their power to buck the feminist cultural trend, I get where she’s coming from.”

    The thing is that these women are not very outspoken or visible, so one might be excused for thinking that they are far too uncommon.

  47. susanawalsh says:

    Cross posted with Feminist Hater.

    You misunderstand. I did not claim anything about the prevalence of cheating as a reason for divorce. Doug1 claims that divorcing a cheating husband is frivolous. I strongly disagree. I was simply asking what percentage of the 2/3 meet this description.

    He talks about divorce theft and frivolous divorcees, then holds up his one-way open relationship as a solution to Marriage 2.0. He is disgusted by any women who would divorce a man for cheating.

    This will all be clear if and when Dalrock approves my initial comment. I’ll stop here.

  48. Höllenhund says:

    „He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me.”

    Legally speaking, that actually is incorrect reasoning. In the words of Athol:

    „Thanks to the copious and serious changes to marriage and divorce law, the current legal definition of marriage is utterly different than the recent historical one. It’s not even clear if there can even be “infidelity” as there’s usually no mention of sexual rights or agreements in the marriage / divorce / adultery laws in most States. There’s usually no definition of sexual “fidelity” in the marriage contract to even fail at. Most people just assume sexual fidelity is a requirement of marriage simply because it used to be.”

    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/10/from-talk-about-marriage-forums.html

    Technically speaking, the filing is ‘fair’, but only because there seems to be no such legal category as ‘unfair filing’ in American divorce law. There’s no contract to break in Marriage 2.0. It can apparently be dissolved by either party for any reason. After all, that’s what no-fault divorce means, isn’t it? And NFD happens to be the law of the land in ALL federal states, right?

  49. ybm says:

    @Lavazza
    “The thing is that these women are not very outspoken or visible, so one might be excused for thinking that they are far too uncommon.”

    Would you say that they are defending men inside their heads?

  50. Lavazza says:

    ybm: Yeah. You always have to draw it out of them. It never comes spontaneously.

  51. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Susan, your comment is quite clear above, Doug1 took issue at women divorcing frivolously and men being blindsided, that was his comment, you then took issue with his comment and stated that, and I’ll post it again…

    Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me.

    Basically you told him that women initiate more divorces and they do this because men cheat more. You justified their divorcing their husband due to adultery. Now whether infidelity is an acceptable reason is not what is in debate here. What was being discussed is whether the amount of women divorcing their husbands are filing due to infidelity or something else, like not being happy or abuse. Dalrock’s post showed that 16 % of divorcees say that infidelity was the primary cause, not anywhere close to an acceptable premise that women file for divorce because men cheat. 66 % of divorces filed are filed by the women in that study, yet only 16 % are primarily naming “infidelity” as their reason. Therefore, and I’m being logical here, how can it account for 66 % of women filing for divorce? The appropriate answer is that it can’t and that’s why, I think, Dalrock took issue with your comment.

    Anyway, as you said, I’ll wait for Dalrock to approve you initial comment.

  52. Anonymous says:

    In a word, in answer to the title: No. Am divorced because that same pattern happened to me. People suck, male or female is irrelevant… individuals have character or they don’t.

    A little off-topic, but not much… “Marriage Makes You Smarter,” by Canidian Living, Shine via Yahoo!, 18 Dec 2011, http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/marriage-makes-smarter-023400417.html
    “Unfortunately, the fuzzy feelings don’t last long and when a relationship begins to mature these dopamine-rich parts of the brain gradually become less responsive. For the relationship to continue and be successful, it needs to not only be based on the highs experienced as a result of the earth-shattering dopamine, but must also be built on love, respect and experience. …”

  53. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Reading the comments of Susan’s post, I finally got to the ones of her and Doug1 complaining about what this post is about. Basically Doug1 was saying that women should not be able to divorce for adultery, what he in fact said was that they should not be entitled to half of their husband’s earnings in a divorce court. To which Susan replied…

    I like to see cheaters pay through the nose. Make the f*ckers pay.

  54. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    That should read, “Basically Doug1 was not saying that women should not be able to divorce for adultery…”

    Sorry for the mistype.

  55. Höllenhund says:

    @Madbiker

    „I won’t argue that no-fault divorce has been a bane to society”
    „And it will take the removal of or radical change in divorce laws to keep marriages intact.”

    Isn’t that a huge contradiction right there?

    „But I think always about my daughters, young (very young) as they are, and what kind of world they will inherit. If one of them was of marrying age right now, how would reading some of this stuff either inspire them or turn them off to the idea of marriage and family, which is our hope for them?”

    I say make them learn Chinese and send them to study/work in a prosperous Chinese coastal city when they’re teenagers. Due to the local gender imbalance, China has millions and millions of high-earning, young and decent beta men who cannot find local wives. Feminism has utterly ruined the West, but it probably won’t utterly ruin East Asia for a couple of decades, so there’s a window of opportunity there.

  56. Retrenched says:

    “I like to see cheaters pay through the nose. Make the f*ckers pay.”

    They do… when they’re male. When they’re female, not so much.

  57. Madbiker says:

    Not sure what you mean, Hollehund. I think no-fault is bad, and needs to be removed, and if done would be a) a change, and if changed, then it would be b) considered radical, to say the least.

  58. Kathy says:

    I have to be honest I was quite surprised that you made such a mountain out of a molehill here, Dalrock. I am shaking my head . Particularly in view of the many (unsubstantiated) statements and accusations often made by men here that you simply overlook. (Rmaxd comes to mind here) Of course you are biased in favour of men, even if you don’t believe so yourself. It’s only natural. And it’s only natural that Susan would be biased in favour of women. ;)

    Susan made a comment in response to Doug(mind, it was not a post) in which she said that more men cheat than do women,( even if it is ever so slightly) which seems to be the case..

    As Susan herself said:

    “The only claim I made is that men cheat more than women. I then asked Doug to explain how that is reflected in the 2-1 stat. I asked because I didn’t know the answer.”

    I am sorry but it really seems like nit picking here to me, Dalrock.

    Considering all the disgraceful and unsubstaniated abuse Susan has copped here, from a rabid commenter who has really put the boot in, I find this post that was spawned from a comment Susan made to be rather unfair.

    The woman posts a comment on her own blog. Yes her OWN blog.. The comment is taken out of context, and remember, Susan was not quoting any studies just positing a generally accepted premise. So, it warrants a post refuting her opinion and inviting opprobrium from commenters?(you don’t state this but the implication is there, whether it was intended or not)

    “If Susan has stats to back up her own assertion, I’d love to see them.”

    I think that you have forgotten that this is just a blog Dalrock, one of over 450 million English speaking ones.(Probably more now that was in 2010) People comment on blogs and express their opinions.. You are into stats and figures, and this is obviously a hobby for you, a way to wind down. That’s all well and good.. However I do think that you are being rather harsh here to Walsh in this instance. Disclaimer notwithstanding.

    [D: Sorry to have upset you Kathy. I presume this means you will now leave my blog forever for what would be the 4th time.]

  59. Höllenhund says:

    “I think no-fault is bad”

    You said you don’t argue it has been a bane.

  60. Madbiker says:

    I won’t argue it’s a bane to society. No argument to be made about it, since the evidence speaks for itself.

  61. Höllenhund says:

    I don’t think we should focus too much on statistics, charts and other data. It’s impossible to prove or disprove that men cheat more than women, as all the people involved share the interest to cover their tracks. The 80/20 rule can never be proved or disproved for the same reason. The excuses, justifications and explanations women come up with for divorcing or any other decision are irrelevant. What they say is irrelevant in general. What they think they’d do in a hypothetical situation is irrelevant as well. What they actually do is all that matters.

  62. passer_by says:

    @madbiker

    I thik Hollendhund is confused by your grammar. What you meant to say is “I won’t argue it’s NOT a bane to society. ” In other words, you won’t try to argue that it isn’t bad for society (assuming your definition of “bane” and mine are the same).

  63. Madbiker says:

    They are: something that brings about ill health, death, or ruin.

    I should have clarified the negatives – thanks.

  64. Suz says:

    “Would you say that they are defending men inside their heads?”

    Yep. And online. Speaking to air gets old. Some of us make an effort to address our own biases, and to be rational and honest. Then women dismiss because they think we’re nuts, and men dismiss us because they think we’re liars. What we are is “uncommon,” and yes, far too much so.

    Not a ploy for sympathy, BTW. I’m pretty comfortable in my odd-bird feathers.

  65. Rivelino says:

    excellent post dalrock.

    doug1 deserves a TON of credit from bringing this issue to light, and for exposing susan’s biases. i read the entire “grim beeper” thread and doug put up with a lot of personal attacks by other commenters — attacks allowed by and encouraged by susan — in order to make his point that MEN are really the ones getting screwed over by divorce — not women, like pop culture would have us believe.

    only 1,000 comments in — and after she claimed that she was bored by the topic — did susan somehow finally agree to look into the fairness of marriage laws, and the possibility that these laws were discouraging men from getting married.

    i have also been very critical of susan, and have been compiling a list of criticisms by other bloggers and readers:

    http://rivelinoinspain.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/doug-wins/

    i think all of this is having its effect, and to her credit, susan — unlike other female sites — isn’t banning doug and sticking her head in the sand, she is actually going to look into the topic.

    i have been critical of susan because somehow, deep down, i felt that she was different and better than the typical female blogger. i think she fundamentally won me over when she told her infamous “shit test” story from high school.

    it was such a candid and honest story, raw and unfiltered and VERY unflattering to her and to all women — that i just knew that if she could tell that story, that she *was* able to see things from the male perspective.

    i have faith in you susan.

    let’s see what you come up with.

  66. Doug1 says:

    Susan Walsh–

    You have been seriously misrepresenting me Susan and it frankly it pisses me off. I didn’t say a woman divorcing her husband for cheating was doing so frivolously, I said that automatically doing so struck me as nuts.

    Not if he’s being intentionally hurtful about it, not doing it discreetly, doing it a lot, neglecting her emotionally or sexually because of it, has gotten deeply involved with another woman and won’t stop and so on. I also said having an arrangement is far better than the betray of cheating. It’s not uncommon in a lot of other countries. Also I’ve seen estimates that maybe about 5% of American couples are in open relationships.

    The reason men worry so much about their wives cheating is both instinctual cuckold baby fear, and fear based on a lot of reality the one man kind of women have some tendency for serial monogamy after a number of years into marriage, it’s often thought to be about 4 years. There’s a real tendency for that to kick in and feelings of monogamous bonding to her husband dissolve if she has real good sex with a lover starts falling in love with him and then become not sexually attracted to her husband any longer because she’s not by nature polygamist or promiscuous but rather monogamist or serial monogamist. Both Michelle Langley who you dismiss without having read her book and Helen Fischer, the not sex and relationship researcher, agree on that. None of this usually happens when men have an outside sex fling. They rarely leave their wives (as girlfriends tell mistresses) and men can compartmentalize sex. Another way of putting that is that men ARE polygamist or promiscuous by nature, when they can be. Far less risking for men to have outside sex to the relationship. You’re just super hyper vigilant about cheating or any male outside play. Your husband even going to a call girl one would probably drive you crazy.

    Also why the hell are you dragging our argument on a thread at your place over here with voluminous quotes from me???? I didn’t say all that about my thing here, why are you sharing that for me??

    I think and have said that frivolous divorces are for same sorts of reasons Dalrock does. Grown apart, lack of communication, not feeling really in love anymore, not haaaaapy, etc. (All of those I think mostly amount to wanting to get the hunt for a new serial monogamy going on. I’ve said that at your place more than a few times and here as well. I’ve said that I think most or a plurality anyway, certainly not all, American wives initiated divorces are for those reasons. Dalrock provided evidence.

  67. Doug1 says:

    Hollenhund–

    There’s no contract to break in Marriage 2.0. It can apparently be dissolved by either party for any reason. After all, that’s what no-fault divorce means, isn’t it? And NFD happens to be the law of the land in ALL federal states, right?

    The only contract in marriage 2.0 is a state imposed one way adhesion contract for men to pay women lots of their money if either he OR she decides to get a divorce for any reason. If she cheats, falls in love with another man, won’t stop, stops giving him sex or love or affection, and SHE files for divorce to go find another husband to fall in love with (because her married lover won’t leave his wife), HE gets punished under American marriage and divorce 2.0 just as much.

  68. Doug1 says:

    Susan Walsh—

    Doug1 claims that divorcing a cheating husband is frivolous. I strongly disagree. I was simply asking what percentage of the 2/3 meet this description.

    No I did NOT say that. That’s how you wrongly and unfairly characterized what I said, but is NOT what I said.

    And the percentages given for female formally initiated divorce range from 65-75% from different sources, and usually 70-75%

  69. Dalrock says:

    @Susanawalsh

    The only claim I made is that men cheat more than women. I then asked Doug to explain how that is reflected in the 2-1 stat. I asked because I didn’t know the answer.

    You quoted the comment from Doug1 which you were responding to, and it was specific to the topic of wives blindsiding men with divorce. More specifically, you didn’t quote a comment in your reply where Doug1 asserted that women cheat more than men.

    More importantly, it isn’t true that the only claim you made was that men cheat more than women. In addition to saying that men cheat more than women do (which I agreed with in my original post) you also stated (emphasis mine):

    Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    This last assertion is the one I took issue with. [Edit: I even made this perfectly clear in the title of the post.] I included your entire comment for context, as well as the specific comment from Doug1 you indicated in your comment that you were replying to. Given the divorce catastrophe we are 40 years into and all of the data I presented in this post, the bolded statement is nothing short of bizarre. It is as far as I can see, utterly indefensible. You are at the very least minimizing the pandemic problem of women frivolously divorcing, and at worst denying it outright.

    Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? …I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are.

    I don’t believe you’re intellectually dishonest, Dalrock, so I’ll ask you to square your representation with what I said.

    The data I have on infidelity causing divorce suggests that it is not the driving factor. I shared the stats which I have, but this is one of those areas where getting to the hard truth is elusive. People tend to overstate the faults of others and understate their own. Per the AARP survey though infidelity was a primary cause of divorce only 16% of the time and the ancillary cause another 11% of the time. Given that we know that 1) Men most likely cheat slightly more than women, and 2) When women cheat it is more damaging to the marriage. I would say we could divide the blame up for the 16-27% of divorces where it was a cause fairly evenly. In other words, infidelity doesn’t appear to be driving our divorce epidemic (although it is obviously a problem) and women appear to be the drivers roughly as often as men.

    So my short answer is it doesn’t explain the 2-1 filing of women at all. Instead, just like Brinig and Allen found, all signs point to women seeing divorce as a way to end their lifetime commitment while collecting cash and prizes.

    As for Doug1′s other comments on open marriage and tolerance of male infidelity, this doesn’t surprise me. I assumed he made that case at your site as he does fairly consistently in the manosphere. I disagree with him there, and don’t give men a pass for actual infidelity (not talking about internet porn). I’ve listed it as a valid reason for divorce since the very beginning of my blog, and you may recall I also agree with you that women shouldn’t marry alphas for this same reason.

  70. "M" says:

    Rivelino: “susan’s biases”

    Yes, and while I also await her comment-held-in-moderation, her other evasive, waffling responses above do not make me hopeful. When push comes to shove, Susan is a woman, and especially recently, has been shown to write for Team Woman. This is quite disappointing in that if even a professed anti-feminist such as Susan does this, how can a man reasonably expect any other woman to do differently? This is also seen in the first few women commenting on this post, who agreed with Dalrock and decried the current situation… and then did hamster gymnastics to go Team Woman again toward the end of their comments.

    Home-run post, Dalrock. A+
    Keep up the data-supported arguments and logical conclusions, happy or not.

    [D: Thanks. BTW, Susan's comment which was in moderation for links is now available.]

  71. Kathy says:

    [D: Sorry to have upset you Kathy. I presume this means you will now leave my blog forever for what would be the 4th time.]
    Not upset. Disappointed would be the word.

    Ha, ha, and you are counting the times I have left too. I didn’t know you cared ;)

    Sorry Dalrock, I find you to be quite inconsistent and and not even handed in your treatment of commenters. Some terrible things are said by male commenters here that you simply overlook..

    That you pluck a comment from Walsh’s own blog and make something out of nothing speaks volumes I am afraid. She could do the same with some of your own comments, but I suspect that she would not do such a thing.

    You are not judge and jury you know.

    As I said, just another blog, one of millions. Don’t get too carried away with self importance here. Aside from the vast amount of blogs, there are many people who do not even know blogs exist. So, in the scheme of things not very important at all. They don’t make much of a mark on the world as such. ;)

    Maybe I will give your blog the flick for good.. Maybe.. I dunno..

    Who really cares anyway? :D

  72. passer_by says:

    @susan

    “The second point is about Michelle Langley. I have researched her work before and have learned the following:

    1. She has no credentials. ”

    Ok, but isn’t that one of the first complaints that the “credentialed” professional feminists and gender studies types make about you? :)

  73. greyghost says:

    Why are talking all of that trash kathy. You started the whole thing with dalrock.

  74. greyghost says:

    Another great article Dalrock You are going to be the only teacher left for women to learn how to be wives.

  75. Country lawyer says:

    Here’s an article for you Dalrock:

    http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111220/ap_on_re_us/us_fea_marriage_optional

    As much as you dont think there’s a real marriage strike the stats in here indicate to me that the erosion of marriage is accelerating and the youngest generation is remarkable different than previous ones.

  76. Rmaxd says:

    @Country Lawyer your data happens to coincide with my new post …

    @Dalrock some more interesting data for you to consider …

    Most working class & lower class women, & most importantly YOUNG WOMEN dislike marriage because it makes carousel riding more difficult.

    Yes data proving young women dont want to get married, as it makes carousel riding more difficult …

    I think this disproves the usual fembot & feminist arguments, about most women wanting to get married & pop out kids …

    This is also important, as feminists are now using this argument to disprove men suffer more in a divorce

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/cu-wyc121611.php

    “Working-class women, in particular, view marriage less favorably than do their male and middle-class counterparts, in part because they see marriage as hard to exit and are reluctant to assume restrictive gender roles.

    This is something that those of us on the manosphere are well aware of. Young women dislike marriage because it make carousel riding more difficult. The authors tried to equate this “suffering” with the much more severe consequences for a man who ends up in a bad marriage.”

    Comment from the excellent Taqman on spearhead …

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/12/19/the-myth-of-equal-suffering/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CommentsForTheSpearhead+%28Comments+for+The+Spearhead%29#comment-122938

  77. PT Barnum says:

    Kathy said:

    The woman posts a comment on her own blog. Yes her OWN blog.. The comment is taken out of context, and remember, Susan was not quoting any studies just positing a generally accepted premise. So, it warrants a post refuting her opinion and inviting opprobrium from commenters?(you don’t state this but the implication is there, whether it was intended or not)

    Susan wrote:

    Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    First, I’m glad Kathy has a good handle on OWN. It means the right to do whatever lunatic thing you want, provided you are of the sacred group of humans without a penis.

    Second, that paragraph is not even remotely taken out of context. I have no idea how “you shut up you worthless man animal, bad men cause all divorces cause they is bad!” could possibly be taken out of context. Combined with that lovely demand that the man animal support his position. Susan, of course, being a woman need only make stuff up.

  78. Rmaxd says:

    I think this young women disliking marriage because it makes carousel riding more difficult, a major driving force in the upcoming MAJOR erosion & decline of marriage …

    As feminism makes it more fashionable for women to behave like men … this will be the number one excuse used by young women to avoid marriage

    Whiskey is right the upper middle class & upper class marriage rates will stay steady & even increase, ie above $60,000,

    While the rest, especially Young women, the rates will plummet …

  79. Rmaxd says:

    Shouldve added …

    While the rest, especially Young women, the rates will plummet … precisely because it makes carousel riding more difficult …

  80. ruddytunstone says:

    Dalrock:

    “I’ve elaborated on the topics of divorce theft and exploitation here, but in summary during marriage there are periods when each spouse benefits more from honoring the agreement than the other one does. In the early stages of the marriage when the wife is young men benefit more if the agreement is honored. Later in the marriage when the wife is older she benefits more if the agreement is honored. Because of this, women have the incentive to commit divorce theft and exploitation when they are younger, and men have the incentive to do so when their wives are older. The latter scenario is best described by the common tale of the husband who dumps an older wife for a younger woman after years of loyal marriage. Women’s window of opportunity for divorce theft and exploitation is primarily when they are young, although the biased legal system would seem to extend this somewhat.”

    I question the extent to which men even have the incentive to divorce later in the marriage. The marriage and divorce laws, and divorce court practice, are not surprizingly, geared exactly to the situation of “the common tale of the husband who dumps an older wife for a younger woman after years of loyal marriage.” Long term, even lifetime alimony, super pro ex wife property settlements (in which the wife gets a good chunk of the husband’s retirement plan, as well as “her half” of all existing assets, except the house, which she gets free and clear for herself), requirements that the ex husband continue to buy health insurance for his wife, and life insurance for himslef, with her as the beneficiary, etc, etc., are all the “Big Guns” in the arsenal of family court remedies that are reserved for what once was (or, more accurately, was once concieved of as) the typical paradign of divorce. Ie the husband dumping the loyal, but sadly aging wife, after years of marriage, so that he could take up with his hottie, young secretary. That, or the nurse or paralegal who worked her finngers to the bone so that hubby could become a doctor or lawyer, and who is then dumped after he establishes himself.

    With that in mind, men NEVER have an incentive to divorce. The only exception I can see to this is either the guy in a childless marriage with an absolutely iron clad pre nup in one of the few jurisdictions that actually honors pre nups, or a guy so rich that the bonanza the ex wife will reap in divorce court just doesn’t matter. But for the vast majority of guys, from blue collar workers up to and including even very well off business and professional men, the dump the old bag and marry the trophy wife scenario is simply not possible. Even with his higher earning power, the ex husband will not be able to swing the trophy wife marriage after paying off the ex wife. Indeed, most middle aged guys, not just including but especially successful ones, live in dire fear of divorce. For them, particularly if they have indulged their wife’s desire to be a SAHM, divorce is a disaster. Divorce for such guys means the end of everything they have spent their entire adult lives building. They lose the house and everything in it, they lose the better of the two cars (or the only car), they lose their relationships with their kids, their income and retirement plans are severely hampered by ongong alimony and settlement obligations, and so on. Sure, sure, in time, with their higher income potential and better money management skills, and their superior ability and willingness to downsize their lifestyle, they can overcome the loss, regain their financial status, and maybe afford to remarry. But, in the meantime, it is a nasty decade or so of struggle for a guy who has already been through all that and had thought he had reached prosperity. Guys who were living in big, suburban McMansions are suddenly thrust into seedy garden apartments, or even living with their parents. They lack money to buy all the stuff it takes to create and stock a household from scratch, and the money it takes to lead any sort of “playboy” divorced guy lifestyle.

    Men have little incentive to divorce later in the marriage. I would go so far as to say that of the divorces initated by men, more of them are probably in the early years of marriage, despite the alleged desirablility gap. If a man marries early, and has not struck it rich by age thirty or so, and his wife works, and there are no kids, and she has now adopted the “I don’t have to have sex with you, or even be civil to you, unless I feel like it, and I almost never feel like it” modality, then, and maybe only then, is divorce a pretty good deal for a man. There isn’t much property to “divide” (ie for her to get), there are no kids, and because they haven’t been married long, and she’s hasn’t been a SAHM and has a job, her alimony and other settlement claims are at their weakest, and he still has plenty of time to “make it” financially, live a nice single man lifestyle for awhile and, eventually, remarry and even have kids (if he wants to).

    Young men, my advice is don’t marry. But, if you are married, and there are no kids, and especially if your wife works, and she is being a complete bitch to you, then DUMP HER! And do it now. The sooner the better. The sooner you divorce her, the weaker are her alimony and settlment claims, and the sooner you can get on with your life. Don’t delay. Don’t, for pitty’s sake, think that having kids with her will make your marriage right.

    Most women these days are simply impossible. They aren’t “like” spoiled children, they ARE spoiled children. They are used to having it all their own way, and everything and everybody in our society (from liberals to conservatives, from feminists to so called trad cons, from church to the school, from the media to the family, etc, etc) has told them that they are “special” and that they “deserved the best” from the day they were born. Feminism tells them that they are better than men because men are the oppressor; traditionalism tells them that they are better than men because they are more moral and spiritual and generous and so on than men. And they belieive it all. To them, you are lucky that one of them consented to marry you. And, yeah, yeah, NAWALT, but most of them are, and whether you have done your homework (as per Dalrock) in vetting her or not, chances are she is “like that” If you are married to one of them, and she won’t fuck you, she puts you down, even in public, she disrespects you, your family, your friends, and your interests, she feels she has the right to give you the “silent treatment” whenever she feels like it, she feels that she has the right to start a “fight” over almost anything, and then to continue it until she decides it’s over, while you have no such right, and are supposed to feel grateful when she stops “being mad,” and so on and so forth, then DUMP HER NOW! File for divorce and get out while the getting is good.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Madbiker
    I suppose I’ve been grated on lately by some things I read in the non-married sector of the manosphere.

    I feel your pain. Here’s the point that Celeste didn’t get yesterday. I’ll explain it differently, maybe you’ll succeed where she failed.

    You don’t have to read this blog, or any blog by any man. You can just walk away from any thing written by any man, and live your life totally untouched by any “manosphere” opinions. Men must work much, much harder to get away from the gynocentric, manbashing that surrounds us.

    Can’t watch most, nearly all, prime time TV shows. If it’s not “doofus daddy” being set right by his smart mouth daughter while her mother’s head bobbles nods, it’s “evil, child molester daddy”, or “deadbeat daddy”, or “drunken, cheating daddy”, etc. Can’t watch “news” channels without being beaten over the head with my inferiority to women in multiple ways. Hard to watch a movie made since the 1980′s, without some total nonsense, usually some broad going all Laura Croft on a pack of bad guys. Often can’t go to many night spots without having to detour around foul-mouthed “ladies” out on the town, tearing their “boyfriends” a new one in absentia. And so forth. And so on.

    Misandry, the active hatred of men, is all around like the air. The feeling you get reading some of the “manosphere”? I can get that just by turning on the tv set – and I’m paying to be insulted, mind you. You might bear that in mind when reading some of the blogs written by men.

    I know that the “don’t get married” commentary is not directed at women and men in stable relationships, who take marriage vows and promises seriously and aren’t part of hook-up culture.

    The hookup culture has nothing to do with those men who advise other men not to marry. Many of the men you don’t like are over 30. They don’t do hookups. But some of them are paying over 50% in pre-tax income to a woman who basically got un-haaaapy, and went feral & did the Eat, Betray, Luv thing. But wait, there’s more. You are seeing the coming of age of the first generation of young men to grow up under Stage 2 Feminism. These are the young men who saw many of their classmates drugged for being too boyish. The young men who may well have grown up with “mom”, because “dad” had to move out to a cramped apartment when the boy was 5 or so years old. You worry about marriage? What do you say to a 25 year old man whose understanding of “daddy” is “a guy who lives with his kids for a few years, then has to pack up his stuff in boxes and a gym bag and go live all by himself in a little apartment, and hardly ever gets to see his children”. You gonna tell that young man “Oh, marriage is great! Parenting is great”! when he’s seen with his own eyes what divorce theft really looks like?

    And that’s still just scratching the surface. What about young men who grew up with feminist mothers that told them how bad men are day after day? What do you say to them? How about the 20-something man whose mother aborted his younger sibling as part of divorcing his father several years earlier, and he knows it? I could go on. And on. I’m not making this stuff up. I have heard things from men under 30 that I would never have believed possible 10, 20 years ago.

    And I wonder what I’ll hear in the next 5 years, from those young men now in their teens.

    One more time: I feel your pain. But you have not walked in the boots of men. So you really don’t know as much as you think you do, about where the anger comes from.

  82. susanawalsh says:

    Now whether infidelity is an acceptable reason is not what is in debate here. What was being discussed is whether the amount of women divorcing their husbands are filing due to infidelity or something else, like not being happy or abuse.

    That is the debate that Dalrock has set up, but that was the debate at HUS, which is what Rmaxd quoted. It was strictly about divorcing due to infidelity. Dalrock wrote this post based on Rmax’s excerpt, but in doing so without reading the thread for context he erred.

  83. susanawalsh says:

    “I like to see cheaters pay through the nose. Make the f*ckers pay.”

    They do… when they’re male. When they’re female, not so much.

    Again for the record, re divorce settlements and prenups:

    Doug: Maybe if the wife gets zero as her punishment if she cheats, but not otherwise.

    Susan : FWIW, I would totally support this. I’m not looking for a double standard.

  84. susanawalsh says:

    @Feminist Hater

    That should read, “Basically Doug1 was not saying that women should not be able to divorce for adultery…”

    I’ve offered ample evidence here that Doug1 was saying exactly that. As in, direct quotes. How do you fail to understand?

  85. susanawalsh says:

    @Passer By

    Ok, but isn’t that one of the first complaints that the “credentialed” professional feminists and gender studies types make about you?

    Not that I know of! Langley had no platform, she wrote a book justifying her own infidelity and blamed it on her husband’s small penis. As far as I know, she has done no research on the topic, other than to interview a number of other adulterers.

  86. susanawalsh says:

    Another great article Dalrock You are going to be the only teacher left for women to learn how to be wives.

    Are single women reading here?

  87. Rmaxd says:

    @Walsh you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole … Address your main comments like a man, or not at all

  88. susanawalsh says:

    More specifically, you didn’t quote a comment in your reply where Doug1 asserted that women cheat more than men.

    Are you serious? Do you think I respond on my own blog with blockquotes in case Rmaxd is lurking? Doug and I had a dialogue. You wrote a post here using a snippet taken out of context. Not even correct in its isolation. You didn’t do your homework, Dalrock. You got this all wrong. You should have known better based on the very low quality of Rmaxd’s reasoning and argument. Badly done, Dalrock. Badly done.

  89. ruddytunstone says:

    SW:

    “Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    Susan: do you have anything to back up this “thought?” Regardless of what doug or remax or whoever said, is there anything at all that you have to present that shows that the “theme” of “female initated divorces is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere?” As Dalrock has shown, most divorces are initated by women, and the overwhelming majority of those are NOT based on the cause that you mentioned (ie infidelity). So, if they are not frivolous, and they are not based on adultery, then what are they based on, and what evidence do you have that proves it? Rather than just saying that Dalrock got it wrong, why don’t you show that he did? And do so by addressing this, which is the main point, not the particulars of who said what on your blog that led you to make your statement.

  90. Elspeth says:

    the upper middle class & upper class marriage rates will stay steady & even increase, ie above $60,000,

    @Rmaxd:

    Is that upper middle class? Really? Because I have never thought of my family that way at all and we’re above that by a fair bit. I would think above $200,000. I tend to agree with Elusive Wapiti’s assertion that marriage commitment is greatest among those with a deep commitment to faith. This is probably the best indicator of where you’ll see marriage survive going forward.

    Further, I think what is considered UMC is probably more about background combined with income than it is about income alone. But that’s just my opinion. I really have no idea based on any kind of experiences of my own.

  91. TFH says:

    Men may cheat more than women, but only slightly more.

    Secondly, a woman cheating has much worse implications (pregnancy). Remember that cuckolding is the very worst thing a woman can do to a man, and is the equivalent of a woman raping a man.

  92. Chris says:

    Anon @0914 says.

    The hookup culture has nothing to do with those men who advise other men not to marry. Many of the men you don’t like are over 30. They don’t do hookups. But some of them are paying over 50% in pre-tax income to a woman who basically got un-haaaapy, and went feral & did the Eat, Betray, Luv thing. But wait, there’s more. You are seeing the coming of age of the first generation of young men to grow up under Stage 2 Feminism. These are the young men who saw many of their classmates drugged for being too boyish. The young men who may well have grown up with “mom”, because “dad” had to move out to a cramped apartment when the boy was 5 or so years old. You worry about marriage? What do you say to a 25 year old man whose understanding of “daddy” is “a guy who lives with his kids for a few years, then has to pack up his stuff in boxes and a gym bag and go live all by himself in a little apartment, and hardly ever gets to see his children”. You gonna tell that young man “Oh, marriage is great! Parenting is great”! when he’s seen with his own eyes what divorce theft really looks like?

    Susan (in particular), I’m a Dad of a young woman, married at 26, with three kids, who gets told to leave them and go “get qualified”. I did not raise her. Her mother (whom I had bought to NZ and was about to wed) left with her when she was under a year. Her childhood was, simply, hell. I’m also the dad of two teenage boys. And the current situation looks toxic.

    Now, the boys are doing better (despite me marrying a woman whom my daughter calls batshit crazy). Mainly because by the time I had them I was established in my career and when it ended (the divorce would be legitimate on the abandonment rule) then when she started leaving the kids alone I was able to fight. For three reasons.

    1. I was not fighting the Toronto Family Court system, where men were evil, but in New Zealand, where the rules are explicity gender neutral.
    2. I had seen what had happened to the daughter, and I was not prepared to let it happen again… and
    3. I had an income and assets. I was living 1200 miles away (I had taken a job with the agreement that she would bring the kids down after winter… it did not happen) and she could not play domestic violence games.

    I’ve seen by boys called autistic. I’ce seen my name dragged through the mud.

    But that was 5 years ago. And I am not dating. I am just reaching the point wher I am open to this. Of course, if I discuss this with a feminist, I am perpetuating the cycle of violence by discussing male power. (Yes, I’m serious).

    Now… this happened to me in my 40s. Imagine what it is like if it happens in your 20s or 30s. The consequences to men, (given US rules) and children..

    The Upper Middle Class stop this happening by ensuring that their kids are kept away from the “bad boys” until college, and they select a fairly elite college. They screen families for suitability. And ALL the assets of the family are in trusts — if you try to get them in a divorce, you will find yourself up against feral trust lawyers. (Elspeth, it’s the trusts and the horses, not the income :-) )

    The elite can also buy the judges off… they are immune from the grinder, because they are part of the favoured caste.

    In the meantime, the church needs to find a method of using trust law and contract law to resurrect marriage 1.0 (and at the correct ages… 20 for girls, 22-24 for boys). Or Ladies, you are facing serial short term relationships as no sensible man will remain around you long enough to be seen in a de facto relationship (and vulnerable to palimony). Which is no way to raise your children, or to become mature yourself. .

  93. Dalrock says:

    @Susanawalsh

    Are you serious? Do you think I respond on my own blog with blockquotes in case Rmaxd is lurking? Doug and I had a dialogue. You wrote a post here using a snippet taken out of context. Not even correct in its isolation. You didn’t do your homework, Dalrock. You got this all wrong. You should have known better based on the very low quality of Rmaxd’s reasoning and argument. Badly done, Dalrock. Badly done.

    I encourage everyone reading this to see for themselves. Here is the same link to Susan’s response that I included in the OP. You can see her quote of Doug1 as well as her reply. I didn’t take it out of context.

    First rule of holes Susan, stop digging.

  94. YBM says:

    You are not judge and jury you know.

    As I said, just another blog, one of millions. Don’t get too carried away with self importance here. Aside from the vast amount of blogs, there are many people who do not even know blogs exist. So, in the scheme of things not very important at all. They don’t make much of a mark on the world as such. ;)

    Maybe I will give your blog the flick for good.. Maybe.. I dunno..

    Who really cares anyway? :D

    Listen to this, this is the female way. To any man reading this blog right now, read these words and bask in the glory that they behold on you: To women, you opinions are irrelevant, your hopes, dreams, and fears are irrelevant, anything you say or do will be rendered irrelevant with a “flick”. These are the women you are told to treat with respect, to honour and marry. Isn’t that ridiculous? How laughable a concept is it to believe that any vermin such as this deserves anything other than to be a source of physical pleasure and nothing more.

    Militarize yourselves men, this is a war, and it will be fought on the margins. You asked for it, ladies.

    Now you have it.

    To all the men trying to decide whether to take that final plunge into what Barbarosssa teaches “Western Women are only to be used for sex”.

    Bask in the words I have quoted, and follow my lead. You will thank me later.

  95. Sweet As says:

    Late to this party, as usual, but I have to say that the concept of “duty” which cropped up early in the comments is a pretty big deal to me.

    I don’t think I really ever understood the nature of “duty” until I had my son. So, a childless me at this age would probably still be far more selfish than the current me.

    I have found that duty is a big thing. It holds a hard line in a lot of ways, a firm place. It has warrior energy — which is why it’s so tacked to the military — but I think that we all require it.

    I explore duty in so many ways — the duty to my husband, the duty to my son, the duty to the fellow practitioners in my business, the duty to our clients. And, the duty to myself — to hold myself accountable for my actions that may be selfish and short-sighted. I have many, no doubt.

    It’s an interesting process.

    But, I have to agree with the posters above who stated that these women are rare. I know I’m rare. I can see how rare. I love my female friends, truly. I love them to bits. Most of them, good women all. But, a lot of women. . . woah. Yeah, I wouldn’t marry them either. And I could marry them here, where it is legal. But I wouldn’t.

    For my son, I hope to teach him how to find a good woman, what traits that woman has, and how to find them and how to cultivate a relationship with such a woman. Then, he can choose whether or not he wants to commit (or marry — as many men here are committed and unmarried, living with their partners and their children happily). He’s 3.5. we have some time for the world to change, too.

  96. TFH says:

    Among the many problems with Susan’s position is the fact that :

    If the man cheats, the man loses all his money in court.
    If the women cheats, the MAN loses all his money in court.

    Susan seems to not have a problem with this, given that her position is that ‘if either spouse cheats, they deserve to have divorce inflicted on them’.

    Women seem to think that men can make money just as easily as they grow hair. Hence, ‘no fault’ wealth transfers are something women don’t consider to be morally wrong.

    With the exception of grerp, just about no woman here, even the supposed ‘decent’ ones, want the preposterously unfair divorce laws to change. This also shows why democracy does not work, as women ruthlessly vote for what only benefits women (while men vote for what benefits all people).

  97. Lavazza says:

    I don’t know exactly how to link this to what is beeing said but I just have to get it off my chest, but having a good divorce can actually make men MORE distrustful of women. (It purports to the remarriage strike, rather than the marriage strike.)

    I have 50/50 custody and I pay no alimony or CS. My ex wife is helpful and agreable most of the time, like lending me her car when my car broke down just before me going on a vacation with the kids. She “gave me her best years” (early twenties to late thirties). I visit her parents on vacation with the kids, if I am in the vicinity. And so on.

    So when a decent woman can divorce a guy for not being haaappy, at the emotional expense of him and the kids, how can a guy trust the majority of women who have a worse track record (if they are available, the women with a better track record are staying married)?

  98. Mike C says:

    You are not judge and jury you know.

    As I said, just another blog, one of millions. Don’t get too carried away with self importance here. Aside from the vast amount of blogs, there are many people who do not even know blogs exist. So, in the scheme of things not very important at all. They don’t make much of a mark on the world as such.

    Maybe I will give your blog the flick for good.. Maybe.. I dunno..

    Who really cares anyway?

    Then why are you here and taking the time to comment. There is something quite contemptable about your attempt to trivialize what Dalrock does here. If you have intelligent, cogent, rational responses to the subject matter of a post, then share them. But if all you have is attempts to shame Dalrock on what he is “allowed” to discuss or not discuss then seriously STFU and GTFO, and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Make sure you take the cloud of self-righteous pretentiousness with you.

  99. TFH says:

    Then why are you here and taking the time to comment. There is something quite contemptable about your attempt to trivialize what Dalrock does here.

    Dude, this is a perfect illustration of how women think.

    Kathy comes here for gina tingles, which she cannot get anywhere else.

    She has enticed us which ‘threats’ to leave at least 4 times, but sadly, this will not happen as long as she is dependent on this blog (and ‘sphere) for gina tingles.

    Men firmly schooling an uppity, disagreeable woman has the same sexual effect on her mind that porn videos have on men.

    The strongest punishment you can give such a woman is NOT to rebut her (which is exactly what she craves), but to ignore her. Ignoring a woman at this stage of arousal keeps her in the halfway stage, where orgasm is not near enough, but it is too late to retreat away from orgasm too. Just like a man who is teased by a stripper enough to be aroused, but not enough to orgasm.

    Ignoring a woman in this state is pretty severe punishment for the woman.

  100. umslopogaas says:

    @Susan Walsh:

    I would like to second Dalrock’s outstanding post regarding your claim:

    “Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    To me this is the core of the matter at hand. Regardless of the question if it is acceptable for a woman or a man to divorce his/her spouse in the event of unfaithfulness your (above found) statement is simply *untenable*.

    Please refer to the statistics provided by Dalrock. Evidently you can discern that the *vast* majority of divorces are filed by women. Only a distinct *minority* (16%) of these women-filed divorces are done so because of male extramarital affairs.

    Consequently, the clear *M A J O R I T Y* of all all divorces are filed by *women* and are filed for questionable reasons such as the woman not being *haaaaaapy* etc. ad nauseum.

    As such Dalrock’s (and other MRA’s) theme is *not* exaggerated and stands validated.

    The way I see it you, Mrs. Walsh, have selectively responded to Dalrock’s critique, have dodged the main issue several times while doing so and created smokescreens rather than deal with the core of the matter.

  101. Legion says:

    Lavazza says:
    December 21, 2011 at 1:22 am

    I know what you are talking about. My ex was more concerned about us raising our son properly than taking revenge on me, as I hear described by others. We stay friendly enough, but I was more than happy to leave that region when our son went to college because the friendly calls for assistance kept coming. Even now we work together as we can to help our son.

    Maybe it’s because she filed divorce papers 1 month after I got laid off?

  102. TFH says:

    Maybe it’s because she filed divorce papers 1 month after I got laid off?

    Sheesh. Women are shallow and cold. A man would simply not do something so low, even if the woman earned more than him.

    Did that save your from alimony? Or did the judge impute your income?

    Did you get another job later of equal or better pay? How did your long-term life turn out in relation to hers? Real stories from regulars here are valuable.

  103. Höllenhund says:

    YBM is completely right about Kathy. It’s sort of funny to read her gynocentric ramblings. She’s the perfect example of how Team Woman operates. She usually hangs out on HUS and Alte’s blog and I can guarantee you that she never doles out this snarky, slimy treatment to the bloggresses and their commenters, even though their behavior is not a bit more moral and fair than the one she complains about here.

  104. TFH says:

    The whole premise of ‘women divorce because the man cheated’ is wrong.

    The reality is, a lot of men get inflicted with divorce because they DID NOT cheat.

    You read that right. Allow me to explain.

    Any study of Game reveals that women want a man who other women want. Pre-selection, social proof, etc. A lot of Game is simulating these indicators, so a woman thinks the man is in high demand.

    Thus, no woman wants a man who is not wanted by other women. Remember this.

    Women often lie about the husband ‘cheating’ so as to shift blame, but in reality, divorce was because the woman got bored i.e. the man appeared to no longer be attractive to other women.

    Thus, a man who is a true alpha and cheats with other women has less chance of getting inflicted with divorce than the devoted beta who faithfully treats his wife like a queen, OR the man who cheats with a woman less attractive than his wife (see : Arnold Schwarzenegger).

    I guarantee you that the latter two examples are more likely to get divorced than a man who cheats with a woman much younger than his wife. The wife subconsciously loves this, even if she verbally expresses outrage.

    Thus a married man walks a tightrope in today’s society :

    Be *too* faithful to your wife, and she will divorce you.
    Cheat with a woman *less* attractive than her, and she will divorce you.
    Cheat with women *more* attractive than her, and everyone is better off (in France and Italy, women are mature enough to actually understand this and permit it within reason).

  105. TFH says:

    Hollenhund,

    See my 1:37 AM comment.

    When one realizes that such a woman is coming here only to satiate her base sexual thrills, none of this is surprising.

  106. Höllenhund says:

    “The latter scenario is best described by the common tale of the husband who dumps an older wife for a younger woman after years of loyal marriage.”

    “Working-class women, in particular, view marriage less favorably than do their male and middle-class counterparts, in part because they see marriage as hard to exit and are reluctant to assume restrictive gender roles.”

    Let’s just stop there for a moment. I don’t find this sort of female attitude surprising – nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to women -, but if you think about it, it’s just bizarre. Western lawmakers have pretty much done everything in their power to make marriage as comfortable and lucrative as possible for women. Yet women still have these completely baseless fears about marriage being a trap, getting dumped for a younger woman etc. The mind boggles. Well, no it actually doesn’t. As I’ve said, I’m no longer surprised by anything women say or do. It’s such an all-around clusterf*ck I don’t even know what to say, because there’s nothing to say. There’s no anger, no hatred, only amusement at something that’s an utter mess. I suppose medieval villagers had this feeling whenever one of their cows delivered a two-headed calf.

  107. Höllenhund says:

    Somewhat off-topic:

    “There are many differences between men and women. Many of the things women do seem quite illogical and counterproductive. Sometimes they are quite selfish and morally oblivious. And sometimes they get upset over the pettiest of things. And yet, these are features, not bugs.

    Women are supposed to be like this. Women are supposed to act irrationally, be emotionally weaker, be more self-centered in their plans, etc. They act that way by design.

    I’m not entirely sure why. I suspect it’s because God wanted men to have a taste of how he views mankind. As women appear generally irrational, selfish, and weak to men, so does mankind appear the same way to God. As women frustrate men, so does mankind frustrate God. And as women can have moments of loving service and reverence to men, so too does mankind have moments of loving service and reverence toward God. I suspect, then, that God designed women the way he did so that we as men have a brief glimpse of what it’s like to be God.”

    http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2011/12/its-bug-not-feature.html

    I normally disagree with Simon Grey and never put faith in any religion, but this is one Christian interpretation that I can agree with.

  108. AmStrat says:

    Maybe the reason susan is getting so upset about cheating is because her husband isn’t cheating on her?

  109. TFH says:

    Maybe the reason susan is getting so upset about cheating is because her husband isn’t cheating on her?

    AmStrat,

    While we have no idea about Susan’s personal situation, we should not speculate. But for women in general, this is often true. See my 2:16 AM comment.

  110. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    AmStrat, maybe she is getting ready to divorce him, making up her reasons as needs be. Who knows?

    Following Susan’s and Doug’s discussion, my view’s on the matter are rather undecided. On the one hand I do agree with Susan that infidelity is a very good reason for divorce. However, on the other hand, her reasons are completely anti-male. Her reasons for divorce because of infidelity is not based in reasonableness, they are based in revenge, a need to commit divorce theft because the man cheated, not to get out of the marriage because he cheated, that’s an after thought. Her emotion takes hold once more. Furthermore, she is fully blaming men for their actions but once again letting women off the hook for more than likely choosing a male that will eventually cheat.

    Yet she still fails to see that Dalrock provided her with exactly what she asked for, well to the best of his ability. A study is a study after all. 16 % say infidelity was the primary reason, that leaves a huge amount who are divorcing due to other excuses. There’s your answer, Susan.

    This whole discussion just proves how marriage is bias in favour of women and Susan is telling us to Shut up?! OMG, LoL!

    I should also add that I don’t entirely agree with Doug either. If all things were equal and marriage was a proper contract with responsibilities and benefits to both parties, then a man should not be cheating as he would be breaking the contract, unless it was stipulated before hand that he could cheat. Then again, marry someone who isn’t serious about marriage and don’t act surprised when they do eventually cheat. You got what you payed for!

  111. imnobody says:

    In other words, provide data or STFU. But I won’t provide data and I won’t STFU. You have to prove your opinions, I don’t.

    It’s scary how Susan is becoming more and more similar to feminists.

  112. imnobody says:

    In addition, the topic was never “men cheat more than women” but “frivolous divorce is overestimated in the manosphere”.

  113. Lavazza says:

    Legion: What I am thinking of is the remarriage strike. Since an obviously above average woman can act friviously and decently at the same time, there is little hope. I am often asked why I am single since I am rich and handsome, but that means that I am seen as a tool for providing and giving healthy children that seems like an insult to me. I would only enter a relation with a woman who does not want children and money from me, which is hard to find, even if women protest NAWALT. I would never give children to a woman who is older than my ex wife was when we met (early twenties), but the only guy I know who has pulled that of is a actor/director who remarried a much younger actress some years after his divorce.

  114. Pingback: I have faith in you, Susan « Rivelino in Spain

  115. Will says:

    Hollenhund:
    “nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to women …”

    Women without children should be allowed maternity leave, survey says
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6243019/Women-without-children-should-be-allowed-maternity-leave-survey-says.html

  116. Opus says:

    Re-reading what I wrote at 2.49 on 20th Dec, I felt that I might add:

    I cannot ever recall a man divorcing a woman on the grounds of her unreasonable behaviour: Men just cannot bring themselves to criticise women no matter how bad their behaviour; women however (as indicated) have no problem finding fault, no matter how trivial. The divorce laws thus play to a woman’s worst instincts.

  117. umslopogaas says:

    @TFH:

    “Thus, a man who is a true alpha and cheats with other women has less chance of getting inflicted with divorce than the devoted beta who faithfully treats his wife like a queen, OR the man who cheats with a woman less attractive than his wife (see : Arnold Schwarzenegger).”

    Succinct observation. I entirely agree. I would like to add, however, it goes without saying that it’s also a question of how the cheating man reacts to his main woman’s inevitable hissyfit.

    Game-wise it’s a question of frame. A true Alpha will flip the flame by counterattacking or just saying that “darling, you’re not seeing the wholte picture” or simply shrugging it off in a “so what?” fashion. Her anger won’t phase him because he is entirely willing to walk away *and she knows it*.

    Thus she realizes her rage cannot phase him and her attraction triggers (preselection, challenging) are renewed.

    Conversely, a Beta shlub will try to placate her, try to explain and then, in all likelihood, apologize. All these actions just increase her anger during the situation.

  118. Dalrock
    The Boots Made for Walkin study does offer more potential analysis on who is filing and why than I see mentioned here. If you take the figure as 3/4 or 2/3….whatever it is…..and yes, the ultimate getting her over the hump to decide to file indeed has to do with likelihood of child custody, but they drilled into the reasons for the no fault divorces and found only 6% of the 3/4 or 2/3 were filed with abuse, substance abuse, adultery involved. Their methods for getting to that info are not perfect, but if I can use the term…..perfect enough…..6% of the female filed divorces for that list of reasons which includes cheating is NOT evidence of men causing the epidemic of female filed divorce. Its painfully obvious.
    Further, take the remaining number….3/4 X- .06(3/4)X (where X is the total divorces studied in that study, and add to it then the portion of the man filed divorces from the other 0.25X because of female infidelity, and the number is even more staggering. The way they did their study, like any study that gets this deeply into issues where dissembling and obfuscation are legion, the way they did it is sufficiently rigorous to dismiss the notion about men cheating.
    More importantly, and to me most importantly is the fact that the present social meme is “what did he do”, the churches are busy rerererere doubling the idea that fixing men is the answer, and the law is complicit with anything that puts more gram weights on the female side of lady justices scale while that is unequivocally demonstrable as 180 degrees out of phase with where any serious divorce reform or effort to stem the tide of divorce should focus.
    The urge to frivolously divorce, among women, will maybe never diminish, its out of the bottle and cant stuff it back in, but the simple choice, “is it best to divorce or stay and work on it?” can be impacted easily, with custody and other simple reforms that would take divorce theft and other frivolous divorce off the table as an option.

  119. Suz says:

    “Working-class women, in particular, view marriage less favorably than do their male and middle-class counterparts, in part because they see marriage as hard to exit and are reluctant to assume restrictive gender roles.”

    I have to wonder if “hard to exit” actually means “hard to exit PROFITABLY.” Divorcing a man with few assets and a modest income doesn’t pay very well, so why bother getting married in the first place? If the potential “married income advantage” is small, and the potential “divorced income advantage” is smaller, where’s the incentive to get married? (Heck, a gal might even have to pay her own divorce lawyer!) From a mercenary perspective, it may make more sense for a woman to live with a series of men in the more flexible unmarried state, as she works her way up the food chain. This would make it easier to marry out of the working class and into the middle class, where marriage AND divorce are more profitable.

  120. greyghost says:

    Was Susan always like this Dalrock? She is really going off dude. Good thing she is not the mother of your kids. But I will say the exchange you all are having is what it is like in a modern marriage. Only thing different is she has no claim on your life and kids. Susan is a normal woman, there is nothing wrong with her.

  121. “””Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber. “””

    See previous post, the percentage is 94% of the divorces filed by women under no fault are frivolous.
    When you look at one of dalrocks charts you see how the data is refuted, it shows “abuse” as the main reason for divorce….well duh…..I rarely meet a woman divorced or divorcing that doesn’t use the abuse claim to garner sympathy or empathy.

    What I want to know is when will kicking a man to the curb, a man who isnt cheating, beating, or addicted, and who wants to stay married, when is kicking him to the curb going to be seen as abuse? I see it as profound abuse, Ive watched man after man lose unhealthy amounts of weight, spend months sickly pale not eating and sleeping, crying and barely able to work while being told to man up and be a dad to the kids and similar shaming while she has her gaggle of gigglers to help her “follow her heart”

  122. Along with ultimate custody and child support, another huge incentive for women that plays on the inability to think in the abstract very well, is that the day of filing, man magically is out, a visitor to kids at his own home. Hey happy day, life is same….minus the jerk….yippee! Only get close to the final date and women mostly panic. My lawyer, practice for decades, told me overwhelmingly women want to delay final date, they fear having no hold on the man, that he wont even have to pick up her calls, that the resource split is done, fixed, and she must make it work…..oh and she has no more chances to have the man officially declared an asshole by a judge and on states record.
    That last bit comes from a friend who divorced…well wife filed, they went through stuff for a year, finally last hearing was ONLY to stamp the money split. Wifes lawyer asked for a delay of 2 weeks. Judge says WHY, he says he isnt prepared. Judge got pissed, and said “we are here to divide some sums by 2 or something, the chance to have me declare her husband is an asshole are gone…..get over it, lets finish.

    If upon filing, the person filing had to move out and be a visitor to kids, just for the period the divorce process sorted it all out (this is for no fault divorces) the rate of female filing would plummet. They cannot think of any negatives and personalize them. Sure they can state that they are aware how hard it is blah blah and all the negatives, but they truly cannot process a consequence that is months in the future. Make it instant and its no longer an abstract.

  123. Opus says:

    One more point:

    I confess I have not read every comment here, and clearly were I to do so, in the attempt to get to the bottom of it, hell would be more likely to freeze over first, but:

    Two words jump out at me; Frivolous – from Dalrock in the OP, and Cheat from Susan Walsh, frequently. These two words are failure words, that is to say words with a negative connotation. They are words which judge or rather pre-judge the issue. It maybe that what looks like frivolity from women divorcees is on their terms quite justified, and it may be that male unfaithfulness is from a man’s point of view neither here nor there. The divorce laws facilitate and encourage subjectivity.

  124. Lavazza says:

    Suz: “I have to wonder if “hard to exit” actually means “hard to exit PROFITABLY.” Divorcing a man with few assets and a modest income doesn’t pay very well, so why bother getting married in the first place?”

    I guess that for women with low or no salary in welfare states it is better to keep or go to the victim status. There even was a scandal in Sweden when Muslim women where adviced to divorce “on paper” to get better benefits. In one immigrant suburb 20 men where “living” in the same apartment with the mothers of their children receiving benefits for single mothers.

  125. AntiMisandrist says:

    He “broke the contract”? What contract? If that’s the female post-modern definition of marriage, no wonder no sensible man wants in. She’s supposed to “obey” too in my contact, can I ditch her and take the kids if she violates that?

    My faith – I’m a believing Christian – indeed endorses that adultery is the only acceptable reason for divorce, but what is meant by “adultery” here is far from simple, and is not just a physical act. It means putting something other than God above your spouse, consistently, not a one-time screw with a ho.

    A wise priest – not enough of those guys, but they do exist – told me when my wife left me (got the mug, the t-shirt, and the whole horror-show behind me) that every failed marriage went down due to adultery – but usually not sexual only. It’s about the guy who loves his golf game more than his wife, of the wife who devotes love to her koffee klatch of bitchy friends instead of her husband.

    I understand and endorse that there is no gain in maintaining the fiction of a marriage which is dead – if he (or she) has a girl (or guy) Friday, going on over years, ie a substitute marriage, I can see walking out. But over quickies? Come on, that’s insane.

    You need to understand that foreigners a hundred years ago commented on the excessive power of women in American marriage, including an even then detectable tendency towards hypergamy, ie trading up. Since the 1960s that has gotten immeasurably worse, and any sensible person knows this by just looking around.

    We have so profoundly altered the marital playing field, especially in the area of family “law”, then added a huge dose of misandrist propaganda to encourage women to act out their worst natural tendencies (I’m not haaaaaapppy) … well, the amazing thing is that any men get married now at alll, ever.

    Walsh is an enemy, get over it, she’s the Devil in semi-friendly attire.

  126. Suz says:

    Lavazza,

    It’s a fairly common practice. Don’t a number of American polygamists do it, or was that just a rumor? If there’s one thing women are very well trained to do, it’s play the system to their advantage. In many cases it’s their primary occupation.

  127. PT Barnum says:

    I have to wonder if “hard to exit” actually means “hard to exit PROFITABLY.” Divorcing a man with few assets and a modest income doesn’t pay very well, so why bother getting married in the first place?

    Since I don’t look right through poor people, I can say that this is unquestionably true. One woman I was listening to thought nothing of mentioning that her evil husband smoked weed… IN PUBLIC. He also didn’t love “her children” from another marriage as much as his children(one of which was an OOPS Gotcha! pregnancy). It was very hard, because she would lose the house if she left him.

    He needed to man up, stop smoking weed, work harder, and then she could fuck him over and keep the house to!

  128. Pingback: YES, LOTS OF WOMEN REALLY DO FILE FOR DIVORCE FOR FRIVOLOUS REASONS

  129. imnobody says:

    Was Susan always like this Dalrock? She is really going off dude.

    No, she was kinder and fairer. But something happened the last months. I don’t know what. Maybe many players commenting in her blog and trashing marriage. Maybe people attacking her personally.

    Then, she made a blog post declaring in unequivocal terms that she was for Team Woman. Something along the lines of “For every person who accuses me of being in favor of Team Woman, I could only say that this is true. I am a woman and the male experience is elusive to me”. Her aim was to make possible the relationship that women want. It was a big disappointment for me. I would like to think that I am in Team Justice or Team Truth. I have my biases, as everyone, but I don’t embrace them.

    This is the problem with American women, whether they are feminists, so-con or other ideologies. They only play for Team Woman. But relationships have two sides: men and women. While they only want to fix the Woman part of the equation, no part of the equation would be fixed. You cannot fix a car if you only focus on the front wheels disregarding the back wheels.

    For the last forty years, American woman have played for Team Woman and we know how this has turned out. But they can keep on condemning themselves to irrelevance…

  130. Lavazza says:

    Suz: Yeah, and as the sun always rises in the East, they will never run out of other people’s money. I do think that since most morality is borne out of necessity and therefor concerns for efficiency, morality will only make a come back with lack of abundance. Just look at how rich countries handles energy and other resources.

  131. Elspeth says:

    Kathy hasn’t left one comment on TC since its inception. She doesn’t hang out there. I’m not sure what happened (nor do I care that’s between she and Alte). But clearly she doesn’t change her stripes when commenting on a blog edited by women.

  132. M.Steve says:

    [quote]“I like to see cheaters pay through the nose. Make the f*ckers pay.”
    They do… when they’re male. When they’re female, not so much.
    Again for the record, re divorce settlements and prenups:
    Doug: Maybe if the wife gets zero as her punishment if she cheats, but not otherwise.
    Susan : FWIW, I would totally support this. I’m not looking for a double standard.[/quote]

    How, precisely, is “man cheats, he pays and pays; woman cheats, they go their separate ways” NOT a double standard?

  133. hurp says:

    To be fair, imnobody, I think the post you’re referring to was slightly more nuanced than that:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/07/relationshipstrategies/who-is-susan-walsh/

    We can never fully comprehend the true nature of the other sex, and accusations that I am on Team Woman, or female-centric, can only be true. I do promise, however, to strive for understanding and fairness for both sexes.

    She may be on Team Woman, but she’s ostensibly trying to be on Team Fairness as well. Granted, “ostensibly” is the key word there.

    I have no quarrel with Ms. Walsh, but I will freely admit my opinion of her has gone down recently. I’m just some anonymous internet weirdo, of course, there’s no reason for her to care–but if she happens to be reading this, it seems I’m very much not the only one. ‘Respected’ folks like Dalrock seem to be taking more issue with her as well. Her response to Rivelino struck me as churlish and immature–brushing him off with a mere declaration of “sadism” rather than engaging his points in any substantive manner–and here, with Dalrock, I do agree, her arguments seem weak and evasive. I don’t even agree with Doug1 about male infidelity being a “frivolous” reason for divorce, but to say that divorce doesn’t hurt men disproportionately without even a cursory examination of the evidence (the number of divorced guys who kill themselves, for instance) strikes me as…well, pathetic. It is, I would say, almost a textbook example of what the harder-core misogynists say Women Are Like: incapable or unwilling to engage in rational debate, falling instead to their emotions and running off in a huff, along with a few insults cast back along the way. Again, I don’t say this to agree with them, I say this as a comment on what a pity it is, as Susan did indeed strike me as one of the more reasonable female voices around this corner of the internet.*

    Perhaps this has to do with Ms. Walsh’s mission. She claims,

    I am biased. I want people to be in relationships. I want them to get married. I want them to be loyal, faithful spouses who stay together through the rough times…If you don’t believe in monogamy, fine. If you want to advise men to never marry, that is your right. If you believe I’ve climbed onto a deck chair on the Titanic, you’re entitled to your opinion. You may even be right. But I don’t want to hear about it. It’s not my thing, and it’s counter to the mission of what I’m trying to accomplish here.

    Here’s the problem, Ms. Walsh. You are, of course, free to ignore a humble nameless drive-by Hurpadurp such as myself, but before you do, consider this. Did you ever pause to think about whether or not this attitude is conducive to your mission? In my view, it is precisely the opposite–absolutely cripping. Your refusal to “hear about” what folks on the other side think, your “refusal” to entertain either on your blog or here any consideration at all about why men would want to avoid marriage or relationships will make it close to impossible for you to provide any meaningful, constructive advice in helping others “navigate the hostile terrain of the contemporary SMP to get a relationship.” I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise to you, Ms. Walsh, but those of us who advocate bachelorhood–or “Dark Game”–or whatever weren’t born that way, we were made that way by the SMP around us. If you ever want to figure out why the contemporary SMP is so hostile, what would have to change for both men and women to be eager about marrying again, and why so many men feel not only aggrieved but skeptical of any female claim of “having it just as bad” in any respect, then seriously grappling with the ideas of “sadists” like Rivelino and guys like Doug1 will HAVE to be “your thing.” Because it is this rising tide of male discontent that is at the root of many of the problems your blog seeks to address. Nobody will be able to “navigate the hostile terrain” of the SMP without understanding why it’s become so hostile for 50% of the participants and why many of those participants have elected to drop out entirely.

    *Ah, by the way, this reminds me–perhaps a bit of advice for Hollenhund. You obviously have a very low opinion of not only women in general but Susan in particular, which I wouldn’t argue with, but if you’re going to badmouth someone or the group they belong to, it seems somewhat imprudent to do so while still posting on their blogs. What, exactly, is the point of continuing to hang around and leave comments on HUS if the authoress is, in your estimation, as mendacious, irrational, and ill-willed as you believe she is, judging by your comments here and elsewhere? If I had an equally low opinion of Dalrock, I wouldn’t post here, and I suspect he would be a bit less likely to approve my comments if he saw me over at HUS opining on what a wretch he was. I wonder, might not the same apply to Ms. Walsh?

  134. 7man says:

    The (majority of) women accomplished nothing in this “debate” except demonstrate that they don’t care about fairness, men or children. They are just in in for women and to keep their options open. This is hypergamy. This leads to cats and dying alone (one of women’s worst fears).

  135. bobsutan says:

    Infidelity is grounds for a fault-based divorce in many if not most states. The bulk of marriages are no-fault. If infidelity is the cited claim, then those should be discounted since we’re looking at primarily no-fault divorces these days.

  136. mjay says:

    Who is to blame for an incident of infidelity after years of frigidity and coldness from a wife?

  137. Lavazza says:

    mjay: An equal standard would be “You can get satisfaction elsewhere as long as you give me minimum satisfaction as well, and not giving satisfaction is grounds for scot free divorce”.

  138. Legion says:

    TFH says:
    December 21, 2011 at 2:04 am

    Civil Engineer in land development here. New England was not the place to find employment the last couple years. I’m now living with my brother in the midwest and looking locally and fedrally. No alimony as she made more than I as she is a corporate drone.

    I will be seeing my son for the holidays back in NE. She will let me stay at the condo they live at. It was a very cold decision to divorce me, but she is more concerned about our son. I was certaintly the major caregiver as he grew up and she must realize how important I am to him. He’s over 18 so no child support any more.

  139. deti says:

    I’m really late to this thread. I say this as someone with respect for both Dalrock and Walsh.

    1. Doug1′s arrangement with his paramour is not the point.

    2. It appears to be true that married men cheat more than married women do.

    3. Doug1 and Dalrock are correct that a woman’s cheating is far more damaging to a marriage than a man’s cheating. Typically when a man cheats he has no intention of divorcing his wife or refusing to support her or leaving her. When a woman cheats, she no longer wants anything to do with the man she’s cheated on. Her mind and heart have already left the marriage. I don’t have the source but F. Roger Devlin said in one of his essays that research has shown that women a woman cheats, she is 100% done with the marriage. This has certainly been my experience and I’ve seen this pattern when the wife leaves after infidelity. If he cheated behind her back, there is some chance to save the marriage. If she cheated, the marriage’s end is a foregone conclusion.

    4. The point here is Susan’s statement that women initiate divorce far more often than women do, and “he breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me.” implies an assertion that husband infidelity is driving female initiated divorce. And the claim that frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown” in the manosphere. Given the stats Dalrock has shown here, it does appear that the exact opposite of what Susan asserted is true. There is a large plurailty of younger women divorcing due to reasons OTHER THAN husbandly infidelity.

    5. With due respect to Susan, claims that her statements were “taken out of context” and that another commenter offered poorly reasoned argument are weak sauce. Susan’s and her commenters’ indignation at Doug1′s arrangement is not the point. The point is that frivolous divorce IS a problem — a very, very big problem — and that men are not driving frivolous divorce. Women are. It is NOT “exaggerated and overblown”. If anything, it is downplayed and minimzed.

  140. Keoni Galt says:

    Good points deti. I’m way late to this thread myself, so I’d just like to answer the initial question posed by Dalrock:

    Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere?

    Not only no, but HELL NO.

    The manosphere is just about the ONLY place you’ll find a discussion about the topic to begin with!

  141. PT Barnum says:

    For a good look at the absolute silence with which smart women like Susan Walsh support absolutely anti-man laws, try to look up on any state website the laws regarding Paternity, DNA testing/Blood Typing, and Child Support. It’s almost impossible.

    Because, you know, saying outright “If you were dumb enough to except her lies, then you are going to pay Child Support. We don’t care if DNA testing or blood typing indicate that it isn’t your kid. You man-slave, you pay!” might confuse the male-animal about the purity of cupcake.

    Instead, smart women and their Alpha Enablers(need someone to take care of their children, eh?) are silent about this issue.

    And this has been an issue for almost a century. While it is true that Blood Type doesn’t catch all paternity fraud, it catches SOME. And the laws DEMAND that the cock-cold male animal pay up!

    That’s the 1950s for you. Americans have always allowed their harlots… I mean women… to be completely out of control.

    So no, other countries are not going to “catch-up” to America. America/England has always been the rabid leader of the rabid females.

  142. Deti NACWALT or something like that, and I mean that to be silly sounding because I do not subscribe to NA______ arguments. I was saying not all cheating women are like that, being done with the marriage while they bang away. I can vouch. I do not want to give them the screwed up moral hat tip that it gives them when its stated they dont cheat until they are done with the marriage. Nope. This dovetails with another issue that I mention illustratively, not to introduce a new subject, but men are told especially in church that we need to heat the women all day if we want a warm oven and night, or similar BS about wooing and the like. Yea yea thats all great, the paramour must be a friggin microwave then because when he calls and says he’s in the area and has 15 minutes, she may be leaning against the bench in the high school baseball field dugout in mere minutes……DING! Express Cook. They go a’ruttin’ some too. OR, they wanna rut and not have to deal with the jerk anymore (hubby) so ostensibly are done with the marriage…whatever…they are no less morally repugnant for it.

    Frivolous divorce is not overstated in manosphere. Its understated everywhere else. How many of you men have experienced the eye glaze when you tell some dude that 3/4 of divorces are filed by women. Its just not important to the useful idiots, it doesn’t fit the paradigm, so ignore it, or force fit it. If we had any other root cause of multiple social pathologies that could be tied to an action so overwhelmingly done by one gender, the gubmit would marshal its resources and create a vaccine or something. Wait…..they have and do, see ADD meds and boys…..anyway…..

  143. deti says:

    “Now whether infidelity is an acceptable reason is not what is in debate here. What was being discussed is whether the amount of women divorcing their husbands are filing due to infidelity or something else, like not being happy or abuse”

    Susan Walsh: “That is the debate that Dalrock has set up, but that was the debate at HUS, which is what Rmaxd quoted. It was strictly about divorcing due to infidelity. Dalrock wrote this post based on Rmax’s excerpt, but in doing so without reading the thread for context he erred.”

    After rereading this and SW’s “exaggerated and overblown” statement, I’d give SW some benefit of the doubt. It makes me wonder if her fact-devoid statement that female initiated “frivolous divorce” was “exaggerated and overblown” was made in the heat of contentious debate on the topic of the right of cheated-on wives to divorce.

    If it really was just a throwaway comment, Susan should have no trouble retracting it.

  144. Pingback: Susan is a normal woman: greyghost on Susan « Rivelino in Spain

  145. Pingback: Dalrock gives Susan some free advice « Rivelino in Spain

  146. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    Kathy hasn’t left one comment on TC since its inception. She doesn’t hang out there. I’m not sure what happened (nor do I care that’s between she and Alte). But clearly she doesn’t change her stripes when commenting on a blog edited by women.

    I’ve had Kathy in moderation off and on through her series of dramatic exits. I have to confess I find her entertaining, and her continued volunteering to be the poster child for the Trad Con woman going full Team Woman is a sort of free gift. Most of the reason I keep her in moderation is her tendency to mix it up with the other women commenting. If I let these through the discussion section would be a never ending (pardon the pun) cat fight. Her most recent promise to never visit this site again (3rd time) was in fact due to me deleting a catty response she made to one of your comments.

    With all of this said, I’m tiring of her. She has earned her poster child spot many times over, and I find her less entertaining now. Unless she writes something especially entertaining I won’t be allowing further comments of hers through.

  147. Pingback: imnobody and hurp on Susan « Rivelino in Spain

  148. deti says:

    Empath:

    Women who cheat on their husbands, having hot monkey sex with a badboy thug while playing the role of the faithful wife, are even worse than those who cheat and then seek divorce. Those women are not only cheaters, but also liars, deceivers, connivers and manipulators. I also don’t think they can keep it up if they have husbands who are paying attention. Is it any wonder that men worry about their wives cheating?

    Certainly, not all women are like that. There are enough women who are exactly like that. And that’s a big part of the problem, IMO.

    Agree with your statement about Christian men being expected to “warm it” at home. All this has really made me rethink the “Fireproof”/Promise Keepers movement. Even among Christian communities, men are expected to do all the work, bring all the assets, make her feel loved/safe/protected/provisioned. She need only bring….. her awesomely awesome self. The woman’s “virtue” and devotion to the marriage are presumed. If there is something wrong in the marriage, it is presumed to be the husband’s fault. The church attitude of “love your wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” is translated by many women — and even pastors — as “the man/husband has to do everything for me, give me everything I want/need/desire, and cater to my every whim.”

    What is conveniently omitted is the exhortation for wives to respect their husbands — which, IIRC, St. Paul states FIRST, BEFORE the instruction to men to love their wives.

  149. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    Along with ultimate custody and child support, another huge incentive for women that plays on the inability to think in the abstract very well, is that the day of filing, man magically is out, a visitor to kids at his own home. Hey happy day, life is same….minus the jerk….yippee!

    Spot on. One woman I quoted in this post said her vision of divorce was “a neutron bomb for men”:

    This fantasizing was the perfect antidote to a marriage that had become a struggle for power over the smallest of choices. The problem with my life, as I saw it then, was my husband, and I imagined divorce as a process that would remove him but change little else — a sort of neutron bomb that eliminated men but left the rest of the world intact.

    Your other point is a bullseye as well:

    Only get close to the final date and women mostly panic. My lawyer, practice for decades, told me overwhelmingly women want to delay final date, they fear having no hold on the man, that he wont even have to pick up her calls, that the resource split is done, fixed, and she must make it work…..oh and she has no more chances to have the man officially declared an asshole by a judge and on states record.

    Divorce is very often about power, a way women can toy with the husband like a cat would a wounded bird. I have a post in the works where the psychology of this is on full display. My wife and I were also talking about a woman she knows just last night which is right in line with this. The woman left over a dramatic manufactured issue and then moved in with her folks. He repeatedly tried to contact her to work on the issue, but eventually she overplayed her hand and threatened to call the cops on him if he came back. This was about 60 days into it, and he then filed for divorce and it was over very quickly. She told my wife she had thought she could have a 1 year separation where he tried to win her back, and then she could get back together with him following a re-commitment ceremony. It all backfired on her horribly. Now he is married to another (younger, prettier) woman and she is living with a man who can’t hold down a job, doesn’t have a driver’s license, and only avoids being homeless and starving because his mother bought him a house to live in and has groceries delivered weekly.

  150. Solid story, perfectly illustrative. My lawyer (man) never revealed client info. But I knew him fairly well and he was a member at same church, so his cell would ring and when he’d come back he’d say yep, another gal inside week of final date, and proceed to give me his anecdotal experience from 3 decades of representing both. He claimed it was like 90% of the women filers who went into panic near the end. One that called he shared and I forget the specifics, but she was getting a golf fairway side home in The Woodlands, some enormous voluntary temporary support plus above state max on CS, in other words she was bank. Even she was freaking out, asking him, is there nothing else we can file?

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    After rereading this and SW’s “exaggerated and overblown” statement, I’d give SW some benefit of the doubt. It makes me wonder if her fact-devoid statement that female initiated “frivolous divorce” was “exaggerated and overblown” was made in the heat of contentious debate on the topic of the right of cheated-on wives to divorce.

    You mean, if a factless statement was made by a woman when she was angry, it doesn’t count? So…her words don’t always have to mean anything, the way men’s words always do? In other words, you hold her to a lower standard of responsibility, than you would hold any man?Is that what you mean? Yeah, these are rhetorical, even leading, questions, but I’m not trolling for a flame from the person under discussion. I slept on this thread list night rather than comment in hasty annoyance. And it has come to me that we have here an example of the feminist mindset at work.

    Seriously, it seem to me that the petulance this person has demonstrated stems from men actually taking her words as having meaning, and substantially disagreeing with her. She wants to be able to toss off random comments that are quite provacative, but without anyone actually taking them as serious observations, and challenging them in any material way. She wants to have her cake and eat it , too. I shall elucidate.

    Back in the 80′s, 2nd wave feminists used to stamp their feet and demand “Take me seriously dammit!” in a variety of ways. And some of them were, and are, real serious people. I’ve worked with a few. But very, very few. Because, to be brutally frank, most women are not as intelligent as they have been told they are; I recall more than one situation where a young, professional, woman would stand up to present something in her power suit & her “Take me seriously, dammit!” demeanor, and part way through it became obvious to me that she really was not nearly as prepared, or smart, as she was pretending to be. But pointing out the unpleasant fact, no matter how gently, usually got rumblings of “don’t badger her!” from the white knight brigade, and fussy clucking – or even hissing, in one case – from the estrogen gallery.

    So what it often boils down to is this” Take me seriously, dammit, but don’t ask me any hard questions”. In other words, “pretend that I am your equal in this task, but do not expect me to actually meet all of the same standards”. And it should be no surprise that a 2nd wave feminist, or perhaps the better term is 2nd stage feminist (feminism-as-social-cancer) would act in this way.

    If it really was just a throwaway comment, Susan should have no trouble retracting it.

    In my very limited experience, the person under discussion never retracts anything, no matter how many times it is proven to be incorrect, misstated or flat out wrong. It just does not happen. It really does show me a gaping chasm between the oh-so-sincere “fairness” that is touted, and the nasty, snarky, “I don’t have to prove anything I say” attitude that underlies.

    But we are not supposed to notice this. we are supposed to praise her to the skies, because she does not hate men nearly so deeply as many other 2nd wave feminist women do, and actually has some traces of empathy for men…rather in the same sense that a farmer has for his livestock, though. It’s thin gruel, and this person is not interested in justice, nor in fairness, but only in helping her young women in her finishing school. That’s apparently very impressive to many, to me it looks like a kinder, slightly nicer, version of the same gynocentric misandry I’ve seen for decades. But I freely admit my experience interacting with this person is limited – and I see no reason to change that, either. I’ve had plenty of experience with 2nd wave feminists over the years, in a variety of situations, quite a few of them unpleasant – don’t really need to actively seek out more of the same.

    To sum up: 2nd wave feminists are not supposed to have to put up with any mer man challenging their facts, or opinions, at any time. So it’s always a shock to them when some mere knuckle-dragging troglodyte actually does so – and it is much worse for him if the facts are clearly on his side. Because that makes her unhaaapy. And the sole function of civilization is to make women haaapy. That’s been feminist gospel for nigh on 40 years…

    Most people rarely examine the premises of their thinking. In my experience, 2nd wave feminists are incapable of doing this at all. Any attempt to make them do so is a direct threat to their carefully cultivated persona, and must be met with varying degrees of anger, ranging all the way up to fury.

  152. Sweet As says:

    From a purely emotional stand point, I have to say that if my husband cheated, it would wound me deeply.

    I know that “rationally” it’s safe to say that a woman’s cheating is “worse” because she has emotionally left, where they man has simply cheated. But to a woman, his cheating IS emotional for her.

    That is to say, I would feel deeply inadequate, deeply rejected, deeply unattractive, my trust broken. Heart broken.

    I still may not seek divorce, but at a certain point — if he were to continue against my feelings — I think it would be fair for me to leave rather than continuing to “take the emotional punches.”

    Just because a man may not see cheating as a “big deal” — when he steps out or she, how it’s “just a physical thing” — the reality for ME is much different. It would be an emotional “punch” — and a hard hitting one with every kiss, every dalliance, and every sexual act he commits with another woman.

    And that is hurtful. Abusive even.

    Unless there is another agreement (Doug1 example). I have no such agreement with my husband, and I dare say I’d allow it.

    Perhaps this is just another thing for the manosphere to complain about women — that we are emotional, and that when our partner cheats (particularly when we want fidelity and are faithful and have no intention of leaving, etc), it hurts. It hurts a lot.

  153. Pingback: Deti has respect for both Dalrock and Susan « Rivelino in Spain

  154. Sweet As says:

    To clarify, if we would claim that it is abusive to take actual, physical punches (say, more than one), then I claim that taking excessive emotional punches (whether from a man or a woman) via cheating (say, more than once — after it’s been discussed and promises remade and a relationship on the mend) is also “taking” abuse.

    And I think abuse is a reasonable reason to leave.

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    +1 on Hurpadurp’s aside on the suicide rate for divorced men. It is surely not a secret that men who are somewhere in the divorce machine (early stage, mid stage, late stage, etc.) are much more prone to die from all causes, specifically including suicide. In fact, the other day I was reading an article on stress as a threat to health and longevity, and there was a table listing known stressors & their probability of increasing harm. One of them caught my eye: it was “Divorce XX% (for men). That’s right, while “death of a close relative” was listed as a significant stress source for both men and women, divorce was listed as a stressor for men…only.

    There is no question that divorce harms children. There is no question that divorce harms men. The data make it clear that 60% or more of divorces are filed by women, and the vast majority are not for adultery. The conclusion is rather obvious, to an observer without a gynocentric bias.

  156. CL says:

    @ Anonymous Reader
    In my very limited experience, the person under discussion never retracts anything, no matter how many times it is proven to be incorrect, misstated or flat out wrong. It just does not happen.

    This is the problem right here. The irony is that it would be so much easier and one would look less of a fool if one could just back off a statement and concede a point once in a while, rather than digging the hole deeper and deeper. Either most are too stupid to know when they’re in over their heads, or they have too much ego wrapped up in their projects. Could be six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    As a wise man once said: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

  157. deti says:

    Anon Reader: “You mean, if a factless statement was made by a woman when she was angry, it doesn’t count? So…her words don’t always have to mean anything, the way men’s words always do? In other words, you hold her to a lower standard of responsibility, than you would hold any man? Is that what you mean?”

    No. SW made a statement which might have been emotionally driven at best, erroneous and factually unsupported at worst. If she cannot defend it, she should have an opportunity to retract it. I’m not defending her statement. One who has made an incorrect statement can regain credibility through correction, clarification or withdrawal.

    To me, this is about the strength or weakness of the assertion that Dalrock isolated and analyzed. If it cannot be supported, it can be retracted. I’ve had to do this before. Everyone has. It has nothing to do with her, or her status as a woman.

  158. Dalrock says:

    @CL

    This is the problem right here. The irony is that it would be so much easier and one would look less of a fool if one could just back off a statement and concede a point once in a while, rather than digging the hole deeper and deeper. Either most are too stupid to know when they’re in over their heads, or they have too much ego wrapped up in their projects. Could be six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    The strange thing is Susan’s entire defense is she didn’t claim anything other than men cheat more than women. Denial 101 says she should have deleted or edited her own comment on her site if she is going to pretend this though. Yet it was still there last I checked. Deleting it or editing it now would of course not really help, because I’ve saved a copy of the page and I know many of my readers have followed the link and saw her own words.

    I think everyone here has run into cases where someone said something and then later simply denied they said it. They merely stonewall with You must have misheard me. I think this is a tactic Roissy advises. Yet I’ve never seen someone do this exact same tactic when the discussion is all in writing, in public.

  159. Anon says:

    Men do not cheat more than women. They cheat about the same, and you’re right that when women cheat, it’s more disastrous and almost always ends in divorce. This is because the women who cheat have usually given up on the marriage, whereas men who cheat are often just asshats who were looking for some excitement on the side and had no desire to have it affect the marriage.

    Divorce is way too frivolous today. Although women initiate most of them, it’s not always a rock-solid indicator of what happened. For example, my wife was the one who wanted a divorce, but I was the one who filed and pushed the paperwork through. I didn’t want a divorce, but you can only have a marriage if both parties want it. I had to file because if I’d relied on her to do that, it would have taken an extra year or two, and I just wanted to begin the moving-on process.

    Getting married is too much of a crapshoot today and it shouldn’t be that way. Women broke it (even if their intentions were noble). Unfortunately, they no longer hold the key to fixing it as they’ve started something that has too much momentum… it will take another generation or two, and during that time, men will have to be more and more careful about making any sort of commitment, including marriage.

  160. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    To me, this is about the strength or weakness of the assertion that Dalrock isolated and analyzed. If it cannot be supported, it can be retracted. I’ve had to do this before. Everyone has.

    No, “everyone” has not had to do this. Not in my experience. A more accurate statement would be “every serious person has had to do this”, perhaps? Because as I pointed out before, persons of privilege – very often women – are exempt from this. Not explicitly, to be sure. But exempt nevertheless – indeed, there are entire academic fields of study that are exempt from this.

    It has nothing to do with her, or her status as a woman.

    To be a bit more accurate: your position has nothing to with her, or her status as a woman.

    But the entire drama so far, from the flippantly false comment, to the equally flippant and contempt-filled “you prove your claim or STFU but I don’t have to prove anything”, to the stack of logical fallacies directed against one of Dalrock’s sources, to shifting the goalposts from “do women tend to divorce frivolously more than men” to “do men cheat more”, to the inevitable “I’m not going to post her anymore tonight ” followed by 4 more postings, has everything to do with the status of the 2nd wave feminist in question. Everything. It’s a pattern that I’ve seen for years and years, and often it all starts from a man taking a woman’s statement seriously & holding it up to see if it is true or not.

  161. deti says:

    Sweet As: I second all your comments. A man’s cheating on his wife can be very hurtful to her. It is grounds for divorce if done surreptitiously. I know of no married woman who would agree to the kind of one way open with rules relationship Doug1 has with his SO. I don’t deny all those negative emotions can result from a husband’s infidelity. It is detrimental to the marriage and if done without consent is abusive. But the larger point was the difference between the effect each spouse’s cheating has on the marriage and the cheating spouse’s relationship to the marriage.

    Leave aside the moral considerations for a moment: A man who cheats typically wants sexual variety and wants to stay married. This is why you hear so often of men who have an affair or series of affairs, and refuse to divorce their wives. He is fulfilling his imperative: to spread his seed far and wide. A woman who cheats is doing so because she is no longer in love with the current husband and is looking for a new one. She fulfills her imperative: hypergamy, trading up, and serial monogamy.

  162. imnobody says:

    OMG! OMG!!!

    woman left over a dramatic manufactured issue and then moved in with her folks. He repeatedly tried to contact her to work on the issue, but eventually she overplayed her hand and threatened to call the cops on him if he came back. This was about 60 days into it, and he then filed for divorce and it was over very quickly. She told my wife she had thought she could have a 1 year separation where he tried to win her back, and then she could get back together with him following a re-commitment ceremony.

    Please, when I think I have heard everything about American women, I read that. How moron can American women get?

    It all backfired on her horribly. Now he is married to another (younger, prettier) woman and she is living with a man who can’t hold down a job, doesn’t have a driver’s license, and only avoids being homeless and starving because his mother bought him a house to live in and has groceries delivered weekly.

    Repeat after me: S-TU-PID

  163. Anon

    We all know that everything depends on everything. To whatever the issue, i can post “yea that depends on the individual, my aunts cousin rents an apartment over the garage to a guy who did it this other way, so see, it all depends on the people”
    We know that filing is not a rock solid indicator, in fact, so did lots of smart people who studied this whole mess, and they allowed for your situation and countless others, as unique as pretty snowflakes. Then once they drilled down into enough of those snowflakes, they looked up, checked again, and saw their conclusions were still valid inside the same statistical ranges.
    We have to get away from this thing where we consider “it depends on the individuals” to be an answer sociological utility. We are a group, discussing groups, large groups. To say it depends on the individual is very common for women responders, as they must personalize things in order to process them, but it leads to a very skewed and flawed view of the world that is not at all useful.
    Imagine all the fields of medicine and psychiatry and psychology and pharmacology etc etc that would be instantly rendered useless if “it depends on the individual” was operative.

  164. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    With all of this said, I’m tiring of her. She has earned her poster child spot many times over, and I find her less entertaining now. Unless she writes something especially entertaining I won’t be allowing further comments of hers through.

    Note that this is the equivalent of permanently denying a male porn viewer access to Internet porn. Kathy has no other place to go to get gina tingles.

  165. TFH says:

    Legion,

    That is tough. If your ex-wife really cared about your son, she would have recognized the importance of maintaining a two-parent household.

    Plus, you had to pay child support even though you were laid off at the time of divorce.

    More and more, I see that fathers are much more capable of putting the child’s needs ahead of their own, than the mother is. Women are more selfish.

  166. deti says:

    Anon Reader:

    I agree that SW has to (1) either support the statement with facts; or (2) correct, clarify or withdraw it. I also agree that she is biased. Who isn’t? I also agree there has been no serious defense of the statement that frivolous divorce by women is an “exaggerated and overblown” meme in the manosphere. SW isn’t being treated any differently from anyone else who makes assertions — it’s being factually scrutinized.

    You seem to think I’m trying to defend SW. I’m not. That having been said, neither do I want to attack her personally. I do reject this one unsupported statement she’s made. She’s not a perfect ally, but she is one nevertheless. I’m pointing out that the way out of this is to defend it or withdraw it. To me, that is the way of honorable debate.

  167. CL says:

    @ Dalrock
    I think everyone here has run into cases where someone said something and then later simply denied they said it. They merely stonewall with You must have misheard me. I think this is a tactic Roissy advises. Yet I’ve never seen someone do this exact same tactic when the discussion is all in writing, in public.

    I’ve been quietly watching this thread and it’s just bizarre, some of the things that have been said. Kathy’s assertion that blogs are next to useless is simply ignorant. Who remembers Rathergate? Anyone seen how newspaper shares have plummeted in recent years due to their poor journalism and the rise of blogs? And if blogs are so useless, why so much indignation at your refutation of something said on another [useless] blog?

    You need a thick skin if you’re going to put your opinions on the Internet, and you have to be careful what you say if you don’t want it to come back and bite you in the ass. I’ve made my mistakes too but there’s no sense in justifying them. It’s funny when people run over to defend themselves – what a waste of time that is! At least Sheila Gregoire had the sense mostly just to let the criticism blow over.

    A lot of things make a lot more sense in light of the concept of Team Woman.

  168. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sweet As, I agree with your position and I agree with your reasoning. Since women need love, I mean they really need it, cheating in an LTR/marriage can do very real emotional harm. It can be one of those “aww, sh*t” moments that requires a near-infinite number of “ataboys” to get over. It could be so painful as to essentially end the relationship. I do understand that. Not all men do, to be sure. I would stipulate that in the modern world, a woman who needs fidelity as part of being loved ought to make that clear as early in the relationship as possible. Unfortunately, a woman likely does not know about her own, deeper, needs when she’s young (the same applies to men) so a newly married woman may have an unspoken, unthought assumption of fidelity in an absolute sense, while the man may not even think of such a thing as mattering. I used to scoff at pre-marital counseling sessions, but now will reluctantly concede there could be some utility, provided the usual “men bad! You bad man? You be good, or else!” form of such things were not followed. Because properly done, the couple would find things out about each other, and about themselves, that will surely affect the future relationship. Things like, oh, how much public affection is needed/required/expected, what kind of relationship with parents and other relatives is desired, how budgets are to be set up and adhered to, and of course things like degree of fidelity needed.

    Now I shall tag onto your posting with a related, but different point. You wrote this:
    That is to say, I would feel deeply inadequate, deeply rejected, deeply unattractive, my trust broken. Heart broken.

    This is exactly how some men feel when their wives reject them off hand for sex. Especially if it is done in anger. As momentarily satisfying as it might be for an angry woman to shove a man away from her while hissing “don’t touch me”, especially in bed, she might think twice about that. Because such an action is a betrayal of trust, a deep rejection, that can leave him feeling deeply inadequate and unattractive. Please, do not feel I am directing this at you, or any other particular woman who posts here. I am taking the opportunity to point out that just as there are ways a man can betray a woman and leave her feeling totally unloved, there are ways a woman can betray a man and leave him feeling that she has nothing but contempt for him. That can take a long time to remedy, too; a lot of “attagirls” to restore his trust may be needed.

  169. CL says:

    BTW Dalrock, you can change how many links a comment can have before it goes into moderation in the settings. (I put two links in mine and am in moderation limbo).

  170. deti says:

    CL “It’s funny when people run over to defend themselves – what a waste of time that is! At least Sheila Gregoire had the sense mostly just to let the criticism blow over.”

    Gregoire came here and offered a silly defense of “Fireproof” by asserting husband infidelity because of his viewing pornography. After several posters called her out on it, she did not respond. I believe she continues to blog But she lost a lot of credibility in my view. gregoire could have mounted a statistical or Biblical defense of her position but she didn’t.

    I believe SW has to defend the statement or correct, clarify or withdraw it.

  171. ruddyturnstone says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    “Back in the 80′s, 2nd wave feminists used to stamp their feet and demand ‘Take me seriously dammit!’ in a variety of ways. And some of them were, and are, real serious people. I’ve worked with a few. But very, very few. Because, to be brutally frank, most women are not as intelligent as they have been told they are; I recall more than one situation where a young, professional, woman would stand up to present something in her power suit & her ‘Take me seriously, dammit!’ demeanor, and part way through it became obvious to me that she really was not nearly as prepared, or smart, as she was pretending to be. But pointing out the unpleasant fact, no matter how gently, usually got rumblings of ‘don’t badger her!’ from the white knight brigade, and fussy clucking – or even hissing, in one case – from the estrogen gallery.”

    This is so true! Over and over again, I have seen and heard a woman in academic and professional contexts, and in simple discussions, demand to be “taken seriously.” She starts out going toe to toe with a male interlocutor, but, along the way, it becomes obvious that she doesn’t really know what she was talking about, has her facts wrong, can not respond in a coherent way to a rational counter argument, etc, etc. That’s when the appeals to chivalry begins. The woman will first resort to coquettry and flirting, acting like a helpless, silly girl, trying to change the subject to some “girly” topic, acting “cute,” and perhaps even flaunting her sexuality and/or coming on to the guy, next, if that doesn’t work, she will try to make it personal in some way, such as by attacking the masculinity of the man she is conflict with, and, finally, if all else fails, she resorts to the tried and true favorite female tactic, ie pout and turn on the waterworks and start crying. Then, the male interlocutor ends up looking like “the asshole” to any white knights or other women listening in. Worse yet, because of social conditioning, and perhaps even biology, he even feels himself that he is “the asshole” and apologizes and backs off.

    “So what it often boils down to is this: ‘Take me seriously, dammit, but don’t ask me any hard questions.’ In other words, ‘pretend that I am your equal in this task, but do not expect me to actually meet all of the same standards.’ And it should be no surprise that a 2nd wave feminist, or perhaps the better term is 2nd stage feminist (feminism-as-social-cancer) would act in this way.”

    Again, spot on. The only caveat I have is that this behavior is not limited to second wave feminists or feminists of whatever “wave,” rather, most women behave this way. They start out by relying on feminist claims of equality of ability and feminist demands for equality of treatment. But, when they don’t measure up, when it becomes clear that their ability (or the amount of work they have put in) is simply not equal to that of the man they are arguing with, and therefore, their claim to equality of treatment is not warranted, they fall back on traditional notions of chivalry. “We are all equal” is the starting point, but when they fail to keep on a fair and level racetrack they demand a distaff handicap.

  172. TFH says:

    Since Susan has not commented today, that means :

    1) She knows she is cornered with data that she herself demanded (betting that no one could provide it).

    2) She will come back in a few days pretending that this debate never happened (standard female tactic).

  173. TFH says:

    Because, to be brutally frank, most women are not as intelligent as they have been told they are;

    There are very few productive tasks that women can do better than a 12-year-old boy.

  174. ruddyturnstone says:

    empathologicalism:

    “Only get close to the final date and women mostly panic. My lawyer, practice for decades, told me overwhelmingly women want to delay final date, they fear having no hold on the man, that he wont even have to pick up her calls, that the resource split is done, fixed, and she must make it work…..oh and she has no more chances to have the man officially declared an asshole by a judge and on states record.”.

    Oh God, this is so true! So many times, the woman wants the divorce, even though there is no real reason for it (“I don’t feel haaaapy….I love you but I am no longer IN LOVE…I don’t feel ‘fulfilled’….”). The husband is shell shocked, he doesn’t know what he did wrong. He moves heaven and earth to try to win her back, but gets nowhere. She is does not want him back, period, she says.

    But, meanwhile, she drags out the process as much as possible. Sure, she gets him kicked out of the house and out of his kids’ lives as quickly as possible. But, after that, she starts dragging her feet. She has her lawyers contest every point, no matter how petty and no matter how frivolous the legal argument. She won’t agree to anything. She has her lawyers write pointless letters to the husband and his lawyer, going on and on about stuff that has no relevance to the divorce whatsoever, particularly in no fault jurisdictions. She just wants to twist the knife over and over again, and repeat to all and sundry, including not only the judge, the other court officials and the attorneys, but the husband’s friends and family too, just what a jerk her husband is. It is not all unusual for wives in the divorce process to try to enlist her husband’s initmate family members (his parents, his siblings) against him. She really thinks that they are going to take her side! Or else she just gets off on bad mouthing him to the people who matter to him. And, mind you, again, this is in cases where there isn’t even a claim of adultery or violence and suchlike. Some of it might be simple sadism, like telling him he can see the kids on such and such a date, but then changing her mind. Or PASing the kids into hating him, and then claiming it is “their choice” whether they want to see him or not. But, at a certain point, it becomes clear that, even though she has gotten her way on almost all the issues (the house, the money, the kids), she just wants to drag the process out. She invents new controversies at the last minute. She conjures up reasons to come and “visit” the guy at his new, bogus apartment. She calls him up to do favors for her and offer to do favors for him. She starts snooping into any attempts at dating that he may have begun. She sends the guy a million mixed messages, alternating between acting “nice” to the point of perhaps going beyond merely keeping it “agreeable and civil” to positing a chance of reconciliation, and resorting to the role of the shrew.

    These women thrive on the drama. They love it if their lives resemble a romance novel or soap opera. They love having met a new guy, and then using their soon to be ex husband to make him jealous, and vice versa. They love the fighting, the yelling and screaming, even the hint of a possibility of violence.

    Believe it or not, I have even heard a woman who filed for divorce, months into the process, right on the verge of a final judgement, tell the husband that it was all, essentially, just a “shit test.” “I wanted to see if you would ‘fight’ for me, but you didn’t….” Like a fucking freshman in high school with her first boyfriend! Unbelievable, but true.

  175. Anonymosu Reader says:

    Deti, all I was wondering was if you were giving her more slack because “she’s a gurl”. I’m satisfied that isn’t the case.

    The rest of my reply to you is intended to point out that this is not just an isolated incident, it is part of a large pattern. A larger pattern for the 2nd stage feminist in question, and an even larger multi-decade pattern of 2nd stage feminists as a group. It’s bad behavior, and it ought to be pointed out as such. It would be good for women if more people called upon them to act like adulls, in general. we can’t go around extending adult privileges to people who insist on getting a “free pass” on the hard stuff any more.

  176. hurp says:

    Already thanked you on your blog, but much appreciate the shoutout, Rivelino :)

  177. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH, in all fairness, it could be that Walsh is actually doing some research into the topic. Perhaps she is reading through Dalrock’s articles on divorce theft. Perhaps family matters have her attention; she has children and Christmas is just a few days away, you know. There are more reasons than you have listed for her absence from this thread. No point in assuming you know what she’s doing.

  178. Suz says:

    Yes, PT Barnum, (as another illusion shatters) I’ve worked with quite a few young low-income girls over the years. I used to be so proud of them when they’d say they weren’t in a hurry to get married; I figured they were planning to make something of themselves. While most of them have not married, the majority of them got pregnant instead of getting job skills.

  179. Pingback: Dalrock on the strange thing about Susan « Rivelino in Spain

  180. Doug1 says:

    Susan Walsh

    “That should read, “Basically Doug1 was not saying that women should not be able to divorce for adultery…”

    I’ve offered ample evidence here that Doug1 was saying exactly that. As in, direct quotes. How do you fail to understand?

    No you haven’t. That’s not what I said in the direct quotes. I didn’t say she shouldn’t be legally able to divorce him for adultery, and I certainly didn’t no matter how he has conducted his infidelity or no matter how much time he’s spent on that.

    I said it was nuts of them to do it in certain types of adulteries, not that they shouldn’t be able to do it. It’s more nuts and I think morally wrong to do it for a one off fling that he stops when discovered if they have young kids. It’s nuts if they have a good relationship, he hasn’t neglected her emotionally or sexually, and has been discreet, and if she’s been socially humiliated it’s entirely because she hasn’t been discreet but goes blabbing to her girlfriends, who then subtly or not so subtly urge her to divorce him.

    I think you’re rather out of your head jealous in irrational ways Susan, and attract girl comments who feel similarly to your blog.

  181. Doug1 says:

    Susan Walsh—

    Ok, but isn’t that one of the first complaints that the “credentialed” professional feminists and gender studies types make about you?

    Not that I know of! Langley had no platform, she wrote a book justifying her own infidelity and blamed it on her husband’s small penis. As far as I know, she has done no research on the topic, other than to interview a number of other adulterers.

    You haven’t read the book. I have. Well I sort of semi speed read it. Brendan’s read it as well. Not sure if Dalrock has or only Devlin’s summary of it. All but the last two or three chapters are very good. She mentions her husband’s penis in one place I think in one of the last three chapters. She interviewed about 180 female divorcees who were the ones who filed for divorce in the vast majority of cases who admitted they had one or more infidelity during marriage. That was quite a lot of research. She says she was motivated to do the research and write the for a long time solely (free) ebook in order to better understand her own infidelity and motivations for divorce. That rings true.

    You’re simply demonizing something you haven’t read. Her conclusions are largely similar to those of noted relationship and sex researcher Helen Fischer of Rutgers I think it is.

  182. Doug1 says:

    Deti—

    I don’t have the source but F. Roger Devlin said in one of his essays that research has shown that women a woman cheats, she is 100% done with the marriage. This has certainly been my experience and I’ve seen this pattern when the wife leaves after infidelity.

    I don’t think it’s anything like 100% but there’s a big risk. I don’t think her having a brief affair with a guy she doesn’t have strong emotional feelings for is likely to do it. That does happen sometimes. It’s also true that when women have stopped wanting to have sex with their husbands much and have an affair she’s often pretty much done with being in love with him before she begins it. However when women have an affair for whatever reason, even if she was still mostly in love with her husband, if she has great sex with another man who’s also compatible with her, she’ll be VERY likely to start falling in love with him, no want sex with her husband anymore and that might even repulse her, and from there her in love feelings and sense of bondedness to him will dissolve – because of her monogamist or serial monogamist female instincts.

  183. Doug1 says:

    “More specifically, you didn’t quote a comment in your reply where Doug1 asserted that women cheat more than men.”

    Are you serious? Do you think I respond on my own blog with blockquotes in case Rmaxd is lurking?

    I don’t even know what susan’s replay means

    Yeah I didn’t say women cheated more and she didn’t quote me saying that. I said the studies are showing that younger women in their thirties on down are admitting to cheating almost as much as men now. But she didn’t quote that here.

  184. "M" says:

    Deti: “I believe SW has to defend the statement or correct, clarify or withdraw it.”

    Actually, given Susan’s blog prominence and her position as advice giver, I believe she needs to do more than that. Given the preponderance of evidence (‘stats’) that Dalrock provided showing the exact opposite of what Susan said and the pertinence of that evidence to what she claims to be her mission, IMO she needs to research it in an unbiased manner and post the not-sanitized-for-Team-Woman findings, even if it pisses off her female readers. If she is truly interested in getting people into long-term *stable* relationships (marriage), then she needs to address the main causes of failure (hypergamy and the hamster) without a Team Woman cop-out.

    I believe she has said she research and post, but she also waffled by stating upfront that it would not satisfy MRA (foregone conclusion much?). So I am expectant, but not optimistic.

  185. Not a study by any means but here’s what I notice often with lower income women at the large office complex i work at. They meet their husband/bf before getting the job, then there they are at work with access to guys who are at a much higher education/income level than their current man. A sexual relationship follows with one of these guys, she convinces herself that she has “outgrown” her lower income spouse and leaves for greener (money green) grass. I’ve seen this play out dozens of times. I have also personally been approached by these women numerous times. So I do not buy the idea that women cheat less than men. I’d say 50/50.

  186. CL says:

    A big problem I see is that the title of her blog seems to be at odds with her supposed mission, which seems to have changed gradually over time so that at this point it’s impossible to even figure out what it is.

  187. will says:

    Susan Walsh is now on team woman due to her female audience which is the dominant demographic of her audience.

  188. Doug1 says:

    Susan–“Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    The simple answer is that 39% of the reasons given look pretty trivial and things that could have been resolved by working on it more. 16% of reasons given were cheating, but I’m not sure all of that was by men.

    As well I think some of the abuse reasons given would probably pretty trivial. Women are encouraged to call almost anything abuse these days. Him yelling back even louder at her for example, note I said back. Him finally exploding at her for endless nagging for example. (Not that I think either of those things are good alpha moves on his part, far to reactive.) I mean male “abuse” has been much on the minds of American women for the last several years.

  189. McGinnis says:

    Not hard facts or stats just anecdotal evidence here:

    I work in family law and my experience has been that:

    a. Women file for divorce more than men
    b. Women are generally more calculating when it comes to divorce. They are typically the ones who have been planning it and who have already researched how to squeeze the most assets out of a divorce. Men, on the other hand, usually want a divorce RIGHT NOW for specific reasons (infidelity, etc) and want it over quickly and with a minimum of fuss. They’ll often foolishly give themselves a raw deal in an effort to just get it over with.

    Once again, only anecdotal evidence based on my own 8 years of experience but it is enough of a trend that it is obvious in my day to day work.

    Women will often divorce on a ‘feeling’. They’ll then proceed to lay the groundwork, based on these feelings, to put the financial/custody hurt on the guy. The strangest part is that they usually don’t appear angry – it’s just that they won’t lose any sleep over putting the thumbscrews to a guy.

    Men will more often divorce for a specific reason(s). They’ll then want to get it done quickly, and will often work hard to give the wife a ‘good deal’ so that the wife will settle quickly.

  190. Doug1 says:

    Lavazza–

    Legion: What I am thinking of is the remarriage strike. Since an obviously above average woman can act friviously and decently at the same time, there is little hope. I am often asked why I am single since I am rich and handsome, but that means that I am seen as a tool for providing and giving healthy children that seems like an insult to me. I would only enter a relation with a woman who does not want children and money from me, which is hard to find, even if women protest NAWALT.

    Can I ask why you got a divorce? You said she and you are friendly.

  191. TFH says:

    Remember that 20% of men in a divorce/custody battle commit suicide (watching what inhumane treatment WF Price went through, this is not surprising). Surely, this means that divorce is not because HE cheated.

    Anyway, my upthread comment explains why an alpha cheater is less likely to get divorce inflicted on him than a faithful beta.

  192. Doug1 says:

    Lavazza—

    There even was a scandal in Sweden when Muslim women where adviced to divorce “on paper” to get better benefits.

    Why you lot let in so many Muslims is beyond me. I read that Malmo’s not so pleasant anymore. A huge percentage of real stranger rape are by Muslim men I also read.

  193. Doug1 says:

    TFH

    Cheat with women *more* attractive than her, and everyone is better off (in France and Italy, women are mature enough to actually understand this and permit it within reason).

    I think that’s true generally in Europe, though France is the most relaxed about it and there’s even a whole set of social codes about it in tony urban sophisticate French society, particularly Paris. I think/know it really helps in lowering French women’s jealously about it because they really aren’t shamed or felt sorry for by the girlfriends. It’s also not really thought of as cheating, since it’s expected. In France (not Italy much I don’t think) women sometimes even take lovers too, though less often.

  194. Doug1 says:

    empathologicalism says:

    The Boots Made for Walkin study does offer more potential analysis on who is filing and why than I see mentioned here.

    The Boots Made for Walkin study does offer more potential analysis on who is filing and why than I see mentioned here

  195. Doug1 says:

    Sweet As says:

    Just because a man may not see cheating as a “big deal” — when he steps out or she, how it’s “just a physical thing” — the reality for ME is much different.

    I think that’s largely, though not entirely, because you live within American society, and feminists are militantly in favor of women getting divorced over any kind of male infidelity, and for holding that and the divorce theft that goes with it over men’s heads as disincentive.

    Female like male jealousy is no doubt an instinct, but it can be exacerbated or toned down.

    Unless there is another agreement (Doug1 example). I have no such agreement with my husband, and I dare say I’d allow it.

    We sexualize her jealousy. She slightly emotionally masochistic with me, which helps. Plus I reassure her, gentle her, give her comfort and loving affection afterwards. Plus I only do it some.

  196. Doug1 says:

    Sweet As—

    To clarify, if we would claim that it is abusive to take actual, physical punches (say, more than one), then I claim that taking excessive emotional punches (whether from a man or a woman) via cheating (say, more than once — after it’s been discussed and promises remade and a relationship on the mend) is also “taking” abuse.

    That’s a pretty expansive definition of abuse, which is all the fashion among women these days, it’s generated and reflected in cable TV as well.

    As well the thing is not feeling it as emotional punches. I gentle M out of feeling that way, make sure she feels very desired and cherished by me, and also as I said we sexualize the remaining jealousy she feels, it makes her very hot for me, for reclaiming me. She’s very confidant I won’t leave her. She has veto power over any particular girl, including if she thinks I’m getting to emotionally involved.

  197. passer_by says:

    @TFH

    “Remember that 20% of men in a divorce/custody battle commit suicide (watching what inhumane treatment WF Price went through, this is not surprising). ”

    Where do you get this stuff? Did you mean to say that 20% of male suicides are the result of divorce, custody battles? I guess I could see that, but it’s a very different statement.

  198. Doug1 says:

    TFH—

    Remember that 20% of men in a divorce/custody battle commit suicide (watching what inhumane treatment WF Price went through, this is not surprising).

    Is it really that high? That seems amazing to me. Do you have a link for that?

  199. TFH says:

    Doug1,

    Over here, it says the suicide rate for divorced men is 4x that of never-married men, and 12x that of divorced women :

    http://fathersforlife.org/health/aussuic.htm

    This is Australia, which in fact has less cruel laws than the US.

    I have not been able to find the previous source where it said that the suicide rate for men *in a divorce proceeding* is 20%, but I have seen that stat a couple of times.

    Thomas Ball’s state of mind is not that uncommon.

  200. Suz says:

    “That’s a pretty expansive definition of abuse”

    Yes. A broken promise is a betrayal of trust, and a marriage without trust is pretty much useless, but it’s a stretch to call it abuse. In a relationship where both parties have agreed to outside affairs, infidelity doesn’t involve breaking one’s word, and whould not be taken as an emotional punch because its’ not really cheating, even if one party feels jealous. However, when infidelity is a broken vow, it is a punch, to either party. Infidelity itself might not be intolerable, but betrayal is.

  201. PuzzledTraveller says:

    Women cheating more than men would make sense financially for starters. With no fault divorce they have little chance of coming out any worse in the typical divorce settlement. There is no financial incentive not to try to have as much schlong on the side as possible. If she gets caught, oh well, she’ll just get what she was going to get anyway financially in most cases.

    Judges don’t want to deal with fault cases, depositions, witnesses, etc. Sure, they’ll humor you and go through the motions, but at then end of the day, after you’ve spent all your money on lawyers and detectives to prove she or he is a lying adulterer, the legal system and the judge gives a big yawn and says “So what?” “50/50 split, she gets the kids, you move out, this is your alimony amount and child support amount, court’s adjourned.” Think this is bullshit? Well, then I’m guessing you haven’t had to go through the legal system for a divorce yet junior.

    It would also seem to make sense that women could find themselves participating in an unknowing adulterous harem. So one guy might be banging 3-4 different married broads. I don’t imagine it’s a one cheater to one cheater of each sex perfect ratio.

    Kind of fits in with Hypergamy too and women’s inclinations to mate poach. A man might cheat for fun or (cough,cough) love, but he doesn’t want to risk financial ruin by getting his goose cooked and having his wife divorce him. It’s just ass on the side 9 times out of 10. From where I sit, when a woman is cheating, she’s looking for the next man to move to and serious about getting into a relationship with him. Even if that means stealing him from his current wife.

    Only the cheaters are too dumb to realize a guy or gal who would cheat on their current spouse, will do it to them, virtually guaranteed. It astounds me that cheaters never figure that out. They are starting a new relationship from the framework that both people are known liars and cheaters. Duh. I suppose that’s why relationships that start off like that have such utterly dismal long term track records.

    My theory is that most reasonably attractive women have two men. The one they are with and use for support, and the one they maneuvering to be with because they see him as a step up financially or more tingles. They might not officially move on to the new guy, but they will have him on the side if they don’t want to give up hubby and his financial support. Rest assured ALL women, at a minimum, have at least someone else in their mind as an option they keep tabs on.

    I read a book on infidelity. “Not Just Friends” (you can find it on Amazon – a lot of eye opening stats) A thing that struck me as messed up, and this was long before red pill exposure was the author said something to the effect of “If a woman’s husband is too macho the wife might cheat to get emotional attention from a more sensitive man, if her husband is too tame, she might cheat to get more masculine attention.” I thought that’s messed up. Can’t win either way. Then I found Keoni and and Athol and how they were saying, in this day and age boys you better be delivering Alpha and Beta because there is no moral, social, legal or financial reason for her not to cheat and then take you to the cleaners because “It’s all your fault anyway, you pushed me to where I HAD to do this!” Lolz. Yeah I had that said to me.

    Unless you live in a really strict religious or familial social framework. (Amish, Mennonite, Muslim, Mormon, etc.) [As for lumping Evangelicals into the strict religious governance groups- give me a break.]

    But I don’t know jack. So, I’ll shut up. And No, I didn’t get a chance to read all the comments yet. Just wanted to put my first reaction down after reading D’s post. Night.

  202. Pingback: The Dalrock thread is still going strong « Rivelino in Spain

  203. Pingback: The Dalrock thread is still going strong « Rivelino in Spain

  204. Lavazza says:

    Doug1: My ex wife fell out of love with me. I’ve never bothered to ask about specifics how her emotions changed or if she was lying to herself for many years or whatever, since, over the years, I have come to the conclusion that marriage should and cannot be based on a feeling of (romatic) love but only on a firm decision to love (or rather to not hurt, which eventually leads to love as a by product).

    And also women do not understand their feelings very well, or understand them too well, so that they know that they better not explain them.

  205. Lavazza says:

    Suz: But what are marriage vows, as normally applied, supposed to do? If the vow is to give the other party a perfect marriage, the majority is breaking their vows. If the vow is to give the other party an above average marriage, 50 % are breaking their vows.

  206. Höllenhund says:

    @hurp

    “You obviously have a very low opinion of not only women in general but Susan in particular, which I wouldn’t argue with, but if you’re going to badmouth someone or the group they belong to, it seems somewhat imprudent to do so while still posting on their blogs.”

    You misunderstand. I think she’s made tremendous progress in the last 2-3 years. Look at her archive or the article I linked. It could’ve been written by Hymowitz.

  207. Höllenhund says:

    “I have to confess I find her entertaining”

    Without a doubt, she’s entertaining. I mean, bragging to complete strangers that your daughter is hot…LOL.

  208. Sweet As says:

    Deti and AR,

    Thanks for commenting on my statements.

    If we are taking the morality out of it, then neither is “worse” for marriage — because worse implies a morality. Since marriage is usually various moralities (pointed out as being specifically designed by the couple around what fidelity means, etc), then it’s simple “people following their programming” which is amoral. Therefore neither is “worse” for marriage. The acts are “amoral.”

    I’m just pointing it out. I don’t necessarily agree with that — but i see how it functions.

    In the second note, I will point out that the rejection of a woman’s advances for sex — when rebuffed repeatedly — are also deeply wounding. It’s not like men are the only ones who get hurt in that sort of scenario, tables turned.

    I think the whole situation — whether instigated by a man or a woman — creates a pretty sad situation all around.

  209. Höllenhund says:

    @deti

    “Women who cheat on their husbands, having hot monkey sex with a badboy thug while playing the role of the faithful wife, are even worse than those who cheat and then seek divorce.”

    I’ll have to disagree. If you have a wife like that, you’re screwed either way, but if she actually files for divorce, you’ll be sodomized with a nail-studded bat.

  210. Sweet As says:

    Doug1:

    I was not commenting on your relationship, or open forms. I think that is fine all around — as both people are in agreement and in communication about what shape their relationship takes.

    This scenario — where the couple has actively chosen that mutual monogamy is not important –would then make the act of having sex outside of the marriage *not cheating.* It is an entirely permissible act.

    By being permissible, it would not be an emotional punch, nor would it be abusive.

    But, for a monogamous couple that has asserted that both parties are to remain monogamous, for a man to go behind a woman’s back and have affairs — is an emotional punch. While it may not be a “contractual” agreement by law, there is an emotional agreement between the parties, and one person was not getting what they were expecting. In fact, got the opposite.

    This would be hurtful for me, and a break of trust. And that would be emotionally upsetting. Because what I want is monogamy.

    If my husband continued to have extra marital affairs when I have been clear that it is monogamy that I want, then this would be a perpetuation of the wounding — and take it into the realm of abuse.

    (and, it was an if-then statement. if we are considering this, and we accept that, then this is a logical outcome. if change any one element, then the outcome changes. because you are open with your wife about it, and she is in agreement, then it is obviously not abusive — but entirely consensual.)

  211. umslopogaas says:

    Vis-a-vis the ‘Doug-Gate’ affair I believe we should keep up the pressure. Mrs. Walsh has not responded, even though the matter is, in essence, closed. The facts speak for themselves and denying them will just hurt her integrity further.

    I just posted this in the “Grim Beeper” thread on HUS. It is at present awaiting moderation. It will be interesting to see if she even allows it to be posted. If she blocks it then, imo, her claims of wanting to reach out to men are revealed as being false.

    “@Susan Walsh:

    In your (rather emotional) response to Doug you made certain claims that you have not – to this date – substantiated or withdrawn.

    I would very much appreciate if you would clarify matters here. Because the question who divorces more is not the core issue here.

    You wrote:

    “Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    As Dalrock has made abundantly clear in his post (backed by actual facts contrary to your statement) the percentage of female-initiated divorce is overwhelmingly high.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/

    And only a distinct minority of these divorces (16%) are filed because of spousal infidelity. Consequently, the vast majority of all female-initiated divorces are filed for frivolous reasons (and “abuse” is, imo, no longer a valid reason due to the fact that it is most times used extremely overblown, onesided, taken out of context or even outright made up).

    In light of these findings…do you admit that your above claim was plain out wrong? Or do you want to continue denying the facts of the matter?

    I for one cannot see how your intellectual integrity can remain intact if you do not own up on this, Mrs Walsh.”

  212. umslopogaas says:

    Edit:

    I mistyped. I hereby meant who *cheats* more.

    “I would very much appreciate if you would clarify matters here. Because the question who cheats more is not the core issue here.”

  213. Höllenhund says:

    Just to provide more fodder for those suspicious of female bloggers (yeah, I’m malevolent and bored) – Alte compared the Spearhead to the Strormfront and accused MRAs of wanting all women to commit mass suicide:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/we-make-no-apologies-for-being-women/#comment-28296

    Check out the other comments there. I told she never actually supported men’s rights. She didn’t object.

    She also said the reason why she disagrees with the Manosphere’s observations of female behavior is because…she’s vain. I kid you not:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/how-the-manosphere-turned-me-into-an-uptight-starving-wife/#comment-36213

    She even disingenuously denies Team Woman exists:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/how-the-manosphere-turned-me-into-an-uptight-starving-wife/#comment-36324

    Further proof of Brendan’s excellent observation that tradcons are completely, utterly useless, even harmful for men. I’d also add they’re liars.

  214. Suz says:

    Lavazza,
    The vow I’m thinking of is “to love, honor and cherish/obey…forsaking all others.” Anyone who wants an open marriage should agree to leave out the forsaking all others part. Anyone who promises to give their spouse a perfect marriage is misguided at best. There is no such thing. And nobody “gives” a good marriage, like a wrapped gift. It must be built, one small decision at a time. Keeping a vow is not easy; temptation is everywhere, individual personalities mature and change, but the marriage vows should guide every decision that affects the marriage. Nearly every married person has opportunities to cheat or to invest in friendships that could lead to cheating. The choice is theirs to make, every time. I have no sympathy for married people who “fall out of love” with their spouse. It doesn’t “happen” to them, they cause it or allow it to happen. That’s not love. A committed partner chooses to love, learns to love, and creates a love deeper than anything they imagined when they made the commitment. I never promised or intended to be a perfect wife. I promised to build a strong marriage, and in the process of fulfilling that promise I became a pretty good wife. It took years and it required some *gasp* sacrifices. That doesn’t make me a martyr, it makes me a person who is willing to “pay” for something worth having.

  215. Anonymous says:

    Umslopogaas, Susan said in a comment that she was going to review the data, think, and make a post about it, but that given the holidays, it would probably not be until the new year. So unless there are new data or arguments/rebuttals to be brought up, lets wait to see how she comes out of the gate.

  216. Men and women are only as faithful as their options. Men with money and women who are attractive will always have more options than the broke dude and the fatty.

  217. Rivelino says:

    @hurp

    “Already thanked you on your blog, but much appreciate the shoutout, Rivelino”

    i am pretty new to dalrock’s blog, but i gotta say, i am REALLY impressed by all the intelligent men commenting here — thinking and discussing things like rational adults — as well as, of course, the brilliant mind of dalrock himself.

    a lot of the comments on this thread have been incredibly on point, hurp yours in particular i thought was *awesome*.

    i also tweeted it, btw:

    Hurp is a genius. “The rising tide of male discontent is at the root of many problems your blog seeks to address.”

    yeah, when i start getting into a topic, i can be pretty obsessive.

  218. deti says:

    Here’s SW’s reply to Umslo this morning over at HUS on the Grim Beeper thread.

    @Umslopogaas

    (SW):I have already responded in full at Dalrock’s, an exercise in futility, as always. Let me lay this out for you as simply and clearly as I can.

    The conversation about divorce in the thread was initiated by Doug, who has claimed repeatedly that infidelity is not a valid reason to initiate divorce, or to pursue any subsequent financial compensation. He stated repeatedly that divorcing for reasons of infidelity is frivolous. I disagreed.

    (Umslo): As Dalrock has made abundantly clear in his post (backed by actual facts contrary to your statement) the percentage of female-initiated divorce is overwhelmingly high.

    (SW): That was never in question. Please point out where in my comment I question the 2/3 statistic.

    (Umslo):And only a distinct minority of these divorces (16%) are filed because of spousal infidelity.

    (SW) Again, that was not addressed in my comment. I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. However, I believe the number you cite comes from an AARP study, focusing on divorces initiated in the 40s and 50s. It does not distinguish who initiated the divorce. In any case, I would imagine that infidelity is much more common in the 20s and 30s, when SMV is at its highest. The divorce rate is highest in the aged 15-35 brackets, so this statistic most likely understates the case rather dramatically.

    (Umslo) Consequently, the vast majority of all female-initiated divorces are filed for frivolous reasons (and “abuse” is, imo, no longer a valid reason due to the fact that it is most times used extremely overblown, onesided, taken out of context or even outright made up).

    (SW) Your claim that infidelity is the only non-frivolous reason for divorce seems rather extreme. I can think of several others. I don’t know how many claims of abuse are bogus, but for you to claim that spousal abuse is not a valid reason for divorce is ludicrous. Domestic violence is real, and I imagine that there are stats from the police to prove it. For the record, all of this applies to both sexes. I hold women as accountable as men, and infidelity or abuse are legitimate reasons for men to initiate divorce.

    (Umslo) In light of these findings…do you admit that your above claim was plain out wrong? Or do you want to continue denying the facts of the matter?

    (SW) As I’ve demonstrated, you have misunderstood my claim. The only claim I’ve made, and it was an opinion rather than a statement of fact, was that I think the theme of frivolous divorce is exaggerated in the manosphere. As you’ve seen, before Dalrock wrote his post – on one comment from my blog, taken out of context and irresponsibly reported by the rather hysterical Rmaxd – I had already committed to doing my own analysis of divorce. I will be doing primary research and analyzing the data. I have no agenda, except to get at the facts. I may well wind up confirming that most divorces are frivolously initiated by women. That will depend on the facts.

    I have laid this out logically and rationally. I stand by my comment, though I acknowledge it was spoken in frustration with Doug, who repeatedly stated that filing for infidelity is frivolous. That is the real issue here, and unless you’re being deliberately obtuse or lack understanding, you should acknowledge that you have misconstrued the debate.”

    There doesn’t seem to be anything else to say on this for now. Susan focuses on the debate with Doug and whether divorce for infidelity is “frivolous”. Dalrock zeroed in on whether frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown”. We now have an acknowledgment that she spoke this in frustration, but she stands by it. She also acknowledges it was an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Perhaps there is evidence to support the opinion, perhaps not.

    If it was spoken in frustration and there’s little or no evidence to support it, why stand by it? Why not just retract it and acknowledge it as such? We all say things that don’t have a lot of factual support when we get frustrated. If she investigates it and it turns out her opinion is substantiated with facts, she can reassert it.

    If there is evidence to support it, then it will come out soon enough.

    Susan will investigate this and do a post on it. I’m staying tuned.

    .

  219. Jim says:

    Think about the logical fallacy of “men cheat more than women do.” Each time a man cheats, he cheats with a woman, right? So, that’s one man cheating, and one woman cheating. Or, if one man cheats with many women, that’s one man cheating, and many women cheating. So, whatever way you serve up a “man cheating” you include at least one woman cheating.

    So, how is it that I (used to) buy this line that men cheat more than women do?

  220. deti says:

    Well, one more thing. I am disappointed in Susan. She’s using a deflection tactic here to return the topic solely to her terms. SW wants to debate only whether divorcing for infidelity is frivolous, a position that only a very tiny minority of people agree with. She only glancingly addresses what Dalrock zeroed in on, which is whether frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown” in the manosphere and, more importantly, who is driving divorce in general and “frivolous” divorce in particular. She backs away from it, calling her statement an opinion (which it was) and that it was stated in frustration (as I suspected it was) but reaffirms it without stating any evidence.

    Not persuasive. At. least not yet.

  221. "M" says:

    Thanks for the rundown, deti. For some reason I have been unable to access her site all day, and I can’t have been banned, seeing as I have never posted there so she would not know my IP address.

    And yes, not persuasive. Even disappointing, but, I guess we wait and see.

  222. Elspeth says:

    Her most recent promise to never visit this site again (3rd time) was in fact due to me deleting a catty response she made to one of your comments.

    Yes, I remember that, Dalrock. Quite clearly in fact. As I’m sure you’ve gathered I’m not one much for cat fights so I appreciated the gesture. My point was that Kathy really doesn’t offer any special deference to women, as was asserted by a previous commenter. As least not as far as I can tell.

    Back on topic, I too have seen women become really despondent as a divorce approaches finality. I think it’s as much about the loss of the addictive drama as it is about the loss of power, if not more so.

  223. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    My point was that Kathy really doesn’t offer any special deference to women, as was asserted by a previous commenter. As least not as far as I can tell.

    Kathy fits the mold perfectly. You are missing the dichotomy of Team Woman. Women tend to be fiercely loyal to other women in the abstract, but extremely catty with women they come into the most contact with. Men are the opposite; they tend to be extremely loyal to their friends and colleagues, but more than happy to throw men in the abstract under the bus.

    Back on topic, I too have seen women become really despondent as a divorce approaches finality. I think it’s as much about the loss of the addictive drama as it is about the loss of power, if not more so.

    Agreed, although the two are often so closely intertwined it can at times be very difficult to separate the two.

  224. Dalrock says:

    @Anonymous

    Umslopogaas, Susan said in a comment that she was going to review the data, think, and make a post about it, but that given the holidays, it would probably not be until the new year. So unless there are new data or arguments/rebuttals to be brought up, lets wait to see how she comes out of the gate.

    Even if she ultimately acknowledges the reality of frivolous divorce, there still is her bizarre denial that she ever wrote what she did, not to mention her characterization of her statement Provide stats for this or shut up. as I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. She also is claiming that she was responding to an entirely different comment from Doug1 than the one she quoted in her response. She doesn’t characterize this as an oversight or error on her part, she simply denies her reply was actually a reply to the comment everyone can see she quoted.

    Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand. Her latest statement (the one the OP is in response to) betrays a deep hostility to men’s complaints about women taking advantage of the system. Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

  225. Buck says:

    @LAVAZZA

    Women gaming the system.

    I have a sister-in-law who is a SAHM and she belongs to a coupon club of other Stay-at-Homes and they swap double, triple coupons, share discount tips , whatever, to where they go shopping and the store actually loses money on them. One gal coupon shops in one state and sends the stuff out of state for a profit; I love capitalism etc, but this is typical girl shit…me first and screw you…
    Then there are the welfare queens. I was in an ER recently taking a report and there was a white trash conversation going on nearby between two trailer-tramp breeders using the ER as primary care for their demon spawn with sniffles. They were actually taking notes on how to apply for this free shit, get that free benefit, what to say, how to say it, which scam, lie works best…it was brazen and repulsive, and working saps are paying for this!

    DALROCK,
    I just love the story you told of the manipulative, conniving, twat who pulled the trigger and it blew up in her face…hahahahah
    I just love when an evil plan fails miserably.
    I have a relative who screwed over a really nice guy, ran off with Joe-the-love-sponge, after ass raping Mr nice guy in divorce court, only to have Joe exploit her divorce-theft money, then pump-n-dump her for a younger/hotter tramp. She came crawling back to Mr nice guy and he restrained his beta impulses…he did a “trial” reconciliation, banged the crap out of her for about a month, then announced that he was through with her….GOD BLESS HIM!!!!
    She, once drop dead gorgeous, now looks like 10 miles of bad road, is in alcohol rehab and lives with her parents…to add frosting to this story, the parents have always kept close, friendly contact with Mr nice guy AND HIS NEW YOUNGER HOT WIFE! They invite him over for holidays etc…Ms tramp has to act pleasant, eat crow …hahahahaha….sometimes justice is so sweet!

  226. imnobody says:

    Well, I really fell sad for Susan. There is a great freedom coming from saying “I was wrong”. Nobody is perfect and nobody has all the answers. But when you have new evidence, it is honorable, intellectually honest and freeing to say: “I have changed my mind”.

    The ultimate slavery is trying to always be right and trying to tie oneself in knots not to admit one was wrong, using deflection, fallacies and saying: “I didn’t say that”, when everybody can see what you said, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN. Really sad.

  227. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Dalrock, I don’t know Susan outside of her’s and your blog but her approach is quite common for anyone trying to get the best out of a bad situation. She knows that marriage is hostile towards men but instead of deciding to help fix that problem by helping men, she seems to have decided to teach women how to act and snag a man for marriage. She isn’t interested in helping the plight of men, zero of her thoughts roam into that arena. She is wholly preoccupied with pulling the wool over the eyes of her reader’s future husbands.

    Reading the comments on her article show a profound lack of respect for men in general and a deeply held attitude of revenge against adulterous men in particular. She says she sticks up for both men and women when it comes to infidelity but that sounds like the same idea that another female commenter said about sticking up for men in her head.

    If she truly were interested in helping sort out the current marriage issues, she would be DEEPLY invested in helping men achieve a break through against feminism. Instead she isn’t and says the manosphere has overstated an obvious problem to anyone with half a brain. She’s team women. Little doubt about it.

  228. umslopogaas says:

    The struggle continues on the HUS-front:

    @ Susan Walsh:

    Thank you for your timely response. Now as for the matter at hand:

    First off, the definition of frivolous (according to Merriam-Webster):

    a : of little weight or importance
    b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law)

    You write:

    “Again, that was not addressed in my comment. I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. However, I believe the number you cite comes from an AARP study, focusing on divorces initiated in the 40s and 50s. It does not distinguish who initiated the divorce. In any case, I would imagine that infidelity is much more common in the 20s and 30s, when SMV is at its highest. The divorce rate is highest in the aged 15-35 brackets, so this statistic most likely understates the case rather dramatically.”

    Vis a vis the question of frivolity (or not) I agree with you that the AARP study does not supply altogether satisfactory data (as it does not distinguish clearly enough between the sexes with regards to divorce motivation).

    However, my position is that with “no fault divorce” in existance esentially *all divorces* (except for those where spousal abuse / infidelity has been *proven beyond reasonable doubt) are by their very nature…frivolous.

    Incidentally, this is why I for one interprete all of AARP’s provided data with regards to divorce reasons…with a grain of salt. Because if a spouse has decided to seek divorce it is the easiest thing in the world to claim some kind of vague abuse / infidelity (he “cheated” by watching porn) as justification for divorce. To me this is nothing more than a copout, and a lame one at that.

    So to surmise what we *do know*:

    1.) Women file the *overwhelming* majority of divorces.
    2.) When doing so they do not neccessarily have to supply any actual evidence with regards to their divorce justifications (abuse, infidelity etc.).
    3.) Family courts are *substantially* biased in womens’ favour.
    4.) Feminists have expanded the definition of “abuse” to such a ridiculous degree that even the most banale things a man does can be interpreted as abuse.
    5.) Feminist dominated public sphere ignores the significant percentage (~50%) of female instigated domestic violence / abuse. Hence female abuse of men is *vastly underreported*.
    6.) Female infidelity appears to be equal if not even higher than male infidelity and far more often leads to divorce (rather than some fling on the side).

    Conclusion: “No fault divorce” by its very definition (i.e. *not* having to actually prove any spousal wrongdoing to be able to divorce) in effect means that *all these divorces are frivolous*.

    As women – as you yourself have admitted – file the overwhelming majority of divorces at the moment…I cannot see how one could see these divorces as anything *other* than frivolous.

    You go on to write:

    “Your claim that infidelity is the only non-frivolous reason for divorce seems rather extreme. I can think of several others. I don’t know how many claims of abuse are bogus, but for you to claim that spousal abuse is not a valid reason for divorce is ludicrous. Domestic violence is real, and I imagine that there are stats from the police to prove it. For the record, all of this applies to both sexes. I hold women as accountable as men, and infidelity or abuse are legitimate reasons for men to initiate divorce.”

    Maybe I didn’t voice my position in a optimal way here. I do not deny that domestic violence and abuse *happen*.

    What I have my problems here is that:

    a.) male spousal abuse is blown out of all proportion, the definition of abuse hereby having been systematically been expanded to the point of utter absurdity by the feminists.

    b.) female spousal abuse, conversely, is totally ignored, underplayed, underreported.

    Conclusion:

    There *exists* spousal abuse. However, I believe it is the reason for the vast *minority* of divorce filings and the male perpetrator / female victim bias *at present* as well as its absurd definition make it a useless justification, imo.

    Addendum: My personal position is that spousal abuse as well as infidelity are both grounds for divorce. However, they have to be *objectively proven*, not just claimed…like at present.

  229. Legion says:

    Höllenhund says:
    December 22, 2011 at 2:26 am
    “…you’ll be sodomized with a nail-studded bat.”

    We need to keep using that phrase. That will make oblivious men take the red pill.

  230. Legion says:

    Sweet As says:
    December 22, 2011 at 2:24 am
    “In the second note, I will point out that the rejection of a woman’s advances for sex — when rebuffed repeatedly — are also deeply wounding.”

    Oohh, it happened to a women once or twice, let’s forget about all the men who have had their women ignore them.

    Sorry, you are just giving a reason to be ignored.

  231. Höllenhund says:

    “Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand.”

    Yeah, it’s suspicious. I also find it suspicious that apparently she still hasn’t read the works of Delvin, even though she was advised to do a couple of times.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sweet As
    In the second note, I will point out that the rejection of a woman’s advances for sex — when rebuffed repeatedly — are also deeply wounding. It’s not like men are the only ones who get hurt in that sort of scenario, tables turned.

    I’m sure that is true, however it seems to me that most women do not realize the importance of sex for most men, or if they do it is mostly in terms of “how can I use this to control him”? A relationship where sexual intimacy is conditional upon a man’s good behavior (“Oh, you cleaned out the gutters! You get a BJ!”) is not going to be all that pleasant, or even stable, in the long run. In my limited experience, a man has to be in a very angry, or suspicious, or distrustful state of mind to rebuff a woman’s advances for sex. Perhaps he’s had a “Charlie Brown kicking the football while Lucy holds it” experience a time or two, and expects a reprise is about to occur? Perhaps he sees not an advance, but another form of emotional manipulation? Again, it is unusual for a man to reject a woman sexually, especially in an LTR. He would have to be carrying a lot of anger to do that, and such anger doesn’t just suddenly appear out of nowhere. It is generally provoked. Sometimes over a long time, as in months or years or even a decade.

    I’m reminded of the emotional storm at National Review Online about a year or more back. A professional woman wrote about her husband’s use of porn, in the larger context of their divorce and his remarriage. In the middle of her text she more or less blurted out that he had “refused my advances!”. I suspected at the time there was a whole lot of back story that she wasn’t going to want to talk about. A few men hinted at that point in the comments, although they were overshadowed by the “Bad Man!” cries of the estrogen brigade.

    This is as good a place as any to mention Shaunti Feldahn and her books “For women only” and “For men only”. Feldahn makes the point early that men need respect more than love, while women are the reverse. This has a lot of implications. The books are worth looking into for anyone in an LTR / marriage.

  233. poester99 says:

    to be all that pleasant, or even stable, in the long run. In my limited experience, a man has to be in a very angry, or suspicious, or distrustful state of mind to rebuff a woman’s advances for sex. Perhaps he’s had a “Charlie Brown kicking the football

    Or she’s let herself go all to hell and he can’t get it up for her anymore

  234. Anonymous Reader says:

    Umslo-etc. good job on bringing up a definition for the word “frivolous”. Because the mating pattern for women in serial monogamy, when a woman has decided she’s all done with a relationship then by default none of her reasons will seem frivolous, all of them will be valid to her – from “left the toilet seat up” to anything and everything else. And good job on the issue of “abuse”. We must always bear in mind that according to Federal guidelines, if a man shouts at his wife, or refuses to giver her money for any reason, or brushes against her while entering or exiting a room, he’s committed Domestic Violence. By lumping pretty much any behavior a woman might not like with violent, broken-bones beatings, the feminists and their SoCon puppets have handed a Get Out Of Marriage Free (with prizes!) card to every woman in the US. Of course, in theory men could use the VAWA guidelines to have the majority of women put in jail for DV as well, but the legal system doesn’t work that way thanks to feminists and their SoCon marionettes.

    Meanwhile, to other people with some degree of sanity, divorce is justified only for serious reasons, such as sexual liasons, serious drug abuse including alcoholism, physical abuse, abandonment, etc. and so forth. “I’m not haaaapy” is the sin qua non of a frivolous reason for divorce.

    So the question before us is, how many “I’m not haaapy” divorces are there? I’m not sure it will be possible to tease that out of the data, if for no other reason than the fact that leveling false charges of DV has become routine practice for some number of divorce shysters. It’s just something that is done for tactical reasons, and facts are totally irrelevant.

    It’s good that there are people willing to take this issue further at that other web site. I’ve skimmed the comments of one or maybe two postings and found myself drowning in estrogen, so that’s not a task I would care to undertake.

  235. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

    Wow. Pretty harsh. But probably true…

    And this is just a couple of days after dragnet and others had explained how she is ‘not that bad’. I agreed with the position at the time, but now I think I will re-assess.

    Susan Walsh has both a daughter *and* a son, btw.

  236. “– from “left the toilet seat up” to anything and everything else. And good job on the issue of “abuse”. We must always bear in mind that according to Federal guidelines, if a man shouts at his wife, or refuses to giver her money for any reason, or brushes against her while entering or exiting a room, he’s committed Domestic Violence”

    I always leave the toilet seat up. I sometimes shout at my wife, if she is being dumb. She often asks permission to spend money and I sometimes refuse. I make her get out of my way sometimes. It is good Game.

    Still happily married. Safe from “Federal guidelines”, being an Australian.

  237. Omnipitron says:

    “Well, I really fell sad for Susan. There is a great freedom coming from saying “I was wrong”. Nobody is perfect and nobody has all the answers. But when you have new evidence, it is honorable, intellectually honest and freeing to say: “I have changed my mind”.
    The ultimate slavery is trying to always be right and trying to tie oneself in knots not to admit one was wrong, using deflection, fallacies and saying: “I didn’t say that”, when everybody can see what you said, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN. Really sad.”

    Agreed Imnobody, you hit the nail on the head here. Some people wish to be correct, while others want to only to be right. If one wishes to be correct, they realize on some level the logic that being right is synonymous with having the correct (or most correct) information. I personally think many people don’t fathom the integrity shown by most that admit mistake and change their positions. It tells people that they strive for the most correct information, and therefore we think of many of these as being honest, and honorable. Even if you never debate them, you know that since they wish to be correct, even if they ever are wrong, if they are shown the error of their ways, they will change.

    The issue about those who wish only to be right is clearly seen by anyone here sadly. To hold onto the incorrect position and then engage in manipulation, shaming, character assassination, etc simply to bolster their argument has negative consequences. To those people a debate isn’t a clash of differing viewpoints, but a battle to be won no matter the cost and the price can be quite high! When one’s position can clearly be seen as erroneous, the only thing one can conclude is that the person in question has little to no integrity.

    This undermines their position on other topics as you may always wonder about their legitimacy. Frankly, one may win the battle so to speak, but lose the war as their credibility takes a nose dive. All anyone has to do is look at how many commenter’s are now taking second and third looks at some of Susan’s past work and questioning her true motives. Admitting that she was wrong would have bolstered her opinion, as Rmaxed stated earlier, sadly she is digging herself deeper.

    When it come to men being suspicious of female bloggers, the sad thing is that men do need all the help they can get but when you take a look at situations such as these, it will make many men second guess the legitimacy of female bloggers. While it may not be fair to expect them to parrot everything male MRA’s state, when anti-male sentiments, team women tactics, or dismissal of male issues arise, then all female bloggers become suspected, in the end hurting their position as a whole. I’ll just simply say this before I bounce, happened across the blog of woman that I happen to trust on the topic Anon Reader eloquently put to Mad Biker. When a lady commenter had stated the negative talk about women was somewhat bothersome, this blogger simply stated that she was telling the truth, she wasn’t blunt nor rude, simply stating that it’s women who are in error in a lot of cases currently.

    Done and done, with no rationalizations, or shaming, just speaking the truth which bolster’s up her integrity. The one thing many people can all agree upon, is how can you teach anyone anything if they refuse to admit error? If said people display this behavior once especially when it’s clear as day they are wrong, you will always wonder if and when this behavior will re-assert itself. How can you trust them from that point on?

  238. greyghost says:

    This may be anecdotal but I will add to this who cheats more ,men or women. In general the whole serial monogamy theme women live by to give the illusion of purity is cheating on the last guy big time. This is how it workds in pactice.
    when i was much younger in my early twenties we used to go to night clubs to pull pussy. You would in would go in find women woman talk to them dance play the game an unsually be having sex with them by 2 am. I wasn’t very good at it because i just wanted the sex and didn’t enjoy the game at. Some guys love the game. When i was “on” it I could bat 1.000 but it was rare because once i got the girl she was an instant call back and girl friend. I rarely went out. Now once you start to regularly see the woman she is always with a boyfriend. At the time so as I learned years later I was the hypergamy trade up. When you first call you will get an answering machine. (no cell phones when i was in my twenties, answering machines still had tapes)When you did get together and were over her place and came in together she would look at the machine and have the volume down. After a week or so when you called she was home and answered and she would play her machine in front of you with some guy complaining (her ex she was lining you up for so she could dump him with confidence) Soon you were spending more time together and the phone nevr rings while you are over her house and she will always answer her phone if she is not with you and you call. After about 4 months she starts to get clingy and needy and you start to rather be alone on the weekends (really). She will go from argueing with tears to a kind of well fuck you then or not complaining. When she gets her new trade up ready she gets confident and assured. At first it was a shock and a day or two later i got the idea of the routine and I kind of laughed to myself. The first time it happened (different women same routine) it got me really bad and i made a big ass myself.
    That is the actual mechanics of living the cock carousel and not just talking about it looks like. This is the stuff of broken windsheilds,murders, suicides, beatings and all other forms of emotional revenge.

  239. Anonymous Reader says:

    poester99 I’m assuming all other things are equal. If she’s let herself go to seed, given the visual nature of men, that’s going to be a big factor. Ditto if he’s let himself go in similar or other ways. I’m ruminating on those cases where no health issues are involved, no major physical changes have happened,etc. Certainly a man can find himself in a situation like this if he becomes too much beta. An alpha, a real one, would just laugh off some female hissing “don’t touch me” she shoves him; take it as a shit test, and deal with it. Of course, he might just take her at her word and walk right out to find some other woman who wants to be touched, too. Beta men, who tend to take words more seriously, eventually will do that, too, although in a very different – and likely quite, quite permanent – way.

  240. TFH says:

    AR,

    So where is Susan now? It has been two days, and you considered it possible that she was ‘researching the topic’, even though Dalrock and others provided data of their own.

    Remember that women don’t like their words and deeds being scrutinized (lest someone notice what women are actually doing).

  241. greyghost says:

    She is pissed at all you mean guys here.

  242. So where is Susan now?

    She’s back at her blog, hiding from all us, talking about how we’re all a big much of meanies for actually expecting her to mean what she says.

    I hate to do a, “I was right”, but all of you guys are discovering what I knew about Susan Walsh a year and a half ago.

  243. ray says:

    Hollenhund–

    Women are supposed to act irrationally, be emotionally weaker, be more self-centered in their plans, etc. They act that way by design.

    I’m not entirely sure why. I suspect it’s because God wanted men to have a taste of how he views mankind. As women appear generally irrational, selfish, and weak to men, so does mankind appear the same way to God. As women frustrate men, so does mankind frustrate God. And as women can have moments of loving service and reverence to men, so too does mankind have moments of loving service and reverence toward God. I suspect, then, that God designed women the way he did so that we as men have a brief glimpse of what it’s like to be God.”

    no, he actually created woman as a loving helper and comfort to man, as ridiculous and impossible as that now sounds

    it was the enemies of god that led — and still lead — females into rebellion against god and man

    still, i think your comment is profound and valid, to a point — the subjugation of boys and men under Team Woman and her governments are a microcosm of humanity’s rebellion against god — and, as you note, a type of lesson about our individual and collectivel unholiness before god

    as Genesis makes clear, this rebellion is NOT modern or new, but reaches back to the beginning of human existence on the planet . . . malevolent spiritual forces v specifically chose the female as vector and tool for evil precisely for the reasons she is thus employed currently: to wipe out fatherhood and masculinity, and to persecute/destroy boys, men, and the people of god

  244. Scott Pakin says:

    What do otiose hatemongers, maledicent evildoers, and Mrs. Susan A Walsh have in common? If you answered, “They all scatter about in profusion an abundance of pro-Susan ravings,” then pat yourself on the back. I want to share this with you because it has been brought to my attention that Susan will stop at nothing to get her way. While this is true, it’s not a question of if but only of when Susan will subject us to an institution (known as “Marriage 2.0″) which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. That’s clear. But her policy is to provoke balmy pedants into action. Then, Susan uses their responses in whatever way she sees fit, generally to play the blame game.

    I suppose it’s predictable, though terribly sad, that unruly prigs with stronger voices than minds would revert to vitriolic behavior. But Susan wants to uproot our very heritage and pave the way for her own irrational value system. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is Susan’s gossamer grasp of reality. This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: Bulverism. I hardly need to tell you that some day, in the far, far future, Susan will realize that her spin doctors must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how Susan has—not once, but several times—been able to shout obscenities at passers-by without anyone stopping her. How long can that go on? As long as her infernal warnings are kept on life support. That’s why we have to pull the plug on them and tear down her fortress of classism. All of this once again proves the old saying that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignorance—no, idiocy—present in Mrs. Susan A Walsh’s impetuous obloquies.

  245. pb says:

    It does make you wonder if women can really teach any part of ethics/politics, except through obedience to tradition, rather than attempting to be “original”…

  246. TFH says:

    It does make you wonder if women can really teach any part of ethics/politics, except through obedience to tradition, rather than attempting to be “original”…

    That is way too lofty of a question.

    I claim that future historians will laugh at how the West could even consider giving women the full legal rights of an ‘adult’ (voting, etc.). They will consider it to an obvious recipe for disaster after about a century of continuous incrementalism, much like Mao’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ is universally seen as a disaster today.

  247. You know, there is a reason why my church doesn’t ordain women.

  248. 7man says:

    Life is a paradox. In attempting to save reputation and not conceding an obvious error, a reputation is frivolously discarded. Hmmm, sounds similar to what a woman does when she instigates a frivolous divorce, but the herd moos sweet assurances.

  249. susanawalsh says:

    Well this is quite a discussion. I have not been in hiding, but rather preparing for Christmas, hosting family from Europe, and putting in only the minimal time at my own blog. I am not afraid to engage here, though in truth I do not believe I can get a fair hearing.

    For the purposes of clarifying where I stand on these issues, I will comment on the original statement, and then describe my own beliefs re marriage and divorce.

    First, it is true that I retorted to Doug with great emotion in the original comment. My response was overblown and said in great frustration. I apologize for offending anyone here who has experienced frivolous divorce and/or cares deeply about misandrist law. In truth, it was not my intention to say that women do not file for divorce frivolously. I am well aware that they do. However, my desire to have the exchange put in context is legitimate.

    Doug’s claim that a woman divorcing for infidelity is engaging in frivolous divorce, and that a double standard for cheating is fair based on sex drive differences, angered many women and men at HUS, generating the longest thread ever, nearly 1,800 comments. There has been great frustration with Doug in recent days at the site, and it was in the interest of fairness that I allowed him to register many comments that I believed to be unethical and unfair. Cherry picking one comment out of a thread of well over 1,000 was deceptive, and I remain surprised that it became the topic of a post.

    I will now state my beliefs, to the extent they are informed, about these issues. It is true that I have not devoted myself to the study of marriage or divorce law. While that is Dalrock’s specialty, my own blog covers a very wide range of issues relating to all facets of navigating the SMP. I do agree that I should understand family law if I am promoting marriage, which is why I agreed to write a post about it.

    1. Any divorce initiated for the purposes of personal growth or development, having new experiences, getting a new lease on life, etc. is frivolous and wrong. There should be no compensation to the initiating spouse.

    2. Domestic violence laws set the bar too low, and presume male guilt. Female-inflicted violence is ignored or suppressed.

    3. Any parent receiving child support should be fully accountable for the expenditure of those funds, with documentation and review.

    4. Every divorce where children are present should presume joint custody.

    5. The Women’s Movement has eliminated the justification for alimony, for the most part. Alimony should never be calculated based on the income of a second spouse, as it was in MA until recently. I do not support lifetime alimony under any circumstances.

    7. Infidelity is never a frivolous reason for divorce. In invalidates the marriage contract. I reject outright any claims that because women bond more easily during sex, they should refrain from adultery, while men can have sex on the side without threatening the marriage and family.

    8. Witholding sex from a spouse indefinitely is a legitimate reason for divorce or sex outside the marriage, if the parties do not wish to divorce.

    9. While claims of abuse may be overblown, real domestic violence does occur and is a legitimate reason for divorce.

    10. Unhealthy or destructive habits such as substance abuse, excessive spending into extreme debt, or refusal to contribute effort to the family are all valid grounds for divorce by either party.

    11. I support prenups, and believe they should include severe penalties for cheating by either party.

    All of the above statements apply equally to men and women.

    I suspect that men here will find them wanting. I can only say that I strive for fairness, regardless of sex.

    Which brings me to my final remarks. I see that I am characterized here as being biased towards women, helping them to snag husbands at the expense of men. Again, my remarks on my own blog were taken out of context, so I’ll clarify.

    I am a woman. As such, despite my efforts and desire to learn, I will never fully grok the male experience. It is not possible. When I am accused of seeing the world through a “female centric” or “Team Woman” lens, I can only say that none of us can ever be fully neutral. I recognize that as a limitation, not a point of pride.

    I am pro-relationship and pro-marriage, but not because it benefits women. I believe that healthy relationships and good marriages confer great benefits on both sexes. Certainly, the young men who read and comment at HUS desire LTRs and marriage. I do everything I can to help them meet their goals, and appreciate the many male commenters who advise them.

    The bottom line is that I am writing for the 80%. I have no use for sluts of either gender. I disrespect promiscuity as a lifestyle, but more importantly I find it damaging to society as a whole. Men and women understand one another far less than they did 40 years ago at the Sexual Revolution. HUS is a place where I hope to chip away at that. I started the blog to make women more suitable for LTRs, and now I write for both men and women. I will continue to do that.

    I have deep respect for many in the manosphere, and value the comments that many of you have left on my blog. You are spending your time and energy to make positive changes that you believe in. I support your mission. It is not the same as mine, but we do overlap. I hope we can continue to work together.

  250. YBM says:

    “Well this is quite a discussion. I have not been in hiding, but rather preparing for Christmas, hosting family from Europe, and putting in only the minimal time at my own blog. I am not afraid to engage here, though in truth I do not believe I can get a fair hearing. ”

    I stopped reading after this. Trying to create an alpha frame only works for men honey.

  251. slwerner says:

    Susanawalsh – ”For the purposes of clarifying where I stand on these issues, I will comment on the original statement, and then describe my own beliefs re marriage and divorce.”

    Well, Susan,

    I for one find your stated positions quite reasonable, and in line with my own. I’m glad to see you took the time to thoughtfully reply, and hopefully this little tiff that had broken out can be put to rest now.

    I can understand that women will generally tend to play for “Team Woman”. I think it comes quite naturally to women – more so than does playing for “Team Man” come for men. I think Dalrock hit it squarely on the head in is earlier response to Elspeth:

    ”You are missing the dichotomy of Team Woman. Women tend to be fiercely loyal to other women in the abstract, but extremely catty with women they come into the most contact with. Men are the opposite; they tend to be extremely loyal to their friends and colleagues, but more than happy to throw men in the abstract under the bus.”

    I believe that this lack of natural widespread cooperation between men forms the basis for much of the frustration that arise in the Manosphere when it seems women are simply playing for Team Woman rather than taking a more objective look at a given situation. I would go so far as to say that we (myself included) tend to be a bit jealous that along with all the other advantages and privileges afforded to women, you also have yet another advantage over men in that women will continue to consistently, reliably and even just reflexively play for Team Woman. [and, of course, men do the same, at least occasionally]

    I think (or maybe I just hope?) that you well thought-out and rational response will serve to demonstrate that even though women will (naturally/instinctively) tend to have what might be seen as “Team Woman” initial responses, when they do take time to carefully consider an issue, they are capable of rising above it, and adopting a more just and gender-neutral position.

    There will likely never be perfect agreement between you and others who view the world from the female perspective, and the men who populate the Manosphere; but, I would hope that there would still be the possibly of constructive cooperation on many if not most issues.

  252. Pingback: Susan Walsh | The Black Pill

  253. Twenty says:

    @Susan

    Nowhere in your oh-so-reasonable message do I see any retraction of this statement:

    I think this theme [frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    Nor do I see any apology for the “you have to provide data or STFU, I can assert whatever I want” double standard.

    Nor do I see any indication that you will be doing anything to address all the high-minded points you set out (1-5, 8, 10). (What happened to 6, BTW?) The mission of your blog remains feeding men into the meat grinder.

    As for your historical indifference to divorce and family law, now supposedly addressed by your enormously gracious concession to “write a post about it”, let me do a little search-n-replace on something you wrote to demonstrate just how silly and irresponsible you are:

    I will now state my beliefs, to the extent they are informed, about these issues. It is true that I have not devoted myself to the study of geotechnical engineering. While that is Dalrock’s specialty, my own blog covers a very wide range of issues relating to all facets of purchasing Florida swampland. I do agree that I should understand soil mechanics if I am promoting construction in the Everglades, which is why I agreed to write a post about it.

    I am pro-Florida investment, but not because it benefits the current owners of that property. I believe that a good investment confers great benefits on both parties. Certainly, the investors who read and comment at SWMP want to own some land. I do everything I can to help them meet their goals, and appreciate the many other investors who advise them.

    Coupled with your “I will not have HUS used as a platform for promoting ex-patting” stance (i.e., “I will not have SWMP used to promote SoCal real estate”), it’s pretty obvious that you’re no friend of men, and I can only assume this latest message simply represents an attempt to hide that fact.

  254. Dalrock says:

    @slwerner

    I for one find your stated positions quite reasonable, and in line with my own. I’m glad to see you took the time to thoughtfully reply, and hopefully this little tiff that had broken out can be put to rest now.

    I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician. She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue. I have given her the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and worked very hard to not make this a personal issue. In return she scolds, accuses, and makes it personal. Now, as someone predicted, she returns as if none of this happened and apologizes for offending anyone who feels strongly about the issue of divorce. I expected much more from Susan.

    Even the part which appears to be acknowledging an error is actually restating what she said in the beginning, and reiterating her defense that she was taken out of context:

    In truth, it was not my intention to say that women do not file for divorce frivolously. I am well aware that they do. However, my desire to have the exchange put in context is legitimate.

    Note that this is not a retraction of the position that I challenged. She didn’t say that women never file for divorce frivolously. She said:

    Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    As far as I can tell she hasn’t retracted this and is simply continuing to deny and deflect, all the while continuing to accuse me of taking her out of context.

  255. Höllenhund says:

    Yeah, her latest comment is suspicious.

  256. "M" says:

    “I am not afraid to engage here, though in truth I do not believe I can get a fair hearing.”

    Fail. This is the same type of dodge Susan used in her initial response where she promised to look into the data but stated upfront that her response would not satisfy MRA. It basically lets her keep not only her preferred viewpoint but also victim status.

    Again. Fail.

  257. Höllenhund says:

    All that aside, I think we can admit that she’s made progress in the last two years. Her behavior is still questionable, but compare that to her views and online behavior in 2009/2010. The difference is great.

  258. imnobody says:

    I would go so far as to say that we (myself included) tend to be a bit jealous that along with all the other advantages and privileges afforded to women, you also have yet another advantage over men in that women will continue to consistently, reliably and even just reflexively play for Team Woman. [and, of course, men do the same, at least occasionally]

    Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. This has worked like charm the last forty years but it is not sustainable. Let’s see when there is Team Woman when young women age and die alone.

  259. imnobody says:

    Sorry, the last sentence should read:

    “Let’s see where Team Woman is when young women age and die alone.”

    English is hard for the non-native.

  260. Höllenhund says:

    On the other hand…consider this. She’s like what, 55? She has been educating herself about the current SMP for two years, countless men have helpfully informed her about the reality of it, and yet she’s still reluctant to face the full reality of the current SMP and its implications. She’s still learning, or should be learning. Now picture an average woman aged 21 or 22. She’s pretty much an idiot enslaved to her hormones. What are the realistic chances of her learning anything substantial about the reality of the current SMP? Pretty much none. This truly shows what bloggers like Dalrock are up against.

  261. greyghost says:

    Dalrock her last comment is the best you are going to get. For her to give the full answer and acknowledge the truth would violate the essence of who she is at a very intimate level. If you have been living a lie long enough it becomes the truth and the basis of your status as a blogger with a flock of readers. She knows what you have said give her hamster time, he’ll make it right for her.
    We have gone over thins before the end of misandry will not be an acknowledgement of misandry and an apology from women and the state but things like VAWA will not get renewed with out mdeia attention and over time with out fanfare someone will look at the stats and see more women than men arrested and convicted of DV laws even with the majority of the population still believing it is men.

  262. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue.

    Ah yes, the ANC/Jacob Zuma tactic. Quite common here. Make an outrageous claim. Such as, http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Jacob-Zuma-slams-Christianity-20111221

    Then say the media took your comments out of context, even though they are printed in a speech. When that fails, tell people who disagree that they are racist or sexist or stupid and finally, when that doesn’t work, blame Apartheid, Colonialism, Christianity, The Man, the turd wors(third force), just about any other person but themselves. Come on Susan, try something original for once!

  263. ZLX1 says:

    I think we (the men) have learned through life experience that arguing facts with a woman when she is arguing from a place of emotion is going to go nowhere fast. Even online in posts. That’s what I see going on here.

    Ever try to logically discuss something with your wife or girlfriend when she is emotional about an issue? No matter how “right” you are, or what facts you present, it really isn’t going to go anywhere. If your wife or girlfriend is of the non-female-d-bag type, a few days (or a week, lolz) later she will likely come around and apologize and agree that your facts made sense.

    I like Susan, and her blog is interesting to me. Maybe once the holiday madness is over and the emotions from this minor blowout subside, she’ll come around with a post or two that clarifies.

    So, happy holidays to everyone.

  264. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Dalrock
    It is widely established, even to being a legal principle, that silence on an argued point is concession. Mrs. Walsh no longer contests your proposition. That’s about as good as you can expect.

    To go further, one can follow Mrs. Walsh’s work and if she writes counter to this conceded point challenge her.

    @Susan Walsh
    I intend, in referring to you as Mrs. Walsh, respect of your integrity.

    You have proposed a formula for marriage, but I can’t discern an underlying theory or morality apart from the same foundation of individual preference that underpins polygamy, homosexual marriage, consanguineous marriage, and duration-defined marriage. I’m not objecting, just making note.

    Oh, and you’ve only gone half way on point #3. You are getting closer to fair and equal but men would still come out better under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ).

  265. susanawalsh says:

    @slwerner

    Thanks for your reply, and especially for your insight on the differences in the way the sexes cooperate. I had not really understood the fixation on the “Team Woman” concept, now I do.

    @Twenty @ Dalrock

    Nowhere in your oh-so-reasonable message do I see any retraction of this statement:

    I think this theme [frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    OK, let’s unpack this statement. The first thing we need is a definition of “frivolous.” What is the standard? As I have explained at length, in the context of the conversation at HUS, it was being used to describe divorces initiated by women for known adultery.

    Do you agree that meets the standard for frivolous?

    Yesterday, Unslopogaas left this definition at HUS:

    However, my position is that with “no fault divorce” in existance esentially *all divorces (except for those where spousal abuse / infidelity has been *proven beyond reasonable doubt are by their very nature…frivolous.

    As I have stated above in my list of beliefs, I disagree strongly with this statement. I have given several examples of divorce outside this definition that are justifiable.

    If you agree with Doug or Unslopogaas then I am of the opinion that the number of frivolous divorces is exaggerated in the manosphere, because I reject that standard.

    Of the 2/3 of divorces initiated by women, what percent are frivolous, and by what standard?

    Now, I am assuming that Dalrock considers infidelity valid reason to divorce, because he included the AARP study in this post. I have been unable to find any good stats on the number of divorces attributed to infidelity, which makes sense in an era of no-fault divorce. I do find the AARP data inadequate because it does not distinguish by gender. More importantly, it focuses on older couples, where infidelity is less likely to occur, and where the “self-actualization” divorce is more likely to occur. Those divorces also include couples who may have stayed together earlier for the sake of children, now grown.

    Nor do I see any apology for the “you have to provide data or STFU, I can assert whatever I want” double standard.

    That comment reflected my refusal to accept Doug’s definition of frivolous and a desire to know the answer to the question I asked above. What percentage of the total divorces initiated by women are frivolous? I have yet to see that quantified, in which case it’s impossible to assess whether the manosphere exaggerates or not. Again, if your definition is the same as Unslopogaas, then I stand by my suspicion. The onus is not on me to provide the data. If you’re going to claim that women are filing for frivolous divorce en masse, then you should be able to quantify that.

    Any expectation on the part of men here that I use HUS as an MRA platform, discouraging marriage and vilifying American women as unsuitable partners is ludicrous. I believe that marriage is good for individuals, for society, for the economy, for civilization. It is not perfect, but it is a highly valuable institution. The divorce rate for college educated couples is only 17%.

    College-educated Americans have seen their divorce rates drop
    by about 30% since the early 1980s, whereas Americans without college
    degrees have seen their divorce rates increase by about 6%. Just under
    a quarter of college-educated couples who married in the early 1970s
    divorced in their first ten years of marriage, compared to 34% of their
    less-educated peers. Twenty years later, only 17% of college-educated
    couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of
    marriage; 36% of less-educated couples who married in the early 1990s,
    however, divorced sometime in their first decade of marriage.
    This growing divorce divide means that college-educated married
    couples are now about half as likely to divorce as their less-educated
    peers. Well-educated spouses who come from intact families, who
    enjoy annual incomes over $60,000, and who conceive their first child
    in wedlock—as many college-educated couples do—have exceedingly
    low rates of divorce.

    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Wilcox_Fall09.pdf

    @”M”

    “I am not afraid to engage here, though in truth I do not believe I can get a fair hearing.”

    Fail. This is the same type of dodge Susan used in her initial response where she promised to look into the data but stated upfront that her response would not satisfy MRA. It basically lets her keep not only her preferred viewpoint but also victim status.

    I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol. If you look through this thread, you’ll find plenty of gratuitous insults, and statements about the inferiority of women. Several comments reflect a belief in male supremacy rather than equality. In addition, several commenters who have never taken the time to comment on my site or engage with me personally, most notably Rmaxd in this case, comb my blog for incendiary tidbits and report back. That’s fine, but I come here knowing that you all have already smelled blood in the water.

    @Hollenhund

    She has been educating herself about the current SMP for two years, countless men have helpfully informed her about the reality of it, and yet she’s still reluctant to face the full reality of the current SMP and its implications. She’s still learning, or should be learning.

    I am still learning, and I agree that many men have been great teachers and mentors in this area. I think it is more accurate to say that I am perhaps reluctant to face your reality of the SMP. I reject female supremacy in the form of feminism, and I reject male supremacy as well. I don’t believe that’s a useful strategic position for MRAs to hold.

    @greyghost

    For her to give the full answer and acknowledge the truth would violate the essence of who she is at a very intimate level. If you have been living a lie long enough it becomes the truth and the basis of your status as a blogger with a flock of readers.

    You do not know me at all, much less at an intimate level. You know nothing of how I live my life. I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is.

    So, to recap. The original comment was certainly taken out of context, as it was part of a conversation lasting several days and hundreds of comments. No matter. Let’s hear a definition of frivolous divorce, and an estimate on what portion of female-initiated divorces meet this standard. That’s the real issue here, so let’s get to it.

    FYI, I have a full house and a very busy day of shopping, meal prep, etc. The timing of this debate is inconvenient to say the least. I won’t be online much today, but I will try to check in. I just want to make it clear that I am not hiding or avoiding the conversation.

  266. CL says:

    @ susanawalsh
    The first thing we need is a definition of “frivolous.”

    friv·o·lous/ˈfrivələs/
    Adjective:

    Not having any serious purpose or value: “rules to stop frivolous lawsuits”.
    (of a person) Carefree and not serious.

    Synonyms:
    light-minded – trifling – flippant – light-headed

    As I have explained at length, in the context of the conversation at HUS, it was being used to describe divorces initiated by women for known adultery.

    Do you agree that meets the standard for frivolous?

    If there are children involved, then yes, it is frivolous. Divorce harms children more than a single act of adultery from a man.

  267. susanawalsh says:

    @CL

    Re infidelity as a frivolous reason to divorce:

    If there are children involved, then yes, it is frivolous. Divorce harms children more than a single act of adultery from a man.

    First, it need not be a man. The standard should be the same for both sexes. To your point though – how about repeated acts? An ongoing affair lasting years? Dad or Mom doesn’t always come home at night? Financial, emotional and time resources are been expended outside the marriage.

    I agree that the presence of children should always raise the standard for divorce. A single act of infidelity is something that many couples work through. I have read that it accounts for more than half of all couples seeking marriage counseling. What percentage of unfaithful spouses cheat only once, though? I suspect it’s a low number.

  268. @susan

    You asked “Of the 2/3 of divorces initiated by women, what percent are frivolous, and by what standard?”

    I answered this, maybe more than once, quantitatively. The analysis isn’t difficult at all, however for some reason women struggle with statistics. Oddly, in chemical engineering school, I saw the females in my class do well at the study of statistics, which probably caused my realization that women cant process statistics objectively to be delayed. But over the past 7 years in the manosphere I have seen that fact proven unequivocally. To wit:

    Man says “most people are right handed”
    Woman says :nonsense, I have 3 siblings and all are left handed”

    That displays the inability to process statistics, because it IS a statistical representation to say MOST. Women struggle to process statistics because they can at once understand them, yet over write them with emotion, meaning “I believe” statements are the pinnacle of proof, way beyond rigorous statistics.

    In the frivolous filing, of the 2/3 that were female filed, ONLY 6% were for adultery, abuse (not the goofy abuse we call abuse, of hell all the divorces are abuse driven) or substance addiction of abuse. Thats 6% of 2/3. So….take all the divorces in a given state and call it X
    0,67X is the number women file
    0.06 (.67X) is the number that were not frivolous

    Set X=100
    67 divorces women filed
    This means .06(67) = 4.02 4 divorces out of the 67 filed by women were NOT frivolous
    63 WERE FRIVOLOUS

    Like any statistic, the smaller the population the generality is applied to, the less accurate it is, applied across the United States, it comes pretty darn close to being correct

    The reasons womencant get this is they start howling ney at the mere mention of the 2/3 filing number, it so disrupts the flow of information in the brain because it is not congruent with their “I believe” thoughts, and these are based on the fact that of all the divorces they know, they happen to KNOW abuse was involved. Worse and most dogmatic are the divorces women who did file frivolously…or who have a desire to maybe do so one day, they NEED to have these stats dismantled, and its done because it messes their own life up, women spend months maybe years developing in themselves a rationale for divorce, and usually seeking out a friend(s) to agree with them, and they go read or chat with women who have divorced and they build up a buttressed “I believe” set of other women who give them the go girls they so crave. Once that empathy is established, you could prove unambiguously that women file many frivolous divorces and they simply have built in rhetorical instincts to get around facts…its quite amazing to see really how an entire rigorous analysis with sound statistical methodology can be dismissed by a woman who says “well, I disagree, all the women I know did it for good reasons” if pressed on statistics they will say “stats can be made to say anything”….but here there is a shred of truth because they confuse opinion based stats (surveys and polls about happiness and other nebulous things) with COUNTABLE things that form real OBJECTIVE statistical analysis.
    Women actually put more credence in the swishy happiness surveys or feelings polls because its what they are most exposed to in the things they read. You wont see an objective countable statistical analysis in Cosmo or any related light reading…you will see “Most women feel restless after 40″ or some nonsense like that.

    Ive come to the conclusion that when I encounter them, I just repeat the stats a few times and move on, they emoto-feedback-loop they have is unbreakablke

  269. Brendan says:

    It is indeed very hard to discern what percentage of divorces are “frivolous”.

    In part this has to do with how one defines “frivolous”. As we have been over several times on this blog and others, there isn’t really an agreement about this, especially between men and women. While most (not all) on both sides seem to agree that the “A” reasons (adultery, abandonment, addiction, abuse) are reasons for a “non-frivolous” divorce, there is quite a bit of disagreement about what each of those categories means. For example, if a husband is looking at internet porn a few times a week, is he an “addict”, and therefore divorcing him is not frivolous? We’ve seen how vehemently men and women disagree about that (myself included). Similarly, is raising one’s voice “abuse”? It is under VAWA. Again, there will be disagreement about this between men and women (and as among men and women themselves).

    The trouble is this: if a woman is divorcing frivolously (not happy/EPL type stuff), she normally will have at least a “colorable” version of one of the four As to present as the “reason” for her divorce. Someone like Elizabeth Gilbert didn’t bother with this, and was more brazen (and could be said to be the textbook example of a flagrantly frivolous divorce). But most of the time both parties to a divorce have their own “story” as to why, from their own perspective, the divorce was “justified”. This is a key psychological need for most people, both to be able to tell themselves this, as well as to provide a neatly-packaged explanation of their own divorce to family, friends and future perspective relationship partners. Almost always these “stories” omit key elements from the other person’s story, and are very much not the complete picture of things. This is a key thing that non-divorced people need to realize when they are discussing the histories of divorced people with the divorced people themselves — you’re always, always only getting one side of the story, and there is almost always some important information that you are not getting which would give insights into what really happened.

    So, yes, there are frivolous divorces. There are people who leave their spouses for other people, or just because they are bored or what have you. But most of the time, there is some underlying “reason” which can be traced to one of the four “As” in a plausible way. It isn’t that hard, really. Over the course of years of being married, if you bother to keep score (and, I will say, that rather generally women are quite naturally adept at such scorekeeping in relationships), there will be enough stuff to present your “case” for one of the four As in some plausible way. And that is why, I think, you get the pushback against the idea that so many divorces are frivolous. They generally are not viewed as frivolous by the people getting divorced, or they may be viewed as frivolous by one and not the other, or we may view it as frivolous, but others won’t. The four A’s are pretty expandable with a bit of creativity (I’ve also heard the saw from Catholic priests, when I was a Catholic, that basically everything that occurs in marriage that is bad is adultery of one form or other … talk about rationalization hamsters, that’s the priest hamster for you), and that tends to be how most people hang their hats on this.

  270. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    As I have stated above in my list of beliefs, I disagree strongly with this statement. I have given several examples of divorce outside this definition that are justifiable.

    And there is the problem in a nut shell. You will believe every women stating they have been abused, cheated on and are not happy in marriage and divorcing, taking half their husbands wealth and his children, without reasonable proof needed of anything they say. These women don’t need to backup their statements with evidence in court and they get to use divorce as a means to take wealth away from men. That’s theft Susan! If you support it, as you’re doing, you’re supporting criminals. That’s what no fault divorce means. It means that you don’t have to prove your reasons for divorce to be granted, you just give any reason on whatever basis you determine to be “right”. And you do get that these men go to JAIL, Susan, for not being able to afford the alimony theft and child support given to these divorce hungry women? Oh, I guess not!

    Of the 2/3 of divorces initiated by women, what percent are frivolous, and by what standard?

    You can’t have a standard on divorce being acceptable Susan because there is NO standard of proof needed for divorce to be granted. Please tell me you get that?! At the moment you’re just playing with meanings of words and changing them depending on your mood. You want equality, yet you can’t determine yourself what frivolous means??? And by claiming equality without actually working for it, is exactly what a feminist is. You’re a feminist!

    I reject female supremacy in the form of feminism…

    No you don’t, you just think you do, standing up for men in your head Chels sort of song, whilst taking every advantage given to you by the current laws and system designed to keep men out of touch with the current marriage and sexual market place. Your continued avoidance of women using divorce as a means to better themselves and abuse their husbands is shocking!

    Susan, what were you up to before getting married? Were you a “good girl”? I’m guessing not and the women on your blog ain’t good either. They just sex it up and go from one guy to the next, like little princesses. Not worth marriage! They want marriage to fulfill that little dream of the white wedding dress and everyone fawning all over them, little sluts that they are! And when they divorce their husbands, you will cheer them on because you believe every little word they say. Fracking hell, d’oh!

    I’ve been playing nice but you’re just dodging the issue and shifting gears to blame place. Why should guys like us care about the good of society, family and civilisation if it brings us nothing but regret, jail time and slutty broads who will stick you with the divorce knife as soon as it’s expedient to do so? You cannot even see that because you continue to campaign in the direction you are going by getting men and women to marry under the current set up, that you’re in fact allowing civilisation to go into further decline. Refer to my profile picture on where to bang your head. Your worth it!

  271. imnobody says:

    Man says “most people are right handed”
    Woman says :nonsense, I have 3 siblings and all are left handed”

    There are two causes of this:

    The first one is that no person (whether man or woman) can be convinced about things s/he doesn’t want to be convinced about. You can quote all the statistics in the world but they will find an argument to dismiss them, even if the argument does not make sense. This is especially true in woman, who see the world through the lens of emotion.

    The second one is that evolutionary psychology explains why women are narcissistic so they are interested in their surroundings. This is why women are not that interested in abstract causes but in things that matter to them. I remember Paul Newman saying something along the lines of: “At home, I am the one who rules and take the important decisions, e.g., what is the opinion of the Newman family about nuclear energy. My wife takes the unimportant positions: where we are going to live, what kind of school the kids are going to attend”.

    In general, women don’t care about great causes and abstracts truth, but about their private problems. Every abstract caused is framed in private terms. So, when someone says “reform the divorce courts”, she is thinking about how she could impact her (present or future) life, the life of her friends, daughters, etc. She will have the opinion that suits her best in this light. Justice be damned. This is the cause of Team Woman.

  272. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Ive come to the conclusion that when I encounter them, I just repeat the stats a few times and move on, they emoto-feedback-loop they have is unbreakablke

    The hamster strikes again! Someone should get Susan a hamster wheel for Christmas. Perhaps Dalrock can set up a paypal service so we can all donate and get her female commentators their very own hamster wheels too?

  273. CL says:

    @ susanawalsh

    I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is. [emphasis added]

    Well doesn’t that just say it all.

  274. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Well doesn’t that just say it all.

    Typical! Her truth is above all else and you have no right to judge her truth, simply because you don’t know what that truth is because that truth changed from day to day, in constant refinement with her hamster as its speeds towards oblivion but still, you can’t judge because you don’t know what it is but she ain’t gonna tell you because she don’t know what it is herself until she’s decided on the day but that won’t stay until tomorrow because her truth changed and now you still don’t know her truth but don’t judge!

  275. 7man says:

    SWUT = Susan Walsh Unknowable Truth

  276. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    That sounds like a book cover, perhaps one of those romance novels Susan and her troop love so much? Susan can be the female protagonist, banging from man to man until such a stage as she finds Mr Rite, but Mr Rite ain’t right because her truth was unknown to him and Susan’s truth being above all else, she had to bang and leave him for another bang on the side but that truth didn’t last either as her hamster run off with another bang. An endless emotional, drama fulled steamroller of female porn.

    Hell, maybe she can get preggers by an Alien or something, can’t do vampire as that’s done already?! I’m sure if we all chip in this can be a best seller and perhaps a movie deal to boot, being sold to hoes, sluts, slags and manginas, it’s our gold ticket to freedom and wealth!

  277. umslopogaas says:

    @Mrs Walsh:

    [Umslopogaas]“However, my position is that with “no fault divorce” in existance esentially *all divorces (except for those where spousal abuse / infidelity has been *proven beyond reasonable doubt are by their very nature…frivolous.”

    As I have stated above in my list of beliefs, I disagree strongly with this statement. I have given several examples of divorce outside this definition that are justifiable.

    If you agree with Doug or Unslopogaas then I am of the opinion that the number of frivolous divorces is exaggerated in the manosphere, because I reject that standard.”

    Alright, please correct me if I have misunderstood you…but do you by this statement mean that divorces where abuse / infidelity is *claimed* yet *not proven* are *not* frivolous?

    Because, as others have already noted, *anything* can be *claimed*…and consequently will be, once the need arises.

    This is my problem with no fault divorce + gynocentric family courts: The courts are biased and eager to believe any and all fairy tail some poor deary invents to villify her spouse and justify her divorce filing. The truth of the matter…is oftentimes something altogether different.

    Do you understand what I’m driving at?

    If you do *not* believe claims, alone, suffice for a divorce then clearly you will agree with me that *all present divorces (minus those where actual proof is provided) are frivolous, right?

    Bottomline:

    1.) divorces based on *claims* alone (regardless of what) and lacking *proof*, imo, are *frivolous.

    2,) At present we have *no fault divorce* in existance throughout the West, effectively meaning that in most divorce instances *proof* is not provided as it is *not* required.

    3.) Thus the overwhelming majority of all presently filed divorces regardless for what reason (minus those where *proof* is in fact provided) are, in actual fact, frivolous

    4.) We have already established that women file the majority of all divorces.

    5.) Consequently, the majority of all divorces are both *frivolous and filed by *women.

    I hope this clarifies things.

    One last thing (for clarity’s sake) regarding my position quoted by you:

    [Umslopogaas] “However, my position is that with “no fault divorce” in existance esentially *all divorces (except for those where spousal abuse / infidelity has been *proven beyond reasonable doubt) are by their very nature…frivolous.”

    I believe you had some grievance with it and claimed it did not encompass other justifications for divorces such as excessive gambling, financial ruination, drug abuse etc. Imo, arguably, it *does* encompass these reasons because they are all, imo, by their very nature spousal abuse.

  278. deti says:

    Brendan’s take on this is good. But neither it nor Susan’s post at 7:30 this morning help us much in getting to the issue at hand, i.e. is frivolous divorce exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere?

    Keep in mind: I don’t agree with those who reject SW or HUS wholesale. I’m simply examining this one issue and the responses, arguments and counterarguments surrounding it. I don’t care about her previous life, or her advocation of marriage 2.0, or claims that she’s out to “build a better beta” in the context of this one point, and frankly, I don’t think anyone else should either.

    Susan’s response dances around the issue, in my view. She presumes what she says is Doug1′s definition of “frivolous”, which she says includes a woman divorcing for husband infidelity. The problem with this is that almost no one holds the view that divorcing for infidelity is frivolous. It is silly and disingenuous to suggest that frivolous divorce is exaggerated because an infinitesimally small minority views wives divorcing for husband infidelity as falling within the “frivolous” definition.

    Somewhere I saw posted here that 16% to 27% of divorces were a result of spousal infidelity. Doesn’t that suggest that the remainder of wife initiated divorces (73% to 84%) are for reasons other than infidelity?

    SW said this:

    “What percentage of the total divorces initiated by women are frivolous? I have yet to see that quantified, in which case it’s impossible to assess whether the manosphere exaggerates or not.”

    Thinking critically about this and comparing it to SW’s previous statement that she “thinks” the issue of frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown” in the manosphere: If it is impossible to determine or quantify frivolous wife-initiated divorce, then neither SW nor the as-yet undefined “manosphere” knows whether it’s overstated or not. Claims of frivolous wife-initiated divorce might be overblown, but then again they might not be. So if there’s a dearth of data, shouldn’t SW retract the statement that claims of it are “exaggerated or overblown”, or at least concede that the available data does not support her opinion? She is the one who made the statement/asserted the opinion.

    SW: “Again, if your definition is the same as Unslopogaas, then I stand by my suspicion.”

    Well, OK, but only a tiny minority of people believe husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. It’s disingenuous to assert the beliefs of a tiny minority as a basis for believing that wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown”. A suspicion based on something almost no one else believes is a pointless suspicion and a lot of wasted effort.

    SW: “The onus is not on me to provide the data. If you’re going to claim that women are filing for frivolous divorce en masse, then you should be able to quantify that.”

    No, the onus IS on her to provide the data. SW opined that claims of wife-initiated frivolous divorce are “exaggerated and overblown” in the manosphere. If it’s just a feeling or a hunch she had based on observation, anecdote and intuition, fine. Those are useful to a point. If she believes the complaining about “wife-initiated frivolous divorce” is a lot of bellyaching from MRAs who got royally screwed in their divorces, fine. And I’ll even state that there is a lot of that in the manosphere, much of which is justified. But concede the data isn’t there; or if there is data, present it or analyze it.

    And the issue is not whether the undefined “manosphere” claims “women are filing for frivolous divorce en masse”. The opinion was the flip side of that, which was “I think [wife initiated frivolous divorce is] exaggerated and overblown”. Respectfully, this debate is on its third day and about 250th comment of life, and I have yet to see any factual substantiation for this opinion other than including in “wife initiated frivolous divorce” the category of divorces for husbandly infidelity, a position that almost no one holds.

    I don’t find it persuasive.

  279. susanawalsh says:

    @empathologicalism

    You appear to define non-frivolous divorce as that resulting from adultery, real abuse or substance addiction. That the broadest definition offered here yet. However, you misquote the 6% statistic from the Mining “Boots” study. That number refers only to divorces citing cruelty as grounds for divorce in the state of Virginia. VA defines cruelty as bodily harm or willful desertion or abandonment for a period lasting longer than one year. Other grounds in the VA code include:

    adultery
    conviction of a felony
    a period of uninterrupted separation lasting at least one year

    Clearly, there are many more divorces filed that do not fall under the definition of cruelty but are not frivolous.

    In addition, the study’s authors had to issue a clarification due to erroneous interpretation of the results as signifying anything about no-fault divorce:

    As it turned out, only four states collected information on who filed for divorce and included custody information. This data amounted to information on over 46,000 individuals. Using this data, we found evidence that both men and women file for divorce in order to appropriate assets. We also found evidence that individuals file for divorce when they are being exploited in a marriage. The finding of most significance, though, was that the spouse anticipating child custody was most likely to file. Since women more often than men receive custody, this explained most of the difference in filing behavior. To miss the point is to miss the major finding of the work.

    This finding is the primary reason I believe that joint custody should be presumed. Minig suggested that custody be awarded based on the amount of time each parent spent with the children prior to divorce. However, I believe that favors SAHMs in homes where husbands have provided most of all of the family’s income.

  280. susanawalsh says:

    @CL

    I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is. [emphasis added]

    Well doesn’t that just say it all.

    What does it say exactly? Do you not have a code of principles and beliefs that you live by? Are your ethics identical to everyone else’s? Or do they adhere to an absolute truth?

    Every woman and man must find their own purpose, their own truth.

    Do you believe that greyghost is qualified to opine on the essence of who I am at an intimate level? That is the truth I speak of, not the statistics of frivolous divorce, which may or may not be obtainable.

  281. susanawalsh says:

    @Feminist Hater

    You will believe every women stating they have been abused, cheated on and are not happy in marriage and divorcing, taking half their husbands wealth and his children, without reasonable proof needed of anything they say.

    Why do you think so? I haven’t said that. In fact, if you read my statement of beliefs, you could not write this in good faith. I absolutely do not support women divorcing because they are not haaaaapy. That is the self-actualization reason I cited above. Nor have I said that women should be awarded assets without having to offer proof of accusations. I stated that the domestic violence laws are unfair because they presume male guilt. As for abuse, it seems to me that if it is real, it can be documented. Witnesses, police reports, and medical reports of injury should all be available if real abuse is occurring.

    Similarly, I don’t think cheating is difficult to document. Of course, all of this is moot in no-fault divorce, which I oppose.

    As I said above, the divorce rate for college educated couples is 17%. The real story of marriage and divorce in this country is highly stratified by SES and education. In no way am I encouraging irresponsible behavior or the “decline of civilization” by advocating for marriage among my readership.

  282. CL says:

    Susan, what you are espousing is moral relativism and you betray a distinct lack of understanding as to what constitutes principles.

  283. susanawalsh says:

    @Umslopogaas

    Thank you for clarifying, especially wrt spousal abuse. For the record I do not believe that spouses filing for divorce should get any renumeration based on accusations they cannot demonstrate to be true. Proof is an absolute word, but I believe a reasonable doubt standard should apply.

    However, you go too far by claiming that all divorces where proof is not offered are frivolous. How many people filing for divorce provide more than they are required to? I do not deny the unfairness of these laws, particularly as they impact child custody and financial assets. But “frivolity” speaks to the intent of the party filing, and under the current system that is largely unknowable. Therefore, ascribing frivolity, with an eye toward committing divorce theft, to all women filing for divorce is unreasonable.

    Therefore, if your definition of frivolous divorce is all divorces where proof of wrongdoing is not provided (under current no-fault divorce), then I reject it and confirm that in my view, the frivolous divorce claim is exaggerated in the manosphere.

  284. susanawalsh says:

    @CL

    Moral relativism is innate to human beings. We should aim to fight that in our own natures, and that is what organized religion provides: a roadmap of principles and rules. However, I am a Catholic who practiced birth control. Immoral? Thou shalt not lie, but last night I told my daughter he ass didn’t look fat in those jeans. Immoral?

    Morality is never black and white. We may point to obvious examples in history and cry “Moral relativism!” One recent example is the American Feminist refusal to condemn the practice of clitorectomies in Muslim countries, out of respect for their beliefs. That’s easy. As we’ve seen in this discussion, judging the veracity of a man or woman’s claim of what constitutes a broken marriage is not so straightforward.

  285. susanawalsh says:

    @deti

    The problem with this is that almost no one holds the view that divorcing for infidelity is frivolous. It is silly and disingenuous to suggest that frivolous divorce is exaggerated because an infinitesimally small minority views wives divorcing for husband infidelity as falling within the “frivolous” definition.

    Again, the thread on my blog was contained to the issue of infidelity as a frivolous cause, as promoted by Doug. You may describe him as a minority of one, but he made the claim repeatedly, giving examples including Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant, IIRC. This was in a post that followed the now infamous male sexuality post, in which Doug and Lokland defended infidelity as a legitimate practice that should be tolerated by women because men need sexual variety. That is the context, and repeated attempts to strip the context from the conversation are not helpful, and obscure the truth.

    So if there’s a dearth of data, shouldn’t SW retract the statement that claims of it are “exaggerated or overblown”, or at least concede that the available data does not support her opinion? She is the one who made the statement/asserted the opinion.

    Would it be fair to say that Dalrock has an entire blog dedicated primarily to frivolous divorce? Apologies if I am unfairly characterizing Dalrock as giving great attention to this issue, but I believe he has written many posts on the topic. In any case, it’s prevalent enough that it comes up on a blog about dating in college, including claims such as the one Umslopogaas made.

    Well, OK, but only a tiny minority of people believe husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. It’s disingenuous to assert the beliefs of a tiny minority as a basis for believing that wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown”. A suspicion based on something almost no one else believes is a pointless suspicion and a lot of wasted effort.

    I’m glad to hear it. So far, the only people who have agreed here are Umslopogaas, provided proof is offered as part of the proceedings, yourself, and slwerner (apologies if I missed anyone, I don’t have time to reread the whole thread). Not even Dalrock in this post has acknowledged the validity of divorcing for reasons of adultery. At my blog, Doug1 has carried the flag, but here there appear to be many men who find that standard unreasonable.

    If no one holds this position, deti, I wish they would say so, because I’m beginning to feel that my original comment understated the degree of exaggeration. When I said it I assumed that men like Doug were in the minority. I’m surprised that, despite what you claim, most of the men here agree with him.

  286. susanawalsh says:

    Ah, forgot to mention empathologicalism. He also made his position re adultery clear.

  287. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Susan, the very idea that someone can divorce without having to prove anything is frivolous. I’m surprised you still fail to understand that. Within divorce court, all people are doing when they are divorcing is providing an excuse, not a reason. I’ll say this only once, hopefully you will get it but I doubt that.

    You cannot expect men to marry when there is a reasonable and high chance they will probably end up divorced, without their kids, in serious financial slavery to both their ex-spouse and the state, or in jail for any number of reasons. The amount of men that need to get married under the current system is zero, ZERO, zero! Until you and your bunch of slut, wannabe women commentators get that through your heads, your pandering is useless, unequivocally useless. You are Team Women.

    Here’s another issue, and this is going to throw you for a curve ball. As long as women get to slut it up and play their hypergamous lifestyle in their twenties and thirties, every man should be able to keep a harem of married women, i.e. men should be able to cheat on their wives, since their wives didn’t sacrifice their youth, sexual chastity and fertility for their husband. Why should their husbands sacrifice their fidelity to just one women, men should be able to be polygamous? Fair is fair, after all.

  288. slwerner says:

    Dalrock – ”I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician.”

    I suppose that I’m more willing to accept what she posted since I hadn’t been involved/invested in the ongoing disagreement (arrived late, skimmed through the comments here, and didn’t even check out the massive thread on her site). I can understand that these sort of things often tend to get rather personal (happens to me all the time) so I don’t expect that her clarification of her positions does much for you in that it does gloss over numerous element so of the exchange between her and yourself (and others).

    I’ve just taken it at it’s “face value” to be an indication that she has at least taken the time to think through some of the issues. I took her retort about “men cheat more” to be in line with the typical “Team Woman” responses/attitudes that I’ve observed over the years. Assailed by the idea that women divorcing over a man’s infidelity amounted to a frivolous reason, she seemed to me to simply blurt out a rather common “Team Woman”/”man=bad, woman=good” talking point that many of them (and not a few manginas) default to.

    While I understand that it can seem a rather dishonest assertion (woman having been shown to cheat nearly as often, etc.), I felt it more of a misplaced comment in addressing the issue of whether or not infidelity can be seem as a frivolous reason for divorce.

    Now, if I’m understanding it correctly, Doug has asserted that a man’s (uniquely) infidelity is not only no reason for a wife to divorce, but something that women should perhaps accept within marriages.

    I have to say that I must disagree with Doug. He says a lot of things that I agree with, but that one, I simply cannot get behind.

    On the other hand, I would imagine that had Susan kept her focus on addressing that, rather than attacking the importance of “frivolous divorce” and invoking the “it’s men who are the cheaters” meme, then things would not have blown-up the way they have.

    I understand that the harm of male infidelity is naturally going to be a “Team Woman” issue, and Doug certainly hit that hot-button. But it seems that Susan failed to appreciate that, to the limited extent that it exists, the seeming dismissal of the concern of “frivolous divorce” and any invocation of “men=bad” memes will also be hot-buttons for “Team Manosphere”

  289. Dalrock says:

    @Susan Walsh

    Of course, all of this is moot in no-fault divorce, which I oppose.

    This makes no sense. Given how adamant you are that the system isn’t being abused in a significant way, why do you think it should be overhauled to make it more complicated? You are trying to have this both ways by arguing that the system isn’t broken, then claiming you support fixing it.

    This is a clumsy sleight of hand, and I doubt it fools many. Likewise when you wrote this about Brinig and Allen’s finding that children are the marriages’ most valuable asset and that the opportunity to appropriate this asset (divorce theft) via default wife custody is the incentive which is encouraging women to initiate divorce at twice the rate as men:

    This finding is the primary reason I believe that joint custody should be presumed.

    Again, you advocate the fix while standing by your vehement denial that the system is broken. You don’t advocate joint custody because it is the best thing for children; you advocate it to remove the incentive for rampant divorce theft, something which you simultaneously deny is occurring, something you accuse others of having overblown in an “echo chamber”.

  290. Dalrock says:

    @Susan Walsh

    I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol.

    This only makes sense if your definition of “firing squad” is “challenged me to back up my statements in a non personal way”. I’ve gone out of my way to frame any disagreements we have as not personal, and have repeatedly asked my readers to offer you the same courtesy. I only wish you had responded in kind. This is a sphere of intellectual debate, sometimes involving strong intellectual disagreement.

    That you can’t separate this from the personal suggests to me that you aren’t cut out for what you are doing. You have a worldwide platform, are mentioned in the national media, and I’m sure have thousands of hits a day on your site. Yet you want to be allowed to say whatever you want as “your own truth”, and anyone who challenges this (even while taking pains to make it non personal) is a mean man who hurt your feelings. Bullshit.

  291. deti says:

    Susan:

    If what you want is a statement that husband infidelity is grounds for divorce, you’ll certainly get wholehearted agreement on that at least from me. I hold that even one isolated instance of husband infidelity is grounds for immediate divorce. No “it was a mistake”, no “working it out”. I feel the same way about wifely infidelity; told my wife more than once that if she’s cheated on me only once, even if it were a single, isolated instance, the divorce papers will be on file the next day.

    Infidelity is the unforgivable sin of marriage. It cannot be corrected, worked through, or resolved to the point that trust could ever be regained.

    So at the risk of inappropriate levity: “men cheating on their wives is bad, mmmmmkay?”

    I simply cannot wrap my limited mind around the concept that in today’s day and age, there would be even a substantial minority of people who believe husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. I just don’t believe that for one single, solitary minute. I don’t think you believe it either. I am sure there are those who believe a wife isn’t justified in divorcing a husband for infidelity. Doug1 might believe that; that is fine. I have to believe he’s one of a very, very, VERY small group who believes that.

    The point is: lumping that infinitesimally small speck in and then opining wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated” lends no support to your opinion.

    “I’m beginning to feel that my original comment understated the degree of exaggeration.”

    Really, Susan? Do you truly believe that most married men in the manosphere believe they have a right to cheat on their wives behind their backs with impunity when the wife has an expectation that her husband will not have sex with other women? I’m not seeing that from Dalrock, nor this blog, nor any views he’s ever expressed, nor his previous posts, nor from the comments here. Doug1 has an arrangement with his SO so I don’t think that counts. Everyone who’s spent any amount of time on these blogs that comprise the manosphere/ gamesphere/ Roissysphere/ whateversphere knows the consensus is that men simply shouldn’t marry because it’s not in their pecuniary or sex-life interest to do so. I don’t see a lot of “husbands should be able to have extramarital sex without the wives’ consent”.

  292. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Really, Susan? Do you truly believe that most married men in the manosphere believe they have a right to cheat on their wives behind their backs with impunity when the wife has an expectation that her husband will not have sex with other women? I’m not seeing that from Dalrock, nor this blog, nor any views he’s ever expressed, nor his previous posts, nor from the comments here. Doug1 has an arrangement with his SO so I don’t think that counts. Everyone who’s spent any amount of time on these blogs that comprise the manosphere/ gamesphere/ Roissysphere/ whateversphere knows the consensus is that men simply shouldn’t marry because it’s not in their pecuniary or sex-life interest to do so. I don’t see a lot of “husbands should be able to have extramarital sex without the wives’ consent”.

    Oh deti, don’t let her shaming language fool you. You’re a pretty intelligent guy, you can tell the difference between expression an opinion and trying to shame someone onto your side of the argument.

    The point Susan is missing is that when it comes to marriage, it’s a sacrifice. At the moment, the man sacrifices everything and the woman doesn’t. She gets to slut it up and eventually expects to find a decent mate whilst at the same time expecting her eventual husband to faithfully wait until she is ready. Does that sound like sacrifice to you? Sure doesn’t to me. If that is what she expects from marriage then you can be damn sure I expect the man to cheat on her, as a slut like that doesn’t deserve a decent, good faithful husband. She is equating a good, sound marriage, between a faithful husband and a good, chaste and fertile woman to a marriage between an Alpha Cad and a loose, slutty broad who just finished the tour de cock with the taste of dick still fresh in her mouth.

    If you, as a women, slut it up in your youth and then marry, you DESERVE to be pumped and dumped, cheated on, pushed to the curb until you die lonely, alone, loner loser alone with cats!

  293. Dalrock says:

    @Susan Walsh

    Again, the thread on my blog was contained to the issue of infidelity as a frivolous cause, as promoted by Doug. You may describe him as a minority of one, but he made the claim repeatedly, giving examples including Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant, IIRC. This was in a post that followed the now infamous male sexuality post, in which Doug and Lokland defended infidelity as a legitimate practice that should be tolerated by women because men need sexual variety. That is the context, and repeated attempts to strip the context from the conversation are not helpful, and obscure the truth.

    This might fly if you hadn’t stated that the manosphere was making a mountain out of a molehill. You didn’t say Doug1, you said the manosphere. You also quoted a different statement from Doug1 than you claim you actually were replying to.

    Would it be fair to say that Dalrock has an entire blog dedicated primarily to frivolous divorce? Apologies if I am unfairly characterizing Dalrock as giving great attention to this issue, but I believe he has written many posts on the topic.

    I wouldn’t characterize the blog as solely dedicated to the issue, but I have certainly written a great deal about it, arguably more than any other mainstream manosphere site in the last year. Who else did you have in mind when you said the manosphere is over-blowing the issue?

    Not even Dalrock in this post has acknowledged the validity of divorcing for reasons of adultery.

    Bullshit. I not only addressed this, but I provided links to remind you of my own position on this:

    As for Doug1′s other comments on open marriage and tolerance of male infidelity, this doesn’t surprise me. I assumed he made that case at your site as he does fairly consistently in the manosphere. I disagree with him there, and don’t give men a pass for actual infidelity (not talking about internet porn). I’ve listed it as a valid reason for divorce since the very beginning of my blog, and you may recall I also agree with you that women shouldn’t marry alphas for this same reason.

  294. 7man says:

    @SW “But “frivolity” speaks to the intent of the party filing, and under the current system that is largely unknowable.”

    This is a great argument in favor of MGTOW (or not getting married), since it is impossible to know whether any particular woman will instigate a frivolous divorce. Without definable and enforceable standards, the risk to men is unconstrained. Any man that researches this (and understand the implications of the general beliefs of women), would be a total fool to risk marriage when the justification for a non-frivolous divorce rests of entirely on the morally-relative, rationalization-hamster-derived “proof” existing in the mind of a woman, as a valid reason for her initiating divorce.

  295. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    This is a great argument in favor of MGTOW (or not getting married), since it is impossible to know whether any particular woman will instigate a frivolous divorce. Without definable and enforceable standards, the risk to men is unconstrained. Any man that researches this (and understand the implications of the general beliefs of women), would be a total fool to risk marriage when the justification for a non-frivolous divorce rests of entirely on the morally-relative, rationalization-hamster-derived “proof” existing in the mind of a woman, as a valid reason for her initiating divorce.

    Women love this sort of idea, I imagine it appeals to their screwed sense of morality. Under no fault divorce there is no need for an evidentiary burden to base their feelings on. Their feelings rule the roost and this is perfect for women. The more Susan digs, she should have played the game “Digger” back in the day, the more she makes our case. It really is funny to see! No shit Sherlock! Keep digging Susan!

  296. deti says:

    Feminist Hater: “Oh deti, don’t let her shaming language fool you. You’re a pretty intelligent guy, you can tell the difference between expression an opinion and trying to shame someone onto your side of the argument.”

    For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t care about SW’s motives I’m trying to discern whether there is factual support for her opinion that the claim of wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown” in the manosphere (whatever that is). So far I haven’t seen any. With due respect to SW, she hasn’t offered anything persuasive. To her credit, she’s at least acknowledged that she made the statement out of frustration and vehement disagreement with Doug1′s positions. If frustration is, at bottom, the source of the opinion that’s being scrutinized, fine. I can accept that. That frustration, and the lack of factual support, should be acknowledged as such.

    The point I keep making, perhaps not very articulately, is this:

    Only a very, very small number of people in the contemprary United States believe that husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. I will even go out on a very flimsy limb and suggest that only a very, very small number of people in the manosphere believe husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. It’s pretty weak sauce to suggest that that very small group of people who DO believe that husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce, lumped together with what really is wife-initiated frivolous divorce, therefore means the issue of wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown”.

  297. CL says:

    The problem is that Susan is engaging in that typically female ground shifting tactic in an argument, where there is no possibility to end it and it just becomes increasingly frustrating if you actually engage. She knows she doesn’t have a leg to stand on, yet insists on digging the hole she’s in deeper and deeper.

    If one is going to say “humans are innately morally relativistic”, then why bother trying to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of anything? Why all the indignation on her blog over Doug1 in the first place? Isn’t his choice of arrangement equally valid, as it “works for him” (and his woman/women)? If PUAs do “what works for them” and have no moral qualm with it, why should anyone else care if morals are all relative and personal? It sure seems to matter at Susan’s blog, yet, when she is called out on anything, it’s all DHMIAG. I would work the same logic here with sluts, but they seem to more or less get a pass at HUS.

    It really is too bad she couldn’t have just taken some correction gracefully but instead has chosen to destroy systematically her own reputation.

    [D: I had to look up DHMIAG. Great term. I see this quite often in the blogosphere.]

  298. Retrenched says:

    @ imnobody
    In other words, provide data or STFU. But I won’t provide data and I won’t STFU. You have to prove your opinions, I don’t.
    It’s scary how Susan is becoming more and more similar to feminists.

    Then Susan says:
    I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is.
    She couldn’t have proven imnobody right any more perfectly if she tried.
    As for being similar to feminists, all that’s left is for Susan to accuse Dalrock et al of “gaslighting” for challenging her feelings and her “truth” with the facts, and the circle will be complete.

  299. Retrenched says:

    Ah crap, messed up the html…

    [D: I'm not sure what you intended so I don't know how to fix it for you. If you want, rewrite it and I'll delete the original and this comment as well.]

  300. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Only a very, very small number of people in the contemprary United States believe that husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. I will even go out on a very flimsy limb and suggest that only a very, very small number of people in the manosphere believe husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce. It’s pretty weak sauce to suggest that that very small group of people who DO believe that husband infidelity is not a ground for divorce, lumped together with what really is wife-initiated frivolous divorce, therefore means the issue of wife-initiated frivolous divorce is “exaggerated and overblown”.

    True, very true.

    Susan needs to understand something though. If the majority of men start to understand what we already know, that marriage 2.0 is doomed. She will no longer be able to “teach” reformed sluts to bag a man. Sorry slutty sluts but no men really want or need you, just for sex and a couple of pump and dumps, that’s what you want though, right? So…no harm then. Men will simply use them and kick them to the curb where they belong. I would say her’s and Dalrock’s goals are opposites. She tries to get women and men to accept marriage 2.0 and work their way around it. Whereas Dalrock and other manosphere bloggers are trying to teach men to ditch marriage 2.0 and screen their future wives in order to achieve marriage 3.0. Or even, marriage 1.0, if we’re lucky.

    Susan’s idea is doomed for failure from the start. She won’t or can’t understand that. Her problem I guess, it’s lonely up on Slut Hill!

  301. umslopogaas says:

    @Feminist Hater:

    Susan, the very idea that someone can divorce without having to prove anything is frivolous. I’m surprised you still fail to understand that. Within divorce court, all people are doing when they are divorcing is providing an excuse, not a reason. I’ll say this only once, hopefully you will get it but I doubt that.”

    Exactly. This is what I was trying to say with my own post. It might have gotten a tad too long in the heat of the moment…

    Here’s another issue, and this is going to throw you for a curve ball. As long as women get to slut it up and play their hypergamous lifestyle in their twenties and thirties, every man should be able to keep a harem of married women, i.e. men should be able to cheat on their wives, since their wives didn’t sacrifice their youth, sexual chastity and fertility for their husband. Why should their husbands sacrifice their fidelity to just one women, men should be able to be polygamous? Fair is fair, after all.

    Indeed, your point has merit. I however come to an altogether different conclusion: any kind of sustainable solution of our (many) present woes will have to include the reigning in of out of control female sexual hypergamy. Simply put, the ‘slut culture’ must end. I for one envision the return of societal restraint, female modesty (especially with regards to sexuality) and strict enforcement of monogamy. Evidently, if women wouldn’t ride the carousel in their youth, but married men instead, say, in their early 20s…and society as a whole collaborated to keep these marriages stable (slut, infidelity & divorce shaming, exclusion etc.) every man would, in essence, get a fresh “unused” woman & a reasonable chance at a lifelong marriage.

    This is the formula that worked for millenia, until feminism tore it down. Call me conservative but I for one believe at this point…it is preferable to restore society using a timeproven method than to experiment with yet another societal utopia (that can just as easily also end in dystopia).

    Finally it is clear that for the individual (both male and female) this kind of system would *not* be optimal…as male polygamy and female hypergamy would both be restrained. But clearly (to me) individual curtailment is neccessary…if we want to repair Western society.

    At the end of the day we are little more than animals. We have only the thinnest veneer of civilization in us, below and beyond lurks through savagery. Deluded idealists in the 20th century believed societal freedom would bring out the best in people. It does not. It brings out the worst (especially in the case of women).

    We are fallen creatures and require strict moral guidelines that are credibly enforced. Otherwise we lose ourselves in moral relativism and sexual and societal anarchy.

  302. Twenty says:

    I think this theme [frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

    OK, let’s unpack this statement. The first thing we need is a definition of “frivolous.” What is the standard? As I have explained at length, in the context of the conversation at HUS, it was being used to describe divorces initiated by women for known adultery.

    This is the worst, most obvious instance of squid ink I’ve seen in many a moon. Let’s substitute your ridiculous “in-context” definition into your statement and see what (you now claim) you were “really” saying:

    “I think that the theme of women divorcing for frivolous reasons is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber, because MRAs consider verified adultery to be a frivolous reason.”

    This is stupid on stilts. It would either mean that the manosphere is overstating non-frivolous (in the normal, English sense of the word, not your kooky, thread-dependent, Humpty-Dumpty sense) divorce in general (it isn’t), or that the manosphere is particularly fixated on divorce triggered by the husband’s adultery (it isn’t). I challenge you to prove either of these meanings that you’ve magicked into existence.

    (Note: If you don’t like my pass at reconstructing your “real” meaning, provide one of your own. Your hand-wavy “oh, in context that doesn’t mean what it seems to mean” BS is insufferable. Provide a clear statement that you are willing to defend, or retract your original statement.)

    Your introduction of Unslopogaas’ position (note: “position”, not “definition”) of yesterday is completely meaningless — and particularly silly for someone who’s made such a fetish of “context”. You can’t take a statement from the future and use it to frame a statement in the past.

    You claim that your “data or STFU” remark represented “refusal to accept Doug’s definition of frivolous and a desire to know the answer to the question I asked above” and that “onus is not on me to provide the data”. Uhm … if you’re going to take a “data or STFU” stance, yes it damn well is. You are making a claim about the manosphere, so you have to prove it. Or, you know, STFU.

    You didn’t say: “Frivolous divorce: what are the stats?” You took a position (“it’s less than you think”) and then asserted that the other side had the burden of proof. When proof was presented, you sniffily “[found] the … data inadequate”, despite it being better than anything you have.

    Letsee — squid ink, goalpost moving, deflection of responsibility — you’re not looking real good here. What else you got?

    Well, you claim that “The divorce rate for college educated couples is only 17%”. The cite you quote states that “only 17% of college-educated couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of marriage”. So, your claim is 100% backed up by data, so long as we can all go back in time and marry in the early 1990s, and so long as no one ever divorces after 10 years of marriage. Ah. Yeah, not doing much for your credibility.

    Anything else?

    Any expectation on the part of men here that I use HUS as an MRA platform … is ludicrous. I believe that marriage is good for individuals, for society, for the economy, for civilization. It is not perfect, but it is a highly valuable institution.

    You elide the fact that not only will you not “use HUS as an MRA platform”, but that you will censor MRA viewpoints from that platform, even mild ones that simply point out the unfavorable legal climate in the US, and suggest that a man might be better served by the legal arrangements elsewhere. Furthermore, in making clear that you will not take men’s rights into account in your advocacy of an institution that men are intimately involved in, you make clear that you view us simply as beasts of burden, with no higher purpose than to prop up an institution more properly described as “good for women, for society, for the economy, for civilization”.

    Beginning to see why you’re not real popular with some of us?

    In a later comment, you write that “I do not deny the unfairness of these laws, particularly as they impact child custody and financial assets.”

    You do not deny this unfairness, you just won’t have it spoken of on HUS, and will, unfairness notwithstanding, do everything you can to subject as many men as possible to it. And do nothing to redress it.

    I think you’re about done.

  303. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    umslopogaas.

    Oh boy, you have no idea how much I’m in agreement with you. I’m all for a return to marriage 1.0.

    Here’s another issue, and this is going to throw you for a curve ball. As long as women get to slut it up and play their hypergamous lifestyle in their twenties and thirties, every man should be able to keep a harem of married women, i.e. men should be able to cheat on their wives, since their wives didn’t sacrifice their youth, sexual chastity and fertility for their husband. Why should their husbands sacrifice their fidelity to just one women, men should be able to be polygamous? Fair is fair, after all.

    That description is not what I want, let me make that perfectly clear, it’s not want I want. What it is is the logical outcome of the continuation of marriage 2.0. Susan has no idea, but that’s what will happen in time if she and her female commentators don’t get out the crap house and deal with reality. There is no reason for a decent guy like me, with a couple degrees, future prospects and determination to marry a slut like them and remain faithful. If you want a guy like me to love, respect you and take care of you and remain faithful to you, you better freaking be a woman who is chaste, young, fertile and respectful. You also better be intelligent and have at least a smidgen of logic rolling around your brain. No emotional upstarts for me thanks.

    Once you have learnt the law and seen it work up close, there’s no going back. What’s done is done and the anti-male laws are out of the box and reeking havoc with cultures around the Western World.

  304. Twenty says:

    Once you have learnt the law and seen it work up close, there’s no going back.

    Exactly. My “red pill moment” came when i watched a female acquaintance go through her divorce. Learning what the laws were, seeing how ruthlessly they were applied, and discovering what “no-fault” and “community property” really mean taught me some things that I just can’t un-know.

    We should make a reality show: “American Divorce”. The feminized EPL-selling mass media would lap it up. Men would see it, and the marriage rate would crater.

  305. TFH says:

    You elide the fact that not only will you not “use HUS as an MRA platform”, but that you will censor MRA viewpoints from that platform, even mild ones that simply point out the unfavorable legal climate in the US, and suggest that a man might be better served by the legal arrangements elsewhere. Furthermore, in making clear that you will not take men’s rights into account in your advocacy of an institution that men are intimately involved in, you make clear that you view us simply as beasts of burden, with no higher purpose than to prop up an institution more properly described as “good for women, for society, for the economy, for civilization”.

    Yes. And exactly how is this different from the SoCon/Sheila Gregoire view?

    How?

  306. 7man says:

    Some of Yogi Berra’s quotes may be useful to Susan:
    “I never said most of the things I said”
    “You gotta be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, otherwise you might not get there”

  307. TFH says:

    Sadly, it seems Susan Walsh, who in-between showed much promise, has exhibited a number of themes Dalrock has described in detail :

    1) Demanding that hookups be ‘fair’ to women, even if unfairness to men result.
    2) Demanding that men ‘commit’ while women do not reciprocate commitment.
    3) Seeing no trouble with renegotiating the social contract to be very lopsided in favor of women.
    4) Insisting that women who divorce always have a good reason.

    And Susan ought to know better than most women. She has a son. She also has a Wharton MBA, the receipt of which should bestow the holder with the ability to judge cause and effect, through rigorous application of the case study method.

    But alas, Susan is one seeking to suppress information flow. This never works for long. One of my premier maxims is :

    The side that seeks to suppress information flow always loses to the side that strengthens from the free flow of information. It is only a question of time.

  308. Passer_By says:

    Actually, there has been a lot of uncensored discussion in the comment threads at HUS about unfair divorce laws. At some point, I suspect she feels it becomes excessive and threatens to derail the discussion she is trying to have (much like the excessive discussion of sluts). Nonetheless, there has been plenty of discussion about it.

    As to what susan was thinking with the comment that produced Dalrock’s post here, I’m not sure. It’s almost as if she was simultaneously dealing with many comments and she had a brain fart, because the quote from Doug and her response don’t support what she is saying here. Perhaps she misread doug’s quote based on prior interactions.

    On the other hand, is “frivolous” female initiated divorce overstated in the manosphere? Sure, by some. Reading between the lines, TFH would have us believe that 90% of divorces are frivolous female initiated divorces (directly by filing, through no fault of the man, or indirectly through forcing the man to file). Other guys in the comment threads would seem to think similarly (i.e., that nearly all divorce is due to her growing “unhaaapy” and being incentivized by the system to follow through on that). Although I believe that a large number (maybe a majority) of divorces are, at the core, caused by the wife losing attraction to the same man she married (or becoming repulsed by a man to whom she was neither attracted nor unattracted when they married), 90% seems mighty high.

    As to whether, to prove her bona fides, she should capitulate and say that no man should marry under the current system, I think that’s asking a lot. A lot of men don’t feel that way even when they understand the situation, including the host of this blog.

  309. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Let me say this though. Most divorces I’ve seen and heard about never make it to an actual ruling by a Judge. Most end in a settlement with the Judge just reading the settlement and signing them off on the register. These settlements are done after spending years collecting bank statements, business and investment financials, overseas investment portfolios -which are usually done with a view to hiding money from the other spouse, housing deeds, retirement funds, pension funds and generally the most dirt on the other spouse that you can get. This is done with the help of financial auditors, Private Investigators -you didn’t hear that from me, financial experts and forensic auditors. Most divorce settlements take place in a room with a nice table, refreshments and cookies and with lots of shouting between the spouses. You take breaks just to allow one or the other spouse to gather a cool head, we charge them for this of course. As a lawyer, you spend most of your time twisting your client’s arm in order to get them to accept the most “reasonable” settlement they can ever hope to get. Of course, what’s reasonable differs between a man or a woman. With a woman, the amount she wants is usually high, on going maintenance with a nice lump sum payment upfront, usually to take a vacation of sorts, with or without her new partner. Most settlements include the family home going to the spouse who gets custody, if they have children. If they don’t have children, the house can either be given to one of the spouses with a payment of money or other assets from the estate going to the other spouse or the house is sold and the cash profit divided between the spouses. With the other investments or property, such as cars, holiday homes and so on, they are usually given a cash “value” and divided up accordingly. Especially assets that belong to a spouse who requires them for business purposes.

    With the guy, it’s usually a quick, easy and cheap divorce. They want out, most men I have spoken to hate seeing the gleefulness and revengeful look in the eyes of the women they once loved. The funny thing, when both spouses want the divorce due to some or other reason, and there are no children or a massive lottery winning ticket of wealth to pick up, the divorce can go off without a hitch with a mild expense incurred. Well, it’s still a bit of time and money but not anywhere close to a real grudge match between spouses. It’s amazing what happens when little money is involved!

    That’s the money side, children on the other hand are a completely different matter. When children are involved, well…Wow! As a lawyer you can make stacks of money. Parents don’t usually have a sensible amount in their heads when it comes to children. That’s where the “fun” truly begins, it’s rather cruel in a sense, a mockery of the words “in the best interest of the children”. In truthfulness, it’s anything but those words. I truly, down to the depths of my heart, feel for children who have to witness divorce. Especially those in the age group of 10 to 16. Never mind what it does to their self-confidence and schooling. Their results usually take a downward spiral.

  310. CL says:

    Susan, one question: Are you saying that there are no absolute truths?

  311. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    That’s just when the parties are discussing the matter of a settlement, never mind the court orders, registered mail letters, attachment of property to pay the legal fees, letters given to the Sheriff of the courts. Oh man, what a fun life!

  312. poester99 says:

    Is the root of this Susan’s strongly visceral reaction to two or three men that were commenting on her blog about practicing polyamoury?
    That’s the “feeling” I get, the factual errors and disagreements seem to be considered beside the point, though they shouldn’t be.

  313. Clarence says:

    TFH:
    It’s not. And the fact that Susan Walsh has tried to “work around” marriage 2.0 rather than confront it directly is a fair criticism. But a lot of the rest of this bullshit is not.

    I see many people on this blog giving hell to a woman with respect to a single comment in a 1000 plus post long thread. She was responding to Doug1 and his unpopular idea that infidelity should be at least somewhat tolerated in husbands but not in wives, and , regardless, she made a statement with “I THINK ” at the start of her sentence. In short , she was stating her opinion, she did not state anything as fact. Furthermore, there’s been tons of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, whines that she is not a downright MRA and doesn’t instead warn men to stay away from marriage (Even though that would require her to change the name of her blog to “Hooking Up Isn’t Smart” and would disappoint most of her readers both male and female who truly do want to hook up despite the risks which she , at least acknowledges) and become a sub branch of, I guess, Fathers and Familes, focusing solely on marital reform. Meanwhile Susan has remained mostly calm, mostly courteous, laid out a full explication of opinions about marriage reform that the average man on here should only DREAM would become reality AND promised a post which goes very much against the thrust of her blog , dealing with divorce law. Rather than praise her for this action -which, it should be noted, won’t make her any more “friends” on the feminist side of things and yet because of her blogs reach might wake even more men up – people instead are lawyering every word in her comments and taking them in the least generous way possible.

    With “friends” like this blog, who needs enemies? Give her some freaking time and see what her post says when she writes it. Wish her happy holidays/Merry Christmas/whatever. If you are nominally “Christian” as CL supposedly is, show a little of that generosity of spirit that your supposed Lord and Master would want you to display.

    I’ve read all the comments in this thread. Now there are plenty of times where women such as Chels, Kathy, or our favorite feminist lawyer have rightfully received spankings for poor, dishonest, and downright insulting arguments. I’ve long hated and totally disrespected Kathy’s attitude about this blog (it’s not important, no one is listening – fuck you, Kathy.), but seeing some of the hatred evinced in this thread toward a woman who, while not perfect, has overall taken quite a beating from idiots such as Futrelle and Marcotte for pushing back at some of their feminist horseshit, I begin to understand Kathy’s attitude. And for the first time, I’m also ashamed of Dalrock as he has joined in this pile-on, despite his specific disclaimer at the beginning NOT to engage in such. At least, however, he has been polite about it. Idiots such as 20 on the other hand, don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable at about first grade level and such comments should not be tolerated in my opinion.

  314. Clarence says:

    CL:
    “Are you saying there are no absolute truths…”
    Shouldn’t you have asked this question FIRST before you went on your rampage?
    Must be all my hanging out at science blogs, but while they can often lay into each other with the best of them, there’s often very short arguments or no arguments at all because there is lots of comments asking for clarification, rather than assumptions of bad faith. Maybe you should try that.

  315. Twenty says:

    @Clarence

    Idiots such as 20 on the other hand, don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable at about first grade level and such comments should not be tolerated in my opinion.

    First of all, it’s “Twenty”, not “20″, you imbecile. Second of all, I don’t particularly care whether you think my comments should be “tolerated” or not. If you had your own blog, and if I commented there, then you could moderate me as you liked (N.B.: I still wouldn’t care), but your opinion on such matters here is completely irrelevant. So FOAD, you censorious, ineffectual, ass-kissing little twerp. Finally, I’m treating SW exactly as she deserves, given her callous and utilitarian treatment of men in general, and her “provide stats for this or shut up” tone in particular.

  316. ray says:

    “If you look through this thread, you’ll find plenty of gratuitous insults, and statements about the inferiority of women. Several comments reflect a belief in male supremacy rather than equality.”

    i’ll take that bait, susan, since you went to the trouble to troll it (hoping, as you grrls are wont to do, to shift responsibility and make Someone Else the Target! lol)

    i’ve seen what your generation of females (and the governments that serve you) call “Equality” and its nothing but an excuse to disenfranchise and destroy boys and men, and to endlessly empower, enrich, and privilege females at the expense of males

    Equality is a lie, both in principle and practice, and no single word has been more employed in the crushing and chaining of men and masculinity in the western world

    death to your hateful Equality

    “I am still learning, and I agree that many men have been great teachers and mentors in this area. I think it is more accurate to say that I am perhaps reluctant to face your reality of the SMP. I reject female supremacy in the form of feminism, and I reject male supremacy as well. I don’t believe that’s a useful strategic position for MRAs to hold”

    thank Goddess the MRAs have you (and the rest of our female Overseeers) to tell us what Useful Strategies will be allowed

    what would men do w/o Woman and her matriarchal Governments there to tell us what’s useful and allowable? when we can be men, and what manhood shall be. . . or else?

    too bad youre not a Christian, otherwise you’d notice that in the bible’s first book it’s explained that males were created from the breath/spirit of God, and females were created later, from a male body part

    guess that’s why many men seek after fairness, and justice, and an end to tyranny, whereas women (and emasculated “men”) align themselves with that tyranny, and milk it to the max, under cover of females being Oppressed Victims of Inequality

    susan, after watching your generation of WomanTeam lie, cheat, coerce, and manipulate their way to Komplete Kontrol — all under cover of Wonderful Equality — i saw how wrong i’d been about female nature, and how correct god was, right from the Beginning

    females ARE inferior to males, and were created as SUBMISSIVE HELPERS for the male — not as “equals,” and certainly not as the self-awarded Authoriities and planetary prison wardens you have become

    but by all means remain in rebellion, constructing endless arguments as to why your rebellion is actually Good, b/c after all, you’re only demanding Equality

    that dodge ain’t gonna run much longer

  317. Clarence says:

    Passer by:
    I agree that some on the Manosphere DO overstate the risks of frivolous divorce, no matter what meets your criteria for “frivolous” is, and TFH, for all that I agree with him on most issues is one of them. 90 percent is too high, though of the 66 percent or so of the divorces that women initiate I’d be willing to bet that around 70 percent were for EPL or lack of sexual attraction reasons but that’s just a guess. I trust Dalrock more than any one else to be able to tease this information out, but I don’t think it will be easy for him. This data is often not collected and I’m sure some of it was collected inadvertantly and in an indirect manner. Now as to the risk of marriage 2.0 and divorce in general It’s my opinion that factoring in what I’ve read from this blog, Devlin, and Novaseeker over the years that A given man has about a 15 percent chance when he marries a woman to end up in a high conflict divorce and women win about 90 percent of those. This varies somewhat by demographic – I think poor /working class men have roughly a 30 percent chance of this horrendous outcome (primarily because women have next to nothing to lose and a poor man can still have his children and any assets he does have taken away) , but then I think they have a higher than average risk of divorce in the first place. Divorce risk as is, is about 50 (Actually 40 something, but roughly 50) percent for all demographics. Divorce is a huge problem in today’s society.

  318. Clarence says:

    Ray Remark aka Remarksman:
    Go to the Stand Your Ground Forum and look for the user called “Baltimore Man”.
    That user is me. Please don’t accuse Susan of trolling again. Dalrock can verify my email address and my history of commenting here.

  319. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Clarence said:

    Shame, for shame, shaming, shame! Bad men, you bad men, shameful, shame! How dare you!? You must repent your shameful, shame! Or else I will shame, shame you some shameful more! SHAME!

    Wow, that was fun to read!

  320. CL says:

    CL:
    “Are you saying there are no absolute truths…”
    Shouldn’t you have asked this question FIRST before you went on your rampage?

    Dear Idiot: Susan started in on the moral relativism toward the end of this thread and my question is related to that. If a few mild comments constitutes a rampage that’s news to me.

  321. CL says:

    I missed the @Clarence in my previous comment.

  322. Clarence says:

    CL, aka Bigger idiot:
    Your “mild” comments were basically to accuse Susan of being willing to lie and unwilling to look at any new information because you know, she “obviously” (based on how you read her comment and giving it the least charitable interpretation) believes that All Truth Is Relative.

    Why should anyone bother to even respond to that? Would YOU respond to such overwrought interpretation of a singular comment? Do unto others…yadda yadda.

  323. Passer_by says:

    @clarence

    I agree with most of what you’ve written here, although the calling out of specific posters is probably not constructive. As to this statement:

    “Divorce risk as is, is about 50 (Actually 40 something, but roughly 50) percent for all demographics”

    Keep in mind that that statistic, as I understand it, factors in all marriages, including those from decades ago. The risk of a guy getting married today may be much much higher. To tease that out a bit, I would be curious as to what percentage of marriages in the year 2000 ended in the first 10 years, as opposed to marriages in the year 1990, 1980, 1970 and so on down the line. It won’t tell us everything, but would provide a basis of comparison from which we might extrapolate as to what percentage will ultimately end in divorce.

    @ray
    “thank Goddess the MRAs have you (and the rest of our female Overseeers) to tell us what Useful Strategies will be allowed ”

    Actually, ray, one thing the feminists have been quite shrewd about is not to allow their more extreme points of view to define the public perception of their agenda. You might learn from that.

  324. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Oh crap I forgot the last past of Clarence’s shaming post.

    Clarence said:

    For shame you peasants! You beasts of burden for shame! How dare you question the authority of the wondrous Susan Walsh?! For shame! She knows what’s best for you shameful miscreants! Now, before I shame you some more, for shame! MAN UP or else?! SHAME!

    Yes Clarence, I see your point now.

  325. Clarence says:

    Feminist Hater:

    My post was directed to the fair minded and intelligent readers on this blog of whom I count Dalrock as one. It was not meant for you, as I do not believe you fit in either category. Ta, ta!

  326. YBM says:

    @Clarence

    Idiots such as 20 on the other hand, don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable at about first grade level and such comments should not be tolerated in my opinion.

    Spoken like a true feminist, you are a bigger enemy to men than any SCUM fatty because you would work from within. You are dangerous, and need to go away.

  327. CL says:

    @Clarence
    CL, aka Bigger idiot:

    So you admit you’re an idiot. Susan said herself that “[e]very woman and man must find their own purpose, their own truth” and that “[m]oral relativism is innate to human beings” and “[m]orality is never black and white”.

    How else should I have “interpreted” that? I will wait to see if she answers my question though, rather than engage any further in a pissing match with an admittedly relative idiot.

  328. Clarence says:

    Dear 20:
    I didn’t use the letters to spell your obnoxious name because frankly, assholes like you aren’t worth the extra time. Take your hate and your superior smug attitude and your obvious love of pile ons and shove them up your ass. You have been using Susan (rather than addressing her as a human being) for your own purposes this entire thread.

    I’ve been doing this MRA stuff since 1996, and I’ve been aware of most of what Dalrock has been talking about on this blog since 1999. I’ve done my activism, and I’ve done may part to spread the message. There may come a time when you need to or wish to talk to me. I suggest you grow up before doing so.

  329. 7man says:

    @Clarence,
    My post was directed to the fair minded and intelligent readers on this blog of whom I count Dalrock as one. It was not meant for you, as I do not believe you fit in either category. Ta, ta!

    Then you must also exhibit intelligent reading skills prior to making your comments, or you will be dismissed by the very ones you claim to be addressing.

  330. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Well, well, who would have thought?! I don’t agree with your Majesty Shameful the third, ruler of all Shame, and therefore I must be stupid and, well what’s the phrase now…? Oh yes, close minded! Oh well, snap! Slap me sideways and string me up on a rope! Tell me again, why I should I care for someone who comes up with the biggest load of horse dung, left on the road by the donkey fastened to the scrap metal dealer’s cart, as he smokes his weed on his way to sell whatever crap he could find for 9.99?!

    Your shame doesn’t affect me. I allowed Susan to give her viewpoint, she ducked and dived, we pointed out yet again our reasons and she ducked and dived, yet again. I’m just tired of the usual feminist mantra, the shame used to get us men to do what we’re told by hustlers like yourself, to man up and marry these generous benefactors, these women of plenty! The bountiful gifts these old, rotten, over stretched vagina owners club women can bestow upon us. Oh, forget it! Your point is moot, why should I be courteous to a feminist, team women, I snagged a man “look at me”, over the hill, wannabe, marriage 2.0 supporting woman ?

  331. Clarence says:

    7Man:
    Then you better be prepared to show me where I’ve went wrong, or I will be very willing to dismiss your comments as being from someone who is not intelligent. I don’t particularly care about your relationship with CL, and I refuse to treat her with kid gloves when she is not being fair to Susan.

  332. Clarence says:

    Oh well, time to go for the holidays.
    Happy holidays CL and 7man, Dalrock, ..well heck , everyone on this thread (yes, even YOU, Ray) except Feminist Hater and “20″ because as, I said, I have no respect for them whatsoever and I’ve been around long enough to know hateful trolls when I see them.

  333. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    For shame Clarence! For shame!

  334. Rmaxd says:

    @Clarence

    Walsh’s had this coming for a LOONG time, her ability to single handedly destroy her own readership, by attacking the MRA & PUA movement, she more then deserved the flamethrower I used to trigger this post, thanks to Dalrock of course

    Let’s remember the REASON walsh has any semblance of credibility in the manosphere, ie none now …

    It’s because of Dalrocks popularisation & support for walsh’s initial agenda

    Without Dalrock walsh would’ve been a has been, a site no MRA or pua would even bother visiting

    It’s because of Dalrocks endorsement of her initial attempts at starting a blog, she is where she is today

    Without Dalrock she would be a nobody, just another feminist chick spewing filth on dating, in some slum on the internet, in her own backwater

    Let’s remember she has ZERO clue on how game works, or the manosphere in general, all her concepts & idea’s are stolen from the very same PUA’s & MRA’s she’s banned & hates now, probably even more ..

    She’s made her contempt apparent, women like walsh ALWAYS self-destruct, they cant undo their years of carousel riding in the past by settling down with a beta & popping out a few kids, there is no penance for women like walsh, they are simply their own worst enemy

    Women like walsh will always betray her readers & the manosphere who gave her a platform in the first place, thanks to Dalrock’s goodwill of course

    Ironically Walsh TRIED to appeal to feminists & failed miserably …

    Not even the feminists want walsh … she now has simply ZERO credibility

    Walsh stands on Dalrocks shoulders

    [D: Just to clarify, Walsh's site was already a heavy hitter when I was still taking blogging baby steps. HUS is a success in its own right. Any traffic I have thrown her way has been returned in kind, probably more-so given the size of her following.]

  335. CL says:

    My comment has lionks to Susan’s comments and as such, is in moderation, so here it is without the links for now:

    @Clarence
    CL, aka Bigger idiot:

    So you admit you’re an idiot. Susan said herself that “[e]very woman and man must find their own purpose, their own truth” and that “[m]oral relativism is innate to human beings” and “[m]orality is never black and white”.

    How else should I have “interpreted” that? I will wait to see if she answers my question though, rather than engage any further in a pissing match with an admittedly relative idiot.

  336. TFH says:

    Clarence,

    and TFH, for all that I agree with him on most issues is one of them. 90 percent is too high, though of the 66 percent or so of the divorces that women initiate I’d be willing to bet that around 70 percent were for EPL or lack of sexual attraction reasons but that’s just a guess.

    When did I say 90% were ‘frivolous’?

    Rule #1 of blog commenting is to only respond to what another said if you see it with your own eyes, never with something done on a second-hand basis. Passer_by is claiming I said something that I never even implied.

  337. Twenty says:

    @Clarence

    I didn’t use the letters to spell your obnoxious name because frankly, I’m a lazy, sloppy, ignorant, careless white knight who wanted to move on to posting a bunch of additional trolls as quickly as possible.

    Well, that’s understandable.

    There may come a time when you need to or wish to talk to me.

    I think that pretty unlikely. There are ~300M people in this country, and you seem in no way remarkable. I think I can dispense with you.

    I suggest you grow up before doing so.

    Wow … delusions of relevance much?

  338. Clarence says:

    TFH:
    Someone brought this to my attention, and so I’m here to say:
    If I am wrong about your ideas as to the percentage of what divorces are for stupid or selfish reasons, then I apologize. I do know from reading you in the past that you do claim that a pretty incredible amount of divorces are initiated by women because you say lots of men are forced into it via manipulation by their wives – and we both know that around 70 percent of divorces are initiated by women formally. This , I believe, means to you, that something like 90 percent of all divorces are “really” initiated one way or the other by women. When Passerby said what he or she said, I think I conflated that in my head with the 90 percent stuff I’ve seen from you in terms of how many divorces are really initiated by women.

    So anyway, what percentage of divorces initiated by women do you think are really for bad reasons?

  339. Clarence says:

    2:

    Nah, I think you are irrelevant. There’s hateful talkers and then there are doers. You fall in the first category.

  340. Clarence says:

    CL:
    “All truth is relative” is a stronger statement than you think it is.
    I bet Susan is not going to say she doesn’t really believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
    You are going to look foolish when she answers you because you didn’t bother to step back and give her the benefit of the doubt, and also because you don’t seem to know much about philosophy.

  341. susanawalsh says:

    I will comment one last time here, and then I will celebrate Christmas with my family. I address my feedback to Dalrock.

    Given how adamant you are that the system isn’t being abused in a significant way, why do you think it should be overhauled to make it more complicated? You are trying to have this both ways by arguing that the system isn’t broken, then claiming you support fixing it.

    I have not stated that the system isn’t being abused, much less been adamant. I honestly do not know what percentages of divorce are frivolous, and I don’t understand, after all these comments, what constitutes a frivolous divorce. To hold women accountable as frivolous for all no-fault divorces strikes me as not only unreasonable, but poor strategy. That’s a non-starter in terms of reform.

    Dalrock, you started this – please define frivolous divorce for us. I don’t know where you stand. Is divorce for adultery frivolous? Bodily harm? Substance abuse? Gambling addiction? Desertion? If the system does not require proof, does that mean that all claims of these sins are bogus?

    You don’t advocate joint custody because it is the best thing for children; you advocate it to remove the incentive for rampant divorce theft, something which you simultaneously deny is occurring, something you accuse others of having overblown in an “echo chamber”.

    I defer to Minig, who observed that no-fault divorce is opportunistic, aimed at gaining custody. I also personally believe that joint custody is optimal. I have two beloved brothers whose wives both left them for other men. One has primary custody (in Italy, where 50/50 is presumed) and one has joint custody. I would not rob either brother of one moment with their children, and I believe they are both positive influences in the lives of children whose mothers are of poor moral fiber.

    This thread is proof that your blog is an echo chamber, Dalrock. Dissent is not only not tolerated, one is not even allowed to ask questions that threaten the MRA party line.

    Here’s the bottom line, and my last word on the matter:

    I am deeply and thoroughly opposed to misandry in all aspects of American life. I believe it is malignant in the lives of boys from kindergarten on. I consider this an issue of fairness, and as a mother, daughter, sister and wife, that is enough incentive for me to try and make a difference.

    I have a strategy for addressing misandry, though it clearly differs from yours. I aim to use whatever platform I have to introduce these concepts to the MSM. I happily take on feminists, having skewered Marcotte with a post about her derisive writings about Nice Guys. All of my efforts with Kate Bolick for the Atlantic article had one aim: to get her to write about the apex fallacy in a magazine of great stature. I consider that my greatest triumph of 2012. For all the talk of the apex fallacy, I have never found a single reference to it in the academic literature, much less the MSM. I hoped to change that, I worked hard to persuade her, and I felt deeply gratified when she got that concept past her editor.

    I am an ally to your cause, whether you realize it or not. My efforts do not depend on Dalrock’s approbation. I will fight misandry in the way I believe I can be most useful no matter how reviled I am in the MRA community.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

  342. Passer_By says:

    @TFH

    “Passer_by is claiming I said something that I never even implied.”

    As I said, I was reading between the lines, and I think it was implied in your “Misandry Bubble” post. I’m making the assumption, I suppose, that if a divorce is clearly at the instigation of the woman without bona fide fault of the man, or if it is instigated by the man due to clear fault of the woman (cheating, withholding of sex, etc.), then it in essence constitutes a frivolous divorce by the woman due to the fact that she is just done with him and wants out. In any event, you clearly made the former claim (approximately 90% of divorces are triggered by the woman, either by filing or forcing the man to file by cheating or whatever).

  343. TFH says:

    So anyway, what percentage of divorces initiated by women do you think are really for bad reasons?</i.

    If by 'bad' you mean frivolous, maybe 75-80%.

    The only valid reasons to divorce *if* there are children are abuse (as in real abuse, not the VAWA definition that includes raising your voice), adultery, and gambling or other addictions. Furthermore, both men and women are equally capable of inflicting these three things on their spouses.

    We know that the system incentivizes women to divorce, the media tells them how great it is, and even the church is working hard to expand the reasons a woman should divorce. Thus the women who *still* do not divorce are showing admirable ability to resist all this pressure and marketing aimed at enticing them into divorce.

    Also remember that divorce rates pre-1969 were just 10%. The quality of men was not better, it is just that the laws did not make it easy/profitable, and the media was not working hard to convert failure into success.

  344. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    You are going to look foolish when she answers you because you didn’t bother to step back and give her the benefit of the doubt, and also because you don’t seem to know much about philosophy.

    Never fear, Clarence is here! To tell us all about how he is right, and we’re wrong. Whoopie! He also knows all about philosophy, from Plato to some feminist lady (probably Susan’s mother) and he’s going to share his wealth of knowledge, to gayfully teach us the inns and outs of being courteous and in servitude towards women. Thank you Clarence, for these gifts! We would be lost without your guidance, your strength and your willingness to put yourself out “there” for our benefit! You go! You doer of things, you!

    All hail Clarence!

  345. TFH says:

    Damn… one errant html character makes the whole comment italicized. Again :

    So anyway, what percentage of divorces initiated by women do you think are really for bad reasons?

    If by ‘bad’ you mean frivolous, maybe 75-80%.

    The only valid reasons to divorce *if* there are children are abuse (as in real abuse, not the VAWA definition that includes raising your voice), adultery, and gambling or other addictions. Furthermore, both men and women are equally capable of inflicting these three things on their spouses.

    We know that the system incentivizes women to divorce, the media tells them how great it is, and even the church is working hard to expand the reasons a woman should divorce. Thus the women who *still* do not divorce are showing admirable ability to resist all this pressure and marketing aimed at enticing them into divorce.

    Also remember that divorce rates pre-1969 were just 10%. The quality of men was not better, it is just that the laws did not make it easy/profitable, and the media was not working hard to convert failure into success.

    Any system where one gender overwhelmingly files more than the other tells you that ‘frivolous’ is a large percentage of the reasons. A fair system would see filings evenly split by gender.

  346. MackPUA says:

    Should’ve added walsh tried to sell out to feminists & failed miserably … by posting a hardcore post on feminism & NOT one feminist turned up to comment …

    Oh btw she banned my alt Xcess, after i called out a hideous freak called sassy6519 on her site, this freakshow actually tried to tell everyone she had a sex-life …. after Xcess got banned, the same hideous freak tried to call me a racist for calling her out on her hideous looks …

    This is the hideous hit by a frying pan at birth, sassy6519 … this chick look like she has any hope of attracting the opposite sex, outside of a yeti conference? ….

    Sassy6519 …
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/23/relationshipstrategies/attraction-is-a-choice/#comment-84900

  347. YBM says:

    Eh, she doesn’t seem that bad. Then again my guinea-*ss loves black women.

  348. Twenty says:

    I have not stated that the system isn’t being abused, much less been adamant.

    How I hate lawyer-talk. SW minimizes (by implication, at least) the abuse of the system, then, when called on it, claims that she has not stated that the system isn’t being abused (i.e., at all), which is both literally true and completely beside the point.

    I have a strategy for addressing misandry, though it clearly differs from yours. I aim to use whatever platform I have to introduce these concepts to the MSM.

    Translation: I will do whatever I can to ingratiate myself with and attract the attention of the MSM, as I see that as my best route to a quick buck. I will mask this self-promotion as “fighting misandry” so as to try to maintain my credibility in the manosphere, which drives traffic my way. In the meantime, I’ll continue my mission to feed men into the meat grinder of the divorce-industrial complex, as my ultimate exit strategy depends on the welcoming embrace of the feminist-dominated, marriage-2.0-embracing, ex-carousel-rider populated publishing business.

    If that seems a harsh reading, it is. It is based on my considered opinion that SW is no friend to men, as demonstrated by her actions, her words, her dissembling, and her hostility to MRAs.

    You see, Susan, I’m dedicated to fighting misandry wherever I see it, too.

  349. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Dalrock, you started this – please define frivolous divorce for us. I don’t know where you stand. Is divorce for adultery frivolous? Bodily harm? Substance abuse? Gambling addiction? Desertion? If the system does not require proof, does that mean that all claims of these sins are bogus?

    Essentially, yes it does. If no proof is required there is no basis to claim one is real abuse and the other is not. No fault divorce is actually shooting men and women who have truly been abused and cheated on, in the foot. For the record, you started this, by telling Doug1 and the rest of us, by extension, to “shut up” or provide proof. I suppose according to you and Clarence, your whiteknight and mangina all wrapped into one package, that all men in the Manosphere should just “shut up” and be shamed into doing what is that you want them to do. Instead of just admitting you might have been frustrated and gone over the top with your comments, your hamster went into overdrive and now Clarence needs to be brought in to shame us into backing down.

    Susan, if you truly had a backbone, you would oppose no fault divorce in every single one of your articles dealing with marriage, every single one, drive the point home. Until that is done away with, there will be no change. The entire system will have to collapse if no fault divorce remains. However, you won’t do that. I know.

    Nah, I have a feeling about you, one I’ve had since I read your first comment since I’ve been on this blog. You strike me as a feminist in sheep’s clothing. I don’t think you’re the real deal at all. Maybe you’re one of the first women to see the clouds rolling in and now are suddenly trying to show men how you’re not one of those evil feminazis that caused all these problems. Doesn’t work that way, my dear. Your generation continued this absolute farce of existence, with multiculturalism, feminism and whatnot else, cultural relativism my foot!; and anyone who disagreed was named a sexist pig and a racist to boot. You’re done my dear, nothing but all the time in the world to think about it.

  350. Twenty says:

    Well, I guess my work here is done.

    Merry Christmas, everybody.

  351. Passer_By says:

    @Feminist Hater

    “Until that is done away with, there will be no change. The entire system will have to collapse if no fault divorce remains.”

    Eh. The alternative would be to remove the financial and custody incentives to women. What can’t (or certainly should not) go hand in hand is the concept of no-fault (and womens’ professional advancement) with the age old concept of protecting women at all cost from male providers abandoning them.

  352. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Passer_by

    Instituting a “fault” divorce system would immediately withdraw the massive incentive given to women to divorce their husbands, there would also be little reason to take the children because you couldn’t divorce without a reasonable fault on the part of your husband.

  353. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    It would also provide a reason for both spouses to remain faithful. Hardly bad for women in any case. Unless they are frivolous, right Susan? So…why the big hangup with “no fault” divorce?

  354. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    And if you’re wondering what that hang up is…Wonder no more. It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s divorce theft baby!

  355. Doug1 says:

    So to summarize we’ve got two quite trivial, I’m not haaaapy, want to go find my next serial monogamy reason for divorce, different lifestyles and fell out of love, coming in at 11% and 12%, or a total of 23%. Money problems and control freak are probably things that could have been worked out in many cases including alcohol / drugs. Certainly not in some cases. Lets score all them as half being fairly trivial in actually fact or wanting to trade up in the money case especially, so that gives us an aggregate of 15.5, call it 15% additional going into the trivial category, for an aggregate of 38% being in actual fact being pretty trivial reasons.

    Now the last two categories, cheating and abuse, can certainly involve some very no trivial marital offenses. But I submit to you that abuse and cheating are the two GO TO reasons for American women to cite as the reasons for divorce, when the reasons are really not haaaapy, not so in love anymore, want to go hunt for my next serial monogamy. Abuse now has an enormously expansive meaning including stuff that never would have been considered that a few decades ago (see “emotional abuse, which charge could be leveled these days by just about any American wife who’s husband ever argues back, gives her the silent treatment and ignores her nagging or endless arguing, and so on.) Sure that’s repeated wife beatings, they do exist, but how often these days in middle class on up American marriages? Also it’s about impossible for husbands or girlfriends to know if “emotional abuse” and it’s all in the media etc. that it occurs a whole lot. Well the vastly expanded definition of it does, more often by women to men, but men rarely complain about abuse. I’m gonna guesstimate that at least half and probably a lot more of the “abuse” cases are in reality pretty trivial, at least when claimed in middle class white marriages. So 8% more for trivial from there, taking us to 46%

    Ok with cheating it’s also a complete get out of divorce shame free card for American women these days, it does happen a good bit and get discovered a good bit, and in some of those cases the husband would stop or did it repeated despite repeated promises not to and it really tears his wife up. However I’d guess cheating is falsely claimed by women these days a non trivial amount. Its about impossible to disprove, she’s not usually expected by her gf’s etc. to offer detailed proof and certainly isn’t challenged on it by anyone, so it’s an easy thing to lie about, or turn a hunch into a certainty about. As well, and I realize Susan hotly disagrees with this, I think just sex cheating that hasn’t gone on too long that the wife discovers, but he stops when she demands it, and doesn’t keep repeating is a pretty nuts thing to end a marriage over. Women in few other countries partly excepting Britain do. I think in a substantial proportion of cases women really use this mostly as an excuse, since they’re not feeeeling it so much any more for their husbands and haven’t been trying too hard to, and his cheating becomes “the last straw”, not the main reason, but the one to lead with under American public opinion, particularly female public opinion. And finally there are lots of cases where she’s also cheated but hadn’t been found out (men are much less vigilant about her cheating, much less suspicious, and much less good at finding out), had her sexual attraction and then her bondedness towards her husband dissolve because of HER undiscovered cheating, but discovering he has cheated gives her a good excuse to get a divorce.

    So I’m gonna say lying about knowing for sure he’s cheated, and the cheating itself being not the true main reason for her wanting a divorce, are likely at least 1/3 and probably half of cheating cites as the main reason in fact. So that would be another 5-8% going to the less than true serious wrongs done in the marriage column. That takes us to 51-54% of divorces initiated by American women being for trivial or not very serious reasons, mostly amounting to her feeling less in love or not at all, and to her wanting to go on the hunt for her next serial monogamy. Further I think I’ve been really conservative especially in case of claimed “abuse”, how much of that is really serious in middle class and up white marriages. I’d case in only a quarter or less of these abuse cases was it anything really serious.

  356. ray says:

    clarence– i’ll engage whomever i choose, boyo, in whatever way seems necessary — do you imagine you’re the first to try to shame me into silence? i’ve had 50 years of it

    ps nice try on the s.y.g. divide/conquer attempt LOL . . . you must be new at this!

    Actually, ray, one thing the feminists have been quite shrewd about is not to allow their more extreme points of view to define the public perception of their agenda. You might learn from that.

    the day i start “learning” from you and the other feminists, passerby, is truly the day i deserve to be silenced by such obvious and clumsy tactics

    as for public perception, i dont give a steaming shit about it — that’s for spindoctors, politicians, and spooks (like you)

    following the example of feminism — lying and manipulating public perception – is EXACTLY what established our matrirchy and keeps us in this mess

    i’m a man — it’s my duty is to speak the truth

    however, if i decide instead to be “shrewd” like your beloved shrews, you’ll be the first “adviser” i look up

  357. Rmaxd says:

    “Dissent is not only not tolerated, one is not even allowed to ask questions that threaten the MRA party line.”

    Classic been around the abortion clinic carousel a few times … projection …

    So coming from Walsh … Walsh you deliberately create a repressive environment on your site, where you regularly ban MRA’s & PUA’s, & deliberately put anyone down who doesnt follow your own party line & you have the gall to tell Dalrock he follows a party line?

    Did Dalrock ban you for NOT following his party line? Did he put you down & flame you for not following a party line?

    No he CALLED you out … walsh … BIG DIFFERENCE

    Do you even know what it is to be called out? You lied through your teeth & tried to blame the CONTEXT, then Doug1 …

    Walsh you do realise context is NOT a person, you cant blame the context … jesus … i think you just created a new level of dumb blond ….

    Guess what walsh, nobody asked you about the CONTEXT, nobody but you … as you used it as an excuse to slither your way out of being held accountable for your post …

    What we want is for you to explain your post WITHOUT blaming Doug1 or the context …

    We’re not interested in your victim status, you are NO victim, you are the perpetrator, you failed at trying to make out Doug1 as the badguy, YOU are the badguy walsh, the hole is yours to dig even deeper, … the context is no spade …

    The context didnt magically MAKE you make those comments, so own up … you made the comments, precisely because you’re an admitted team woman batter …

    You can say it walsh, you know want it walsh, you know you want the alpha …

    It’s ok to cheat emotionally walsh, we know your blog’s your personal stash of emotional porn

    We know you dont get it at home … its ok to ask walsh, all the alpha emotional porn you can handle & then some …

    The fact of the matter is walsh, women create repressive environments, men create expressive environments

    Remember racism & sexism & the ability to call hideous freaks like sassy6519 as hideous sideshows, ARENT the result of a repressive environment, theyre the result of an expressive environment

    Charity, mercy & fairness, which is what you use to attack dissent on your site, not only are you the poster child for a carousel riding broken person, but your site is the poster child for a repressive environment, the same repressive environments mothers create at home…

  358. Rmaxd says:

    “All of my efforts with Kate Bolick for the Atlantic article had one aim: to get her to write about the apex fallacy in a magazine of great stature. I consider that my greatest triumph of 2012. For all the talk of the apex fallacy”

    erm you mean 2011 …

    I read that article, & all I saw was a bunch of feminists talking about bullying & then something about stay at home dads, being a success for feminism, even though its been a colossal failure …

    I’m guessing by apex fallacy, you mean your as usual retarded & incorrect version of the apex fallacy …

  359. TFH says:

    Doug1,

    That takes us to 51-54% of divorces initiated by American women being for trivial or not very serious reasons, mostly amounting to her feeling less in love or not at all, and to her wanting to go on the hunt for her next serial monogamy.

    Yes.

    Let’s say that there are 3 reasons for divorce :

    A) Valid reasons for the man to file.
    B) Valid reasons for the woman to file.
    C) Trivial reasons for the women to file.

    Now when the laws only allowed for A and B, the divorce rate is about 10% in any society (whether 1960 America, present-day non-Western countries, etc.).

    But now that ‘C’ is legally possible and even financially profitable, the divorce rate rises from 10% to 40%. In order to mask the triviality of divorce, the definition of ‘abuse’ expands to absurd extremes, the definition of adultery expands to include Internet porn, the entire media goes into a mode of ridiculous whitewashing of female misbehavior, etc.

    A society that legally allows C is screwed. A society that makes it easy for children to be used as pawns in the process of C is doubly screws, and deserves to die.

  360. Passer_By says:

    Merry Christmas, everyone, especially you, Ray!

  361. Anonymous Reader says:

    Walsh:
    This thread is proof that your blog is an echo chamber, Dalrock. Dissent is not only not tolerated, one is not even allowed to ask questions that threaten the MRA party line.

    If this statement were true, then this statement would not be posted here.
    Since the statement was posted here, then it is not true.

    It’s not often that one sees such a clear example of a self-refuting statement.

    Suddenly, I miss Herb Caen…

  362. Clarence says:

    Ray:
    You are a bit paranoid. I thought your first comment was directed at me so I gave you some bonafides. I figure the guy whose scribblings I was reading at your old geocities or whatever it was in 2001 or thereabouts deserved some respect. In short, I thought you felt I was Susan. Since I was probably wrong about that, I apologize. Nonetheless, here you are , attempting to smear me into some corner, as if I’m in cahoots with feminists or Susan Walsh. God knows thats not the case, but hey, it’s an easy enough accusation to make. Whatever. At least unlike some of the asswipes on this thread you’ve done so good decent stuff for your fellow men over the years and got the scars to prove it. I can respect that.

  363. Dalrock says:

    @Passer_By

    As to what susan was thinking with the comment that produced Dalrock’s post here, I’m not sure. It’s almost as if she was simultaneously dealing with many comments and she had a brain fart, because the quote from Doug and her response don’t support what she is saying here. Perhaps she misread doug’s quote based on prior interactions.

    This doesn’t seem unlikely to me. The worst part by far of what Susan has done has been her reaction to being challenged. Instead of either backing up her claim or withdrawing it, she started trying to obfuscate the issue, make it personal, scolding, claiming she didn’t write what everyone could see she wrote, claiming she wasn’t responding to the comment she quoted, etc. It isn’t unlike the saying in politics about the the cover-up being more serious than the original crime. I had no problem disagreeing with her while still respecting her. Her response has been so incredibly weaselly that I can’t say the same about it.

    @Clarence

    I see many people on this blog giving hell to a woman with respect to a single comment in a 1000 plus post long thread. She was responding to Doug1 and his unpopular idea that infidelity should be at least somewhat tolerated in husbands but not in wives, and , regardless, she made a statement with “I THINK ” at the start of her sentence.

    As I mentioned above, I had no problem disagreeing with Susan while maintaining respect for her. That she might be in error (or might show me that I was in error) wasn’t personal. She responded in a truly craven way, denying she claimed what she claimed, attacking me instead of making her case, making absurd recharacterizations of her own statements, etc. It would have been a simple matter to either back up her claim or as Deti has suggested withdraw it. Many who are sympathetic to her feel as Passer By does, that it was not something she thought through, not a deeply held belief. This may well be the case, but her response wasn’t reasonable. She came here attacking me, accusing me of acting in bad faith, of doing a poor job:

    You wrote a post here using a snippet taken out of context. Not even correct in its isolation. You didn’t do your homework, Dalrock. You got this all wrong. You should have known better based on the very low quality of Rmaxd’s reasoning and argument. Badly done, Dalrock. Badly done.

    @Clarence

    And for the first time, I’m also ashamed of Dalrock as he has joined in this pile-on, despite his specific disclaimer at the beginning NOT to engage in such. At least, however, he has been polite about it.

    Susan appears to have taken my repeated efforts to keep any disagreement from becoming personal as a sign of weakness. Instead of debate the issue, she scolded me like a dog which just soiled the carpet. She has never yet either defended her claim or withdrawn it. In place of debate, she kicks up dust and makes accusations. She wanted to make it personal; she outright insisted. So be it.

  364. Clarence says:

    Dalrock:
    I know you and her have had some disagreements in the past, and you might note I have not taken any side in those disputes in the past, usually I haven’t commented on them or brought them up in any other thread. I really do think you have some points in here that are legitimate gripes about the way Susan has responded to you about this post. However, you might look at some of your other commenters on this thread, who have not only been less than polite to her, but have often put words in her mouth and/or read her words in the most uncharitable way possible.
    I THINK she intends to address your points most specifically in her upcoming post, as far as on this blog right now I think she feels (and not unrightly) lynched by a bunch of accusations. Lastly, like you and at least some of us here I’m sure she is gearing up for the holiday in a few days and does not have as much time as she would like to blog about this. Your blog these days seems to mostly consist of nothing but attack dogs who automatically suspect anyone who doesn’t kowtow to their rather radical MGTOW /Ameriskank (see, I actually still have an ACCOUNT at Nice Guys)philosophies. While none of them are genocidal maniacs like those feminists at RadFemHub, many of your commenters seem to be the “androcentric” side of the Men’s movement, seeing only men’s virtues and not their vices. This places them at a pole exactly 180 degrees from Amanda Marcotte and her gynocentric bunch, but this tends to mean these posters don’t ever really feel ANY woman can be a “real” ally. I find this thinking both deluded and disgusting, more to the point its downright counterproductive in this case.

    Now, I will be watching Ms Walsh to see how she responds on her blog after the holidays. If she falls into gynocentricism, or decides to ignore the issues of divorce and marriage after all, I’ll agree that I was wrong about her. But I’ve been reading (not doing much commenting) her for over a year and a half now and I tend to think I know what kind of person she is, and its not a disgusting misandrist, at least as far as I can tell.

  365. Dalrock says:

    @Clarence

    However, you might look at some of your other commenters on this thread, who have not only been less than polite to her, but have often put words in her mouth and/or read her words in the most uncharitable way possible.

    I’ve defended Susan from those who assumed she agreed with those she failed to contradict, ironically enough on this very topic. As I wrote before, I don’t respond to the majority of the comments I disagree with on this site. I also don’t respond to the majority of comments I agree with. Susan claims that I have remained silent on the question of male infidelity, even after I clarified the issue and referred to two of many posts where I made my position there clear. I use this as an example because I don’t typically respond to Doug1 when he makes his case for open marriage. He and I have vastly different perspectives on this. A regular reader will know this isn’t my view. The same goes for Eric (who we haven’t heard from much recently) and his “amerobitches” perspective.

    Your blog these days seems to mostly consist of nothing but attack dogs who automatically suspect anyone who doesn’t kowtow to their rather radical MGTOW /Ameriskank (see, I actually still have an ACCOUNT at Nice Guys)philosophies. While none of them are genocidal maniacs like those feminists at RadFemHub, many of your commenters seem to be the “androcentric” side of the Men’s movement, seeing only men’s virtues and not their vices. This places them at a pole exactly 180 degrees from Amanda Marcotte and her gynocentric bunch, but this tends to mean these posters don’t ever really feel ANY woman can be a “real” ally. I find this thinking both deluded and disgusting, more to the point its downright counterproductive in this case.

    The loudest voices tend to be heard the most. From what I’ve seen my readership spans the spectrum though, with the vast majority of readers never commenting one way or another. I generally take a hands off approach to moderation, but I also have repeated several times that there is no orthodoxy required to participate in this discussion. There is no Team Dalrock, this is just a discussion on the internet.

  366. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clarence, consider two different arguments:

    Argument A consists of Person X disagreeing with the words of Person Y, by holding Person Y responsible for their own words & asking for proof of a claim made.

    Argument B consists of Person G disagreeing with Person H, by holding Person H responsible for the words of Persons O, P, Q, R, S and T – persons that H has no control at all over.

    Do you find Argument B to have any real logical merit at all? If so, could you please explain why?

  367. Clarence says:

    Anonymous Reader:
    I can answer your question really simply if you think about something:
    Why do internet trolls exist?
    Another hint would be : poison the well.
    Do you see why good arguments can’t be had in such conditions with any hope of understanding let alone changing someone’s mind?

  368. Clarence says:

    TFH:
    I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I don’t know if I quite agree with you that its that high, but it wouldn’t really surprise me if it is. Generally, divorce is celebrated in the culture, with few exceptions.

  369. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clarence, thanks for your response, but it isn’t very helpful. Once again, do you find Argument B to have any logical merit? If so, could you please explain it?

  370. Clarence says:

    Anonymous Reader:
    Argument B contains a bad assumption, namely that person H has no control over the other people at all. In fact, Dalrock does control the level of civility on this blog, and he’s chosen to let it go to hell. Thus I find your argument rather pointless, its well known that personal attacks and “pile on”‘s tend to engage the less rational centers of someones mind and bring out defensiveness. Susan wasn’t making totally perfect arguments but for the most part she wasn’t having to respond to good arguments.

    [D: Which of my arguments do you find fault with?]

  371. Legion says:

    Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:
    December 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    You bother to read Clarence?

  372. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    A society that legally allows C is screwed. A society that makes it easy for children to be used as pawns in the process of C is doubly screws, and deserves to die.

    Bingo!

    You bother to read Clarence?

    You mean where he tried to shame us? Perhaps the part where he called us stupid and closed minded? Yea, I read his comments. I would even normally agree with him but I can do without his shaming, thank you very much. If you call someone a hateful troll, notice I actually haven’t called him hateful, just a mangina and a whiteknight, you pretty much lose the right to ask for respect from the other commentator. According to him, I’m a hateful, moronic, imbecile so why should I be nice?! Perhaps to show that I’m not hateful, nor moronic but that’s not the point, is it? I know, I’m not hateful towards real women or men, I don’t rape women, nor abuse them, nor do I sleep around with them but I, as a male, constantly hear about how evil I am, how useless I am, how women don’t need me at all. Yet, when I defend myself I get dehumanised by what is meant to be an ally? Yea, I read him.

    Maybe you too would understand. When you work in a field where everyday you have to say the right things, stay objective in the face of grave injustices, done to both my ethnic people and to my sex, day in and day out, where you have to smile and play nice with truly evil people. Then you could perhaps understand that it is wholly liberating to be able to voice one’s opinion on a forum such as this, any forum where true freedom of speech is allowed. I, as a human being, am done being shamed, I know the truth and there is a score to settle!

  373. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    @ Legion. LOL, I just understood what you meant! Oh man, feel like a real tit now.

  374. Susan

    You misunderstood me, partially, and you misread the data, partially. Just one example is the overlap between what you offer in paragraph and what you set out in the list. also, ….the additional comments they later added really have no bearing on the points I made because while they coincidentally overlap, they are not parallel drivers. Its no revelation that custody affords incentive and its filing is attributable to it, and I’m sure that claiming anything about frivolity in no way is incompatible with the custody factor, they are concurrent forces. I’m aware of the cruelty designation and the other factors, yet I stand by my comments not to the significant digit level, but to a statistically relevant level, the old +/- thingy. My posts should allow for that, my fault, my point is that action or attitude derived from it is clearly supported in the direction I extrapolate from it based on the statistics available. My whole and overarching axe to grind about no fault divorce is and always has been a few simple points.

    Women use it far more

    Women use it more often for frivolous reasons than not

    We, collectively who say we care about divorce therefore must address women, as a separate and unique set of perpetrators of family destruction, because today this is not the case other than places like this

    The stats available support my points

    For the record I do not consider divorce for adultery as frivolous regardless the gender perpetrating or filing. I’m mystified by that even being part of this lengthy comment section frankly. I am a strong advocate of not divorcing over adultery one off events, or “slips” or whatever, and I can see and agree with the points that separate men from women as adulterers based on how things evolve to adultery for the genders, generally.
    What I have not done is dissect the actual issue that seems to have arisen here about some comment you made and allegedly later denied, nor will I dissect that because I don’t care. If there is an issue with that this other discussion seems to be obfuscation, however, I’m more interested in the obfuscation issue than the real one, if that makes sense.

  375. Susan

    You said to another poster “Therefore, ascribing frivolity, with an eye toward committing divorce theft, to all women filing for divorce is unreasonable.”

    But its isnt about having an eye to committing divorce theft necessarily, well, let me add, I think that any frivous divorce where the filing spouse in any way gets anything other than a swift boot is divorce theft, but I doubt divorce theft as a conscious motive is present in most of them, because as I keep saying the women cannot think in the abstract. They think divorce means POOF life goes on minus the jerk, they are so painfully unable to process reality through the fog of unreconciled emotions that are guiding them that they do not truly even consider the fact that is it is POOF he is gone that that IS divorce theft.
    Some may say that knowing divorce theft is bad, I agree, but I submit that the emotionally driven inability to even grasp the reality of a divorce and the POOF factor is even more insidious because it shows a degree of entitlement that is so ingrained as to not even be consciously known or thought or experienced. Its when entitlement is gone so far as to be no longer entitlement but a sense of this is how reality IS, where to consider that one deserves these things is actually a step back in the right direction on the spectrum of fairness vs entitlement. Its a created alternative reality that simply is what it is, requiring no feeling of entitlement. Thats where we are today, and its far worse than divorce theft or entitlement because the socio economic divisions in divorce stats have women who not only cannot think in abstract but are such non-thinkers their lives resemble that of an amoeba.

  376. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clarence, which is the more useful topic of discussion: ideas, or “who said what to whom about so-and-so”?

    Debating about principles, or gossip? Which is more beneficial?

  377. Rmaxd says:

    Excellent comment by Ron on hawaiian libertarian

    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/12/sun-rises-in-east.html


    I like the one quip from Vox’s alpha blog, which went something like, “Everytime a woman says something to you, put the words ‘right now I feel that’ in front of them to get proper context.”

    Therefore when a woman says, “I will love you forever,” men should translate that to become, “Right now, I feel like I will love you forever.”

    Women are merely children of a larger growth, after all.”

  378. imnobody says:

    @Rmaxd.

    Quite true. Ignoring this has give me much heartbreak and pain in the past. Now I don’t take women’s words seriously. You have to watch their actions.

  379. imnobody says:

    test

  380. Rivelino says:

    rmaxd, that reminds me of a post i wrote a while ago, i think you might enjoy it.

    A WOMAN IS A CHILD

    a woman is a child, with tits

    a woman is a child, with a better vocabuluary

    a woman is a child, with the force of law on her side

    a woman is a child, with cash to spend

    a woman is a child, with more shoes

    a woman is a child, with more bags

    a woman is a child, dressed like an adult

    a woman is a child, with a stronger sense of entitlement

    a woman is a child, that can reproduce

    a woman is a child, with a great ass

    a woman is a child, with career ambitions

    a woman is a child, only she looks like an adult

    a woman is a child, only bigger

    a woman is a child, only sexually attractive

    a woman is a child, just one that you want to fuck

    a woman is a child, with credit cards

    a woman is a child, with her own apartment and a vibrator

    a woman is a child, with even more attitude

    a woman is a child, with even more malice

    a woman is a child, who knows how to drive

    a woman is a child, only more fun to play with

    a woman is a child, except you can come on her face

    a woman is a child, except she likes to be spanked

    a woman is a child, with even more daddy issues

    a woman is a child, except game doesn’t work on a child

    a woman is a child, except she wears makeup

    a woman is a child, except she has better table manners

    a woman is a child, except she needs cock

    a woman is a child, except she knows how to cook

    a woman is a child, with a menstrual cycle

    a woman is a child, with better hygiene

    a woman is a child, with similar needs and demands

    a woman is a child, and should be treated as such!

    http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/a-woman-is-a-child/

    i

  381. Rmaxd says:

    @Riv & Imnobody

    Yes, women are essentially children

    I think its more important to be unreactive, I can only do cocky & funny for so long, to a woman acting like a bitch

    Also dismissing them aloofly also works great, remember they want their gina’s tingled, being unreactive & aloof & super confident, will tingle gina’s even more

    Remember dominate a girl correctly gets you in her pants … control the conversation & demonstrate status by cockily putting her down, & controlling the conversation, gets you the relationship

    The lower status of a woman, & the higher she is likely to become obsessed & stalk a man

    Love is essentially an expression of a womans perception of status, the greater the difference the greater the love

  382. Pingback: Hamster Droppings: The SW example of Frivolous Divorce Denial « Complementarian Loners

  383. Jennifer says:

    I agree that frivolous divorce is a problem, and men especially are getting unfair treatment but this comment is horseshit: Men may cheat more than women, but only slightly more. Secondly, a woman cheating has much worse implications (pregnancy).

    How typical, coming from the ass that believes all women who disagree are turned on by him. And oh, men only cheat a LITTLE more? LOL No problem then.

  384. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Well Jennifer, this is simple logic. If a woman cheats on her husband, doesn’t tell him and gets pregnant the husband is bound legally to pay maintenance for that child until the child is 18, or often older. If he finds out 5 years later that his wife had an affair and that the child is not his, it doesn’t matter, he still pays and even pays her alimony once they get divorced. Nice and fair, huh? If a man cheats on his wife and gets the other woman pregnant, is his wife obligated to pay maintenance for his love child? Nope, in fact the husband would be obligated to pay the other women for the maintenance of his love child. If they get divorced the wife is never obligated to pay a cent.

    Husband’s responsibility = 2 Wife’s responsibility = 0

    A husband is screwed whether he is the one who cheats or not. Guys, I was wrong, the entire legal system is wrong. The laws are not written correctly. We don’t have a ‘no fault’ divorce system, we most definitely have a ‘fault’ divorce system. It’s called the ‘always the man’s fault’ divorce. The greatest contribution of feminists everywhere!

  385. TFH says:

    Jennifer,

    You should be ashamed of yourself, trolling the Internet in search of gina tingles, as you are doing now. What you are doing is the same as a man viewing Internet porn.

    My comments stands, and note that everyone else here agree with it. Simple common sense, really (which you clearly lack).

    You have a long way to go before you understand how women think.

    Now that I have given you what you really came for, you can vanish again for a few weeks.

  386. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    TFH, I hope she’s now all nice and wet.

  387. Jennifer says:

    Boy, what a bunch of BS. And of course the typical “it’s sooo much wooooorse when women cheat!” cries. But I’ll say this: I think Dalrock did well in answering Susan’s EXACT question. The comments got way too thick and confusing for me to be able to care that much about how much Susan’s meaning may or may not have been confirmed, but I see the relevance of both sides. Clarence, you rock, except for your ugly words about Kathy; she’s been quite fair and quite critical of women, and her view of this blog is pretty accurate. Dalrock, while I like you and have seen you be polite and gracious to women, you have shown more of a tendency to excuse men; among bigger things, you even put a whole bunch of projections into the general meaning of and first scene of “Fireproof”, and even grossly misinterprated the plot in “Die Hard 2″, claiming that the couple was having problems and Bruce Willis again saved his wife as part of a “courtship fantasy” women have. This is blatantly false: they were having NO problems, in fact flirting on the plane phone and planning to drop the kids at Grandma’s and have a night of sex and wine; NO idea where you got that. So, I understand Kathy’s feelings, which of course have been ignored by the predictable whine of her being part of “Team Woman”.

    A lot of crap has been slung here and it is, as Clarence said, ridiculous and unfair. However, I don’t see Dalrock’s original post as an attack on Susan at all. Other than Feminist Hater’s attack on her, I think he’s been one of the most clear-headed posters here, and hope in general that the more intelligent and decent folks here will move on and leave this behind.

  388. Jennifer says:

    I stand corrected, Feminist Hater, who leaped to conclusions that I’m a man-hater before even reading further comments. TFH, go scew yourself, or by all means come over and I’ll be happy to make true my real fantasy, of drawing your blood, little roach. Feminist Hater, if you’re the same way, join him and I’ll be happy to treat you the same.

  389. Jennifer says:

    “My comments stands, and note that everyone else here agree with it”

    LOL Which comment is that? And which posters? The same dipwads in unhappy marriages, bitter single-hood or man-whoredom? Yes, of course you find your companions here. If you knew how women think, you’d probably not be a single, bitter Indian man. Now, I’ve already fulfilled my own fantasy of cutting your voice box, so I’ll move on from you.

  390. Jennifer says:

    To answer your question, Feminist Hater, no, that’s not fair. But about half of women now use birth control, so I doubt that;s often the case with our modern technology. PLUS, I’m speaking of situations where no pregnancy takes place.

  391. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    I stand corrected, Feminist Hater, who leaped to conclusions that I’m a man-hater before even reading further comments. TFH, go scew yourself, or by all means come over and I’ll be happy to make true my real fantasy, of drawing your blood, little roach. Feminist Hater, if you’re the same way, join him and I’ll be happy to treat you the same.

    Please provide the post where I said you were a man hater? Please do, because I really don’t remember typing that.

    As for my last post, you obviously cannot see a joke when it’s played. Learn to take it on the chin, as all men have to. It’s hardly personal, I’m probably over 4000 kms away from you and don’t know much about you. Hardly enough to jump to any conclusions about you at all at any rate.

    Let me state this once again, I hate feminists, I don’t hate women.

  392. Jennifer says:

    Thank you for saying it’s not personal, Feminist Hater. But here’s the problem: you made a disgusting sexual remark about my body, saying I was attracted to TFH, which in itself appears to be a statement about him being right that women are stupidly contrary in sense and sexuality. I can take jokes, but comments about me being “wet” or anything so gross is very, very personal. I’ve seen men make similar such disgusting remarks to each other, purely in insult (“hey asshole, why don’t you suck my dick?” and similar stuff), and frankly I think they should reward those kinds of comments with a punch to the mouth.

  393. Jennifer says:

    So, I can respect you and certainly your hate of feminists, Hater, provided that you keep from making sexual comments about me. Several men have before, and they were not “jokes”, they were blatant insults and disrespect. Consider it the equivalent of me, or any woman, calling them fags or making other such insults about their manhood.

  394. Jennifer says:

    Slwerner, you’re quite cool. I’m torn now, respecting Susan as being totally fair in her last response, but also believing that Dalrock’s post here addressed one of her comments and questions quite fairly. I guess that’ll be my in-between position.

    Susan, I still respect you (though I disagree with your allowance of porn, elsewhere, and agree with some of the fellows here who have simply clarified that the divorce laws are unfair). Dalrock, well-done in your stats.

  395. YBM says:

    Oh my, you need a cigarette sweetie?

  396. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    To answer your question, Feminist Hater, no, that’s not fair. But about half of women now use birth control, so I doubt that;s often the case with our modern technology. PLUS, I’m speaking of situations where no pregnancy takes place.

    Well that quote you posted, here it is again,

    I agree that frivolous divorce is a problem, and men especially are getting unfair treatment but this comment is horseshit: Men may cheat more than women, but only slightly more. Secondly, a woman cheating has much worse implications (pregnancy).

    specifically mentioned pregnancy being a reason why a woman cheating is more harmful than a man cheating. Therefore I just thought I would state why it is true. Logical common sense, that’s all.

    I also think many men would disagree with you, with respect to women using birth control. All that modern technology has given women is the ability to now choose the man they intend to make raise their children and who they get pregnant by. It also allows them to sleep around without immediate consequences. This has shown exactly how responsible women have been, which is to say, not very. With all the pregnancy pills, injections and other contraception devices available to women, there are still how many abortions in America per year?

    http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

    Read that but most especially read this part, you’re going to love it.

    The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

    You know what that means? Does it sink in? 95 % of women getting an abortion are getting it because they didn’t practice proper birth control beforehand. They get pregnant and then decide they need to kill it because it’s not timely or advantageous.

    Back to cheating though, women have the absolute authority to lie and cheat a man out of his wealth and perhaps even his bloodline if he doesn’t get to have another child and the child he is raising is not his.

    You might find a lot of us guys get quite upset over this because none of it gets covered anywhere else, not in the mainstream media, not in the law review or medical journals, not in social circles and certainly not in mainstream Hollywood culture that American and other Western women love so much. We, as men, have a right to our own reproductive authority and the right to our own children and not be forced to raise another man’s. The only way to fix this is obviously mandatory DNA paternity tests, taken at a variety of different clinics and research centers for the sake of objectivity and fairness.

    With the introduction of a male pill or other similar devices, hopefully not hormonally intensive but effective nonetheless, in future will also help men in those circumstances. That still seems to be many, many years away though and getting nowhere fast.

    Anyway, I’m off to bed, got to get up early tomorrow and it’s already 2 in the morning here. We had an extra public holiday for the 27th. Lucky us I guess!

  397. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Err! blockquote didn’t work again. Maybe if I stomp my feet in will miraculous fix itself!

    Oh, guess that didn’t work.

  398. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    To answer your question, Feminist Hater, no, that’s not fair. But about half of women now use birth control, so I doubt that;s often the case with our modern technology. PLUS, I’m speaking of situations where no pregnancy takes place.

    Well that quote you posted, here it is again,

    I agree that frivolous divorce is a problem, and men especially are getting unfair treatment but this comment is horseshit: Men may cheat more than women, but only slightly more. Secondly, a woman cheating has much worse implications (pregnancy).

    specifically mentioned pregnancy being a reason why a woman cheating is more harmful than a man cheating. Therefore I just thought I would state why it is true. Logical common sense, that’s all.

    I also think many men would disagree with you, with respect to women using birth control. All that modern technology has given women is the ability to now choose the man they intend to make raise their children and who they get pregnant by. It also allows them to sleep around without immediate consequences. This has shown exactly how responsible women have been, which is to say, not very. With all the pregnancy pills, injections and other contraception devices available to women, there are still how many abortions in America per year?

    http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

    Read that but most especially read this part, you’re going to love it.

    The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

    You know what that means? Does it sink in? 95 % of women getting an abortion are getting it because they didn’t practice proper birth control beforehand. They get pregnant and then decide they need to kill it because it’s not timely or advantageous.

    Back to cheating though, women have the absolute authority to lie and cheat a man out of his wealth and perhaps even his bloodline if he doesn’t get to have another child and the child he is raising is not his.

    You might find a lot of us guys get quite upset over this because none of it gets covered anywhere else, not in the mainstream media, not in the law review or medical journals, not in social circles and certainly not in mainstream Hollywood culture that American and other Western women love so much. We, as men, have a right to our own reproductive authority and the right to our own children and not be forced to raise another man’s. The only way to fix this is obviously mandatory DNA paternity tests, taken at a variety of different clinics and research centers for the sake of objectivity and fairness.

    With the introduction of a male pill or other similar devices, hopefully not hormonally intensive but effective nonetheless, in future will also help men in those circumstances. That still seems to be many, many years away though and getting nowhere fast. Anyway, I’m off to bed, got to get up early tomorrow and it’s already 2 in the morning here. We had an extra public holiday for the 27th. Lucky us I guess!

    Dalrock, you can delete the above two comments from me. Thanks.

  399. Jennifer says:

    Excuse me for not clarifying my beliefs when I quoted TFH, Feminist Hater. Pregnancy is a more harmful implication, but the problem I had is that I’m basically tired of seeing men, with usually loose morals, claim that male adultery is not as bad; this has led to all kinds of loose justifications, including Doug’s assertion that men should be allowed leeway just because they’re more horny. The entire gist of TFH’s post was basically, it appeared, to undermine the problem of men cheating. I could be wrong, but it’s a pattern I’ve seen over and over, and he in particular has no respect for women. Although abortion is horrific and should not be used as birth control, it too is one more thing used to prevent cheating women from getting pregnant. So while it’s horrible that she cheats, it’s less likely her husband will be in deception for years.

    “It also allows them to sleep around without immediate consequences”

    It allows the same thing for men. BC cuts both ways. Your points about unfairness in general I agree with, Hater. Have a good night.

    I don’t smoke, YBM. Feel free to take a drag yourself though.

  400. TFH says:

    YBM,

    Oh my, you need a cigarette sweetie?

    It is funny how, for the third time, just ONE comment from me makes Jennifer go into an uncontrollable state of…….well, you can see for yourself.

    Remember last time, and the time before that?

    Jennifer,

    You really ought to relocate to Heartiste’s blog. You will achieve what you seek in a much shorter time over there, as often as you need.

    Hey, I am trying to help you. Consider me to be the Veterinarian who can diagnose the condition you currently have, and can direct you to a powerful treatment. Others here will agree that this is a suitable diagnosis and treatment.

  401. Jennifer says:

    Veterinarian, heal thyself. That’s all I’ll say. May I suggest neutering?

  402. YBM says:

    Wow, another feminist making another joke about cutting men’s penis off.

    No surprises here.

  403. TFH says:

    YBM,

    Wow, another feminist making another joke about cutting men’s penis off.

    Yeah. It is remarkable how transparent these fallen creatures are to us, while they themselves have no knowledge of how their own minds work.

    May I suggest neutering?

    Too late – I have already produced about 20 children as a sperm donor.

    Again, you need to relocate to Heartiste (heartiste.wordpress.com), for your own good. I am the Veterinarian, who is trying to help you get the ‘healing’ you sorely need. Don’t argue with the Vet.

  404. elm says:

    I have just recently started reading about men’s rights after reading several books in preparation for marriage. I have learned what a legally and emotionally dangerous world it is for men. I have seen unfairness and inequality before the law in the cases of two male friends (and wonderful fathers) who lost custody of their children simply because they were not female. It is eye opening. I have started reading some men’s rights forums now too, and I think my husband is what many men’s rights people would call a ‘beta provider.’ I would call him a gentleman.

    For my sake, I am glad I married him because he is smart, responsible and kind. He is also romantic. The epitome of what men’s forums say women don’t really want.

    For his sake, I am glad I married him because I intend to be vigilant about my own tendencies to be mean and naggy when I’m not completely happy. I intend to not make him responsible for making my every moment blissful. I intend to make it my own responsibility to keep myself happy. I think this is good for him because, as a truly good man, he was always the guy who was told, “I think of you as a brother,” or “I just want to have fun right now, but you’re the kind of guy I’d settle down with.” Then these same women would cry on his shoulder when their jerky (men’s rights forums would call them ‘alphas’) boyfriends were jerks. I completely see the complaint. However, I am so glad he doesn’t ‘game’ me. I don’t think I’d know what to do with it. I have never understood women who date jerks or compete with other women for the same man’s attention. And I don’t get the draw of a put-down or a domination.

    I don’t think I can blame men for noticing that women do this and doing something about it. I’m just glad that I don’t have to deal with it in my daily life.

    [D: Welcome to the blog!]

  405. Pingback: How To Attack a Blogger | Hooking Up Smart

  406. TFH says:

    elm,

    Welcome. Now, there is something very important you can do to stop this evil that you have noticed.

    Tell men, yes MEN, about what you know. Point them to educational websites like this one. When women tell men about this information, it carries more weight than if a man does it. It should not be that way, but it is.

    Tell MEN about what you have learned….

  407. deti says:

    Jennifer:

    “Pregnancy is a more harmful implication, but the problem I had is that I’m basically tired of seeing men, with usually loose morals, claim that male adultery is not as bad; ”

    Christian morality draws no distinction between a man cheating on his wife, on one hand, and a woman cheating on her husband. In God’s eyes according to Scripture, both are equally reprehensible. But from a purely evo-bio standpoint, there are differences, and male adultery is not as threatening to a marriage as a wife’s adultery. Leave aside moral considerations and let me explain.

    A man bears more risks. and more severe financial and other risks, from his wife cheating than she does if he cheats. The primary risk he bears is the potential for cuckoldry: being forced to support a child that is not his, with the full knowledge of the wife and her keeping that knowledge from him. This is simply because of the nature of female sexuality — she can have sex with men in succession and conceal the true identity of the father, and in fact not really know who the father is. She can also hide a clandestine affair from her husband, she knows the alpha interloper is the sire; but defrauds her husband into believing he is the father. (See the story of David and Bathsheba, in which David tells Bathsheba’s husband Uriah to go home for a time (i.e. “go have sex with your wife”) on his return from the battlefrontier. Why did David do this? Obviously, to help conceal his sin. If David had knocked up Bathsheba, he wanted Uriah to sex her up so everyone, including Uriah himself, would believe Uriah was the daddy. That’s I Samuel or II Samuel, I think.) The only way a husband can be sure the child is his is through DNA paternity testing. If the husband cheats and impregnates another woman, there is no chance the wife will be defrauded into supporting the other woman’s child. By contrast, there is a very real risk the wife can defraud her husband into supporting a child that is not his. This is a risk the wife simply does not run, and will never have to run.

    There are differences in why husbands and wives cheat. If a husband cheats, it is usually for sexual variety. He has no intention of divorcing his wife. He simply wants some sex on the side, a fling, or a ONS. He is committed to his wife and has no intention of offering any kind of commitment, emotional or otherwise, to the fling or the ONS. (I know, I know, Jennifer, you’re gnashing your teeth and saying BAD BAD BAD JERK AMORAL ASSHOLE CAD PUA WAAAAHHHH WAHHHH WAAAAAH. I told you to leave the morality aside. Let me finish.)

    It’s different when a woman cheats. When she cheats, she’s checked out of the marriage, She is 100% done with her husband. By the time she decides to offer her body to another man, she has nothing left for her husband. She no longer loves him (assuming she ever did love him or care about him in the first place), she feels absolutely nothing for him but contempt, hatred and derision. Before this she’s run the gamut of emotion with her husband: anger, asking him to “change” or “be more attractive”, then demanding that he “change”, threats, emotional distancing, girls nights out, marriage counseling, even trial separation. (Note that SHE demands that HE do things to make the marriage better. In her eyes if the marriage is having problems it is ALWAYS HIS FAULT. She is never held to account for her part in any marital problems.)

    WHen she cheats, she is preparing herself and her body for a new husband and a new lover. When she cheats, she has moved on and is looking to fulfill the female imperative of serial monogamy — she’s done with this one and now wants the next one.

    This is why wife cheating is worse than male cheating. When a wife cheats, it almost always means the end of the marriage. This is why when a man cheats, the wife wants to know “Do you love her?” Because the wife knows if he loves the other woman, he will invest in her (not the wife). He will want to give the other woman his time, his resources and his money. Almost all the time, he has not had sex with another woman because he loves the other woman. Rather, he had recreational sex with the other woman and is still in love with and committed to his wife.

    But when she cheats, the husband wants to know “did you have sex with him?” Because if she had sex with him, she has severed her bond to her husband and bonded or sought to bond with the new man. Severance of that bond means she does not want the husband, does not love him and does not care about him or his feelings. Once she has severed that bond, it cannot be reconnected absent the most extreme effort, and he knows it is over. If she had sex with the new man, he knows that he no longer has any claim on her heart. And when you get right down to it, if she has had sex with another man, he knows that she has rejected him as not alpha enough and not a sufficiently suitable candidate to impregnate her with his seed.

    That’s why wife cheating is far more threatening than male cheating is.

  408. YOHAMI says:

    Thats some good stuff Deti.

  409. ybm says:

    A truth to terrible to admit.

  410. Rmaxd says:

    I’ll put this in simple hamster like language for Jennifer …

    Deti is correct

    Men should be allowed to cheat as they dont commit emotionally or destructively, ie men dont cheat for love

    Essentially women when they cheat, dont know how to fall back in love with the husband, once they fall out of love, they cheat …

    It’s this inability to fall back in love with her husband, which is what makes a woman cheating so destructive

    As Dalrock points out Women are designed to handle Serial Promiscuity, women simply dont understand polygamy, as their biology is hard wired not to understand polygamy

    Essentially women are hypergamous, when they cheat they mistake it for hypergamy, ie they mistake the guy she’s cheating on as being higher status then her husband, destroying the existing oxcytocin & dopamine receptors she’s developed for her husband

    Men simply dont have that mechanism, they can retain the bond & chemistry with their wife, they can have sex with multiple partners while retaining the bond & chemistry with the wife

    Of course if the wife doesnt perform for her husband, he’s likely to fall in love with somebody else

    Men are biologically designed to be promiscous with multiple partners, women arent

    Of course I dont expect the hordes of fembots & fundamentalist religous fruityloops to understand the above, but these are well known basic gender traits

  411. Rmaxd says:

    The above is the very definition of …

    Women are hypergamous

    Men are polygamous

    Feel free to copy & paste this & my above post to the hordes of fembots & walsh’s sanctuary for fembot hamsterisation

  412. Rmaxd says:

    Again IF Walsh had any CLUE, about basic biology & sociobiology, she would’ve agreed with Doug1

    Instead of her usual parading her ignorance for everyone to see on her blog …

    It is because of Walsh’s ignorance & deliberate ignorance of the facts, Walsh is attacked, she simply has no excuses for her stupidity in the conversation with Doug1

    Doug1 was right, he was also biologically right, Walsh as usual ignorant & moronic in her response

    Her crap on frivolous divorce, was simply the last straw in her ridicuolous & ignorant response to Doug1

  413. deti says:

    Rmaxd:

    I don’t agree that husbands should be allowed to cheat on their wives. The sole purpose of my comment was to explain how and why wife cheating is more threatening to a marriage than husband cheating from an evolutionary biology standpoint. It should not be construed as a justification for husband cheating.

    Husband cheating has its own problems: possible diversion of some husband time and resources, spread of venereal disease, possibility that he will impregnate the mistress.

  414. passingby says:

    Deti, you have written all that need be written on the subject. Kudos.

  415. passingby says:

    “Veterinarian, heal thyself. That’s all I’ll say. May I suggest neutering?”

    Imagine her rage if men joked about mutiliating her vagina.

  416. elm says:

    I don’t know. In the open relationship of my two friends, it’s the woman who has actually opened it up to more male partners. He has the same freedom she has, but hasn’t acted on it. While I personally don’t understand open relationships at all, I see she has no diminished love for her primary partner and he has no jealousy toward her lovers. One is a good friend of his, in fact.

    Some people can do open relationships. Most can’t. While I agree that a woman’s cheating is more likely to mean she is no longer in love while a man’s may mean he is just curious, for people who can’t handle open relationships the result of cheating is the same. The relationship is dead and it doesn’t matter if it was an atom bomb (the more destructive female cheating) or a single bullet (the ‘less destructive’ male cheating) that finished it off.

    An affair doesn’t always mean the end of a relationship (no matter who cheats–I’ve seen cheating women who later became remorseful in time to save their marriages). But if affairs are not part of the stated conditions of a relationship (agreed on freely by both partners) they will just weaken a relationship.

  417. Kari Hurtta says:

    Jim says at December 22, 2011 at 7:50 am:

    Think about the logical fallacy of “men cheat more than women do.” Each time a man cheats, he cheats with a woman, right? So, that’s one man cheating, and one woman cheating. Or, if one man cheats with many women, that’s one man cheating, and many women cheating. So, whatever way you serve up a “man cheating” you include at least one woman cheating.

    I think this cheating is defined on content of marriage or LTR.

    With that definition that claim men cheat more than women do includes assumption that man have fling with single women.

    / Kari Hurtta
    ( I assumed that HTML-markup is accpeted. )

  418. Kari Hurtta says:

    susanawalsh at December 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm:

    Cherry picking one comment out of a thread of well over 1,000 was deceptive, and I remain surprised that it became the topic of a post.

    Well. I do not see this blog entry deceptive. ☻

    ( I think that I commented that comment on Hooking Up Smart -thread at #1149 Kari Hurtta December 28, 2011 at 5:53 am.)

    I will now state my beliefs, to the extent they are informed, about these issues.

    OK. These are quite reasonable, as someones have commented.

    I’m as usual very late on these threads (as I commented on Hooking Up Smart -thread at #1156 Kari Hurtta December 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm:

    In general it is impossible to keep track on these threads. Usually threads get 500 message when I have on sleep.

    )

    / Kari Hurtta
    [ I guess that this goes to moderation. let's hope that I do not messed with HTML-tags as usual. ]

  419. Kari Hurtta says:

    susanawalsh says at December 23, 2011 at 10:48 am:

    Again, the thread on my blog was contained to the issue of infidelity as a frivolous cause, as promoted by Doug.

    I read that thread and do not think that this is exactly what Doug wrote. That is your reinterpretation.

    I also noted on that thread at #1166 Kari Hurtta December 29, 2011 at 8:26 am for related comment:

    That is strict point of view. In here you are on line with Susan Walsh and many others. However I think that I understand what Doug1 tries to say.

    I quite likely get blamed from this comment.

    / Kari Hurtta
    ( I guess that this goes to moderation? I hope that do not messed with tags. )

  420. Kari Hurtta says:

    Hmm. Now this shows a comment with text Your comment is awaiting moderation. This did not shown previous comment at all. Interesting.

    / Kari Hurtta

  421. Kari Hurtta says:

    Passer_By wrote at December 23, 2011 at 3:05 pm:

    Actually, there has been a lot of uncensored discussion in the comment threads at HUS about unfair divorce laws. At some point, I suspect she feels it becomes excessive and threatens to derail the discussion she is trying to have (much like the excessive discussion of sluts).

    Yes, that thread is now closed. I started to have a match between Dough and Munson.

    ( Hmm: This page (http://www.hookingupsmart.com/) is currently offline. However, because the site uses CloudFlare’s Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site.

    / Kari Hurtta

  422. Kari Hurtta says:

    @Twenty at December 23, 2011 at 5:24 pm
    @Clarence at December 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    That shouting match goes to interesting. ☻

    / Kari Hurtta

  423. Kari Hurtta says:

    susanawalsh wrote at December 23, 2011 at 5:41 pm:

    Dalrock, you started this – please define frivolous divorce for us.

    Actually I think that Susan Walsh started this, but that of course depends what point we defined to be the start.

    / Kari Hurtta

  424. Kari Hurtta says:

    [ This fix for January 3, 2012 at 6:35 am comment. ]
    susanawalsh wrote at December 23, 2011 at 5:41 pm:

    Dalrock, you started this – please define frivolous divorce for us.

    Actually I think that Susan Walsh started this, but that of course depends what point we defined to be the start.

    / Kari Hurtta

  425. Kari Hurtta says:

    @TFH December 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm;
    For completeness also: D) Trivial reasons for the men to file.

    Your assumption for D) is that it is 0% of divorces. I do not try claim opposite. Also D) is not profitable (or at least it looks like that) so that is quite good assumption.

    / Kari Hurtta

  426. Kari Hurtta says:

    Clarence wrote at December 23, 2011 at 8:35 pm:

    I THINK she intends to address your points most specifically in her upcoming post, as far as on this blog right now I think she feels (and not unrightly) lynched by a bunch of accusations.

    Well, she wrote post about that: How To Attack a Blogger

    / Kari Hurtta

  427. Kari Hurtta says:

    @ Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot wrote at December 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm ;

    Feminist Hater have a point on here.

    / Kari Hurtta

  428. Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock

  429. Lavazza says:

    Dalrock: I don’t know where to post this, but since you like stats, these are the stats for the average length of marriage for marriages dissolved the last years.

    2010 7,99 years

    2009 8,44

    2008 8,69

    2007 9,15

    2006 9,64

    2005 10,48

    I also found this:

    http://www.scb.se/Statistik/BE/BE0101/2011M05/Gifterm%C3%A5l_skilsm%C3%A4ssor.pdf

    PAge 9. The first graph is age of the people divorcing and the second is length of marriage at the moment of divorce.

  430. Dalrock says:

    Fascinating stats Lavazza. The length of marriage at time of divorce shows a consistent downward trend. I wonder what is driving that. One possibility is women are marrying ever later, and as a result their window to really play the EPL card before hitting the wall is getting ever shorter. It is ironic that feminism put frivolous divorcées in this kind of bind. Before they convinced women to push out the age of marriage they harped nonstop about how women were forced to divorce after being tricked into marriage at a young age. Now they are under the gun both to get married and to file for divorce in time. As the age of marriage continues to be delayed and therefore the length of time women pretend to be married continues to shrink, this game gets more farcical every year. Eventually even So Con WKs may even have to accept the obvious truth about what is driving divorce.

    I’m kidding on that last part of course.

    I think I can pull something similar from the US Census SIPP data, although I don’t think they do a timeline. I’ll probably have to pull each year from a separate report. For (my) future reference, the search text is “Duration of first marriage for those whose first marriage ended in divorce”.

  431. Lavazza says:

    Seems right. 14,8 divorce per 1 000 married women 2010, which trumps the earlier record of 14,3 in 1974 (new divorce law). In 2010 the average age at divorce was 41,4 for women and 44,7 for men. Only 2 % of the divorced women and 4 % of the divorced men divorced after 65. Most divorces happen a few years after marriage. 6 out of 10 divorces in 2010 were of couples married after 2000. The most common year of marriage 2010 was 2007, with 2006 as a close second.

    You can see the average age at marriage earlier in the link.

  432. Brendan says:

    In the US we used to speak of the “seven year itch” in terms of divorces, and I think that the peak periods for divorce in first marriages are between years 4 and 8. Once you get past year 10, the rate drops a lot. Speculation is that the years 4-8 peak is a combination of (1) people’s long-standing, festering problems becoming untenable and resulting in a break, (2) the arrival of children, which creates more stress and pushes what might have been a tolerable marriage into the red zone. I suspect it also has something to do with EPL type issues in terms of people thinking they have a deadline to try to work on finding a replacement.

  433. Lavazza says:

    One reason for the shorter marriages might be longer cohabitation before marriage. I cohabited 4 years before marriage and was married for 10 years. Maybe the cohabitation part is even longer than the marriages nowadays (couples married after 2000).

  434. Lavazza says:

    There’s a lot stuff there.

    The town/country divide (length of marriage at divorce):

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____290301.aspx

    Marriage and divorce 1900-2005 (last graph):

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____154453.aspx

  435. Lavazza says:

    Swedes have fewer kids and childlessness is increasing (more for men than women).

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____325680.aspx

    Average age at the birth of the first chil is 29,0 for women and 31,5 for men (30,4 and 32,7 in Stockholm).

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____196376.aspx

  436. Lavazza says:

    Brendan: The stats for children living with both their parents start at 1 YO for the child (90 % of parents live together at that point) and there is no quick dips after that. Maybe a lot of parents split up shortly after having their second child.

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx

  437. Lavazza says:

    Women have their first divorce peak at 35 and the second at 39.

  438. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “The length of marriage at time of divorce shows a consistent downward trend. I wonder what is driving that. One possibility is women are marrying ever later, and as a result their window to really play the EPL card before hitting the wall is getting ever shorter.”

    Another related possibility is that the pool of available, marriageable, willing men is shrinking as women delay marriage; leading to less attractive marriage prospects, leading to “settling” and then divorcing from unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

  439. straightright says:

    @deti: Your possibility was posited by an economist, who concluded that contraception creates two markets, one for sex and one for marriage. The repercussion of these markets is “settling”, which may lead to divorce, the exact conclusion you had. It’s a very fascinating article. [Maybe it's already been discussed here. Sorry if it was ...]

    “First, because of the lower relative bargaining power that women wield relative to men in the marriage market, at the margin more women will simply strike “bad deals” and will want a way out of the marital covenant ex post. … In other words, when things go wrong relative to what was expected, women who expected to be somewhat better off because of the gains from marriage now find themselves in a position of being worse off within marriage than they would have been as single persons. This, in turn, leads quite naturally to an increase in the demand for divorce ex post.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/bitter-pill

    One fascinating analysis that he cites is the following:

    “The ratio between these two estimates suggests that the relative decline in the subjective well-being of U.S. women over the past thirty-five years is roughly comparable to the effects of an 8.5 percentage point rise in unemployment (that is, a rise from, say 4 percent unemployment to 12.5 percent). . . . Across a range of ordered probit regressions of happiness or life satisfaction on the log of GDP per capital, Wolfers (2006) finds coefficient estimates of around 0.2, suggesting that the relative decline in women’s well-being over the past 35 years is equivalent to them having enjoyed none [emphasis added] of the accumulated gains due to economic growth.”

    And you can probably add in costs of commuting and childcare, which further decrease economic growth.

  440. Vulcan says:

    With this thread still getting comments, some of you might want to know just how messed up Susan Walsh is. Susan Walsh is now accusing Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech and other MRAs of being part of a conspiracy with the richest of the rich. It’s for real, and Susan Walsh is that crazy.

  441. Pingback: Marriage 2.0 and The Church « Elephants & Trees

  442. Pingback: Pathological denial | Dalrock

  443. Pingback: Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & How to Survive It « UMSLOPOGAAS

  444. Pingback: The Marginal Economics of Divorce | Christian Men's Defense Network

  445. doug1111 says:

    Rivelino–

    i think all of this is having its effect, and to her credit, susan — unlike other female sites — isn’t banning doug and sticking her head in the sand, she is actually going to look into the topic.

    You spoke too soon. A few months later she DID ban me.

    Not for abusive or highly critical remarks to other commenters.

    She banned me for “derailing” her thread by defending myself from highly misleading statements and paraphrasing from other commenters defending myself and my views. Classic feminist behavior, just with a somewhat higher threshold for disagreement than Jesebel.

    What Susan really banned me for was for defending the point of view that American women divorce too much due to both no longer feeling deeply in love (without putting the effort in themselves often enough) and for being too absolutist in feeling that all male infidelity is an absolute abomination and almost necessitating divorce for self respect reasons. Esp. the later.

  446. Pingback: Female Solipsism | Dalrock

  447. Karl says:

    I think Men & Women may cheat equally, and am even willing to say that Men cheat more – but from what I have seen, women’s cheating leads to a divorce under confusing circumstances much more often. I have known many men who have cheated on their wives, but they all know what they are doing is wrong, if they ever get caught they would stop and do everything possible to save the marriage – and act nicer to their wives as a result. I have seen a few marriages end in divorce, where the wife was cheating. In all the cases, the marriage was good – and all the men were blindsided by their wives suddenly wanting out of the marriage, saying they were never happy, and all refused counseling. I think there are many cases where the woman cheats, blames the husband, doesn’t tell anyone about her affair – and the divorce is a confusing mess. Most men will confide and get advice from their friends about their affairs, while the women feel so shameful that they hide the affair from everyone.

  448. Anonymous Reader says:

    So, who can point me to Susan Walsh’s great, statistics-filled, in depth posting on divorce in America and frivolous divorce in general?

    After all, it’s been nearly a year. More than enough time.

    Clarence? Changed your opinion of Walsh at all in the last 11 months?

  449. deti says:

    Anon Reader:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/01/10/hookinguprealities/the-eat-pray-love-divorce-trend/

    FWIW. Susan Walsh concludes that so-called “Eat Pray Love divorce” is confined to the affluent upper and middle classes, citing the 2003 Amato survey. Susan has said elsewhere that she’s not convinced of “frivolous divorce” being as widespread as the manosphere believes it to be, while confessing it is a serious problem and a major reason for marriage rates creeping down and age at first marriage creeping up.

  450. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, were there any facts in that posting? Numbers? Citations to studies that were accurate? Accurate citations to studies?

    Susan has said elsewhere that she’s not convinced of “frivolous divorce” being as widespread as the manosphere believes it to be, while confessing it is a serious problem and a major reason for marriage rates creeping down and age at first marriage creeping up.

    Still as self-contradictory as ever, then?

  451. Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Sketching at the window of this train of thought

  452. Pingback: - In search of the Uncorrupted Christian Leader: The Gospel Coalition | The Woman and the Dragon

  453. Pingback: Mistaking fecklessness for wisdom | Dalrock

  454. Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock

  455. A woman might start to feel attacked after awhile, especially if you read a lot of Bardamu’s recent stuff about how no man should get married, ever, because it kills his spirit.

    Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it any less true.

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