A case for anger.

In my last post Do not be alarmed some commenters pointed out that Ms. Duffy isn’t just dismissing the concerns of men in the manosphere because she felt men were to blame for feminism, she is dismissing these concerns because men (and women) in the manosphere are angry:

The married portion of the manosphere has gained traction among some Christian and Catholic men, who—perhaps raised in broken homes—are looking for male role models as they strive to build a marriage and a family that will last.

So what’s the matter with the manosphere?

Like most reactionary philosophies, an undercurrent of anger informs its theories and practices. The manosphere is not just pro-man; it is really mad at women.

Several commenters felt she had a point.  It is one thing to talk about the problem of divorce and broken homes, but why all of the anger?  This is very similar to a question posed by a commenter named Brigitte on the blog’s about page:

Why does a “happily married father” spend so much energy on the topic of divorced women?

Both share the same basic premise;  so long as it isn’t you or your own children being sent through the meat grinder, who cares?  My response back to Brigitte was:

You are asking why I care. I would ask why you don’t.

I’ll pose the same question back to Ms. Duffy and the commenters who are troubled by the fact that people are angry with the gross injustice which is being done to men, children, and the very institution of marriage:  Why don’t you care?  Why aren’t you angry?

Anger is an entirely healthy response to gross injustice.  Apathy on the other hand is an indication of a profound inability to feel empathy, perhaps even masking a strong level of personal investment in maintaining the injustice itself.

A commenter named John wrote the following back in May of last year:

I recently discovered your site while searching the net about frivolous divorce and I think it is great you are trying to educate people about the realities of divorce in America. I went through a divorce two years ago, although I did nothing “wrong” so to speak, but rather because my wife was bored. Under my questioning, she said there was nothing I could have done to have prevented the divorce, which I believe to be true. I was not really lacking “game” (hadn’t heard of the term until recently, but I was manly and attractive), but she was very tired of the routine and banalities of married life, and wanted to, in her words, “find herself”, whatever that means.

As is typical, she did very well in the divorce and got the house, car, most of our assets (she cleaned out our bank accounts and savings and stripped the house bare while I was on a camping trip with a friend which she encouraged me to take – I should have been suspicious as it was the first time she had ever wanted me to do something like that, but I was overjoyed, and of course, completely taken by surprise when I returned to a house empty save for the divorce papers; I was never able to recover any of the things she took preemptively), full custody of both children, alimony until remarriage, and I got a disproportionate amount of debt and had to pay for the entire divorce, both lawyers. I have very restrictive visitation, usually I only get to see my children two days per month. I knew women usually were favored in divorce, but had no idea how unjust it was until it happened to me. In addition, I was completely blindsided. She was still very affectionate and sex had not dropped off at all. I never saw it coming.

I am a traditional Christian man, and had always looked forward to fatherhood and raising my children. In fact, I would say having a family was my dream ever since I was little (I never felt “defined” by my career or that it was anything other than a means to an end, but I am not a CEO or doctor). Now I am watching my children grow up in fast-forward, without any say in how they are raised. I have missed all of the birthdays and Christmases (and other holidays) for the past two years, not by choice. It is truly devastating to spend a month not hearing my children’s voice, or even touching them (let alone any human being) for weeks at a time, to say nothing of losing (who I thought to be) my soulmate after 15 years of marriage.

What is the most painful realization is that I have lost my future. I make $70,000 a year, but have to live on $15,000 after the payments (which I pay the taxes for, can you believe it? – I am in the $70,000 bracket!). I went from a decent house to a $500/month apartment in a bad part of town, and now live alone. I realize that I am becoming estranged from my children (I don’t really know anything about them) and my wife tries to make visitation difficult for me – it is awkward for her to arrange and for her new lover to deal with. I tried to be just a “fun dad”, who takes the kids out for a day of fun and doesn’t really “parent” besides providing paychecks and phone calls, but that is becoming difficult. Having a family is still my deepest longing in life, and I am so lonely, but I am unable to move on financially and start a new family with another woman (I am attractive enough and have the personality to get women quite a bit younger than me), because no woman wants a man that keeps $15,000 a year and goes deeper in debt every month to make ends meet. I could never support a family. I really see no hope of getting out of this vicious cycle – by the time all the payments stop I will be in my 50′s and I will have missed my opportunity, and be forced to live alone until I die. I can’t even have the dignity of a retirement, because my wife took half of my retirement fund which I had been contributing to since I was 22, and now I am so far in the red I have been forced to withdraw rather than contribute under severe penalties in order to make ends meet.

I have come to terms with the fact that this story can’t possibly have a happy ending, and my life is so far removed from what I envisioned and planned it would be like during my youth that it is unbelievable. I feel like a fool for having done everything “right”, because it ultimately made no difference in my happiness and fulfillment.

I wanted to thank you for being a force promoting honoring commitments and discouraging divorce, because it seems like a rare opinion to take in today’s society. You are helping the community by performing this service. I decided to relate my tale here for much the same purpose – if someone reads this and is able think more critically about what the legal implications of marriage are for men and be more cautious it will have served its purpose – I know as for myself I was really too overjoyed to be spending the rest of my life (ha ha) with the woman I loved to really understand what I was getting myself into, in addition to being ignorant and naive about the realities of divorce. If I had to do it all over again I would rather have remained single. It is truly better not to have known paternal and marital love than to have felt it and had it ripped away, regardless of what that folk wisdom quote says about loving and losing.

Please men, think very critically about what you are getting into. The laws are equal, but in court it won’t come out that way.

I’ll offer my standard disclaimer that I can’t vouch for what someone I don’t know writes on the internet.  However, his story fits exactly with what all of the data are telling us.  John’s story is the story of countless millions of fathers and their children.  This story isn’t about a failure of the system, it isn’t about an unexpected outcome.  This is exactly what the current system is designed to do, as Stephen Baskerville explains in the excellent Touchstone article Divorced from Reality (H/T empathologicalism):

Under “no-fault,” or what some call “unilateral,” divorce—a legal regime that expunged all considerations of justice from the procedure—divorce becomes a sudden power grab by one spouse, assisted by an army of judicial hangers-on who reward belligerence and profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, custody evaluators, social workers, and more.

Further down he explains:

By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.

And remove the father they do.  Here is the US Census data on who gets custody (more data here):

We can corroborate John’s story and the Touchstone article further with academic studies which have found that the biggest single driver of divorce is the ability to steal the most valuable assets of the marriage, the children.  We can also confirm the fundamental corruption in the system from the Seattle Weekly exposé Ripped Apart (H/T W.F. Price):

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a “women and the law” class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner’s courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. “She ruled against every single man,” Rolfe recalls, “and two of them were unopposed.”

“In any other arena, the evidence gets you the ruling,” observes attorney Maya Trujillo Ringe. “But in this particular arena, the dad has a much bigger uphill battle.” So much so, she says, that she and other attorneys often joke that “if you put a skirt on the dad, same facts,” he’d win primary custody. “

For those who weren’t angry before, I ask:  Are you angry now?  This is an important question, because the current system of divorce and custody has a massive entrenched constituency.  Millions of women now take it as a fundamental right to divorce their husband, kick him out of the home and take over the raising of the children, all with a guaranteed income stream from the now ex husband.  Our current system is as one divorcée brilliantly put it, a neutron bomb for men.  Even those women who don’t actually plan on implementing this process are typically highly invested in it because it gives them power, a trump card she can pull out whenever she decides her husband isn’t following her leadership.  On top of the average woman, there are an army of professionals who make their very living from breaking up families and managing the aftermath.  As I’ve shown in numerous posts, even the church is highly invested in the status quo.

We won’t take this highly prized process away from these groups if we and other ordinary people aren’t highly motivated to achieve change.  For this reason anger is an effective litmus test to determine if someone really supports traditional marriage or is merely paying lip-service to reform.  No one wants to come out in the open and claim they support nuking families and turning men’s and children’s lives upside down on a whim.  Only the most hard core ideological feminist will say they support the current system outright.  Again from the Touchstone article:

“Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue,” wrote Gallagher. “The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.” No American politician of national stature has ever challenged involuntary divorce. “Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative,” observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.”

In his famous denunciation of single parenthood, Vice President Dan Quayle was careful to make clear, “I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce.” The exception proves the rule. When Pope John Paul II criticized divorce in 2002, he was roundly attacked from the right as well as the left.

Fortunately if you want to support the status quo and still sound like you are for traditional marriage, all you need to do is say you support reforming the system while downplaying or ignoring the gross injustice involved in the current system.  Only a motivated and large movement poses any threat to the current racket, so one can have their cake and eat it too in this fashion.  If this is too close to actually supporting reform for your comfort however, your next best bet is to dismiss the gross injustice entirely because, well, others are angry about it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

527 Responses to A case for anger.

  1. Flavia says:

    To the man in the divorce. Leave. You don’t know your children anyway. South Korea has no extradition laws and any semi attractive Caucasian man that speaks English can land a good job at a university teaching business or English. You will get laid like tile and have a lot of income. Leave. Leave. Leave. When you children are 18 have them set up a bank account and give them money. Leave. Leave.

    LEAVE! Or your life will be ruined. Leave today.

  2. DW says:

    What about just taking the kids and fleeing to a South American country? Forget this garbage of living like a slave for decades on end, your kids are worth more than ensuring they have access to their bitch of a mom and her latest cad.

  3. 7man says:

    Is Ms. Duffy really a Christian if she lacks any empathy for men or children?

    Would a man get angry when this happens to him and all he has are real facts on his side and his wife has emotions, accusations and emotional facts? Every judge I have been before (all women) have ruled against me and I have lost my children, most of my financial resources and several of my inalienable constitutional rights without any conviction. Even when my ex-wife was admonished, the judge gave her what she asked for.

    Ms. Duffy, why do you think a man would not be angry sometimes when the Family Court acts more like a Kangaroo Court?

    The reality is that many men somehow suck it up and move on with their lives, but remain in poverty and the unintended consequences (that women cannot fathom) often result in limited employment opportunities for him and a halving of his former income as well.

    The PLAN

    Step 1: Marginalize men
    Step 2: Subvert the churches
    Step 3: Destroy marriage and the family
    Step 4: Enslave men
    Step 5: Enslave women

    The system does not exist to serve women (although it appears to do that right now). The end-game is not yet achieved.

  4. Krakonos says:

    Does he have his passport seized? If not, he should expatriate. If so, illegal immigration to Mexico would be interesting solution. He could try to build civilized society somewhere where people appreciate it.

  5. Sojourner says:

    No right to anger? Have they not heard of righteous anger? Please. I have every right to be angry at what we’ve wrought. I will accept responsibility for the some of the failures of my marriage but I will not accept the responsibility for the FAILURE of my marriage. That belongs to a society who has accepted that divorce is nothing more then another method towards “happiness.” Nevermind that happiness is a lie perpetuated by those who wish to try and rationalize the guilt they feel for an immoral life we now blindly accept. Oh yes, I do have anger. But don’t mistake my anger for being irrational or caught up in emotion. It’s the anger that woke me from my slumber of what we’re doing to ourselves and what will keep me from letting it happen again. The anger is what broke the haze I had over the reality of how fallen we really are and that we’re are indeed living in dark days.

    Do I want to riot? Lash out in anger? No. But it won’t keep me from acknowledging the avalanche we’ve called down upon ourselves. There will not be an “oh woe is me” crying from my lips.

  6. Joe Sheehy says:

    Femitrads, femicaths, femivangelicals – the bottom line is that feminism comes first. Civilization is not built on the consciences of women.

  7. Max says:

    My first comment here…

    @DW Forget about South America… or at least Brazil anyway. The laws there are no better in the USA. In Brazil if you miss ONE child custody payment you’re thrown into a “South American” over-populated jail cell.

    Point of reference: A couple of years ago a Brazilian national residing in Italy at the time went to Brazil for vacation. They went to the beach and the man was playing with his young daughter. He hugged and kissed her and some feminazi called the authorities and accused him of molesting the child. The man was immediately picked up by the police and thrown in jail. He spend months there until the media here got a hold of the story… after he had forked out legal fees to prove his innocence. At the end of the day he WAS reunited with his family, but at considerable cost.

    Don’t be fooled The feminist Emasculation Project is a worldwide phenomenon and is not restricted to English speaking countries like the USA, UK or Australia.

  8. jso says:

    marriage (or rather, weddings) and divorce are rewards to women for the grand triumph of processing oxygen

    stop rewarding women, stop getting married

  9. Rmaxd says:

    Talking of anger …

    Soldiers made to wear fake breasts to empathise with women … disgusting ….

    “American soldiers are forced to wear fake breasts and empathy bellies to empathise with pregnant female soldiers….”

    [D: Professor Hale shared his take on this here.]

  10. K_C says:

    This is an example of the fear of the ‘Angry Man’. We’ve all been so conditioned to believe that emotions are OK, as long as the emotion is not anger, and I’ve seen it expressed in many religious places as well that ‘anger is a sin’. Even the reaction of my own wife when I appear even the slightest bit angry (regardless of the reason or target, even the most justified anger) is quite telling.

    The message for so long has been “If you are angry, then you must have a problem! Swallow it and move on, and certainly don’t act/react to it/on it!”

    I also think there’s a problem dissociating anger with violence. For many (mostly women), man + anger = violence whatever the context.

  11. Rmaxd says:

    @jso

    Well said, a wedding the ultimate status whore event for parasitic sluts …

  12. Brendan says:

    By the way, if anyone reading thinks that John’s story quoted in the post is atypical or odd for the US, you’re quite wrong.

    Be aware that, in many US states at least:

    (1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).

    (2) Once your spouse leaves with the kids, or you are removed by your spouse from the spouse and the kids, your likelihood of getting custody is quite small, because a temporary custody order will generally come into effect (if she is being advised properly), and the final custody determination, which typically comes quite some time later, gives heavy weight to this “de facto” custody situation — in effect, the way the system works is that in everything other than outlier cases, you lose custody almost immediately upon separation, and even though this is “temporary”, technically, de facto it generally becomes permanent.

    (3) If the situation described in (2) happens, you’re very unlikely to get the house, either. The house normally goes to the parent with the custody. In some states, the court will make that spouse “buy out” the other spouse’s portion of the equity value of the property by selling or refinancing, but in situations where there are significantly unequal incomes, the asset distribution can be quite unequal, too (in favor of the lower income spouse), resulting in this simply not being distributed, or being greatly reduced.

    (4) Your ability to enforce visitation “rights” is almost nil in most places. Technically, your spouse is violating the law by violating the court’s decree, but other than issuing a new decree reiterating , the visitation order, courts generally won’t do much else to enforce these. They almost never are willing to accept this as a basis to revise the custody order, either. In fact, custody orders are very hard to revise under almost any circumstances, barring a truly awful situation involving the custodial parent — it’s more likely that the kids get referred to CPS than that your custody order gets revised, to be honest. So, your ability to see your kids depends largely on the goodwill of the custodial parent. If you find yourself in this situation, and she is of relative goodwill, maintaining this is the best option, if you want to see your kids regularly. If you have a war-like relationship with your ex, your likelihood of having regular visitation decreases, as she has incentives to block and no real enforcement. Once a lover/boyfriend/second husband comes into the picture, it complicates things even further around visitation, because you start to have a step-Dad in the picture who spends more time with your kids than you do, and has more of an influence on them than you do, whether he actively does that or not. Also, keep in mind that quite a few states won’t prevent a custodial parent from moving very far away with your kids simply on the basis of a visitation order — in these states you’ll be expected to lump it and figure it out, or move yourself to where your kids now live if you want to see them more often (but don’t expect your support obligations to go down if your new job pays less).

    *****

    The system is not “wrong” or “in need of reform”. The system is simply evil. It’s evil to the core. It calls into question the legitimacy of our entire system of government, full stop, when home, assets, children can all be spirited away in a thoroughly unconstitutional way, just because. It’s a deeply evil system and a stain on the national character. Truly, the entire system needs a fundamental, systemic re-think, rather than a piecemeal reform. But, in the meantime, piecemeal is all that’s available, and it’s better than nothing.

  13. GKChesterton says:

    You can be mad at the system without being mad at Duffy. This is, on the whole, a much better article than the first one.

  14. Opus says:

    Reactionary Philosophy: Mad at Women

    These are Miss Duffy’s – a Roman Catholic – criticisms, yet she is not, so she says, a Feminist.

    “So what’s the matter with the Manosphere”, she asks, having divided it into its Roissyesque and Dalrockesque sides.

    For myself, (the Roissy side) I do not enjoy having false Rape or similar type allegations made against me. My anger remains, although it came to naught. Pretty Reactionary I know, and it is also true that my principal target here is women, as men do not tend to make false accusations, generally – at least I know of no examples whereas I can enumerate countless examples of women doing so both from my personal and professional experience.

    I am also reminded of a lawyer friend of mine who married a girl – Cinderella style, as she came from the council estate, – and who now that she has put on weight, and not withstanding that my friend is recovering from Cancer, and further that he provided her as a SAHM with a house in the country (now hers) and children (now also hers) and an open top sports car (also hers) divorced him so that although he was a successful lawyer he was reduced to living in a bed-sit. Reactionary? If you say so Miss Duffy, but respectfully, I would suggest a serious rethink with the blinkers off, seeing as your Church have so far apparently failed to provide clear guidance in the matter.

  15. TheMan says:

    AMEN!!

  16. Höllenhund says:

    You’re beating a dead horse. Women play for Team Woman, they are bereft of any sense of morality and are incapable of empathy towards men. That explains everything – family courts being evil etc.

  17. Wp says:

    @Dalrock, Nova, all:

    29 y/o male considering marriage & kids, not necessarily to a particular woman at this time, but just in general. What would be your advice to go about this, in general?

    I’ve read various posts about partner-selection, have not yet picked up Athol Kay’s book (would you recommend?), reasonably versed in “Game” though I do have to actively remind myself to avoid the slow creep of Beta into an LTR, and will of course try to select a partner with the least risky profile (or, conversely put, best personality traits to make it work).

    Even considering the above, would you recommend marriage? Kids? Kids w/o marriage?

    Sidenote: It’s sad to say, but from my perspective the first comment sounds like good, or very-plausible, advice. That is, if I do have kids, and do get divorced + no custody, then I should just drop it all and leave.

  18. Ian Ironwood says:

    Anger is one of our greatest masculine powers, one that feminists have jealously been trying to eliminate and discredit for decades. “Share your feelings” means only your good feelings — sharing your anger is never good under feminine ideology, because the only thing that deserves righteous anger is the condition of women.

    “Don’t be angry!” is a constant fall-back for most women in a heated relationship discussion. They don’t question why you might be angry, or whether it might be justified. They merely fear our anger and loathe it — for good reason.

    Our anger makes us powerful.

    A lot of feminism in the late 80s revolved around getting women angry. They wanted to have that same level of power and authority that a man’s righteous anger bestows, but they tried to turn it back exclusively on men and masculinity. Angry women were great — angry men were dangerous proto-criminals.

    And then 9-11 happened. And we all got angry. And for the first time in decades, everyone saw the valor of masculinity as police and firefighters ran towards the explosions. Unarmed civilian men attacked well-armed terrorists in mid-air, knowing that they were going to die but unwilling to sit still in their seats while they were used as living weapons against their own people. They picked up shoes, briefcases, keys, whatever they could, and with a howl of righteous anger they threw themselves against their foes. We saw righteous anger expressed in the aftermath, as we figured out the origin of the attacks. And we saw anger in the eyes of our servicemen as they conquered one country after another.

    9-11 re-introduced the power of masculine anger back into a population that didn’t know they hungered for it. After decades of systemic neglect, we saw what male anger could do, and for us men it made us feel powerful and meaningful for the first time in a long time.

    Embrace your masculine anger. Control it, but embrace it. Your ability to arouse yourself thus is one of your greatest powers as a man. Righteous anger allows the 98 lb. weakling to attack the bully balls-out and kick his ass by surprise. Righteous anger allows you to put your foot down when your wife suggests something so crazy and demeaning to you that you seriously wonder if she’s mentally ill. Righteous anger allows you to motivate yourself to right wrongs and correct injustices.

    Don’t let them take your anger away from you. Make them respect it.

  19. an observer says:

    Christian women play this too. Most of the weddings i knew ended in divorce. Most of the men were decent, hard working guys. Presumably, they were an easy touch for a house, cash and ongoing theft enforced by government goons with guns.

    Welcome to the matriarchy. Next stop, bankruptcy.

    He may as well leave. With or without the kids his life is on a downhill slide.

  20. CL says:

    Angry Man™ is just another attempt to control men. A man can’t express anger even in the most reasonable and justified way without being dismissed as an Angry Man™. It’s an attempt at shaming and silencing. The “threat” women feel is that their unearned privileges will be taken away, not that Angry Man™ will attack them physically, but it is projected into the physical as something “dangerous” that must be controlled.

    What man never gets angry? Mr Rogers and Ned Flanders.

  21. I have had a good wife and marriage, but I am angered by the injustice wrought by feminism in the West. And disgusted.

    I am writing to the Attorney-General’s Department here in Australia about the dishonest Government approach to domestic violence. I got my first reply yesterday.

    Anger in pursuit of justice can be good. I wish more men would get angry about the kind of story at the top of this article.

  22. CL says:

    That military empathy belly thing reminds me of this:

  23. Höllenhund says:

    I don’t think male anger actually harms women’s interests. Whenever a man gets angry at a woman, he enables her to start the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’ by manipulating some other man to defend her from him.

  24. Höllenhund says:

    Not to mention the fact that women just love the stereotype of the ‘angry white male’. They love to mock it, ridicule it, pretend to be outraged by it, create a fake moral panic about it.

  25. Wp

    Not much to offer except do not marry any woman who calls herself a feminist.

    I dropped an otherwise suitable girl for this reason.

    Feminist ideas are poison in a marriage.

  26. K_C says:

    GKC Said You can be mad at the system without being mad at Duffy. This is, on the whole, a much better article than the first one.

    *You* can. I’ll go ahead and be mad at both a nameless faceless bureaucracy (or maybe the Misandry-Industrial Complex?) *and* an oblivious writer who says “Why so upset, sport?”

  27. Doug1 says:

    Brendan–

    A truly excellent comment. Thank you for all the detail.

  28. Twenty says:

    29 y/o male considering marriage & kids, not necessarily to a particular woman at this time, but just in general. What would be your advice to go about this, in general?

    LATIN AMERICA.

  29. Höllenhund says:

    I’d say the most sorely needed and warranted male emotion is currently not anger but cold indifference. Indifference towards a society that doesn’t give a damn about our well-being, towards worthless, ungrateful women who deserve no male investment whatsoever, towards white knights who implore us to sacrifice ourselves for the so-called ‘common good’.

  30. deti says:

    Wp:
    Step 1: Decide whether you want children. In the US, marriage is advisable ONLY if you AND your prospective wife want children.

    Obviously, if one or both of you do not want children, don’t marry. If you want kids and she does not, find a woman who does want kids. If you do not want kids and she does, don’t have sex with her. If you are having sex with her, stop immediately.

    Step 2: Search on this site for Dalrock’s articles on “Interviewing a Prospective Wife”. Read and understand them thoroughly. Select a prospective wife using these articles.

    Do not marry any woman who has reached or passed the age of 30. Chances are she will be infertile or her fertility is sharply reduced.

    Step 3: Get a prenuptial agreement. Some courts tear them up, and it might provide no protection at all. But it might also be better than nothing. If nothing else, the process will reveal your prospective wife’s attitude toward marriage. You get your own lawyer, and have her get her own lawyer. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP.

  31. Legion says:

    jso says:
    February 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    “marriage (or rather, weddings) and divorce are rewards to women for the grand triumph of processing oxygen”

    I think TFH is already beaten for the best quote of the article.

  32. Höllenhund says:

    @Wp 3:42 pm

    Don’t get married in the USA (I assume you’re American). That pretty much goes without saying. No matter how we slice it, Marriage 2.0 is a sham.

    Latin America is indeed a good option. I’d also recommend Russia, the Philippines or Lebanon.

  33. ybm says:

    Ya Bro I don’t know why you care about this stuff just make sure you game your wife if she leaves you its cuz ur not alfa enough and deserve what happens.

  34. Höllenhund says:

    Having said that, if you’re already 29 and merely ‘considering’ marriage instead of, say, yearning for it or something, then maybe you shouldn’t get married at all.

  35. YOHAMI says:

    That letter pissed me off.

  36. Legion says:

    Wp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    “29 y/o male considering marriage & kids, not necessarily to a particular woman at this time, but just in general.”

    I weep for you.

    Yes, some men have luckily married a woman that apreciates a man overcoming the wife’s natural psychological short comings. There is no guarranty that any women will understand this and try to work through their own self-created problems.

    I’m waiting to hear from a divorced man who gamed and explained game to his wife. She cooperated with him for years. Then the usual divorce out of the blue and ‘game’ is used against him in court to suck him a little dryer.

    Many men say enjoy the decline. Men will completely withdraw from society when they are only abused by that society.

  37. Doug1 says:

    Don’t marry unless and until you want children right away. Otherwise at most live together.

    Don’t marry without a prenup that more or less mimics living together in the event of divorce, but does somewhat better for her than that.

    Bear in mind that prenups won’t be enforced in areas of child custody and child support=also stealth alimony. Those payments were jacked up very high in the early 90’s under a feminist campaign with the slogan of “dead beat dads”. They’re typically 20-23% for one kid, 25-28% for two, of PRETAX income, and they’re not tax deductible. That becomes a very large part of a man’s after tax income if he’s a high earner in a high tax state. So she’s already got one hell of a large financial advantage post divorce compared to her ex husband. The prenup should limit other financial damage she can do to him.

    So, the prenup should waive all alimony period (unless that won’t be upheld in your state, though it is in most, but in any event greatly limit the amount and duration). It should also divide property proportionally to who earned it conceptually. I’ve thought about this a good bit and think the simplest thing to do would be to divide property according to who has title to it (having in mind having separate bank and investment accounts, and not owning cars jointly, etc.), and for things without title, who has possession of it, who bought it unless it’s clearly a gift, or who uses it. During the marriage I’d divide joint household expenses more or less proportionally to earnings.

    I would probably agree that all furniture and household appliances and equipment would be split evenly (or one would buy the other out on that basis). Also although I wouldn’t put it in the first draft (her attorney has to win something), I’d probably also divide equity in the primary residence equally, by giving her joint ownership and being a joint mortgage signatory, but also stating it explicitly in the prenup, unless perhaps we’re talking an enormously expensive place in which case I might split it evenly up to some level and then proportionally to who paid how much of the down payment and mortgage.

  38. Doug1 says:

    Brendan—

    (1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).

    Don’t have joint accounts or don’t have more than a trivial amount of assets in a join household expenses bank account.

  39. Doug1 says:

    Deti—

    Step 3: Get a prenuptial agreement. Some courts tear them up, and it might provide no protection at all.

    Courts do not tear up properly negotiated and structured prenups. She has to have a separate lawyer and you can’t spring one on her just before the wedding.

    Some states won’t allow the complete waiver of alimony for stay at home mothers or wives, although most will. You can reduce the amount and duration even in those states though. Some states will require alimony for several years to “let her get back on her feet” such as by getting a post graduate degree etc. Whatever prenups provide on the distribution of wealth earned during the marriage however is enforced in I think all states.

  40. poochmule says:

    That about sums it up to a T….Get a Vasectomy and don’t tell anyone, don’t trust any woman who says she is on the pill. When she gets baby hungry she will have a baby! Don’t get duped. I did, although I did not go thru the marriage and divorce there is a lot of emotional and financial crap to deal with for at least 20 yrs. Men have no rights, 2 trips to Asia and 1 to S America a year works wonders and if you have a opportunity to ex pat you are one of the lucky ones. Don’t get duped! Get a Vasectomy and tell no one! Enjoy your life…there is no such thing as wife forever..

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/08/stop-looking-for-a-wife-you-wont-find-one/

  41. Alexamenos says:

    Anger is an entirely healthy response to gross injustice….
    ——
    But only those with a strong sense of right v wrong will be angered by injustice, hence perhaps the split along gender lines is a reflection of innate biological differences.

  42. The problem is that a good marriage is one of the best things life on earth can offer. Two people with their different strengths and weaknesses striving for the same goals, sharing the ups and downs of life, secure in their love… very little can top it. That is why men still marry here in the US. Most men want children and want the best for their children, and a good marriage provides that environment as well. No other arrangement has been shown to help kids as much.
    People who claim to be for the institution of marriage should be very angry at how it has been changed here in America. Do Christians actually think that Christ would not treat a divorce court like he did the money changers in the temple? Ms. Duffy is either a hypocrite or an outright fraud.

  43. Lily says:

    @Brendan, thanks for info, really much appreciated.

    @Hollehund
    Latin America is indeed a good option. I’d also recommend Russia, the Philippines or Lebanon.
    Would it not bother you that as a foreign national you wouldn’t be allowed to own property in at least Philippines? I don’t know about the others but in the Philippines, any woman wouldn’t be taking any proportion of money in the case of splitting up as everything would have had to be in her name in the first place! It’s the same in some other countries in se Asia.

    Oh hold on, divorce is illegal in the Philippines anyway. Guess you have to stick with it or leave the country. Not sure what would happen if your wife kicked you out guess have to leave the country. Divorce isn’t illegal in some of the other countries, but you would have to say goodbye to all assets or any money in the country (as also would have been in wife’s name) and would be hard if any children involved as your visa would most likely be linked to being married. You’d only have any little chance of child custody if the wife ran off/deserted. But you’d have to leave the country with the child, you wouldn’t be allowed to stay.

  44. The Continental Op says:

    Michael Douglas “Falling Down”

    A Classic.

  45. Doug1 says:

    As far as custody and child support=also stealth alimony, the laws should be changed as follows. The default should be, unless either parent can be shown to have committed serious and repeated child abuse, that there’s true joint physical custody, with time split on an approximately equal basis. No child support=also stealth alimony should be paid to either parent, but rather each should pay the child’s direct costs (such as room and board) when in their custody. Large direct child expenses should be paid in proportion to income. If either parent wishes to move far away from where the marital residence was, that parent should lose custody and own child support. Child support however should be the current percentage rates of that state but applied to after tax, rather than before tax income.

  46. Odds says:

    Show me the moral difference between Christ, in a righteous fury, driving the moneychangers from the temple, and an angry man throwing the courts out of his Godly marriage. I don’t think Ms. Duffy is up to the task.

  47. Brendan says:

    Don’t have joint accounts or don’t have more than a trivial amount of assets in a join household expenses bank account.

    Absolutely. I would also recommend this to men who are currently married as well. Believe me, if the shit ever hits the fan, you’ll be grateful you did this.

    As for Wp — I would not recommend marriage to any man in the United States unless he is under a religious compunction to marry. If he is, then see Deti’s post regarding Dalrock’s wife-picking advice, Dave in Hawaii’s posts about married game, and Athol Kay’s writings. And think hard whether you really have a religious compunction to marry. For any man who does not, I would recommend strongly that he avoid being married in the United States.

  48. The Continental Op says:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/

    A real hero.

    [D: Not what I had in mind.]

  49. ybm says:

    A prenup with all those goodies means absolutely nothing when you have the police haul you away in shackles because you ‘scared’ poor wifey and her new boyfriend when you came home from work early. It will do absolutely nothing when you come home and the house is empty and the kids are gone (good luck enforcing the matrimonial home sections post-removal). It will do absolutely nothing to protect you having accusations of the most horrific things imagineable thrown at you in court to garner the judges sympathy.

    Go ahead, take the advice of internet lawyers looking to make bank off “prenups” that won’t be worth the confetti the judge will shred them into.

  50. Lily says:

    Do not marry any woman who has reached or passed the age of 30. Chances are she will be infertile or her fertility is sharply reduced.
    Deti, this is an exaggeration. I am in full agreement if one said that fertility and pregnancy issues rise as women get older, let’s not get the facts completely wrong.

    The likelihood of being completely infertile at 30-34 (higher than just 30) is about 8%, compared to about 5% at 25-29 so it’s hardly dropped off a cliff by age 30.

    And most babies born in the UK are born to women in their 30s. It’s not an ideal situation by any means, particularly as the NHS takes more care/spends more money on expecting mothers (80% of babies born with Down’s Sydrome are born to women in their 20s, partly as as they don’t have the same screening – though I appreciate for the more Christian readers on this blog they wouldn’t want the option for abortion in this case anyway) but it’s not completely unusual. When dalrock was looking at some stats a while go, I pulled up our ONS stats and saw that for example the women in their 40s having children was only back to what the level used to be pre contraception. My own grandmother and many of her friends didn’t start having babies till their late 20s and 30s due to the war.

    And I must say, it does seem a bit rich to be prescribing whom or whom not other men should be marrying, inaccurate information aside.

  51. Cecil Harvey says:

    29 y/o male considering marriage & kids, not necessarily to a particular woman at this time, but just in general. What would be your advice to go about this, in general?

    Don’t. Live celibate for the rest of your life, and offer it up for the salvation of souls.

    If you must marry, make sure to let your woman know that you will on no uncertain terms give her a single dime if she leaves you, and that includes child support. Let her know that you’re willing to expatriate or go to jail over paying for her to leave you. Make sure everything is in your name only — the house, any cars, etc. Make sure that on paper she owns nothing of any real value. Let her know that if she’s not willing to play by these rules, you’re gone.

    I did this with my wife, and though my marriage is far from great, as she suffers from many aspects of feminism, she will never even contemplate leaving me, because she knows there’s nothing in it for her to do so. She’s fully aware that an aging single mom has zero sexual market value.

  52. Lily says:

    @Doug & Brendan
    Are any mens rights groups working on divorce reform? And is there a chance of doing it across the board, or would it have to be done state by state?
    (sorry if the latter is a stupid question, I am not familiar with the legal system in the USA and am also not a lawyer. It is in the family but the little I’ve read up on US law, I could not get a handle on it).

  53. Ian Ironwood says:

    “And I must say, it does seem a bit rich to be prescribing whom or whom not other men should be marrying, inaccurate information aside.”

    In the Manosphere we advise each other about such things. We can rarely count on women for pragmatic counsel in these matters — they don’t have our interests at heart, by and large. An important part of taking the Red Pill is accepting the responsibility you have to your fellow men to give back in turn what counsel we have received from the wise men in our lives. The Manosphere gives us an opportunity to do so without risking rejection and judgement. With so many of us having grown up without fathers, this is a vital role of this community. It is difficult for a single mother to raise a boy, and it is nearly impossible for her to raise a man. The most she can hope for is to raise an adult “guy”.

    It takes a community of men to facilitate the transformation from boy or “guy” to Man. Part of that transformation is giving him our best advice about the most important decision he will ever make: the woman to whom he will hitch his fortunes. And if he seeks a good mother for his children, it is rare that a woman north of 30 is ideal for a number of reasons. You might not agree with the reasons, but those who propose them have plenty of compelling support for their arguments. And a Man will study them all and make the best selection for himself that he can — and we’ll respect it, no matter how much of a dumbass we think he’s being.

  54. Lily says:

    @Ian
    “We can rarely count on women for pragmatic counsel in these matters — they don’t have our interests at heart, by and large.”
    It’s not a gender thing. I would find that sort of language a bit rich from either a man or a woman. It would be like for example a woman saying to women at large ‘do not marry any man who is divorced’.

  55. TFH says:

    Lily,

    Are any mens rights groups working on divorce reform? And is there a chance of doing it across the board, or would it have to be done state by state?

    The short answer is no. There are fathers rights groups here and there, but there is not a snowballs chance in hell of them overturning the laws.

    Also, with the exception of Paul Elam and maybe one or two others, MRAs don’t really do any activism (which I am sure you have noticed by now).

  56. greyghost says:

    @Wp
    The only reason to get married to some skank amaerican is to have kids. As you can see you are a foolish one to do so. There is no exception to the rule. That story of the “christian man’s” (i might add) is the reality for a man period. If you want kids go to India and hire a surrogate. It may cost you 30 to 50k but thta is still a hell of a lot cheaper than some amerobitch. There is not on woman that can realisticly challenge that. All that really matters is being a father and women know it. My wife could disapear tomorrow and won’t be really missed by me. Infact if something happened to the kids and they were killed I would dump my wife before the bodies were cold. This is coming from a man that has put his wife through college and has coached her through her teaching career. She has come home crying and the Iquits numerous times. My knowledge of game and female nature has been a real aid. Women are below worthless they are a negative drain on society and are damn proud of it. That is how women measure their worth is by how much of a burden they are. The only use they have is the uterus to incubate a child and they know it,all of the rest of this and the blogging on wife game etc. is just techniques on surviving women. And trust me women shamelessly love all of this.
    I hope this was a help for you Wp. Being a father is special. if you can have one with out any female rights to the child you are set for life and the child will be too. Screw that needs both shit. I’ve seen and read too much to beleave woman have any capacity for any kind of goodness for any body if it doesn’t at a minimum make them appear to be a good person. (that includes children and any body a woman has ever said “I love you ” to.)

  57. TFH says:

    Brendan,

    It calls into question the legitimacy of our entire system of government, full stop, when home, assets, children can all be spirited away in a thoroughly unconstitutional way, just because.

    Upon reading your excellent comment, one might come to the conclusion that democracy has a life-cycle, after which a devolution into a feminist police state is inevitable. This is because men and women view the role of government very differently, and women are extremely committed to transferring wealth and power away from men and towards themselves.

    Democracy has a life-cycle.

  58. Ideally a woman has nett value. But don’t marry if she won’t cook and do laundry. My wife did my washing before we married. A prospective wife needs to demonstrate some humility.

  59. TFH says:

    There is, of course, this Canadian man who hired a surrogate in India (cost $20,000) and bypassed the women altogether :

    http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/newsfeatures/article/1038283–single-man-wanted-a-child-hired-a-surrogate-had-a-baby

    Given the hate he will receive, this ‘sphere should reach out to him, and at least provide him a place of encouragement. Maybe other young guys will get inspired to do the same.

  60. TFH says:

    Wp,

    Read Wedded Abyss for a rundown of the laws.

    http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

    Frankly, even with a pre-nup, you are taking a very big risk.

  61. greyghost says:

    @TFH
    Smartest man in North America. If he is a man they will hate him anyway.
    What would be really nice 1. male birth control pill 2. artificial uterus most needed things in the world any man that has a divorce like Dalrock posted with that available deserves what he gets.
    Involutary childless spinsterhood is a cure all.

  62. TFH says:

    Always remember that the divorce rate of any culture, is dependent on one thing only :

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, the society has a low divorce rate.
    If no (due to unfair laws), then voila – the divorce rate is high.

    All this ‘grown apart’ and ‘bored’ crap are just rationalization. In countries without financial incentives for divorce, all such emotional fluctuations are merely endured until they pass.

    Remember, the divorce rate is dependent only of whether a woman financially loses or gains from divorce.

    I would also add that societies where men hold all the cards in custody/asset division also have low divorce rates. Even if he can toss her out without cost, most men choose not to. Men are more responsible adults than women, example #5846.

  63. Pingback: Feel-good commentary of the day « God's Own Crunk

  64. greyghost says:

    “Maybe when enough men go the Darren Mack route society will pay attention”
    This is male logic and makes perfect logical sense. Women the majority voters don’t don’t play that shit homey. Where do you think that taxpayer’s money is going ? (I’ll give you a hint… Its going to that slut bitch the criminal knocked up) Women do not and don’t even have the capacity to concurn themselves will maintaining society or sustainable order. 30 to 40 percent of women get some of that player pump and dump and live out their life childless and working for themself all because they can’t trick a man into gettinng knocked up (involuntary childlessness I’m talking about) Work all of their lives never entitled to a mans children or income. Get to work bitch we have some fine single moms daughters to fuck. You see for you manginas that think I’m wrong to say these mean and angry things. Thank you for manning up chump and knocking up the good NAWALT cunt so she can divorce you and make your daughter with her fresh young pussy available for my son to fuck while he learns the worthlessness of American women as he saves up for his suurogate just in time to be jaded enough by your slut daughters to remove the last traces of blue pill residue allowing easy lifestyle change to MGTOW from the PUA.
    MGTOW meets Player on the pill. The good christian women await you.
    Girl power! be true to yourselves bitches don’t let god and his patriarchy stop you.

  65. Lily says:

    @TFH
    Not necessarily unfair (though you may have a point on living standards) if you consider high divorce rate in Sweden, iirc second only to the US.

  66. TFH says:

    Not necessarily unfair (though you may have a point on living standards) if you consider high divorce rate in Sweden, iirc second only to the US.

    Not unfair? Explain.

    A person unilaterally leaving the marriage should not get any marital assets unless they can prove either abuse or significant/systematic adultery.

    Under no circumstances beyond that should either spouse get money for unilaterally leaving their marriage (which was the custom for any monogamous marriage-society that survived on the order of centuries, btw).

  67. 7man says:

    @Wp,

    For a religious man in the US, it might be possible to marry and then divorce her one month later. Then the civil marriage is ended and the religious marriage would remain. There is no valid reason that the state should determine the validity of a marriage in God’s eyes. Parents and community should be satisfied with this arrangement since vows were exchanged. Then each is religiously married based on their personal vows with no prizes awarded in a divorce.

    Under this scenario, the assets could be divided as they were when the marriage was initiated. It is possible that other terms could be written into the divorce decree that would provide some protection.

    Of course this is not perfect and needs much research, but it most women would agree to these terms if it meant getting married to the man she wanted. This might also avoid the common law marriages that many men find themselves in after living with a woman for several years. Under this scenario, if there were children, they could go to court and determine child support obligations and agree that such would not go thru the state. Then he would have quite a bit of say in how those monies were spent and have a parallel rent agreement for her to pay them toward housing.

    All other things would have to be handled contractually. As to insurance coverage, that might be written into the dissolution decree and it is possible that companies would provide benefits based on domestic partnership criteria.

    Maybe Brendan can comment on the conceptual viability of this.

  68. HeligKo says:

    Marriage, even to a “good Christian woman” is a joke. She has all the power, and will let you know it very quickly. I have talked to man after man, who are in “happy” marriages who make it clear that the “man of the house” act put on by them is just so she has bragging rights, and she still is in control with constant unspoken threat of she can leave if she isn’t happy and take him for whatever she wants. Don’t marry. Don’t have children. I have four that are having so many problems since my wife decided she wanted to pursue her happiness without me. I love children, but what women are doing to them in their selfish pursuit of whatever pleases them is so destructive, its time for men to stop providing their seed. Fortunately for me that happiness includes wanting vast amounts of free time, so I have my kids half the nights, and see them about 5/7 days a week. I don’t kid myself though. The wrong person gets in her ear, and I am screwed, because she still holds all the power. I have to hope that I will make it to the divorce with a strong enough pattern of behavior to enforce what we are doing already.

    Until I hear a church on mothers day admonish the whorish and selfish behavior of single and divorced moms sitting in the pews the same way they attack fathers for sucking on fathers day, when the majority of fathers in church are doing none of the things they are attacking, Christian marriage is as bad if not worse than secular marriage in the US. Churches are encouraging men in the name of our meek Jesus Christ to be weak little sycophants to the women in the church. This is not the men of the Bible. I am done with the modern church. Its Dr. Phil every Sunday, and it is done to entertain the women and keep the men in line. Its a sad state for our culture.

  69. Brendan says:

    Are any mens rights groups working on divorce reform? And is there a chance of doing it across the board, or would it have to be done state by state?

    There are a few: Fathers and Families is one, there is another one that Baskerville (cited in Dalrock’s post) is involved with as well. Progress is being made on a very incremental basis on an issue by issue basis, but it’s slow and fought hard by women’s groups.

    In the US, family law is a state issue, so no chance of doing it “across the board”.

  70. tweell says:

    Lily’s comment that “The likelihood of being completely infertile at 30-34 (higher than just 30) is about 8%, compared to about 5% at 25-29 so it’s hardly dropped off a cliff by age 30.” is completely correct – as far as it goes. However… it gets a bit dicey if you want more than two children. Most women don’t want children close together in age, and allowing the body to fully recover between pregnancies is definitely a good idea. Marrying a 30-34 year old, first child is in that age bracket, second is when your wife is age 35-39 (3-4 years is standard), and any more becomes a crap shoot, as well as much more difficult on the mother. My wife had our last child at age 42, so I have first-hand proof that women can have children then, but it was a difficult birth and much harder for her to recover.
    Deti’s point that you should start <30 for the wife if you want a family still stands, in my opinion.

  71. Lily says:

    @TFH
    Your previous comment linked the two things ‘If yes, the society has a low divorce rate.
    If no (due to unfair laws)’. I don’t think the laws in Sweden are unfair to men*. Yet they have a high divorce rate.

    *I would say they are fairer to men than Doug’s comment about his ideal scenario. I’d go beyond what he said. But I disagree with him on ‘either parent can be shown to have committed serious and repeated child abuse’. If it’s something serious e.g. sexual abuse (I mean actual sexual abuse before anyone starts going on about false accusations) rather than say a one off slap in a bad moment, then imo hardly needs to be repeated.

    A person unilaterally leaving the marriage should not get any marital assets unless they can prove either abuse or significant/systematic adultery
    I disagree with this. If you put something into a marriage financially, you should be able to take it out regardless of why the marriage broke down. Obviously I understand that if one is against no fault divorce one would disagree with that (but I’d imagine anyone against no fault divorce full stop would have a strong crossover with people who would be against all adultery not distinguish for ‘significant/systematic’)

    Under no circumstances beyond that should either spouse get money for unilaterally leaving their marriage (which was the custom for any monogamous marriage-society that survived on the order of centuries, btw)
    Actually it wasn’t. Just as one random example, the married women’s property act in the UK didn’t come into effect till the end of the 19th century.

  72. Brendan says:

    Maybe Brendan can comment on the conceptual viability of this.

    It’s worth a try. The main problem is that the family law courts in most states don’t take kindly to people trying to “privatize” family law, because in effect this divests (or is an attempt to divest) the family courts of their power to decide what is best under the circumstances. In the US, family courts are courts of equity and not courts of law, meaning that, unlike courts of law, they won’t enforce a contract just because it was validly entered into if they think the result of enforcing it would be inequitable. So any contractual attempt is worth a try — it isn’t per se invalid. But at the same time, the family law courts of equity won’t simply enforce it like they would any other validly contracted agreement – they look to the result, and work back from there, often, rather than a court of law, which starts from the premise of freedom of contract and the enforcement against you of a bad deal you may have freely made (absent fraud in the inducement, duress, unconscionability and so on) –> whereas an equity court looks to see whether that would be equitable as a result, even if there was no fraud or duress and so on. So, worth a try, but not ironclad.

    From the canon law point of view, do you know what the answer is? I know that the Catholics require a civil marriage at the time of being married in the Church — do they require you to maintain the civil marriage? Is it a sin to agree to a civil divorce, even if one intends to remain married from the Catholic point of view? I’m not sure about that, as I haven’t really looked much into the CIC for a good fifteen years or so now.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    You can be mad at the system without being mad at Duffy.

    Thanks for allowing the peasants to have some anger. But since Ms Duffy appears unable and unwilling to see the problem, she becomes part of the problem and therefore anger at her is legitimate.

    This is, on the whole, a much better article than the first one.

    I’m sure your approval is very important to Dalrock.

  74. Twenty says:

    And most babies born in the UK are born to women in their 30s.

    And hey whoa the UK’s TFR is way below replacement. Nighty-night, now.

  75. 7man says:

    Brendan,
    I have not looked into the canon law aspects, but requiring the civil marriage to be coincident with the sacramental marriage was an accommodation the Church made to the state. The Catholic Church is adamant that the marriage remains until annulled. And divorce is not a mortal sin since divorce is not recognized religiously and both man and woman can still validly receive the Eucharist.

    I’m not sure that anyone has tried what I theorize so there may not be precedent. But it sure would put the Catholic Church is a difficult spot to claim there was something wrong with doing this given their practice of turning a blind eye to divorce in their parishes and especially catering to divorced women and shaming men. The Catholic Church actively denies the inalienable rights of fathers when it comes to everyday Church life.

    This is mostly speculation on my part.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, the reason why so many Upper Middle Class traditionalists are aghast at the manosphere is pretty simple: the UMC receives many of the benefits of feminism and few of the costs. Therefore, to the UMC there’s no real reason to be upset about feminism or the misadric legal system it has created. I posted on this at the end of Do Not Be Alarmed, maybe I should copy/paste the relevant sections here.

    Follow the money. That’s the short form.

    Gilder’s new book supposedly addresses part of this, according to one review I read, but I wager he only gets part way there.

  77. Carnivore says:

    @Wp
    I’m assuming you are in the USA, so I’ll put it gently – ARE YOU NUTS???? There is no way to guarantee your rights in the USA. Even if you should marry in a strict religion, such as Traditional RC, Amish, etc. wifey always has an easy out via the government (divorce court, 911) and society at large will not shame her for it (she’s empowered!).

    If you simply, absolutely must marry, move to a country with traditional laws.

    Hop on over to http://www.happybachelorsforum.com/index.php

  78. Brendan says:

    7man –

    That makes sense to me, from what I remember of the canons, although it would be interesting to see how a Bishop would react to that approach.

  79. unger says:

    In a somewhat related vein, slashdot is running a story about a judge ordering a man to publicly apologize for a facebook post expressing his dismay over his rape by divorce court. (Original story here; the link in /.’s original post is dead.)

  80. Brendan says:

    In a somewhat related vein, slashdot is running a story about a judge ordering a man to publicly apologize for a facebook post expressing his dismay over his rape by divorce court. (Original story here; the link in /.’s original post is dead.)

    Nothing really new, unfortunately.

    Baskervile’s book describes cases of men being ordered by courts to avoid any writing anything about their opinions about their divorces under penalty of jail. No constitutional remedy, because our candy-ass federal courts refuse to enforce the constitution in state family courts.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gee, Brendan, that kind of gag order would seem to be tailor made for an ACLU lawsuit in Federal court on 1st Amendment grounds. I just can’t imagine why there hasn’t been such a suit yet…

  82. 7man says:

    Brendan
    It took me a bit to realize the implications of what you stated.

    I was alienated from my inalienable Constitutional Rights by a Court of Equity, not a Court of Law. So much for “due process!”

    No wonder no common-sense (or established legal principles) was used. The conclusion was determined first and then the reasons were developed to support the desired outcome.

    In a contrived “infraction,” the female judge in the “low-population-progressive” county where my ex-wife resides seemed to not care about the Constitution, and at that point I could not afford a lawyer, not that I have had much “luck” with any. I am putting more of the pieces together as time goes on. I have known the what, and now I am seeing the why.

    Wp, take note, a man surrenders his civil rights when he gets married and this will be enforced by the state based on the whims, emotions and feelings of any wife that chooses to end the “marital status.”

  83. Carnivore says:

    I am neither a civil nor canon lawyer.

    I know that the Catholics require a civil marriage at the time of being married in the Church — do they require you to maintain the civil marriage?

    Just to qualify a bit, since that’s somewhat backwards. The state requires the civil marriage (a wedding “license”), while the Church requires “Preparation for marriage should be in compliance with appropriate civil laws.” per the requirements set by the USCCB which is given this leeway by Canon Law (the bishops of a region can set additional requirements). http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/mdecree.shtml So, the RCC says “Do what the civil law says” and the civil law says “Get a license”.

    While it is true that divorce is not recognized, the general Catholic position is to provide civil obedience. My guess would be that a couple would be hard pressed to convince a pastor or bishop that a divorce a month after the wedding was done for earnest reasons. Your average pastor or bishops is totally clueless on the state of marriage in the West outside of “too many divorces”.

  84. Brendan says:

    Gee, Brendan, that kind of gag order would seem to be tailor made for an ACLU lawsuit in Federal court on 1st Amendment grounds. I just can’t imagine why there hasn’t been such a suit yet…

    Trouble is, it’s been tried (on other issues) — that is, to involve the federal courts in enforcing the constitution in state equity family courts. They don’t bite. The federal courts just won’t get involved in family law matters unless they are dealing with something like racial discrimination or, today, gay marriage. They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

  85. Brendan says:

    In a contrived “infraction,” the female judge in the “low-population-progressive” county where my ex-wife resides seemed to not care about the Constitution,

    Indeed, if you read Baskerville’s book (every man should read it really), you’ll see where family law judged have, in training seminars/meetings with new FLJs, explicitly stated that they do not need to worry about the constitution. It’s openly admitted.

    You have no constitutional rights w/r/t: your home, your kids, your assets, in the context of a divorce. The Constitution just does not apply, because these things “aren’t important enough”.

    Great country we live in, no?

  86. Brendan says:

    Just to qualify a bit, since that’s somewhat backwards. The state requires the civil marriage (a wedding “license”), while the Church requires “Preparation for marriage should be in compliance with appropriate civil laws.” per the requirements set by the USCCB which is given this leeway by Canon Law (the bishops of a region can set additional requirements). http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/mdecree.shtml So, the RCC says “Do what the civil law says” and the civil law says “Get a license”.

    Thanks for refining that — my memory of the CIC is dated, unfortunately. In the Orthodox Church it’s really up to the presiding Bishop to decide how to handle these kinds of things so I haven’t looked at the canon law on this in quite some time.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan
    They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

    So deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law doesn’t rise to the level of the Constitution? Gee, I thought the 5th Amendment was incorporated some time ago. DId I miss a memo?

  88. greyghost says:

    “Gee, Brendan, that kind of gag order would seem to be tailor made for an ACLU lawsuit in Federal court on 1st Amendment grounds. I just can’t imagine why there hasn’t been such a suit yet…”
    feminism and the misandry that comes with it trumps the constitution. Even the right to life liberty and the pursuite of happiness ends with a woman’s right to choose. (die baby die)
    Now the thing to do is for us to get that judges name and county and court and post that up in every comment section of every article on the internet. We’ll add a google earth photo of his house later.

  89. Brendan says:

    So deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law doesn’t rise to the level of the Constitution? Gee, I thought the 5th Amendment was incorporated some time ago. DId I miss a memo?

    It’s foul, I agree, but it’s been a consistent position taken by the federal courts for ages.

  90. TFH says:

    Lily,

    *I would say they are fairer to men than Doug’s comment about his ideal scenario.

    FairER, perhaps, just like Texas is relatively fairer to men than Massachusetts or California.

    But I am not sure Sweden is *fair* in an absolute sense. Less unfair can still be very unfair.

    I disagree with this. If you put something into a marriage financially, you should be able to take it out regardless of why the marriage broke down.

    You do realize that under such a rule, it would be *men* who are owed something about 95% of the time, no?

    I am actually OK with the idea that the person who wants to leave unilaterally getting no money/custody unless they can prove serious fault. Most women simply will not leave, under this arrangement.

    Actually it wasn’t. Just as one random example, the married women’s property act in the UK didn’t come into effect till the end of the 19th century.

    Not knowing too much about that UK law myself, I can say that any laws that give women marital property rights *without* accountability start the inexorable slide towards tyranny. In the US, a law passed in 1969 has taken until now for the full destruction to manifest. Just like the tiny anti-misandry sphere of 2012 will be quite mainstream by 2020.

    Things take quite a while for the full effect to be felt. We think women voting is normal, but since only a handful of countries have had it for 90+ years, and another 10-15 countries for 60+ years, it has existed over only a *very* tiny percentage of person-years lived. There is far too little of a track record upon which to say female suffrage is a durable option for a society.

  91. TFH says:

    It’s foul, I agree, but it’s been a consistent position taken by the federal courts for ages.

    Remember that any tyranny, socialism or redistribution, which would be supported by only 20% of adults if presented in normal terms….

    …..suddenly gets 70% support (and just 1% opposition) if the same thing is packaged as ‘feminism’.

    I repeat, something that would be supported by 20% but opposed by 60%, suddenly gets 70% support and 1% opposition, just by packaging the same as feminism…

    That is why Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state. I am going to repeat this until it is well-accepted thought.

  92. Cane Caldo says:

    @DC “Ideally a woman has net value. But don’t marry if she won’t cook and do laundry. My wife did my washing before we married. A prospective wife needs to demonstrate some humility.”

    Good tip, there. My wife used to drive over and wake me up for work; make breakfast; etc. before we married.

    I’d recommend also marrying a woman you like, but she loves you. Many guys date around until they get “The One”, and then decide that is the woman they should marry. 1) There is no “The One”. You’ve fooled yourself, and you feel so lucky because that’s all it is. Luck is fleeting. So’s The One. 2) Game is all about keeping hand. Start from that position of strength, because…3) While there’s some chance you’ll improve with age, you ultimately won’t. You have to make it stick until the red tide passes (along with those hormones), and she really begins to understand her mortality.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is a portion of a posting from another thread that in my opinion is actually more relevant in this thread.

    The cost and benefit of feminism in economic terms is not uniform. Upper middle class and upper class people benefit from it. When Doctor Smith the surgeon marries Doctor Jones the pediatrician, the household income gets that much bigger. And when Doctor Smith the wife gives birth, she puts her practice on hold for a while until the nanny can take over, then she goes back to work – if it means her gross income drops down to only $100K for a tax year, Dr. Smith the surgeon can make up for it. They can live in a nice, small McMansion (only 4,000 sq. ft., really just a cottage) in an elite, even gated, community with other people just like themselves. And since both doctors are likely to realize that divorce would have serious financial implications, even if they grow apart, they are not likely to ever be exposed to the divorce industry. So there’s nothing wrong with feminism, why, it’s enabled Dr. Smith to help many, many children.

    And if they don’t have children, if they remain Dual Income No Kids (DINKs) then feminism is pure gravy. It greased the skids of Ms. Jones career, from high school through college and into medical school. No way that Drs. Smith will see anything wrong with feminism. Even if there is a divorce, it will be a clean one with minimal conflict because, as studies show and Dalrock has cited, the power struggles come with “who gets custody of the children”. If there aren’t any, a big part of the power of the divorce industry is never brought into play.

    The effects of feminism are not uniform across all income classes. The impact of feminism is very much not uniform across income classes. So take a nice professional family, where the husband is an attorney at law, and therefore can afford easily to have a stay at home wife who raises the children. Because he’s in the top 5% of earners, he’s likely to always be alpha enough to avoid the fate that awaits betaizing. Because his loving wife stays home with their 2, 3, 4 or more children, she’s less likely to be in the social circles where divorce can propagate (as Dalrock showed last year or so). Sure, she may “marry” the children, but again her husband is alpha enough to probably control for that. In any event, all the people they know in their UMC cocoon / bubble are doing all right, and divorces are rare.

    The children of the upper middle class won’t be in public schools. Their sons are much less likely to be punished for acting like boys, or forced to take drugs such as Ritalin. And since they do want their children to succeed, and success is partly measured by college, they are not going to object to all the extra benefits young women are given merely for having two X chromosomes.

    To attorneys, to the professoriate, to doctors, etc. feminism is either all good, or mostly good, because the bad effects simply are not visible to the Upper Middle Class. So take some UMC twit living in a bubble, and expose him or her to the modern SMP and MMP. What will they take note of? Why, the dangers to young women, of course. The possibility that Susie Cupcake will spend too much time in the bars of her college town, and get pumped & dumped by some dreadful cad. Thus to the isolated, insular, bubble-boy UMC twit the most pressing issue of the modern SMP / MMP is not divorce theft, not false rape accusations, not the frustration and social isolation of ordinary young men, no, no, no. It is the dreaded “players”, the evil PUA’s.

    As exhibit A of my hypothesis, I point to any of several posters in the last year, most prominently among them being Escoffier.

    Since UMC bubble-boys don’t know anyone who has been through the divorce industry, they discount divorce theft. Since they don’t know anyone who has been backstabbed at work with a false sexual harassment charge, they discount that as well. And so forth, and so on, down the list.

    To the UMC bubble world, all this talk of divorce theft, of false rape, of blatant misandry may very well seem like the ravings of lunatics – after all, none of the people at the Country Club have ever experienced such things, nobody in the faculty lounge talks that way, none of the other probate attorneys worry about such things, etc. Therefore, all those men must be bad men, who want to do bad things to women (and probably have small penes to boot).

    So there’s my hypothesis of the day. Follow the money…

  94. TFH says:

    Upper middle class and upper class people benefit from it.

    Completely disagree. Men in these classes work long hours and are in a high marginal tax bracket. They have more to lose than some black man in the ghetto, since CS is computed as a PERCENTAGE of PRE-TAX income.

    I am well into the upper class myself, income-wise. Not even UMC, but actually self-made wealthy. I still don’t want to marry, simply due to the risks involved. Plus, Game was, and still is, more fun. I know others like me.

    False rape accusations happen to upper-class people all the time. The Duke Lacrosse boys were wealthy, as were Tucker Max, Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant, etc. Dominique Strauss-Kahn is about as elite upper-crust as you can get. Wealthy men are targets of paternity fraud too.

    Celebrities are wealthy, even if not intellectually upper-class. So why did Hulk Hogan consider suicide after being inflicted with divorce? Why did OJ Simpson snap due to absurd alimony laws? Why did Don Cornelius commit suicide, citing divorce reasons?

    Now it is true that the divorce rate of college-educated people appears to be just 20%, but I need to see more data around that before that statistic can be considered robust and official.

  95. TFH says:

    In fact, Doctors get divorce inflicted on them a lot, and quite a few are reduced to living off of 20% of their income. Even if that still means living off of $60,000, it is ridiculous. Plus, Doctors are usually manginas and still can’t figure out what went on in the woman’s mind. A Doctor is the type of herb who gets divorced and cleaned out, and then still blames himself for 10 years.

  96. dwright says:

    I’m 36, have turned down 4 marriage plays (I don’t call them hints or outright proposals anymore)
    I have been blessed (cursed?) with intelligence enough to know the difference between my little heads thinking and my brain thoughts. Marriage scares me to the point of self destruction.
    I worked with a man who got hit with a “sniper divorce” at 50 years of age, lost everything because the house he built was a national park property and gained %500 in value. She got that million dollar property, full custody, alimony. He was living out of a 20 year old car and his work shop, taking sponge baths out of the shop sink after hours (I was evening shift, embarrassed when I walked in if I needed parts ((different departments, building operations)) )
    My marriage response is simple: pre-nuptial contract through a high end law firm will cost me a bunch in the beginning, but will save me when the bitch does the I’M NOT HHHAAAAPPPPPYYYY bs.

    Death of romance? On you greedy feministas.
    d

  97. Cane Caldo

    Yes. Marry a woman who really loves you. “Will do anything for you” love. If she is the least bit slow to service you, drop her. It will only get worse once you are married.

  98. Will says:

    One Ring to Rule Them all and in the Darkness Bind Them – The Lord of The Rings

  99. HeligKo says:

    @dwright forget about it all together. Pre-nups are crap. They are only as good as the judge who reads it in divorce court, and the lawyer you have after she has cleaned out the bank accounts. In states like CA, they are almost entirely thrown out after 10 years. Since most women divorce a couple of years after the last kid is in school, this is almost certainly 10 years. Don’t fucking marry. 14 years experience tells me it was a shitty deal from the beginning. If you do marry, be a stay at home husband and make most of your money off the books, so it can’t be used against you, since you know that your ability to make money is because of the support you got from the woman who is now making your life a living hell. And because of this, she deserves a lot of your income for the rest of her life, or until she gets married again. Which she most certainly won’t. Live in boyfriends can pay the bills just as well, and she can still get her alimony. Men you cannot protect yourself. The laws/regulations constantly change, and for some reason the laws that are in force when you get married aren’t the ones that you most worry about, but the ones that will come. The deal can be changed by fiat all the time. Marriage is for suckers. I am not a sucker no more.

  100. TFH says:

    Millions of women now take it as a fundamental right to divorce their husband, kick him out of the home and take over the raising of the children, all with a guaranteed income stream from the now ex husband.

    Wait until the costs of this come back.

    As The Misandry Bubble states, by 2020, women will wish they had it as good as the women of 1920. Note that this not due to any laws being repealed (they won’t be), but rather other market forces.

  101. namae nanka says:

    “because men (and women) in the manosphere are angry”

    LOL feminism wanted men and boys to be in love with their emotions. Of course, it only wants them in the way that it deems fit, boys who feel sorry for the ill-treatment of women and feel weak/insecure, men who pedestalize women and feel anger towards their own sex.

    “The manosphere is not just pro-man; it is really mad at women.”

    I wish it had been so sooner. Most of the heart-burn and destruction that feminism caused would have stopped in its tracks if men had responded in kind and a little more in degree when the ‘mad at men’ phase of feminism was in full swing. Now, it’s too little and too late.

  102. greyghost says:

    I thought I was showing strong anger. I’ll have to use the c word more.

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH, you are offering me anecdotes. The facts are clear: divorce rates among higher income groups are lower than among the middle class. It is also clear that the upper middle class benefits from feminism financially. Some of them work in the divorce industry.

    Give me some numbers or percentages. Not anecdotes. I’m familiar with the headlines. Those don’t prove anything about the upper income population in the aggregate.

  104. Will says:

    Greyghost: “If you want kids go to India and hire a surrogate. It may cost you 30 to 50k but thta is still a hell of a lot cheaper than some amerobitch. There is not on woman that can realisticly challenge that.”

    Its quite an indictment on modern women that they have become such a liability (legally and socially) that surrogacy or even artificial uterus is seen as an attractive alternative to having children through a conventional relationship with a woman.

  105. tacomaster says:

    When I read the story you posted Darlock I nearly wept. This is pretty much what my mom did to my dad. It destroyed him as a man. She left him for his best friend very suddenly because she “wasn’t happy”. She basically hid us from him and I didn’t see him from the time I was 5 to 16. He died a few years ago and I never really got to know him. I hate my mom for what she did. There are so many men out there who are having their lives destroyed.

  106. tacomaster says:

    Read through the postings and wanted to share this. One other thing pertaining to women getting custody of kids. One of my close friend’s wife divorced him and she got sole custody of their two daughters. Come to find out, she met a guy online who once upon a time molested children [is on the registry database and everything]–my friend checked because his ex-in laws told him about this. Long story short, he’s been trying to get his young daughters out of the house but the courts are still saying she still has sole custody although they’ve given him slightly more visitation privilege.

  107. Twenty says:

    Now the thing to do is for us to get that judges name and county and court and post that up in every comment section of every article on the internet. We’ll add a google earth photo of his house later.

    I believe this is the dude-in-a-dress in question:

    Domestic Relations Court Magistrate Paul Meyers
    Hamilton County, Ohio
    (???) 946-9141

    http://www.hamiltoncountyohio.gov/domestic/Court%20Departments/magistrates.html

    Something to get you started.

  108. dwright says:

    HeligKo
    Thanks for the reply, I haven’t even considered marriage to even look into the Canadian laws for pre-nups (ok I was tempted twice to be honest, but not enough to pay a lawyer)

    Do I want to be married? Yes

    Am I afraid of women who play the long con? Yes

    Am I smart enough and mature enough to see through a long con? Getting there

    Am I smart enough to know that she can turn on me in a heartbeat and have a huge support network rationalizing her thoughts and actions? Yes

    Am I messed up spending too much of my thinking/troubleshooting/making mad bank time trying to forecast whether a given potential wife will (language, sorry) shank me up the ass? Yes

    People wonder why guys my age are into cocaine and hookers. A whore goes away after you pay her. Coke wears off and you get on with your day to day.

    A married home is a risk with life consequences, odds are not good for guys these days so-

    Ask us again why we’re angry. Really go ahead and ask. Just don’t be surprised when you get your arrogant head torn off. (aimed at the you know who control freaks.)
    d

  109. Passer_By says:

    @AR
    “TFH, you are offering me anecdotes. ”

    As opposed to your fabricated hypothetical anecdotes about imaginary doctors. Yes, there are two doctor couples. He’s rarely alpha, and she often quits or cuts back on work, and he’s vulnerable. I am (and work with) a lot of relatively high income corporate lawyers and litigators, divorce theft is common.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    Passer_By, we have data that shows divorce among the upper middle class is less common than the national average. That does not mean it is zero. But it is lower than the 40% for the society at large, and cohabitiation without marriage is not at all common. It also appears that the upper middle class is hostile to the rights of men, and the righteously angry men who are raising the issue. This has been seen over and over again.

    I’m trying to hypothesize why apparently so many upper income people have contempt for the righteously angry men. Financial gain is my current idea – because their wives benefit financially from feminism, because their daughters benefit in many other ways, and because they are less likely to be harmed. I speculate that the UMC and upper classes are more hostile to the manosphere.

    I could be wrong. It is just an idea that occurred to me today.
    Do you have an hypothesis you’d care to share?

  111. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m trying to figure out why the UMC seems to be so hostile to the manosphere. Financial gain is one possible reason. It is known that upper income groups have lower rates of divorce – even if it is 20% it is still lower than the 40% of the society at large. Therefore, those groups suffer lower rates of divorce theft. Not zero, but lower. And two income families are possible due at least in part to the social effects of feminism. So the upper middle class is hurt less by divorce theft, and benefits more from feminism.

    Do you have an alternative hypothesis? I am interested in figuring out why the UMC is hostile to the rights of men, because if we can bring high earning men into supporting men’s rights, that should be a good thing.

  112. Pingback: End game. | Dark Brightness

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    Apologies for the double posting.

  114. TFH says:

    I’m trying to figure out why the UMC seems to be so hostile to the manosphere.

    I don’t think this has been ascertained. A lot of men in the ‘sphere are UMC.

    Now, UMC women are experts at acting as if they have a lot of moral integrity, when their husbands are so whipped that they would either a) never have time to read the ‘sphere since they work 70 hours a week, or b) only socialized with other families like themselves, and no ‘man’ activities are even allowed.

    But I don’t see evidence that UMC men are for or against the ‘sphere any more than any other income bracket of men.

  115. TFH says:

    AR,

    The facts are clear: divorce rates among higher income groups are lower than among the middle class.

    This has nothing to do with whether they are for or against misandry relative to other groups. If anything, UMC men have more to lose, as I explained.

    It is also clear that the upper middle class benefits from feminism financially.

    This is not clear at all. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. As we know, women in the workplace is largely due to government intervention than the free market.

    So evidence for your point is as far from ‘clear’ as could be.

    I am interested in figuring out why the UMC is hostile to the rights of men,

    They aren’t. There is no evidence of this, nor has this point gained any traction with others.

    If anything, UMC daughters pursue high-end careers and thus miss the chance to get a husband due to the age of 34 sneaking up on them too fast.

    I speculate that the UMC and upper classes are more hostile to the manosphere.

    The key word here is ‘speculate’. Your speculation is entirely off and without logical merit.

    I am high-income, much above UMC and deeply into the top 1%. I even created a strategy that can greatly damage feminism by making men aware, and so-called MRAs refused to even expend the simple effort of posting flyers.

    My sympathy for men is dropping, due to the absence of action from so-called MRAs (Paul Elam being almost the only exception).

  116. Lavazza says:

    Lily: “It would be like for example a woman saying to women at large ‘do not marry any man who is divorced’.”

    Why would any woman want to avoid marriage with any man? What are the risks (apart from not being able to marry a man who she can steal more from)?

    I think it is good (in an amoral sense) advice for women to avoid divorced men for relations (unless the woman can see that the man has not learned his lesson and still has something she can steal). Divorced men are poor and wise. What women should look for is rich and stupid.

  117. Buck says:

    Wp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    RE: Should I marry?

    Story time.
    I have a very good friend who found Ms Right…church goer, nice looking, great job, seemingly happy couple, great kids (2). From the outside, pure bliss…right?

    As Paul Harvey would say… and now the rest of the story.
    Cupcake is having an affair and my friend knows it. He has kept his head about it, and Cupcake is unaware that he knows…women all think guys are stupid and they are too slick to get caught.
    My friend saw another pal who is a top notch divorce lawyer, and after running the numbers our lawyer friend told him to suck it up. If my friend stands on principle and divorces her whore ass, he gets to be cheated on and loses 1/2 his stuff, his house, his savings, 1/2 his pension, child custody, and almost certainly alimony too.
    My friend has contemplated having his own affair as retaliation ( he’s a good looking guy who has never had problems attracting women), but he actually has morals and does not wish to live as a scumbag.
    I introduced my pal to the online manosphere, and it has helped…BUT… the fact remains. He cannot act on morality and principle without devastating legal and financial consequences…a lose-lose for him. And Ms Cupcake…lets see, she can pretend she is in the perfect Christian marriage, get side action and if caught gets a new boy toy and a rich payout for her sluttiness.

    If you are single, all this married guy can tell you is that EVERY married guy lives with the threat of the above scenario. NO case can be made for a man to marry in the current legal climate. It is the worst decision a man can make legally and financially.

  118. Twenty says:

    @Buck

    Free advice (worth every penny) for your friend:

    a.) Suck it up until kids are in college
    b.) Document Cupcake’s infidelity
    c.) Quietly move assets into foreign banks/property
    d.) Take as much equity out of the house as possible.
    e.) Once the kids are in college, file for divorce
    f.) E-mail any and all friends and family with details (as lurid as possible) of Cupcake’s behavior
    g.) Flee the country

    In relation to (c.) — he might even tell Cupcake that he’s investing overseas. Just lie about the countries in question, banks involved, nature of the investments, and that Cupcake doesn’t have her name on anything.

  119. rayy says:

    you hang on there HeligKo

    also, the UMC analysis was good

    it’s true that anger is just a stage, but right now unfortunately a required stage

    the condition of boys and men in the u.s. is v bad — the boys need the fathers/men, but often are used as tools of vegeance (and much worse)

    it is v desperate and quickly spreading thru the west and even the east

    these conditions resulting from deliberate policies, my question is that of the site owner — why ARENT ms duffy and ms walsh and Christendom and Hebrewdom IRATE about the constant attacks on the sons of this nation? of the west? of their oppression and degradation, their emasculation and fatherlessness?

    their “churches” having utterly failed to address the most obvious religious, social, legal, and civil-rights issue of our times — instead, having profited from the matriarchy — heres a christian man who DOESNT have a grudge-stake — not divorced, doesnt owe child support, not a humpbacked unemployed gay basement-dweller like ole ray

    he’s pissed for the right reasons, b/c iniquity is evil, he values masculinity and fatherhood, is indignant for God

    Christian women should be all over this blog, following the lead of an actual Christian man, supporting him as an example to other Christian and Jewish men

    they dont have to accept Game (i sure dont) but they DO have to get behind Christian men who recognize and attempt to correct the dismal and ongoing failure that is our feminist nation (and increasingly, planet)

    instead, ms walsh duffy n huffy are busy with their vanities, of which “church” is one and vain, self-serving websites another

    they will accept leadership only from pastors and ministers and priests who sing the world’s tune, and they rebel against the remedies and leadership God has provided

    last time the lamb, this time the lion

  120. TFH says:

    f.) E-mail any and all friends and family with details (as lurid as possible) of Cupcake’s behavior
    g.) Flee the country

    He should probably do ‘g’ before ‘f’. Get out of the country while still retaining the element of surprise. Emailing can be done after that.

  121. Johnycomelately says:

    I have a co-worker in the exact same predicament as the example (except in Australia).

    Sad thing is this poor guy is working 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and guys only working part time are better off than he is. I expect he will have a heart attack soon (200 blood pressure and doesn’t have time to see a doctor) while his wife bonks her new boyfriend and lives in the lap of luxury.

    He is thinking of expating but where is one to go? The countries without extradition treaties are third world dumps.

  122. greyghost says:

    That story of the cheating wife would make a nice setting for a star chamber type series or movie. A group of guys (maybe throw in the obigitory chick) would find stories like the cheating wife legally trapped father having to put up with it by law. They would just take it upon themselves without the married couples knowledge to take care of the problem.
    But overall that marriage on a statical basis would be counted as a happy marriage. And if that worthless woman as much as trips and falls on an uneven sidewalk our sick society will go after two men first to insure justice in the pursuit of hypergamy and true to herself joy.

  123. greyghost says:

    @Johnycomelately
    Marriages today are like that,they all are men tolerate foolishness they would never tolerate. All at the point of the government gun. That is why when a spouse (wife) dies or disappears the husband is automaticly a suspect because any man married more than a weekend technically has motive reguardless about how emotionally attatched and in love with the burden he was. In real terms he is now free and if he has kids he won the lottery. The old elephant in the room thing.

  124. Thanks for the H/T…..

    This topic is kinda my sweet spot so to speak, as I went almost through the unilateral divorce experience and during that time I truly obsessively educated myself on this, my insomnia and shutting myself in my apartment then had me pouring through not just data and legal things, and things like Baskerville and Usher, but parallel, the church and their complicit role in all of this, this led me for example to down load more than 100 sermons from across the country off church websites, mainly sermons on Fathers day and Mothers day, as well as so called “marriage series” sermons, and read every stinkin one and assigning them to anti male biased of not, adding lists of their ministry offerings to buttress the point, i had nearly a 100% anti male bias score for these churches in my sample of churches. I havent done the statistical calculation on margin for error because my rendering if it is anti male or not was of course subjective.

    I need to mention, there is a law firm advertising in memphis and they have offices all over the mid south, I think based in St Louis not sure called Cordell and Cordell, their site is worth visiting, they are ONLY representing men in divorce, period 100%. After the founder experienced a unilateral divorce he founded this firm. if I was in a divorce they would be my partner. But more its just encouraging to see their existence, to be honest.

    My lawyer in my case (which ended reconciled, no divorce) was a treasure trove of information to me on how women comport during unilateral no fault divorces.

    There is a poor soul right now at Christian Forums posting whose wife is leaving him. Its no fault, no abuse etc etc…..30 years of marriage. he says that they went to counseling and she said she has been unhappy for 25 years of 30…..frankly, that is BULLSHIT made up in her mind to add to her pile of dung on the pro divorce side of the scales she used to rationalize doing it. There is no fixed basis for morality in the woman, or I submit 99% of women, adjusting the morality of this choice as they go, dragging God along with them. I have been in the topics of no fault divorce on enough faith based forums to know this……women are 99.9% pro-no fault divorce if not even wanting is MORE women friendly, and men are about 80% against, the others being stupid white knights that lap up the crap the women say about getting of of bondage and tripe like that.

    Women face zero IMMEDIATE consequence for filing….life is exactly the same, minus “the jerk”. She files, he is out of house visiting kids, he files, he is out of house visiting kids. the inability to think abstract into the future means this is enough for her to be confident, and with a friend of other man she has the personal confidence to go ahead.

    then, finality date comes and she sees the consequences….UH OH…..Mr lawyer cant we just file something? I mean he is such and asshole jerk, we just gotta file some more crap!

    By making whoever files a no fault divorce be the one who moves out and is a visitor to kids, you’d whack the filing rate by half at least. Takes the abstract out of it.
    This is the number 1 root cause issue that the church leaves untouched. As they support women through no fault jettisoning of good men, they are complicit. I asked my pastor during mine, what if I asked you to drop me at the no tell motel so i could meet my mistress and not park me car there, would you? Of course not, then why the hell are you doing the equivalent thing by pandering women through no fault divorces

    IDIOTS!

  125. If you are a Republican and do not favor limiting divorce, you are the worst kind of hypocrite while you chase your gay marriage and abortion, divorce infests the person on your left and the right, how many in your row are gay?
    The social costs are enormous. Go into the addiction recovery groups at church and ask those there how many came from broken homes……well duh…..almost all, divorce, the ROOT CAUSE for all the other ministries the wear on their sleeves to show their altruism.

  126. Rmaxd says:

    @Lily

    Trolling for team woman as usual …

    So you think women shld become beggars & thieves when they marry? Begging the legal system for handouts, & stealing mens hardwork & property?

    Btw Child defects increase as the woman gets older … 30+ is considered a geriatric pregnancy, its high risk & the child is likely to have defects …

    As anyone with half a braincell states, the prime fertility for a woman is 20-25, after that theres a steep decline in a womans fertility & massive increase in child defects

    Also whered you get the freakin idea, sweden was fairer in divorce? Getting half of finances you never earned is called theft & is legalised theft, how the hell is that anywhere near fair?

    Women shld have their own assets, & men shld have their own, nobodies entitled to anything, just like real life

    Women live in some delusional entitlement state of begging & crime

    Women are beggars, & prostitutes first, & criminals foremost, no surprise there …

  127. Legion says:

    greyghost says:
    February 23, 2012 at 4:25 am

    No star chamber stories please. The hysterics and resultant police-state crackdown would be unbearable. Just be prepared to enjoy the decline.

  128. stonelifter says:

    there is all type of anger

    Righteous anger is appropriate anger when witnessing injustices and wrong doing. Than there is petty anger, like getting pissed off because the light won’t turn green.

    I’m fair certain the left has made all anger seem like the latter to emasculate men

  129. Höllenhund says:

    @Lily 5:04 pm

    I’m not familiar with Philippine law but I’m sure one can apply for citizenship there, not? And I’m sure it isn’t terribly difficult to do, considering that the Philippines isn’t exactly a country that large number of people are flocking to for a better life.

    Obviously an American male who expatriates should cancel his old citizenship since otherwise he’d be left under the jurisdiction of anti-male US laws. And he should also assimilate. Leave the toxic culture behind and accept the new one, convert to the local religion if necessary. Goes without saying.

    The Russian Far East also seems like a good option. They have a labor shortage there and the high-quality local women are genuinely seeking reliable husbands, so I’m sure a young American male would be welcome with open arms. Russian language skills are a must, of course.

  130. jack says:

    Those same women who “wonder” why a happily married man is fighting for other men might also “wonder” why white people fought for black civil rights.

    All this proves is the absolute selfishness of many women. They think you should not care about things that don’t affect you individually.

    This also proves that many of these “Strong, Independent” women are actually weak, since it is the weak that display the inability to look out for others.

  131. 7man says:

    Feelings triumph over principles (what are those?) in the female mind. Imagine how this plays out in divorce.

    To illustrate this, consider this quote from Sheila Gregiore in 29 Days to Great Sex Day 21: 5 Ways to Spice Things Up
    no one should ever be pressured to do something they’re uncomfortable with or feel is sinful.

    The common thread throughout this series is female control of men in the sexual sphere due to the moral superiority of women and women’s insecurity under male leadership. In a way this is a normalization of a perpetual mutiny.

  132. stonelifter says:

    Everyone is talking about ex-patting these days. The Pro White forums/blogs, survivalist forums/ blogs and now this place. I work overseas as a private security contactor and have spent over half my adult life outside of the USA. And I’ve posted this more or less 4 times in two weeks

    South America has bad economies, hardcore poverty, rampant corruption, crime, crime, crime and Whites down there identify with hispanic/ latino. Don’t expect a warm welcome if your a honky like me. Bribes are everyday common. Criminals target wealthy foreigners. You’re wealthy by default because you’re foreign. And have far left govt’s that back the kind of things folks here gripe about.

    Men from Australia clued me in to this being a worldwide issue.

    More liberty outside of the USA? Liberty and lawlessness is not the same thing. I’m free by default living on my farm. Who’s around to enforce the law or rat me out?

    Some nations will fine/ jail you for criticizing homosexuals or moslems; limit the amount or kinds of property foreigners can own, and tax you into compliance on a host of issues. Remember the hajji riots in France and the UK? Where’s next? The euro zone/ currency looks shaky; unemployment is higher and Italy is expecting it own lost decade. Western European masculinity is spent. Cultural marxsim has all but won.

    People recommended ex-patting to places with problems in their recent past. Generally, things weren’t as bad as folks think in the Balkans, but it was bad, and confusing. I could never tell who was what, or why. The hajjis support Al Qaeda & UBL. I was in Brazil while they ethnically cleansed the ghettos, wasn’t much fun. Will those problems reoccur? Who will help you if they do? The cops won’t help; no family to help; you’ll have to rely on yourself and, untested new friendships. The local middle class and upper middle class are fleeing many of the places men talk about ex-pating to. Some places are downright hostile to Americans (leftist hate the USA)

    America isn’t perfect, but legally I can own as much land and as many houses as I can afford; cars with 600 rear wheel horse power aren’t gas-taxed out of a middle class mans ability to afford; I can own the type of dogs I want; machine guns, .50 sniper rifles, suppressors’, sniper rifles w/ suppressors, build destructive devices, carry a firearm damn near any where I want; criticize who I want; travel without a passport or language barriers to visit some of the world’s greatest cities, ski resorts, and beaches; see some of the greatest wonders in the natural world; hunt pigs, deer, moose, turkey, bears; fish for bass or marlin; chase after the widest selection of European women I’ve seen in one nation.

    Ex-patting is exchanging one set of difficulties for another. Many ex-pats are unhappy in their new local. A number are doing it strictly to drink and whore and with that comes a host of unpleasant personality traits. Some are wanted for a variety of minor, unsavory behavior issues in their home nation. That’s how your host nation will view you. That and as a walking wallet

    Living is tough in most of the world. Are you ready to give up your comfortable 1st world life?

  133. RL says:

    A case for anger and empathy for those men may also be derived from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

  134. deti says:

    “deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law doesn’t rise to the level of the Constitution? Gee, I thought the 5th Amendment was incorporated some time ago. DId I miss a memo?

    It’s foul, I agree, but it’s been a consistent position taken by the federal courts for ages.”

    Interesting position for the courts to take since
    1. the right to associate with one’s family or have a family is considered a fundamental right, as is voting
    2. the right whether to bear a child is of constitutional dimension, hence Griswold (states may not interfere in physicians prescribing birth control) and Roe v. Wade.

  135. Doug1 says:

    Brendan—

    In the US, family law is a state issue, so no chance of doing it “across the board”.

    That’s certainly the starting point and supposedly true. I’m not sure it is completely true though. The feds keep encroaching more and more on states rights, usually using the threat of withholding federal money.

    For instance, I think there was a considerable degree of federal coercion of the states in family law in the late 80’s and early 90’s around the adoption of formulaic child support amounts. There was a model state statute based upon the one in Wisconsin I think it was, that was supposed to apply to income up to some threshold at least, around 70k I believe it was. (I looked into this in a bit of detail a decade or so ago, so I’m a little foggy.) The stated main object of the feds was to reduce all the discretion judges had, and the play that getting a better divorce lawyer created, in most states. Under feminist influence it was also to jack up the child support amounts esp. for high earners, and to move child support away from being truly just support for the child on the theory that the children (and not incidentally their mother) should live in the style to which they were accustomed as much as possible – without caring that if so the father couldn’t – best interests of the child don’t cha know.

    I can’t recall the Fed’s ever intervening in traditionally states rights areas to move things in a more conservative direction however.

    Why is it that creating equality and justice for ex-husbands and fathers is considered conservative? It is though.

  136. Mark says:

    My response is, why the hell not be angry? Even if they are not your children, they very well could be. What father that gives a damn could sit back and watch, without emotion, his kids getting put through that meat grinder you talk of?

  137. Anon says:

    @Wp
    I’m 28 myself. I’ve got an established career, a good house in a good neighborhood, and like you have put a lot of thought over the past year or so into taking the next step of getting married and starting a family. Having children is something I’ve always wanted. However, with the way things are in the US I’ve concluded that I just can’t do it. John’s story above really hits home about the realities we face. Marrying a woman in the US is like giving a gun to a stranger and telling them “If you shoot me, you can have everything I own, or ever will own, and not only will you not be judged, you’ll be celebrated for your courage.” Can you really give someone else that kind of power over you and trust them not to use it? Sure, they may sound appalled at the prospect now, but give it 10 or 15 years and see where things stand.

    I don’t know what the future holds for me. Ex-patting is not something I really desire as I’m very happy where I am now, but I’m leaving all options open. All I do know is that I will never marry in the US and will never advise anyone else to do so. Many of my friends already have divorces under their belt (wife initiated, of course) and are already getting nailed by CS and alimony. Don’t let it happen to you too.

  138. Brendan says:

    My friend saw another pal who is a top notch divorce lawyer, and after running the numbers our lawyer friend told him to suck it up. If my friend stands on principle and divorces her whore ass, he gets to be cheated on and loses 1/2 his stuff, his house, his savings, 1/2 his pension, child custody, and almost certainly alimony too.
    My friend has contemplated having his own affair as retaliation ( he’s a good looking guy who has never had problems attracting women), but he actually has morals and does not wish to live as a scumbag.

    The thing is, Buck, he’s kind of fucked either way, really. Just because he doesn’t file doesn’t mean she won’t at some point. Women who are having affairs are a much bigger risk for leaving marriages than men are, due to the way female sexuality works (bond sexually to one man at a time generally). So he can try to suck it up and still get fucked over by his wife, because if she files because she wants to leave him for the new boytoy, she gets the same results as outlined above — because in a no fault world, what she is doing with boytoy is 100% irrelevant to any of that. So, in summary, he’s powerless. Absolutely powerless.

    Best case is to do what some others have outlined (move assets around, bide time until support obligation periods are expiring, eventually getting out of dodge) and *hope* she doesn’t file on him and fuck him over in the meantime — because he can’t prevent her from doing that, and “tolerating” the affair won’t necessarily head that off.

    That’s certainly the starting point and supposedly true. I’m not sure it is completely true though. The feds keep encroaching more and more on states rights, usually using the threat of withholding federal money.

    That’s a good point about how the feds have been influencing things like child support — certainly that has been the case to a huge degree, really.

  139. poochmule says:

    Johnycomelately says:
    February 23, 2012 at 4:22 am
    I have a co-worker in the exact same predicament as the example (except in Australia).

    Sad thing is this poor guy is working 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and guys only working part time are better off than he is. I expect he will have a heart attack soon (200 blood pressure and doesn’t have time to see a doctor) while his wife bonks her new boyfriend and lives in the lap of luxury.

    He is thinking of expating but where is one to go? The countries without extradition treaties are third world dumps.

    If he is in Australia I would suggest Jakarta, Indonesia. There is a lot of traffic, that is hard to deal with but it is like the Mexico of Asia, and a hidden secret. Beautiful golf courses, gorgeous women (millions of them that like bullaa’s (white men), they all speak english, amazing city, but also dirty and poverty but that is anywhere you go. Great food, live like a king, maids, drivers…go a visit

  140. stillcode says:

    To those who wish to marry, the risk of divorce is a numbers game.

    http://www.smartmarriages.com/divorce.factors.html

    However, the site doesn’t mention two other important factors.
    1) Marrying a virgin will lower your divorce risk.
    2) Marrying a foreigner will lower your divorce risk.

  141. milchama says:

    I feel so bad for John. I for one, will definitely heed his warning. I can’t imagine going into marriage without at least a prenup these days. I would suggest most men simply avoid the license and do a church ceremony, but for some guys that’s not quite possible (I know the guys in the military need a license in order to get much-needed benefits such as on-base housing or a housing allowance, or else they have to live in the barracks with the other single men).

    I am definitely angry about this issue. I nearly got married. I was 1 month away, and the woman I was with for years got cold feet, up and left, and I never really saw her again besides when she was threatening to sue me because I took the Xbox we bought together (she had all the pets, the ring, etc). She left out of the blue, it came so totally randomly. If it had happened just 2 months later I would have been royally screwed. Now I know better. You need to trust people, especially a wife/fiance, but human nature being what it is, and the laws being what they are, it is UNWISE for a man to enter into marriage in this system in the general manner most folks do.

  142. milchama says:

    @Stillcode – I highly recommend foreign women. I think that there is a mysandry bubble, kind of like the housing bubble, and it is bound to pop. When it does, American women will be nearly forced into spinsterhood as men, who have grown wise to the system, begin to marry foreign women in large numbers. I have traveled abroad and I can attest to the fact that the gringo effect is very powerful throughout the world. Foreign women aren’t broken as American women are, and they even resent American women for their attitudes and behavior. Anyway, marriage-minded men will find ways around the system, and foreign women will be a huge component of it. It’s sad that basically a whole generation (generations?) of American women were totally ruined by feminism, the divorce industrial complex, the feminization of churches, the media, etc.

  143. MikeDiver says:

    I am maried to a Filipina. Let me inform Lily of a few of her misconceptions. The first is that as a non Filipino I can not own land. If I am over 50 (I am) I can obtain a retirement visa and own a home and a reasonable amount of land it sits on in my own name. When I die I can not leave it to a non-native born Filipino, but it can be sold, and the money given to whomever I declare. If I am married to a Filipina I can get a 13A immigrant visa, which is a permanent residency, and I can own any thing I wish, and can afford, in my own name; businesses, real estate, homes, etc. I can later become a Filipino citizen if I choose, and vote and have all other rights of citizenship.

    The Philippines is the only country on earth where divorce is not legal. Your wife can not kick you out. She can not take your children from you. You can get a civil separation, but neither of you can remarry. You do not lose custody of your children.

    If you stay in the US, and your marriage is registered in the Philippines, then your wife can not divorce you. She can get a divorce in the US, with all the divorce theft available in the west, but the records in the Philippines will show her as still married to you. However, you can divorce her and it will be accepted in the Philippines. This is the reason that even in the US men that marry Filipinas have a dovorce rate of less than 20%, compared to the 60%+ rate in American men marrying American women.

  144. Doug1 says:

    In my opinion having a stay at home wife is simply too dangerous is this American divorce culture. Don’t allow it. I’d also not marry a woman who makes peanuts.

  145. Brendan says:

    In my opinion having a stay at home wife is simply too dangerous is this American divorce culture. Don’t allow it. I’d also not marry a woman who makes peanuts.

    I agree strongly.

    The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives. If you have a SAHM and get divorced, you’re in for one hell of an ass-fucking by the courts financially. Asset division will be skewed in her favor (considered “equitable” because she has lower earning capacity to replace these in the future) and alimony will be high and long in many states — and don’t even think about fighting a SAHM to take away her sole custody unless she’s a drug addict. This is the hi/lo bet for guys who the have “traditional Chistian” marriages. If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.

  146. Pingback: Should Christian men marry? What’s the worst that could happen? « Wintery Knight

  147. TheMan says:

    You really should write a book, Dalrock!

  148. ASF says:

    God that story was painful. I count myself lucky about how my divorce went, and I would never in a million years marry again.

    I wish I had known about all of this stuff while I was taking Family Law in school; I could have asked some painfully probing questions. I think one of the reasons the Federal Courts don’t want to get involved is that they feel their docket would be flooded with family cases, and all federal judges want to clear their docket.

    The point about courts of law and equity is a very good one. Do you all think that if family courts were reconstituted as courts of law that many of these injustices would go away or be mitigated? Suppose the federal government passed a bill called the Increased Justice and Fairness Act which provided additional funds to overburdened state courts (we would not call out family courts specifically), but in exchange the States would have to pass laws (or better yet amend their constitutions) to make a certain portion of their courts of equity into courts of law (again this would have to be phrased in such a way as to sweep up family courts without explicitly calling them out). I bet States can be cheaply bought.

  149. Pingback: Stares at the World » Angry Young Turks

  150. Ollie says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/2-charged-death-ala-girl-forced-run-082216169.html

    “Authorities say 9-year-old Savannah Hardin died after being forced to run for three hours as punishment for having lied to her grandmother about eating candy bars. Severely dehydrated, the girl had a seizure and died days later. Now, her grandmother and stepmother who police say meted out the punishment were taken to jail Wednesday and face murder charges….
    Witnesses told deputies Savannah was told to run and not allowed to stop for three hours on Friday, an Etowah County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman said. The girl’s stepmother, 27-year-old Jessica Mae Hardin, called police at 6:45 p.m., telling them Savannah was having a seizure and was unresponsive…..Authorities are still trying to determine whether Savannah was forced to run by physical coercion or by verbal commands. Deputies were told the girl was made to run after lying to her grandmother, 46-year-old Joyce Hardin Garrard, about having eaten the candy, sheriff’s office spokeswoman Natalie Barton said….Garrard and Jessica Mae Hardin are being held in the Etowah County Detention Center, each on a $500,000 cash bond…..
    Court records show that Robert Hardin (\the father) filed for divorce in August of 2010. In his complaint, he asserted his wife was bi-polar and had alcoholic tendencies. He accused her previously of having run off with the couple’s own child. In her response, Jessica denied all of Robert’s allegations.”

    Crazy, abusive woman gets custody of the kid just because she has the almighty V-pass. Now a little girl is lying in a morgue, after being essentially tortured to death by a nutjob.

    God forbid we should get angry over this, Ms. Duffy, right?

  151. Doug1 says:

    Lily—

    *I would say they are fairer to men than Doug’s comment about his ideal scenario. I’d go beyond what he said. But I disagree with him on ‘either parent can be shown to have committed serious and repeated child abuse’. If it’s something serious e.g. sexual abuse (I mean actual sexual abuse before anyone starts going on about false accusations) rather than say a one off slap in a bad moment, then imo hardly needs to be repeated.

    If it’s clear and unambiguous sexual abuse, yeah I’d agree.

    The prenup and changes in child custody and child support laws that I suggested were what I think are actually fair to both men and women and sellable to high quality women who have no “back golddigger” in them. They are premised on the woman not have a really extended period of being a stay at home mother, which I also wanted to discourage. They weren’t the most extremely pro male things I could imagine and were not in that sense my “ideal scenario”.

    What I’d really like with child custody is that men get it for children 8 and older and get child support from the ex-wife), which at a minimum would give them tremendous bargaining leverage as women have now, but I know there’s zero chance of selling that in America from where we’re at now. If that was the law we’d see vastly less divorce when young children are involved. (We’d also probably see more male cheating with that threat of divorce if caught mostly lifted, but I’ve always thought American women were irrational and nearly hysterical on the importance of their husbands never cheating, and what an unpardonable sin it is if/when they do.)

    Women not cheating is far more important to keeping the marriage together because women tend to be strongly sexual and emotionally attracted to and bond with one man at a time, so if they take a lover who she has really good, exciting sex with as so strongly bonds with, she’s likely to feel her sense of bondedness to her husband dissolve, and to want a divorce, even if the lover won’t leave his wife and children to marry her, as he usually won’t.

  152. Doug1 says:

    Brendan—

    If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.

    They don’t have to be feminists. I’d never live with, much less marry a feminist no matter the prenup—well never again. My ex wife turned out to be way more of a feminist post marital vows than she let on before them. That stuff hasn’t been glossed over by me since.

    I also don’t think her income needs to be nearly equal to avoid a severe ass whipping especially with a prenup. It just needs to seem like a solid living. If she’s was a nurse, took three to four years off to breast feed and raise two infants and then young children before preschool, but is now back at nursing, and you’re a highly paid doctor or lawyer etc., I think you’re gonna be ok with the kind of pre-nup I recommend, especially if you’ve split common household expenses proportional to income more or less, giving her a chance to save and invest some, etc. Even if she’s a nurse who is working less than full time, but could take that up to full time if she wanted/needed to.

  153. Doug1 says:

    It’s truly outrageous that the guy who is the main subject of this post had to pay that much in child support=also stealth alimony, plus named alimony/spousal support on top of that. American courts are unfair to men, but his case is truly outrageous.

    Doing some quick back of the envelop calculations, I’ll assume that making 70k he’s probably paying a combined federal and state average (not marginal) tax rate as a single divorced man of about 20%, leaving him with about 55k after taxes before transfers. So if he’s left with 15k he must be paying her 40k. That means he’s paying her 73% of his after tax income. That’s just unconscionable. He must have had a really bad lawyer. Or maybe the court is imputing extra income it thinks he could earn. I really think he should seek an adjustment.

  154. Twenty says:

    I work overseas as a private security contactor and have spent over half my adult life outside of the USA. And I’ve posted this more or less 4 times in two weeks

    I guess you can stop repeating yourself, then.

    More liberty outside of the USA? Liberty and lawlessness is not the same thing. I’m free by default living on my farm. Who’s around to enforce the law or rat me out?

    Tell it to Randy Weaver.

    I can own the type of dogs I want; machine guns, .50 sniper rifles, suppressors’, sniper rifles w/ suppressors, build destructive devices, carry a firearm damn near any where I want …

    You are so full of sh*t. Class 3 weapons are a PITA to deal with anywhere, and pretty much impossible to own legally in large swaths of the country, e.g. California.

    … chase after the widest selection of European women I’ve seen in one nation.

    Oh, I get it. You’re a WN/WK.

    Living is tough in most of the world. Are you ready to give up your comfortable 1st world life?

    Given the alternatives, and given that I know how nice some parts of the “rest of the world” are, yes.

    Never trust anyone who tells you to fear the wider world, and to stick close to a regime that hates you.

  155. Anon says:

    @ Buck 1:00 am

    For your friend and anyone looking at a divorce involving kids. He needs to cover his ass. Sucking it up doesn’t help when she figures out that she can file for divorce, get paid out and go live full time with the boyfriend. He needs to spend less time making assets she can take work towards getting custody of his kids if he wants them in his life. Read The List at dadsdivorce.com to see how to increase your chances in a divorce. A lot of the advice really helped me. My ex is being very reasonable, some of it because of the strategies outlined.

    http://www.dadsdivorce.com/father_divorce_forum/viewtopic.php?t=13374

  156. Twenty says:

    The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives.

    Hey, wow, it’s almost as if femcunt career bitches rigged the system to decrease the MMV of real women, and jack up the MMV of women who, by any traditional measure, are worthless as wives.

    Funny.

  157. arid2385 says:

    What people do not seem to understand is that ideologies wax and wane like the swinging of a pendulum. Patriarchy was an ideology that tolerated the disenfranchisement of women. Feminism is the ideology that developed out of it, and in angry response to it. Men are experiencing now the victimization that women long experienced before this. Is it right? Not at all! But when will someone finally get that the answer is not to continue playing “ideology wars” and power games with one another?

  158. Doug1 says:

    HeligKo—

    In states like CA, they are almost entirely thrown out after 10 years. Since most women divorce a couple of years after the last kid is in school, this is almost certainly 10 years.

    That’s simply untrue. Properly negotiated and structured prenups with full disclosure of assets and earnings are enforced in California, except in extraordinary circumstances, including in longer than 10 year marriages. What happens after 10 years in California is that without a prenup wives are automatically entitled to alimony for life. The usual formula is 40% of his after tax earnings less half of hers less any child support he’s paying.

    For example one man was ordered to pay spousal support (alimony) and medical coverage despite a prenup waiving it to an ex wife who contracted terminal cancer and couldn’t work because of it.

  159. Hermit says:

    Wp: The only reason I would get married is for religious reasons. I am pro-marriage, but if I weren’t Christian I would’ve never married under the current legal regime. I have a good friend that just announced he’s getting married, but since he’s libertarian he’s only doing the service, without the involvement of the state. If were to do it over again, that’s what I would do.

  160. HeligKo says:

    @Hermit it doesn’t matter. Living like your married long enough, and the court will treat you as married with or without the license. Common law marriage is recognized by most states.

  161. Doug1 says:

    Hiligo–

    @Hermit it doesn’t matter. Living like your married long enough, and the court will treat you as married with or without the license. Common law marriage is recognized by most states.

    Wrong again. Common law marriages are only created in ten or eleven states these days. You have to not only have lived together for several years, but crucially told just about everybody, from family to friends to acquaintances to strangers that ask, that you are in fact married, rather than being say partners or living together and so on. Once created they like all marriages are honored by other states if you subsequently move to them.

    These are the states that create common law marriages going forward. A number of other states used to do so, but had a cut off date where new ones would no longer be created. I’m not counting NH because they aren’t created there for purposes of divorce.

    Alabama
    Colorado
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Montana
    New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
    Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    Texas
    Utah
    Washington, D.C.

  162. Buck says:

    Brendan says:
    February 23, 2012 at 10:28 am
    RE He’s screwed anyway:

    He knows this. If Cupcake decided to drop the D bomb, he’s screwed.
    We are advising him to keep his mouth shut and use her unexplained absences to pursue the affair as his opportunity to cash out as best he can.
    We advised that he cut back hours at work, claim he wants to spend time with the kids..win-win, bond better with them, and reduce his wages. Cupcake loves this as “they” are out of her hair.
    Confronting her serves no utility, it only tips his hand. Right now, while she thinks she is slick, he can make his moves.

    The entire scenario is pathetic.

    They have been married 10 years and I must admit, when he showed me the private investigators findings I was shocked. He had a gut feeling about “it” and hired a private eye…BINGO!
    Guys, if you think she is…she is! trust your gut!

  163. Wp says:

    @ All,

    First and foremost, appreciate the replies and insights. I do have some follow up information/concerns/questions.

    It seems everyone is in agreement about avoiding SAHMs (or women who earn less than I do), what about if she makes more than I? Hypergamy aside, how would the courts treat this?

    What about no marriage with kids? Would that differ much from marriage w/ kids should a separation happen? I’m not really religious so marriage in that aspect isn’t really that important – I guess I thought there is no difference between married vs unmarried, when kids arrive on the scene. So, yes, marriage to me is ONLY about the kids and has nothing to do w/ satisfying a girl’s desire to be married (the ceremony is entirely ridiculous and overcelebrated nowadays)…I’ve been to quite a few lately and have been turned off to the ceremony/reception completely.

  164. TFH says:

    I will say that the ‘Patheos’ article by Duffy, despite linking to The Misandry Bubble prominently near the top of the article, only got about 30 visits. That is pathetic. So those people either don’t click through to see what is being referenced, or her article itself has no audience.

    By contrast, a link from InMalaFide or Roosh easily delivers 2000 visits.

  165. HeligKo says:

    @Doug1, if he is in fact having a religious marriage ceremony is he not in fact announcing to all that he is in fact getting married, and will thus be treated as such under the law. Perhaps common law marriage is not what is recognized now, but you still end up in family court where I live if you have lived together and commingled any assets and one party chooses to sue as you separate. Once there everything else starts looking like divorce, except there is no divorce decree when you are done.

  166. Doug1 says:

    HeligKo–

    That last is true in Canada after two or three years depending on the province.

    In NY you can tell everyone you’re married and still not make it marriage or give her any rights to spousal support or half the wealth you accumulate during the live together relationship.

  167. slwerner says:

    Arid2385 – ”Men are experiencing now the victimization that women long experienced before this.”

    WTF are you talking about?

    Did women used to be routinely kicked out of their homes by their bored husbands, have to visit their children on weekends, and have to pay alimony and child support?

    Were women automatically assumed guilty if ever a man accused them of some criminal act? Did women routinely get arrested, publicly shamed, and held in jail – all on just the word of a man that she had assaulted him?

    Maybe you could name some of these imagined victimizations that women used to suffer under the so-called Patriarchy?

    [I’ll just go out on a limb here and guess that you will be using the default “fall back” examples of feminists-past, and claim that women were raped and beaten with full societal support. Didn’t happen! Men who raped women were routinely killed – often without and investigation or trial, just a woman saying he did it. And, under this Patriarchy that feminists like to carp about, men who beat (and, I don’t mean just a slap on the face, or physically restraining a belligerent woman) their wives might well have had numerous other men coming after them if word ever got out. There was never full societal support or rapist and batters]

    Simple fact is, even if they didn’t have every right and opportunity they now enjoy, woman have, on balance (once you get past the Apex Fallicies), always had it better than the men in their same demographic. They’ve enjoy protections and provisions which typically came at the effort and expense (even the ultimate sacrifice) of their men.

    But, I’m sure you have some other examples in your arsenal to proffer here?

    I’d love the chance to tear into some good old feminist bullshit.

  168. slwerner says:

    @Arid2385

    And yes, I do see that you posture as a Christian. But BS like you posted is wholly the domain of the gender-feminists. Patriarchy disenfranchising woman? When? How? In the US woman got the vote not that long after the vote was finally extended to all men. For most of history, the average man never had even that, although he would be expected to go into any battle and die on the whims of his rulers.

    What was it women had to do? Oh, that’s right, they had to do housework and raise children – because most of them would have never been able to endure the hard punishing physical labor that their men had to do for their benefit.

    Gee, I’m sure anxious to hear of the other great “disenfranchisements” Christo-Feminist women believe their fore-sisters endured.

  169. Alistair. says:

    @arid2385 said; What people do not seem to understand is that ideologies wax and wane like the swinging of a pendulum. Patriarchy was an ideology that tolerated the disenfranchisement of women. Feminism is the ideology that developed out of it, and in angry response to it. Men are experiencing now the victimization that women long experienced before this. Is it right? Not at all! But when will someone finally get that the answer is not to continue playing “ideology wars” and power games with one another?

    Correct, and if women were logical creatures and the media promoted such an understanding we would all be good to go, but we live in a bureaucratic sink-hole full of people who know their rights and can slough off responsibility legally….so they do.

    My ex wrote the word LEGAL on a note pad one day while talking to a lawyer so hard that it imprinted through five pages below the tip of her pen.

    She announced to me after our final day in court that she had been found to be the best parent legally, as I was stripped of parental custody.

    People like that are a danger to themselves and others.

  170. arid2385 says:

    @slwerner

    The right to vote was hard fought for. It was not handed over. The status quo would have remained exactly as it was had there not been political dissent. Likewise, the right to simply be respected intellectually was hard fought for. You can read the biography of any “first” woman in a significant profession to read of their exclusion and presumed inferiority. Sandra Day O’Connor’s experience would be one such example. It shouldn’t have taken a fight for those things to happen–that was my point. The fact that it took arguing and debating and sacrificing for something that should have been easily recognized by men is a part of what contributed to the sexes battling against one another in the first place, pitting their interests against one another.

    In the book Mismatch by Andrew Hacker, a study of men on a widely known college campus said that 50% of the men on campus would rape women if they thought the could get away with it. 1 out of 2 men walking around a college campus think so little of the women around them that if it weren’t for the legal system, they’d rape them? Unjust accusations of rape are unconscionable, but the inclination is there in more than enough men to mean that such an allegation has to be taken seriously. (btw, that book is written from a decidedly non-feminist viewpoint, who will quickly affirm much of what is said about women making out better in divorces.)

    You’ve decided what a woman should have been happy and satisfied with based on what you think should have been good enough for her. That’s a part of the problem. Instead of making room for both sexes to work together and get to their common good, so often this push-pull game of, “You do it our way or nothing” is continually played.

    So now you angrily defend men and defend men against women. Even if sentiments like those embodied on this blog are more widely embraced culturally, you’re only perpetuating that same vicious cycle. Why not put down the boxing gloves in this “us v. them” battle? You are right in observing from my blog that I am a Christian, which means that I believe that men are the leaders. And what I so often read from anti-feminist idealogues is not men coming together to take responsibility for creating a genuine solution, but rather to blame and pull out the guns on anyone they feel just *might* be saying something that they don’t like. Nothing will be accomplished through that.

  171. dwright says:

    arid2385 says:
    February 23, 2012 at 3:17 pm….
    Absolute bullshit I was lucky enough to have a friendship with my 97 year old grandmother. She told me stories about how the women whipped on their men back in the ’30s the victim pose is a LIE.
    Smarten up to revisionist history s, MEN.

  172. arid2385 says:

    @dwright

    I said absolutely nothing about the abuse of women.

  173. arid2385 says:

    There is a place for anger, but I think sometimes people don’t realize that in their anger they don’t think clearly, they jump to faulty conclusions, make assumptions, and attack people who pose no threat to them. There’s righteous indignation, and there’s also bitterness.

  174. TFH says:

    arid2385,

    ”Men are experiencing now the victimization that women long experienced before this.”

    Completely wrong. Average women were never systematically oppressed by the average man. That is THE big lie that all the evils of feminism are built around.

    Google ‘The Misandry Bubble’, in which the very first section demolishes the myth of female oppression.

  175. dwright says:

    arid2385 says:
    February 23, 2012 at 5:40 pm
    nor did i, but in your case it was implied
    kinda hard to get called out, I wonder what’s between your legs

  176. ybm says:

    idiot..or Arid go back and read the damn post again.

    “There is a place for anger, but I think sometimes people don’t realize that in their anger they don’t think clearly, they jump to faulty conclusions, make assumptions, and attack people who pose no threat to them. There’s righteous indignation, and there’s also bitterness.”

    R>C>P

  177. arid2385 says:

    Also, and I apologize for the multiple posts, it’s easy for men to complain that women are no longer the ladies of old, but are they gentlemen? The vast majority of men I encounter everyday would not use profanity in speaking to me, and certainly not in simple response to a perceived disagreement. Perhaps one of the first ways we can address the bad consequences of feminism is by interacting with one another with a higher degree of respect?

  178. arid2385 says:

    @dwright

    Actually it wasn’t implied. Men aren’t abused physically in highly reported numbers today, so there was no reason to think that I was making a connection between men experiencing physical abuse now and women experiencing physical abuse before. And your last comment was disgusting.

    @ybm Please spare yourself. I was speaking about the last comments, not the original blog post.

  179. 7man says:

    @arid2385
    Are you just dense or is your brain parched?

    Don’t you understand that many men here have had their children taken from them by the system that is mostly staffed by women because of the actions of an ex-wife. The men here are not nice but most of them are good. It might serve you well to learn the difference. You flounce in and use subtle shaming tactics and spout the feminist talking points. Do you not realize that these men are adept at seeing through those lies?

  180. gokart-mozart says:

    Here’s a new fact to me (and I thought I knew everything about this business). If a person – oh, let’s say a woman – swears under oath to get a restraining order, thus removing her partner – oh, let’s say her husband – from the home and preventing him from contacting his children, and her lies are subsequently exposed in court and the restraining order is voided by a judge, THE LAW IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS MONEY DAMAGES OR INTRODUCING THE PERJURY AS EVIDENCE OF PARENTAL FITNESS.

    So, by statute in NH, the act of falsely swearing to get a restraining order is, by statute, free of any consequence.

  181. TFH says:

    arid2385,

    You are doing a good job of proving that women are morally empty, and that the West has blundered big time in assuming women could be ‘adults’.

    Read the main article. If you are not even slightly troubled by the injustice that feminist laws do to men and children, you merely prove the growing opinion that women are morally empty, and a society that grants women the right to vote dies rather quickly.

    Men aren’t abused physically in highly reported numbers today,

    Yes they are. 40% of domestic violence is by women. But women get away with it, while a man is jailed even for defending himself.

  182. tm says:

    As if there weren’t enough reasons to be angry, here’s one more, from none other than a well-known feminist sycophant who won’t stop singing in tune with their ideology even after they spit on him:

    http://jezebel.com/5887425/why-more-single-moms-is-a-good-thing

  183. slwerner says:

    ”The right to vote was hard fought for. It was not handed over.”

    Sorry, lady, you and I have a radically different view of “hard fought”.

    When I think of “hard fought”, I think of V-day, and the battle of Normandy; I think of the peril our forefathers faced in rising up against the English king and securing our national independence; I think of the hundreds of thousands dead in the American Civil War, the two World Wars, and so many other real fights.

    You apparently think of wealthy white women marching in parades.

    And, yeah, the right to vote was pretty much just “handed over”. The men in power finally had enough of the protesting and foot stomping, and decided to give women the vote. – something that most men for most of history never had. Woman seem to fail to appreciate just how lucky they were in getting the vote as easily as they did.

    ”In the book Mismatch by Andrew Hacker, a study of men on a widely known college campus said that 50% of the men on campus would rape women if they thought the could get away with it. 1 out of 2 men walking around a college campus think so little of the women around them that if it weren’t for the legal system, they’d rape them?”

    I know nothing of this “Mismatch” nor this “Andrew Hacker”, but I’d guess his “research” was probably as flawed and biased as Mary Koss’s Just because some person claims some radical, and frankly unbelievable, bullshit doesn’t make it true. David Futrelle says much the same sort of things about other men – none of it true. But, nobody’s denying him his right to spread that manure. Your reference is meaningless without a citation to the actual research done in making that outlandish claim (but the sort of claim that hateful Christo-feminists will obviously hide behind in arguing that current male oppression is wholly justified). Maybe you should also cite Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French and other feminist heroes who also held equally dim views of men?

    ” You’ve decided what a woman should have been happy and satisfied with based on what you think should have been good enough for her.”

    No! I’m saying that relative to the lot in life of most men, most women have never had it all that bad.

    ” Instead of making room for both sexes to work together and get to their common good, so often this push-pull game of, “You do it our way or nothing” is continually played.”

    So, now you’re accusing me of stealing from your playbook? “Our way or nothing” has long been the de facto stance of feminist – both on the left, and on the psudo-Christian Churchian right. Why do you think men are getting so frustrated?

    Taking off the boxing gloves and making peace sounds all well and good, but, right now, it would be tantamount to Adolph Hilter, at the hi=eight of Nazi German conquests, realizing that the tide was about to turn against his forces, and suggesting that it was time to seek a peace treaty – allowing him to keep all the territorial gains he had made, with no subsequent cost to he or the Nazi’s for how they had gone about achieving those gains.

    No thanks! I, and I believe most others here, wish to see a roll-back of female powers and privileges that have been “won” at the expense of men and boys in our society. I believe that most of us would be happy enough just to see men gain parity with women in areas like divorce outcomes, custody, and long-term financial obligations; and in reproductive rights (a much longer discussion), in access to education and employment (ending anti-male discriminatory policies and affirmative action, so that men can compete based on merit rather than genitalia), and in equal protections under the law – even when women accuse them. That would be plenty for most men.

    But, women like you don’t want justice, nor even fairness in the way the genders are treated. You’ve grown accustom to your privileges and protects. You’re used to (most) men being second-class citizens in the country that they are expected to be willing to die for.

    In the end, you are little better than the outright man-hating gender-feminists who hold the same views as do you. You just hide behind your psudo-Christian façade, and act like you just want what’s best for everyone. It’s nothing new. How many women have we (collectively) heard tell a great tale about how they want to put an end to feminism, only to then see them back-track when real solutions are posed to them (it was one thing to talk about doing something, but to actually do something – well, they won’t go that far…).

    Just suggest to some of your fellow Churchian feminists that we should end no-fault divorce, enact presumed equally shared custody, make child support based on actual expenditures on behalf of the children, indemnify cuckolded men against financial obligations for children who are not their own, or even have the Church start to actually rebuke unfaithful adulterous women, and then you’ll see their true colors.

    They will, of course, tell you that they are not like those cheating and divorcing skanks, and that they would never plan on divorcing for frivolous reasons. But, it seems that they must realize that a good many of their friends and fellow sisters-in-Christ sure are – and those women are going to need those privileges and extra benefits that feminism as “hard fought” for them.

  184. dwright says:

    arid2385 says:
    February 23, 2012 at 6:11 pm
    Strawman much?

    Don’t go full retard, just don’t go there.

    Whoops, you went full retard, you have my pity.
    D

  185. TFH says:

    ‘More Single Mothers is Good’? LOL!

    There is probably no better indicator of a society in terminal decline, than a significant number of parasitic sluts using the government instead of providing their child with the biological father.

  186. “The men here are not nice but most of them are good.”
    A very important point that is not said enough. I am inspired by the goodness of these men, despite their words.I would rather know someone who has a good heart and not nice words over one who talks pretty, sugar coats, and has all the outward appearances of niceness, but has an evil heart. An angry person cannot lie; they are what you see. A nice person can hide in their niceness.

  187. Uncle Elmer says:

    And if you do decide to get married, make sure she can cook and serve a decent meal. Most foreign gals are adept at this. I provide more detail in my latest Spearhead essay, A Man Wants a Wife Not a “Co-Worker”. If the photos don’t make you angry, you’re not paying attention :

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/20/a-man-wants-a-wife-not-a-co-worker/

    While you’re still enraged, check out my call to action, It’s Time to Shut Down Women’s “Day Spas” :

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/15/its-time-to-shut-down-womens-day-spas/

  188. TFH says:

    I see that arid2385 ran away once her pathetic and immoral shaming language tactic lasted as long as a snowball in hell.

    She has a long way to go before she understands how women think.

  189. Suz says:

    “Perhaps one of the first ways we can address the bad consequences of feminism is by interacting with one another with a higher degree of respect?”

    The time for that was 50 years ago. You feminists can start any time now.

  190. SC says:

    I agree that anger is an appropriate response to injustice but I think that it’s time to go beyond anger. I, for one, don’t intend on staying angry forever so I stopped being angry and decided to let my anger be the impetus to do more.

    I try to convince any young man thinking about marriage to change his mind by telling them about my marital (and divorce) experience, about what is happening to men at the hands of women today, what could happen to them if they get married, how they could lose their children in divorce, etc, etc. I am happy to report that I have had a surprising amount of success in changing some of their minds. I’ve caught quite a lot of hell from some women for it too. :)

    Although the Internet is a wonderful tool, I think that it sometimes, not always, reduces our ability to implement actual change because a lot of the information that men sorely need to read before they get married remains here.

    My question to those here is this. How can we move beyond anger (not necessarily stop being angry though) and better effect change? Or if feminism’s damage has become too severe, what next step should men focus on now?

  191. TFH says:

    SC,

    I applaud your action, something all too rare among so-called MRAs.

    Here is a strategy that can have a very amplified impact with very little effort and cost.

    Posting flyers in strategic locations can be seen by hundreds of men per day. It may spark a question in their minds. You could spend an afternoon at the local Med/Business/Engineering school, where many men are both reaching marriage age AND embarking on lucrative careers. They should know how easily 80% of their life’s earnings can be taken away.

    Thousands of flyers have already been posted by myself and others. This correlates with the explosive growth this cause has seen in the last 12 months.

    As you correctly said, most people (99%) are not on the Internet all day.

  192. TFH says:

    SC,

    Another thing you can do on a smaller scale is to organize the 3-4 young guys you have talked to, and spend a day sitting in the back row of the divorce court. Tell them to focus on the look on the man’s face. That will be burned in their memory. Then they will tell their buddies to do the same.

  193. slwerner says:

    TFH – ”I see that arid2385 ran away once her pathetic and immoral shaming language tactic lasted as long as a snowball in hell.”

    Interestingly, on her own blog,
    Esprit
    Engaging the spirit, challenging the mind.
    , s
    she comes off as some hyper-spiritual and deeply Christian. Yet, she comes here and seeks to justify the status quo by suggesting that women had long been disenfranchised (until they won the vote after a long hard fight), and even going so far as to try to make the case that 50% of men would wish to rape women. Then, without acknowledging the substantial advantages that woman now have over men, and at men’s expense, she suggests that men who are angered by thatstatus quo should just lay down their arms and try to get along (man up).

    Yeah, I’m sure that God really cares that woman can now vote to ensure their right to abortion on demand, etc. And, of course God would want women to think that men mostly just want to rape and abuse women. That sort of thinking is KEY to peaceful coexistence between men and women.

    If anyone ever doubted the strong link between the self-identified, man-hating gender-feminist on the political left and their equally gynocentric sister-allies within Churchianity, they need to look no further than what she has posted here, and what she professes on her site. Before checking it out, I honestly expected to see a leftist gender-feminist site devoted to the belief in the disenfranchisement and Patriarchal oppression of women – at least her initial post here had all the markers of that sort of feminist.

  194. Eric says:

    Dalrock;
    I get asked this same question a lot, in a different form: ‘Since you have abandoned American women, why do you (or other MRAs for that matter) spend so much time attacking them? What do you care? Why all the anger? (Note: such questions and comments are really veiled Shaming Tactics).

    The answer, though, is simple. A lot of men don’t realize they have options. And our puritanical, sexually-repressed, female-dominated culture doesn’t want them to know that they have options. Apparently, these types, like Dumbbell Duffy seem to think that American men have some sort of moral duty to ‘man up’ and tolerate whatever abuse the Amerobitches want to heap on us.

    So we do this to help men, who will suffer needlessly in the Hell of American relationships unless they are helped out of it. I’m not concerned here with the thugs, bums, and lowlifes whom American women really seem to prefer for partners anyway. But the good men; the ones who are really trying, deserve a way out. In short, the majority of American men deserve BETTER than American women.

    American women have NOTHING to offer a real man; and wouldn’t offer anything even if they could. They think that men are their inferiors, totally expendable, and worthless for anything other than sperm donors and bill-payers. They pride themselves on their ‘independence’ and lack of need for a man. They are selfish to the point of amorality; and wholly ruthless in their treatment of others. They have no capacity for giving or receiving love, empathy, affection, or intimacy. They are incapable of emotionally bonding with others. Their obvious character defects render them unfit as either wives or mothers.

    American women lead cultural demographics, world-wide, in obesity, consumption of prescription psychiatric drugs, substance abuse, voluntary abortions, and divorces; and are among the world leaders in illegitimate births, incarceration rates, functional illiteracy, and preventable medical conditions.

    One out of every four rape accusations is proven false; and other elastic gender-baiting laws like ‘harassment’; ‘inappropriate touching’; various so-called ‘statutory offences’; none of which can be, on any concept of REAL jurisprudence, even be considered an actual ‘crime’. Men are defenceless in any of these cases, as they are in divorce courts. Any man who gets entangled in a relationship with an Amerobitch is risking any of these outcomes.

    American women should be avoided by men—unless and until they PROVE themselves willing to effect some kind of meaningful social change among themselves. I don’t see anything like that happening; and don’t expect that it will, either. So, it’s up to men to take action—in justifable self-defence—and get as far away from relationships with these women as possible.

  195. Eric says:

    Arid2385:
    “Are men still really gentlemen?”

    Ummm…can you give men one good reason why they should be?

  196. Pingback: A Telling Sign that Divorce Sucks « Cranberry's

  197. elm says:

    TFH: “women are morally empty, and that the West has blundered big time in assuming women could be ‘adults’.” (there was more at the beginning of that post directed at arid somebody, just fyi)

    Ouch. I see that the people here are ‘not nice, but good’…but ouch. Not that any of you really care if you hurt my feelings. :) I think women are perfectly capable of being responsible, moral human beings. I think the laws and culture lets us off the hook, preventing us from growing up.

    On another subject, there are online marriage forums that I have used to tell men about these legal issues. I have also tried talking to women about trying to be nicer to their husbands and seeing where that gets them when they’re bored. I’ve had some opportunities for long-range talks with people, though I don’t know how much good it did.

    But still, a useful place to find people who are looking for answers.

  198. TFH says:

    I think women are perfectly capable of being responsible, moral human beings.

    Not when they are shielded from consequences of their actions, which you agree with by stating :

    I think the laws and culture lets us off the hook, preventing us from growing up.

    Now, realize that a creature like arid2385 makes ALL women look bad, other than the few who do the hard work to develop a good reputation.

    The costs of feminism come back to all women thusly, and for women who don’t want to face the blowback, they have to fight the ones like arid2385.

    I don’t know how much good it did.

    As I said before, tell MEN about what you know. That will do good. Talking to women will not do any good. Tell MEN about what you know.

  199. grerp says:

    John’s story made me very angry. Theft is theft; we should all feel outraged for him. And to lose your kids – that has to be the heaviest hurt. My first instinct is to repeat Flavia’s advice, but perhaps he has other things holding him here.

    My cub scout den has 12 second-grade boys; only 7 are from intact families. The pack is sponsored by a Catholic school. Obviously, neither the middle class nor the Catholic Church has done a great job of holding the line on divorce and single motherhood. A couple of these boys are in situations that are far from ideal; I worry for them, but cannot do much. Their mothers made some very selfish choices, a pattern that looks to continue.

    A family close to me is breaking up now. It’s hard for me to tell what is really going on, except that the wife appears to be trying to destroy her husband with everything she’s got, including the courts and the police. He’s the one still in possession of the house, though, and the family court judge told her to “get a job.” We’ll see.

  200. jewelledcranberry says:

    Dalrock, for various reasons I have not had time to read every response to your post, and I freely admit this is a hasty response that might be void of complete explanation from me.

    Please let me express thanks for this post. Then I must become solipsistic and say that I cannot fathom that a woman could ever take her children away from her husband, willingly. I just cannot imagine it at all, and I do not know what is in the minds of women who seek divorce and child custody merely for spite or boredom.

    I have reason everyday to be thankful for the care, guidance, and influence of my husband in my life and that of my children. Women who divorce frivolously and remove paternal influence from their child(ren)’s lives are perpetuating harm and they do not even know it. Unfortunately our society has made “divorce acceptance” common for the peers of our children, and those peers will think nothing of their own parents’ [potential] divorce if or when the time comes.

    I will also say that I am thankful for my father’s influence and guidance in my life; my mother had ample opportunities to divorce his alcoholic and indifferent person, but she decided it was worth her love, his life, and our lives (probably not in that order) to stay with him and help him get better. No one understands me like my dad, and I love no one like I love him. But I have great love and respect for my mother, and it is from her that I learned perseverance and fortitude in the face of a great challenge. I sometimes wonder (with a shudder) what kind of woman I would have become had she divorced my father. I don’t think my own marriage would be so strong and loving, nor would our whole family structure be coherent.

    A coherent family is a strength with which to be reckoned. When society (re)discovers this simple secret, the change we seek to see will become.

    [D: Thanks for your very moving comment. Welcome.]

  201. elm says:

    @ TFH

    Absolutely being shielded from the consequences of your actions prevents you from growing up. Agreed.

    I also agree that talking to men will help big time, and I do.
    Talking to women can help too, though. I was a self-righteous feminist until someone took the time to talk to me.

  202. TFH says:

    John’s story made me very angry. Theft is theft; we should all feel outraged for him.

    What is sad is that grerp’s reaction should be the normal reaction any adult has, yet we see that only the tiniest fraction of women (and manginas) react in this appropriate way.

    My cub scout den has 12 second-grade boys; only 7 are from intact families.

    Ugh. Only 58.3%. And even that number could drop below 7 over time…

    If you wondered how the end of a society looks like, this is it.

  203. TFH says:

    Talking to women can help too, though. I was a self-righteous feminist until someone took the time to talk to me.

    That can help once in a blue moon, but unless your time is unlimited, it would have more impact to speak to men. If they ‘get it’, encourage them and send them to Dalrock’s blog. If they become manginas, **shame them***.

    Was the ‘someone’ who talked to you a man or woman?

  204. elm says:

    @grerp

    Gah! It kills me how much little kids get hurt by this selfish nonsense! Thanks for doing what you can for them through cub scouts.

  205. elm says:

    @TFH

    A woman talked to me. She’d been having marriage troubles and read “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” and said it helped her marriage a lot. I read it and though I initially bristled at the author’s bashing of my precious feminism, I finished it (though the grammar was at times atrocious). It’s core message was humbling: that women hold most of the power in relationships–the power to make them good or bad–and that divorce is the worst thing you can do to your kid.

  206. hurp says:

    Random question, Stonelifter, but are you the same guy Boxer is referring to in this comment?

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/08/age-of-consent-in-mexico/#comment-130454

    It seems he’d be willing to argue against the necessity of expatting as well.

  207. tspoon says:

    @eric “American women lead cultural demographics, world-wide, in obesity, consumption of prescription psychiatric drugs, substance abuse, voluntary abortions, and divorces; and are among the world leaders in illegitimate births, incarceration rates, functional illiteracy, and preventable medical conditions.”

    cheer up eric!

    NZ women surpass US females in sex partner count (the only country on earth where female is higher than male on average) and now – drinking and taking drugs during pregnancy.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/198894/study-suggests-pregnant-nz-women-use-more-drugs-drink

  208. Hermit says:

    “Wrong again. Common law marriages are only created in ten or eleven states these days.”

    I agree with this, when they exist, they aren’t enforced in nearly the draconian manner that real marriages are.

    @WP “It seems everyone is in agreement about avoiding SAHMs (or women who earn less than I do), what about if she makes more than I?”

    I disagree. Find a wife that wants to stay home, but make sure she’s got the skillz and make sure she keeps busy. My wife recently was able to quit her job. She’s got he hands full with 3 kids, plus all the little side things that help us save money. We’re expanding our vegetable garden this year, and she’ll be doing most of the work. We also plan to buy a small farm in the next year or so, and besides the real heavy duty stuff, she’ll be doing most of the day to day stuff.

  209. Pingback: Gak. | Dark Brightness

  210. stonelifter says:

    I don’t live in CA. And while gun rights suck in many states, they do not suck in many other states.

    Nor did I say owning class three weapons is easy, and it’s expensive. But it’s do able, and varies from state to state. Other nations… not so much. The state I live in boils down to your county sheriff. Currently I’m waiting around 6 months for the paper work. That’s hardly horrible, but every thing has been approved

    Nor did I say stay put; or there aren’t decent places to go. folks should be careful and check out all the angles

    what does my taste in women matter?

    Oh yea, go to hell asshole. Is a dissenting opinion and advice to be cautious to much for you? If so your position is a weak

  211. van Rooinek says:

    My cub scout den has 12 second-grade boys;

    So…you’re a den mother, as it was called in the pre-PC days when I was a Cubscout and my mom was a den mother? Way cool. So is my wife. I’d be a ‘den father’ if my job didn’t occupy most of my waking hours.

    Grerp, you’re one of the most righteous women of the blogosphere. I’m always glad to see you post. Can’t remember the last time I disagreed with you….

  212. I normally approve of religious women but that one was a real bitch. Wild claims about men wanting to rape women; vengeful attitudes based on bullshit social history; ignorance about male victims of domestic violence.

    Disgusting.

  213. Twenty says:

    @stonelifter

    “I can own … machine guns, .50 sniper rifles, suppressors’, sniper rifles w/ suppressors, build destructive devices, carry a firearm damn near any where I want” is quite a bit different from “gun rights suck in many states … owning class three weapons … [is] expensive … [it] boils down to your county sheriff … I’m waiting around 6 months for the paper work”, you dissembling sack of shit.

    Nor did I say stay put; or there aren’t decent places to go. folks should be careful and check out all the angles

    Bullshit. Your entire screed was nothing but FUD designed to keep men from opening their eyes and exploring the wider world.

    what does my taste in women matter?

    Because WN/WK fucktards like you are just as eager to grind men up to prop up your bullshit agendas as are the tradcons and team-woman types (e.g., SW).

    Is a dissenting opinion and advice to be cautious to much for you? If so your position is a weak

    You said a lot of stupid things. I called you on some of them. Deal with it.

    To the room, I pose this question: Why does stonelifter care whether or not other men expat enough to argue against it? What’s he got to lose?

  214. hurp says:

    Why does stonelifter care whether or not other men expat enough to argue against it? What’s he got to lose?

    I’m not stonelifter, but in my case I don’t advise men to expat because I don’t want to set their expectations too high. In my case, my parents are from a “traditional” Muslim culture, and while I love my mom, I tell men that if they marry a Muslim woman, you might be disappointed if you’re expecting someone ‘submissive.’ That, and the country my parents are from (Bangladesh) is such a shithole that no matter how bad things are in the US, it’s better than living there. There’s a reason my folks emigrated, after all.

    Now, judging from what you said above, you advise men to go to Latin America rather than the worst part of South Asia like Bangladesh, but even Central and South America have problems. The U.S has anti-male laws, but judging by how many people get decapitated in Mexico, I’d say they have anti-male gangs. “Misandry” is apparently creeping into South America in general; Chile had a female president, didn’t it? And to top it all off, from what I’ve heard many if not most Latina women are just crazy, period. What’s the point of learning a new language and setting oneself up in another country just to deal with the same bullshit? Women are women wherever you go.

    Overall, if the only thing a man wants to do is sit back, keep to himself, and “enjoy the decline,” it doesn’t really matter where he lives, whether the US, Europe, or Latin America. A man who knows how to avoid “misandry” and keep clear of shitty legislation can have an enjoyable life in most places, regardless of how much they ostensibly “hate” him. I won’t condemn a man who wants to expat or lift a finger to stop him–hell, I’ll say more power to him. But I won’t advise him to do so. It’s not good advice–whether in Amurrica or Latin America or the Phillipines or whatever, things probably won’t improve as much as you hope.

  215. Lavazza says:

    “My cub scout den has 12 second-grade boys; only 7 are from intact families.”

    I don’t know what second grade means, but for Sweden 58 % is lower than the figure for 17 year olds.

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx

    But it is difficult with small groups. Add just one or two kids and you have average stats or better. 10 out of 12 would be like the average figure for 1-2 year olds.

  216. TFH says:

    I don’t know what second grade means,

    Second standard. Age 7-8 or so.

  217. @ jewekcraberry

    “”I just cannot imagine it at all, and I do not know what is in the minds of women who seek divorce and child custody merely for spite or boredom.””
    ————————————————————
    This response is a little bit off. This is the main response I get from the church crowd, they cannot imagine a woman just walking out for boredom. But the women dont walk out for boredom, they construct huge rationales for it, and if you ask them they had every reason to jettison “the jerk”, they will work the word abuse into the reason, NO MATTER WHAT that word will be there.

    I hope Im wrong about what you mean, but i usually encounter this as an argument back at me that no, women really are not doing this is great number…..but……they are, really. They divorce men in very low conflict marriages, then they say things like they wanted out for 25 years and such, and he was emotionally abusive blah blah blah……
    Please know that men are nit claiming, literally, they the women divorce over boredom…..we are claiming that in bold blunt truth that is all thats wrong, but thats not the reaon in the womens mind why they do it. And when you encounter women who have divorced men, you likely have never heard one say she did it over boredom…hence your beliefs……but we are not suggesting that you would hear that.

  218. Suz says:

    Hermit, “homesteading,” may be done at home, but it IS a job – one that requires work, skills, and discipline, which (sadly) have become optional for most SAHMs. I must admit to being biased in this opinion; Soon I’ll be moving and I will no longer need to work full time, so I plan to homestead and “work” part-time. In this economy I can save us almost as much as I could earn, possibly more, considering inflation in food prices.

  219. FT says:

    This is such an fascinating blog. Thanks, Dalrock, for publishing it. Such an interesting window into the hearts and minds of men. I didn’t realize this was an entire culture. But I think you are providing an important service — a forum where men can go and vent anonymously. And a place for us women to see what some men are feeling but probably not saying publicly.

  220. christiankp says:

    I put up some posts on hookingupsmart that gave some frank viewpoints to women, and they were well received. I post some of them here just to se how you think about it. They are long, and I hope you will read them because it impossible to make them shorter.

    This is the first:

    “I think that this blog [hooking up smart] is one of the most constructive sites when it comes to relations between men and women. The tone of the blog has changed after “Dalrockgate”. Something happened when two of the most constructive and moderate bloggers turned into fight. It is very unfortunate and sad, but maybe inevitable.

    I understand that Susan is reluctant to let her blog get drowned in male bitterness. And she shouldn´t because she has an important message to women, and it is important that this blog does not turn into another MRA-forum, because then the message from Susan to young women won’t get through.

    However, after 50 years of feminism, men are bitter and men distrust women. That is a reality you as women have to live with. Its your own feminist sisters who have made up that situation and many non-feminist women has contributed by going passively along with feminism.

    Therefore, although the bitterness is not allowed on this blog, you have to take it into account, and you have to find a way of neutralizing it.

    It is women and feminism that have instigated this bitterness in men, and therefore it is women who bear the responsibility to help men overcome their bitterness. Of course you can choose not to, thinking that bitter men have to take care of them-selves. That is their fate. But the bitterness that women has caused in men will backfire and is backfiring now and for your own sake you are obliged to help men overcome their bitterness and resentment.

    Women are the first sex. You are the sex that bears the children and thereby the backbone of society. In the feminist view this has given you certain rights. And maybe it does. However, I think that it also give women certain special obligations that men do not have, towards their children and toward society and towards men. Women have not succeeded to live up to these obligations for the last 50 years as your minds has been poisoned by feminist ideology.

    Do I think that men do not have obligations? No, of course we have. But men are disposable and men are redundant and we are becoming more and more redundant. And unfortunately many feminists and other women are celebrating men’s redundancy. But it is not easy for you to tell men one day that we are redundant (and evil) and then put obligations upon us the next day. If we you don’t need us we have no obligations and if you want us to take responsibility you have to make us believe that you need us.

    I fully understand that women are just as insecure as men in this whole new scenario that has evolved since the pill, and I understand that many men treat women badly. So I fully understand that women may feel bitter and resentful towards men.

    Therefore, I can also understand why many of you women have bolstered your own faltering self-confidence by convincing yourself that you can manage without a man in your life and that men are more evil than women. But this is just narcissistic and it damages your own interest in the long run.

    The relation between mother and child is the central relation in society. If it was not for this relation, we did not need a society at all. Society is build around women’s need for help in childrearing. Men’s role in society is marginal although it used to look very central. Men’s importance has traditionally been inflated by patriarchy, and the reason for this is that if you make a person believe he is central he will be more useful. By taking a step back and let men get the status, the medals and the honour, women were able to take advantage of men’s labour. Women always knew that no one could replace them as mothers and that they were central. Because of this knowledge of their own worth they could let men believe that men were central. Status, honour and medals are very cheap.

    Women’s situation became worse because of the extreme growth of the population in the world deflating the value of the traditional labour for woman: motherhood. Up until then there had always been to few women to satisfy society’s need for children, but now there are too many. Suddenly women got a glimpse of what it meant to be a man, to be unnecessary. And women were scared to death.

    In panic women tried to mimic men. I believe that many women thought that if man could get importance and status by working and getting career it should also be possible for women. Women began to imitate men. And women have succeeded, as you all know. Thereby women has diminished their feeling of redundancy although it’s still there causing dumbfounded women as Kate Bolick to brag about that she doesn’t really need a man (In fact I think she said the opposite, but she didn’t dare to say it straight out an she then let herself get abused by feminists who did not want men and other women to hear what she said).

    It is a very poor strategy for people to bolster their own feelings of inferiority and redundancy by devaluing the worth of other people. And when women are seeking self-comfort in making men look more redundant, more evil and less human than them-selves, it is outright dangerous. And it will backfire.

    Redundant men will become dangerous men. This is not because of any fault in men’s character as we se more and more redundant women becoming dangerous too. Redundancy is turning humans into dangerous creatures regardless of sex because you get pride and dignity by being needed by others. The only reason that we do not see as many women as men falling into this is that very few women experience the abyss of redundancy that men experience and that most men fear more than death. After all women are free to have children if they want – and when women got the feeling of redundancy you were allowed to take over the part of society formerly dominated by men.

    But your actions as women has put society into a situation where maybe most men are redundant or at least we feel redundant – and many women do their best to increase this feeling in men because it diminish women’s own anxiety and self-doubt.

    My wife has convinced me that I am important to her. I know that I helped many people in my work and that many are thankful. I personally do not feel redundant, but I sincerely believe that if half of all men should be killed, most women should not notice if they were not personally affected or if it were not for the odour. Some women should even be relieved.

    Of course I may be wrong in this, but feminists and the lack of women’s opposition against feminism has planted this belief in me an in many other males. And it is up to women to persuade men that this feeling is wrong.

    As mothers women has always been the backbone of society and they had a lot of power. In fact they had the real power. If we compare to modern corporations we could say that the woman were the chairman of the board, and the man was the executive director. The long-term goal of female sexuality was the guiding principle governing society and relationship between men and women.

    Now women are increasingly becoming the executive leaders of society but I think that women have not taken on the responsibilities and the obligations that followed by being both chairman of the boards and executive. In those positions you are not allowed to just think of yourself. You have the obligation to think of the whole of society and how you will get the whole society to thrive.

    I have not seen any sign anywhere that woman leaders or women in general have reached this point of recognition. Women still just talk of women’s rights and not on women’s obligations and woman still think that men leaders just serve men’s interest although in fact every legislation feminists have proposed have been made into law.

    But women, you need to see that the society you are creating need places for men to thrive, places for men to gain dignity and respect. You have to find roles for men in the life of women and children in which men can thrive. And it is your obligation to make men feel secure in this role.

    Unfortunately I believe that women will never come to recognize your special obligations and men will sink into more and more redundancy and behave more an more badly until the day when most women will decide not to give birth to male children and to conceive by insemination.

    This society may be the dream for many women, and as a man I will happily resign. If women can’t or won’t construct a society in which there is place for men, men ought not to exist. That is OK. But you yourselves are no longer human beings.

    The traditional answer from women is that men’s fate is our own responsibility. We just need to man up. But we can’t, as there are no places for us to fill. You may wish us to be responsible fathers, but then you should make it virtually impossible for women to get a divorce from a responsible father. And you have done quite the opposite and many of you celebrate it as your greatest victory as women.

    Please note that I am not talking about men’s right as fathers, because I don’t give a damned for rights. I talk about the responsibility of women to engage men as responsible fathers, to stay with the men that are responsible although they may have other faults. This is an obligation that a woman has not only to the man that father her child, but also to society as a whole and not the least to her daughters. Every woman taking out divorce from a responsible father is the future generations of women to single motherhood and poverty.

    I feel that Susan is one of the all to few females who is recognizing that something is very wrong and that she is trying to counteract this. Susan, I wish you good luck. You may be the one turning the tide. And as I am sure you know yourself: It is only women who can change the way things are going. Men are just too unimportant and too redundant.”

  221. christiankp says:

    This is the next one in which I write about the important role of women in inviting men into the core dependency chain from child via mother to father”

    “Thank you Susan. Your last words just made me very proud.

    Many of the thoughts I wrote are taken from British sociologist Geoff Dench. I recommend that you read his book “Transforming men.”

    I shall briefly try to explain some of his ideas. It is vitally important for humans to be needed by others. If you are not needed you will vanish. That’s true for both men and women. However, a man’s position is much more fragile than a woman. Basically women can just f*ck around and get a child, and then they will have dependants. They will also be a part of a sisterhood helping each other.

    If women decides that they do not need men in the dependency chain because they can manage for themselves, they are in fact deeming the men to redundancy and to vanish slowly, because being outside the dependency chains will make you careless of yourself and others. And both men and women will experience this lack of care and responsibility when they are redundant (I guess that girls acting like sluts are doing it from the same feeling of redundancy as men acting like studs). It has nothing to do with an inborn male inferiority. It just that life is much harsher to men than to women.

    Men have no way of forcing themselves into the dependency chain going from child to mother to father, because the role of the mother in the dependency chain is biological, while the role of the father is social. A woman has the obligation to invite a man into this dependency chain. This is an obligation that she has, not primarily to the man that she invites, but to society because it is by letting men into the dependency chain that women turn med into productive and useful members in society. If women keep men out of the chain they will just be a burden to society.

    I know that this may be a hard burden for women to bear, that they should not be allowed to go for themselves, and that they are obliged to be dependent on a man so that he can get the chance of becoming useful. But that is a point modern women have misunderstood. Being central to society does not come with a lot of rights but a lot of obligations and responsibilities. Power is not compatible with personal freedom and hedonism. That is abuse of power. Power is self-sacrifice and taking responsibility for others.

    So all these women that are celebrating themselves as free and independent have missed to meet their obligation to society: inviting a man into the dependency chain and thereby making him useful to society. Although it may be a burden to women to do this, it has nothing to do with male oppression or subjugation of women. It’s just that a society with too many superfluous men will eventually implode, and that cannot be in the best interest of women.

    And I think that the refusal of women to invite men into the dependency chain is already backfiring as those very women who took the role of breadwinner away from men and who flooded the labour force thereby diminishing men’s salary are now seeing their own son’s t deteriorate and as a result of this they se the world of their daughters become harsher and harsher.

    Of course I hear the protest of women. Why should we let ourselves to be dependent of men that can’t be trusted? It is better for us to be dependent on welfare than on a male that may leave us and abuse us. I understand this, but the problem is that when enough men are left out of the dependency chains production will diminish and welfare will implode, because welfare basically rely on the surplus production of men caught up in dependency chains. I think that what we are seeing now is the implosion of welfare because of the diminished production of men and the burden of unproductive men on society.

    I also think that women should be aware that the marginal value to society of men’s work is greater than the marginal value of women’s. I know this is unfair but I will show you. A woman who is not working is a burden to society. Lets say that she costs society $15000. If she started to work the work she does will have a certain value to society (lets say $20000), and thereby she will increase wealth in society. She might also earn more money (lets say $2000) by working than being on welfare, so her wealth and the wealth of the collective of women are increased by $2000 plus some of the value of her production.

    But what would happen if she were a man. For the sake of simplicity, lets say that all values are the same. The cost of an unproductive man is $15000. These resources are taken from society’s general pool of welfare, so they are channelled away from women to men. By getting into work these money can be rechanneled back to women and children. Of course even a part of the value of his production will increase the wealth of women and children. And by paying taxes the man will also increase the resources in the welfare system primarily favouring women and children.

    The conclusion is that an unproductive woman going into work will increase the net wealth for women very marginally (in this example $2000 + some of the value of what she produced), but an unproductive man going into work will increase the wealth of women much more ($15000 + some of the value of what he produce + the value of the taxes + the value he hands over to his family as a breadwinner).

    I agree with feminists that men have always been privileged in the labour market, but I am firmly convinced that women have every reason to accept this. When women force men out of work by affirmative action they are betraying themselves, because women can never create so much wealth for themselves by working themselves as by letting men work.

    Every time a woman is taking a man’s place in the work force she is not only and ultimately defeating him. She is also contributing to making life worse for the woman who could have relied on his resources and work in raising her children. And eventually this could be herself. So ultimately it will be women who are defeating themselves

    So by not trusting men and not letting men into the dependency chains and taking men’s place in the work force women are making life worse for themselves, by increasing their own workload and by decreasing the wealth in society. Paradoxically men will not suffer very much economically, because not having any woman or children being dependent on us, we do not need very much money to live.

    How should men react to this? I think that MRA’s often are making a good analysis of what is wrong, but I think they are doing wrong by whining just as feminist has always done. (And by the way I think that you women should know that the MRA’s are the men to be trusted and the men you should love. A MRA man may say some harsh truths to you and in his anger and his grief you may find that he is unjust, BUT the MRA is not flattering you to get in your pants. That is what many feminist men are doing and succeeding with).

    As a man I am proud. I find that what men have done in the family, in the workforce and in society is done on a commission that we have gained from women. If we are not trusted to take on these responsibilities we should happily resign leaving these tasks to women to perform.

    And when we have done that we should humbly ask women: where is our place in your lives, in families and in society? Do you need us? Du you trust us? Without your trust we can do nothing.

    Some men may think that this is a mangina way of handling the problem, leaving over our roles to women. But I think it is not. I think it is putting women against the wall and making them responsible for the future of society.”

  222. “Man up and lead me where I tell you to…………”

    Dialogue from the coming tome “TradCon Fem Utopia”

  223. christiankp says:

    And then the last one, which I myself believe is the most important but which I think would be hard to understand without the two former posts:

    “I am very glad for the positive reactions I’ve got from you OffTheCuff , Belitta and Susan. I am about to erupt in narcissistic megalomania. So I think that I will have to restrain myself. It is not appropriate for me to write a whole book on Susan’s block. But hoping that you will not getting bored, I will fire off my last round for now.

    I my last post I wrote about the two forms of economy, moral economy and money economy. The transactions in marriage are expected be inside the moral economy, although in marriage men are usually giving material resources to women, even in the form of money. In his book on the evolution of corporation Axelrod showed that corporation could only develop in a situation when the participants were obliged to stay in the transaction. In moral economy there is always one who owes to the other. If you permit the participants to retract from the continuing transactions you make it possible for one part to retract when she is has gained more from the other part than she has given.

    In a situation where you cannot retract from the ongoing exchange of services in moral economy you don’t need to be friends neither do you need to love or like each other. You can be on the opposite sites in war and still cooperate. In WW1 the generals were not aware of this, so in some places on the front the same companies were facing each other for longer times in battle. An elaborate pattern of cooperation developed between the opposing enemies. The enemy fired on you in a predictable pattern, making their generals believing that they were fighting. However, the predictability of the way your enemy fired his rounds made it possible for you to move between trenches not getting hurt. And, of course you reciprocated this favor by doing the same. If you did not, you could expect a massive barrage in return.

    In this way making continual transactions in moral economy makes it impossible for you to inflict too much harm on your partner, because she can always pay you back.

    This is one reason why I believe that marriage ought to be life-long and I believe women should be less prone than men to instigate divorce.

    When a woman is taking out divorce some years after the couple has got children she does it in a period where she has gained and not repaid. She is violating the rules of moral economy and she is throwing the exchange of favors inside the family out from the moral economy into the money economy. And that’s a catastrophe, because in the money economy there are no long-term obligations. You get paid and there will be no obligations afterwards between the parts. But if there is something children need, it is that they will be the recipients of favors from adults based on long-term moral responsibility.

    Women may protest here, and say: “He is so lazy, he doesn’t do household chores. I have to do everything. It is unfair.” Yes it is, but if you look at the crude facts you will see that you may be right, but still it is wrong. As long as your husband doesn’t harm you, and as long as he contribute every so little to your household you will be better off having him than not.

    And if you look at birds that in many ways have organized their sexuality in the same way as humans, you will find that even here it is the female that are doing most of the work. That is your fate as females. In every species the females are working more than the males. Maybe, and I say maybe because I am not sure, for a very short time in western society when patriarchy was working at its best this order was reversed and men did the brunt of the work. But then, dear women, you messed it up allowing men to contribute less and less.

    When a woman takes out a divorce from the father of her children she is retracting from the exchanges in moral economy at a point when she have gained and not reciprocated. Remember every transaction has to be asymmetric otherwise there is no reason for the transaction. The woman gets children and the man gets a wife – or we could say it this ways: for women, men are means to and end, getting children. For men, children are the means and getting a woman is the end.

    Men seeking divorce are harming their children and that is serious enough, but they are not harming the rules of moral economy, because they pull out of marriage after they have given and before they are getting reciprocated – at least now after the pill and abortion. And often they are obliged to pay alimony or child support, which may so great that it may contribute to the woman’s standard of living. So when a man divorcing he is not harming society in the same profound way as a woman.

    The male parallel of a mother divorcing the father is men going into LTR and then retract before the woman gets pregnant. He is leaving at the point where he had received and is expected pay back. A man living with a woman for 5-10 years having regularly sex with her and then leaving her at the moment she wants him to become a father is doing the same thing as a mother divorcing. But again, the harm done to the woman maybe great as she may not be able to find another man, but a least there is no children so they will not suffer, and often these men have said that they don’t want children and the couple isn’t married so he has exploited a woman, but he has not breached a formal or informal contract. Thus the damage he does to society is not as great as the damage done by the divorcing mother.

    Although we find his behavior despicable, we have no way of calling him to order as long as women expect the right to divorce as they wish. I also believe that women are much more dependent on moral economy than men, so women opting out of moral economy is doing themselves a disfavor and hurting themselves – and they are hurting society at large.

    Many women reading what I am writing may think that I am unfair not talking about men’s obligations and responsibilities. The reason is not that men do not have responsibilities. The reason is that male responsibilities evolve as a inevitable response to women taking on their own responsibilities to society as a mother and as the center figure in a dependency chain reaching from child through mother to father. But to many women refuse to do that today, and as long as women do not call them-selves to order nobody can call men to order.

    And when women call them-selves to order they will be wise to make it look as if a man calls them to order and as if they are submitting to a patriarch. This may be a very bitter pill to swallow for most modern women, but the reason why I believe it is necessary is:

    Women will never be able to call men to order by themselves. Only a man can do that. But if women do not obey this man, men will perceive him as a deputy and a mangina, and they will not respect him. The reason why women should submit to the patriarch is not male oppression and subjugation. The reason is simply that men will not obey a man speaking in the interest of women if women are not obeying him.

    Feminists always talks about male privilege but they have misunderstood it profoundly, they believe that patriarchy is the source of male privilege. It is – and it is not.”

    The basic difference between men and women is that women give birth to children, whereas men do not. As a mother to be, every woman is dependent on others and this dependency restricts her freedom, but her privilege is meaning in life and a central position in social networks. A boy will never be restricted in this way and his privilege is freedom, the cost he pays is the fear of redundancy. But in spite of this, freedom is no little privilege and a privilege women has always envied men.

    To make men useful and to constrain men’s freedom patriarchy developed. In patriarchy men are ultimately or at least officially responsible for their families and they are responsible for the public realm of society. As it is a woman who appoints the privilege, the role and duties of the patriarch to a man, it is also possible for her to retract the privilege from him if he is not living up to the task. Women will never gain control over men through the privilege of freedom, only through the patriarchal privilege they hand over to them. This again, is the rule of power through reciprocal dependency. You can only get lasting power over people by giving them something very, very precious, thereby giving them reciprocal obligations.

    And in the reciprocal exchange between men and women, women are bound to be the first to give. Otherwise there will be no power.”

  224. christiankp says:

    I really hope I have not bored you

  225. Christiankp

    This would be pretty good stuff if not for all the hat tips to the basis of why women think and feel as they do, validation of the fictitious created memes and false dichotomies.

    “”Of course I hear the protest of women. Why should we let ourselves to be dependent of men that can’t be trusted? It is better for us to be dependent on welfare than on a male that may leave us and abuse us. I understand this,””
    —————————————
    I don’t understand this, as any kind of decision making consideration, anymore than I would consider the converse assumption and inference about say, why should a man trust a slut who may walk away. You’ve fallen into the trap of validation, the need to validate their feelings….this notion about the abusive man defining the choice to be dependent on men or not is pure feminist hyperbole. Sure you women shouldn’t depend on a man who will abuse you…..now, back to reality about the vast majority of men……the abuse line is a straw man construct, and you’ve validated it. Bust the premise, don’t validate it

    “”I agree with feminists that men have always been privileged in the labour market,””
    ——————————————————-
    Another one that’s dead wrong, where the hell do you get this idea?

    How should men react to this? I think that MRA’s often are making a good analysis of what is wrong, but I think they are doing wrong by whining just as feminist has always done””
    —————————————
    You think? I don’t. Not everyone has a platform for tangible activism, hence they write and do the awareness raising thing. Most MRA’s do way more than just whine….more validation of feminist constructs.

    This would be pretty good stuff if not for all the hat tips to the basis of why women think and feel as they do, validation of the fictitious created memes and false dichotomies.

  226. christiankp says:

    @empathologicalism

    I don’t disagree with you, but I was very eager to get some very important and harsh viewpoints through without provoking some feminist – if they were to be found – among Susan’s readers to begin discuss things I didn’t want them to discuss.
    That’s the reason.

  227. Not boring, I just find it too accommodating to false premises.

    But more, the reason women will blow back that you didnt talk about male responsibility is that they have created an imaginary world in which men dont have the innate desire to please women. That innate desire is what makes some men into white knights. But men want to make women happy, that simple fact if realized would sort most of these issues.

    Women are epic insecure. Know why? Its self fulfilling , they try and deal with it by micromanaging men, their environment (see safety regs, food police, homeopathy and organic religiosity, etc etc) and worry themselves silly. Go back pre ind revolution when there actually were things to worry about, like starvation, indigenous peoples attacking, freezing to death….and women were emotionally more secure. Bizarre that but not really, because they LET MEN HANDLE IT.

  228. OK fair enough….Im just specious because I know how they read….they will pick up those points you yield….run with them, and ignore the rest…..pedestalize you for saying those comfy chair comments then full stop

  229. christiankp says:

    I think that there was one more reason for women to be more secure in their own worth back then. The work of women, bearing children, had a profound value to society which it does not have today, and then the pill and abortion have seriously devalued the moral superiority over men given by the fact that motherhood were imposed on women by men.

  230. Agreed, it all worked well the value trading proposition, each looking after their own crap, and having no choice but to rely AND APPRECIATE the other.

    Hence the old “you been away at work all day while I been fussin w/ these kids, git in here and gimme a break”…..ZERO value on mens work

  231. ybm says:

    It hasn’t devalued it. It has removed it, once and for all. And I for one welcome it. No woman in the west can claim any morals at all in this climate, let alone a moral superiority.

    Everything went out the window after abortion.

    Everything.

  232. Brendan says:

    I think that christian’s posts are insightful into the current situation and how to get out of it. I don’t think that they explain the basis of the “old system” accurately, however. Human h-g tribes were mostly male blood-kin with a good percentage of the women brought into the tribe from other tribes, not female-centric. This is different from most other primates, where the broods are female centric and the males are itinerant — i.e., matrilocal, whereas the human tribes which succeeded were mostly patrilocal (it’s likely that there were both matrilocal and patrilocal human tribes, as some such matrilocal tribes still exist in isolated regions, but that the patrilocal ones outcompeted the matrilocal ones virtually everywhere). It seems very unlikely to me that the old patriarchal system was imposed by women on men, and more likely that it was a measure of rough egalitarianism among the band of brothers that was the basis of the blood-kin tribe. It outcompeted the other model of matrilocality, which mirrored the practices of other primates, in part for the reasons christian states (i.e, bringing more men into the responsibility cycle) but also because it reduced warfare among the men over access to women, and allowed them to cooperate with each other more effectively. Unlike a simian system where itinerant males spend most of their energy beating each other up to establish dominance over a brood of blood-bonded females in a particular place, and the monopoly access to the females that this status provides, a human patrilocal pattern features tribes of blood-bonded men in a particular place cooperating with each other against other tribes of blood bonded men, rather than beating each other up to monopolize the women who are living in groups of blood-bonded female kin. Importantly, in this system, the females were in no position to dictate terms or impose anything of the sort on the men — the men were in control, more or less, of the system. No doubt the women found ways to exercise control over the men in these groups through various subtle means, but the system was unlikely one that was negotiated in any way between men and women, but much more likely one that was imposed on the women by the blood-kin men due to superior male cooperation and physical power in this context.

    Obviously, after the h-g era men were no longer living primarily in blood-bonded bands of brothers arrangement, but the notions of community, country and so on are basically extensions of the band of brothers concept by making the band slightly larger. It is still based primarily on cooperation among men based on a roughly egalitarian “agreement” to divide the women among them rather than spend most of the time and resources fighting with each other to control access to women and breeding. And of course the population pressures on males helped this along, with high attrition rates in warfare with other tribes/communities/nations — circles of male cooperation, really.

    The problems of this for the modern situation are quite apparent. One very important one is that women evolved to cooperate with “stranger” women much, much more than men did, because they had to do so — they were not living in blood-kin groups. Of course, as things developed into communities and countries and so on, women *were* living in such groups, but in evolutionary time they were not, and this rather deep wiring of cooperating with other women, specifically in the context of confrontations with men, was a critical thing for women to develop in deep history, given their context of finding themselves living in groups of kin-bonded men with high cooperation levels, but with women who were strangers in terms of kin bond. So, women’s cooperation with each other when confronting men is not something that depends on living in a kin-bonded situation or an extension thereof (community, nation) — it developed specifically outside that context.

    The unfortunate, but also rather apparent, corollary for men is that male cooperation vis a vis women developed in the specific context of male kin bonded groups, and their later extensions of community, nation and so on. As we know, the last centuries, and especially the last fifty years or so, have seen these aspects become rather diluted, as the philosophical focus has shifted away from communitarian notions of identity (community, nation, culture/religion and so on) and towards individualistic ones. By its very nature this trend must result in a decrease in intra-male cooperation, because the basis for such cooperation has been systematically devalued and diluted. That is, men don’t generally cooperate with other men simply because they are men, they cooperate with some men because they are bonded together with them in some way (dim echoes of this still exist in athletics teams, military hierarchies and the like), and do so *against* other such groups of men — that is the course of human history. However, in a civilization that is based increasingly around individual identities and prerogatives rather than communitarian ones, men will not have a basis to cooperate with each other to any significant degree. The impact of this is that as intra-male cooperation and trust within a society begin to erode, men increase their levels of competition with each other vis-a-vis women: the contract of rough egalitarianism among men which was marriage with expected lifetime monogamy is ripped up and replaced with a winner-take-all system of free-for-all that more closely resembles that of our simian cousins than the patterns that likely helped elevate humanity to its glorious achievements as a species. And increasingly this is what we see today.

    And, importantly, unlike in the h-g era when monogamy emerged as a life pattern for humans due to the imposition of it by men, in a contemporary society of low male cooperation and strict limits on the use of male violence, but a relatively constant level of female cooperation, you end up with women being able to dictate the terms of everything to the men — and with relatively few men being seen as acceptable for breeding (only the fittest), which mirrors the simian situations more closely than the human ones.

    At this point there are two options. One is resurrecting a communitarian focus which can form the basis of increased intra-male trust and cooperation within communitarian/national groups. The other is what christian has discussed very well above: women recreating this system from the other side. Neither seems very likely to me, unfortunately.

  233. Twenty says:

    @hurp

    Now, judging from what you said above, you advise men to go to Latin America rather than the worst part of South Asia like Bangladesh, but even Central and South America have problems.

    Everywhere has problems, but not the same problems. In particular, many countries are less hostile to men in the workplace and the courts than the US. Plus, some countries don’t even have unilateral no-fault divorce, let alone a broad cultural acceptance of such. Finally, it is much, much easier to arrange matters s.t. if the worst happens, and the laws turn against you, and your wife goes psycho, you can escape back to your own country than it is to flee your own in the same circumstances; this gives you some measure of real “hand” in your relationship.

    The U.S has anti-male laws, but judging by how many people get decapitated in Mexico, I’d say they have anti-male gangs.

    Sorry, that’s a non-sequitur. N. Mexico is approximately a war zone. Los Zetas aren’t butchering men because they’re fans of Valerie Solanas, they’re just trying to kill and intimidate their rivals. And, as I’m sure you know, “Latin America” != “Northern Mexico”.

    “Misandry” is apparently creeping into South America in general; Chile had a female president, didn’t it?

    An unfortunate reality, but “creeping” is one thing, “here, full-blown, and raging across the land” is another.

    And to top it all off, from what I’ve heard many if not most Latina women are just crazy, period. What’s the point of learning a new language and setting oneself up in another country just to deal with the same bullshit? Women are women wherever you go.

    Latinas are, indeed, fucking insane, but so are all women. They can also be managed, like any woman. (Note the tension between your first and last sentences.)

    Overall, if the only thing a man wants to do is sit back, keep to himself, and “enjoy the decline,” it doesn’t really matter where he lives, whether the US, Europe, or Latin America.

    As long as a man doesn’t want to have a family, I’d say you’re (mostly) right. And as long as he doesn’t mind being a 2nd class citizen in education, employment, &c. And as long as he doesn’t mind a steady drip-drip-drip of disparagement of his masculine nature in the media. And as long as he doesn’t (though ill-chance) run afoul of our lavishly funded prosecutocracy.

    A man who knows how to avoid “misandry” and keep clear of shitty legislation can have an enjoyable life in most places

    Increasingly, a full-time job.

    But I won’t advise him to do so. It’s not good advice–whether in Amurrica or Latin America or the Phillipines or whatever, things probably won’t improve as much as you hope.

    Well, I’m not really relying on “hope” here. It’s not like the US is awful and LA is wonderful, more like the US has problems, LA has problems, and LA’s problems are tolerable while the US’s are not.

  234. Twenty says:

    @christiankp

    I put up some posts on hookingupsmart that gave some frank viewpoints to women, and they were well received.

    Inasmuch as they’re female-supremacist, supplicating bullshit, I can believe that.

    Women are the first sex. You are the sex that bears the children and thereby the backbone of society.

    But men are disposable and men are redundant and we are becoming more and more redundant.

    The relation between mother and child is the central relation in society. If it was not for this relation, we did not need a society at all.

    Men’s importance has traditionally been inflated by patriarchy, and the reason for this is that if you make a person believe he is central he will be more useful. By taking a step back and let men get the status, the medals and the honour, women were able to take advantage of men’s labour. Women always knew that no one could replace them as mothers and that they were central. Because of this knowledge of their own worth they could let men believe that men were central.

    Women began to imitate men. And women have succeeded, as you all know.

    These statements are all the opposite of true. Basically, your message is: “Men are worthless (or worth less), but if you fool them, you can steal their labor”. Get stuffed, chump. Maybe you think you’re being “clever”, and that if you just fluff women’s egos enough you can get them to consider men’s welfare out of self-interest. This won’t work, because (a.) women have an inborn contempt for any man they see as of lower status than themselves (and fluffing their egos expands this set), (b.) women don’t do justice or sympathy (as distinct from empathy), (c.) women don’t do consequences.

    And then we come to the SCUM part of your manifesto:

    …until the day when most women will decide not to give birth to male children and to conceive by insemination.

    This society may be the dream for many women, and as a man I will happily resign. If women can’t or won’t construct a society in which there is place for men, men ought not to exist.

    This is, indeed, the dream of the radfem movement. Unfortunately, such a society will be almost immediately rolled by its male-dominated, patriarchal neighbors, for reasons which I hope are obvious. As for your assertion that men ought to exist only at the pleasure of women, even my vast arsenal of vituperation fails me here. God created man, and we serve Him, and do not answer to women.

  235. hurp says:

    it is much, much easier to arrange matters s.t. if the worst happens, and the laws turn against you, and your wife goes psycho, you can escape back to your own country than it is to flee your own in the same circumstances; this gives you some measure of real “hand” in your relationship.

    That is true. I’ll admit that’s one definitely legitimate reason expatting might be useful.

    And, as I’m sure you know, “Latin America” != “Northern Mexico”.

    Right, but the same applies to the U.S. Some states are more or less “misandrist” than others, some have harsher or easier statues regarding alimony than others, and so on, and so forth. For someone feeling oppressed by the legal regime in one state, it may be better to move to another instead of leaving the country.

    Note the tension between your first and last sentences.

    My bad, my first sentence should have read “fucking insane–like most women, really.” And sure, they can be managed, but what’s the point? If a man wants to live alone, life in the US isn’t much different from life in LA. Most of the shitty laws in the U.S can only affect you if you have one living under your roof. Don’t marry, don’t cohabit, and divorce laws/DV shit/etc. can’t touch you, much as in (supposedly) Latin America.

    “creeping” is one thing, “here, full-blown, and raging across the land” is another.

    Again, arguably true, but then you’d have to admit that expatting is just a temporary solution rather than anything really laudable, as you seem to imply. An expat may be having fun for 10 years or so, but after that things’ll be as bad in his country as they are in the U.S. As you said above, in that case he’ll be able to move back to the U.S, but in that scenario expatting was just a temporary solution anyways.

    And as long as he doesn’t mind being a 2nd class citizen in education, employment, &c.

    Affirmative action and shit is annoying, sure, but being a “second class citizen” in an education and employment situation like America’s is still better than being a “first class citizen” in poorer countries in Latin America. Better to compete with unfairly advantaged women for a job than move to a country where there aren’t any jobs at all, due to, say, socialist legislation in Venezuela (to take one example), for instance.

    And as long as he doesn’t mind a steady drip-drip-drip of disparagement of his masculine nature in the media.

    Why should he? It’s easy enough to ignore. And besides, it’s not like Latin American media is that much better; plenty of Spanish-language soap operas and TV shows make fun of the stereotypical ‘bumbling husband’ or feature male villains and whatnot.

    And as long as he doesn’t (though ill-chance) run afoul of our lavishly funded prosecutocracy.

    True again, but all things considered it’s not that hard to avoid the “prosecutocracy.” There are literally millions of law-abiding gun owners in the US who’ve managed to avoid Randy Weaver’s fate by being more sensible about their weapons (and associates) than he was. If you want to avoid divorce courts, domestic abuse allegations, and all that shit, don’t marry or cohabit with a woman. False rape accusations suck, but if you play your cards right your chances of being falsely accused are essentially nil–follow the advice here and your chances of getting into such a situation is like one in a million.

    US has problems, LA has problems, and LA’s problems are tolerable while the US’s are not.

    This is true, but the last part is debatable. For many men, Amurrica’s problems are easy to avoid or simply don’t affect them, while moving to LA poses a host of other problems (learning a new language, acclimating to the culture, etc.) which simply aren’t worth it.

  236. Legion says:

    christiankp: Not bored at all. I don’t bother to read your crap.

  237. Twenty says:

    @hurp

    Briefly, I’ll say that you have much more faith in the reality of the doctrine of Federalism than I do. Feel free to point out the US states where the Bradley Amendment does not apply, in which Title IX does not apply, and which have not adopted unilateral no-fault divorce.

    In re: “temporary” — as the saying goes, in the long run we’re all dead. All solutions are temporary. I think your “10 year” window is arbitrary, and chosen more for the support it lends to your position than anything else.

    You’re correct that a man can reduce his risks in the US (or anywhere) by avoiding women, not co-habitating, not marrying, &c. But if a man wants a family — and the future does belong to those who show up for it, as they say — that’s not exactly a first choice.

    … being a “second class citizen” in an education and employment situation like America’s is still better than being a “first class citizen” in poorer countries in Latin America.

    Uhm … that’s very much a matter of opinion. In fact, it’s the crux of our disagreement.

    Better to compete with unfairly advantaged women for a job than move to a country where there aren’t any jobs at all, due to, say, socialist legislation in Venezuela (to take one example), for instance.

    Well, don’t move to Venezuela. Also, don’t move to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Congo. As for the economy — you’re absolutely right that it’s much, much harder to earn a living in LA (or almost anywhere) than it is in the US. So a man needs to accumulate capital and the right skills. It’s not easy, but it is doable.

    Look, the options are: (a.) Roll the dice with a WW, (b.) Bachelorhood, (c.) Expat. They all kinda suck. Your argument is basically: “Expatting is hard — there are tradeoffs.” Yeah. Are we done?

    … all things considered it’s not that hard to avoid the “prosecutocracy.”

    Tell it to Martha Stewart, Conrad Black, Gibson Guitar, &c. Let alone the millions of ordinary men without access to hundreds of millions of dollars. How lucky do you feel?

    For many men, Amurrica’s problems are easy to avoid or simply don’t affect them, while moving to LA poses a host of other problems (learning a new language, acclimating to the culture, etc.) which simply aren’t worth it.

    I don’t think the first part is as true as you assume. As for the latter part: To each his own. My disagreement isn’t with men who, personally, don’t want to expat. Its with those who are violently opposed to other men expatting, because they plan to use them to either wife up ex-sluts (SW), or produce more master race babies (WNs).

  238. hurp says:

    My disagreement isn’t with men who, personally, don’t want to expat. Its with those who are violently opposed to other men expatting

    Well, in that case we disagree on little. Far be it from me to tell any man he shouldn’t expat–I don’t condemn those who want to do it any more than I condemn those who (like me) don’t. I only take issue with what (seems to be) your position that expatting is the only, or even best option for a man. Like you said, there are tradeoffs. For you, those tradeoffs might be worth it, but for many reasonable men they might not be. That’s all I’m sayin’.

    As for the whole ‘future belongs to those who show up’ thing goes, though, well, there’s surrogacy, and (if many MRAs are to be believed) artificial wombs not too far in the future. I might have mentioned surrogacy to you a while back…or it might have been someone else. Was a while ago, so I don’t quite remember, but I’m sure I brought up surrogate mothers on Dalrock’s blog before.

  239. Jim says:

    The quoted comment in the original post by ‘John’ sounds frighteningly similar to what happened to my beta-cousin, decent bloke, and stockbroker (sans the presence of children and subsequent custody nightmare) who went through emotional and financial hell when his wife decided she was bored, had an affair, and then filed for divorce. She cleaned out their bank accounts, deposit box, and house leaving him with nothing but the dog and a crappy sofa from Ikea. And because his ex-wife was a lawyer from a family of lawyers she knew exactly how to work the system, often working with the speed and precision of a SWAT team. The other aspect of this as his ex-wife had an affair with not just a co-worker but a senior partner in the law firm. This resulted in the senior partner being fired because of the liability problem as he would have been perceived as the person who had abused their position and the ex-wife keeping her job. All of this carefully planned and thought through.

    In the wake of these events, my cousin has never been the same guy I grew up with. The emotional toll it took on him was such that it led to him attempting suicide. Thankfully, he didn’t succeed, and he’s gotten better since then. Still, it was an experience I wouldn’t wish on anyone and there are lessons to be learned for other men.

  240. Twenty says:

    As for the whole ‘future belongs to those who show up’ thing goes, though, well, there’s surrogacy, and (if many MRAs are to be believed) artificial wombs not too far in the future.

    I think we’ve been round this maypole before, but surrogacy is a complicated and expensive way to bring children into a single-parent household — and while single fathers are probably better than single mothers, they’re still suboptimal. Artificial wombs are a complicated and expensive way to bring children into a single-parent household and they’re vaporware.

    Frankly, if you’re going to go to all the trouble to acquire the resources to make either one work, and are prepared to invest the time to be a single father, why not just expat? Again, though, that’s a personal call.

  241. Brendan says:

    when his wife decided she was bored, had an affair, and then filed for divorce. She cleaned out their bank accounts, deposit box, and house leaving him with nothing but the dog and a crappy sofa from Ikea. And because his ex-wife was a lawyer from a family of lawyers she knew exactly how to work the system, often working with the speed and precision of a SWAT team. The other aspect of this as his ex-wife had an affair with not just a co-worker but a senior partner in the law firm. This resulted in the senior partner being fired because of the liability problem as he would have been perceived as the person who had abused their position and the ex-wife keeping her job. All of this carefully planned and thought through.

    Heh. So she destroyed the lives of two men.

    Listen up, guys. Avoid this nonsense. That is part one, but part one only.

    If you can’t internalize that the system is *systemically* fucked up, rather than only *incrementally* fucked up, you’re a part of the problem, frankly.

    This needs to give birth to a new political movement.

  242. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan, a lot of people will look at cases such as these and agree that a bad thing happened, but they won’t see it as part of any trend. It’s an “isolated incident”, to use a term from certain political types of days gone by. Feminists, and their tradcon helpers naturally are this way, but an awful lot of ordinary men are the same as well. How many times have you encountered this:

    Mr. A:”Geeze, did you hear about Mr. Z? (Insert divorce theft tale here)”
    Mr B: “Damn! What did he do to her?

    That’s a common response from ordinary men. IMO it results from pedestalizing women. That’s why I regard the spread of Game knowledge as subversive. It breaks the pedestal women stand on.

    For intellectuals, there’s always two questions to ask:
    “If she can do it to him, what keeps your wife from doing it to you?”
    and
    “How many isolated incidents does it take to make a trend?”

  243. Jim says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote;

    “How many times have you encountered this:

    Mr. A:”Geeze, did you hear about Mr. Z? (Insert divorce theft tale here)”
    Mr B: “Damn! What did he do to her?”

    I agree, I used to think these types of stories were on the fringes of society, but then I started encountering more and more men who experienced these types of divorces in professional and social circles, then in my circles of friends, then family members. I can’t recall who stated this, (Aristotle?)’Once’ is an incident, twice a phenomenon, thrice or more a pattern.’ Clearly, there is a growing problem.

    I don’t pretend to have any solutions right now other than to educate as many men as possible about the real risks they face with the current marriage & divorce industry.

  244. grerp says:

    That’s a very nice thing for you to say, van Rooinek, and I do appreciate it. Yes, I am a den mother. My scouts are good boys, very energetic. We have our Pinewood Derby tomorrow. I have to go now and set up for trials. My husband and I are keeping the times.

    What’s distressing to me about that 5 out of 12 stat I quoted is that these boys aren’t actually very old, and three of the fathers still come to at least some scout functions with them and seem like decent men. The transitory nature of contemporary relationships is confusing and upsetting – not least of all to my son.

  245. Brendan says:

    That’s a common response from ordinary men. IMO it results from pedestalizing women. That’s why I regard the spread of Game knowledge as subversive. It breaks the pedestal women stand on.

    I agree with red pilling being positive, as I stated in the thread a few weeks ago.

    I don’t think that the problem, though, is pedestalization of women per se, although that is how it presently manifests, The problem is that men (and women) are still behaving as they did when the world was consisting of male kin-bonded tribes: women align with each other against well-aligned men for self-preservation, and men protect “their” tribe’s women against “other” men. The problem is that as these bonds have dissolved, and men defined more and more men as “other” men, the instinct to protect women blurred into a tendency to protect all women against men as a knee-jerk reaction, without distinguishing between men (other than perhaps on racist grounds). It’s the protection principle, expanded from the tribe to include a nation, but coupled with the simultaneous breakdown of male trust and cooperation as individualism became normative.

    Also, although I have held off from mentioning this, the relationship between men and their daughters has become very problematic for the peers of such daughters, and has much to answer for in terms of how this protectiveness has fucked over generations of men as it has expressed itself in a contemporary idiom (i.e., a “you go grrl” idiom, which, in many cases, is egged on and enthusiastically supported by the fathers of such women).

  246. Gerald says:

    As a by product of the very system you talk about I can confirm that it is truly as you state it is. I personally divorce, my Ex wanted it. We could not afford attorneys at the time so I grudgingly went with her to legal aid to complete our own divorce papers. Before we did my Ex and I calculated a fair amount of child support and agreed to it. When we completed the paperwork the attorney promptly reviewed it to make sure we had completed it correctly and that it’s was ok for filing. When he came across the child support document with our agreed amount he promptly said where did you come up with this amount while tearing up the document and quickly pulled out a chart. I ended up with a child support payment 3x the amount my Ex and I had agreed was fair per his chart and never mind that at the time my Ex made more money then me. At the divorce hearing she was prompted awarded the higher child support even though we argued it, the car, the house, etc. I luckily walked away with my retirement savings because she did sign away “her rights” ?? to it. After the divorce I got her to lend me $1.25 and caught the next public bus out of there and from thier started my mission to rebuild my life! Of course even though she got triple from what we thought was fair initially she later complained it wasn’t enough. And of course my son had to grow up with an every other weekend Dad!

  247. Brendan says:

    When he came across the child support document with our agreed amount he promptly said where did you come up with this amount while tearing up the document and quickly pulled out a chart. I ended up with a child support payment 3x the amount my Ex and I had agreed was fair per his chart and never mind that at the time my Ex made more money then me.

    Yeah. Child support is, in almost every state, a tax. That is, it is a certain fixed percentage (varied by state and income level) of your income, regardless of what the mother makes in income. So, you’ll pay, say, 20% of pretax, regardless of whether you make 50 and she makes 70 or you make 70 and she makes 50. The absolute dollar amount, of course, varies, depending on how much you make (or how much the court determines you “can” make, and “imputes” to you), but it’s basically a getting-divorced-with-kids-as-a-guy tax.

  248. Visarett says:

    Much of the destruction of the family and the increase in government can be found by reading “Family & Civilization” by Carle C. Zimmerman. We are in an age of weak family mores. Anger is good. Righteous anger is better. But anger without focus sputters out, eventually. the problem as I see it is that there’s lots of talk but no action being taken. And unfortunately, too many buy into the feminist stock trade of deceits and treachery to not notice what’s happening around them. Schools are indoctrination clinics for that doctrine, controlled primarily by the left, while lowering the expectations to succeed for kids year-over-year.

    So, yeah, what do you do? How does one go about turning things around, changing things for the better? I want to see that change.

  249. Pingback: Stanton’s Heroes | Dalrock

  250. Buck says:

    After reading these stories and considering my job (LE), where mediating this sort of thing encompasses probably 50% of my duties, the minefield that is modern American marriage leads me to believe that Sharia is going to come to America and it will be men who bring it. There will be a HUGE anti-feminist backlash, and the gloating gals will not be smiling so much then.
    I heard of a case in Phoenix where a guy’s construction business is doing less than 1/2 the business it was doing 3 years ago, so the guy could not keep up with his child support. The female Family Law judge jailed him. When he AND HIS EX asked for a recalibration ( something is better than nothing ) the female judge said NO…pay up! The guy was remanded back to jail.
    Question…how does having a working guy sit in jail, unable to work, satisfy the the judges order???
    This is man hating insanity!!!

  251. TFH says:

    That’s why I regard the spread of Game knowledge as subversive. It breaks the pedestal women stand on.

    That is why Game is one of the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.

    It is highly asymmetrical. One man practicing Game a lot, deprives 10 manginas of what little scraps they were getting.

    The doubling down of these manginas is their response to this. But one can only double down so many times.

  252. Doug1 says:

    Grep–

    A family close to me is breaking up now. It’s hard for me to tell what is really going on, except that the wife appears to be trying to destroy her husband with everything she’s got, including the courts and the police.

    Why are the breaking up, and why is she trying to destroy her husband?

  253. FFY says:

    Late to the party-

    Dalrock, this is one of the best articles I’ve ever read about anything.

    I will be showing this to my parents the next time they ask me what I’m thinking marriage-wise.

  254. Pingback: Betty Duffy, Catholics, and the Manosphere | flirtyintrovert

  255. grerp says:

    I don’t really know what has been and is going on between them. I’ve heard both sides; the stories differ considerably. There are some issues they both agree on – substance abuse, abuse in families of origin, mental illness. The other stuff – well, either he or she may have made it up from whole cloth, I don’t know. I wish I could unhear most of it; I’ve tried my hardest to stay out of it as I cannot affect it but can be affected by it.

    The family appeared functional when they were working together, but I have a feeling things were not ideal. Still, none of these issues originated in the time they were together; they predated the relationship. And only she is claiming abuse. Which means that either 1) she is misrepresenting the abuse or 2) she chose to have multiple children with a monster. Judgment problems either way, IMHO.

  256. TFH says:

    1) she is misrepresenting the abuse or 2) she chose to have multiple children with a monster.

    It is almost certainly 1). As I said earlier, the divorce rate of a society is determined by one thing only : will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, the society has a low divorce rate
    If no, the society has a high divorce rate, with excuses and rationalizations like “I was bored”, or “He was abusive” appearing.

    Most American couples who divorce nowadays, would not have divorced if they lived in 1960 America, or outside of Protestant Democracies.

    Also note that societies where the man holds all the cards, and can toss the woman out easily, still have a low divorce rate. Men are responsible adults, that way…

  257. Rmaxd says:

    When it comes to relationships women are predators, men are responsible …

    Men take into account the family as a functioning unit, modern women take into account how many gina tingles she can get out of creating conflict & mentally abusing the family unit

    The social conflict always takes precedence to a woman

  258. grerp says:

    It is almost certainly 1). As I said earlier, the divorce rate of a society is determined by one thing only : will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    My gut instinct says she got tired of living with his issues and decided she could do okay with just his money. BUT for me that’s easier said in abstract than in the personal. She’s never been anything but nice to me, and I don’t like to make accusations I can’t back up. I do try to be fair and I think I tend to be biased against women, to be honest. When it comes to dealing with real live personal situations I get bogged down examining issues from all angles, scrutinizing my own biases and how I might benefit from any judgments I make, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. All of this takes so much uncomfortable effort that sometimes it’s just easier to say: I don’t know.

  259. TFH says:

    My gut instinct says she got tired of living with his issues and decided she could do okay with just his money.

    Yeah. That is why in 1960 America, or modern-day countries less feminized, these issues just don’t seem to appear, and divorces are/were uncommon…… in the old days, women didn’t say they were ‘bored’ or ‘abused’ because that was not a free pass via which to separate a husband from his children and livelihood.

    Knock me over with a feather……yet some people still wonder *why* marriage is in trouble.

    I do try to be fair and I think I tend to be biased against women, to be honest.

    No, you’re not. Even I’m not, in fact. The bias in favor of women is SOOOO huge and omnipresent that you may occasionally feel this way. But don’t let it give you doubts.

  260. True, one of the reasons that speaking red pill ese is seen as radical is that conventional wisdom is 100% steeped pro woman….its the default state. Anytime one raises something that’s outside the normal narrative, especially in the presence of folks who think only as far as their own experiences, its rejected and or called woman hating.
    The US is majority now small thinkers, this manifests in politics, labor relations, gender relations, child rearing and education, even mindless trend following
    It leaves abstract thinkers in shrinking minority

  261. blerk says:

    To the original writer, i hope you see this. STOP paying the debt payments, let them go into collections and settle with them for much less than you owe. i only say this because you’re in the red every month. Check out Dave Ramsey’s book from the library ‘the total money makeover’. it’ll help you budget the little money you get to keep. Women have kids with guys that don’t work all the time, at least you’re working, you can still have a family.

  262. Eric says:

    tspoon:
    New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Britain, the US….all part of the same feminized, neo-puritan culture. The same is true in Scandanavia, with Saxon, rather than Anglo, puritanism predominating.

    My rule of thumb for relationships with women is: if she sounds like English is her native language, move on to the next prospect until a nice foreign accent comes out. It’s easier to teach a foreigner English (they’re a lot more intelligent than Angobitches, anyway) than it is to teach any slut from our own culture how to be a real woman!

  263. Eric says:

    Empathologicalism:
    ‘The Tradcon Femme Utopia”

    There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a radical feminist and a ‘tradcon’. just like there isn’t any material difference between white-knight manginaism and ‘Game.’ This alleged conservatism is not much more than window-dressing to hide the reality of keeping up the status quo.

    When you read or listen to some of the tradcon leaders, like Laura Schlessinger, you get the impression that she accepts all the feminist principles: the superiority of women, women as the owners of sex and reproduction, &c., but thinks that men are sort of ‘nice to have around’ (as long as they know their place) and should be treated nicely. She wrote a book once, that somebody referenced on this thread, called ‘The Proper Care and feeding of Husbands.’ Sort of like the books on raising livestock, I guess.

    It isn’t surprising either that so many ‘tradcons’ are receptive to the idea of ‘Game’. Reading some of them who write longingly and wistfully about their youths as thug-chasers; it’s no wonder that the so-called ‘Alpha Thug’ archetype appeals to them. After all, who wants a ‘boring loyal dude’, right?

    Game accepts all the fundamental premises of feminism, but teaches men to pretend they’re empowered by accepting all those premises. You see the whole ‘tradcon’ concept of a relationship here: nothing but endless power-trips, manipulation, and helping the other keep up a facade.

    Relationships ought to be something more, I would assume, than this kind of ridiculous role-playing and trying to conform to logically absurd social conditions. And they can be; if men would abndon them, get out of their states of denial about the true character of American women, and pursue constructive alternatives.

  264. TFH says:

    It isn’t surprising either that so many ‘tradcons’ are receptive to the idea of ‘Game’.

    I have yet to see such receptiveness. Tradcons/Socons are *against* Game.

    Game accepts all the fundamental premises of feminism,

    Completely wrong. Feminism mandates that beta males either never have sex or pay their lifetime earnings just for conceiving a child, even without having access to a child.

    Game enables a man to have sex at less than 1/1000th the price that feminists are attempting to mandate. Sleeping with lots of women (let alone one) without giving them your lifetime earnings – yeah, that sure sounds like something feminists approve of.

    You clearly have no idea what Game is (as is typical of the critics of it).

  265. Hermit says:

    @Suz: I agree that SAHM’ing, done the right way can be as equally intensive as a full-time job, and often much more rewarding. I had checked out some homesteading blogs awhile back, but the ones I found were mainly for women, by women, which isn’t a bad thing, but 90% was outside my range of interest. My wife grew up on a farm, and knows a few things about that sort of thing. It is my hope that we are more successful at it than her parents were. Thanks for the comment, I’ll have to go check out your blog.

  266. bonifacii says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    Personally I’m with those who do not feel anger. And, as a guy, I believe the situation you described is pretty much man-made.

    First, the introduction of no-fault divorce didn’t change anything at all. You can read it right on the Wikipedia article about no-fault divorce. The spouse just lied in the court about some wrongdoing of the other spouse, and the divorce was granted. Sure there were possible defenses, but they rarely resulted in anything as the courts did not want to keep together the people who clearly didn’t want to. Even as early as in 1930s the “mexican divorce” (check the wiki) was an easy alternative for those living in southern states.

    It would be interesting to see the divorce statistics from the moment the no-fault divorce became widespread (I believe around 1980 all states but two have adopted some kind of no-fault divorce). Looking at the table on http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html I can see that the divorce rate between 1980 and 2001 didn’t really change (in fact it was lower in 2001 than in 1980), which seems to indicate that introduction of no-fault divorce had no effect on divorce rates. The “impact” section of no-fault divorce article on Wiki also lists a few interesting effects of introduction of this kind of divorce, none of which are even discussed in manosphere.

    Another thing which still amazes me is the number of guys who want their wives to be staying-at-home housewives. Considering that by law the marriage is basically the legal partnership with fifty-fifty share, this makes absolutely no sense. And even less sense makes their complain about how they were “ripped off” in the divorce. Half of the money you made is hers by the law, and half of the money she makes is yours by the same law. If she makes no money, why would you marry her? My wife makes almost as much as I do, and if we ever get divorced, half of our assets are hers anyway. That’s how the law has been at least last 100 years. What is the reason for anger?

  267. Joe Sheehy says:

    You seem to be unconcerned with children having their mother at home with them growing up, aren’t concerned (or angry) about men being horribly punished for wanting to marry a woman who will be a mother at home with her children, because that woman is not keeping her promises.

    Your post seems to be saying that the equity of divorce laws and the reliability of marriage promises hasn’t been wrecked by favorable treatment of women who break their vows. That the “no-fault” change wasn’t really a change, ie, a typical fraudulent liberal argument that denies that there is social and moral decay occurring because of their policies. Or rather, that you aren’t angry about it, ie, you don’t care about injustice. Well, it doesn’t surprise me there are lot of people like you out there, that’s how we go into this situation where there is no moral accountability for women, that it’s all a man’s fault for wanting to marry a woman who will be at home with his children and believing that her promise meant something.

  268. Buck says:

    bonifacii says:
    February 25, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    No-Fault redux;

    Kind sir, the fact is, it does not matter how much she makes, she will get MORE than 1/2 in a divorce!…my fault, her fault, no ones fault! (Just ask Hulk Hogan, his ex walked away with over 70% of the marital assets.)
    A wife is like a grenade, any time she wants she can pull the pin and destroy two people ( or more if there are kids). The reason many men want their wives SAHM’s is because the susceptibility of women to engage in group think. At work, divorces, affairs, drugs etc are trends that wreak havoc through a workplace like lemmings over the cliff.
    The Facebook/internet thing has expanded the universe for women at home, and has contributed mightily to divorce peril even for SAHM’s, but the risk is less than workplace pathology.

    I’m glad your marriage is working and the divorce neutron bomb has not devastated you…YET… just understand, you have NO control over this situation either ( I’m in the same boat, mine is working), but I have eyes to see the injustice and it’s outrageous, and it is men who are the victims!

  269. Suz says:

    Bonifacii, when you head is in the sand, your other end is highly vulnerable. Good luck to you ,sir. You need all the luck you can get.

  270. christiankp says:

    @twenty
    I am really sorry that you misunderstood my writings so profoundly. I was not cuddling some feelings of female supremacy, but I think that you are seriously deluded if you believe that a single man has any inherent worth to his society if he is not performing to the benefit of children and women. There is a reason why we care more about a female teenager who make some little scratch on her wrest than on a boy killing himself.

    That basic fact about this society and it has always been. If you are a man life will be much easier if you accommodate this fact instead of believing in the patriarchal con game of inflating men’s value.

    If you read my posts again you might see what I say, but I’ll try to explain it to you. Women are the first sex, have always been and will always be. It follows directly from this, that men have never oppressed women. If there has been any oppression it has been the other way round. The reason why I find it so important to point out the position of women as the first sex, is that one of the great problems of society today is that women can choose to be the first or the second sex at will.

    Then women choose to be the first sex when it comes to entitlement and let men be the first sex when it comes to place blame for everything that went wrong. I want to put a stop on that. I also want to hold women accountable as the first sex, just like general Patton held his officers accountable and said: “An officer has not done his duty if he has not succeeded with his mission or is either dead or seriously wounded”.

    To be in superior position may come with some entitlements but it mostly comes with obligations. Women have forgotten the latter.

    About the SCUM-part of my post I think you quoted me malevolently as you omitted the last sentence. The paragraph went:

    “This society [a society without men] may be the dream for many women, and as a man I will happily resign. If women can’t or won’t construct a society in which there is place for men, men ought not to exist. That is OK. But you yourselves are no longer human beings.”

    I am a man and I am proud to be one. As a man I believe I have to submit myself to principles worth more than my own life and that I should be willing to die for these principles. Usually this was God, country, family, wife and children. I don’t believe it is automatically worth dying for any of these anymore – although a good wife and a family you are living with of cause still is worth fighting and dying for.

    But I still have two principles worth upholding. The first principle is that I will newer harm another human being (which include women). The second is that I oppose any technological intervention in fertilization. I reluctantly accept the pill and abortion on the ground of the overpopulation, but I am violently opposing fertilization techniques making it possible to conceive a child in any other way than by sexual intercourse as I find it dehumanizing.

    So if women choose to procreate without men I will be happy to die. I will have nothing to do with it and thereby I keep my dignity. I hope that all other men will choose the same way. At least I think that the most devalued post a man can have will be living in a society where women procreate artificially where he is serving as a technician helping these women to become pregnant.

    Now if you read my posts again you will se that what I basically said was: Women have always taken advantage of men’s work and that was OK because it was necessary and because women reciprocated.

    NOW IN FEMINIST SOCIETY WOMEN ARE STEALING THE WORTH OF MEN’S WORK, BUT IT WILL COM TO HAUNT WOMEN LATER ON, SO WOMEN JUST BETTER STOP TO DO THAT.

    And I can’t possibly se that you could disagree with that.

  271. Joe Sheehy says:

    “There is a reason why we care more about a female teenager who make some little scratch on her wrest than on a boy killing himself.”

    Feminized moral degenerates think like that, not decent human beings.

  272. Höllenhund says:

    christiankp is obviously pandering to female self-interest. He basically tells women that the reason they should care about men’s well-being is because there’s no other way to effectively shift resources from men to women and their children. I can’t really blame him though. If we are to offer rational arguments to women – whether there’s a point in that or not is highly debatable -, the only way to do that is to pander to their self-interest, as they won’t consider any other type of argument.

  273. Christiankp wrote thusly:

    “…I think that you are seriously deluded if you believe that a single man has any inherent worth to his society if he is not performing to the benefit of children and women. There is a reason why we care more about a female teenager who make some little scratch on her wrest than on a boy killing himself.

    That basic fact about this society and it has always been. If you are a man life will be much easier if you accommodate this fact instead of believing in the patriarchal con game of inflating men’s value.”

    In some strict, biological sense, women are far more important than men, but in this techno-modern world of 6+ billion people, its a little silly to take that fact and apply it to Western socio-economic & political arrangements. In fact, its downright retarded, and dangerously destructive. People who say such things should be jeered at as public laughingstocks.

    Joe Sheehy is also correct to point out that your remarks are the grossly immoral product of being inculcated into Feminist belief patterns.

    Your comment is so lame, I was tempted to respond with something derisive and obscure (along the lines of “What, hambone?”), but felt it would be better if I were to flesh out some of the objections I have to the monstrous drivel you have poasted here.

  274. christiankp says:

    @Höllenhund
    In these days you don’t get anyway without pandering to peoples self-interests because society is so atomized that no-one understand anything than their own interest,

    @ Joe Sheehy
    “Feminized moral degenerates think like that, not decent human beings.”
    I quite agree about feminism and the degeneration of morals, but I will remind you that society send out millions of men to die in WWI and WWII, which could only happen because society did not value these men’s life.

  275. Höllenhund says:

    Pandering to people’s self-interest in order to, say, sell them a new car, a self-help book or sign them up for a PUA boot camp is one thing. Telling them to pursue their self-interest with the hope that they will somehow end up serving the ’common good’ is another.

  276. bonifacii says:

    @Joe Sheehy:

    1. I’m not sure I understood you. You cannot be saying that the only way to raise a kid is when their mom is staying at home; this contradicts the real world. Half of the world raises kids with two working parents, and this includes the USA. So what you call a “concern” is really is a lifestyle choice. And, as with any lifestyle choice, it doesn’t come for free, there is a price to pay, and risk to take. One of those risks is that a woman you want to stay in home with your children might find out that she doesn’t want to do so. But why do you call it “horribly punished”? To me it looks more like having the wrong expectations.

    2. Breaking promises is definitely not a new concept here in America. Visit any bankruptcy court and you’ll see thousands of individuals seeking a “debt relief” – which is exactly breaking their promises to creditors. We’ve been doing that since the year 1801 or so. At the same time, so far everyone from the “get-rid-of-no-fault-divorce” crowd failed to come up with any reasonable alternative. After all, if your wife divorces you this typically means she no longer wants to stay with you. She might have reasons for that, credible or not, but do you really want to live with someone who hates your guts because she cannot legally get rid of you? It would be extremely naive to think the girl would fall love back with you just because the law says you should stay together. The promise doesn’t mean anything, and it never did for a while – and the law was, and is very clear about that.

    3. Marriage is a legal procedure which gives you specific rights and responsibilities. From your post I don’t see any reason why would you even want to marry, as you’re clearly looking for a different set of rights and responsibilities than was EVER provided by the marriage laws in the US during the last 50 years. In your case you should definitely seek a marriage contract which states both the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

    4. Please keep the discussion civilized and stay with the facts. Generally the phrases like “fraudulent liberal arguments” and “moral decay” indicate the person who has a strong agenda but lacks the arguments to support it, which means the discussion with them is useless. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt in this case, but please next time you reply argue your position properly. And “me and all my buddies think this is right” is not an argument. Millions of people believed the Sun is spinning around the Earth.

  277. Twenty says:

    @christiankp

    I think that you are seriously deluded if you believe that a single man has any inherent worth to his society if he is not performing to the benefit of children and women.

    You are beneath contempt.

    The second is that I oppose any technological intervention in fertilization. I reluctantly accept the pill and abortion on the ground of the overpopulation …

    You must be a troll. No one could really be so stupid as to stick those two statements right next to each other.

    So if women choose to procreate without men I will be happy to die.

    That makes two of us. Y’know, some women use sperm banks right now. Maybe you should get a move on.

  278. 7man says:

    @Twenty
    I’d buy you a fly swatter, but I am too busy laughing.

  279. Twenty says:

    @bonifacii

    In your case you should definitely seek a marriage contract which states both the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

    There’s no such thing as a “marriage contract”, you moron. This was discussed at length upthread, e.g. here.

  280. Eric says:

    THF:
    No idea of what Game is; you mean like:

    “Game entitles men to have sex at 1/1000 the price &c.”
    So…IOW, so-called ‘Alphas’ never get hit with false accustaions, restraining orders, or demands for child support?”

    “Feminism mandates that beta males never have sex, or pay their lifetime earnings for conceiving children.”
    Where does the law state a specific application to ‘betas.’? In fact, where does feminist literature mention anything about male archetypes at all? It seems that the blanket attitudes towards men is that all of us males are inherently bad and deserve to be punished.

    “Sleeping with lots of women without giving them their lifetime earnings, sounds like something feminists would approve of.”

    It sure does. Ask the guys rotting in prison for false rape accusations, or who’ve lost their jobs over some phony harassment charge, for example.

    “Tradcons/socons are against Game”
    Oh really? Read some of the things they’ve posted here, for example.

    Feminism teaches that all men are dogs and should be treated like dogs. Socons think that all men are still dogs, but should be treated humanely. Manginas think if a man serves a woman like a dog; she’ll love and respect him. The Gamecocks think that by acting like a dog, women will want them. I’m arguing that men aren’t dogs; and should be treated like human beings. What do you find fault with there?

  281. Eric says:

    Bonifacii:
    You’re not arguing facts, you’re making excuses for American women. The fact is that SAHMs are shamed because our culture is female-dominant. The so-called cultural ideal is that women compete with, marginalize and prove themselves superior to men; and relegate men to irrelevance. This is the cultural norm of the Amazons; not of a civilized race.

    There’s nothing progressive about feminism. It’s an ideological throwback to prehistoric ages when matriarchal tribal societies existed like beehives run by queen-bees. The feminists won’t admit that as their goal; but their leaders know full well that civilization, and what they sneeringly call ‘patriarchy’, are inextricably linked concepts.

  282. Anonymous Reader says:

    3. Marriage is a legal procedure which gives you specific rights and responsibilities.

    Ok, I’ll bite. Please list off the specific rights that men are given in the US as part of marriage. No handwaving, specifics.

  283. TFH says:

    Eric,

    So…IOW, so-called ‘Alphas’ never get hit with false accustaions, restraining orders, or demands for child support?

    It could happen, of course, but it happens less to Alphas than to Beta.

    As far as we know, no major PUA has been hit with a false rape accusation. So it appears you are arguing not against Game, but against any relationship with women (Game is merely a way to optimize the latter).

    It sure does. Ask the guys rotting in prison for false rape accusations, or who’ve lost their jobs over some phony harassment charge, for example.

    Again, that has nothing to do with Game, but rather could happen to any man who has a relationship with women. Thus, it appears that you are not arguing against Game, but rather against interacting with women at all.

    Clearly, you did not grasp why Game lowers the price of sex to 1/1000th of what feminists demand men pay for it.

    Oh really? Read some of the things they’ve posted here, for example.

    I see you could cite nothing, amidst that weak dodge. The notion that So-cons support Game is laughable. They are the most vocal opponents of Game, BECAUSE Game is hugely damaging to feminism.

    Clearly, you don’t know what Game is. I challenge you to :

    i) Define what Game is
    ii) Explain why Game works even for LTRs and married men, to improve their marriages.

    (these are the questions that anti-game quacks usually dodge).

  284. So if women choose to procreate without men I will be happy to die. I will have nothing to do with it and thereby I keep my dignity. I hope that all other men will choose the same way. At least I think that the most devalued post a man can have will be living in a society where women procreate artificially where he is serving as a technician helping these women to become pregnant.

    Technology can be used so that men can procreate without women. That’s more likely to happen than the reverse. You probably can’t see that since you’re too busy worshiping women.

  285. The notion that So-cons support Game is laughable.

    If you’re talking about game, 1.0 this is true, but socons do support game 2.0.

  286. hurp says:

    Technology can be used so that men can procreate without women. That’s more likely to happen than the reverse.

    I literally just brought this up to Twenty earlier in the thread. Maybe you can convince him of what I couldn’t.

  287. TFH says:

    PMAFT,

    but socons do support game 2.0.

    I think ‘Game 2.0′ is just a vaporware sh**-test, that is not worthy of the attention you are giving it. Who has even pushed it other than Susan Walsh?

    It is not even causing Roissy/Eric Disco/Krauser/Roosh, etc. to miss a step, and has no chance of diluting/derailing Game. I doubt anyone who gets Game will have trouble identifying and dismissing the ‘Game 2.0′ micro-distraction in an instant.

    The great thing about Game is that it is pretty ruthless about open-source incorporating elements that work, and rejecting elements that don’t. ‘Game 2.0′ is a weak attempt at the latter that is not worth mentioning.

  288. Rmaxd says:

    People who’ve tried to push watered down game, have always got crucified, ie anti-gamers

    Its basically watered down game, nothing more

    A better beta, is still a beta … an improvement on idiocy is still io

  289. Eric says:

    TFH:
    I won’t dodge the questions like the Roissyites continually dodge mine (even though I’ve asked numerous times). If you’re interested in taking up the challenge, I’ll post them again after I’ve answered yours:

    1. Definition of Game: a theory that males are divided into various archetypes; the ‘alpha’ type being attractive to females. In order to win female favor, Game advocates behaving more like this archetype. The purposes of Game are not clearly defined: they seem to be loosely oriented towards manipulating women for the purposes of male sexual gratification. It accepts the feminist premises of women as the ‘owners of sex’ and stresses the alleged need of men to bend towards the ‘social realities’; whilst convincing men of their own supposed ‘empowerment’ by a (statistically unsupported) increase in sexual interaction with women.

    2. Why Game Works: It doesn’t. In some cases, the illusion of ‘working’ is created, because women are responding to the attempt to manipulate them and not to the technique. In our feminist culture, women are drawn to males over whom they can feel superior. If they realize (and most of them do) that ‘Gaming’ is just manipulation and posturing, they’ll respond to what they perceive as weakness and a need to resort to such manouevers. By the way, they are very likely responding with facades of their own—e.g., faking orgasms, carrying on affairs behind the man’s back, &c.

    Questions the Gamecocks never answer:

    1. How do men aquire archetypes? By heredity or education?

    2. Why does Game perceive female behavior as a static, predictible constant; whereas males are divided into archetypes?

    3. Assuming Game works: what is the inherent value in feminised, American women that makes them worth the effort of learning/practicing such a system?

    4. Why aren’t similar theories and policies towards women advocated in non-feminist cultures where a genuine gender polarity exists?

  290. Rmaxd says:

    @Eric

    Those are typically moronic questions asked by gamers …

    I’ll throw you a bone …

    “2. Why does Game perceive female behavior as a static, predictible constant; whereas males are divided into archetypes?”

    Because a womans archetype is biological which is static, while male behaviour is competitive & resource based

  291. Rmaxd says:

    Btw that response answers all four of your questions, I could easily demolish your definitions too, but i dont engage in none-constructive conversations with anti-gamers

    Either bring something genuine to the table, which challenges game & i’ll be happy to demolish it …

  292. TFH says:

    Eric,

    Completely wrong. While what you wrote is not nearly as ignorant as what I have seen from others, it is still pretty bad.

    Game is merely recognizing that what makes men attractive to women is a learnable skill, and these skills enable some men to do much better than men who are wealthier/better-looking, etc.

    Why Game Works: It doesn’t.

    Bzzzt. Wrong answer. It has worked very well for me, which I have written about in detail many times in the past.

    Your pathetic dodge about the utility of Game in marriages and LTRs betrays your ignorance.

    Now, since I won’t sink to your level of dodging and pigheaded ignorance, I will answer your questions (which themselves betray an ignorance), mostly to benefit other readers :

    1. How do men aquire archetypes? By heredity or education?

    Mostly education. Game is as much about unlearning as learning. A man who is ugly/short can still do better with Game than without.

    2. Why does Game perceive female behavior as a static, predictible constant; whereas males are divided into archetypes?

    Men can rise to a different archetype with Game (as per 1)). Many betas have gone to alpha.

    3. Assuming Game works: what is the inherent value in feminised,

    It works on foreign women too. Plus, now you ONCE AGAIN arguing against relationships with women in general, rather than Game.

    4. Why aren’t similar theories and policies towards women advocated in non-feminist cultures where a genuine gender polarity exists?

    Many of the basics of Game WERE basic accepted truths advocated in many of these cultures. Men were taught how to deal with women quite well. Feminism effectively scrubbed this out.
    _______________________________________________

    People who grasp Game always do a much better job of pondering important questions, and act in much better faith, than the anti-game trolls, all of whom have been outed as lacking even basic knowledge of the subject.

  293. TFH says:

    Rmaxd,

    We don’t yet know if ‘Eric’ is not Kevin/GeorgeC.

  294. Rmaxd says:

    TFH,

    thanks for the reminder as usual, I forgot about the sock puppets …

    The moronic, weak questions fits their moronic m.o

    It’s a pity YBM fell in with these idiots, he’s an excellent poster …

  295. Yaboymatt says:

    Meh, I’m still around. I just find the debate exhausting. I don’t really care about game/anti-game anymore. I avoid the game sphere because it turns me into a very negative, bellicose person, which I’m really not at all.

  296. bonifacii says:

    @Buck:

    You probably missed the part where I explained that all the income you’re earning during the marriage BY LAW belongs to both spouses, fifty-fifty. So if you made $1M during the marriage and she walks away with $500K, she is not getting “half of your money” – she is not getting a single cent of your money.

    I was not aware of Hulk Hogan, but the case the way you described it looked suspicious, so I googled it: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/other-sports/hulk-hogan%E2%80%99s-wife-gets-70-percent-couples-assets-divorce – indeed, she got 70% of the money they had in bank (which actually translated to $7M – a pretty modest amount in celebrity divorces), but she got only 40% ownership in his companies (less than half) and no alimony. However this is a moot point because this wasn’t awarded by a judge – it was the result of settlement, and you can settle on whatever terms you want.

    This seem to be typical in the manosphere – most of the things people got “a case for anger” is something which is either completely made up, or had nothing to do with the law. I’ve been a member of several forums for a while, Lack of credibility is what I see as the main issue with the whole manosphere.

    And about the “wife is like a grenade” and having no control of the situation. We live in CA which is a community property and no-fault state (i.e. you can only file no-fault divorce in CA, and both spouses get half of the assets). She’s been working all the time we’ve been married, making a little less than me (which means no alimony), and all the assets we own we acquired during the marriage (so the half is indeed hers). So how exactly could I be “devastated”? What should I be outraged about?

  297. bonifacii says:

    @Twenty: I’ll answer your arguments but only if you apologize for the “moron”. Note that you didn’t even hear my point, and your link has nothing to do with it.

    @Eric: could you please point out where I’m making excuses for American women? I don’t see any shaming of SAHMs – I just see it as a situation which is very risky. As long as you accept this risk and can bear the losses, there is nothing wrong with that – but too many people want to take the risk but not bear the losses.

    @Anonymous Reader: this depends on the state. On federal level I can remember the right to petition for your spouse to immigrate in the USA, the right to file the taxes jointly (yeah I agree it sucks, but I can imagine the couples where it works well), the right for survivor Social Security benefits. You can read more here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

    Here in California we also have some funny benefits: for example if you got a baby and you’re married, you as a dad can take the family leave (which a paid leave, paid by the state).

  298. TFH says:

    bonifacii,

    You probably missed the part where I explained that all the income you’re earning during the marriage BY LAW belongs to both spouses, fifty-fifty.

    Why should the spouse who wants to leave, get money unilaterally? Why is custody given to the woman 85-90% of the time (as Dalrock has shown)? If a woman had to give up half her money simply because the husband found a younger, hotter chick, you would say that it was the greatest crime ever committed.

    BTW, are you female or male?

  299. hurp says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    Personally I’m with those who do not feel anger. And, as a guy, I believe the situation you described is pretty much man-made.

    as a guy

    He’s a male, TFH. At least he says he is.

  300. bonifacii says:

    @TFH: because BY LAW all assets acquired during marriage (with a few exceptions) belong to both spouses. So when a spouse wants to leave, the half of assets belongs to him or her. This is the case pretty much everywhere except the Islamic countries. And it happens the opposite way too, you can google a lot of cases where a chick was making more than her husband and is now paying him alimony (while he is probably fucking some young hottie). So no, I don’t see any crimes committed when a husband finds a younger and hotter chick and leaves, getting the half of assets. There is no crime in taking what is yours.

    Custody is more difficult question which I studied very little, so I’m still forming my opinion. So far, however, I can say this is not related to feminism at all as giving the custody to the mother was typical in the countries like Japan and Soviet Union; in fact I do not know a single country where the father was getting custody in even 50% of cases. Another reason is that the father may not want the custody; one of my buddies married a neighbor whore (idiot), got her pregnant, then learned some stuff about her past (I heard he was shown some great videos) and filed for divorce. Do you think he wanted any custody? Nope, he said “screw it” and flew away. So I’d be interested to see the statistics regarding how many men ASKED for custody vs got custody, but I guess it is impossible to get this kind of information.

    BTW I’m a dude.

  301. Joe Sheehy says:

    Someone who thinks day-care is fine for kids, that having a stay at home mom is stupid because she cares for children instead of earning an income, who sees the breaking of marriage vows is American freedom, and then says he’s not angry about the divorce laws for men situation, is someone who is fundamentally amoral. These kind of people don’t need to be argued with, they need to be dealt with.

    Someone who acts as though the gradual destruction of marriage have not been enabled by changes in the laws and the courts, and that things have not gotten progressively worse, is not worth having a discussion with. A lot of people have internalized a kind of feminine morality: one part of which is that make baldly false assertions, even privately, to people who know they’re lying, and expect to be taken seriously.

  302. TFH says:

    because BY LAW all assets acquired during marriage (with a few exceptions) belong to both spouses.

    You seem to assume all laws are fair. Perhaps you would have believed this about slavery in 1840.

    Sometimes laws are unfair. That is why the manosphere is a reaction to this, and is quickly growing in size (while the critics are not growing in size).

    And it happens the opposite way too, you can google a lot of cases where a chick was making more than her husband and is now paying him alimony

    Officially, 4% of women pay alimony, and 96% of men do. Your statement does not in any way support the bizarre notion that alimony is fair. If the number of women paying alimony rose much above that extremely low level, you bet that women would start screaming.

    Wedded Abyss is a great site that explains how unfair the law is to a) men, and b) the high earner (who is usually the man).
    http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

  303. bonifacii says:

    @Joe Sheehy:

    Yes, that’s exactly what I think. So what? I vote, and my vote worth no less than yours. See, you got someone here who has a different opinion but was willing to listen to your arguments. You had a chance to argue your opinion and possibly add a few people to support your cause as others may watch the discussion and agree with your arguments. So you had your chance and you screwed it with a completely idiotic “moral” argument. If you screwed up in such comfortable environment, I can only imagine how dramatically you would screw up if there was a televised public debate.

    This is a pretty good example why the so-called “manosphere” is pretty much doomed. How could you persuade courts, lawmakers or even your fellow voters when you behave like that? Really guys, with friends like Joe Sheehy you don’t even need enemies.

  304. Joe Sheehy says:

    It’s usually a good sign when your enemies on the left tell you you’re hurting your case with them. It’s very similar to women giving advice on how to deal with women.

  305. bonifacii says:

    @TFH: so you’re saying there is something wrong with the law? Could you shortly explain a) what exactly is wrong and b) your alternative? Please be specific, and please make sure we’re talking about the law; you seem to be an educated person so I’d like to get your opinion.

    Personally I see the law as fair (note that 50/50 ownership of marriage assets has a very long history, this is NOT recent development). In some situations it MAY result in the situation which is unfair. However this is not the problem with the law. Imagine the case when you and your buddy started a business together. Then you worked like a slave for years, made the business profitable and increased it worth to billions while your buddy did nothing at all. Then you decided to sell the company, and your buddy – who didn’t work a single day – gets half of that money. Is this situation fair? No. But is the problem here with the law? No, there is none; you created the company owned equally by both of you, so it is owned exactly as you created it.

    I do not see the manosphere getting more power. I don’t see the public court cases or the major press coverage, I don’t see legislators discussing it. Compare it, for example, with homo marriage – that crap, which you couldn’t even imagine being discussed ten years ago, before Lawrence vs Texas, had won several major court cases (Perry vs Brown is on its way to Supreme Court with California prop 8, and it was covered by the media extensively), has been openly discussed by the Congress and even the President thinks he made some brownie points by telling the DoJ not to defend DOMA. Obviously this all didn’t happen by itself, there was some serious movement behind it and a lot of people put a lot of effort into it. I don’t see anything like that happening with the manosphere. It is quite the opposite, it is full of marginals like Joe Sheehy who the reasonable people wouldn’t even want to talk to. Would I want to be part of something made of Joes Sheehys? Hell no, I’d rather join KKK.

    It is obvious why only 4% of women pay alimony – so far I never heard of a case where a woman would insist her husband should stay at home and not work, while the opposite still happens quite often. But the law is there, and it seems to work gender-neutral. Do you know a case when a non-working husband with working wife didn’t get alimony? Do you know a case when both spouses worked and made similar money and after divorce one of spouses had to pay alimony? Now if you’re a rich dude marrying some administrative assistant making 15K a year, why would you even do that? It is like getting into a partnership with someone who’ll do 10% of work and you’d do the remaining 90%. Why would you do that? Marry a chick who’s making twice more than you, and let’s her worry that you’d divorce her and not only take “half of her money” but she’ll also have to pay you alimony!

    And the “Wedded Abyss” – I checked it, and it doesn’t seem to discuss LAWS at all. You do know what laws are, right? Those things you find on Westlaw, law.cornell.edu and so on. So far it looks like a typical manosphere site making points out of nowhere. I didn’t see a single reference to the actual law there, and Cosmo and WSJ? Try that in the court.

  306. Joe Sheehy says:

    When they bring out the shaming language about “marginals” and the PC comparisons to the KKK – you know you’re hitting their weak points. Honest, decent people know that rewarding women for breaking their promises, punishing men for wanting the mothers of their children to be at home with them instead of sending them to daycare, is wrong. They also know that the stability of marriage and the equity of family law has gotten progressively worse. So if someone isn’t angry about it, pretends we’re imagining the changes – they are lacking moral sensibility and lacking honesty. They’re not worth talking to, but they’re worth exposing as it’s the same mentality that we deal with when dealing with feminism generally.

  307. Twenty says:

    @Twenty: I’ll answer your arguments but only if you apologize for the “moron”. Note that you didn’t even hear my point, and your link has nothing to do with it.

    I’ll apologize when you demonstrate that you’re not a moron. As far as I can tell, you are, You blabber on about “Marriage Contracts”, which don’t and can’t exist in any meaningful form, and then proceed to ignore those facts when they are are explained to you.

    Additionally, you write: “@TFH: so you’re saying there is something wrong with the law?”

    Anyone who’s spent even a few moments around the manosphere, and doesn’t realize that the crux of the MRA position is that hell yes there is something wrong with the law, is unquestionably not only a moron, but an ignoramus, a jackass, a fool, a dolt, and an idiot as well.

  308. bonifacii says:

    @Twenty: you’re not a worthy opponent. Too easy, and too stupid. *ignored*

  309. TFH says:

    @TFH: so you’re saying there is something wrong with the law?”

    er……..!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!

    The laws pertaining divorce (as well as rape, etc.) are THE most unjust laws to exist in the US in the last 140 years.

    Quite a few women in this ‘sphere also agree, btw.

    Did you read the Wedded Abyss link?

    Also, read Feminist Gulag by Stephen Baskerville. I have no use for someone who is not even a little troubled by this :

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary

  310. TFH says:

    bonificii,

    Could you shortly explain a) what exactly is wrong

    In short, women are being incentivized to cause *severe* harm to husbands and children, for only short term gains to themselves.

    b) your alternative?

    Make marriage laws back to what they were in 1960, you know, back when divorce rates were under 10% (usually justified), and the vast majority of children grew up with both biological parents.

    You seem extremely untroubled that a substantial percentage of children are seeing their parents divorce, which did not happen much before 1969.

    I do not see the manosphere getting more power.

    It is growing, and if it weren’t feminism is in serious trouble. Men are choosing to be pickup artists instead of husbands. Men are expatriating. Men are working less and paying less taxes.

    The demise of feminism is imminent, even if the manosphere does not overturn a single misandric law.

  311. bonifacii says:

    *SIGH*

    Is there at least one person who can talk about the actual LAW? Something like “I do not think CA Family Code Section 2090-2093 regarding out-of-state divorces is fair because of …”?
    Or, at least, an article which has references so I can check them? How do you know that the author didn’t just make all those things up?

  312. TFH says:

    Is there at least one person who can talk about the actual LAW?

    Oh my god. There are millions upon millions of broken homes for reasons explained 10 times over, and you want to reference the actual codes of law because someone as well-known as Stephen Baskerville might have ‘made it all up’.

    Well, two commenters here, Brendan and Doug1, are lawyers. Seek them out and ask them.

    Also, go to The Spearhead, and read up on WF Price’s harrowing journey to retain contact with his children, where he described the entire judicial process in detail.

  313. bonifacii says:

    @THF:
    a) Children are a different story, but they are irrelevant here since they never have had any say in a divorce. For the husband – the harm is quite easy to prevent. Don’t marry a girl who isn’t as rich as you are. If you’re rich, don’t marry a poor girl. This applies in pretty much every country around the world.

    b). So you believe the current situation was caused just by a change in the marriage laws? I don’t think so; in my opinion the main cause was the change in the society, as it became acceptable a) not to get married and b) divorced and getting married again. The second main cause was the anti-discrimination movement followed by the introduction of women into the workforce en masse. Your solution does not address any of those things. You know what will change if tomorrow we abolish no-fault divorce? Same women will file for divorce citing cruelty and domestic violence as the reasons. Other will fly to Mexico and get the divorce there, as it is not 1940s now, and Mexico is just three hours and $300 away.

    However the main cause is the societal change. Remember, laws always follow the societal change, not the way back. It is not possible to change the society by passing the laws; remember the Prohibition? Women nowadays want to work and have a career, and get fat and bitchy, and there is nothing you can do against that except not marrying them.

    It is growing, and if it weren’t feminism is in serious trouble.

    I don’t see it growing. I do not see manosphere attracting any legal or political attention. Even a single NOW which is absolutely pathetic and retarded, gets more attention than the whole manosphere together. I see nothing wrong with guys not marrying because they do not want to, or moving abroad because they want to. And the per capita GBP is higher now than it was in 1960, meaning we’re doing better.

  314. qrs says:

    And it happens the opposite way too, you can google a lot of cases where a chick was making more than her husband and is now paying him alimony …

    I did google and here is what I found: “[One] example was Gordon Clark, the husband of Los Angeles Prosecuting Attorney, Marcia Clark. She earned $180,000 a year, working 100+ hours a week, while he was a stay at home dad. Not only did he not get Alimony, but he was ordered to pay her child support, because she was given custody due to him being a poor example of a father.

  315. qrs says:

    “she was given custody due to him being a poor example of a father.”

    Sorry, that paragraph should have been in quotes: I was copy & pasting from the net, and not directly expressing an opinion.

  316. Just1X says:

    Re Hulk Hogan settlement.

    “However this is a moot point because this wasn’t awarded by a judge – it was the result of settlement, and you can settle on whatever terms you want.”

    What utter bollocks. You look at the fucked up divorce theft law and you try and get the best deal that you can in those circumstances. That doesn’t make it just, it means that it’s the best you can do given the unjust legal environment in which the deal is made.

    You argue like a woman

  317. Rmaxd says:

    Why are manginas like bonaficci, the most dense …

    Ridiculous arguements & complete & utter ignorance about the issue …

    Ignorance in spades …

  318. Suz says:

    “There is no crime in taking what is yours.”

    Bonifacii, you are so completely feminized you don’t even comprehend what a “marriage” is meant to be. Before feminism, a marriage was a separate entity; the assumption was, there WAS no “yours” or “mine.” All assets were presumed to belong to the family, not to the individual spouses. The spouse who left wasn’t entitled to half. The marriage was a shelter for the children, and all assets stayed with them, AND WITH THE PARENT WHO CHOSE TO FULFILL THE MARRIAGE COMMITMENT, not the parent who broke it. If a spouse wanted to leave, he or she forfeited “his/her” assets.

    You are seeing marriage as some sort of business arrangement where assets are owned equally by two semi-independent parties. Before feminism, there were no independent parties, male or female. If you decided to become independent, you were on your own. You left the family, you didn’t take the kids and leave your spouse.

    Your whole view of marriage is warped by the feminist perspective. A century or so ago the very idea of dividing marital assets 50/50, was anathema. Nobody was granted half of a family’s wealth as a reward for deserting that family. A person who would break up a family wasn’t considered fit to raise the children. Now all we care about is who OWNS the children.

    [D: Well put.]

  319. Buck says:

    @ Bonifacii,

    I can’t quote the chapter and verse of some obscure California statute for dividing marital assets. What I can comment on is 30 years in LE in a major Midwest city and the Domestic Violence laws and how this impacts marriage in America.
    The statutes are decidedly anti-male, and punishments are overwhelmingly directed against men.
    Women are pathological liars and very adroit at gaming the system. I cannot think of a single case of a guy screwing over some unsuspecting woman, but I can recall case after case of women doing that to guys.
    Even when caught in outright fraud, the States Attorneys usually WILL NOT approve false police report charges against women…as they don’t want to discourage the legitimate cases for coming forward.
    Just last week a woman who got a court order-of-protection, invited her hapless dupe husband over the the house ( prohibited by the order) to “reconcile” and when he arrived, she promptly called the police and had him arrested for violating the order. You see, the child custody had yet to be agreed to so now that he has an “arrest” record, she is in a better position to get custody (and the child support windfall).
    For years, street cops could use our bull-shit-o-meters and not be made patsies for some malicious liar, but the way the statutes are currently written, ALL of my discretion is removed, the Order-of-Protection contains “shall arrest” provisions.
    Like I said before, I am glad that you and your wife are happy…but just know that you could be living a similar nightmare any time she decides to pull the pin!

  320. Dalrock says:

    @bonifacii

    However this is a moot point because this wasn’t awarded by a judge – it was the result of settlement, and you can settle on whatever terms you want.

    This is what is known as: “Negotiating in the shadow of the law”

  321. slwerner says:

    bonifacii – ”You probably missed the part where I explained that all the income you’re earning during the marriage BY LAW belongs to both spouses, fifty-fifty. So if you made $1M during the marriage and she walks away with $500K, she is not getting “half of your money” – she is not getting a single cent of your money.”

    Typical SoCon & left-wing gender-feminist dodge. The issue is seldom based on just the division of marital assets, but rather more often, it is the continuing financial liability of one spouse (typically the man) to the other spouse (typically the women) either for “maintenance” [as there is some imagined right for her to be able to continue living in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed], or for alimony in the guise of child support [with no accountability to either her actual usage of those funds, nor to her willingness to abide by the courts order regarding the fathers rights to visitation].

    But do stick your head back in the sand (or was it in your anus?) and pretend that the issue of “divorce theft” is solely owing to the division of marital assets (which the wife hasn’t cleaned out and hidden ahead of time as part of her plan for maximizing her divorce outcome [did you happen to catch John’s story in the main above?])

    And, more BS from bonifacii – ”This seem to be typical in the manosphere – most of the things people got “a case for anger” is something which is either completely made up, or had nothing to do with the law.”

    No, the Manosphere deals with a great many issues regarding very real issues. And, of course, a liar such as yourself has to be careful to avoid the reality that Hogan’s wife, after she blew through the money from the settlement you refer to, has taken him back to court to try to get even more (targeting his business specifically). Even the best example you could come up with doesn’t really stand up, now does it?

    Bonifacii babbles on – ”We live in CA…”

    Oh geeze! Another A**hole who’s mistaken his personal anecdote as being representative of the typical situation in general.

    And really, just because your wife might not be eligible for alimony doesn’t mean that she could not “devastate” you all the same. Perhaps you might meet with the same situation that not a few men have faced, wherein their wives announce to them that they’ve found someone else, and he needs to move out so the new boyfriend can move in.

    Of course, the blind-sided husbands become angry at this – but this is simply part of their well planed-out downfall. That anger is used to get a legally binding court-ordered restraining order, which tosses them from the home (usually only with what ever they can carry out in one single supervised return to their (soon to be ex-)home).

    If the women in question isn’t in a position to be awarded either alimony or child support, she has no reason not to destroy her husband by luring him into violations of that court order (a invite over to try to discuss things, with her just waiting for the poor sap to arrive so that she can call the police to have him arrested, with all the subsequent predictable fallout affecting his employment, etc.

    Of course, a woman pedestalizing A-hole like yourself probably won’t bother to consider such an example (drawn from many actual accounts), and deduce that the guy must have brought it on himself due to his own bad acts.

  322. Joe Sheehy says:

    Suz, that was an excellent comment. If marriage were just a contract where you consign half your earnings to a woman without any benefit, no sane person would enter into it. It’s supposed to be a lot more than that, and the big fraud on men is that they’re being led to believe they’re entering into a traditional arrangement for life-long commitment and the rearing of children, when in fact this is often a false pretense and a form of fraud. The idea that half of a man’s earnings during a marriage, because he supports a wife at home, are not being stolen when a woman breaks her commitment (making her wedding vows a fraud) is sign of moral imbecility.

  323. HeligKo says:

    @joe, you are absolutely correct. It isn’t a normal contract. Every other contract I have been involved in contains penalties for violating the contract that the other party can exercise. Marriage typically does not have those clauses, and there is a whole subset of law and court rulings that has removed removed a woman’s incentive to honor the contract. The best interest of the child is the lever that has been used to justify these ruling, but they are not limited to couples with children once the ruling has been added to the pile of ruling used in tort law. Marriage is not a contract anymore. It is indentured servitude for the man.

  324. TFH says:

    BTW, on Hulk Hogan’s settlement, which some morons think was done in a way that he was happy about, note that :

    1) He seriously considered suicide, and had to be talked out of it by a friend.
    2) He went around saying ‘this is so unfair, I know how OJ felt’, given that his ex-wife was using his house and car to slut it up with other men.
    3) He was made poor, and was sleeping on his daughter’s couch. This, for a famous international celebrity who was a household name for 25 years.

    So using Hulk Hogan’s situation as an example of ‘divorce laws are not unfair’ is like using Stalin as an example of humanitarian work.

  325. TFH says:

    And it happens the opposite way too, you can google a lot of cases where a chick was making more than her husband and is now paying him alimony …

    Complete lie. The official stat is that 4% of alimony is paid by women, and 96% by men.

    That hardly qualifies as ‘you can Google lots of cases’ = laws are not unfair to men.

    Epic fail.

  326. bonifacii says:

    @Suz:

    All assets were presumed to belong to the family, not to the individual spouses. The spouse who left wasn’t entitled to half.

    Which years did it happen (and which state)?

  327. TFH says:

    Suz is a valuable person for us to have.

    As I have said before, women in the manosphere should focus on shaming manginas. This will confuse manginas on how they are supposed to supplicate, and will thus scatter and de-focus their misandry.

  328. bonifacii says:

    As I have said before, women in the manosphere should focus on shaming manginas.

    That’s not possible. At least here the manosphere seem to consist mostly of marginals. Which may actually be a good thing, as in the modern history they have never achieved anything.

  329. TFH says:

    That’s not possible. At least here the manosphere seem to consist mostly of marginals. Which may actually be a good thing, as in the modern history they have never achieved anything.

    This was already refuted by my earlier comment to you. Men refusing to comply with feminism will cause feminism to collapse quickly.

    And when manginas are doubling down, that is a sign the manosphere is winning. Your presence here is itself a sign that the manosphere is gaining traction at great speed.

    Suz, a woman, shamed you. You need to introspect on what you did wrong, and how you can work hard to make amends. She is a woman, and she disapproves of you.

    What is funny is that bonifacii actually believes that there has been no single injustice done by men via misandric laws. No divorce theft was unjustified, no law is ever unjust (as mentioned earlier, he probably would have supported slavery in 1840 as it was legal), and no rape accusation is ever false.

  330. Just1X says:

    Oooh look Boni has reached the “I have lost the arguments” stage of the trad-con pavanne with the manosphere and has moved into the insults stage. This is usually a brief pause on the way to the exit – good riddance you disingenuous buffoon.

  331. Brendan says:

    Bonifacii is a feminist — you’re not going to convince a feminist that there is anything amiss in American family law, that’s for certain. It’s a waste of time and energy.

  332. Jim says:

    Bonafacii wrote;

    “I can see that the divorce rate between 1980 and 2001 didn’t really change (in fact it was lower in 2001 than in 1980), which seems to indicate that introduction of no-fault divorce had no effect on divorce rates.”

    I’d take those divorce rate statistics with a grain of salt as they exclude data from California, Colorado, Indiana, and Louisiana. The CDC’s own stats also exclude those states and Hawaii and Georgia.
    Link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf

    In the case of California and Georgia both, have significant populations(roughly about 37 mil. & 10 million respectively). Apparently those states stopped recording divorce rates at one point in the past 20 years or so. If that data was available, would it affect the stats listed in your link? Maybe, maybe not. Considering that California has its own peculiar laws and rulings vis-a-vis alimony and the 10 year ‘established marriage’ rule cf. Kobe and Vanessa Bryant, the exclusion of those states divorce rate data very well could affect the statistics presented. Either way I’d like to know whether the data is truly accurate or whether we are well within Michael Mann and Phil Jones Climategate territory.

    Also, if one is going discuss divorce rates, then one also need examine marriage rates vis-a-vis divorce rates and even cohabitation rates and the overall demographic numbers. Oddly, the CDC does include the marriage rate data for all states, including those excluded for divorce rate data. Here’s the link; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/marriage_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf

    If that data is correct, then the marriage rate has gone down in every state across the board. That isn’t good on any level, for many reasons. I need to go, but will be back later to discuss these statistics.

  333. bonifacii says:

    @TFH:
    Men refusing to comply with feminism will cause feminism to collapse quickly.

    “feminism” is kind of a stupid buzzword which means diff things for diff people. What exactly is going to collapse? Women will stop working? The coverture laws get reinstated? No-fault divorce was not invention of feminism; it was invented in Soviet Russia around 100 years ago.

    Suz, a woman, shamed you. You need to introspect on what you did wrong, and how you can work hard to make amends.

    I wonder if you understand how ridiculously stupid your words sound? No, you probably do not.

    What is funny is that bonifacii actually believes that there has been no single injustice done by men via misandric laws.

    Please don’t put your words in my mouth.

  334. slwerner says:

    Just1X – ”good riddance you disingenuous buffoon.”

    Unfortunately he/she (I’m not entirely convinced that it was a man, based on the level of anti-male content of some of it’s comments) is probably just one of many who will take it upon themselves to come to various Manosphere sites to try to shame and discourage men from continuing to try to teach and spread the truth.

    It’s hard to gauge the actual growth of the Manosphere and it’s attendant influences upon socio-political discourse, because the primary way of measuring the success of a socio-political movement has historically been it’s ability to affect legal/governmental change.

    What isn’t as often noticed is the trend towards (mainstream) media picking up on the cues of a movement (such as we might call this very loose association of men and women beginning to voice concern about how misandry and feminism are accelerating the destruction of society).

    Yet, those examples are starting to show, whether or not our better organized opponents care to either notice or admit it.

    What they also will likely not admit is that is it the notice of the media which has cued many of them in to the very existence of the Manosphere.

    For quite a long period of time, the MRM/Manosphere was largely ignored. After many years, it got some notice, but even them, was mostly just mocked (as if men needed rights…). But now, we are collectively (MRM/PUA/MGTOW/Manosphere) starting to generate some fear.

    Feminists launched “The Good Man Project” in hopes of usurping that which they realized they could no longer silence. Being less astute, the SoCon/TradCon types are a bit later to the fight against the messages emanating from these parts of the internet.

    But, now it seems that they too have decided they must fight against the information flow. They just aren’t sure how to go about it. The “tactics” of the Manosphere are more akin to Guerilla Warfare as opposed to regular “army” of individuals who can gather together to produce public demonstration. The anonymity of the web allows individual MRA’s (or what ever you prefer to call us) to blend into society the way the Viet Cong hid within villages. And, like those Guerilla warriors, before engaging in direct combat (i.e. legal and government challenges like introducing legislation, and running candidates) we first seek to convert the dispossesses and the disillusioned, not unlike the approach taken in Guerilla warfare. The “red pill” (as a means of easier description of a much more complex re-education) is our “subversion” of the masses. We just present a “truth” – a collection of observations which have been hammered out through rigerous internal debate and testing against established facts – that anyone who bothers to investigate can grasp hold of.

    So, with few identifiable targets (named individuals) to try to attack and discredit, they are finding that they need to attack the ideas – or, more accurately, misrepresent those ideas, as they do not wish to address them directly and honestly, intuitively understanding that there is too much merit in those ideas such that addressing them will serve to further highlight truths and ideas which they do not want to have people consider.

    That is why we are now seeing this meme of “angry men” (you might think back to the day’s of the Clinton presidency when dissenters were routinely described as “angry white men” in an attempt to marginalize and undermine without addressing the actual issues raised) who just need to accept both responsibility of the damages of feminism and to learn to peacefully surrender to this gynocentric status quo.

    TFH accurately predicted this sort of doubling-down on attempts to shame (rather than address). Sadly (or, maybe it will turn out to actually be a good thing, as trolls like arid2385 and banifacii do serve to demonstrate the weakness of the opposition quite well) I see this leading to more frequent drive-by trolling attempts.

  335. Just1X says:

    @Dalrock

    any chance of a post on the typical tradso-con meets manosphere scenario?

    1) con breezes in claiming to have “THE TRUTH ™”
    2) Manosphere points out a few holes in “THE TRUTH(tm)”
    3) Unabashed con continues to throw out his ‘facts’ whilst ignoring any countering arguments he can’t handle.
    4) con realises that he can’t win any arguments here
    5) con shouts a few insults and…
    6) runs away

    at least that’s the pattern that I recognise. Works just fine for feminists too.

  336. slwerner says:

    Brendan – “Bonifacii is a feminist — you’re not going to convince a feminist that there is anything amiss in American family law…”

    Yes, he or she (?) is definitely a feminist, but I think this outs that poster as a feminist of the right-wing pseudo-Christian variety:

    “Compare it, for example, with homo marriage – that crap… – banificii (February 27, 2012 at 1:53 am) – not the words of the feminists on the political left.

    I’m torn about making the effort to take on trolls. On the one hand, I recognize the futility. On the other, the need to keep them from poisoning the waters.

  337. Jim says:

    Also, you mention loathsome wikipedia’s article on no-fault divorce. For a wikipedia article, really interesting and informative. If one considers that the former Soviet Union is undergoing a massive population decline, then I find it entirely telling that the country where ‘no fault’ divorce originated and has been the law of the land for the longest, greatest effect is Russia.

  338. TFH says:

    I wonder if you understand how ridiculously stupid your words sound? No, you probably do not.

    Projection. There are 6 people pointing out your inanities and logical hole, and no one on your side. You are sweating that a woman is displeased with you. You better make amends if you are to maintain your feminist cred.

    You have already proved that you think the law is not unfair to men, despite many comments schooling you.

  339. Just1X says:

    “What is funny is that bonifacii actually believes that there has been no single injustice done by men via misandric laws.

    Please don’t put your words in my mouth.”

    Oh how cool, so come on Banal, what injustices are you going to blame on women?

    I’m really interested as I’ve never seen a mangina go beyond a vague, arm waving “mistakes have been made” type gesture. It’s a great way to diagnose final stage cases of manginadom or white-knightedness; an absolute inability to blame any woman for anything about the state of society and marriage.

    Let’s see some names and crimes, I double dare you

  340. Anonymous Reader says:

    No-fault divorce was not invention of feminism; it was invented in Soviet Russia around 100 years ago.

    The Soviet Union was among other things a very big promoter of feminism from the start. If had bothered to read this site prior to commenting, you would have already learned this fact. If you knew anything about the history of feminism, you would have already learned this fact.

    Thus it appears you are posting from a position of ignorance.

  341. TFH says:

    I see this leading to more frequent drive-by trolling attempts.

    I think it is good, because they are getting worried. For all of bonificii’s pooh-poohing, his presence here itself is a sign that our enemies are getting nervous.

    I said this since the start of 2010, that manginas would double down. They have been. That is a sign that they have noticed that men are leaving the plantation.

  342. bonifacii says:

    @Jim: the statistics for CA/CO/IN/LA is only excluded after 1998 (and the population of those states is excluded too). Not good, but that’s the only statistics we got, and at least it makes it clear that since the introduction of no-fault divorce the divorce rate not only didn’t skyrocket, it barely changed.

    Regarding marriage rate – yes, they go down, but they go down pretty much everywhere around the world. Look, for example, at that: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Marriage_and_divorce_statistics – this is for EU.

  343. Anonymous Reader says:

    slwerner
    What isn’t as often noticed is the trend towards (mainstream) media picking up on the cues of a movement (such as we might call this very loose association of men and women beginning to voice concern about how misandry and feminism are accelerating the destruction of society).

    That reminds me, I’ve been meaning to post this link here for a couple of weeks. Joe Taranto in the Wall Street Journal may be the first mainstream media writer to include both the word and the concept of hypergamy in an MSM article. His article is entitled Girls Gon Hyper.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223342354850200.html

    An excerpt:
    That is where Coontz goes badly wrong. Any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that female hypergamy–more broadly defined as the drive to mate with dominant males–is an animal instinct, not a product of human culture, which can only restrain or direct it. Seemingly without realizing it, Coontz provides powerful anecdotal evidence in support of that assertion..

    This article is very much worth reading.

  344. TFH says:

    OK, final question for bonificii (since he dodges points that prove him wrong) :

    In America, over half of all children are not spending their first 18 years with both biological parents (41% are born to ‘single mothers’, and many others endure divorce of their parents).

    Is this :
    a) Mostly the fault of ‘deadbeat dads’?
    b) Mostly the fault of mothers who can profit by expelling the fathers, and are excused by it by a female-centric media and legal-system?

  345. Just1X says:

    Hey Banal,

    sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you” isn’t going to win any arguments.

    p.s. declining marriage stats are widely welcomed in the manosphere. Of course, the fewer mugs get married, the fewer there are to get divorced, sorry to piss on your bonfire

  346. Jim says:

    I disagree Bonifacii, the exclusion of those states make the statistic incomplete and thus, problematic in trying to argue that no-fault divorce had little or no effect. We’re dealing with the exclusion of states like California which has had significant population numbers and a set of divorce laws different from other states. As for referencing the divorce and marriage rate stats from Europe, really?

    If you hadn’t noticed Europe is undergoing a population decline, not even reaching replacement level. This is made even worse by the fact that the immigrants European nations have imported to make up for the children they are NOT having, via enacting anti-child, anti-family policies like no-fault divorce, abortion, overreaching social welfare state, etc., are mostly Muslim and largely detest European culture, democracy, etc. You think all those riots across France by ‘youths’ was merely pissed off French kids? Ha!!!

    Holding up Europe as an example to demonstrate that ‘hey, America isn’t the only place this is going on’ is a terrible argument. On the contrary, Europe should be held up as an example of cultural suicide and an example of what not to do.

  347. bonifacii says:

    @TFH:

    Projection. There are 6 people pointing out your inanities and logical hole, and no one on your side.

    That just supports my position that you have no arguments based on facts. The “six other people thinks like I do” argument is just pathetic and will bring you nowhere. Sure if all you want is to sit around the circle and tell each other how cool you are, this will do the thing. But if you want change, you’ll get nothing.

    You are sweating that a woman is displeased with you. You better make amends if you are to maintain your feminist cred.

    Relax, dude. Women are not all-powerful, don’t let feminists fool you. Be a man and stand up for your opinion if you have one. Don’t hide behind others.

    You have already proved that you think the law is not unfair to men, despite many comments schooling you.

    I haven’t seen yet a single law reference except the one made by Buck (but he lives in Midwest… my condolences). This is important since if you claim the LAWS are unfair and it is the problem, then the solution should come from changing the laws. Therefore you need to point out which laws needed to be changed, and how. Then it would be possible to estimate how realistic is to expect each change, as some could be done at the State legislature level, some may require Congress action, and some may even require overruling some prior Supreme Court precedents.
    For example, if you want to pass a law which would require a husband’s consent for an abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled in 1992 that such law is not constitutional; therefore implementing such law would require significantly more effort and the chance to have it actually passed is much lower.

    That’s the main problem with manosphere as I see it: I went through all the comments here, and all I see is a bunch of guys bitching and whining about how unfair the things are. But I don’t see anyone listing the specific, realistic goals which need to be achieved. Without the goals there could be no action plan. And without the action there will be no change.

  348. TFH says:

    But I don’t see anyone listing the specific, realistic goals which need to be achieved.

    Overturn the following laws :
    i) VAWA
    ii) Bradley Amendment
    iii) Abolish default mother custody.
    iv) No assets change hands on a no-fault basis.

    Deti wrote up a set of goals in more detail.

    Also, go to avoiceformen.com for more.

    Of course, you will pretend that no one pointed this out to you.

  349. Passer_By says:

    @bonifacci

    “For example, if you want to pass a law which would require a husband’s consent for an abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled in 1992 that such law is not constitutional;”

    Yet, if I walk into a urologist’s office in California seeking only a vasectomy (where no other life is involved), I believe he will hand me a consent to be completed by my spouse. At least that’s what happened when I inquired about 5 years ago.

  350. Just1X says:

    “but he lives in Midwest… my condolences”

    this isn’t a comment made by a straight guy

  351. slwerner says:

    banificii – “the solution should come from changing the laws. Therefore you need to point out which laws needed to be changed, and how. “

    It’s been done…extensively. You really are quite unaware of the Manosphere.

    The main thrust of the Manosphere has been to try to educate, to demonstrate the need for such reforms, so that adequate support for such legal measure will ever have a chance.

    One of the biggest obstacles we keep running into is ass-clowns who are all to ready and willing to thrown men under the bus to try to thwart that effort. You know the type. They keep claiming that there are no anti-male issues, no anti-male laws, no anti-male courts, and that men are just making up things to complain about.

    They’d prefer that we just lay down our arms, and surrender to the new and improved gynocentrism, remain silent, and get back to serving women (as per God’s divine design?).

  352. Jim says:

    Bonafacii wrote;

    “the statistics for CA/CO/IN/LA is only excluded after 1998 (and the population of those states is excluded too).”

    Actually, Indiana has never collected data for divorce, link: http://www.stats.indiana.edu/marriage/

    California as far as I can tell stopped sometime in the 1980′s, So the divorce numbers over this period for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota are incomplete as it appears that the CDC, and others lazily only used recent and selective data, not complete current data, if available at all. Georgia’s numbers appear to be from 2003, Hawaii’s from 2002, Louisiana’s from 2003 and Minnesota’s from 2004.

    The more one examines the data, the more suspect it appears.Perhaps Disraeli/Twain were correct, ‘there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics.’

  353. Brendan says:

    Yes, a “conservative Christian feminist”. Almost *all* conservative Christians are de facto feminists, as we know well enough.

  354. Dalrock says:

    The explosion in divorce occurred primarily in the 1970s and divorce rates actually peaked in the 80s. See figure 1 in this paper. The timing of the explosion fits with the introduction of no fault divorce. Since then we have seen groups at the highest risk of divorce being far less likely to marry (black women, less educated white women). Men are adjusting to the reality of the new marriage arrangement but it is happening very slowly and (as expected) on the margins.

  355. Dalrock says:

    @bonifacii

    You know what will change if tomorrow we abolish no-fault divorce? Same women will file for divorce citing cruelty and domestic violence as the reasons. Other will fly to Mexico and get the divorce there, as it is not 1940s now, and Mexico is just three hours and $300 away.

    Your comment about Mexico is one of the more absurd things I’ve read in quite a long time, and it shows that you have no idea what the issue is really about. Unless Mexico is going to send Federales to seize the man’s assets and children, your three hour $300 solution for would be frivolous divorcées has no meaning. Women don’t need a legal divorce to abandon their obligations. They need it to steal the kids and the assets/income.

  356. TFH says:

    I notice bonificii is dodging the point blank question :

    In America, over half of all children are not spending their first 18 years with both biological parents (41% are born to ‘single mothers’, and many others endure divorce of their parents).

    Is this :
    a) Mostly the fault of ‘deadbeat dads’?
    b) Mostly the fault of mothers who can profit by expelling the fathers, and are excused by it by a female-centric media and legal-system?

  357. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    “Nobody was granted half of a family’s wealth as a reward for deserting that family. A person who would break up a family wasn’t considered fit to raise the children. Now all we care about is who OWNS the children.”

    Epic comment … excellent post

  358. TFH says:

    I think I am going to adhere to a new rule, and invite other regulars to do the same.

    We keep seeing some mangina or Christo-feminist come in here, and then 5-6 heavies all waste time trying to educate the fool. The person disappears in a day anyway. Zed talked about this, how one troll can tie down multiple people from our side.

    No more for me. I will not respond to a new mangina/feminist unless they are still here after 3 days. The chance that these are all an elaborate prank by the same person (given how perfectly each troll fits the various archetypes to almost a perfect degree), will also get filtered out with this 3-day waiting period.

    In short : don’t waste your time on manginas/feminists if they are going to vanish in a day anyway. Wait until they are *begging* for attention (day 3).

  359. Rmaxd says:

    Is bonaficci going to address this question?

    TFH knocked your statement out of the park, irrefutably owned …

    “And it happens the opposite way too, you can google a lot of cases where a chick was making more than her husband and is now paying him alimony …

    Complete lie. The official stat is that 4% of alimony is paid by women, and 96% by men.

    That hardly qualifies as ‘you can Google lots of cases’ = laws are not unfair to men. “

  360. bonifacii says:

    @Dalrock: but the same figure has an interesting peak around 1950, which obviously cannot be explained by a no-fault divorce. Also it is clear that the marriage/divorce rate trend peaked 30 years ago and is now going down; the last ten years it goes down without ever going up – and the no-fault divorce is still there, how would you explain it? Yes, less people get married, but even less of those who got married get divorced – and this supposed to be a good thing, right?

    And regarding Mexican divorce, yeah you’re right that it makes no sense if there are valuable assets to split, or if there are children. That may have been a case in 80s, but nowadays I wonder if the debt is what a lot of couples really split.

  361. bonifacii says:

    @TFH: the answer to your question is that I don’t know whose fault is it. I don’t even know if your statistic is accurate as you didn’t refer any source. But I do know that looking for faults is a great way to fix nothing and achieve nothing. Especially if the person you blame doesn’t agree with your opinion.

  362. bonifacii says:

    @Passer_By: there is no law in California which requires spousal consent for vasectomy.

  363. Just1X says:

    “But I do know that looking for faults is a great way to fix nothing and achieve nothing.”

    mmmmmm smells like religion; ‘worthy’, ‘deep’, shaming, posturing and doesn’t get anyone anywhere

    Reminds me ofTthe Sphinx in The Mystery Men, he was a pompous twat as well.

  364. bonifacii says:

    @TFH:

    We keep seeing some mangina or Christo-feminist come in here, and then 5-6 heavies all waste time trying to educate the fool.

    Sure, you can call a fool everyone who doesn’t blindly agree with your theories. You can call fools the voters who wouldn’t want to sign up or vote for your proposed amendments. You can call fools the legislators who won’t bring them up and you can call fools judges who will ask you the clarifications. And you know what? This will bring you nowhere. No surprise the last attempt to bring down Bradley amendment died back in 2006, there were no significant constitutional challenges to VAWA, and you’re not getting attention of even the State lawmakers.

  365. TFH says:

    the answer to your question is that I don’t know whose fault is it.

    OK, then go read up across the ‘sphere for the next 30 days. The premise of this sphere is that it is usually the woman’s fault, since single motherhood simply would not happen without massive government subsidy and media whitewashing.

    As far as a ‘source’, I linked to Wedded Abyss and other sources. Dalrock has a graph in this original post saying that 83% of custody goes to women (which means the child is being used as a pawn via which to extract financial payments from the man).

    If you are not troubled by this, and you do not even have the intellectual curiosity to learn more, most people here have no use for you.

  366. slwerner says:

    bonificii – “but the same figure has an interesting peak around 1950, which obviously cannot be explained by a no-fault divorce.”

    Not to encourage you, as you are obviously nothing more than a disingenuous troll intent upon being disruptive, but this one is so damned obvious – that spike is quite discernibly NOT around 1950, but 3-4 years prior – the time at which GI’s were returning en mass from WWII deployments, and marriages to “war brides” were dissolving. I hate to try to use fictional accounts such as those provided by movies to demonstrate points, but… have you ever seen the movie “A Walk In The Clouds”?

    And yes, with few people marrying, one would expect that those who continue to do so would be primarily those who are more serious about marriage. But, what’s the real point?

    The laws are still decidedly anti-male. That the divorce rate is declining makes no specific suggestion with regard to no-fault divorce, but the rapid uptick following it’s adaptation certainly does.

    But, I imagine you know that quite well, and are just doing your damnedest to be an ass.

  367. TFH says:

    But, I imagine you know that quite well, and are just doing your damnedest to be an ass.

    Hence my 3-day rule that I am going to attempt to adhere to. These trolls just vanish in a day anyway. Why let them tie up 6 of us, when they don’t contribute anything of value? As Zed has said many times…..

  368. hurp says:

    Also it is clear that the marriage/divorce rate trend peaked 30 years ago and is now going down; the last ten years it goes down without ever going up

    I’m still interested in this, personally. Dalrock, do you have any data on why the divorce rate has declined since the 1980s rather than increased? Is it because of the “marriage strike” (i.e fewer men getting married, so fewer men get divorced) or is there something else going on?

  369. bonifacii says:

    @TFH:
    OK, then go read up across the ‘sphere for the next 30 days. The premise of this sphere is that it is usually the woman’s fault

    No need to read anything, I could guess that. But this is a moot point as it is about bitching and not about fixing anything.

    Have you ever been to Philippines? There is no divorce. No-fault, at fault – nothing, you cannot divorce there. There is also pretty much no child support, and the government support is minuscule at best. So if a girl gets pregnant outside the marriage, she’s basically on her own. Add to that that this is a heavily religious country. So no massive government subsidy and media whitewashing – according to manosphere pretty much every kid should live in a family there.

    Too bad the real world data doesn’t match this. There is A LOT of single moms there; there is no official statistics but I’ve seen numbers ranging from 40% to 70%. Roughly one chick out of three I talked to was a single mom. How do you explain that?

  370. bonifacii says:

    @Jim:

    - Census has the data for all the states, but it is pretty recent, and their methodology is different, so it cannot be really compared with other stats (for example, an Indian married in India and divorced in the US will be properly counted by Census but not counted by the State – and pretty much every Indian I know gets married in India because of traditions)

    - Regarding Soviet Union, you may want to check the statistics about the population growth. Look at that graph for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_former_USSR.PNG – seems pretty steady growth to me for the country which survived the revolution, two wars and had zero immigration.

    @hurp: No, this is not because of the “marriage strike”, because the divorce rate per marriage graph is going down too – so even though there are fewer marriages, there are much fewer divorces. One who isn’t too attached to agenda could even say that since 1980 the people seem to execute the better judgment, and choose their partner more carefully.

  371. Eric says:

    THF/Rmaxd:
    Aside from some of the dubious assertions you both made, I’m going to retry with these observations:

    The place where you all collapse is this idea that THF mentioned, that ‘Game makes men attractive to women.”

    Dudes; women in our culture are CONDITIONED TO HATE AND COMPETE AGAINST MEN. WE ARE NEVER ‘ATTRACTIVE’ TO THEM. They see all men—all of us—as an undifferentiated conglomeration of subhumans. There’s no difference to any of them between a street bum and a rich, handsome NFL quarterback, or any other male in between.

    The second place where you all go wrong is assuming that, somehow, biology is stronger in women than in men; and that all of the feminist smog has absolutely no effect on them. Wrong again. People can, in fact, be programmed to go against their own instincts. Women have an instinct to be mothers—what does the fact that the abortion rate is nearly keeping pace with reproduction tell you? Women have an instinct to submit to a strong, dominant male. I’ve seen plenty of strong, dominant males dumped for complete losers. In fact, I’ve seen men go from being normal guys to total assholes—and their success (if you can call it that) with women has increased exponentially. Same guys, just behaving worse. It’s obvious that their negativity is what women find appealing.

    You can’t put a round peg into a square hole, here, guys. Feminism is an illogical system that is anti-social and anti-cultural by its nature. Trying to ‘conform’ to it is a waste of time.

    And honestly—don’t you (and most other men) really deserve better? Why should we waste our energies trying to ‘game’ or otherwise ‘win over’ people who don’t care about us in the least? Our cultures and venues provide feminine material worthy of your efforts. We men shouldn’t be at the mercy of a dysfunctional culture that requires things like ‘game’ or ‘PUA bootcamps’ or ‘relationship coaching’ or any of this other crap. Offer yourselves as you are and stand or fall on your own merits with women—that’s how rational cultures operate.

  372. Eric says:

    bonifacii:
    I think you’re actually half-right about the ineffectuality of trying to change the laws; and although you haven’t said so directly, you seem to understand that the laws cannot be changed because ours is primarily a puritanical, sexually-repressed, feminocentric culture. But that doesn’t mean men should do nothing.

    The men’s movement is about on the same level as the French Underground during WW2. We’re not strong enough to fight our Feminazi Occupiers directly; but passive resistance and counter-intelligence is making its effects felt. More and more men are rejecting the US relationship scene altogether—either through MGTOW or pursuing non-American women. I’ve seen both trends even among younger men; whom statistics show, are increasingly less and less interested in marriage (except, again, where the female is foreign-born).

    If current trends continue, these laws won’t even need to fought; they simply will fall into such irrelevance that enforcement no longer becomes an issue.

    On the issue of SAHMs, however, the trend is moving diametrically opposed to what you are saying. It’s true that the average Amerobitch recoils at the idea of giving her ‘independence’ and ‘girl power’ —just for the sake of actually contributing anything of substance to a marriage! But, fortunately, not every woman was born into or educated by our sick culture. And those women aren’t so susceptible to shaming as to give up their feminine qualities.

  373. hurp says:

    so even though there are fewer marriages, there are much fewer divorces.
    Maybe…you’re referring to the chart in the page Dalrock linked to, right? A Manosphere guy could argue that the drop in divorces is due to more men learning about Game and saving their marriages that way, though. From what I hear Mr. Athol Kay’s book has done quite well. Still, I did ask Dalrock, so it would be impolite of me if I didn’t wait for his answer.

    BTW, bonifacii, random question, but how long have you been around here? Is this the first post of Dalrock’s you’ve commented on? What brings you to this part of the Internet? IMO you’re at least trying to base your arguments on statistics and data, so I can credit you for that even if the others here aren’t convinced.

  374. Jim says:

    Bonfacii wrote;

    “the same figure has an interesting peak around 1950, which obviously cannot be explained by a no-fault divorce.”

    Actually, go back a little further on the previous page. This sentence clarifies the graph;
    “The divorce rate fell during the Depression and spiked following World War II.”

    WWII had many consequences. Not all of them positive. Historian John Costello documented some of these in his books, ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ (Note I’m reprinting part of a post I left on rationale male) and the following may help indicate what was going on when all of those American servicemen came back to America and the divorce rate spiked;

    ““Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out of wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher.”

    and;

    “One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

    These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children…”

    American and British serviceman coming back to their sweethearts found out all too often, their wives and girlfriends weren’t quite as devoted as they previously thought thus, the spike in divorce rates. Yet, back in that era there were widely accepted social prohibitions based on shame and social castigation that mitigated infidelity and illegitimacy. Now? Not even close, blown out of the water by Feminism. Iraq and Afghanistan, albeit smaller conflicts than WWII, have also seen similar trends by the soldiers WAGS.

    Then you wrote “Census has the data for all the states, but it is pretty recent, and their methodology is different..” the problem is the data is different and incomplete over several decades because it excludes several states with significant populations like California and Georgia, so determining an accurate divorce rate is problematic. If the same exclusion of data was applied to other statistical measures, let’s say the murder rate, it would be like using every US state, but excluding the murder rates of California, Georgia, Minnesota, Louisiana, Indiana, and Colorado. That would be just as problematic in determining an accurate measure. It might prove similar to the murder rates of other states, it might not. Without the inclusion of those datapoints, it’s inconclusive. Ditto for divorce rates.

    :”Regarding Soviet Union, you may want to check the statistics about the population growth. Look at that graph for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_former_USSR.PNG – seems pretty steady growth to me for the country which survived the revolution, two wars and had zero immigration.”

    Firstly, you need to examine the population rates in Russia, not just the former Soviet states and then compare them. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_Russia.PNG As you can see, the population is still going down, not as severely as immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but still going down nonetheless.

    Secondly, the population growth after WWII in Russia is highly deceptive and had many consequences of its own. The collapse of the Soviet healthcare system was devastating, and as such Russia has seen a huge infection rate of TB, AIDS, alcoholism drug abuse-including a nasty cheap drug called ‘Krocodil’. THe long term prognosis for the Russia population is pretty bleak. Spengler at the Asia Times put it more succinctly than I have;

    “…a few observations about Russia’s demographic predicament are pertinent. The United Nations publishes population projections for Russia up to 2050, and I have extended these to 2100. If the UN demographers are correct, Russia’s adult population will fall from about 90 million today to only 20 million by the end of the century.

    Russia is the only country where abortions are more numerous than live births, a devastating gauge of national despair.

    Under Putin, the Russian government introduced an ambitious natalist program to encourage Russian women to have children. As he warned in his 2006 state of the union address, “You know that our country’s population is declining by an average of almost 700,000 people a year. We have raised this issue on many occasions but have for the most part done very little to address it … First, we need to lower the death rate. Second, we need an effective migration policy. And third, we need to increase the birth rate.”

    Russia’s birth rate has risen slightly during the past several years, perhaps in response to Putin’s natalism, but demographers observe that the number of Russian women of childbearing age is about to fall off a cliff. No matter how much the birth rate improves, the sharp fall in the number of prospective mothers will depress the number of births.

    UN forecasts show the number of Russians aged 20-29 falling from 25 million today to only 10 million by 2040.

    Russia, in other words, has passed the point of no return in terms of fertility. Although roughly four-fifths of the population of the Russian Federation is considered ethnic Russians, fertility is much higher among the Muslim minorities in Central Asia. Some demographers predict a Muslim majority in Russia by 2040, and by mid-century at the latest…Link w/graphs: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html

  375. slwerner says:

    Now, I know that this bonificii has indicated that ”I’m a dude”, but am I the only one for whom it just doesn’t ring true?

    I may be completely mistaken, but the comments by this poster have seemed to me to be rather gynocentric in their overall content, with certain passages leaving me to wonder if a man would really say it that way. Especially those instances where there4 seems to be a lot of gloating about the lack of political gains thus far (like a page right out of Hanna Rosin’s playbook?).

    Now, we come to this late post which seems to be completely consumed by a sudden deep concern for the plight of single women there:

    ”Have you ever been to Philippines? There is no divorce. No-fault, at fault – nothing, you cannot divorce there. There is also pretty much no child support, and the government support is minuscule at best. So if a girl gets pregnant outside the marriage, she’s basically on her own. Add to that that this is a heavily religious country. So no massive government subsidy and media whitewashing – according to manosphere pretty much every kid should live in a family there.
    Too bad the real world data doesn’t match this. There is A LOT of single moms there; there is no official statistics but I’ve seen numbers ranging from 40% to 70%. “

    Now, I’m not meaning to simply dismiss the issues of single mothers in third world countries, but I think we all know that this is largely a matter of women faced with a scarcity of resources reverting back to what woman have done for ages – prostitution (there’s a good reason it’s known as the oldest profession) – but without easy access to western contraception. The entirely predictable result will be many unwed mothers.

    It just seems to me that bonficii looks at what seems an obvious problem through a gynocentric lens, and seems to be trying to shame us into caring more about the plight of some women in a distant locale as opposed to the plight of young men here at home (in the western world). Sure seems a female point of view to me.

    But, here’s the real kicker in that comments final sentence:

    ”Roughly one chick out of three I talked to was a single mom.”

    Okay, what “dude” goes around talking to a lot of single mothers?

    I’m sorry, but to me, this just screams, “I’m a woman”.

    Again, may be it’s just me, but… just sayin’

  376. Rmaxd says:

    @jim

    Excellent post, proving women dont know how to love men, even though the men are dying & risking their lives for ‘em, theyre still screwing around & whoring around with the local alphas

    Also you’re post proves shame & social pressure, has never worked on women, they have & always will be whores

    You left out an important part of WW2, the vast majority of women didnt work, yes some women went off to work in some factory, but the vast majority of women did not work in WW2

    What you have to realise WW2 gave women the FIRST taste of welfare, for the first time they were independent of men, this allowed them the independence to screw around with the alphas & thugs, without the economic penalties of ostracism from men

    Whenever you give women welfare, you immediately devalue the sexuality of beta men …

  377. TFH says:

    slwerner,

    Manginas are like that. That is why they can fairly be called the third gender.

  378. christiankp says:

    Above I wrote:
    “When a woman takes out a divorce from the father of her children she is retracting from the exchanges in moral economy at a point when she have gained and not reciprocated”

    That means that there should be laws against women taking out divorce and that a woman taking out divorce should be penalized.

  379. Twenty says:

    Too bad the real world data doesn’t match this. There is A LOT of single moms there; there is no official statistics but I’ve seen numbers ranging from 40% to 70%. Roughly one chick out of three I talked to was a single mom.

    Mr. Social Science on the march. Posted without further comment.

  380. bonifacii says:

    @Eric:

    No, it is obvious that doing nothing brings you nowhere. However before doing something two things need to be cleared out: the goals and the plan. That is shitty, but manosphere has a lot to learn from fags who just in ten years got amazing political power.

    French Resistance is a good example. Now think of it: did they win the WWII? Did they even have a viable chance to win the war? Of course not. They were just PITA for Nazis, no less but no more.

    This is not how the society changes. No major societal change came through resistance or counter-intelligence. Think about it: did abolition of slavery happen this way? Did desegregation happen this way? Did the fucking feminism happen this way? No it didn’t. It happened via legislations, demonstrations, high-profile court cases, even civil unrest, and involved the people who were smart enough to convert a lot of others to support their ideas. Recently homos followed exactly the same route. Now maybe this is not the only route which would work, but this was tried and tested by – let’s say it – a lot of very unpopular groups.

    Now let’s see what TFH described as a typical scenario: a new person comes in, 5-6 marginals call him moron and idiot and he leaves. It amazes me that some people are so blind that they think it is actually good scenario. Think of it: what kind of idea that person who left got about the manosphrere in general? Could you imagine him being supportive of the case? Would he donate to the legal defense fund? Would he call the legislators when an important bill is discussed? Of course not. The person goes from being passive against manosphere to being aggressive; if you were polite and explained your position, he might have stay neutral or even accept it, and now his opinion about you is very negative. You’re in position right now where you need all the help you could possibly get – and the way TFH described it you’re throwing it all away.

    And regarding SAHMs I see the trend moving away from them. For example in a lot of good areas here in CA you simply cannot afford to live if you have only one income. Sure this may not be a problem for some shithole place like Arkansas, but who wants to live there?

  381. bonifacii says:

    @hurp: Yes, I’m referring to the same Figure 1. And yes, it is possible to argument it this way but it is a moot point, because the main premise – despite the existence of no-fault divorce the divorce rates are steady going down – is still there, and therefore it is hard to argue that existence of no-fault divorce correlates with the divorce rates.

    I’ve read this blog for a while but typically I never read comments as Google Currents doesn’t show them. This was the first time I actually read the comments.

  382. bonifacii says:

    @jim: Thanks for the explanation about 50s, it sounds reasonable.

    Yes, the pre-Census data is not perfect. But that’s all we have, so the choice is between using no data or using the data which is not perfect. And if you choose not to use the data then there could be no saying whether the divorce rate is up comparing to 60s or not, because it is also based on incomplete data. IMHO it is better to use the incomplete data.

    I don’t understand your point about Russia. The no-fault divorce was introduced in Soviet Union back in 1917 or so, and has been always in effect. However, as you see on the graph, the population growth was quite impressive. Indeed it is now declining, but there were no change in the divorce laws in Russia, which again means that having a no-fault divorce has no effect on the population growth. Also note that the trend was indeed slowing down and was reversed in 2011 – according to Wiki, “In 2011, the population of Russia grew by 160,000 people”, so I’d take the UN report with the grain of salt.

    My point, however, is that I do not see any direct effect the presence of no-fault divorce would have on the population growth or the marriage/divorce rates. It is speculation at best, and I wouldn’t submit something like that as amicus brief.

  383. Joe Sheehy says:

    “The no-fault divorce was introduced in Soviet Union back in 1917 or so, and has been always in effect. However, as you see on the graph, the population growth was quite impressive.”

    That demographics take time to shift. They don’t turn on a dime. In fact Stalin outlawed abortion in the 1930s. It really is a form of insanity or dishonesty to minimize the disastrous long term effects of Communism and its policies (like having a huge abortion rate for most of its history, partially following Marxist ideas on marriage) on demographics, by looking only at the early decades after the revolution, before the changes in policy could seriously effect demographic trends.

  384. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Sure this may not be a problem for some shithole place like Arkansas, but who wants to live there?”

    This is how snot-nosed misandric people think: attacking stay at home Moms by disparaging people who live in other parts of the country, being proud of the fact he lives in a place where a single wage cannot support a family. First he’s defending Communism’s effects on demographics, then he calls a whole state of people a “shit-hole” – and acts as though it’s a good thing that people in California can’t afford to have a wife raise their children.

    Sick and malevolent snobbery is the norm these days.

  385. Brendan says:

    Sleuthing a bit about our new troll:

    1. The writer is not a native English speaker. Writes fairly well for a non-native speaker, but the repeated use of misplaced articles gives it away.

    2. The writer is someone who has spent some time in the Philippines, and more than a casual amount of time. Filipino? Maybe, but maybe not.

    3. The writer could be female, but my guess based on the drivel served up so far, is mangina rather than female.

    Best guess: non-native speaker of English resident in California either from the Philippines or married to someone from the Philippines. Likely Roman Catholic. Likely considers himself a conservative Roman Catholic (uses word “fags” as a kind of street cred like a certain type of conservative does), which means he is almost certainly a de facto feminist when it comes to everything other than artificial birth control and abortion.

  386. Just1X says:

    @Joe

    I think he expects everyone to fall in behind him like sheep and let him shepherd us to join the fight on ‘his’ side. You know, the side that has lost all control over its own chuch’s teachings. Somehow his blindness to reality allows him to ‘overlook’ this fact (amoungst many others), he’ll get us there, to glory. We just need to drop our silly anger at the blatant misandry that he so clearly ignores as inconvenient.

    These cons have the weakest minds this side of the XY / XX border. You don’t win arguments by ignoring all the inconvenient facts, this thread is littered with your failed drivel. People notice this Boni.

    Boni, we’ve seen it ALL before, you’re wasting your time. Your only memorial here will be another lost set of pseudo-intellectual arguments.

  387. Suz says:

    Bonnie,
    1.) “All assets were presumed to belong to the family, not to the individual spouses. The spouse who left wasn’t entitled to half. *** Which years did it happen (and which state)?”

    Does my refusal to provide irrelevant “data” mean it’s untrue?

    2.) Contradict yourself much? “This is not how the society changes. No major societal change came through resistance or counter-intelligence. Think about it: did abolition of slavery happen this way? Did desegregation happen this way? Did the fucking feminism happen this way? No it didn’t. It happened via legislations, demonstrations, high-profile court cases, even civil unrest, and involved the people who were smart enough to convert a lot of others to support their ideas.”

    “demonstrations, high-profile court cases, even civil unrest, ” Pleas explain how this is NOT “resistance or counter-intelligence.” Do you think the legislation occurred spontaneously in a vacuum?

    Duh.

  388. HeligKo says:

    I don’t see no fault as the problem with increased divorce rates, but more the problem with the divorce theft. When either can leave for any reason, and still have equal or better chance at the assets and children combined with the courts interpretation of the best interest of the children, you end up with the divorce theft that is happening. When a woman or man wanted to leave in the past, they generally had to abandon their family or negotiate their way out, leaving the party being left with the most power. This is how most legal contracts work. Now its I am done, and I am taking as much I can get. This in any other is contract constitutes theft of some sort.

  389. Anon says:

    Dalrock, you hooked me on this site because of your “Selling Divorce” series. It was so on the mark! Thank you for caring and sharing.

    I’m a divorced dad who lost a lot in my divorce, the biggest loss being my family, of course. When I say ‘family’, I’m not talking about my kids, because I have 50% custody. What I mean is that we had a family before, and now we have two half families, living in two houses. It is not the same. It is so much healthier to have a parenting partnership than to have two single parents. It is harder on both of us, and despite us trying our hardest, it is still very damaging to the kids and their futures.

    Before she pulled the plug, we had a good relationship, but my wife was unhappy. I’m not going to get into the details, but we used to talk all the time about how she could be happier… I worked very hard to empathize with and accommodate her because I cared very deeply. Maybe she needed someone more alpha… I’ll never know, I really just wanted to support my family and help them all find happiness in our lives together.

    In the end, my ex wife asked for a divorce so that she could “find herself”. She could have done that in our marriage, but in her soul searching process, the overwhelming message in movies, books, and articles that she read was that divorce was the answer. She read all about how she would become empowered and feel stronger and better, how men are nothing but trouble and how shedding your man will feel like a wonderful renaissance. In the end this promise was too tempting for her, although reality didn’t turn out the way she was told it would. Now, 4 years later, she’s financially worse off, working in a job she hates, with no partner to help her emotionally or otherwise. She’s lonely, confused, and being treated for depression. At least she has a job.

    I’m also worse off. I lost my family and a lot of money because of her search for herself. Thank God I didn’t lose my kids any more than I did. The promoters of divorce have painted men as the perpetual villain in every single one of life’s endeavors. It hurts men the most, but there is significant collateral damage. How ironic is it that they ask “where are all the good men”? The answer is that they are all around you, if you could only find an antidote for the poison that’s been put into your mind!

  390. HeligKo says:

    @anon. Well said. I think your story speaks for a lot of men. It certainly resonates with me.

  391. Dalrock says:

    @hurp

    I’m still interested in this, personally. Dalrock, do you have any data on why the divorce rate has declined since the 1980s rather than increased? Is it because of the “marriage strike” (i.e fewer men getting married, so fewer men get divorced) or is there something else going on?

    I didn’t see this until you referenced it in a later comment. I’m not aware of any hard data on exactly why, but a number of theories make sense and fit with the data. One is that younger generations devastated by their parent’s generations’ high divorce rates understood the real cost better. There was a piece in the WSJ not too long ago by a Gen Xer arguing this, although she wrote this as a prelude to announcing her own frivolous divorce (typical). As I mentioned above, there does seem to be a reaction by men towards marrying women who are the highest risk of frivolous divorce. The data on lower remarriage rates and declining marrriage rates for black women and less educated white women all fit with this theory. All of these groups of women are high divorce risks, and all have significant declines in marriage rates. Conversely the women least likely to divorce have the highest marriage rates. Men may not be getting the whole picture, but they do appear to be reacting to the risk on the margins, as one would expect. This is one of those areas where the data won’t prove something either way, because correlation doesn’t prove causation. Still, I think this is a reasonable connection. Also, I’ve shown the data on how divorce rates drop dramatically as the wife gets older; during this time period we have seen the age at time of marriage for women go up substantially, so this in itself should be driving down divorce rates. This is the hardest data of the group, because the relationship between the wife’s age and divorce rates can be confirmed by the UK data going back to the late 50s. The only question there is how much of the impact is due to women marrying later vs the other likely influences.

  392. Just1X says:

    @anon.

    Welcome, why not pick a name, any name, and stick around? Dalrock has an archive full of interesting stuff to peruse.

    It’s getting to the point that he doesn’t actually have to type much before he can reference an old post to cover a sub-topic…quite impressive to have such a coherent set of works.

  393. Brendan says:

    It is so much healthier to have a parenting partnership than to have two single parents. It is harder on both of us, and despite us trying our hardest, it is still very damaging to the kids and their futures.

    This is true, but there isn’t much to be done about that. It’s mostly about damage control at this stage, to a large degree. I have experienced that myself in my own situation as well. A major difference, however, is that my ex seems to have coped a bit better than yours — not entirely better, but a bit better, because she’s basically a controller.

    In the end, my ex wife asked for a divorce so that she could “find herself”. She could have done that in our marriage, but in her soul searching process, the overwhelming message in movies, books, and articles that she read was that divorce was the answer. She read all about how she would become empowered and feel stronger and better, how men are nothing but trouble and how shedding your man will feel like a wonderful renaissance. In the end this promise was too tempting for her, although reality didn’t turn out the way she was told it would. Now, 4 years later, she’s financially worse off, working in a job she hates, with no partner to help her emotionally or otherwise. She’s lonely, confused, and being treated for depression. At least she has a job.

    It’s hard to say, though. What I mean is that contemporary women are, through a mix of programming/pandering, on the one hand, and the interface between that and their natural baser impulses, really *do* believe that they are happier in these situations. For example, would your ex say now that she would have been happier if she were still married to you? I know mine wouldn’t, and I can say the same thing with honesty, really. The key is that marriage isn’t often well-suited to “happiness” as we generally understand it today in a personal/hedonic way, but more about longer-term “happiness” in terms of long-term life outcomes and the satisfaction that comes from them. Some/many people are “happier” in the short to medium term not being married, even if this does lead to greater unhappiness over the longer-term in term’s of overall life outcomes for oneself and one’s children. Thus, a woman who is divorced and even struggling afterwards may still say (and feel) that she is better off/happier in that situation than she was being “unhappy”, in the hedonic sense, in a marriage — a main driver is greater independence, I think, which is a prime directive/core value of our culture, together with “greater possibilities” (another way of saying the same thing) as compared with “being tied down in an unhappy situation”.

    I don’t see an easy way to avoid situations like this, really. Women are much more prone to be unhappy than men are, much less generally content than men are, in general over a whole host of life areas — that is, men are content, generally, with less. You can do the Athol Kay thing and try to please your wife in a hedonic sense, and if this works for you that’s probably the best route to take — not risk-free (nothing is, today), but if you’re determined to be married it’s one way of mitigating your risk in the context of the age of hedonic marriage.

  394. hurp says:

    during this time period we have seen the age at time of marriage for women go up substantially, so this in itself should be driving down divorce rates. This is the hardest data of the group, because the relationship between the wife’s age and divorce rates can be confirmed by the UK data going back to the late 50s. The only question there is how much of the impact is due to women marrying later vs the other likely influences.

    Hmm…now this is interesting. Thank you, it’s definitely something to look into.

  395. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    Thus, a woman who is divorced and even struggling afterwards may still say (and feel) that she is better off/happier in that situation than she was being “unhappy”, in the hedonic sense…

    The right comparison isn’t if she is happier now than she was when married contemplating divorce, but whether she is happier now having divorced than she would be now had she stayed married. The only study I’m aware of which has considered this found strongly that it doesn’t make them happier. Part of this has to be the tendency to rationalize past decisions. She has a strong investment in saying her choice to turn everyone’s life upside down made her happier.

  396. Brendan says:

    I’ve seen that study and I am skeptical of it due to the fact that “happiness surveys” are, themselves, subject to a good degree of suspicion as they are self-reporting. There’s no end of married people who are not terribly happy but will survey as being happy, I think. But even leaving that aside, I’m not suggesting that divorced people (men and women alike) are generally happier than average — but I think that people who get divorced are probably in many cases people who are *generally* unhappier than average regardless of life situation, and at least some of them may be less unhappy than they would have been had they remained married (and I’m sure there are vice-versa cases as well of people who are generally unhappier than average but would have been less unhappy had they remained married). This also applies to the situation of people who reconcile later reporting higher happiness levels — again, these people are probably less unhappier-than-average people than the sorts of people who didn’t reconcile, so this kind of conclusion is tainted and tipped, frankly.

    From my own perspective, singleness, marriage and divorce are all different states that involve different trade-offs. That is, there are pluses and minuses to all of the states, and different people will value those different pluses and minuses differently. As a result, I’m not very convinced that divorced people are less happy than those individuals would have been had they remained married to their ex-spouse — in some cases, possibly, in other cases unlikely. I think quite a few people are genuinely unhappy regardless of their situation, and their relative degree of unhappiness (i.e., more or less being married or divorced) probably depends more on the tradeoffs involved in each of these situations (and how they weigh them) than anything objectively true.

    The moral of the story, from my perspective: people who are generally happy and who marry other people who are generally happy will generally have much lower rates of divorce and much happier marriages. So be a happy person, and marry a happy person.

  397. HeligKo says:

    @dalrock @brendan I think that she probably is happier now than she was before the divorce. I have seen woman after woman decide they wanted a divorce, and a part of their rationalization process is making themselves miserable over things that didn’t matter to them before. Its self imposed to justify the actions they are convinced will make them truly happy. Now if you were to measure happiness before they decided to divorce to anytime after they have been divorced, then they most certainly are not. This seems to be true, unless there is actually something major that broke down the marriage. Of course most people I know who had something major seem to also have a better chance of saving the marriage, because there is actually something to work on or solve other than her feelings. Those people also seem to be much happier, because they have had to grow closer together to overcome a major obstacle in their life. The thing to remember is the feeling of happiness is fickle, especially when you rely on others to meet that desire. Contentment is what most of these women are seeking, but are afraid to look inside themselves and evaluate the things they don’t like, and either change them or accept to live with them and let it bother them no more. Contentment is allusive to most women, because it requires introspection and taking responsibility for yourself.

  398. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan, I can’t recall if we’ve discussed this before or not, but there is a big difference between happiness and contentment. Grerp has written a bit about this. Western society for a while now has placed a premium on being “happy”. Certainly since the end of WW II it’s been the case. To be content with a situation is surely going to look a whole lot like settling and that conflicts with all the Nike adverts right off the bat. But it’s possible to be content with a situation even though it does not bring delirious happiness. It’s possible to be “not-unhappy” and yet not have continuous fun-time as well – but that is counter cultural.

    I’m afraid this is not going to change except on the margins. The self-esteem movement of the 1980′s and ’90′s taught a generation that their own happiness ought to come first. It’s made work more complex – 20-somethings need a lot of hand-holding and near constant feedback – so for sure it hasn’t done any good to private relationships. But I don’t see, given the larger economic situation, how “happiness first” is going to help anyone in the long run. And with the proposed change to the DSM, grief or any sadness will be classified as a mental illness to be treated – with predictable results, I wager, starting with even more medication of the populace.

    This ties back to Dalrock’s notes on interviewing a prospective wife, since “contentment” is a virtue or a goal or a desired state of mind for a minority of people, not the majority.

  399. Anonymous Reader says:

    HeligKo
    The thing to remember is the feeling of happiness is fickle, especially when you rely on others to meet that desire.

    I do not believe it is possible for one person to make another person happy. Based on personal experience, if someone is determined for whatever reason to be angry or sad, they have to get out of that mental place on their own. Others can point out the obvious facts, others can do things that should bring pleasure or at least contentment, but ultimately we are responsible for our own happiness. It isn’t the job of a wife to make a husband happy, but it is her job not to make him unhappy and the same is true in reverse IMO. However, for a lot of people, the absence of unhappiness isn’t enough.

  400. Brendan says:

    I agree on the contentment issue, but I also agree that this isn’t really culturally on the table for the most part.

  401. Anon says:

    @Brendan: I don’t know if my ex-wife would say she’d be happier if we hadn’t divorced. I know that she did feel ‘tied down’. I am puzzled by that, but it’s a somewhat different subject. Anyway, maybe not feeling tied down, feeling more independent and in control, will allow her to feel happier someday. If so, that’s great, but I don’t think that’s what will have made the difference. What actually matters, in my opinion, is that she can’t blame her unhappiness on the marriage any more. Getting divorced forces her to be more accountable to herself, something she wasn’t willing to do while married. In that respect, I think she’s much better off being divorced.

  402. The right comparison isn’t if she is happier now than she was when married contemplating divorce, but whether she is happier now having divorced than she would be now had she stayed married. The only study I’m aware of which has considered this found strongly that it doesn’t make them happier. Part of this has to be the tendency to rationalize past decisions. She has a strong investment in saying her choice to turn everyone’s life upside down made her happier.
    —————————————————————

    Yes, the ability to utterly manipulate already saved files in memory is amazing. So, you have a woman, married 30 years, suddenly she wants out and starts telling everyone she was unhappy the past 25 years……uh huh

  403. TFH says:

    In the end, my ex wife asked for a divorce so that she could “find herself”.

    Remember, the divorce rate of a country is governed by one thing only.

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, that society has a low divorce rate.
    If laws ensure the answer is ‘no’, that society has a high divorce rate.

    All the crap about ‘we grew apart’ or she had to ‘find herself’ are just rationalizations to cover up the financial decision. In societies where the woman cannot retain her living standards by divorcing, none of those stupid excuses are evoked.

  404. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    I’ve seen that study and I am skeptical of it due to the fact that “happiness surveys” are, themselves, subject to a good degree of suspicion as they are self-reporting. There’s no end of married people who are not terribly happy but will survey as being happy, I think.

    I don’t have time to go check the study now, but as I recall it was a longitudinal study and they weren’t just asking people how happy they were in their marriage. As I recall they were asking them about general happiness as well as about their marriage. Because it was longitudinal it took out much of the rationalization bias. To the extent that people are biased to say they are happy with their past choices, it should have washed out for both those who remained married and those who didn’t.

    I agree with your point that unhappy people are likely to be that way either way, and perhaps more likely to divorce. As I recall they did a pretty good job controlling for factors like this. For example, they said that most of the people who reported being unhappy in their marriage in one period had reported being happy in their marriage in the period 5 years prior. This would seem to indicate they weren’t just picking up on chronically unhappy people vs everyone else.

  405. hurp says:

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?If yes, that society has a low divorce rate. If laws ensure the answer is ‘no’, that society has a high divorce rate.

    Going off of what Dalrock posted earlier, though, would you say that the living standards of American divorcees have been going down since the 1980s?

  406. Just1X says:

    “Going off of what Dalrock posted earlier, though, would you say that the living standards of American divorcees have been going down since the 1980s?”

    I guess a drop in the re-marriage rate would count?

    “You’re better off alone” is probably a harder sell than “you can do better than him”

  407. hurp says:

    Hmm…that would be fitting with what our host has said about the remarriage strike.

  408. Brendan says:

    I don’t have time to go check the study now, but as I recall it was a longitudinal study and they weren’t just asking people how happy they were in their marriage. As I recall they were asking them about general happiness as well as about their marriage. Because it was longitudinal it took out much of the rationalization bias. To the extent that people are biased to say they are happy with their past choices, it should have washed out for both those who remained married and those who didn’t.

    I agree with your point that unhappy people are likely to be that way either way, and perhaps more likely to divorce. As I recall they did a pretty good job controlling for factors like this. For example, they said that most of the people who reported being unhappy in their marriage in one period had reported being happy in their marriage in the period 5 years prior. This would seem to indicate they weren’t just picking up on chronically unhappy people vs everyone else.

    I’m still very skeptical that it can be used to prove a counter-factual — i.e., that people who did divorce would have been happier if they had remained married because *other* people who did not divorce are happier now than they were when they were having marital difficulty and appear to be happier than the people who divorced are today. The people who got divorced could have been in crappier marriages overall and would have been *more* unhappy had they remained married, in their specific marriages, than they are now, as divorced people. I just don’t see how what has happened in the marriages that stuck out problems can be transposed upon the people who were in marriages that ended in divorce, with the conclusion that the latter would have been happier had they not divorced. It doesn’t take into account the specific people, and the specific marriages.

    I’m skeptical because I know not a small number of people who are happier as divorced people (some remarried, some not) than they were as married people — and there’s no way of knowing whether they are happier than they would have been had their first marriage never divorced (that is, they are relatively unhappier now than they would have been, but happier than they were than they divorced) or are overall happier than they would have been had they stuck it out in their earlier marriage. There’s no way of knowing that, so you can really only evaluate based on how happy people are now — you can’t compare it to a counter-factual that is specific to their person and marriage, because that counter-factual doesn’t exist.

    In my case, for example, there is no question that both me and my ex are happier in many ways living as we do now than as we used to live when we were married. Would we have been happier if we had stayed together, just because other couples report that? I have no way of knowing that, and neither does that study, in our specific case, but I can say that both of us are happier than we were at any time during the marriage, so it’s quite doubtful to me. I’m only one case, but it’s certainly given me cause to be skeptical about extrapolating broadly from one set of couples to another — specifics matter quite a bit.

  409. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    In my case, for example, there is no question that both me and my ex are happier in many ways living as we do now than as we used to live when we were married. Would we have been happier if we had stayed together, just because other couples report that? I have no way of knowing that, and neither does that study, in our specific case, but I can say that both of us are happier than we were at any time during the marriage, so it’s quite doubtful to me.

    I think they addressed this though. They found that the very decision to stay married tended to make marriages happier. This is counterintuitive, especially in our culture. As I pointed out in my post on it (linked above), this is backed up by a good deal of research on happiness itself.

  410. K_C says:

    Brendan said: …Likely considers himself a conservative Roman Catholic…
    Geez, I’d more likely say ‘scientific atheist’. Those are the ones you see who want to boil everything down to laws, statues, statistics, and ‘data’. If you don’t have data on it, it couldn’t possibly exist/happen/be true/be false/correlate in their minds.

  411. Brendan says:

    I think they addressed this though. They found that the very decision to stay married tended to make marriages happier. This is counterintuitive, especially in our culture. As I pointed out in my post on it (linked above), this is backed up by a good deal of research on happiness itself.

    But, again, this doesn’t address the whys or the specifics of any particular case, and how that specific case will play itself out — that is, it’s not very useful as a predictor in any specific case. It suggests a correlation. There are any number of reasons *why* this may have resulted in happier marriages in a majority of cases, but there are always some cases where it would not apply. That’s why it can’t be specifically applied to any one case — you may be in the “tend” marriage, where it gets happier, or you may be in the “counter-to-tendency” marriage, where it doesn’t. And you probably don’t know which kind of one you’re in, either.

    It’s an argument that reminds me of the one about socio-economic demographics and divorce. Apparently in my demographic, the divorce rate is only 17%. So one can easily say that marriages in this demographic “tend” to not get divorced, because that’s true in 83% of the cases. However, it may not end up being true in *your* case, or in any other given case. I know plenty of divorced people in this demographic, but it’s probably only around 20% of marriages as far as I can tell, so the statistic strikes me as being reasonably accurate, but not useful as a *predictor* in any given case of what will happen. You could, after all, end up in the approx 1/5 of marriages in that demographic who end up divorced.

    Similarly, you could be in a “tendency” marriage where deciding to stay together will make you happier, or you could be in a “counter-to-tendency” marriage, where it won’t. You have no way of knowing how it plays out, and a study which suggests such correlation cannot do that, either.

  412. Twenty says:

    Geez, I’d more likely say ‘scientific atheist’. Those are the ones you see who want to boil everything down to laws, statues, statistics, and ‘data’. If you don’t have data on it, it couldn’t possibly exist/happen/be true/be false/correlate in their minds.

    But, recall that our little troll was perfectly willing to opine on the prevalence of single momhood in the Philippines, despite there being no official statistics (that he could find, anyway), based only on rumor and purported personal observation. Doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

  413. ybm says:

    I see I was name-dropped in this thread.

    I haven’t “fallen in” with anyone and frankly I find the needs of people to sort themselves into easily idenifiable group smaller and smaller each time very tiring. (Reductio ad absurdum).

    To you @rmaxd I will only point this out one more time:
    1.) PUA is not as effective as self-esteem, confidence, and being physically attractive.
    2.) Techniques like reading body language, physical escalation, etc. work. They are not game, they are techniques that have been used by men for decades. But they only work on a woman who is already attracted to you. Hence point 1.
    3.) Game is not the solution to feminism. It is a holding pattern that does not change the fundamental basis of sex interaction and sex-dominance on the part of females.

    It is from the third point that you have determined that I am somehow anti-game from passively observing your comments. I find that a mischaracterization, however I do not have the patience to engage in an endless debate on these issues. Hence my lack of commenting.

  414. TFH says:

    YBM,

    For the record, I don’t think you are part of the ‘nut’ league. Those people spend extreme effort to mischaracterize Game (it is 95%+ of their comments), and it is blindingly obvious that they do it because they don’t want to introspect onto themselves. You are not that way at all.

    On your points, you are partly right and partly incorrect :

    1) PUA is not as effective as self-esteem, confidence, and being physically attractive.

    There is no teaching of Game that does not include confidence as part of it. In fact, confidence features very prominently in Roissy’s 16 commandments.

    So this leads me to believe you have a misconception about what the definition of Game is.

    hey are not game,

    They ARE Game. That they were known to work centuries earlier shows that much of Game is unlearning the brainwashing that feminism/chivalry has forced onto men. Again, Game is as much about unlearning as about learning.

    Game is not the solution to feminism.

    It is most definitely one of the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. Feminism cannot survive without men being forced into a provider role while women do not reciprocate. Game is the anti-thesis of the role feminism requires men to be enslaved into, and thus is strongly non-compliant with feminism. Plus, Game is severely punitive to manginas, as one guy with Game deprives 10 manginas of what little scraps they were begging for.

    Plus, your comment implies about that you are not aware of how Game works for LTRs, and how PUA and LTR Game have about an 80% overlap, *because* of basic fundamentals.

    Read Roissy’s 16 Commandments, which apply fully to PUA and LTR Game. That will correct some of the misconceptions you have about the scope of Game. If you disagree with those 16 Commandments, point out exactly which ones and why.

  415. Anon says:

    @ybm

    1. Self-esteem and confidence are the basic components that a PUA needs and (constantly?) works on. The seduction community has some good stuff to help men with these issues. I really think all men can get helped from this aspect of the community.

    2. All of the game techniques have been around for centuries, if not millennia. In my opinion, a lot of the stuff they talk about on the PUA sites is awkward, especially things like NLP and scripting of stories for DOV. Sometimes things like “Field Reports” makes me cringe, as if women are an alien species.

    3. Game becoming more mainstream, IMO, is a response to certain changes that have come about as a result of 2nd wave feminism and its successors. No, it does not change the basic interaction between the sexes. It is used for different purposes by different people, but I think in general it’s a way for men to deal with rejection (and fear thereof) while building/retaining self-esteem.

  416. Just1X says:

    The biggest thing that I got from game was an understanding of how women work. Once I knew why all the BS about be nice / be yourself etc didn’t (couldn’t) work, I was free to make a choice about what I wanted to do with the knowledge -> MGMOW.

    Was never interested in being a PUA. Mainly because I don’t feel any validation from shagging a woman in a ONS / STR, or not enough to justify any cost in going hunting. The legal implications of a serious relationship are not worth ‘the prize’ to me (YMMV).

    When the AVFM vs Game thing started I just went looking for something else to read, the argument was pointless. Use Game / don’t use game – do what the hell you want with as much game as you want. Roissy was an education (thanks), but I have no intention of modelling my life on his, or any other Gamer / PUA. I do think, however, that PUAs may cause women to change their behaviour, that is something that might improve things for society.

    Empath seems to have found the level of game he wants and needs, why he frets about any other part of it is a bit of a mystery to me. As that is his own way, I’ll just wish him luck

  417. Eric says:

    ybm:
    Although, you’ve noticed, once again, that the Gamesters have never explained why the ‘seduction game’ is some kind of desirable goal. Suppose you ‘game’ and ‘win’ an Amerobitch—what have you gained for yourself? A lifetime of power struggles and misery until you’re ‘over-Alphaed’ by some thug. Doesn’t sound like an especially appealing future for any man.

    The purpose of all these ‘techniques’ is really nothing more than playing a female for purposes of gaining sexual favors. Actually, when one thinks about it, a love doll or your own hand can give just as much, without any of the corresponding threats/problems.

    This is why women in the Anglosphere continually spout about their alleged ‘ownership of sex’ and ‘power in relationships.’ Outside of sex, they can offer a man nothing. Take away their sexual power; and they have none at all.

    This is another reason to oppose Game and similar techniques. It still empowers women, regardless of whatever else its proponents claim.

    In spite of all the laws (another topic in this thread), the Amerobitch can’t force a man’s mind. He can MGTOW or seek real relationships with real women from real cultures. The way to deal with American women is to return, in kind, their treatment of us: devaluation, marginalization, and avoidance.

  418. TFH says:

    Just1x,

    The biggest thing that I got from game was an understanding of how women work. Once I knew why all the BS about be nice / be yourself etc didn’t (couldn’t) work, I was free to make a choice about what I wanted to do with the knowledge ->

    Yes. And that is why knowledge is valuable. Feminism requires men to work hard to finance the state, while getting nothing in return. Once one learns Game, there a number of ways a man can choose to non-comply with the feminist mandate of being a provider slave who gets nothing in return. All of which are valid.

    Roosh has done a good amount to damage feminism. So has Paul Elam. And so has Dalrock. But each in very different ways.

  419. ybm says:

    I tried to write a response, I really did.

    @anon
    No argument on any of your points, I have 2 comments on your items:
    1.) I just think classical sources like Carnegie, Toastmasters, and even therapy are methods far superior to ‘game’ bloggers.
    3.) I believe self-esteem should be done independent of women entirely.

    It is sadly ironic that I have been labelled a mangina in this sphere. Considering I reject LTRs, cohabitation AND marriage as completely unconscionable.

    All I will do before retreating into the ennui of the lurker is to again implore every man reading this to google “The Manipulated Man” by Ethar Villar and read the free pdf available on the first page of the results.

  420. Rmaxd says:

    @YBM

    TFH answered your questions YBM …

    The fact is you speak of a subject you have no knowledge of …

    Your inability to grasp game, is limited by your inability to see the greater reality of the world around you

    It is not only a lack of knowledge, but also a lack of self-perception & recognition of the truth

    Without an ability to recognise the truth, you have no self perception

    Your world is no longer a matter of basic psychology

    It is a world of technique & strategy, where the brilliance of a suggestion is valued more then the correct answer

    Reason is nothing without genius as application behind it

  421. hurp says:

    read the free pdf available on the first page of the results.

    Wait, that was the entire thing?

    lol

  422. ybm says:

    Thats what she said

  423. hurp says:

    No more lurking? :(

  424. Rmaxd says:

    @ybm

    Nobodies calling you a mangina … I’ve stated your comments were excellent, plenty of times …

    In fact, you’re easily one of the standout commentors here on this site

    Why the hell do you think we respond to you?

    I’ll state this very clearly, you’re being mislead by people who DONT understand game, or the subject matter

    Since I give a crap about the contribution you’ve made to this site, I’ve decided to take some time out & explain what game is …

    Look Game is NOT a technique, game is NOT an ideology

    Game is a movement, much like the MRA movement

    Game is ALL about realising the reality of the situation around you

    Game is about realising how emasculated & screwed over by society, you are as a man

    & adjusting accordingly

    The problem is, you’re making the same mistake Paul Elam makes about game

    He hasnt researched it, & more importantly he doesnt want to understand it

    IF you had researched game & pua, you would know game is COMPLETELY about self confidence

    Its first & foremost about creating massive levels of confidence, BEFORE you even approach a chick

    Confidence is THE foundation of game, its designed to increase your perception of confidence & value

    Paul Elam & yourself dont realise, the levels of confidence & masculinity, you as a male is supposed to have

    You’re psychological levels of confidence & masculinity are in no way enough to handle the psychotic bitches around you

    You’re psychological levels of confidence & masculinity HAVE to match the societal levels needed to succeed in todays hyper-feminised society …

    We live in the world of Alpha, where women worship the alpha & hate the working male

    Extreme confidence & hyper-masculinity are worshipped

    This is what we the gamers are trying to tell you

    In today’s women ONLY respond to EXTREME confidence & hyper-masculine environments

    You DONT have to have extreme confidence

    The WHOLE point of game is, so you DONT have to become a thug, or a bad boy alpha to satisfy the disgusting & vile hyper-sexuality of todays women

    DONT you get it, game ALLOWS you to understand the MECHANICS of extreme confidence, so you dont have to be come a thug or an alpha

    Game allows you to understand the framework, the mechanics of society, & RETAIN your personality, so you dont become a perversion of yourself, as you learn how women work

    Game is NOT about becoming a thug, or a bad boy alpha, its all about LEARNING THE MECHANICS of a thug or bad boy alpha, so you DONT HAVE TO BECOME ONE …

    The REAL REALITY OF SOCIETY, is the fact it REWARDS assholes AND SOCIOPATHS

    Do you WANT to become an asshole or sociopath to succeed in todays society? NO

    So what do you do ?

    You work out the mechanics & framework of assholes & sociopaths, so you dont have to become one …

    Game teaches you the mechanics & framework & dynamics of behaviour, so you dont have to become one of those pricks

    The MAJOR problem with men today, is the fact theyre so emasculated EVEN theyre REAL personalities are so emasculated, they literally have no idea what it is to be masculine

    These men literally have to rebuild themselves, theyre personalities, theyre levels of confidence, & value

    They have to do all of the above, JUST TO TALK TO WOMEN …

    Women also happen to be the most submissive & irrational morons on the freaking planet …

    Men simply don’t realise how emasculated & steeped in feminism theyre world is

    We have husbands so whipped, they dont even know how to seduce their wives

    We have husbands so whipped, they DONT KNOW HOW TO COMPETE WITH THUGS

    We have husbands so whipped, they encourage & let their daughters screw around, turning them into whores & sluts for life …

    Our world is so fucked up & screwed over, because men dont know how to be men

    Men dont stand up for men, & they dont know how to bond with men, as a patriarchy

    Game allows you to understand the mechanics & framework of the REAL & BRUTAL reality of women & how society REALLY works

    Without game, the only choice you have is to become a thug, or alpha, game gives men the mechanics & knowledge so we no longer have to become what women want

    Thanks to game, & understanding the mechanics & framework of thugs & alphas, you now have the ability to be who you are, & DENY women the thugs & alphas, they expect successful men to become

    Thanks to makeup & cosmetics women learned how to mimic their fertility, thanks to game men now have the ability to mimic alphas & thugs

    Intellectual men now have the ability to compete with thugs & alphas, without having to become one

    Nature is always the great equaliser …

  425. ybm says:

    No massive posts hurp, just the occasional sniper shot from the outside. Too damn busy IRL.

  426. hurp says:

    Financial consulting gettin ya down? :’(

  427. ybm says:

    In Canada our T-slip deadline is tomorrow (American 1099-INT, 1099-DIV, 1099-B) so a lot of planning arrangements for the farmers and family trusts coming due!

  428. hurp says:

    wow, taxes? Sux :(

  429. Eric says:

    ybm:
    Trying to use logic and reason with the Gamesters is like trying to talk to Scientologists or Moonies. Truth, to these people, is whatever their leaders happen to say it is.

    Since they’ve termed you a ‘mangina’; they’ve also convinced themselves that I’m a troll hiding behind a psuedonym—even though I’ve been posting here practically since Dalrock started this blog.

    It’s sad in a way to watch people enslave their minds like this. It’s another by-product of our cultural downslide. Religious and political fanatics sense the decline of our culture; and they’re willing to grasp at any straw that promises them a way out. It’s no different with the Roissyites. It’s not easy being INCEL or MGTOW; facing the truth about the real situation between the genders in America is hard to accept with all its ramifications. So, just like the manginas (whom the Gamers themselves more closely resemble), they are willing to believe any self-appointed relationship guru who tells them that things aren’t as bad as they look; and offers them plenty of snake-oil, psychobabble, and self-delusion; which these guys fight for like religious zealots and political utopians. If they didn’t, they’d have to face reality.

  430. Pingback: Bargaining in the shadow of the law. | Dalrock

  431. bonifacii says:

    @Suzzie:

    Does my refusal to provide irrelevant “data” mean it’s untrue?

    See, there are two kinds of opponents. The first kind uses insults and other personal attacks extensively, and/or uses a lot of made-up statements. Their goal is typically to insult the opponent; they’re not interested in facts, they believe they know the Ultimate Truth and everyone else should be brought to the Light (that’s also typical for “Jesus loves you” crowd). In short, haters. They should be either ignored or made fun of, the rational discussion with them makes no sense.

    The second kind of opponent disagrees with your position, but argues honestly, and with properly supporting their statements by facts and maintaining the civil behavior. Those are the only people who can actually bring the change, and those are the people I discuss the things. Unfortunately there seem to be very few people in the manosphere capable to have a civil discussion.

    Your refusal to provide the relevant data undermines your credibility as an opponent to the level where the discussion with you make no sense.

  432. hurp says:

    My good bonifacii! Glad to see you’re still around. Perhaps you might be able to have a civil discussion with me? Have you read Dalrock’s more recent post? I’m interested in how you might respond to his “negotiating in the shadow of the law” point.

  433. TFH says:

    Eric,

    You are projecting. People have provided you with extra-simple definitions, and you still cannot get it, and are now in the ‘La La La I can’t hear you’ ear-covering mode.

    You merely prove my point that 80% of men just cannot ever, ever comprehend Game. It is just beyond them.

    Plus, I doubt you will be able to drag YBM down to your level. You are not even arguing against ‘Game’ but rather against whether men should have romantic interactions with women at all.

  434. TFH says:

    The thing is, no one has called YBM a mangina. I took care to clarify I was not calling him that.

    Eric’s desperate attempts to manufacture that (after he was exposed as being ignorant on the subject of Game) is pathetic.

    But I am pretty sure YBM will not find this attempt by Eric to recruit him to the ‘have no romantic interactions with women’ crowd to be very compelling.

  435. Father Marker says:

    @TFH – You mentioned the distribution of flyers in support of MRM. I have a better idea (I think). Most young people these days have iphones or Android phones. There is barcode reading software that also scans QR codes. One can put just about anything on those QR codes that they wish only limited by the imagination. They can fit on a square sticker around 30x30mm. They are easily created.

    I go to https://bitly.com/ where I can shorten a weblink. While the site does this it also creates a QR code that one can download as a graphic which can then be printed onto the above sticker. get an inkjet printer sheet fill with these and one sheet can print out around 100 of these stickers.

    Just peel them off and stick them anywhere. They take hardly any space so would fit into a wallet or some other secreted place. That way one can put on the mangina act publicly but slip these things into place in such a way that no one can figure out who.

    I would imagine the best place would be places like above the urinal in the mens toilet or on the inside of the door of each cubicle. The young chaps with their smart phones will hopefully be curious enough to scan them to see what kind of information they contain. The older ones in authority won’t really notice them all that much and if they do they will probably not realise the kind of subject material these codes are promoting.

    Stick them right under the noses of lecturers in the University Gender studies department toilets. (mens only of course).

    I use an inkjet printer to print them.

    Another promotion strategy is that I use to drop regular bits and pieces onto my facebook profile. I have access to lots of young people there and hopefully they take time to read what I say to give them fair warning as to what they can expect. Some of them are beginning to take note.

  436. Father Marker says:

    I forgot to mention that one of the codes I’ve got is the link to the “Misandry Bubble”.

  437. Anonymous Reader says:

    Father Marker: encoding short URL’s in QR and sticking them up is excellent. The men most in need of such things as TFH’s Misandry Bubble are also the ones most likely to have a smartphone that can read the QR’s. As a bonus, QR stickers are small enough that one could even stick them in more public places – on the door frame of classrooms, on the shelves of the Women’s Studies section of campus libraries, on the covers of textbooks…

    It’s inherently subversive.

  438. TFH says:

    Father Market,

    Yes, that has been among the ideas discussed. Not everyone has a smartphone, but it does shorten the time up to which the reader sees a website.

    Any and all ideas are encouraged. Please take an hour or two to post the QR Codes in the restrooms of some Medical or Business schools (where young men are reaching marriage age and also embarking on well-paying careers), or some other high-visibility location.

    It will take only 1000 hours of doing this to bring thousand more men into the cause.

  439. TFH says:

    Father Marker,

    It’s inherently subversive.

    Yes. Remember another maxim of mine :

    The side that is dependent on clamping down on the free flow of information is always destined to lose to the side that strengthens from the free flow of information. It is just a question of time.

  440. TFH says:

    That was a quote from AR, not FM.

    But still …..post flyers! It scatters red pills all across society that are there for the taking, particularly if posted in a high-traffic restroom.

  441. Eric…your point “This is another reason to oppose Game and similar techniques. It still empowers women, regardless of whatever else its proponents claim.”” is right on.

    One response to you said “”Look Game is NOT a technique, game is NOT an ideology

    Game is a movement, much like the MRA movement

    Game is ALL about realising the reality of the situation around you

    Game is about realising how emasculated & screwed over by society, you are as a man

    & adjusting accordingly

    AND

    “”The problem is, you’re making the same mistake Paul Elam makes about game

    He hasnt researched it, & more importantly he doesnt want to understand it

    IF you had researched game & pua, you would know game is COMPLETELY about self confidence
    ——————————————————————————————-

    In reverse, again we have the you (and Paul Elam) don’t understand it. But I believe you, Eric, Paul Elam, and tons of others understand it. One of the off putting things about it is this ongoing attempt to make it mystical, more than it really is, like a level of consciousness in some eastern religion that we can strive for but never achieve. Kinda Zen, “make me one with everything”-ish

    It is frankly not that hard to understand. It just isn’t. The idea that anything but reverence and discipleship indicates a lack of understanding and dedicated study, well, lets just say Im shocked because I see lots of smart men who would normally not use that kind of trick, using it regarding game.

    We can realize the situation around us….game as well as just open eyes and red pill makes us aware of that, no corner on the market for game there….but OK….it helps explain the world around us, fair enough. That it helps to adjust accordingly, also fair enough. So, whats wrong with the man who understands the world and has adjusted accordingly, but doesn’t then feel some sort of devotion to game? If it is a movement, and its “like the MRM” what differs between the game “movement” and the MRM? Why the differences? And finally, is it helpful, neutral, or harmful….or can the answer to that depend upon how its handled or managed? Someone tell us why the MRM will not succeed lacking fanatical devotion to game….meaning to something beyond tolls and tactics….to some esoteric aspect of game.

    Its this part of game that has become game’s worst enemy.

  442. Oh….forgot, about it empowering women….I cannot see how that can be disagreed with.

  443. Suz says:

    “Oh….forgot, about it empowering women….I cannot see how that can be disagreed with.”

    Hurry up and write a whole post on this, will ya? I agree that game CAN empower women by “giving them what they want,” In the case of promiscuous sluts, yes absolutely; it’s how the promiscuous PUAs get what THEY want. And if a married woman must be constantly gamed to keep her “settled,” her problems likely run pretty deep, and her husband must evaluate the costs and benefits of staying in the marriage. Those specific and narrowly focused uses of game are certainly pandering to women, empowering them.

    However, the true essence of game is much broader. I think Rmaxd’s statement was true overall. Game is intentional masculinity. It would be completely natural to most men, if their masculinity hadn’t been repressed by society from birth. Before feminism, game didn’t have a name because game didn’t need a name. It was men being men. Some men used their masculinity to rack up notches on their bedposts, some men used it to lead good wives and raise good children. Still others used it to rule nations, win wars, and earn millions.

    The only danger in game is when too many men use it for “unproductive” or unethical purposes. And yes that’s a rel danger, but look at the bigger picture. Game attracts young, intelligent men into the MRM. Sure, some of them will spend their lives using it in ways that many would deem destructive, but many will do far more with it. Game may start out as “artificial” or foreign to most men when they first start using it, but eventually it will bring their own natural masculinity to the surface. If feminists can “train” themselves to pursue unnatural lives for years on end before realizing they’re miserable (and blaming someone else since they’ll never admit they were living a lie) surely men can “train” themselves to pursue the lives for which they were designed. Game expresses the masculinity men were born with, and have been suppressing and apologizing for their whole lives. I see learning and practicing game as behavior modification. It doesn’t change who you are, it reveals who you are, by eliminating the “unnatural” habits which have been holding you back. Men behaving like males empowers females to women to behave like females, instead of like the savages we have become.

    That’s my take. Am I completely missing your point? I’m looking forward to your elaborating on this, as I think it’s an important facet of the issue.

  444. First….why cant I post on your blog? Am I banned over there?

  445. However, the true essence of game is much broader. I think Rmaxd’s statement was true overall. Game is intentional masculinity.
    ————————————————————-

    Lets take in parts.
    Saying game is much broader is kind of like his and other saying that people don’t understand it and such. I dont really see anything else in your post that supports that claim, nor do any other posters who say similar support that, they just (you as well) proclaim it, like its accompanies by the “Ahhhhhhhh” chorus.

    Game is intentional masculinity. OK, is, intentional masculinity intentional masculinity? Unless you are telling me that game DEFINES masculinity, or that its a special TYPE of masculinity the statement that game is intentional masculinity doesn’t really say anything. Are men lacking game necessarily not even possibly masculine?

  446. Dalrock says:

    empath,

    Game is practical knowledge, a form of technology. It is in fact an incredibly disruptive technology.

  447. Dalrock…..excellent, that I get my head around and agree with as the assessment that works.

    However it starts to look like something that already “was”……that was subsequently then given nomenclature

  448. Suz says:

    No, empath, you’re not banned – I don’t know what the problem is, I checked my settings. Probably just Blogger being Blogger (grr)

    And of course Dalrock said it best. It is a disruptive technology, rather like the internet – heh heh heh – the good and bad is in how it is used.

  449. Rmaxd says:

    Men shouldnt need game, yet they need a framework of masculinity … i’ve been saying this since i came on this blog

    Also yes if you’re unable to understand the basics of game, you’re also unable to understand the basics of masculinity, as game is basically a framework for masculinity & the natural social dominance & dynamicism masculinity gives men

    If you’re naturally extremely masculine, game isnt necessary, as male chauvinism & partriarchy naturally gives men game

    The fact is, the vast majority of men are emasculated, if you dont understand you’re supposed to dominate women & society as a man, you’re emasculated

    A mans nature is to dominate intellectually & physically, the emasculated male will always see this an uncomfortable & bitter truth

    Once you’re able to see past the need for marriage & you destroy your view of your position in society, & realise its women who pressurise & emasculate men & in fact despise men who cave in, game allows you to wreak havoc on the social structure by dominating it & manipulating the biological drives of those around you

    Men & women both expect social dominance & mastery, but as a hierarchial construct, game allows you to destroy the hierarchial taboos of society & break through to the top

    Men are first & foremost biologically designed to fulfill their biological imperative, dominance is a biologically correct form of behaviour not just for pro-creation, but also our social structure is based on men being able to dominate & lead in adverse conditions

    Masculinity & dominance are the benchmarks for a successful civilisation, how well men vocalise & intellectualise for their rights, always guarantees a lawful & just society

    In fact without a vocalised & intellectualised majority of dominance & masculinity there is always mass injustness & repressiveness

    Emasculation & an inability to dominate women & society, is a technological poison & needs to be stamped out at all costs

    Women & emasculated men have a built-in contempt for justice & fairness, as the weak never have use for justice & for the sake of the greater good

    Masculine men & game, ensure the weak never come to power, emasculated men & women are always the ultimate betrayers of society

  450. Rmaxd says:

    meant to say …

    & hypersexual women are always the ultimate betrayers of society

  451. Eric says:

    THF:
    I don’t understand Game. I don’t understand Moonies, Scientologists, Nazis, or Communists, either. They repeat their ideologies in ‘simple, understandable terms’ too. It’s just that all your premises are flawed.

  452. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    It is in fact an incredibly disruptive technology.

    Yes! +1. +2, in fact.

    It is disruptive and asymmetrical. It is highly non-compliant to the role feminism needs the majority of men to be enslaved into. And one man with Game deprives 10 manginas of what little scraps they were getting, since we know that a woman would rather have x minutes of alpha instead of x years of Beta.

    Game is one of the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation, and highly complementary to the other three.

    Just like an orchestra needs wind, string, brass, and percussion instruments, the Misandry Bubble pops from all FOUR horsemen working in their own respective ways.

  453. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    ‘Game is technology.’
    Yes, on the feminists’ terms. As another advocate of Roissyism stated: ‘it’s accepting the realities and acting on it. I don’t read that as anything other than a concession to feminism.

    Earlier on another blog, you mentioned that the real key to success in marriage depends on the moral force a woman’s wedding vows hold on her. I agree with that; but that very statement excludes any sense of love, sexual attraction, or any other emotional bonding to men. Game can’t force a female to change her mind to hate men when she’s been taught to do so from childhood.

  454. Eric says:

    Empath:
    “game defines masculinity &c.”

    You’re correct, that’s exactly what Game advocates DO believe. How many times have you seen them resort to Shaming Language when anyone opposes them? I’ve been called ‘a loser’ ‘a whiny beta’ (whatever that means); told to ‘go get laid’ &c. so often I’ve lost count.

    They won’t admit this; but it’s their obsession with ‘winning’ female sexual favors that fuels the whole ‘movement’. That is empowering to women, not to men.

  455. TFH says:

    Eric,

    Like I said, 80% of men (and 99% of women) just cannot grasp Game, even though Game is really just the notion of improving basic social skills to nearly ‘top 1%’ levels, specializing on seducing women.

    Also, your points are not arguing against Game, but against whether men should have romantic interactions with women at all. Everything you wrote is effectively arguing against that.

    Plus, you claim Game has no value in LTRs (this is the point that always derails the anti-Game loons).

  456. as game is basically a framework for masculinity

    Like I said, 80% of men (and 99% of women) just cannot grasp Game, even though Game is really just the notion of improving basic social skills to nearly ‘top 1%’ levels, specializing on seducing women.
    —————————————————————————————————-

    The first quote from rmax….is it A framework or THE framework….crucial difference

    TFH second quote…..again, isnt it obvious that this is a tactic, **you dont agree with something because you dont understand it** as a premiere mode of proving something. But how do you handle those who do understand it, even agree its efficacy, agrees with the underlying observations that inform it, etc….yet will not go to this level of , I lack a term, worship? discipleship? something like that ….saying to those who can post 5 posts here, post thoughtfully and well considered, but not mention game once, that they just dont understand it. It truly lowers credibility, its like I foem a club to follow the magic teacup that orbits just beyond pluto….and start saying “teacup says___________________________” and people reject that and I say no, you dont agree about teacup because you dont UNDERSTAND teacup and most are just sadly not equipped to be in the teacup club”…..look, the analogy is imperfect I know. Game isnt inaccessible utterly, like a magic teacup…..but the manner of discussing it then dismissing people aho actually are just OK with game and its underlying concepts is off putting to people in the same vein as the teacup would be. It casts you guys in that kind of light, because the harder you try to justify the religion of it, the less credible you look.

    After you say we dont understand it, you then make us look REALLY stupid by saying “but look how simple this is, why its :

    “””just the notion of improving basic social skills to nearly ‘top 1%’ levels, specializing on seducing women”””

    There seems to be a tactic used by feminists at work here where the position of the opposition is first assumed to an extreme (rabid anti-game) so that the person is more easily rebuked. Gentle rebukes do on occasion acknowledge the (by your terms) limited “understanding” of some. But it would appear that anything short of writing metaphysical wonderment at the mention of game will be shamed , implied the man who isnt waxing eloquent on game minute to minute is not achieving his highest calling, etc etc.

    Repetition of “you don’t understand” makes game start looking like the patriarchy, its there you just cant see it.

    Finally, when those tactics receive questions, there is one remaining defense, that is to say well, if you are already a masculine man, leading as such, bending your environment to your will so to speak, then you are a gamer and dont even know it. Thereby you cover all the bases, meaning, narrow is the path and not many will pass therein, or a camel through a needle, or whatever Christian metaphor you’d choose for game

  457. Suz says:

    Good point, Empath. Game advocates do have a responsibility to elaborate on their ultimate purposes for game. To promote the “technology” by saying, “this is awesome! This is the true YOU!” is potentially destructive. Game can be used to enhance anything, even feminism.

  458. OzGirlie says:

    I have had my panties gamed off a hundred times. Works on me. I only realise now what it has been. But i don’t think most of the guys knew what was getting me so damn moist for them.

    I feel like warning other chicks, if you guys are starting to work it all out.

    Problem is I DO love quality cock. There is nothing like alpha dick. I think that big old genie is out of the bottle. I’ll have to get married if I do to a guy who doesn’t mind an experienced girl.

  459. Eric….whether it be for sexual favors as in PUA, power in marriage, sex in marriage, whatever, it is empowering to women. Suz ought to be able to see that in her own writings where she claims the opposite that it isn’t empowering to women, but then she goes on to say they subliminally want men w/ game and its the natural order etc.

    It gets all twisted up right there UNLESS they come right out and say that game IS masculinity, full stop. That a man cannot be masculine, a leader, and offer a woman what she wants but doesnt know it (per suz) unless it results from game.

    Thats a dangerous path for them to go down though, making game and the natural order, and masculinity all one and the same. because them game necessarily becomes not a revelation or revolution, nor a movement based on years of pontification and refinement, it simply becomes a description. A description of that is normal and what we got away from, and somehow that doesnt seem nearly as heady as “game the system/technology”.

    It would be like someone seeing that its natural that people are hungry, then they came up with a “system” called food. (weak analogy but makes the point) It describes what already IS or should be.

    I dont know about anyone else, but I like game as a system or technology, a choice, a set of tools that CAN put nature back on course, but not THE system for doing so. If you think all this through you can easily see the circular nature of it, and I repeat not unlike feminism, where you only get it when you are IN it.

  460. Suz says:

    “Suz ought to be able to see that in her own writings where she claims the opposite that it isn’t empowering to women, but then she goes on to say they subliminally want men w/ game and its the natural order etc.”
    It’s not really a contradiction. Women simply won’t interact with men if they don’t get something of “what they want.” Are you suggesting it’s against Men’s Rights principles to have content women in the world? (surely not.) It is productive for everybody when women get “what they want” IF what they want is appropriate to their inborn nature – just as it is productive for men to get what they want. When women are getting what they need, men are getting what THEY need, except men who want no interaction with women. We are not meant to be separate. Men and women were designed to cooperate, with neither gender enslaved to the other. Feminism divides the sexes and enslaves men. To suggest that it’s “pandering” to “give women” what females NEED to be productive, implies that women have no good or useful role in the world. Which kind of sounds like how feminists view men.
    Men cooperating with women in ways nature intended, but not in ways feminism demands, isn’t pandering to feminism. It is undermining feminism.

  461. Suz says:

    A man who uses game to give spoiled women drive-by doses of the romance novel heroes they demand, IS pandering to women – in order to manipulate women into pandering to him. Men who use game as they develop and maintain “Wolf Alpha” traits, are the men who built civilization. The only men who have no use for game, are voluntarily celibate MGTOW (because the involuntarily celibate could use game to get sex, if they so choose.)

  462. Rmaxd says:

    “Men and women were designed to cooperate, with neither gender enslaved to the other. ”

    Bull, typical egalitarian feminism, all women spout ignorantly

    As long as men create & run civilisation, & are physically & intellectually superior, women will always remain serviant to men

    Freedom is earned technologically & through conquest, until women are able to rise to the standards set by men for men, & compete with men, they will remain subserviant & enslaved to men, as they are today

    Begging government for welfare, & stealing from men through the courts is not freedom or equality, its inferiority & a sign of women never raising from self inflicted psychological enslavement

    Unless women learn to compete technologically & create viable social constructs, instead of blindly following their biology & worshipping dysfunctional feminity, they will always remain enslaved to man & dependant on man, either through government, or lack of science & technology

    Women are dependant on man, their inability to govern themselves & progress & educate themselves from science or technology, makes them dependant & enslaved

    Women have created dependancy & enslavement, for centuries as parasites on the backs of man & use mans children as hostages

    Ignorance & dependancy IS enslavement

    Its about time you women started being aware of your station in life & stopped spewing your egalitarian feminist bullshit

    Women are NOT equal NOR are they free, they have always enslaved themselves from their inability to govern themselves without massive crime & promiscuity

    & they have always enslaved themselves, from their inability to learn the sciences & basic engineering & mathematical skills necessary to free yourself through technology & education

    Its about time you women started being aware of your station in life & stopped spewing your egalitarian feminist horsecrap

    Unless women learn the rational & challenge of logic to run civilisation, & master the sciences & technology, women have & always will be enslaved, either to man or government, or invading hordes & raped & pillaged due to their ineptitude & inability to leverage the advantages men have created through our civilisation

  463. Paul says:

    My $.02 is that the current concept of game seems to have essentially started out as guys sharing tips on how to get laid in a generally confusing and hostile (unnatural to human nature) environment. It probably was a game, of who can come up with the best strategy to score.

    Except that some guys starting putting one and one together, patterns in why some things worked or didn’t work, and learned a fair bit of male, female and relationship psychology. Given the very few restrictions placed on females in this context, this lack of inhibition lead them to reveal much more of their nature than would previously have occurred on such a wide scale, making things more obvious and easier for guys to pick up on than before.

    The actual consequences and logical consequences that follow from a lot of those observations probably explained to a lot of guys things that they had previously found incomprehensible; i.e. a red pill moment. Part of that is the realization that there is a way ‘things oughtta be’, and that we are very far from there, purposefully so. This to me is the unlearning part, where you realize why being a supplicating beta schlub doesn’t work, despite everything you’ve been told by people you trusted, so you stop doing stuff like that. And by simply not doing some of this crap, you become more manly than before, and hence more attractive than before to women.

    This will of course all be relative to your local milieu; I’m sure that the shock and learning curve is likely much greater for a guy who grew up on the coasts than a mid-westerner.

    For a lot of guys, me included, figuring this stuff out was a very great day. It’s amazing how much of a difference just knowing a bit of how stuff really works can make. What a change it has made to know enough to simply not do those things that were total turn-offs. Very liberating too, I might add, not to have to do things with both hands tied behind your back. And also at this level very passive, I’m not actually ‘gaming’ anyone through negs and other tactics, just really being more comfortable being myself warts and all, really. Which of course feeds into confidence, the primary source of attraction.

    Some guys use this knowledge actively, to get laid, to help a marriage or relationship, this is an active form of gaming, the kind where to be ‘on top of your game’ requires a certain amount of conscious effort.

    I don’t, not worth it to me and doesn’t get me where I want to go. What it certainly helps me with is screening, a woman who needs to be gamed is screened right out. And conversely, with the knowledge I’ve gained it helps me avoid the previous mistakes I made that were very self-destructive because they were complete turn-offs. So yes, if you want, in that respect I am ‘giving her what she wants’, or at least not giving her what she doesn’t want, although she is likely as consciously unaware of what she wants/doesn’t want as I was previously. But as Suz said, why would a women be expected to be with me if she doesn’t get what she wants, even if she doesn’t know what that is, necessarily?

  464. “””It’s not really a contradiction. Women simply won’t interact with men if they don’t get something of “what they want.”””

    Oh…..yes they will. Well, define “something of what they want”….the statement you make about them not interacting is sort of a statement of the obvious but has nothing to do necessarily with game. If she wants to get laid, she will, if she wants a conversation, she will get one, these things happen with all sorts of men and women all the time, there is no refusal to engage with men, we need to completely sit this notion aside as irrelevant I think.
    You then make it bilateral, if women get what they need men get what they need. Still true and a statement of something obvious, not inextricably tied to game whatsoever.
    Then you go and contradict the point about bilateral getting what we need by saying simply

    “””“We are not meant to be separate. Men and women were designed to cooperate, with neither gender enslaved to the other””””
    So, for all of that to be true then men are designed WITH game. Lest, she isn’t getting something she wants and he isn’t either and hence they are not cooperating.
    Its all circular still.

    I didn’t say its pandering per se. I especially didn’t suggest it panders to feminism, I cannot figure that comment out.
    Yes, some men are cooperating with women in the “way nature intended”. And some women are responding to men “in the way nature intended”. Some men can learn to be more like nature intended (learn game), some are naturally that way (is that game also? Because its internal, innate, not taken on from external)

    So is game just a description of nature? The explanations bounce all over the place as to that question.

  465. Rmaxd says:

    Its about time you women started being aware of your station in life & stopped spewing your egalitarian feminist bullshit

    As long as you’re unable to compete & advance society with men, you ARE slaves & dependant on man

  466. Rmaxd says:

    “So is game just a description of nature? The explanations bounce all over the place as to that question.”

    & to idiots like you that disproves game … retard

  467. Rmax….actually, I can go along with what you say in that last post, as tough as it comes across it contains much much truth at a very basic…base….level. This is what I mean by understanding the underlying principles and truths that inform game. What you wrote goes as deep and as blunt as can be gone, really, above that are the applications and he says X she thinks Y type of things that are , the more specific one goes, the more minutia one gets, and thats fine, thats how truth meets application.

    But you describe the way things ARE (even for someone disagreeing with it, it can be seen as one perception of how things ARE)….those things are not game in and of themselves (you didnt say they were, bear w/ me). Realizing all that….and reacting accordingly….is game? (rhetorically asked) because here you will get much blow back from women who say they subscribe to game. Thats why I say game is giving women something they want. Game in action takes the hard truths you espoused and packages them so they are palatable for womens proclivities

  468. & to idiots like you that disproves game … retard

    A .that statement makes absolutely zero sense as written
    B. Great, feel better? You are following the feminist shaming method better than they do dude. Better an idiot than a useful idiot.

  469. Go back up a few posts and see that I explained exactly what rmax just did. D=same mode and manner of thinking as the average gynocentric.

    I am NOT, nor have i EVER set out to “disprove game” (which is a silly concept anyway, disproving game)

    But in order to rebut, you must first assign that view to me, that im an anti-gamer, why? Bacause you have canned answers for that, which are insults and mockery and such.

    But someone asking hard questions about game (not to “disprove” it) instead of throwing rose petals at you and other guru wannabe’s sends you histrionic apoplectic.

  470. OzGirlie says:

    Rmaxd, Paul

    OK about civilisation, I guess. I don’t think about it that much. You have to deal with the cards you are born with. Being a girl, I accept maybe we are not so smart in some ways. Logic, technology, math. No argument there. But I bring other things to the table.

  471. Suz says:

    OK, Captain Hyperbole, there is a difference between dependence and slavery. Slavery is unwilling, forced and coerced. How was Mr. Caveman supposed to find time to hunt mastodon while standing over Mrs. Caveman with a whip? Humans cooperate with each other WILLINGLY, and are more productive when they have a stake in the game. (Being permitted to breath and eat doesn’t motivate much productivity.) Mr. Caveman needed a willing wife, not a slave.

    Empath, we’re talking at cross purposes, and I’m on a short break at work right now. I’ll try to clarify more in a little while.

  472. Just1X says:

    @Paul

    yep, pretty similar for me. Don’t really see the drama over the issue

  473. I don’t want to argue the base stuff because I do not see it has utility. Oh sure Ive stated unequivocally that feminism in all its manifestation exists at the pleasure of men. Sufferage and womens rights exist at the pleasure of men. These are simply not arguable facts. But what is the utility of them, well, it doesnt hurt to make that understood, time to time.
    But we are not walking that out right now, its not an active fact, its a passive fact.
    What we are walking out IS cooperation. It requires men are willing even more than it requires women are, or at least it should if society hadn’t sold the hear me roar crap so well.

  474. Suz says:

    IMO, “game” is a modern word applied to behaviors (both conscious and unconscious) that are inherently masculine. These behaviors may seem hyper-masculine because modern society is so feminized. They also may BE hyper-masculine, when displayed in extreme forms.

    “…it is empowering to women.” It is only empowering in that it allows women to be genuinely feminine. It elicits an instinctive feminine response. Men’s use of game “empowers” women to behave like female humans. Do MRAs object to that?

    Men’s rights advocates should consider their motives. Is the goal to stop feminism so the gender war will end and we can live peacefully together? Or is the goal to stop feminism and punish women the way they have been punishing men, revenge but no peace? Game cannot “cure” feminism, as long as women have the legal option to oppress men. However, men behaving like men can slowly undermine feminism, one woman at a time.

    Short of complete societal collapse, isn’t it our only hope, to demand the repeal of laws and policies, and to convert feminists, male and female, as individuals?

  475. OzGirlie says:

    Good, Suz. Man up should mean behave like the man you were meant to be. Get our juices going.

  476. Dalrock says:

    I think the key philosophical line in the sand is whether men are responsible for the actions of women. Game gives men tools to influence and entice women, and many both on the SoCon and the extreme game purist camps take that to mean that men are therefore responsible whenever a woman makes poor or immoral choices. This isn’t fundamental to game though, it is something else.

    Women have demanded authority, and responsibility absolutely follows that. Some may argue that women aren’t qualified to assume that responsibility, but even if that were the case it doesn’t matter. They still must be held responsible. This is where so many SoCons seem to go off the rails, and you can see this in the discussion around my “Do not be alarmed” post. The assumption of several of the commenters there was that women can’t possibly be expected to be responsible for their own choices and actions. Basically they accept the default status of women having full authority, but then give them a pass to act like children. If women don’t want to be held accountable, the only option is for them to submit to someone else’s (men’s) authority. Socons generally want to pretend that this has already happened, no matter how farcical this is.

  477. ybm says:

    Justice before peace. A woman saying she isn’t feminist is like a hockey player isn’t a skater. Feminism is not a “thing” it is the word used to describe the inherant female nature that already exists. Feminism is a strawman created to be a useful whipping boy to distract men from the fact that the enslavement of ‘beta’ men for resources and ‘alpha’ men for physical stimuli is fundamental to the female herself. It is “the woman you are meant to be” your sisterhood has simply turned it into legislation.

    I see “Game as female empowerment” is more and more obvious with each post.

  478. we are getting somewhere now. ybm gets somewhere, and suz says game is A WORD for something. Thats what Ive been saying all along, it takes an existing thing and labels it and unpacks it etc etc. I dont get that feel from the game guru wannabes because that doesnt edify them enough

  479. TFH says:

    How is Game ‘female empowerment’ when it gets women to give it up *without* securing a provider (which is ultimately what they want to exchange their sexual services for), or ‘commitment’ from a male. At the same time, Game enables a man to be free from the provider-slave role.

    Plus, Game is catastrophic to whiteknights/manginas. How can anyone in the MRM oppose that?

  480. ybm says:

    @Empath:

    Good insights.

    That is what I have also tried to say: ‘Game’ itself is something that already exists. Saying game doesn’t exist was apparently too strong of language for some to accept, so in the interests of arguing in good faith I no longer use the phrase: “Game Doesn’t Exist” when discussing the topic. The game gurus are utterly inferior to mainstream self-confidence and self-actualization techniques from actual professionals. This is why i say I am not anti-game, I am pro-game, but what is taught on blogs on the internet is far, far, removed from creating empowerment for men.

    I do not want empowerment for women,in fact, if anything, women are far too empowered. Oddly enough Roissy agrees with me on that.

    @TFH
    “Plus, Game is catastrophic to whiteknights/manginas. How can anyone in the MRM oppose that?”

    Because my desire for an equal world for men includes the men who are either ignorant of, or happy in their oppression. I would drag them kicking and screaming into the daylight whether they desired it or not.

  481. Rmaxd says:

    @Ozgirl

    What is it exactly you want to learn from the manosphere? Its always interesting to see how indoctrinated newer women are …

  482. Eric says:

    Ybm:
    These are good insights into the question, too.The Gamers can’t get around the fact that what they really preach is female empowerment in return for sex, while convincing themselves (because their own leaders have told them), that MEN are the empowered ones.

    They also can’t get around the fact that not so-called ‘Alphas’ are ‘successful’ with women. I still remember, from high school, the bitches slobbering over such ‘studs’ as Michael Jackson; the same way they gush over creeps like Justin Bieber now. The only thing these metrosexual and manginas have in common with the thuggish men women also pursue is their weakness. And weakness is what really appeals to women.

    So why Game appears to ‘work’ (superficially) is that the women involved know they are being manipulated; and, in turn, despise the male and feel superior to him. Hardly, male empowerment, that!

  483. TFH says:

    I would drag them kicking and screaming into the daylight whether they desired it or not.

    Too much trouble. I would rather transfer the costs of misandry onto manginas, since they are a huge part of the problem.

    So the Game debate is effectively one about whether manginas are to be saved, or whether manginas are the enemy and the costs should be transferred onto them (except for those who figure it out on their own).

    Oddly enough Roissy agrees with me on that.

    Oddly? It only appears odd given the false, and heavily discredited premise that Game empowers women.

    A woman is empowered only when she is getting resources for nothing, either via the state directly, or via a husband who is enslaved by the state. Since Game makes women give up their bargaining chip without securing any resources, it is hugely disruptive to feminism, and empowering to the men who practice it.

    Again, all the points against Game I see are not really against Game, but rather against having any romantic involvement with women at all. That is the undercurrent of all the anti-Game comments.

    So if that is the goal, just say it. Since Game is merely a way of doing the latter much more efficiently.

  484. Eric says:

    Empath:
    I recently read a study by Professor Gilbert Highet on the nature and reaction of people involved in irrational mass movements, which probably shed much light on Rmaxd, THF, and others’ attitudes expressed here. According to Highet, these movements share four predominant characteristics. See how closely these parallel “game”:

    1. They offer the sense a cohesion of a group to a socially disenfranchised collection of individuals (as most men in the Anglosphere are).

    2. They revolve around a charismatic leader

    3. They offer new theories based on supposedly higher standards than scientific research that are given as infallible self-evident truths;

    4. Their system is offered as ‘complete’; the final authority and solution to all problems.

    According to Highet and other scholars, the individual ego submerges into the group-ego. Therefore, an attack on the group’s doctrines is taken like a personal insult.

    I’ve mentioned before that another problem I have with Game is its cult-like aura. This study pretty much explains why.

  485. Eric says:

    THF:
    “the undercurrent of all anti Game comments {is against having romantic relations with women at all}

    No we’re pointing out that feminised Anglo-American women aren’t worth the effort of ‘gaming’; nor is it desirable to drag men down to their level just to placate them. Traditional, non-feminised women don’t need to be ‘gamed’. Game is only applicable in a culture where men and women are placed in adversarial positions. Since that adversarialism is inherently anti-social, Game ought not to be practiced on such women at all.

    If it weren’t for the fact that most Gamers’ egos are hopelessly bound to their number of sexual conquests, they’d see this for the obvious truth.

    Men deserve better than Game can offer. If they aren’t MGTOW and want relationships with women; then their option is to move on to women from cultures where game and other forms of manipulation aren’t necessary. It should be obvious that no real relationship came be based on mutual manipulation and charading and pop-psychology. I’m arguing that men don’t need to stoop to the level of street thugs, just because the latter seem ‘successful’ sexually.

  486. hurp says:

    rather against having any romantic involvement with women at all.

    Well, what’s wrong with that? Nothing against gamers, but I don’t see any reason not to avoid romantic involvement with women either. No skin off my back, or anyone else’s, for that matter?

  487. Suz says:

    @ Eric: Game as religion. Yes, many men treat it that way; that’s the nature of the uninformed an superstitious. And yes, it can be badly misused, but just like religion, it has many good points – group cohesion is one of them.

    @ ybm: “Justice before peace.” I don’t need to tell you I disagree with that philosophy, and you don’t need to tell me I’m not in a position to judge. Although I think true justice isn’t possible, I do agree that a substantial, painful dose of justice may be the only way to reach most women. We “get” consequences when the consequences are actually applied to us.

    “Feminism is not a “thing” it is the word used to describe the inherant female nature that already exists.”

    I don’t see how this can be true. No species can survive if half of its population is inherently destructive. Feminism is the result of women being spoiled by excess, by surplus resources. It is pure hunger for power, a trait shared by men. Primitive women who don’t even have enough power to feed and shelter their children, have no interest whatsoever in exerting power over men. Where basic life necessities are scarce, females instinctively support and cooperate with the males who provide those resources. By the same token, males who would be “better off” feeding only themselves, support and cooperate with the females who provide offspring.

    “Inherent nature” is not what causes women to be feminists. The mental capacity and free will to overcome and repress inherent nature, is the cause.

  488. Eric….good study, I agree. You and I may differ on the margins of why we make the comments we do, because I recognize game efficacy in that cafeteria way someone wrote, I just refuse to go to the level that you (the study) aptly describes.

  489. Suz

    So some treat game like religion, and others misuse it. Thats fine, I dont care about it being misused by others, thats not really my issue, even though its obviously true and that aspect is appealing to some (maybe most) and repugnant to others. The religion part is also appealing to some and repugnant to others, though here, I believe almost everyone wants to believe in something that they think is bigger than self….to be part of something, even MGTOW, in adhering to that are believing in something and part of something I guess I’d coin the term ana-group for that.

    I dont think anyone alleged that feminism is a thing that describes female nature. You may be taking some of the analogies Ive used, or others, comparing tactics and such used by game guru wannabes (GGW)to feminism and added to it assuming we were setting game and feminism as likes but different, but no way is feminism like game in that way, not even close, just in the type of rhetorical tricks employed when discussing it. heck the most obvious one is that not one of them have even addressed my points, and thats fine I have no “right” to be addressed, but notice that like feminists who call MRA’s woman haters (taking the extreme and rebuking that) the GGW’s take all discussion of game as full out anti-game, then argue that.

    Such is the way of movements like Erics posted study describe. You can’t be half a Scientologist, when among Scientologists. Even Christians don’t go along with the “Jesus was a great teacher and the Bible is a good guide book” type thinking.

    “”””””Primitive women who don’t even have enough power to feed and shelter their children, have no interest whatsoever in exerting power over men. Where basic life necessities are scarce, females instinctively support and cooperate with the males who provide those resources. By the same token, males who would be “better off” feeding only themselves, support and cooperate with the females who provide offspring.”””””””””””””
    ————————-
    That is true, but it describes what actually, when you peel back modernity, still is the base case. It describes the nature we were born into. Those men in that primative example are game personified, and imagine that, no websites and no GGW’s.

  490. Need to post in word and spell check….sheesh what a mess

  491. Jennifer says:

    “Even if he can toss her out without cost, most men choose not to. Men are more responsible adults than women, example #5846″

    Or because they had the power, and therefore didn’t “need” to throw their women out. I haven’t heard of that many divorces under the Taliban, either.

    Rayy, here, I agree with you a lot about what Christian women need to do. And I agree with Slwerner totally in his response to Arid; we NEED real equality, as in custody laws that don’t favor women just because and far better protections for men accused of crime. Of course there were some unfairnesses for women in history, more in Middle-Aged history than in recent history. Many wonmen did far more than housework (which could take hours without modern appliances) and raise what could often be tons of children. Fact is, feminists did fight hard for the vote; but they didn’t need to. 29 states already allowed female votes before the 20th century. It was a progress that was going fine without any help from liberal nutjobs.

  492. Jennifer says:

    Just marry a woman you “like”? So you have all the power? Nice.

  493. Jennifer says:

    David, somehow I doubt you’d be cool with a woman saying, “If your man is the least slow to service you, drop him”.

  494. Brendan says:

    Just marry a woman you “like”? So you have all the power? Nice.

    Tends to work out better. Seeking equality between men and women is a disastrous mistake, and one of the main drivers of our contemporary malaise.

  495. Jennifer says:

    One trying to rule over the other is what’s been a mistake. Making sure one has more emotional power over the other is completely separate from the issue of equality in roles anyway; I’m so sick of damn power games on both sides. And no, 7man, a sexual partner shouldn’t have to do anything they’re not comfortable with. This has nothing to do with gender superiority; it’s true for either partner. Athol had a woman a while ago say she wanted to put a dildo up her husband’s butt; if he refuses, I hope she doesn’t act wronged.

  496. 7man says:

    @Jennifer
    Does that include your “permission” for a man to decide how much of his paycheck he is “comfortable” sharing with his “sexual partner?” He should be accorded the same options that she retains for herself, otherwise there would be unequal entitlements.

  497. Suz says:

    Golly 7man, Are you suggesting that *gasp* equality can be applied BEFORE the check goes into the joint account? Cuz I gotta tell ya, “equality” is way more fun for us girlz when the mortgage has already been paid!

  498. Anonymous Reader says:

    Suz, that’s what Zed calls “eek-wallet-ee” if I remember rightly…

  499. 7man says:

    Yes, Suz.

    I think that women should reconsider what they think of as entitlements to them and reassess their views of what they provide to men. It seems that most women have a pervasive need to control: “What is his is hers and what is hers is hers” (unless she chooses to give, but only if she is comfortable in doing so).

    WTF???? Why do so many women have to bring anal sex into their argument as an exaggeration to prove their point. (No BuFu is a boundary that I maintain – on principle, so my lack of desire for this is immaterial.)

    I have not ever said women HAVE “to do anything they’re not comfortable with.” But it is quite rare that a woman “allows” a man the same freedom of choice.

    About 1 in 100 women will understand this and when a man finds such a woman, the relationship can exceed previous imagination (for both). There are few (if any) of the power struggles that Jennifer obsesses about. Both the man and the woman think they have the BETTER part of the arrangement (and every relationship is an arrangement of some sort). And for the record, a female doormat is not worth my time. Women especially cannot imagine things beyond their experience, which explains Jennifer’s fear of a naturally ordered relationship with a man.

    This relationship is not a commercial exchange; rather it is an exchange of love and respect. The key is for the woman to surrender her need to control and her entitlement mentality. A man will do more for her by choice than by enslavement. He will work harder as a free man for their mutual benefit than he will as a slave, taken for granted and deprived of his need for her trust.

    A woman is a fool if she thinks a man working “like a slave” to her whims results in greater productivity and happiness (more stuff) for her.

    And to bring this back on topic, men experience righteous anger when a woman uses the family courts to extract money after divorce, as her entitlement. This is often the same woman that used her feelings and her discomfort at non-sinful sexual things as an excuse to withhold sex and to control a man.

    Her effort to control does not end with her revocation of vows (said before God almighty). And to top it off she takes the kids and doles out whatever time he gets to spend with his children while using the power of the state to extract his financial provision. Exactly why are people surprised that men are angry and young men are eschewing marriage?

  500. Suz says:

    “A man will do more for her by choice than by enslavement. He will work harder as a free man for their mutual benefit than he will as a slave, taken for granted and deprived of his need for her trust.”

    Beautiful turn of phrase there. It’s a travesty for everyone that most women don’t know this. I pity them almost as much as I despise them; they take everything they think they can get, never knowing what they could have had.

  501. Doug1 says:

    TFH—

    @Eric– Completely wrong. Feminism mandates that beta males either never have sex or pay their lifetime earnings just for conceiving a child, even without having access to a child.

    Game enables a man to have sex at less than 1/1000th the price that feminists are attempting to mandate. Sleeping with lots of women (let alone one) without giving them your lifetime earnings – yeah, that sure sounds like something feminists approve of.

    You clearly have no idea what Game is (as is typical of the critics of it).

    Yeah Eric has been commenting here a long time, and being answered, and yet he’s still completely clueless about game, and partially clueless about feminism. He’s stubborn as hell and seems rather slow. Irritating as hell. I usually just skip his comments, but I usually don’t skip yours, hence this one.

  502. Pingback: Pathological denial | Dalrock

  503. Great article. Very depressing. Or anger inspiring.

    I don’t understand why men don’t snap.

    Either become murderers. Terrorists.

    Or become psychiatric nut cases.

    Or conspire so that Millions of men stop paying alimony and child support and challenge the system to jail them.

    And, there are more reasons to be angry about feminism. Sexual freedom, age of consent, child porn persecutions for harmless drawings or 17 year old photos

    But destroying a man’s life, taking away most he has and most of what he will ever earn. That should cause a REVOLUTION.

  504. @ Bonifacii is right on one point. The MRA movement is pathetically weak.

    2% gays have managed to achieve influence and power that 50% men can only dream of.

    Women took over the United Nations, the European community. Took them 100 years to undo due process in courts which took men thousands of years to gain. Women basically enslaved men, and all that in spite of men having body strength, weapons and armies under their control.

    Women defend criminals who mutilate or kill men. Women are united.

    If one single women had a fate like the man described by Dalrock, women would hit the streets in tens of thousands in each of 100 cities, they would appear on Oprah. Every woman in politics and in the press would make her voice heard. All the way up to Mrs Clinton and Merkel. They would lobby congress and senate to change laws. And they are not afraid to demand and obtain sexist laws that are clearly unjust.

    And what do men do? Write a few nice articles. Fight among each other to make sure that no unjust or exaggerated demand is ever made. If men were like women, they would have defended Jack the Ripper. After all he was a man and he certainly was traumatized by female rejection.

    Of course, Dalrock’s anger would be one step in the right direction.

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

  506. pkearney0663 says:

    Hmmm

    I recon Id take the trip to Mexico, buy a bottle of Nembutal from the first pet shop I find, find a comfortable spot on the beach, watch the sun go down for the last time, and put myself to sleep.

    Peter

  507. Höllenhund says:

    @Human-Stupidity.com 12:02 pm

    So basically your argument is that men should…copy female behavior? Internalize the mentality of the so-called gender war and play for Team Man? Become more like women? You know…the sex that has screwed up everything beyond repair? Is that what you honestly want?

  508. Brian Plainer says:

    Never mind the US – the Uk for certain (and I’m lead to believe Canada as well) are equally if not more denegratory towards men via a family law system that works this way :

    1) Central Monetary Reserves are not a bottomless pit.
    2) The Revenue (Exchequer or Central Monetary) system is not therefore able nor going to pick up the tab for the costs of all divorces
    3) Hence successive Governments will allott a fixed ring-fenced amount towards social security systems and further fixed generous sums towards the instruments of family law (parliamentary legislators,courts,judges,state-paid solicitors/attorneys) who defend the Revenues position come what may.
    4) The way this is done most efficiently by using the age old “divide and rule” principle, pandering to feminists who put biologigical “ownership” of a family’s children firmly in preference to the mother – hence all the other legislation follows.
    5) Produce oodles of legislation and instruments through law meant to “show that” the Family Law acts to protect the child first and foremost although as originally shown in point 1 it’s real primary purpose is to protect the Revenue and the “protecting the children” mantra is an instrument of control – an excuse of feminists to protect themselves via the children.
    5) Legal total separation when it comes to treatment of finances in divorce versus child custody,visitation etc – classic divide and rule stuff – this is the area of untold conflict by way of which the law favours towards the female.

    More and more wives have become wise to realise that family law significantly favours them and many incrementally and somewhat innocuously inch towards becoming more unscrupulous using this as a tool of manipulative power against their husbands within their marriages to get whatever they demand irrespective of morality,fairness or consequence.

    Divorce nor marriage favours men.

    Is it any wonder families are destroyed?
    Remember Karl Marx stated ” when you destroy the family – you destroy society”
    Look at western society today.

    Is it any wonder why dads faced with self-destructive uphill legal fights that can destroy their physical health,their mental health,their wealth,their self-esteem,leaving them embittered and angry – give up on their attempts to see their own kids – an effort to retain any element of their own sanity that might remain?
    Is it any wonder that faced with all the potential burdens and millstones of destruction that some dads flip and “take down their whole family units” – some tragically by murder etc. Is it really any wonder???
    Sadly shariah law favours the converse with equal ridicule i.e. in favour of the father over the mother (sometimes violently so).
    Why there simply is no moral philosophy that governs family law with justice in our world beggars belief.

  509. Pingback: Men are righteously angry, Women are controlling and Christians are oblivious « Complementarian Loners

  510. Pingback: What, Me Worry? | Dalrock

  511. Pingback: Threatpoint | Dalrock

  512. James says:

    The Family Unit is the foundation of a strong society.

    If I wished to destroy society, either as an enemy or as a psychopath with a control fetish, then I would first aim for the family. I would target the strongest pillar in the unit – the father. Remove it from the premises and have fatherless, aimless children ripe for re-education.

    Spouses who cheat, decide they’re “not fulfilled” or some other EXCUSE to dishonorably screw their oath and their bond (with the bonus of DESTROYING THOSE YOU [LYING] CLAIMED TO LOVE THE MOST) are worthless to society.

    Women are BY FAR the worst culprits in this deliberate attack. They are the “commandos” and they are too f’ing self-obsesses to realize it. Just dangle the right dick in front of them and they go all “single” and shit. They’ll tell you they are not “filled”…I mean fulfilled.

    The plan IS working.

    Thanks all you selfish bitch whores and married gamers. You have served a very useful purpose.

  513. Doomed Harlot says:

    I’m not a divorce lawyer , but my understanding is that the difference between fault and no-falt divorce as it relates to alimony is what factors the judge can consider in deciding whether to award alimony and how much. In no-fault, it just comes down to things like the length of the marriage, the ages of the parties and their health, the incomes of the parties, and the future economic prospects of the parties. The idea is to protect the financially weaker spouse who may hae invested time and energy into the marriage rather than developing a career. In no-fault, the judge does not consider whether the parties committed any bad acts, such as adultery. In fault divorce, the judge can consider adultery or other bad acts and can punish the guilty spouse financially for the bad acts.

    If you know divorcees who do not pay or receive almony, it is likely because they and and their spouses were relatively equal financially. Or the poorer spouse (usually the woman) doesn’t seek alimony because she wants to move on with her life and doesn’t want to get bogged down in trying to collect every month, or relying on an alimony check that may or may not be paid. Also many statutes are designed to award only temporary support with the idea that the poorer spouse has an obligation to get out there and start working to support herself. Permanent almony, at least in my state, would apply to a much older woman divorced after a long marriage with few prospects due to age or poor health.

  514. Doomed Harlot says:

    Oh, and I use the female pronoun because the poorer spouse/alimony recipient is the woman in the vast majority of cases, but men are entitled to and do receive alimony too.

  515. In no-fault, the judge does not consider whether the parties committed any bad acts, such as adultery. In fault divorce, the judge can consider adultery or other bad acts and can punish the guilty spouse financially for the bad acts.
    ———————————————
    This is not the case in Texas.
    The code has a list of things that can be considered in asset split, which supposedly starts at 50/50.
    It actually starts at 60/40 if there is a SAHM and it goes from there for a list of factors, one of which is
    “the allegation of verbal abuse”

    This was the case in 2004. I do not know about today

  516. Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock

  517. Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock

  518. Pingback: Red pill bitterness | Dalrock

  519. Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | Dalrock

  520. Pingback: Social Scientists still remain baffled "Why Men Are Refusing to Marry",Deny the Obvious - WMASAW

  521. Pingback: Same Old Song and Dance

  522. Pingback: Scolding the wrong person | Something Fishy

  523. Pingback: The Great Douchebag Mystery | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s