When discussing the topic of changes in divorce law we typically talk about divorce theft and how this causes men to be understandably hesitant to marry, as well as the impact it has on men and their children who are directly victimized by the new regime. However, divorce “reform” is as much about manipulating the power balance within marriage as it is about ensuring that women can frivolously divorce while collecting cash and prizes. Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine).
In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.
They aren’t under any illusions; divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the spouse who wants to honor the marriage vows to the spouse who doesn’t. This is one of the best kept open secrets I’ve ever encountered.
Also, don’t be confused by the gender neutral terms; women are overwhelmingly the ones who don’t want to honor the marriage vows. This is confirmed by the academic study “These Boots Are Made for Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women and the data on the age of wife at the time of divorce. Putting this together, divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.
Stevenson and Wolfers are very open about this. They of course present it through the feminist narrative that husbands are evil brutes which must be tamed, lest they abuse, murder, or drive their wife to suicide:
Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20% in the long run in states that adopted unilateral divorce. We believe that this decline is a robust and well-identified result, and timing evidence speaks clearly to this interpretation. There is no discernable effect on male suicide.
They clarify that this isn’t about women previously being “trapped” in abusive or dangerous marriages, but about how putting all husbands in fear of divorce might tame potentially abusive husbands (emphasis mine):
To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent. However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.
Indeed they found that this was in fact the case. They close their conclusion with:
The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.
Again, they weren’t looking for evidence that divorce reform allowed wives to escape abusive husbands. They were looking for and found that changes in family law served as a sort of marital sword of Damocles over husbands, causing them bend to their wife’s will out of fear of unilateral divorce.
In this context we can understand how cases like John’s and walking in hell while not the standard outcome of “divorce reform” also aren’t unintended consequences. They serve as a warning to keep all husbands in line.
It is also worth noting that while academic studies couch this in the feminist narrative of checking what would otherwise be an army of sadistic husbands, this is really about husbands living in fear of their wife becoming unhaaaapy and dynamiting the family. Only a fool hasn’t noticed that one of the most prominent themes in women’s entertainment is the concept of the empowerment women experience from frivolously divorcing.
Christians are actively reinforcing these legal and social changes by abandoning the biblical view of marriage in favor of the feminist view. While the old paradigm was that a woman who couldn’t keep a man was a failure, feminists and Christians have turned this around and now view a husband who can’t keep his wife haaapy as a failure. At the same time, the wife who kicks the father of her children out of the house is now seen as heroic. This idea that husbands must grovel to their wives to stave off her ever threatened unhaaapyness is so ingrained in modern Christian thought that there was no meaningful backlash amongst Christians when this was made the central plot of the movie Fireproof. Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of Christians watched the movie and delighted in its presumed Christian message on marriage. We saw proof of the same thing with the women of christianforums.com going on for over 40 pages passionately arguing the morality of frivolous divorce. Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce (emphasis mine):
Please remember that when someone shares a personal experience it is not up for judgement. Divorce is always a last resort, but we will not allow judgement of those who do make that choice.
This abandonment of the biblical concept of marriage in exchange for the feminist view of marriage doesn’t just impact the marriages of Christians. Christianity is the driving moral force in the west, and as such their turning their backs on biblical marriage has given all women in the west moral cover to use the new legal threatpoint against their husbands to maximum effect. Husbands are hemmed in by all sides cheerleading his wife to frivolously divorce if he fails to make her happy.
Yet despite the millions of innocent men and their children who have been ground up by the the machinery needed to keep husbands in their place, wives now report less marital happiness (Source: National Marriage Project, P 67 Fig 4):
We are feeding millions of innocent men and children to the machinery of divorce to keep this threatpoint in place, and not even making women happier with their marriages.
Sword of Damocles image information.
I had posted this in the prior topic’s comments but, as it directly applies to this one ( and not the last), I’m going to be pushy and post it here too.
At what point do we stop grousing about how Marriage 2.0 is worthless and dangerous and accept that the magic is gone, that “marriage” means “bad business deal for men”?
I’m not talking about MGTOW … exactly. Let’s say a man has gone his own way and meets a woman who ( pure fantasy, I know ) wants something along the lines of Marriage 1.0? What do we have to do that? I mean apart from dowries. Family law is a sham and a scam so what is there in contract law that we can use?
Just to kick it off, I’ll suggest a couple of things.
How about we legalize prostitution so that a man and a woman can make a contract for sexual fidelity? This, while wild, would be much much easier than fixing Marriage 2.0.
To replace the church, how about an HMO that does nothing except marital counselling? Couples buy in to get regular periodic relationship support. Success rates would be independantly auditable.
I’ve given these about 5 minutes of consideration, long enough to think of 2 things and type them. I’m not wedded to them ( *heh* ).
Truly brilliant post!
No-fault divorce reduces suicide?
The important points are in these two paragraphs:
“Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.”
and
“They were looking for and found that changes in family law served as a sort of marital sword of Damocles over husbands, causing them bend to their wife’s will out of fear of unilateral divorce.”
The first was making women more equal in marriage. Wives now are in a position to threaten their husbands, And that’s why they’re unhappy.
The second amplifies why women are unhappier in marriage. They are married to men who are fearful of having their lives destroyed, their children taken from them and their assets squandered. They give in to wives, hoping to make them happy. Nothing irritates a wife more than her husband overtly trying to make her happy.
Husbands giving in, caving in, capitulating, ceding power and authority in their marriages. Husbands lacking confidence in the strength of their marriages and not showing dominance. It’s no wonder wives are unhappier. They got what they wanted and found out it didn’t make them happy.
There is no discernable effect on male suicide.
I guess they didn’t mention the higher rates of male suicide post-divorce and financial ruination.
Speaking of “men should grovel before women” advice, anyone here had the misfortune of reading the Every Young Man’s Battle and Every Man’s Battle series? Those books included such wonderful advice such as you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage because you are supposed to be loving your wife and other women more than you love yourself and heart warming stories of men who literally became slaves to their women. One dude cheated on his wife, so he was advised to seek her forgiveness by, among other things:
a) shave his head
b) beg her forgiveness in public
c) give her control over all their finances
Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.
Men more likely to commit suicide after divorce, study finds:
One of the principal authors of the “Every Man’s Battle” series is Stephen Arterburn. He is currently married to his third wife. Arterburn has said that he and his second wife divorced “after 20 difficult years of marriage” and that he did all he could to save his second marriage.
Speaking of “men should grovel before women” advice, anyone here had the misfortune of reading the Every Young Man’s Battle and Every Man’s Battle series? Those books included such wonderful advice such as you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage because you are supposed to be loving your wife and other women more than you love yourself and heart warming stories of men who literally became slaves to their women. One dude cheated on his wife, so he was advised to seek her forgiveness by, among other things:
a) shave his head
b) beg her forgiveness in public
c) give her control over all their finances
Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.
Came across these in my own therapy during the divorce. I dropped a therapist over them. It’s absolutely man-hating literature of the first order. Absolute man-hatred, written by men who hate themselves *and* who hate other men, in the name of God. Sick. Sick. Sick. May they burn eternally in hell.
Someone should do a review of the more well known/ published books offering advice to Christian men from such male friendly publishers as Focus on the Family.
Actually, for those that have looked into the matter, it is beyond all doubt that Focus on the Family is a predominant feminist organization. In going to church and listening to enough sermons and going to enough Sunday school lessons, one will know that Focus on the Family is a predominant driving force for the provision of material about marriage, family, and raising children.
This leads to the correct conclusion that, given the time Focus on the Family has been in existence, that a majority of other works are influenced in some way by them, and Focus on the Family has driven the current narrative on these topics. In other words, Glenn Stanton wouldn’t be allowed to write what he does under that banner without the approval of the group and James Dobson (aka King Mangina in some circles). And you wouldn’t find much disagreement about other works such as Fireproof from anyone in this group.
Of course, there are feminists that have their panties in a wad over this group regarding certain other things it says and does (most notably abortion). But in reality, the current narrative within religious feminist circles is nothing different than what comes out of the secular feminist circles – in other words, their goals are one in the same. In listening to the Focus on the Family shows and reading the materials (as I have, unfortunately, over the last few years), one will hear that husbands are vile, base and sadistic and need to be held accountable and controlled to be good well-behaved slaves to their wives and church. One will hear that wives are noble and blameless and need to be protected so they may flourish. One will hear that daughters need uplifted in their self-esteem so their noble, blameless nature may be preserved. One will hear that sons need to be controlled and disciplined so they may be broken of their masculinity and self-worth. One will hear that all single women, even the sluts, are tragedies because single men (and often the narrative includes “the first single man they fall in love with”) will not marry them. One will hear that single men are foul, won’t grow up, won’t man up, are threats to the wives in their midst, and won’t marry the first single woman that they come across that happens to fall in love with them.
What Focus on the Family puts out in their media is nothing different than what Dalrock has already covered in writing about gender relations on this blog, or what others have covered in the manosphere. In other words, “move along, there’s nothing to see here”.
This is a brilliant explanation of why the divorce system is working just like it was intended. The system had been designed this way and did not just happen. There has been a concerted effort to return the world to a feudal system. In order for the ruling class to accomplish this, the leader (father) needed to be removed from the family or be stripped of his leadership role. Then the women will easily follow the changing culture and the schools can indoctrinate the children. This further erodes the traditional family order in the next generation because boys grow up without having learned masculinity from their fathers. (Of course women will not be happy either, yet continue to seek to fix their unhapiness by stroving for ever more empowerment.)
To see who is behind this, follow the money. Who is really running the world these days? The banks get the bailouts and the oil industry reaps huge profits.
I think the destruction of the family was set in motion in 1910 at Jekyll Island (that is where the Federal Reserve and the modern banking system was planned).
“Husbands are hemmed in by all sides cheerleading his wife to frivolously divorce if he fails to make her happy.”
Seems some guys never really have a chance of reaching that magic goal of making their wives happy (subject matter previously addressed by Dalrock, but with a new HuffPostbit today):
“In their book “How Not to Marry the Wrong Guy,” co-authors Anne Milford and Jennifer Gauvain found through their research that a shocking 30 percent of divorcees said they knew they were marrying the wrong man on their wedding day.”
@Ballista-GTOW:
I was actually being sarcastic on the “male-friendly” line. I know all too well the horrors of Focus on the Family. Their posters are in every church I have ever been too, endorsing the likes of Fireproof, Courageous and other man hating drivel.
Dobson is Dr. Mangina. Just listening to him you can tell he’s talking to women and whipped men.
I was given the book: “Every man’s battle” to cure my pornography addiction. I didn’t know it is a trojan horse for emasculation until now. Now that I think of it I don’t think my christian friend is very masculine.
It’s clear that their goal is to eliminate marriage. I recently interacted with a feminist who cackled with glee that marriage was being dismantled.
It’s also the only way that the rhetoric and the numbers make sense.
Ah, well. Won’t be marrying anytime soon.
if marriage is so dangerous for men, I would suggest that they all stop getting married. across the board, no matter how much you might trust a woman, there’s just no reason to face that kind of risk.
The sooner we make shared equal custody the default in divorce the sooner we will change this outdated bigoted nonsense. While not a panacea, it will solve many of the problems of no-fault divorce without having to return to the litigious and gotcha nature of at-fault divorce. Feminists hate it because they get hit twice with the same stone. First, they are forced to share custody. No matter what they will tell you about men doing their fair share raising the kids, they really don’t mean it. They would much rather always have the power to take custody if they choose and have the men pay. The second half is that women will not be able to hide behind the children as an excuse for not pulling their weight financially. If they only get 50% custody then they can spend the time when they are not with the children working. This will have an equalizing effect naturally bringing down alimony payments (reforming alimony is something which needs to happen as well). Expect women to piss and moan till the cows come home on this one but in a day and age where women can work outside the home, own property and vote, it is ridiculous that divorce laws are still rooted in the 1950s.
The Everyman’s books are painfully gyncentric Christianity.
It is a bit awkward to say that, for example, Focus on the family is no different than feminism. Before I suffer an attack, Im not in any way defending them, the church, or Christian white knight men and gynocentric evangelical feminists in general. I will flat out say that the type of feminism in the church is far more insidious than the secular “Feministing” type feminism. Its simply much worse, more subversive, and actually doing way more harm than (fill in number) wave feminism.
Part of the problem is use of the word feminism when confronting the evangelical feminists, and especially when trying to enlighten their useful idiots, the white knights. As has been written here, the useful idiot white knights have layers of denial of feminism in the church, and the first layer is the simple incongruous seeming of the word feminist when used in Christian context, I mean heck no these gals are not feminists they are IN CHURCH for petes sake. Thats about as deep as the white knight thinks anyway, never mind any facts. My point isnt one of these “lets find a new term” sort of pitches, those can be annoying and a waste of time while people then get too clever by half brainstorming it. Its just to state this, and state it again and if you find yourself engaged with a white knight in conversation, the word feminist is likely all the dude needs to glaze over and ignore you.
The power behind the threat point starts with the orgy of materialism that is today’s wedding biz. That a father dump 10 grand on a cheap wedding, and people gather from around the country to pay homage to a woman and nudge and wink with the guy that he is soooooooooo lucky is the norm. HE is LUCKY? Well, OK yea, I see that, I feel lucky to have my wife….thats just a statement though, not some orbit altering fact. The wife is the one who, in most cases and in terms of livelihood and likelihood for a good one, kids, a home, all that, SHE is the lucky one and historically that was recognized.
Now, its a day of orgiastic overdoing followed by a life under a hair trigger guillotine.
The dystopian future this could foretell is maybe why I so enjoy post apocalyptic fiction, where the men are men again, and the women are accepting and appreciating protection. It may be one of the last genres where it hasnt been corrupted by female centric writing. I mention this because women have written themselves into fictional awesomeness and they believe their own musings….hence, keep the man under threat
The sooner we make shared equal custody the default in divorce the sooner we will change this outdated bigoted nonsense.
You seem to think this would ever happen in a society where women have the right to vote.
When women have the right to vote, divorce laws can only move in one direction.
‘Hope for the best, prepare for the worst’. If you are male: never marry, REPEAT, never marry.
This article explains plainly why you have married men that are MRA’s and why nearly all married men do not recommend any man get married. I wouldn’t wish marriage on any man that I didn’t personally hate and wish ill will on.
One thing I have found is that any deception in and of itself is insidious. The fact that feminism exists in Christian circles (*) is one that is
not ever imagined. This is simply for the fact that the majority of those in Christian circles are lazy and do not think on
things that they encounter both within the church and within society. I tend to observe, in my opinion, that most people define feminism (and the “manosphere” as well) not by the goals intended, but by the expression of them and methods used to obtain them.
As I’ve stated in other posts, the feminism that exists in Christian circles is no different than the secular “Feministing”
feminism, save for the abortion issue. In other words, take abortion off the table and the end goals are in lockstep for
both camps. The major divergence is in the expression of these goals. Christian feminism seeks to express those
goals couched in religious terms, and to subvert the religious machinery of the churches (and parachurches) in order to
accomplish these things. Secular feminism uses terms reflective of the “unsaved world”, using the legal system, the school
system, and the media at-large to accomplish their goals. Deception is common in this area, too. This is proven in the fact that many of the Christian feminists have chosen to distance themselves from the name, while holding to the same principles as feminism.
Yet there is ample proof in society that this exists. Two cases come to mind. The furor over Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments regarding
contraception are reflective of secular feminism. This is of no surprise to those that are familiar with the issue.
However there was, according to this
article, 43 sponsors that decided to stop advertising on his show. Now, nothing ever happens in a vacuum. It would be
foolish to assume that these sponsors had no awareness of what they were advertising on. Rush Limbaugh is a partisan
Republican who has a track record of saying what could be termed “incendiary” things to the left-wing. He primarily has
partisan Republicans that routinely listen to this show. Usually it would be good to assume that the advertisers
discontinued their ad buys based on complaints from the audience that they were targeting. This would bring the conclusion
that Republicans were complaining, and given that a majority of those are regular church attenders, these were
Christian Republicans complaining.
Now another example that came to mind was the selection of Sarah Palin as vice-president. While that was 2008 and I’m unsure
of what was written in this regard, much could be concluded by the fact that a majority supported her nomination, and to my
recollection very little was written or said from the religious camps about the Biblical contradiction that was presented by
her being in the race. This goes to care of her family, the example set by both her and her husband (basically a proven
mangina and stay-at-home dad), and the questions of Christian order and hierarchy (if a woman can not be head pastor of a
church, how much more so a leader of a nation). It was interesting for me to be able to listen to the rationalization
hamsters of the Christian women (even the ones old enough to be my grandmother!) go into overdrive to rationalize supporting
her despite all of these things, and to see all the Christian men fall into line like the well-behaved slaves they were
trained to be. Indeed, Sarah Palin is the consumate Christian feminist, and the McCain campaign received the support that it
did despite the high negative poll numbers because these voters were nothing different than her.
(*) – I have fundamental disagreements with the definition given on this site, primarily the fact that feminism has nothing to do with equality.
“Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce (emphasis mine):”
compare this reaction — silencing of dissent and infliction of necessary “rules” to solve the Bad Male Problem
Bad Male: “says truth”
abort abort abort
family court/law, divorce/civil proceedings, criminal “law” — whether from left of right, the reaction to a male expressing maleness is banning and censorship and forbidding (but not banning or forbidding female misbehavior)
“threatpoint” is right, women are experts at using kids to hurt and destroy guys who displease them in any way — theyll keep boys and men apart to satisfy the most trivial vengeance and spite, and rationalize it a zillion ways in their noggins
never again will this bullshit be allowed to go down
a gratifing article, desperately needed by america and and the west
finally a REAL Promise Keeper gathering of ACTUAL ohristian men, properly pissed and cogently voluble at their anti-God, anti-biblical, anti-masculine nations
the truth doesnt require a baseball stadium or ad space
Joint custody and 50/50 living arrangements increased when the presumtion for joint custody was strengthened in the early nineties or something. That presumtion was weakened after feminist pressure in 2006 and custody disputes have therefor increased, but not enough to break the trend.
Google translate this page.
http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/LE0001_2009K04_TI_02_A05TI0904.pdf
In 2006 close to 30 % of children with seperated parents had 50/50 living arrangements. Divorces are in slight decline (or not growing as fast), but that can also be due to people marrying and having children later.
One interesting thing is that the proportion of single mothers who have never lived with the father has only increased from 1 to 5 % in 100 years. And the proprtion of kids who have lost a parent by death has decreased from 18 to 3.
It is all well and good to warn others that they should not get married, or that they should approach marriage very cautiously, but the fact is most people think that THEIR marriage will be different. They’re not going to be like everyone else. They know what they’re doing. Things will be fine for them. It’s not until after they get married, and experience the problems themselves, that they suddenly realize they should have heeded the warnings.
There are some things that are just impossible to believe until they happen to you. I think this is one of them. Yes, there are some who see their friends destroyed and realize they need to be careful. But by and large, I think people believe that marriage is good, that women are good, and that they’re not going to have those problems.
Do you remember all those fairy tales you read as a kid, where Prince Charming married the Princess and they lived happily ever after? I think that a whole lot of men actually believe them. They think, overall, that’s how it works.
The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.
Women claim to be the more empathetic gender, but it bears asking where is that empathy when the evidence, from the Terman Longitudinal Study, is that the children of a divorce have a life expectancy of 5 years less than the children born in equivalent circumstances except that their parents remain married. So these women are condemning their own children to a curtailed life expectancy and they are empathetic?
And finally on the statisic that there is no effect on male suicides. Is this no effect on the proportion of men who commit suicide after divorce, or the absolute number of men who commit suicide after divorce has not increased,. If the former, what confidence leevel has been used, because youcan arrive at a conclusion that there is no statically significant difference by setting the confidence levels appropriately to get the answer you want.
Feminism is another variant of socialism, and as such one must be prepared for underhand tricks at all times from feminists. The actions of the moderators on Christian Forums are ideal illustrations of this.
@ukfred says: “The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.”
I quite agree. But I think this is another area where men are being misled. There are a great many single Christian men out there who think that, if they can just get married, they will finally enjoy an active sex life. It is possible that might happen – if they’re lucky. The fact is, women know how much power sex gives them, and many of them won’t hesitate to use it as a weapon, or a tool to control their husbands. Nor do they have any qualms about cutting off their husband entirely. (Sure, they want sex. But not necessarily with their husband.)
How many men actually have regular sex with their wives? How many men instead have to get by on whatever their wife feels like giving them – or are cut off altogether? Sure, you can use Game to help matters. In fact, Game is indespensible. But how many men, BEFORE they are married, even know that they’re going to have to Game their wives in order to get sex? For that matter, how many men even know what Game is?
If men are really going into marriage thinking “I’m going to get lots of sex now” – and I suspect they are – then they are in for a rude awakening. That’s not reality.
@Ballista
I have been thinking of doing more articles on my blog on Focus on the Family, but I don’t know where to start with problematic materials etc. Where would you recommend I start reading?
It is all well and good to warn others that they should not get married, or that they should approach marriage very cautiously, but the fact is most people think that THEIR marriage will be different. They’re not going to be like everyone else. They know what they’re doing. Things will be fine for them. It’s not until after they get married, and experience the problems themselves, that they suddenly realize they should have heeded the warnings.
This is very true. It’s also true in other areas of life — people generally minimize the import of all kinds of warnings and admonitions in all areas of life, preferring to think that they are simply different, and that this isn’t really a risk. All we can do is keep getting the message out, because while most won’t listen, some will.
How many men actually have regular sex with their wives? How many men instead have to get by on whatever their wife feels like giving them – or are cut off altogether? Sure, you can use Game to help matters. In fact, Game is indespensible. But how many men, BEFORE they are married, even know that they’re going to have to Game their wives in order to get sex? For that matter, how many men even know what Game is?
If men are really going into marriage thinking “I’m going to get lots of sex now” – and I suspect they are – then they are in for a rude awakening. That’s not reality.
This is very true as well. I think that men need to realize that, in 2012, a marriage is a certified LTR. That is — you need to keep being the exciting and sexy boyfriend for that relationship to continue. Just because it’s called “marriage” doesn’t really make it very different from a LTR in terms of what you need to do to keep the relationship going (including regular sex). Expectations have changed, dramatically. That’s the case for Christian marriages as much as it for non-Christian ones, because we are all living in the same culture, and that culture has shaped expectations.
bskillet
Sign up for their email marriage newsletter, it will give you at least one fodder per week
Ironic how the followers of the god of the moon enforce the patriarchal order, yet Christians call themselves children of the light.
They could use more ‘reflection.’
I wish they’d just make it so that whoever files for no-fault divorce in doing so forfiets any alimony and agrees to forfiet custody rights. What would such a world look like? The main thing I’m getting at here is treating divorce as a form of child abuse/neglect because of the damage it typically inflicts long-term.
“The one thing that will prevent a male marriage strike is the fact that men who are Christian are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage and there is no way that most men will be able to deny their sex drive for ever.”
I think that for a way to do this we need to look at what the Japanese herbivore men are doing (minus their sometimes feminine behavior). They have turned their country upside down within a decade or so by refusing most exclusively male social demands, including marriage. They seem to have stopped participating in traditionally male activities that support their society (much like Feminism does, without the hatred). It’s gotten so bad for men there that women are divorcing men just for retiring from their jobs; they just don’t want their husbands to retire and be home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retired_husband_syndrome
It’s clear to me that women see commitment as conditional upon their emotional state instead of trying to make their emotional states subject to their commitments. Since they want this, why promote marriage today, even Christian marriage? This culture not only dooms, but actually drives over half of them to failure. Even if a woman believes in it today, through the influence of friends, feminist culture, TV, or through financial independence, she could easily just change her mind (a woman’s prerogative?) and “feel” totally justified. Their commitment is always only based on how they felt at the moment, turning the commitment into a ritual of nostalgia. So why continue to talk to women about the morals of marriage when current emotional state is their foundation, not morality?
How can we encourage more men to stop participating in this nonsense unless or until women regain some sense of moral groundedness?
Sorry for the rant.
@bskillet81
I have been thinking of doing more articles on my blog on Focus on the Family, but I don’t know where to start with problematic materials etc. Where would you recommend I start reading?
I second the suggestion regarding signing up for their e-mail newsletter. Also, look into exposing yourself to their material (focusonthefamily com, boundless org, thrivingfamily com). As was stated, something will fall in your lap pretty regularly. If not something they say on their radio show or write themselves, their “recommended books” they advertise will be possible avenues for material (anything “for women” or “for men” seems to be a dead giveaway). Then there’s always classic Dobson.
As with any good lie, there is always a good amount of truth in it, which makes it deceptive. Usually listen and you’ll find something, like Glenn Stanton or Fireproof. This is usually shown in how people buy into these things so much, like the book “Love Dare” that was marketed with Fireproof or “The Resolution” (one for men, one for women) was marketed with Courageous.
@Jonathan Cooper
This is where there is another aspect of the double standard in churches comes in. How frequently does a Christian man remind his wife about her responsibilities under 1 Corinthians 7 to provide sex to her husband. There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.
OT: More newa iof women hitting the Wall:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008584.html
Technology will not help women become fertile when they age out of it. The problems associated with changing that aren’t even completely grasped yet. We should have a Mens Birth Control Pill long before that.
@ukfred: “There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.”
The apostle Paul speaks of it in terms of fraud. 1 Corinthians 7:5: “Defraud ye not one the other…” Fraud carries with it the idea that you were promised one thing and then given something else. That certainly fits in this context. Single men everywhere believe that, when they get married, they will also get sex. When their wives turn the tables on them and cut them off, one could certainly argue that they have been defrauded – they were promised one thing, and given something else. (Very few women will ever say, BEFORE the marriage, “Oh no, of course I’m not going to have sex with you after we’re married. That’s crazy talk.” They will lead men to think all will be well, and then not deliver. Not all women do this, of course. But, as Dalrock’s post pointed out, a rather large percentage of men are quite unhappy with their marriage.)
Yes, preaching on women’s responsibilities is a great idea. I have seen it done. The women revolt and the pastor is quickly fired. I have heard supposedly Christian women flatly say they will never, ever, ever submit to their husbands or obey what the Bible has to say about their role. The problem is not a lack of knowledge; it is a lack of obedience. As long as civil and criminal law is on their side they will continue to behave as they do. After all, they have every incentive to rebel. Who is going to stop them? The church? The government? The media?
(slightly OT, but this does denote a “power balance” issue in marriage)
@ukfred
How frequently does a Christian man remind his wife about her responsibilities under 1 Corinthians 7 to provide sex to her husband.
Or rather in the current church environment, does he have the right to do this without being seen a monster. Feminism creeps in again, that says a woman has a perfect right to unilaterally refuse sex at any and all times, even if she is refusing her own husband. This is naturally because of the standard assumptions of men and women that carry the day today in feminist thought.
There has also been a debate on themarriagebed.com about whether refusing to provide sufficient sex is a matter of failing to keep your marriage vows.
The thought that this is even an issue given general understanding is an indicator of the signs of the times with regards to how destroyed marriage is in current society. The interesting thing I read in my studies of Scripture as well as the older commentaries is that regular sex is an obligation that is coupled with marriage for both parties. You can find this in a few spots other than 1 Cor 7:3-5, but it is hard to come up with anything different given a sober reading of this Scripture (KJV):
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
The Greek word behind the word “due”, ophileo, indicates a debt or obligation. The translators choice of the word “defraud” also indicates this. Note, also, the reason given: That one not be tempted. It can be legitimately easy to conclude that adultery and even regular porn use is a sin on the part of the other party (as well) if it is a result of the lack of provision of sex. Reflections of love for the other party would be a factor in a number of cases as to whether “mutual consent” is given for abstinence.
While it can be hard to denote societal marriage practice in the past regarding this matter, there are noted examples within those commentaries. Clarke writes (1 Cor 7:3):
Clarke (1 Cor 7:3):
Some have rendered the words, not unaptly, the matrimonial debt, or conjugal duty – that which a wife owes to her husband, and the husband to his wife; and which they must take care mutually to render, else alienation of affection will be the infallible consequence, and this in numberless instances has led to adulterous connections. In such cases the wife has to blame herself for the infidelity of her husband, and the husband for that of his wife.
Jewish practice denotes the issue as well. Gill in his commentary quotes them:
“a woman that restrains her husband from the use of the bed, is called rebellious; and when they ask her why she rebels, if she says, because it is loathsome to me, and I cannot lie with him; then they oblige him to put her away directly, without her dowry; and she may not take any thing of her husband’s, not even her shoe strings, nor her hair lace; but what her husband did not give her she may take, and go away: and if she rebels against her husband, on purpose to afflict him, and she does to him so or so, and despises him, they send to her from the sanhedrim, and say to her, know thou, that if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou shalt not prosper? and after that they publish her in the synagogues and schools four weeks, one after another, and say, such an one has rebelled against her husband; and after the publication, they send and say to her, if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou wilt lose thy dowry; and they appoint her twelve months, and she has no sustenance from her husband all that time; and she goes out at the end of twelve months without her dowry, and returns everything that is her husband’s.”
Unfortunately, there is a joke among men that I hear all over society that finds too much traction for those that hear it, even in the church. It indicates that sexual access in marriage would be an issue that would need addressed if marriage with “Christian moral values”. It can be stated like this: “How do you stop having sex regularly, not by choice? A: Get married.” It’s an unfortunate shift of practice that general wisdom of today states that the alphas have sex while single and that marriage brings a sentence of forced celibacy.
JOnathan Cooper:
I’ve been married almost 16 years. Last year I told my wife I expect sex at reasonable intervals. I also said that when I advance for sex I expect not to be turned down frequently. I told her that if she starts denying me on a regular basis I’ll consider it marital abandonment and thus grounds for divorce.
Sex is a marital obligation.
As for pastors preaching about women’s marital obligations: Yep. The pastor preaches it, the women make shrill complaints to the pastor’s superiors and the various church committees. The pastor is fired or his life made a living hell until he’s rotated out.
Women refusing to obey biblical commands is really nothing short of open rebellion. But no one is willing to confront it or put it down.
@Jonathan Cooper
@Ballista_GTOW
I do not disagree with you at all. The problem lies with the feminisation of churches.
The variant of the joke that I heard was “What food causes immediate and permanent cessation of a woman’s libido? Her own wedding cake.”
But open rebellion by women on biblical teaching is everywhere. I have most recently seen it on Christian Forums where a woman said that she was getting a divorce from her husband and she did not care whther it was biblical or ot.
@Brendan
“people generally minimize the import of all kinds of warnings and admonitions in all areas of life, preferring to think that they are simply different, and that this isn’t really a risk. All we can do is keep getting the message out, because while most won’t listen, some will.”
This has a simple evo psych explanation or so I’ve heard. This sort of behavior – irrational optimism – is a disadvantage in terms of personal survival because it’s likely to get you killed (by making you take irrational risks), but it maximizes one’s chances of reproduction and thus it benefits the survival of the species. It’s no wonder we see this type of behavior on behalf of both men and women.
As long as aw omen has a choice to refuse to follow scripture she will refuse. That church is now a womans club for they are now dictating what scripture you will preach. Only a woman and a thug can truely believe they are christian in an environment like that.
I’m divorced and already have kids. I have a girlfriend who is the one I take out and socilaize with as a couple and another girlfriend who is married, who lives in a city i travel to often for business. When I am there we get together, spend the odd weekend together and have a great time.
All this talk of “Marriage 1.0″ is ludicrous, as family law will dictate the terms of a divorce, regardless of the sentiments of the woman involved. The reality is that unless you want children and are a total screw up at talking to women, you have no reason whatsoever to get married.if you are a man. In fact, if you do, you put your freedom and your kids’ inheritance at risk and will likely end up with a hell of a lot less sex and affection than you’d get if you remained single.
Stay single and enjoy life – it is brutal and short, and every moment of joy is precious and hard-won.
Here’s a brief tutorial on a possible endpoint of marriage if you still don’t get it:
There is one way to keep a marriage under a man’s control. There is a way no one has brought up, but was believed in for a very long time throughout history. The pimp hand.
Most truly abusive men (not the “abusive” kind that women always divorce), men who slap or even beat their wives do not usually get divorced. Their wives rarely, if ever turn on them, and will usually defend them to the end, and when they do leave they will go crawling right back. This is what Muslim men are taught to do, and look at how well they do at controlling their wives.
[D: This isn't the answer, it is a feminist straw man.]
coop – The problem is not a lack of knowledge; it is a lack of obedience.
bingo
theyre as snug cocooned in their churches as in their homes and societies, ruling and excluding whatever/whoever Offends
the soft rebellion is no longer so covert; as you point out, no sector opposes them
Brilliant post once again, Brendan I hope you broke his nose, heh.
In Prisoner’s Dilemma parlance the wife wins whether she cooperates or defects regardless of the husbands choices, whereas the husband only wins if the wife cooperates. Effectively this puts the husband in a lower legal caste.
Discrimination? Change wife for white and husband for black and you’d have a shit storm.
Only a woman and a thug can truely believe they are christian in an environment like that.
——————————-
Thats a well stated fact
My very personal and anecdotal observation (so it could be bullshit) of my social circle shows that a significant percentage of the most marriageable men are eschewing marriage for the very reasons Dalrock expressed here.
I wonder what effect this creates on the ‘good men’ shortage and assortive mating, given that if a proportion of the best marriage prospects (and it’s only a small percentage maybe 5% of the total eligible men) are not marrying, how does it filter down as women compete for a smaller eligible pool.
Could 5% be creating this whole ‘man shortage’.
Johnny, the major fuel crisis back in the early 70′s involved a shortage less than 5%. Yes, 5% can cause this. But, over 5 years ago, a survey showed that 22% of young men said they would never marry under any conditions. And, there is no reason to doubt the percentage has gone up dramatically in that 5 years.
@Johnycomelately
The right 5% could have a big impact, as Anon age 70 pointed out. What is interesting is the current freak out isn’t born out by any impressive numbers. What looks to be happening is just a much larger jump in a long term trend in women delaying marriage. What the stats don’t/can’t tell us is how much of the group of late 20 somethings and early 30 something unmarried women are that way by choice (still trying to delay marriage), or because of a true shortage. If they wait out the clock too long the former could become the latter anyway. Add to that their male peers who didn’t get the signal to work to become a provider, and there are indicators there might be more to come.
This is all speculation since the data we would need simply isn’t available, but it does seem like the current crop of marriage delayers are pushing their luck.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Orthodox Edition « Patriactionary
Pingback: Capitalism is for Girls « Grit Artisan
Heads up Dalrock,
Whilst we may take for granted an understanding of the basic concepts discussed here, divorce theft and female culpability is still a very foreign concept to most in the MSM. And sparks a torrent of hate and misandry.
For example, here is one of Oz’s most reasonable relationship columnists mentioned you in mainstream media, suggesting that maybe men are worth listening to:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
She still comes across as somewhat reserved about the manosphere, as if hedging her bets.
Not surprisingly, the feminist solipsists are soon out in force at any sign of cracks in the ideological wall:
http://thewall.com.au/topics/71686-bettina-arndt-is-broken-and-needs-to-go-to
If these reactions are typical, then it is little wonder that increasing numbers of women are single into their thirties. And honestly, I really have little sympathy for them. Given the lack of graciousness and me-first attitudes that I encounter(ed) from so many in their 20s, schaudenfreude at their current predicament is not to be unexpected.
I watched Fireproof and came to a completely different conclusion than the OP. In Fireproof, it is clear that both spouses were in the wrong. The husband was neglecting his wife and cheating on her with pornography, while the wife was encouraging another man to court her and listening to toxic advice from her friends that she shouldn’t trust her husband’s change of heart. Both of them were cheating, and both were poisoning their marriage, and it took both of them repenting in order to save their marriage.
And that brings up another point that non-Christians may not understand- you don’t have to be physically having sex with a paramour in order to be cheating on your spouse. Pornography is cheating, as is carrying on an emotional affair, especially when there is even a hint of suggestion that you intend to leave your spouse for another. Even if you wouldn’t actually leave your spouse, leading on a paramour is just as bad, because you become a death trap for his/her soul by encouraging thoughts of lust and envy.
[D: Fireproof is straight up divorce porn. That you and millions of other Christians missed this should cause you great pause.]
“And that brings up another point that non-Christians may not understand- you don’t have to be physically having sex with a paramour in order to be cheating on your spouse.”
You’re confusing adultery as a sin with adultery that counts as a valid reason for putting away of the husband or wife. Adultery in the heart is a sin, but it’s not actual adultery that gives one the right to separate from one’s spouse.
Pingback: Cutting leaders off at the knees. | Dalrock
http://www.thetrumpet.com/9362.8209.0.0/religion/roman-catholicism/the-german-shepherd-pope-shows-his-teeth
Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage | Dalrock
Pingback: Whistling through the graveyard? | Dalrock
Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock
Many pastors on TV seem to lean toward women saying “IF MAMMA AIN’T HAPPY NOBODY’S HAPPY “. God help us to do things your way amen.
[i]Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce[/i]
“Alert. Alert. There’s a turd in the punch bowl.”
Pingback: So You Want To Become A Pastor? | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Marriage 2.0 Sexuality | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Hostage negotiator for life? | Dalrock
Pingback: It’s a feature, not a bug. | Dalrock
Pingback: Female Solipsism | Dalrock
Dalrock,
Theoretically some pro-feminist could claim that the statistics is flawed because women in the older times were more hesitant to reveal to the public that they are unhappy in their marriage (for whatever reason). How can we respond to this?
Another claim could be that women are more aware of their unhappiness now compared to the past, and therefore that the change in statistics merely reflect that change in awareness, and not necessarily an increase in unhappiness. (But it is interesting that this point doesn’t refute your argument that the laws have not change the unhappiness rate.)
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock
Pingback: Debasing marriage | Dalrock
Pingback: Catching Up « Manosphere Links
Pingback: Father Know’s Best: Dalrock’s Donnerstag Dozen « Patriactionary
The lack of religion, traditional religion, being a primary element in people’s lives today … and the use of birth control in marriage I believe is responsible for women “having headaches” more often than not. Now that conception can be prevented most of the time, women’s sense that men are just using them as an “outlet” for their physical release is greater than before. Having children is not to be separated from the sexual act … by separating this fact, women know that they are not “special” to their husbands in any way. There’s nothing unique about a woman’s body to any man. But with the possibility of conceiving a child, a man is renewing his committment to THIS woman and to any children they might have. He’s choosing the action knowing the consequences.
Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Sketching at the window of this train of thought
Pingback: Suzanne Venker on women’s rights, men’s responsibilities, and why she divorced her first husband. | Dalrock
Pingback: - What’s so scary about submission? | The Woman and the Dragon
Pingback: MSN Lifestyle Page.. Go Fuck Yourself « M3
Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock
Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock
Pingback: A one sided conversation with Dr. Moore | Feminism is Empathological
Pingback: BD #2 – The Damage of Divorce On Children | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: A wife’s best defense against a troublesome mother-in-law. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | Dalrock