Hostage negotiator for life?

Are you good enough to stop me from using this?

Society has seen fit to hand wives the option to destroy their families on a whim in an effort to give them power over their husbands.  In order to maximize the credibility and effectiveness of this threat, the church has stepped in to offer moral cover, and the culture regularly eggs her on.  If she acts on this option she will cause herself and her own children great and lasting pain.  She will almost always end up with the real life bad outcomes the absurd divorce fantasies are based on.  Instead of a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman magically appearing with a proposal of marriage after she detonates her family, she is far more likely to find herself alone or pretending she did better than she did.

But none of this changes the fact that she has the option to blow up her family and society’s full moral and legal blessing to use it.  While she can’t rationally expect to avoid creating her own personal catastrophe in the process, the threat she can hold over her husband is all too real.  Men who marry (or find themselves married) in this climate tend to adopt one of three postures:

  1. The Supplicating Beta.  He is convinced that a combination of denial and supplication will keep her happy.  The supplicating beta husband’s thought process is:  “If I’m good enough, she will be happy.  So long as she is happy she won’t push the plunger.  If she pushes the plunger, it is my fault.”  Besides, women never divorce on a whim;  they always have a good reason.  Those men who are divorced by their wives must deserve it.
  2. The Master Manipulator.  He is in complete control, and has the obligation to keep her from pushing the plunger.  The master manipulator has expert skills of psychological and social finesse.  He doesn’t fear her using the detonator because his Game is so good he is firmly in control of what she does and thinks.  To him marrying is ultimately proof that he is so alpha he can deliberately place himself at an extreme disadvantage and still come out on top.  Any man who can’t do the same is an inferior being who deserves his fate in the divorce meat grinder.  While not worded this way, his thought process is strikingly similar to that of the supplicating beta (although he lacks the supplicating beta’s repulsiveness):  “If I’m good enough [at my Game], she will be happy.  So long as she is happy she won’t push the plunger.  If she pushes the plunger, it is my fault.”  While the supplicating beta acts recklessly by (inadvertently) making himself sexually repulsive to his wife, the master manipulator may instead see himself as able to get away with what for other husbands would be acts of recklessness because he is so sexually attractive.  He’s so firmly in control that she wouldn’t destruct the family even if he treats her cruelly and/or keeps one or more women on the side.
  3. The Resigned Loving Patriarch.  He is unshakable in his knowledge of the fact that he is the rightful leader of the household.  He isn’t going to be reckless by either making himself repulsive or treating his wife cruelly, but he doesn’t absolve his wife of her own profound moral obligations.  Against his better judgment the state and church have seen fit to hand her the detonator and to encourage her to use it.  After recovering from the initial disbelief of the absurdity of what the church and state have done, his response is:  “Are you going to use that, or are you going to make us dinner?”  He isn’t above using tools of leadership and psychology to effectively lead, and as a loving patriarch he wants her to be happy;  Game is an effective tool which he employs for both purposes.  But he understands that her capacity for rebellion and/or to find reasons to be unhappy is great, and that she has to make her own choice.  If she gets unhaaappy and pushes the plunger, it is ultimately her own responsibility.

Original housewife image by Tetra Pak (creative commons).  Dynamite detonator from this picture by Lilu under WTF Public License (NSFW)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Denial, Divorce, Foolishness, Game, Manliness. Bookmark the permalink.

365 Responses to Hostage negotiator for life?

  1. ybm says:

    Good post Dalrock but those 3 types of men are increasingly blurring together into the first one.

    All this arguing over married sex lives, manning up is all as you say, under the shadow of the law.

    No sane man can advocate ‘marriage game’ or any other form of manning up while the existing legal and social structures that destroy the lives of 50% of married men at the whim of 75% of their wives are in place.

    Anglo-American men: DON’T GET MARRIED

  2. Crank says:

    “She will almost always end up with the real life bad outcomes the absurd divorce fantasies are based on. ”

    Seems like something is missing from that sentence.

  3. Opus says:

    It is good of Mrs Dalrock to pose for that photo – at least that, in my mind, is more or less as I imagine her.

  4. Awesome article and insight – the pic says it all.

  5. TheMan says:

    This isn’t quite relevant to the article, but I wonder what Dalrock thinks of the practice of marrying without a marriage license.

  6. ybm says:

    From a legal perspective there is no difference as it is the existence of a ‘marriage-like environment’ I think.

    It is also used to apply the term to cohabitation. I know in your country many states still do not create a marriage-like environment merely from cohabitation. But where I am it is, thus men in this country should avoid cohabitation.

  7. Logos says:

    Excellent comment, and I fell into box number 3 during my marriage. I knew the risks going in but decided to take them because I could minimize them — her family already had money, and we signed a pre-nup. I loved her and respected her without being a supplicant; I’m an INTJ anyway, so clinginess is not one of my traits. She went nuts a few years into the marriage and got swallowed by the BDSM scene, but it was a clean break (no children). Sure there was a lot of heartache for me, but I outed her and destroyed her lies about wanting a separation to “think things over.” Her family knows I’m innocent, and they even stay in touch with me in the vain hope that I’ll take her back if she ever straightens out. Fat chance.

    There are plenty of men out there who had it worse than I did. Regardless of whether a particular marriage survives, today it is a corrupt institution because of the total power it bestows on a woman’s whims. Marriage was designed to create security and certainty, but now it is the equivalent of slipping a noose around your neck and hoping that the chair isn’t kicked out from under you. I will never marry again, and I recommend that everyone else stay far away from marriage on principle even if you think you can beat the odds.

  8. @ TheMan- good question and I wonder as such since marriage was originally a sacrament done by the church. However, there are certain cohabitation laws that will be coming into play very soon and a marriage done by the church further adds fuel to the fire.

  9. I Art Laughing says:

    I was #1 but am trying hard to be #3. Once you are married there really aren’t more than those 3 options.

  10. Bob Wallace says:

    Society took care of a lot of these problems in the past by making it hard to get divorced, by not having no-fault divorce, by giving the children to the father, and by having such social pressure that single mothers gave their children away to be adopted.

  11. sestamibi says:

    I Art Laughing:

    Not true–there’s always Darren Mack.

  12. John Whitten says:

    One thing that I see missing form most discussions of this type is the reality that neither men nor women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no game or license will do the trick. My observation is that both a husband and wife ought to be faithful in their roles before God and the rest will take care of itself.

  13. M3 says:

    I was most definitely #1. I refuse to ever put myself in that position again, even if i could maintain #3.. a woman’s unhindered ability to push the plunger out of whatever motivation or delusion without a legal consequence for her terminating the marriage contract is what will keep me on the sidelines indefinitely. No-fault needs to end. If divorce must happen, it’s time to show cause and place reasonable limits on what is grounds for and what is frivolous.

    You can’t just buy a subsidized phone on a 3 year plan, then one month later tell your mobile provider ‘ciao i got a better deal at hyperga-mobile’ and NOT be expected to pay ETF fees. signing a marriage contract should mean something enforceable if you just decide to leave on a whim or fail to live up to your expectations within marriage.

    If anyone says thats not fair.. then just abolish marriage.

  14. flybynight says:

    Nice concise consolidation of beta and game in marriage. Waiting on your book.

  15. I Art Laughing says:

    Drew Peterson, keep killing them until you get one that you like…..

  16. whatever says:

    While this is the reality of the current situation, it is silly to imagine that many fathers are “seriously trying to be good people but are just being stopped by the law”. A lot of them are HORRIBLE people, and are simply being forced to be horrible in a DIFFERENT WAY than they would prefer. Men aren’t saint either, and many of them are quite bad.

    You know bad men? Do you imagine anything is stopping them from having children and then being horrible parents? No? Correct.

  17. ybm says:

    whatever says:
    September 8, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Why don’t you address the relevant legal issues instead of worthless blather about bad people? Why don’t you care about things like alimony theft, child support inequality, domestic violence perpetrated against men by women, instead of the bad men you chose to spread your legs for?

    “Do you imagine anything is stopping them from having children and then being horrible parents? No? Correct.” Yes. That fleshy thing attached to a vagina.

  18. maximum says:

    You’ve guys have to be crazy!

  19. Whatever……max

    I was glad to see this post because in its simplicity it put game in its place. That phrase doesnt men what it sounds like, it literally means that in my opinion this plugs game into its workable situation, where it isnt an act of pandering, where it isnt immoral, and where it isnt a religion of its own.
    Good one

  20. it is silly to imagine that many fathers are “seriously trying to be good people but are just being stopped by the law”. A lot of them are HORRIBLE people
    ——————————————————
    Will someone who speaks Latin explain which fallacy this is? Please.

  21. @whatever – I know quite a few Christian women who would not sign pre-nups with built in judgements that forfeit their rights to spousal support, child support, limited child visitation / holiday / location, and no retirement gained during marriage if “either party” did something illegal or immoral ( ie cant leave if your not haaaaapy) all assets gained during the marriage were fortified to the offended spouse. It could be dissolved if both parties were agreed.
    In other words, if you screwed up or wasn’t happy- you get nothing except what you started with.
    Guess what the response was from Christian women was ?

  22. I Art Laughing says:

    Non sequitar, ad hominem? I don’t see an argument there to ascribe a logical fallacy to.

  23. I Art Laughing says:

    Micheal Singer:

    I dunno: “If you loved me like Christ loved the Church you’d be willing to give me all of your stuff anyway, why would you want me to sign a prenup like that unless it was a confession of you lack of Christian love.”?

  24. Jennifer says:

    @The Man: Where I live, there is already a movement in truly patriarchal churches to marry sans State marriage license. The couple is held in strict accountability by the marrying pastor and the other patriarchal couples within this church; one family, I believe, has ever actually divorced in over twenty years. Their reasoning is not so much to protect the man from the obscene power the wife may have in divorce court down the road, but rather to protect the marriage itself, and the forthcoming children, from being “property” of the State and the State school system. I do not know of it being practised in other states; I live in Wisconsin. Not a bad idea, as far as I’m concerned, but then again, these men really KNOW the women they are marrying; these wives would not DREAM of doing what the average American wife conjures in her head if unhappy during marriage.

  25. hisoj says:

    the only way for a man to find peace in his life is to excise women. we can survive on our own until feminism dies, or until the human race goes extinct.

  26. LOL… Couple of things come to mind
    – Smart as serpents and gentle of doves
    – Sacrificial love gently requires obedience to the husband as it does to Christ.
    – Love is behavioral as seen in 1 Cor 13 and Col 3

  27. ab says:

    #4 be a low prospects stay at home dad. Worth more being around driving the kid to school then paying ailomony from a fry cook salary.

  28. the insidious dynamic within is when the man, deep down, is fully insulted at the affront of the woman’s threat to detonate (and rightly indignant at the insult) and since he cannot deliver her the appropriate rebuke or rejection, he just rejects her in his heart. He has to. He cannot trust her not to detonate, especially when her threats are so capricious.

    then he becomes distant, and she can’t figure out why.

    then she detonates and blames him for being distant.

  29. Matthew says:

    “Drew Peterson, keep killing them until you get one that you like…..”

    Time for a revisionist account of Bluebeard and the Arabian Nights?

  30. Matthew says:

    The Latin you asked for: caput in culum

  31. I Art Laughing says:

    Swap out the gold-digging virginal sisters for inheritance enriched divorcees? Yeah, I can imagine something like that.

  32. Matthew says:

    To the Jennifer who left a comment above that seems entirely sane: be aware that there is another “Jennifer” who frequents these parts of the web leaving comments that are entirely insane. You may wish to choose another handle to avoid being mistaken for her.

  33. okrahead says:

    Re: “Christian” womyn refusing to sign a pre-nup that requires them to take responsibility for their own actions in the event of a divorce:
    The argument: “You would not require a pre-nup if you love me as Christ loves the church.”
    The response: Christ’s letters to the seven churches in Asia at the beginning of the Revelation of St. John. Christ repeatedly told the churches that were in sin to repent or He would “remove their candlestick” (a metaphor for what is the equivalent of a divorce). Christ’s love for the church demands purity and fidelity, and those who fail the test are cast out. Hence a Christian man has every right (and even the responsibility) to demand purity and fidelity, and a feral female who fails should be cast out.

  34. IAL, I know, I didnt see an argument either, I was just being facetious and all I meant to say was it was nonsense

  35. Michael Singer…..wow Ive been peddling that idea for 8 years, and every single time ive ever raised that exact scenario of prenup, the Christian ladies went bonkers.
    No way most of them would sign, and their excuse? Well that you’d have them IN BONDAGE, and could abuse at will…..nonsense

  36. Society cynically puts the risks on men because men are natural optimists and risk-takers.

  37. ezra says:

    @Matthew: Thank you, kind Sir, for letting me know! I have only recently discovered this blog, and I’m so enjoying it, and henceforth, I will use “ezra” instead of Jennifer, lest I be mistaken for una otra mujer…

    [D: Excellent idea. Welcome Ezra!]

  38. farm boy says:

    Society cynically puts the risks on men because men are natural optimists and risk-takers.

    Guys these days prefer to take their risks in Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc.

  39. I think it was Chesterton who said that marriage was the ordinary man’s greatest adventure.

  40. I Art Laughing says:

    farm boy, is that a seque into a Paul Washer, Mark Driscoll “man-up” message?

  41. Or is it the inkling of a lecture on sacrifice for flag, farm, and family…..via……militia….you know what I mean?

  42. Houston says:

    Dalrock, can you clarify the distinction here? : “Men who marry (or find themselves married)…” Does the latter refer to men who were talked into matrimony against their better judgement?

  43. farm boy says:

    @I Art Laughing

    Just a statement of fact. What is the potential reward for the risk of “manning up” compared to the risk? Now compare that to playing video games: there is lots of reward and the risk is “risk-free”. I am duly employed and do not play video games, but I can see why guys go that route. It is all about incentives.

  44. 5iver says:

    @ Logos:

    Sorry to sound intrusive, but what do you mean that your wife got ‘swallowed up by the BDSM scene’? Were you involved in the scene as well, or did you consciously allow your wife to cuckold you under the pretenses of BDSM?

    I am really intrigued by your situation, and I understand if you do not feel comfortable in responding.

  45. Houston says:

    David Collard writes: “I think it was Chesterton who said that marriage was the ordinary man’s greatest adventure.”

    I thought World War One was supposed to be the ordinary man’s greatest adventure. That’s how it was sold in 1914, at any rate.

    Seriously, though, even as a happily married man I would never cite that GKC quote to a bachelor without some heavy qualifications. A lot of men are returning from this adventure, figuratively, with limbs missing.

  46. farm boy says:

    A lot of men are returning from this adventure, figuratively, with limbs missing.

    In WWI, they formed a fraternity during the war. Here, they form a fraternity after they return from it.

  47. Citation is not necessarily full approval. Chesterton lived at a different time. I do think that problems and challenges have to be expected in a marriage: illness, sick children, unemployment. I don’t think those are unreasonable. What is unfair is the stab in the back of divorce. I think men in general feel betrayed by women. There is a backlash coming.

  48. I Art Laughing says:

    DC,

    Sounds like it’s about time for a total war where we can send our “surplus men” off to die for the “motherland”. Iran? China? We’re overdue.

  49. farm boy says:

    @I Art Laughing

    Well, that might solve China’s surplus men problem. Though Japan might take care of that first.

  50. Houston says:

    David Collard writes: “I think men in general feel betrayed by women. There is a backlash coming.”

    Indeed they do, and indeed there is. Personally, I have never been more cynical and suspicious about American women (in general) than I am today.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Houston

    Dalrock, can you clarify the distinction here? : “Men who marry (or find themselves married)…” Does the latter refer to men who were talked into matrimony against their better judgement?

    I was thinking more of the fact that most men who marry today aren’t truly aware of the arrangement the church and state has in mind for them. The level of denial here is profound, as is the amount of misinformation aimed at men.

  52. farm boy says:

    @Houston
    Look at the growth rate of the Manosphere. it was very small a few years ago.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    John Whitten
    One thing that I see missing form most discussions of this type is the reality that neither men nor women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no game or license will do the trick.

    Really? Suppose that you go to the nearest car dealer and buy a vehicle via a 3 year loan. What do you think will happen if about 1 year in you go back to the dealer, announce “I’m not haaaapy” and demand that the car be taken back as if it were new. I think you’d find that no matter what your word is worth, your signature on the relevant loan document is worth something – thousands of dollars, in fact. I can make the same observation about multi-year 3 G data contracts.

    Marriage is the only agreement in modern society that can be broken unilaterally on a whim, without any opprobation from anyone.

    My observation is that both a husband and wife ought to be faithful in their roles before God and the rest will take care of itself.

    I know men who would have agreed with that statement – right up until their ex-wives dropped a divorce decree on their head, and their church supported guess who? No, not that nasty man…

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    David Collard
    I think men in general feel betrayed by women. There is a backlash coming.

    There are many forms of betrayal more subtle than the knife to the back of divorce. They all boil down to either things that she said she’d never do (that she does), or thing that she said she’d always do (that she refuses). Door #1 in Dalrock’s posting pretty much guarantees that both forms of betrayal will show up.

    And yes, I too believe there is a backlash coming. Think of it as water, behind a dam, piling up to the spillway only that has been blocked. There is no where for this water to go, save over the top of the dam. When that happens, it is possible the entire dam will fail. If that happens, all that accumulated water is going downstream, and anything in its path will be washed away, and possibly ground down to sand, and that in turn washed away.

  55. Houston says:

    John Whitten: “My observation is that both a husband and wife ought to be faithful in their roles before God and the rest will take care of itself.”

    Women have been manipulated and encouraged, en masse, to attack and destroy the family, which is the very basis of civilization. This is a war. In war nothing takes care of itself. We either fight the enemy (in this case feminism) resolutely, with correct tactics based on correct knowledge, or we lose.

  56. Ezra is a boy’s name. You should call yourself Ezraette.

  57. okrahead says:

    The question is not whether there will be a backlash; the question is what form it will take…. Will it be violent or non-violent? Considering that men are much more capable of violence (by dint of physical superiority in that regard) yet also capable of greater self-control (owing to a less emotionally driven mindset) I believe that a Gandhi/Dr. MLK approach is best suited to achieving the changes our society needs. That doesn’t mean it’s the type of backlash that will happen, nor do I yet know exactly how it would happen, it’s simply that my hope is that the backlash will be non-violent, for the good of all involved. That being said, if there is a violent backlash, the blame must lie squarely with the aggressor party. Certainly a man who has been kicked out of his home, alienated from his children, and imprisoned for not making enough money has been a victim of violent aggression. Those who commit such violence are currently sowing the whirlwind and praying for a crop failure.

  58. Houston says:

    okrahead: “The question is not whether there will be a backlash; the question is what form it will take…. Will it be violent or non-violent?”

    Backlash is a valid term, but it connotes a sudden reaction. What I’m seeing is the feminist attack starting to bog down in the face of stubborn resistance (the rise of the manosphere, men increasingly using Game in the dating market and in marriage, MGTOW, etc.). The end, perhaps, of sweeping enemy advances and the beginning of house-to-house fighting that wears down armies. Putting metaphors aside, I’m coming to think that feminism is going to be defeated in detail, one relationship at a time, as men learn they can no longer afford to take shit from women, and as younger women learn (alas, too slowly) that feminism will keep them from getting husbands. TFH has explored this idea much more thoroughly in his essay, “The Misandry Bubble.”

  59. Martian Bachelor says:

    > …then just abolish marriage.

    It was abolished years ago, for all practical purposes. There is nothing you can do married that you can’t do unmarried. Marriage is functionally superfluous.

    > …pre-nups with built in judgements that forfeit their rights to spousal support,
    > child support, limited child visitation / holiday / location, (michael singer)

    The women should have signed. Things like custody of the kids and child support/visitation in a pre-nup are not binding because they’re always overridden by the “best interests of the children”, which didn’t exist at the time the pre-nup was entered into, meaning their disposition cannot be determined in advance.

    I’m no lawyer, but marriage such as it is legally nowadays is basically an adhesion contract, not something you can custom tailor into a real contract. That applies also to cohabitation common-law marriages, children born out-of-wedlock, or any other attempt at an end run around the traps. All roads lead to the meat grinder.

    I’d be extremely skeptical that a pre-nup the way regular folks think of them is anything more than trying to get into trouble and stay out of trouble at the same time.

    When men first started complaining about structural disadvantages in marriage/divorce 30 or more years ago, the first way of dismissing men’s concerns was to tell them “Oh, just Man Up and get a pre-nup. (And STFU!)”.

    This reflex still hasn’t been entirely stamped out, though in some quarters it’s been replaced with the equally absurd notion that men just need to Game Up (And STFU!).

  60. Chris says:

    Backlasn? Not needed.

    1. The only people breeding above replacement are hard core believers. ezra (no, do not go for ezraette, try Judith or one of the femaile prophets if you change your handle for DC’s aussie sensibilites) pointed out that in her part of the world that many people had a covenantal marriage in a church and kept the state out of it. I would not be suprised to find the original mennonites did the same thing. Anyways…. the non feminists will breed.

    2. Conversely the feminists do not. They delay having their kids until the mid 30s… and then have one, two or none. (the older you are, the more infertile you become)

    3. Non religious men will not marry, nor will they cohabit. They have seen men of my generation (born 1960) and the following one get right royally done by the family courts if they cohabit — married or not. They will instead either live alone and have hobbies or indulge their narcassistic and psychopathic traits by having a harem.

    4. As hobbies are cheaper than families, this will lead to a decrease in producgion (and wealth) by a society. The pie will shrink. Retrenchment will come. And that means state, school and hospital employees — who are mainly women — will lose their jobs.

    The consequence will be as the prophet said — women will beg a man to have them saying they will support themselves but ‘take away the shame’ of being alone with their cats.

    In the US, I expect to see signs of this pushback this electorate cycle as the Dems (who have doubled down on feminism) get hammered.

  61. farm boy says:

    What I’m seeing is the feminist attack starting to bog down in the face of stubborn resistance

    Don’t forget all of the government budgetary problems. Lots of women’s mouths to feed, lots of guys operating at less than full capacity (and paying less in taxes) gives a budget deficit. Raise the taxes on guys and they will work less.

    The first visible stage of resistance is upon us.

  62. Houston says:

    Chris: “The consequence will be as the prophet said — women will beg a man to have them saying they will support themselves but ‘take away the shame’ of being alone with their cats.”

    Had some interesting conversations with my mother today. Among other things, she expressed a supreme dread of growing old alone.

  63. Houston says:

    farm boy: “Don’t forget all of the government budgetary problems. Lots of women’s mouths to feed, lots of guys operating at less than full capacity (and paying less in taxes) gives a budget deficit. Raise the taxes on guys and they will work less.”

    Feminism cannot survive the collapse of the welfare state. Deprive women of the power to compel male support and they will be powerless to control all but the most cowardly beta men.

  64. Starviolet says:

    “This isn’t quite relevant to the article, but I wonder what Dalrock thinks of the practice of marrying without a marriage license.”

    I think that is illegal. Ministers can’t perform the service without the license.

    ” I think men in general feel betrayed by women. ”

    Interesting, when you consider that most women aren’t doing anything to men. It’s kind of like how some feminists saw all men as oppressors when the typical man wasn’t doing anything to oppress them. But feelings aren’t rational, and some men probably do let emotion get the better of them,

  65. driversuz says:

    Absolutely excellent post, Dalrock. No variables, no what-ifs, just beautifully unadorned truth, that can’t be denied or dragged down.

  66. driversuz says:

    Oh crap, I spoke too soon.

  67. farm boy says:

    Deprive women of the power to compel male support and they will be powerless

    They have over 50% of the vote, and then they have the male sympathzers to put them over the top. They will control the state with its coercive powers

  68. Houston says:

    The truth cannot be honestly denied, or persuasively denied in the hearing of discerning men.

  69. farm boy says:

    ” I think men in general feel betrayed by women. ”

    Interesting, when you consider that most women aren’t doing anything to men.

    OK guys, munch on that.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Starviolet
    ” I think men in general feel betrayed by women. ”

    Interesting, when you consider that most women aren’t doing anything to men.

    How do you know this to be true?

  71. Houston says:

    “They have over 50% of the vote, and then they have the male sympathzers to put them over the top. They will control the state with its coercive powers”

    Until that state is replaced with an authoritarian system that doesn’t pander to women.

  72. I Art Laughing says:

    @SV

    Marriage being “legal” is a recent institution. I recommend that a Church recognize a marriage established by God and according to the 1st Amendment ignore altogether the State’s intrusion on God’s sacrament. Property should be in the husbands name and contracts should be established concerning the disbursement of property in the event of a divorce. The State claims the children no matter what we do, so there isn’t any fixing that.

  73. The Continental Op says:

    I don’t really know how it happened, but I’m No. 3 with a wife who actually seems to be happy when she makes me happy. She must be from another planet.

  74. an observer says:

    We have here a good illustration of the power dynamic.

    Marriage is only ‘legal’ when endorsed by the state and its armed beta enablers.

    Glad we got that sorted out. Now to coopt the churches. No, wait. . . They already support his fault divorce.

    All sweet then. Nothing to see here. Move on.

  75. I Art Laughing says:

    Any “Church” organized under 501c3 status is a State formed organization, not the body of Christ. NEXT?

  76. Bwana Simba says:

    You forgot the Pimp Hand strategy. Men who beat their wives rarely if ever get divorced or cheated on. It’s such a bulletproof strategy I’ve had police turned professors complain about it. “Why don’t those women ever leave those assholes?”

    [D: Edited.]

  77. John Whitten says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:
    “John Whitten
    One thing that I see missing form most discussions of this type is the reality that neither men nor women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no game or license will do the trick.

    Really? Suppose that you go to the nearest car dealer and buy a vehicle via a 3 year loan. What do you think will happen if about 1 year in you go back to the dealer, announce “I’m not haaaapy” and demand that the car be taken back as if it were new. I think you’d find that no matter what your word is worth, your signature on the relevant loan document is worth something – thousands of dollars, in fact. ”

    Dear AR, I suppose that likening a marriage to an auto purchase may make sense if one believes that a legitimate marriage may be established by legislation, but I for one find that hard to believe. A legal contract may be binding, with penalties for breaking it, but I maintain that such was never a marriage to begin with. All any of us have as we begin the journey of conjugal exploration is our integrity and love. If they are not enough to keep a couple together, then neither will a license. Our biggest problem in the concept of marriage and divorce being discussed here is that men and women have hopped into bed with the first person to come along, or at least on the basis of some fantasy rather than reality. Maturity before marriage is essential for success. I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    AR also wrote: “I know men who would have agreed with that statement – right up until their ex-wives dropped a divorce decree on their head, and their church supported guess who? No, not that nasty man…” Any man that doesn’t deal with a problem until it is broken, ought not own a car, for he will soon be sitting on the side of the road, cell phone in hand calling for help.

  78. John Whitten says:

    Houston wrote: “John Whitten: “My observation is that both a husband and wife ought to be faithful in their roles before God and the rest will take care of itself.”

    Women have been manipulated and encouraged, en masse, to attack and destroy the family, which is the very basis of civilization. This is a war. In war nothing takes care of itself. We either fight the enemy (in this case feminism) resolutely, with correct tactics based on correct knowledge, or we lose.”

    We will find ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to lump ALL WOMEN together with the feminists. In my contacts on other sites I am discovering that there are large numbers of women who are also coming to the same position regarding the relationship between men and women that Dalrock presents on this blog. They will be alienated by lumping them with the feminazis. Women en masse, are not our enemies. The militant feminists and those blinded in their ignorance may be by not females in general. Following the God designed (patriarchal) pattern for families is the only successful solution to this problem, which is what I think you are referring to as correct tactics and correct knowledge.

  79. I Art Laughing says:

    John Whitten?

    Are all men sinners? How about women? All women have a sin nature (although many “Christian” women won’t even acknowledge that much) and almost all women (and men) in Western Civilization have fallen under the corrosive influence of feminism. It’s possible that some women are successfully overcoming their sin natures, although most people these days don’t believe that it’s possible to live without sin, so I have my doubts. All women have a fallen sin nature and virtually ALL women are behaving as Godless, Bible-denying Jezebels. There are a few exceptions.

    The minute any women decides to go with the flow she has a near limitless destructive ability to destroy her “loved” ones. Ignoring her sin nature and that destructive potential is foolishness; whistling past the holocaust.

  80. Chris says:

    Aet says

    All women have a fallen sin nature and virtually ALL women are behaving as Godless, Bible-denying Jezebels. There are a few exceptions.

    And most men are happily acting either as priests of Baal enjoying the orgies or are estatic followers of one of the castrating pagan cults. As Spengler says, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.
    Those who say that this is wrong, and will not bow their knee to this false ideology, these false ideas, are generally religious traditionalists (not Churchians) members of the manosphere, or both. And those who have been casualties of this culture are no longer seeking some form of Grail (for we are all fallen) but really want a version of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to destroy the feral rabbit (or hamster) of Gramscian feminism.
    Anger works, but laughter works better. Let us make them look ridiculous.

  81. John Whitten says:

    I Art Laughing wrote: ” All women have a fallen sin nature and virtually ALL women are behaving as Godless, Bible-denying Jezebels. There are a few exceptions.”

    I must be living in a different world. Yes, all women (men too) have a sin nature, but I find there are more than a few exceptions. Perhaps I am looking in different places.

    “The minute any women decides to go with the flow she has a near limitless destructive ability to destroy her “loved” ones. Ignoring her sin nature and that destructive potential is foolishness; whistling past the holocaust.”

    How very true!

  82. I Art Laughing says:

    Live in an Anabaptist conclave John?

  83. Susanne says:

    Greetings Dalrock.

    Devout religious Christians have abandoned secular public schools for private Christians schools or more commonly Homeschooling. The same thing is happening for marriage. They are starting to abandon legal state marriage (for whichever reason they think it is corrupted whether it be secularism, greed, feminism, LGBTQPQ, etc) but not religious ceremonial marriage.

    It’s a pain in the neck when rich liberal feminists from big cities, Hollywood and liberal colleges scream about “illegitimacy” occuring in the South, MidWest and Middle America and place it on the same level as single motherhood. The only single mothers around are MINORITIES, with black single mothers being 70 to 90% and illegal Hispanics being 40 to 50% single mothers and only 20% being white working mothers (check the statistics and this will bear out Dalrock).

    I’m not a racist but minorities (most of them being liberal) lead in single motherhood (not to mention teenage pregnancy). Conservatives are having babies young (think early 20s to mid 20s) with a father and a mother around without legal marriage so it looks like out-of-wedlock births have exploded, and technically it has, but it’s NOT single motherhood for the religious folk, only the other folk (but you can’t say that because it would be racist).

    Every righteous liberal is putting a young 20 something religious mother who had a ceremonial religious marriage with another religious man, as worse than a young black or illegal Hispanic teenage pregnant girl who becomes a single mother.

    And instead of rich liberals going after them, they are screaming illegitimacy at the top of their lungs towards young religious women who raise children with their fathers, without legal state marriage, no divorce rape, nothing that would cause men to be destroyed by their wives.

    These people equalize single motherhood with illegitimacy (no legal marriage) and while it is typically the same, it isn’t always the same. You can have a father around, without legal marriage. That’s for devout religious girls. Or you can be a single mother (typically a liberal minority).

    Read the tune of extensively feminist websites and liberal websites nowadays. You will see a lot of liberal men and women screaming ILLEGITIMACY at religious people and how “proper” secular upper-class women (read feminazis) have children inside of marriage (with their married alphas of course), after freezing their eggs with IVF at a young age and using their young eggs on their old bodies (which often causes miscarriages and other health risks because you can’t use a young egg on an old chicken).

    And of course it would be illegitimate but if marriage is already illegitimate then why should a religious couple get a legal marriage license from the state?

    If marriage has been corrupted or destroyed (for whatsoever reason) then what’s the point?

    Next time a liberal woman tells me that I will have illegitimate children I will punch her in the face and if a liberal man does it then I will just slap him across both cheeks.

  84. ybm says:

    Women have been manipulated and encouraged, en masse, to attack and destroy the family, which is the very basis of civilization. This is a war. In war nothing takes care of itself. We either fight the enemy (in this case feminism) resolutely, with correct tactics based on correct knowledge, or we lose.”

    Hahahhahahah yea the 18 year old freshman I just got home from emptying my balls in was oh soooooooo manipulated.

  85. an observer says:

    Ial,

    The church spreads the gospel of women, and democracy.

    Bah, humbug.

  86. “He doesn’t fear her using the detonator because his Game is so good he is firmly in control of what she does and thinks.”

    Oh come on now. Game means spending all your time trying to figure out what she wants so you can give it to her, even if you have to rearrange your entire personality to do it. There’s no greater hoax being perpetrated on men today than the idea that game means being the one in charge.

    Some people supplicate on their knees, while some get to do it standing up. Big difference.

  87. “They have over 50% of the vote”

    Yes, but barely 50% of voters actually vote in any given election year. If more men were motivated to, we could start paring back these anti-man laws.

  88. greyghost says:

    Damn Dalrock more advocacy for MGTOW.

    [D: Not my intent, but the truth is the truth. Our only real choice is in how we elect to respond to reality.]

  89. John
    There are reasons the language seems to lump all women together.

    1. NAWALT is a predictable line of defense from women guilty or innocent so we cannot let it derail the truth, hence we go through or around it
    2. While not all women are like THAT, almost all women are like this, this or this other thing…its a matter of degrees. That you can say that all men are like “that” with some accuracy is another diversion because that’s not the subject and leads to moral relativism
    3. All women will counsel other women encouragingly, even if they are “like that”

    Over my 7-8 years of transmogrification , as my eyes were more and more widely opened, Ive had a steady stream of moving women who are “not like that” into the “like that” category. from grandmothers to teen agers from all walks of life and stages of faith.

  90. JoeS says:

    Women are taught there are no consequences for slutting it up. That is definitely a form of manipulation. Hyper-sexualization is encouraged by the mass media and the educational system. There’s a certain ethnic group highly involved in this – they tend to taunt the people they corrupt. Things have changed, and they have have changed in large part because of mass-manipulation by effective propagandists. Don’t ever let anyone pretend differently.

  91. JoeS says:

    There’s something else I find annoying. This talk that men working together is somehow unnatural or unmasculine, the persistent sniping at MRM’s who advocate cooperation. Of course there is not going to be effective leadership at this time, but the fact is that cooperation among men is the basis for organized societies, and it was by their cooperation that women were kept in their place. It’s only since a certain malevolent group has managed to get to the levers of control that they’ve set to sabotaging social relations and rules that historically maintained our society.

  92. Starviolet- “women aren’t doing anything to men”

    first of all, fuck you.

    You have illustrated that you are unable to see beyond any immediate anecdote of your own life to see societal effects, to see the insidious harm of feminism. I’ll tell you my story real quick, and its just like countless others.

    My ex-wife blew up my family because she wasn’t “haaaapy”. She ruined me financially, including throwing me in jail for not being able to keep up with the $6500/mo payments to her. I lost everything I owned when I went to jail. I live in poverty, and so do my children, because of it, and none of us can afford even basic medical care.

    Myself and my children are irrevocably harmed by what she did, and I know many men in real life with the exact same story, as well as many people in the manosphere. In addition, feminism, which is being promoted by women (the ones who “don’t do anything wrong”) are teaching women to do this very thing to the up and coming generations of women. They are teaching women to discount and devalue themselves. They are teaching women to subvert and dominate men. They are teaching women to steal from men, including stealing the man’s CHILDREN. They are leading women down roads of suffering and heartbreak, they are doing so on the tide of the suffering and heartbreak they cause men, and they have no regard for the suffering of their own children (including the ones they slaughter before birth)

    Even the innocuous-looking ones are causing harm, for doing things like voting for more Big Daddy government. By heaping scorn and ruining anyone who would suggest that we should de-fund Planned Parenthood and make people pay for their own abortions. The average, ‘harmless’, everyday girl emotionally manipulates her man, takes on debt and makes him take on debt, tells him what to do and how to be, and threatens him with harm, both directly and indirectly, every single day.

    Women are no longer chaste. No longer classy. No longer ladies at all. They function like heathens- anything to feed the next appetite, as they abandon and consideration for right or wrong or consequence. A woman need not stab a man to harm him. She need not shoot him, in order to rob him, his children, and his future. But rob, steal, and harm she does.

    You’re just too fucking stupid to understand that.

  93. greyghost says:

    This article is the elephant in the room. All of the talk about god, the right woman,etc etc.. comes down to the law and the reality of the police state. There is no such thing as the right girl, and my participation here is to get as many people as possible to see this. No matter how much we talk, debate or rant and vent the bottom line is she has the full backing of the law and is not voting it out until a better deal comes along. That is female nature natural and normal. Men have killed and sacrificed themselves to stop this kind of thing from happening to others but this is something women have no capacity for. Every religious leader and believer needs to have that drilled into his head until the last vestages of pussy worship is gone for ever.
    When women figure this out they lose gina tingle and become unhappy. The gina tingle is all a woman has that is based in reality. Infact waht we have is as close to this for woman as we can get in this world episode 28 from the old twilight zone “a nice place to visit” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734544/ and when the moment comes down goes the plunger.

  94. Stingray says:

    Samuel Solomon,

    + 1. Excellent comment.

    And given all of that “empowerment” they simply can’t figure out why, post-wall, men don’t want anything to do with them. So they do what they’ve always done, blame men and appeal to authority in an attempt to force men to man down and marry them.

  95. Pingback: Then Love Ham at 400 degrees for 18 Years | Things that We have Heard and Known

  96. sunshinemary says:

    Dalrock wrote:

    In order to maximize the credibility and effectiveness of this threat, the church has stepped in to offer moral cover, and the culture regularly eggs her on.

    It is critical that we pray for the church to stop its complicity in frivolous divorce. I’ve written about this, as well as about a Christian organization called Reform Divorce that is trying to organize grassroots groups to fight for the reforming of divorce laws. Here are their two biggest suggestions:

    Replace No Fault Divorce with Mutual Consent. In cases involving children, and where no allegation is made of abuse, adultery, etc. – states could require that any divorce be agreed to by both husband and wife. What was entered into by two people willingly would not be terminated unless both agree. This reform would reduce divorce rates by 30%, estimates John Crouch, Director of Americans for Divorce Reform.
    Replace Sole Custody with Joint Custody or Shared Parenting in which both parents would have access to their children at least one third of each week. Of six states which passed the strongest Joint Custody laws, five also enjoyed the largest drop in the divorce rate: Montana, Kansas, Connecticut, Idaho and Alaska. Why? “If a parent knows they will have to interact with the other child’s parents while the child is growing up, there is less incentive to divorce,” says David L. Levy, CEO of Children’s Rights Council. He and Crouch estimate this reform could cut divorce by another 20%.

    [D: Good points, but first we need to convince those who stand for marriage (as a voting bloc) that there is anything wrong with what the laws they have created. If you look at what prominent Christian conservative leaders are writing and saying, biblical marriage is something to be ashamed of and explain away. Until there is a change of heart, we will continue to see Christians loudly proclaiming their support for "Traditional Marriage" while working feverously to ensure that actual biblical marriage doesn't occur.]

  97. imnobody says:

    @John Whitten

    I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    Good for you. You belong to another generation. Women were raised in a different way then. You shouldn’t speak with this authority about things you don’t know a thing about. As my father says, ignorance is bold.

    We will find ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to lump ALL WOMEN together with the feminists. In my contacts on other sites I am discovering that there are large numbers of women who are also coming to the same position regarding the relationship between men and women that Dalrock presents on this blog.

    Great, then let them organize a movement to repeal non-fault divorce, alimony and automatic female custody of children. What? That they are not willing to give up that? Then, please, STFU. Words are easy. Actions speaks louder than words.

    They will be alienated by lumping them with the feminazis.

    So what? Until now they have been not lumped with the feminazis and, still, they have supported and take advantage of any feminist measure that has been implemented in society.

    Yes, all women (men too) have a sin nature, but I find there are more than a few exceptions.

    Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Are you Christian? What are you reading? “The Gospel according to Saint Vagina”?

    Women and men are fallen. The only exception is Virgin Mary (at least for Catholics). Now, if you worship vagina instead of Christ, don’t call yourself patriarchal.

  98. greyghost says:

    This is what TFH and many men today have spoken to. This was written in 1905. http://perno.com/amer/docs/Some%20of%20the%20Reasons%20Against%20Womens%20Suffrage.htm We are just now realizing what was being told by the man with the time machine.

  99. ezra says:

    @Samuel, your response to SV is excellent. Thank you for telling her the raw truth.

    I was once entrenched firmly in feminist belief myself, having been raised by a ball-busting mother who trampled all over my father. Mind you, my father was a piece of work – but I think in retrospect, a lot of his violent outbursts were all that he had as power against this beast that she became. She was such a witch to him, once when he refused to pull over so she could shop for furniture at one of those “off the highway furniture big-box stores”, she actually GRABBED the steering wheel from his hands on the HIGHWAY; while we were all traveling at 85 plus mph! He let her; what choice did he have? Kill all of the vehicles’ occupants? That’s what she was willing to do. Anyway, thank God I got ahold of a copy of Fascinating Womanhood (I know, it’s written by a Mormon) and started to READ the Bible myself so that I didn’t destroy my own marriage entirely. I did some damage in the early years; irrevocable damage – so SV need not ask what men are doing TO women. Women are destroying men and children. That’s all she needs to know. Add a few BFF in there to counsel the young women, instead of Titus 2 women to MENTOR the women in Christ properly, and voila! Samuel’s story is what you have before you.

    Thank you, gentlemen, for continuing to band together as men against this evil force. I have seen too many men, my husband included (by his ex) destroyed financially, emotionally (YES! Men have feelings, SV) and their reputations ruined by women. Women are so entitled in the U.S. that it has gone to their heads in a major way, and “Someone” once said it was pride that comes before a fall…
    May the fall of feminism commence!

  100. greyghost says:

    imnobody
    spank that ass. John whitten is some clue ass tomorrow his wife could file for divorce and ass would be working at walmart as a greeter the next day trying to out run a contempt of court charge for not being able pay off his former love of his life and there is nothing he can do about it.

  101. Cohab Monkey says:

    ‘Marriage’ is not one thing but four. The first is romantic intimacy; the second is the social declaration of coupledom.

    Element number three is the religious or spiritual aspect, which is essential and important for some but not for others. 

    Some couples don’t get to the public declaration stage; they see their relationship as nobody’s business but their own. Others want and seek that element of social recognition. Perhaps through a secular or New Agey ‘commitment ceremony’. Or maybe, like many couples in France and Belgium, they opt for exclusively religious wedding ceremony where they sign their names only to the Catholic wedding contract – and not to any other piece of paper.

    So far, so good. So what’s the problem? Element of ‘marriage’ number four is the problem: the legal or civil marriage contract.

    Politicians have transformed civil marriage from a union of two spouses (as social conservatives nostalgically and mistakenly imagine it to still be) into a triangular relationship with the state as the domineering third spouse and head of the household.

    The state – in effect, the third spouse – writes the contract; the couple are permitted only to append their names; they have no input into the terms of the marriage contract itself.

    The challenge is the develop an alternative legal framework to the 1960s-inspired, politician-created and now in terminal decline apparatus of ‘civil marriage’.

    It’s already happening through cohabitation agreements or cohabs. With cohabs, couple and family commitment have found a home in a more welcoming place: the law of contract, the law of making, exchanging and keeping promises. In a sense ‘marriage’ is returning to its roots: you make a promise, you keep it. Simple as. It does not mean you will always stick together, but it does mean you will stick forever to your promises. 

  102. greyghost says:

    Clueless ass

  103. greenlander says:

    [From Ezra] @Samuel, your response to SV is excellent. Thank you for telling her the raw truth.

    I agree with Erza and Stingray… so +3 Solomon.

    Starviolet- “women aren’t doing anything to men” first of all, fuck you.

    SV, can’t you see the cloud of your own perception? It’s hard to believe that anyone can be as obtuse as you… but you are a woman after all… the hamster is strong in you.

  104. imnobody says:

    @Salomon

    My ex-wife blew up my family because she wasn’t “haaaapy”. She ruined me financially, including throwing me in jail for not being able to keep up with the $6500/mo payments to her. I lost everything I owned when I went to jail. I live in poverty, and so do my children, because of it, and none of us can afford even basic medical care.

    According to John Whitten, you are the one to blame, because you didn’t deal with the problem until it was broken. As the wise man said Any man that doesn’t deal with a problem until it is broken, ought not own a car, for he will soon be sitting on the side of the road, cell phone in hand calling for help. So shut up because the fault is yours and you deserved it.

    American men are their own worse enemies. They are very haughty: they are oppressed through their pride.

    When an American man has been lucky in life (maybe he was born in a patriarchal era or has found one of the few women worth marrying), he thinks the reason of his success is not luck but his being smarter or better than the rest. Chalk it up to the protestant ethic, according to which people in need have deserved it.

    So he is the megaman and men who have not been that lucky (like Solomon) are losers and are responsible for their fate. So he can give lessons about how other people must do. He speaks and speaks with great authority although he doesn’t know a sh*t. (For example, see the last tirade of Roosh about MRM: a typical case)

    In manosphere blogs, this kind of men is a staple. “You are losers, you only have to take more care about your women and everything will take its place”, “You are losers, you only have to game up your wives and everything will take its place”, “You are losers, you only have to be the authority and everything will take its place”. “Stop whining, shut up and do what I say.”

  105. imnobody says:

    Thank you @greyhost. I am fed up with people talking about things they don’t know a shit about. They are terribly arrogant. I won’t talk about things I don’t know so I don’t make a fool of myself.

  106. Ezra, one faction of women who have some clear view of all this is those who marry men who were frivorced. By no means is that a guarantee that a woman will see the truth….that she marries a man who was destroyed…..but it happens, some do. This happens because women measure everything according to their tiny sphere…if it fits the sphere it MAY be true. Even the sphere cant really convince her if she has an idea she LIKES. The woman who marries a man who was destroyed can just as easily put that into the rare exception category and continue man bashing solipsism.

    men face it the world is full of Whittens. These are the men in the smaller churchs in the small towns. Thats why its extremely dangerous to see suburban mega churches as the only problem. In these small town churches, and Ive been in many in rural TX they have put patriarchal wallpaper over the place, while under that veneer its the same power structure and female imperative led system as anywhere. Whitten likely is in “1st Baptist of Country-ville Rural Cowbot Church” where the local banker is the deacon and the land owner widow is the money that pays for the church. These movie of the week stereotypes are actually very real.

    And those older women in these churches, well, they dont divorce….so that gives them cover. When in fact they have an errand boy at beck and call, the husband is 110% supplicated, and she in no way could ever hope to replace that….why fire a perfectly good man servant

  107. freebird says:

    This blog is great.
    The fem trolls make on hay on the men that are still emotionally invested.
    This is entertaining to read from the serenity of my woman-free home.
    I see anecdotal evidence every time I interact with couples and families.Most of the wives have wandering eyes,most of the husbands submissive towards women and defensive towards men, especially single men.

    The greatest evil feminism has achieved to destroy solidarity among men.They have succeeded very well due to the media hysteria.
    The cops and courts love the full power of the Police State,it’s addicting and the money is taken at gunpoint *legally.*

    Sweet deal for insiders.

    Will you have a chair when the music stops?

    One million false Dv allegations/yr= a lot of *illegally* disarmed men.

  108. freebird says:

    So lets be quite clear,you,as a man,have lost eh right to:
    1.Keep a firearm until convicted of a crime.
    2.Keep your kids.
    3.Hold your wife to her marriage contract.
    4.Any other legal mechanism that hinges upon DUE PROCESS.
    In short, you are NOT free,not by a long shot,buckaroo.
    The commies have taken over and your women love the power of the Police State as long as it continues to benefit them.
    They’ve got nothing better to do than to study dialectic (evil) semantics to justify and perpetuate their illegal and freedom killing agenda.

    If all else fails,they can still count on a derailing visceral reaction to raype.

    Yep, get any good convo going on the state of affairs, as soon as it’s producing out come the raaaype hysteria cultural perpetrators.
    Men fall victim to this trap everytime as they are capable of empathy,unlike women,it is just a talking point for her.
    She’s used to just talking and talking until a man nearby breaks down and does the dirty work for her.W/o the white knights and manginas this would be fixed already.

    But there is hope:The courts are ever greedy for more grist,those doing the ‘good deed’ for the fem agenda will be rightfully punished in short order.as the rest of us are wising up quickly.

    Good luck w/that,after you’ve been ass-raped by the courts,tell as many men as you can,and denounce your previous sin of ignorance.
    It’s the christian thing to do!
    (lead not a man into a snare)

  109. freebird says:

    “And those older women in these churches, well, they dont divorce….so that gives them cover. When in fact they have an errand boy at beck and call, the husband is 110% supplicated, and she in no way could ever hope to replace that….why fire a perfectly good man servant.”

    Exactly correct my good man.
    The fly in the ointment there is that the old generation that started with operable marriage law is dying out.
    Those married gals are soon-to-be-widows,and tight on cash to support the unwed mothers in the church.
    In the end that’s what’s sustaining the churches, the ‘good works’ to bastard children and runaway mothers.
    This is in a downward spiral as woman has no real compassion for other women as well as men.
    It was all good and fine when they could divert hubbies discretionary funds to the empowered unwed mother whose bad,bad,man ran off (got thrown out at gunpoint)and now is struggling with children.
    Well hubbie is dead,the funds are not flowing so easily and the male suckers in the churches are getting thinner and thinner.
    By virtue of greed and not backing fem-ideology with actual SACRIFICE the aid to the hypergamous ones is drying up.
    Of course big daddy govt. still pays, because he gets back that and more via gunpoint from men,but even so, it’s just not enough to keep a gal in huggies and thousand dollar hand bags anymore.
    Every cent is actually going to food or gasoline,oh the dread!
    Still not as poor as the outcast father living in the car,but hey,he’s not quite human nor Godlike,fuck that bad man anyway.Fuck-em right into the ground.(So you say)
    That’s fine,destroy the engine in your car too,and see how long it runs!

  110. farm boy says:

    He speaks and speaks with great authority although he doesn’t know a sh*t

    There is a scientific theory behind that behavior

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

  111. Martian Bachelor says:

    We will find ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to lump ALL WOMEN together with the feminists. (John Witten)

    “The fearsome male patriarchy folded like a cheap Kate Spade knockoff . . . The shrill feminists who made men the enemy took shrewd advantage of the fact that men hate arguing with women.”
    – Kate O’Beirne

    I think your position would be that the women you are concerned about, the NAWALTs, are innocent bystanders. The problem is not so much their innocence, as their goddamned paralysis and passivity in standing around idly proclaiming innocence while their sistas as rampaging through the culture destroying so much of what they say they value.

    Zed explained all, in another thread on a different site long, long ago:

    Another analogy I have often used is that situation we have today is like a large lake [-the deep, male waters that women want to draw nourishment from]. On one side, you have armies of women pissing and shitting and dumping as much raw emotional sewage as they can create into that lake. On the other side, you have the group of so-called “nice normal” women who are beginning to realize that their drinking water is no longer as sweet and fresh as it used to be.

    Now, the ordinary male response to a situation like this would be to run around to the other side of the lake, and stop those bitches from poisoning the water that everyone else has to drink from. For some odd reason, the female response has been to cheer the bitches for their polluting ways, with calls of “YOU GO, GRRL!!”

    From my perspective, it is up to women to do something about the fact that men are no longer allowed to desire them. A lot of dickless men caved in to the army of bad women, largely due to the fact that all other women kept silent and appeared to be complicit in what was happening.

    One of the reasons that married women who brag about how well they treat their husbands or BFs draw so much fire, is that men have seen a lot of women who take the position “I got mine, so what do I care how badly these women are screwing things up for other women, men, and children?”

    Nor will a woman like that get any kudos from this group simply because they haven’t fucked a man over in the last week. The culture as a rule does not hand out gold medals to members of a group of known arsonists simply because they haven’t burned anything down in the past week.

    Nor will women who talk about “trying.” The male ethic is to look at results. If your house is burning down, you don’t want firemen who “try,” you want them to be effective in putting out the fire. “Do, or do not do. There is no ‘try‘.”

    This isn’t aimed at you, Serendipity. I’m just doing my usual thing of using something someone says to launch on one of my famous rants. I have been hammering on women for years to provide some kind of counter voice to the male-hating and bashing of the feminidiots on the one hand, and the smug sense of superiority of women who want men to continue in their traditional roles despite everything in the culture working to make that impossible, on the other.

    That counter voice has to be aimed almost exclusively at the women who are causing the problems, as well as the men who support and enable them. Until then, men have to assume a worst-case scenario where AWALT.

  112. farm boy says:

    This talk that men working together is somehow unnatural or unmasculine

    That is what an army is (or used to be), guys united for fight. Been around a long time, seems natural to me

  113. dragnet says:

    @ Starviolet

    “I think that is illegal. Ministers can’t perform the service without the license.”

    This is absolutely, 100 percent false. There is absolutely no legal prohibition anywhere in any law that prevents religious leaders from performance marriage ceremonies in the absence of gov’t marriage contracts. The fact that the union wouldn’t be legally binding is not the same thing as being “illegal”.

    Stop posting until you get a handle on this kind of misinformation.

  114. freebird says:

    Must be on a roll this morning:
    Why put a single cent into the collection plate when it’s going to reward behaviors that end the patriarchal way of Life that the churches are supposed to be supporting and preaching for in earnest.
    Funny how folks gets some discernment only when it hits them in the pocketbook.

    Not a penny for the Churchians, my Kingdom for a just system.

  115. freebird says:

    Another sucker scam:
    Get “married” w/o State credentials.

    That’s exactly why many States have laws that read “If you present of declare yourself as married, you ARE.”

    If that was not enough,she can still cry *fear* and have you removed at gunpoint whilst she sits on her pussy with her bad boy in the house you paid for,and you’re in the jailhouse.

    No,fuck that noise,fuck it all day long.

  116. farm boy says:

    @Martin B

    Yes, unless they speak out against the injustices, they are complicit. Tell women this.

    Also tell them that they facilitating the fall of civilization.

  117. imnobody says:

    He speaks and speaks with great authority although he doesn’t know a sh*t

    There is a scientific theory behind that behavior

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

    Good link. It’s a phenomenon that it is widely known in my country but I didn’t know that was a theory behind that. Now I can quote it. Thanks.

  118. Bob Wallace says:

    @whatever

    “While this is the reality of the current situation, it is silly to imagine that many fathers are “seriously trying to be good people but are just being stopped by the law”. A lot of them are HORRIBLE people, and are simply being forced to be horrible in a DIFFERENT WAY than they would prefer. Men aren’t saint either, and many of them are quite bad.”

    The evidence throughout history is that there are far more many worse mothers than fathers. Women are responsible for two-thirds of all child abuse and little boys are twice as likely to be abused as little boys.

    The worst thing that can happen to children is to not have a father in the house.

    Mediate on the fact that the word “bastard” means “a fatherless boy” and “a cruel heartless man.”

  119. Leave it up to Dalrock to make the most profound case for and against marriage 2.0 in one simple photo caption.

    Again, I tip my hat to you and stand in awe.

    [D: Thank you for the kind words. I thought about that when I posted it. Yet it is the truth, which is why it doesn't specifically aid any one camp or school of thought.]

  120. Houston says:

    freebird: “Why put a single cent into the collection plate when it’s going to reward behaviors that end the patriarchal way of Life that the churches are supposed to be supporting and preaching for in earnest.”

    The Christian tradcon defense of his-fault divorce is akin to filling a church with thugs who gleefully pounce on men, rob them, and beat them within an inch of their lives. Then, after the church acquires a reputation fouler than an urban dark alley, so that men curse it and avoid it, the preacher wails, “Why won’t sinners come to repentance? Why is there no faith?”

  121. Dalrock says:

    @John Witten

    Dear AR, I suppose that likening a marriage to an auto purchase may make sense if one believes that a legitimate marriage may be established by legislation, but I for one find that hard to believe. A legal contract may be binding, with penalties for breaking it, but I maintain that such was never a marriage to begin with. All any of us have as we begin the journey of conjugal exploration is our integrity and love. If they are not enough to keep a couple together, then neither will a license.

    The issue has nothing to do with marriage licenses, and everything to do with the state deliberately disrupting marriages as well as providing incentives for women to divorce*. Where have you been for the last 40 years? This is core to the point of the OP. See this post for quotes from academics patting themselves on the back for transferring marital power from those who want to honor the marriage vow (men) to those who don’t (women). See this post for quotes from academics explaining how the state incents women to divorce, especially if there are dependent children.

    *Separate but related is the incentive the state now provides to women to have children out of wedlock, in the form of welfare/child support. Note that the state is wisely blurring the lines here because Traditional Conservatives see child support as about righteously socking it to deadbeat dads while welfare is about rewarding dysfunctional choices.

    Our biggest problem in the concept of marriage and divorce being discussed here is that men and women have hopped into bed with the first person to come along, or at least on the basis of some fantasy rather than reality. Maturity before marriage is essential for success. I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    Of all of our problems, people marrying too young or marrying the first person they have sex with isn’t one of them. Your smugness is only matched by the degree to which you are out of touch with the times. The median age of first marriage for women in the US is nearly 27 (26.5 and climbing). When you married in 1968 it was 20.8. It may not sound like a big difference, but it means women have gone from expecting to marry under three years after turning 18 to waiting nearly a decade. To a teen age woman it seems like a lifetime, and they are acting accordingly.

    We will find ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to lump ALL WOMEN together with the feminists. In my contacts on other sites I am discovering that there are large numbers of women who are also coming to the same position regarding the relationship between men and women that Dalrock presents on this blog.

    If so, they are very much in the minority including of Christian women. An honest Christian (man or woman) on the topic of biblical marriage and divorce stands out like an honest cop in Jaurez. If they are honest and standing up for the Bible, they will understand how outgunned they are and won’t be offended at us blasting the ones they oppose. On the other hand, if they are like so many we have seen claiming to be traditional but not walking the walk, they will find any reason to dismiss an attempt at returning to biblical marriage.

  122. ezra says:

    @dragnet re: Starviolet’s incorrect information pertaining to covenant marriage vs. “contract with the State marriage”

    The pastor that I referred to earlier, living and ministering in WI, has a small, truly patriarchal church near Milwaukee. He has chosen to marry couples without a State marriage license in what some call a sort of “civil disobedience” because he agreees with what men are writing here, and further, he attempts to give the State as little control over the fruit of the marriage (property and children of the couple) as is possible. He will not marry a couple unless they are active in the congregation there, nor will he marry an “outside” couple unless he has spent at least six months with them, meeting regularly to counsel them in what the Bible says about marriage. He takes the Bible literally. If I read his website correctly, one couple has divorced in over twenty years of his performing covenant marriages without a State license.

    It helps, though, that in WI, there is no such thing as “common law marriage”, and the wife cannot simply say that she was “Mrs.” and take all his stuff and/or his children if she chooses to walk out the door. She will have to spend some serious cash and hire some serious and hard-hitting lawyers to prove that she was in some kind of contract relationship with him (in the State’s eyes) in order to get his stuff, and she will HAVE to share at least 50/50 and get NO child support if she manages to get to court over the property and children. The family courts in WI, though perverted still, do not automatically dole out child support in joint custody cases, and do insist that parents enter mediation before a Court Commissioner will even HEAR a motion to bring a child support/visitation order. It’s amazing what a woman will concede when she realizes she’s not going to get any cash from her ex; it’s also amazing what she will concede when she realizes he’s going to get half the week with their children.

    I guess more of you should move to WI.

    Now, if you just went to bed with some woman in WI and never lived in the same house with her, they will practically set her up for life with the State’s money, a nice State job where she can play of FB all day long for $13 an hour and plenty of your indentured servanthood, oops, child support.

  123. ezra says:

    freebird says:

    Another sucker scam:
    Get “married” w/o State credentials.

    That’s exactly why many States have laws that read “If you present of declare yourself as married, you ARE.”

    If that was not enough,she can still cry *fear* and have you removed at gunpoint whilst she sits on her pussy with her bad boy in the house you paid for,and you’re in the jailhouse.

    That’s why VAWA laws as they stand must be repealed and completely overhauled. But I’m preaching to the choir, I’m certain.

  124. Doc says:

    Women hate the power they have been given – which is why they are increasingly unhappy because they simply cannot deal with the responsibility. If they use it, they spend the rest of their days blaming everyone but themselves for the fact that they are increasingly miserable, and hate that their ex-husband (after the initial shock) moves on, and while he may or may-not marry again, generally finds someone to start a new family with. THAT is the reason so many ex-wives continue to dream up reasons to go back to court in an attempt to make their “ex” as miserable at the outcome of their “need to be free” as they are.

    Of course they destroy their children in the process – guaranteeing that any daughters will seek out older men for the acceptance of a strong male figure that they didn’t have as a child (now this benefits me, so I love that so many do it, since it guarantees me a steady supply of oh-so-willing young women for my bed). But it is the boys who fair the worst – since society isn’t bent over to make it easy for them, they tend to end up either in jail due to seeking out acceptance trying to be what they have been taught by their mothers men are: abusive, violent, hateful, etc., or they withdraw from the world avoiding having anything to do with anyone… I have a nephew who lives like this – he dropped out of school, has no job, and sponges off his mother – he is almost 30, and completely useless… This is society’s idea of the perfect man… Capable of nothing, contributing nothing, being nothing…

    Throughout my life, I have come to see women really enjoy being in a submissive role, and while they will use this to bond with other women in talking about how horrible their life is, at their core it is only when they have no power that they are truly content.

    Heck, these days I have women who during the day have high-powered jobs sometime with people’s live in their hands (doctors, lawyers, etc.) who in the evening want to be told how to live, what to do, what to wear, what to eat, and totally controlled. They have come to accept this about themselves and know it is what is best for them and works. Of course, they act to hide it from the outside – since it is driven into them that they aren’t supposed to want this. I have taken such women to their company functions, and others are shocked to see her catering to my needs and wishes. One is the youngest partner in her law firm and all of the women look to her and perceive her to be the strong leader, but to me, she is dedicated to my needs, wants, and desires.

    Women can be taught to behave – just like cats can. It’s just that you have to have something they value to reward them, and something they truly hate and fear to punish them. The key is knowing what those things are and using them to reinforce behavior. Too many men, let the women in their lives get away with “shit tests” and the like, without punishment. If you want her to behave, you have be firm – just like with any animal. If they do not see you as their “lord-and-master” they will see themselves as the “alpha” to your “beta”…

  125. farm boy says:

    Leave it up to Dalrock to make the most profound case for and against marriage 2.0 in one simple photo caption.

    Pictures really work well in presentations

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2012/09/07/jeff-bezos-and-the-end-of-powerpoint-as-we-know-it/

  126. Cane Caldo says:

    The issue has nothing to do with marriage licenses, and everything to do with the state deliberately disrupting marriages as well as providing incentives for women to divorce*. Where have you been for the last 40 years?[...]Of all of our problems, people marrying too young or marrying the first person they have sex with isn’t one of them. Your smugness is only matched by the degree to which you are out of touch with the times.

    Apparently, John Whitten used to be a lineman for Florida State.

  127. Starviolet says:

    @ezra – I will have to take your word for it that Solomon’s post was excellent. I scrolled past it, as I doubt that anything worth reading would begin with “fuck you”. I am sorry to hear that you and your mother were shrews and I am glad that you found fascinating womanhood and were able to turn things around. Did you read the original or the version from the sixties?

    I understand that men have feelings. This is why I try to be polite when I speak to them. I too have seen men ruined by divorce, but rarely for frivolous reasons. My brother in law, is now broke (got fired because of the situation with his wife) and depressed because he is currently divorcing and his kids are accross the country from him. He did however cheat on his wife while on a business trip. Three years later she found out because the woman was distantly related to his wife and they all attended a family reunion. I feel sorry for him, but I can’t say that the divorce is frivolous or that he is a victim. I think that cases where women divorce for no reason are rare.

  128. An honest Christian (man or woman) on the topic of biblical marriage and divorce stands out like an honest cop in Jaurez.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Hay Ca-rumba.
    Eeeez so true Sr. Dalrock. Maybe we can learn from them.
    I was in Mexico City in August and was asking about the shooting the occurred right in the airport, international terminal food court, where 3 cops killed 3 cops. The killers were narcotraficante payroll receivers.
    The cab driver told me dont worry senior, they fired every policeman in this district and hired all new, it was a hundred or more.
    Could we do that with protestant preachers?

  129. farm boy says:

    I too have seen men ruined by divorce, but rarely for frivolous reasons.

    Guys, here it is, all teed up.

  130. Frivolous according to who? I’m betting that SV thinks that the scenarios depicted in “Fireproof” or “Eat, Pray, Love.” were not frivolous, and/or that they are outliers and don’t reflect reality in any way shape or form (which is why they are so popular with wimminz).

  131. Logos says:

    Delayed response to 5river’s question about how my ex got swallowed by the BDSM scene. Maybe this can serve as a cautionary tale. I had NO idea she was into that stuff. I think it was lurking under the surface for a while and consumed her when she discovered the online community. We had just moved to a new state, and I was working every day at my new job while she was supposedly at home studying for the bar exam (we’re both attorneys, and I already had taken and passed our new state’s exam). Instead of studying, she was on the computer all day doing role-playing, writing erotic stories, and interacting with someone who became her Dom. I was clueless. Out of the blue she announced that she didn’t want to have kids, and that quickly morphed into how she felt distant from me (big surprise) and wanted time away to see if she missed me or not. I’m not stupid; I know women don’t just separate unless there’s somebody else. I investigated and found her online alter-ego, along with all of her posts and interactions with the Dom. I also found a bunch of emails she had sent to friends and family claiming that I threw her out of the house. She was painting me as the bad guy and herself as the innocent victim. It devastated me. People who haven’t experienced betrayal have no idea how painful it is, even on a physical level. I dropped fifteen pounds and felt on the edge of a heart attack.

    I called her out and said there was a choice: either we go to counseling together (and she cease all contact with the Dom), or we divorce. She was preparing to go meet him in another state; if she already had met him in person, I wouldn’t have offered the choice I did. I probably shouldn’t have offered the choice anyway, but I felt she was going through something addictive and pathological. She chose divorce and has decided to go into the BDSM lifestyle completely. Her family is mortified, and my own was hurt by this because we all were very close. I thought I was a happily-married man, but my wife vanished from my life in only a few days and expressed NO remorse about it, even though she saw me fall to pieces upon announcing the separation. From what I can tell, she hates me for catching her red-handed and outing her to her family, who want nothing to do with the new man.

    The lessons to be learned from this are two-fold. First, any marriage today offers no certainty or security. If your wife wants out, she will get out with impunity and most likely with the children (I consider myself blessed that we never had any). Second, if you are married, then watch out for the computer. I have read a lot about this since my ordeal and learned just how destructive it is. I believe many, if not most, divorces today stem from online interactions. They don’t all involve BDSM like my situation did, but they remain highly toxic to marriage.

  132. I too have seen men ruined by divorce, but rarely for frivolous reasons.
    ————————————————
    SV……BS……if any of us could review those facts, including the BIL, we could show you that almost all of these were for frivolous reasons.
    I have rarely, maybe never, seen any woman say anything except what you just did about the prevalence of frivorce, yet the statistics are available and are highly suggestive if not outright empirical proof that the vast majority of female filed divorce is frivolous.
    I suppose you take claims of abuse at face value, and that you allow for all the definitions that have been added as that word became meaningless. That is the ONLY way you can say you are unaware of frivorces in any number.
    No woman sees another as divorcing for anything but the soundest reasons, because women do not hold each other accountable.
    I have seen women whose friends had an affair and then divorced their husband because he was so called verbally abusive rationalize not only the divorce but the affair too, “its wrong BUT she was craving love and getting none”…..whatever.

    Sorry, the men who write their stories here, guess what, their wives would tell you they had great reasons to jettison the man, and if you heard it from them you would blindly accept it. Thats what women do SV.
    There may be a subset of men who wink at cheating, and sort of tell each other the conquests, but frankly i dont think so….since one’s own experience is the supreme source of data for women, well, I have never known any of those men or even heard of them 2nd or 3rd hand. I have known men who cheated and men held them to account. i have known men who filed a divorce and other men challenged them not to, up to and including overt church action, men visiting and lecturing them.
    No SV, sorry, you are not lying because you truly do not know any better, but what you are saying is false. How do I know? Evidence from the thousands of people who have been studied. Some things are just the way they are, and wishful thinking and the hamster will not change them.

    thats why he opened his post the way he did, he knew what you were gonna say.

  133. OsricPearl says:

    This hits close two home for me. In the past year, I’ve had three friends go through divorce, although two of those friends, the females, were the ones who went through quite willingly. Each reason for divorce was frivolous, even by less strict standards. There was no abuse, no cheating, or even desertion in the part of the men of any of the marriages. There was no gambling or drug use. None of the women had dead-beats who spent all their time at home, refusing to work while the girls went out to work. No, all of these were hard-working, masculine, men who did all the right things. One of the men, the male friend who had divorce forced on him, is in the military, another was a former marine. The last works IT. All of these marriages have children.

    The male friend of mine never told me the reason, but since I’ve known him for about ten years, I can only guess. He’s a true-blue beta. In every relationship he’s ever had, it started out well. He’s a punk who can play the guitar. He has street cred and he’s cute, if not a bit on the chubby side. Girls like him. He goes out with a cute one and then begins to act like a teddy-bear. The girls get bored and he gets his heart broken, without learning a lesson.

    The first divorced her husband because he refused to move to a city she wanted (only an hour away). He said he would, but then he changed his mind, wanting to be close to his parents instead. Although I can see how that would be a source of annoyance and conflict, this is not at all serious enough for divorce. Being the man, he’s the leader of the house. She didn’t ride any carousals, was brought up by a strong christian family, and doesn’t believe in feminism. What gives?

    The second is even worse, in my opinion because of how long they’d been together. Although she married young, they had a solid relationship and a wonderful child. She’s going crazy, like her mother, and gaining weight. She won’t do any better. She’ll never do any better. But her reason, well, she’s met new people and has started “going out.” That’s a swell reason. I hope you’re happy with your cats and choke on it.

    The only reason I can’t break away from those two girls is because they are technically my husband’s friends. He’s known both of them since before he could speak. I am happy that they live far from me, but there will always be the inevitable visit. We live in their home town and their family is close.

  134. Cane Caldo says:

    @Starviolet

    My brother in law, is now broke (got fired because of the situation with his wife) and depressed because he is currently divorcing and his kids are accross the country from him. He did however cheat on his wife while on a business trip. Three years later she found out because the woman was distantly related to his wife and they all attended a family reunion.

    What’s remarkable to me is:

    1) It sounds like your BIL so wanted to have sex with a woman like his wife that he had to fly across the country and accidentally find a relation of hers to accomplish it. Seems like the wife could have saved him some airfare.

    2) You’re a sadist, who thinks it’s good to torture children when men don’t meet your standards.

  135. Starviolet says:

    I art laughing – I have never seen either of those movies. The plot of Eat,Pray,Love sounds frivolous to me, but I have only read a description on some manosphere blogs. I doubt that those depictions were without bias.

  136. Bias? It’s a chick flick, that is the epitome of frivolity. That is the defining feature of a chick flick.

  137. farm boy says:

    I thinking we should term the act of coming on here and challenging the commonality of frivolous divorce “walshing”. This happens enough to deserve its own word.

  138. Runaway Bride, Sleepless in Seattle, While You Where Sleeping, My Best Friends Wedding, The Lake House? See any common threads? See the frivolity, the female solipsism, the rampaging selfish path of the women through each of those “plots”? Chick flicks.

  139. Cane Caldo says:

    @OsricPearl

    The only reason I can’t break away from those two girls is because they are technically my husband’s friends. He’s known both of them since before he could speak. I am happy that they live far from me, but there will always be the inevitable visit. We live in their home town and their family is close.

    I can’t see this any other way except that it is either extremely foolish, or devilishly traitorous, of your husband to remain friends with women who do such things. Foolish if he doesn’t know that frivolous divorce is contagious; traitorous if he does, and yet keeps them close…

  140. Starviolet says:

    @Cane cado –

    SIL says they look nothing alike and BIL claims that they had a good marriage and that she is throwing it away for no real reason. He thought that he would be able to have some no strings attached sex at a convention without her ever finding out and she found out. His kids are across the country because she refused to fly home with him after the reunion and instead stayed with her family.

    I don’t think that it is good to torture children. I also don’t think that it is good to break your marriage vows, humiliate your wife and force her to unknowingly take on the sexual health risks that come from a non monogamous sexual relationship. I’m not surprised that her reaction was to run home to her parents and file for divorce.

  141. ezra says:

    @Starviolet:

    You know, I do not have ANY female friends that aren’t at least twenty-five years older than me (I’m forty-two, have been happily married for over five years to a man who has been through the ringer with feminist women) because ALL of the younger women (that’s ALL of them) believe in no-fault divorce. They also ALL have had affairs on their men. Regrettably, it is true that women typically do not hold other women accountable: my hubby and I still talk about the time that my “best friend” left her precious husband of seven years (with whom she had a beautiful daughter) for some a-hole where we both worked. I went home and wept when I found out, but I NEVER called her out on the carpet for it. She was singlehandedly the WORST friend I have ever had; I eventually cut off all contact with her for fear she would taint my image of my husband and have an ill effect upon our marriage.

    I work for a married woman (married eight years with three children) who treats her husband like a rug. When I go over there, he’s rarely there, because I think he deliberately chooses work sites out of town, but it’s clear that he’s had an affair and she’s really pissed. She justifies her fatness, her rudeness, her sassiness toward him because of his infidelity. I’m SURE she was that way before he ever cheated on her. She commands him like a puppy dog. He stays away. He loves his girls. He is trapped.

    Her complaints about him, other than the “affair?”

    He “dips” too much (Copenhagen), he sometimes “drinks too much”, he “doesn’t make her feel loved”. My GOD! He is her slave! It’s disgusting.

    The woman across the street with little children that COULD have been my friend tarts herself up every night, leaves her three children with her hubby and runs all over town with her GF’s, doing God knows what.

    I have no female friends that are my age; they are disgusting. I don’t know where you are living that you are not seeing “frivilous divorce” or at least the pre-cursors to such.

    I have read the original and revised versions of FW and taken a course.

  142. Starviolet says:

    I art laughing-

    “Runaway Bride, Sleepless in Seattle, While You Where Sleeping, My Best Friends Wedding, The Lake House? See any common threads? See the frivolity, the female solipsism, the rampaging selfish path of the women through each of those “plots”? Chick flicks.”

    I guess I don’t watch a lot of chick flicks. Let look for these on Netflix. I did see the twilight movie. It was silly, but so are most of the movies aimed at men. Movies aren’t usually serious things.

  143. Starviolet says:

    @ezra

    I don’t know a lot of divorced people thank goodness. I have a cousin on her third husband. She did all kinds of horrible things to the first two men. The things that she did to these men would probably shock even the most jaded and cynical people around here.

    I think that it is good to avoid negative people, although you can’t be a positive influence on them that way.

  144. marlon says:

    Everyone, please stop responding to Starviolet. It is a waste.

  145. farm boy says:

    @ezra

    Your experience mirrors mine. Up and down the rows of cubicles at work, guys have been divorced by wives for no apparent reason. You meet an guy 35 or older, and you assume that he has been frivolously divorced.

  146. farm boy says:

    Guys, is it time to evaluate Star Violet with respect to the Higgins scale?

    7 or 8 maybe?

  147. Martian Bachelor says:

    farm boy:
    September 9, 2012 at 10:25 am

    If the nice normal women don’t seem concerned enough to take on the demolitionists in the sisterhood, why should I?

    Civilization benefits women much more than it does me. I’d do comparatively fine (I think) if we went back to a world where the most advanced computing technology available to anyone was a slide rule. For everyone else it would be like that silly racist 60’s propaganda movie Planet of the Apes — except instead of blacks it was women Charleton Heston should have been worried about. Planet of the Bitches. “Those bastards!” lol (for anyone who’s endured it)

    I don’t know which political party is for it these days, but maybe sending more women to war would be a good thing. Perhaps then they’d comprehend that for their own survival men who have something to lose (and thus something of value to offer) now have to view every woman as a potential walking IED, with a hidden trip wire and a time-delay fuse of unknown duration.

    One of them going NAWALT by saying “but I’m not an IED” is exactly what an actual IED would say and want a man to believe, so it’s worth than useless for them to try and point it out. This problem is build into the system and has nothing to do with their own personal integrity or saintliness or any other BS like that. The sooner they dispense with that wrong turn in the maze, the sooner they can get down to doing something actually constructive if they have it in them, which is questionable. This is perhaps one area where the ones who have gotten in touch with their inner bitches can prove their worth.

    I suspect they’ll always find a way in the end to take the side of the hellions, and the generals ordering men out on patrol with the admonition to “just be confident”. As Darwin correctly stated in a quote in that link of yours, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”. -Which is the most devastating critique, when you think about it, of there being some unquestionable “truth about women” inherent to “Game” that can likely be come up with. Fools rush in, and all that.

  148. ezra says:

    @Starviolet: I don’t know your story, and I (admittedly) was once a nasty feminist myself, and thank GOD for His mercy in restoring me, although I am far from perfect. I just cannot seem to find any human beings (men or women) other than my husband and my Titus 2 mentor (older grandma) who share similar beliefs and mindsets about marriage, so I essentially find people online and try to learn more from them, and contribute if I think it might help someone.

    In my experience, it’s not just the divorced people that believe in frivilous divorce; it’s even the never-married, or married ones (females). If I had a dollar for every woman who has told me “God wants me to be happy, so I divorced” or “God doesn’t want me to be unhappy, so I am thinking of divorce…it will be okay, because God wants me to be happy”, or, “If I marry the wrong guy, and I’m unhappy, God will allow me to divorce”, I would be a rich woman!

    One of these days, I hope to have the opportunity with the woman I shunned, the one who cheated with the boy-toy at work on her faithful husband and the father of their child. I know now that I will have the guts to speak the truth, even if it enrages her. I am so sorry that I didn’t do it at the time.

    She likely already knows of the mistake she made, though, since she and her boy-toy got “pregnant” right away on their second date, and she now makes a shack-up life with boy-toy while he drags her around the apartment by her pretty hair and she cries and cries to her aunt about how abusive he is…

    Most divorce (I have found), as initiated by women, is totally frivilous.

  149. OsricPearl says:

    @Cane

    I think he it may be that he’s loyal and naive. We don’t discuss this much, but when I first heard of the first female’s divorce, I told him I thought she was wrong and why. He defended her by accusing him of being a mamma’s boy. Of the second friend he’s more critical, but doesn’t quite blame her. Instead, he shrugs it off as a reflection of faulty genetic make-up.
    He is also the friend of the guy who was divorced. He also put most of the blame on him, claiming that the guy has a habit of messing up things.
    The odd thing is that he’s very dominant in our relationship, and constantly tells his friends that to keep a woman, you can’t take crap from her.

    I think he fits guy #2 in Dalrock’s description.

  150. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet
    First you start with denial:

    I art laughing – I have never seen either of those movies. The plot of Eat,Pray,Love sounds frivolous to me, but I have only read a description on some manosphere blogs. I doubt that those depictions were without bias.

    Then you move to dismissal:

    I guess I don’t watch a lot of chick flicks. Let look for these on Netflix. I did see the twilight movie. It was silly, but so are most of the movies aimed at men. Movies aren’t usually serious things.

    The fact is that we now have a system which rewards frivolous divorce by women, and coincidentally women are initiating divorce in droves. Also strictly a coincidence, all forms of entertainment aimed at women are saturated in divorce fantasy, something which isn’t aimed at men. Women of all ages fantasize about divorce. They consume stories of divorce fantasy in the form of books, movies, magazines, television, and newspapers.

    But when we discuss frivolous divorce you change the topic to men who cheat. When I quote women discussing their own frivolous divorces as if they were the victim you change the topic to how men should know better than to marry women who would do that. Later you pretend that no such a thing occurs. This is what you do. It is all you have. Deny, deflect, conflate, emote.

    Carry on. No one has noticed.

  151. Starviolet says:

    @ Ezra

    Most of my friends of all ages and genders take marriage very seriously. I would only divorce for the most serious of reasons. We have boys and I am not going to risk raising them alone. If my husband leaves me he is going to have take any boys over 8 with him so that they can be good men, and not the kind that single mothers tend to raise. I doubt that I have to worry about that, as my husband feels the same way about marriage that I do.

    He has a friend whose wife is a shrew. Her husband wants to leave her and he has been advising against it. He wants me to talk to her, but I really have no idea what to say. We aren’t close, and I doubt that, “stop being a bitch, go home, cook dinner and have sex” will help. Making a man happy is not particularly difficult, so I assume that she doesn’t care.

  152. ezra says:

    I art laughing: regarding the chick flicks, my husband will not rent them or buy them or allow them to be viewed in our home. Really, I am quite thankful. The less we are exposed to something that promotes evil, sinful behavior by women (or men), the less we are tempted and begin to view it as “normal” behavior”. Though sometimes I do tire of watching endless action flicks with my husband…

  153. ybm says:

    I think by now it should be pretty clear that starviolet is a disgusting, perverse woman just like Jennifer here to get her sexual stimulation from arguing with men on the internet.

    By traditional Christianity standards, viewing pornography is a form of adultery and is grounds for a no fault divorce. If starviolet is married she has broken her marriage contract by engaging in the viewing of pornography on the internet.

    Another sick Jennifer like pervert who is here for the sexual stimulation of barking out at the nearest man to get her panties soaked. Now that we have given you sufficent gina tingles you can retreat to the nearest shower head. You should be ashamed of yourself you sick freak.

  154. farm boy says:

    Though sometimes I do tire of watching endless action flicks with my husband

    Nobody takes action movies seriously. Women do take chick flicks seriously though. Be happy with the situation.

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    @OsricPearl

    You should read that whole description again–pay attention to the end. Women like your husband’s “friends” left their boyfriends and husbands to try to rescue me with their vaginas. (If they weren’t happy being married, how could their friend be, without loving guidance?) In one case, I actually told my wife that I was going to coffee with a female “friend”, and her jealousy was unenlightened in our modern era. It wouldn’t go amiss to read my blog, but it’s not necessary. You get the gist.

    @Starviolet

    ONS with woman so like his wife that they turn out related = 2+ perpetual sins requiring a paragraph to deplore.

    Alienating children from father = 1 finite sin that barely merits a short sentence.

    I won’t bother you again.

  156. Starviolet says:

    @ dalrock

    Yes, if I haven’t seen a movie that someone accuses me of approving of I will deny seeing it. I was responding to a comment by I art laughing thereathabaskan only assume for your response here that you don’t have time to read all of the comments and missed the whole exchange.

    I think that a woman who divorces is not really rewarded with cash and prizes. Her standard of living will almost certainly be reduced as will that of her former husband. At that point we can hold the suffering Olympics and see who gets the gold and who gets the silver, but divorce screws over both parents and the children. I dont think that divorce fantasy movies cause women to divorce any more than super hero movies cause men to don capes and become vigilantes.

  157. Starviolet says:

    That should read ” I can only assume from your response here that you don’t have time to read all of the comments, and missed the original exchange.” Thank you iPad autocorrect.

  158. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    I think that a woman who divorces is not really rewarded with cash and prizes.

    I’ll just point out again that the researchers who have studied this found that the ability of women to steal the most valuable asset of the marriage was the single biggest driver in divorce rates. The facts all line up, but they disagree with your feelings.

    Her standard of living will almost certainly be reduced as will that of her former husband. At that point we can hold the suffering Olympics and see who gets the gold and who gets the silver, but divorce screws over both parents and the children.

    The system is designed to cater to the (very common) form of divorce theft favored by women and mercilessly punish the (very uncommon) form of divorce theft favored by men. You look at this and see a wash, then pretend to care about the poor fatherless children.

    I dont think that divorce fantasy movies cause women to divorce any more than super hero movies cause men to don capes and become vigilantes.

    Millions of women are doing the former. How many men are doing the latter?

    But by all means, carry on trying to change the subject. I’m pretty sure it is working.

  159. Starviolet says:

    Cane Cado – Since my point was that the divorce was not frivolous, I don’t see how focusing on that point is a problem. I would love it if they got back together, but since he keeps downplaying what he did wrong with comments like “it was a long time ago and it only happened once,” I doubt that it will. I do think that she needs to move back here or that he needs to move there so that he can see the children on a regular basis. I actually think that the marriage might have survived this if the entire family didn’t know what happened. Her moving is not entirely justified, but the divorce is not frivolous as BIL claims.

  160. ezra says:

    @farm boy: That’s a very good point about nobody taking action movies seriously; I never thought of it that way! We’re both glad that we don’t watch chick flicks anymore. Although I did buy “Fireproof” when it came out on DVD and brought it home for him to watch, long before I ever saw this blog of course. His response was furious anger toward the wife (as was mine) – we were both blown away by her adulterous lifestyle. We don’t watch it anymore.

  161. Pingback: Dark Brightness | Bleak Theology: Hopeful Science

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ezra
    I work for a married woman (married eight years with three children) who treats her husband like a rug. When I go over there, he’s rarely there, because I think he deliberately chooses work sites out of town, but it’s clear that he’s had an affair and she’s really pissed. She justifies her fatness, her rudeness, her sassiness toward him because of his infidelity. I’m SURE she was that way before he ever cheated on her. She commands him like a puppy dog. He stays away. He loves his girls. He is trapped.

    One of the many lies of feminism is that men do not care about their children. In fact, for decades and probably longer, Western women have used children as hostages to control men. Not always in any overt fashion – women are generally too subtle for that. But certainly there are many married women who know they can treat whats-his-name as badly as they wish, because he will take it in order to remain in the same house as his children. You summed this up very well:

    He loves his girls. He is trapped

  163. Starviolet says:

    @dalrock – I just skimmed the study that your post on Divorce theft is based on. So far I’m not seeing what a small, self selected group of people divorcing in Belgium have to do with divorce here, but I am going to give it a careful read, and then discuss it with people who have a better understanding of statistics than I do. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    I think that in practice divorce turns out to be a wash most of the time. In most cases both men and women work, and there isn’t much alimony. The typical child support payment does not cover even 50% of the costs of caring for the average child. Ive linked stats in the comments section of past posts that support my view. I will link them again if you missed them.

    Single mothers are doing most of the work and paying most of the bills in most cases. I do not believe that women are making out like bandits after the divorce and I haven’t seen any evidence that supports this, or contradicts the stats about average child support payments being $400 or so a month. I am open to looking at any evidence that you have placing average child support payments higher than that. I would also love to read anything that you have about the average alimony payment in this country.

  164. ezra says:

    @Starviolet:

    you say:

    I do not believe that women are making out like bandits after the divorce and I haven’t seen any evidence that supports this, or contradicts the stats about average child support payments being $400 or so a month.

    You’ve got to be kidding me, right?

    Do you honestly think my husband spends $400 per month, per child, in OUR home, taking care of our children? You are completely out of touch with reality if you do…

    Indentured servitude, aka child support, is a farce of astronomical porportions.

  165. 7man says:

    SV is incapable of learning. The feminist script is set in her brain, like cured concrete.

  166. farm boy says:

    Enough of Star Violet. She has had her say, has been all over the map, and has proven a worthy example of how many women think/feel. Time to move on.

  167. CL says:

    Starviolet is still saying the exact same thing she said when she showed up here a couple of weeks ago. Why are you all letting her take you on this merry-go-round?

  168. Starviolet says:

    @ezra

    I have no idea how much your husband spends a month on child care, but I think when you include housing (children mean a bigger home) clothing and food, it is easy to spend more that.

  169. Starviolet says:

    Oh and Ezra that is the total amunt of the average child support payment, not the amount of child support per child.

  170. ybm says:

    CL says:
    September 9, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Yo chill out if by ‘everyone’ you mean the two new commentators ezra and farm_boy you’re right, they are wasting their time. People have to come to their own conclusions.

  171. Starviolet says:

    @ CL ” is still saying the exact same thing she said when she showed up here a couple of weeks ago. ”

    I have not read a convincing argument to the contrary on child support. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I am open to any evidence that you have to support the position that the average child support payment is too high and unfair to men.

    I did think when I showed up here that all men were having an easy time getting sex. After reading here I understand that only the most attractive men are having sex on a regular basis. It makes sense, because if a woman is going to have sex for fun or try to use sex to snag a husband, then she’s only going to do that with the most attractive man that she can find.

  172. ezra says:

    I’m sorry, gentlemen, for continuing to try and change this woman’s mind. I thought I might be able to speak some sense into some of these odd opinions of hers, being that I am another woman and a reformed feminist, and I learn a lot by reading sites like these.

    As a general note, I personally believe a woman demanding child support because she has CHOSEN to live in a different house is absurd! But again, I think the whole idea of child support as it exists today is absurd.

  173. ybm says:

    ezra says:
    September 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Nobody comes to the internet to be convinced. They come to reinforce their beliefs or with an open mind and learn (usually passively).

    Man I never post this politely, must be the afterglow.

  174. farm boy says:

    @ezra
    Try to convince women in the real world, one by one. Sometimes it takes time.

  175. spinsterchick says:

    [D: My apologies for not catching that she was a troll to begin with. Reading her whole comment, I see that she is a virgin who doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage because she is religious. She also doesn't believe in marriage because it is legalized prostitution.]

  176. ezra says:

    @farm boy:

    HOW? For instance, with the woman I work for, it’s just a living by example. She sees the way that my husband and I are together; she will NEVER hear me joining her or her other lady friends at her children’s birthday parties doing the “man bashing” thing.

    She hears me when I say, “I will have to check with my husband”, or “I need to ask my husband first”. She saw my copy of Fascinating Womanhood (she asked with glee if it was a “feminist” book – I said it was an ANTI-feminist one, and that ended the conversation about my preferred reading materials!)

    She is ten years younger than I am. I think she thinks I’m a joke; a throwback from the fifties, stuck in the wrong decade!

    The women younger than her are WORSE!

    Really, I am intersted – How should I try to accomplish this, of course, with great prayer first, but practical steps?

  177. Higgins 9, everything is what she has seen and what she has experienced, if she must she will wrap herself in willful ignorance to keep up her desired meme. It’s always all about her and what SHE thinks/experiences/determines.

  178. Miserman says:

    David Collard says:

    I think men in general feel betrayed by women. There is a backlash coming.

    One area to consider is the mother / son relationship, where a young boy is raised to believe in the inherent moral superiority and innocence of women. The “mama’s boy” syndrome is a poisonous blight on the family and produces a great many betas (see the movie Fireproof and Caleb’s mama’s boy betaness).

    Also, motherhood is viewed not as a gift and responsibility from God and painful because of Eve’s sin, but a heroic trial by fire of suffering caused by men. The son is expected to invest his life to make his mother happy as compensation for the grief he caused her in childbirth. Even if he leaves home, he can carry such expectations with him into his marriage. Men need to cut loose from that unspoken obligation.

  179. Martian Bachelor says:

    > For example, see the last tirade of Roosh about MRM: a typical case (imnobody)

    “The history of feminism is the history of women attempting to excommunicate each other from the High Priestesshood.”
    – Amy Benfer

    Like all male feminists, Roosh has delusions of High Priestesshood.

  180. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    @dalrock – I just skimmed the study that your post on Divorce theft is based on. So far I’m not seeing what a small, self selected group of people divorcing in Belgium have to do with divorce here, but I am going to give it a careful read, and then discuss it with people who have a better understanding of statistics than I do. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    The Belgian paper I quoted was describing terms, explaining standard concepts used by economists who study these things. The paper I was referring to above was this one, specifically this quote:

    Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia.50 We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.

    This is in reference to their finding that women initiate the overwhelming majority of divorces (see their data on page 3 of the paper), and their finding that the children are the most valuable asset in a marriage.

  181. Starviolet says:

    It is interesting that a person must buy everything that you are selling here without evidence, in order not to be called a feminist. I am a sahm, I have never been promiscuous, I use the principles in fascinating womanhood and I love and more importantly respect my husband. But because I dont think that child support is usually unfair to men (based on the facts that I’ve seen) and that most divorces are because women decided to go find themselves or some such foolishness I am spoken to rudely.

    I will stop commenting so often as apparently only consigning the most prevalent opinion is ok here. Thank you, to everyone who managed to discuss things politely even when we disagreed.

    [D: It isn't that you don't agree. It is that you never address the actual arguments. Instead you deflect and talk about something else, and refute statistics with anecdote.]

  182. ybm says:

    Starviolet says:
    September 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe MEEEEEE

    MEEEEEEEEE

    ME ME ME ME ME ME

    This is all I see when you post.

  183. Starviolet says:

    @dalrock – thanks for clarifying. I will go read that paper.

  184. Anonymous says:

    Welcome to the world of “Game” when that’s all the got your wife and keeps her from taking the house, your kids and half your salary to shack up with some guy who gets her more aroused… just ask Seal, a good father and husband who makes mad $$$ until vaguely dissatified Heidi Klum dumps him for her shades-wearing tatooed bodyguard.

  185. farm boy says:

    @ezra
    HOW?

    As you can see by watching Star Violet, women do not respond well to facts and logic. Perhaps when they are young, or so down and out that they are desperate, will logic work.

    Women seem to deal with feelings, and they say they do that “empathy thing”. Use the unfairness of current state of affairs to make them empathize with guy’s plights. Ask them if they were a guy, what they would do?

  186. pb says:

    Didn’t Heidi Klum also accuse Seal of being dangerous or violently angry or something as well?

  187. farm boy says:

    @I am Nobody

    Higgins 9, everything is what she has seen and what she has experienced, if she must she will wrap herself in willful ignorance to keep up her desired meme.

    That is getting into Doomed Harlot territory, but she kept digging and digging, and deflecting, and conflating, and ad infinitum.

    Hopefully this thread is “Walshed” of Star Violet

  188. farm boy says:

    oops, sorry about the name mixup “I Art Laughing”

  189. Hehe, I’ve experienced this type of maneuvering over on Christian Forums….the hamsters their are cybernetically enhanced:

    Here is a set that insists that it is unfair for a husband not to give her a baby, the same ones who have no problem with a wife not providing sex:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7685260/

  190. As you can see I always spell what I intend to also farm boy.

  191. SV, For one whole day try not weighing everything according to your friends, family, and your own experience. Not only is that painfully inadequate, but you are likely wrong about even those.

    Most men understand statistics well. Dalrock does….several engineers here, including me, we understand them very well. I does not matter who you ask, if you dont FEEL like something is true, it isnt.

    You are a lost cause

  192. I like Ezra.

    Ezra, because of the accurate point that women like the one you work for largely base things on feeling, it may be best to present the red-pill or other arguments against feminism in a way that is appealing, and feels good. Reason and logic won’t work well until her feelings line up with it.

    Whether it is the erotic nature of submission, or even role-playing games with the husband, you must find the thing that will speak to her best, if you want to reach her. (side note- if she is your boss, be careful) But Dominance and submission is magic for a person’s sex life. Maybe if she can see the appeal of some of it, even as a game at first, it might open the door.

    You could look for times when she is ragging about her husband, and then offer to share some of your secrets, if you are able to generally display satisfaction and joy about your relationship. If she feels like she is getting in on some secrets, she will be much more interested. The mysterious element is always good. Also, baby steps- encourage her to try out just a little thing- a phrase, a game, a day of acting different as an experiment. Play on her curiosity. Milk before meat.

    You can also make offhand observations in innocent conversation how it seems like women fought for all these rights, and got them, but are more dissatisfied then ever. (and how it used to be that men were far more respectful back in the day when they opened your car door or stood when you entered the room) Points like how much women seem to have discounted themselves so badly, in the process of trying to be ‘equal’. You can also make the point of how exhausting it is when you never defer anything to the man, and what a pleasant relief it can be to let HIM be the man.

    You can even look for moments much like when the prophet had to explain to David that it was HE who was the rich guy who took the poor guy’s one sheep. Maybe you can point out little factors that happen that aren’t good, and then bust her chops a little when she agrees and point out (in a friendly manner) that she does that stuff too.

    Also, keep searching the internet, if you like, the right combination of things is surely available.

    Also, take note that just like sharing Christ, some people will never convert, or at least not in the time that you know them. This woman may never be able to accept the jagged truth, and may die just as she is. If she is a Christian, perhaps she would enjoy my book “The Altar” on Amazon.

    I present a lot of manosphere truths in a way that makes them irrefutable and irresistible.

    You might also try to practice some of your persuasion by having these conversations with other women who are softer targets or more agreeable (or more difficult) Iron sharpens iron, right?

    Also, check out CL and 7man’s blog. They rock hard.

  193. TFH says:

    Everyone reading Dalrock’s responses to Starviolet should learn from them.

    Women simply do not want the same rules to apply to them…. that they want to benefit themselves.

    Women will have no problem with preposterously unfair divorce laws, while at the same time scream if a woman actually has to pay alimony (4% of the time, and I bet only if SHE did something very wrong).

    That is why the core basis of Western Society, that all people are equal, and will vote based on this, is wrong. Women use their vote to extract resources from men and strip men of rights, because they don’t see men as fully human.

    Yes, once again, women use their vote to extract resources from men, while stripping men of rights. Men, on the other hand, still treat women better than they would treat other men.

  194. TFH says:

    I can say with 100% certainly that Starviolet thinks the divorce laws are fine just the way they are, since only a man can lose.

    She would simultaneously consider it a huge injustice if a man could cheat on his wife, and then divorce her and make HER pay him….

    Starviolet, like most women, is morally empty. The scary thing is, these are the women who supposedly are *not* feminists…

  195. TFH says:

    John Witten said :

    I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    This is why old men don’t get it. They think that the heavily trained and controlled women of their generation are the natural state of female behavior..

    This is pretty much the same thing as a small child watching animated films where the anthropomorphized polar bear and hippopotamus are cute, cuddly, friendly creatures.

    If a child saw that and then went out thinking that real polar bears and hippos are cuddly and friendly (rather than creatures that would surely kill any human who came within 50 feet of them), that would be pretty delusional.

    Old-time men like John WItten are pretty much the same thing as the child I described. They lived in a simulation where strict controls ensured women were forced into a role that made them seem respectable and ladylike. That is not their natural state at all.

  196. TFH says:

    One of the many lies of feminism is that men do not care about their children.

    I am quite certain that men care about children more than women do.

    Note that in societies where divorce laws favor men (the man can toss out the woman at any time), the divorce rate is still very low. Men are thus putting their wives and children first.

    By contrast, the US divorce rate only rose when laws that enable the woman to use the child as a cover via which to funnel money to herself, became legal.

    Thus, children do best in societies where men retain most of the power over family decisions.

  197. farm boy says:

    The Horseman is at full gallop. Go, Horseman, go.

  198. Starviolet says:

    Dalrock-
    [D: It isn't that you don't agree. It is that you never address the actual arguments. Instead you deflect and talk about something else, and refute statistics with anecdote.]

    I spoke about the cash and prizes issue and provided child support stats. People came back with, “well my lawyer told me lah blah blah”and not a shred of evidence that child support laws are unfair. I do not refute stats with anecdotes and I have asked more than once for any evidence that supports the whole men being robbed by the family court narrative. Still waiting.

    [D: I responded in part here a week ago. Given how slippery you are, I'll ask that you define unfair before I offer any more. Are you denying that child support laws overwhelmingly are used against men in favor of women? That men have their children taken from them against their will in vast numbers and due to no fault of their own? Are you denying imputed income, where a judge decides how much income a man must earn or he goes to prison? Do you deny that the tax code is biased against the "parent" who is kicked out of their kids lives, and in favor of the "parent" who does the evicting? Do you deny that while it is called "child support", the money goes to the mother who is not accountable in how she spends it? Just what about the system do you want proof of?]

  199. Anonymous age 70 says:

    SV, it is not our responsibility to provided you with a basic education on divorce. Many of us have been studying divorce issues for many decades. I call this assigning homework, and you are not my teacher. You do indeed respond with anecdotes to statistics.

  200. Chris says:

    Way back someone said.

    By traditional Christianity standards, viewing pornography is a form of adultery and is grounds for a no fault divorce. If starviolet is married she has broken her marriage contract by engaging in the viewing of pornography on the internet.

    Um, no.
    Adultery is adultery. Pron is a sin, something that needs to be confronted and repented from. But is is unclean ness, not adultery. What the non tradtitional church is doing is expanding the grounds for ‘adultery’.
    Now, for the confessional among us, the Westminster confession (All Presbyterians, most reformed) specifically says that we should expand the grounds for divorce.
    Our advice to a spouse who has found her partner looking at models or reading 50 shades is improve themselves so that the erotic energy stays within the marriage.
    Not use it as grounds for destroying their marraige and hurting their kids. Because divoced (and, yes I have one) hruts like hell. It’s not just the poverty, but the long term damage to your children.

  201. Chris says:

    Typos: divorced not divoced, although after a divorce you find that the spouses speak with quite different narratives of the event.

  202. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >> @imnobody When an American man has been lucky in life (maybe he was born in a patriarchal era or has found one of the few women worth marrying), he thinks the reason of his success is not luck but his being smarter or better than the rest. Chalk it up to the protestant ethic, according to which people in need have deserved it.

    >>So he is the megaman and men who have not been that lucky (like Solomon) are losers and are responsible for their fate. So he can give lessons about how other people must do. He speaks and speaks with great authority although he doesn’t know a sh*t. (For example, see the last tirade of Roosh about MRM: a typical case)

    Yes, indeed. I encountered many men just like that, including Christian pastors. I had men call me for help in their divorces, and when I told them they needed to join with other men to fight the divorce laws, told me, “No, I do not deserve this divorce. All other men but me do. All men should help me.”

    I even had one man who took two hours of my time, free. Then, he informed me it was my personal fault he did not get his kids. Turned out with further talk, he actually committed adultery, but only a little bit, and only hit his wife a little bit. But, believed it was nasty people like me who were so bad he didn’t get his kids.

    Yes, many men are that stupid.

    Correct on Roosh. What a disgusting, conceited article.

  203. Eincrou says:

    TFH: “Women use their vote to extract resources from men and strip men of rights, because they don’t see men as fully human.”

    This is a woefully under discussed topic in the androsphere. Many men talk about how callously women are treating men in a thousand different ways, but for them women’s suffrage is still an intellectual no-go zone.

    I read a leading MRA say today that he supports women’s suffrage. Ok, fine, but we don’t want to be stupid about this. A man who supports a policy but then complains about the inevitable and intolerable consequences of that policy is an utter fool. That principle carries over to even modern-day sacred cows like “democracy.”

    TFH has hammered this meme for several months now in various places, but I haven’t seen anybody really take it by the horns and consider what it means for those of us who care about the sustainability of advanced civilization and justice for all.

    What if we can come to the conclusion that women are like Starviolet in too numerous a quantity to make universal or female suffrage a sustainable and/or fair political system? Then what?

    Do we just accept perpetually fighting against misandry? Are we consigned to hoping that the mass of women will begin to think and behave in ways that are fair to the average man, even in the absence of any rational reasons to expect this?

    I don’t think this is a trivial issue. It’s an existential one that questions whether any of our attempts to move society, as a whole, matters.

  204. TFH says:

    StarvioleNt,

    People came back with, “well my lawyer told me lah blah blah”and not a shred of evidence that child support laws are unfair.

    Oh my god…..

    Read this : The truth about how child support works.

    Read this over and over again until you can discuss it intelligently.

    You see no problem with :
    1) The woman getting custody of children by default, even though SHE is taking the destructive act of separating father from child.
    2) That ‘child support’ is a percentage of the man’s income, not a fixed amount.
    3) That the woman does NOT have to show that she spent it on the child, rather than on her shopping (feminists fought hard to design the law to have no accountability for the woman).
    4) That men can be JAILED for non-payment even if they are unemployed…

    Where are Novaseeker and Doug1 when you need them? Not only are CS laws preposterously unfair, they are among the two MOST unfair laws in the US in the last 140 years (false rape accusation laws are the other one). Again, CS laws are among the two most unjust laws in the US in the last 140 years.

    If you truly can’t grasp that, StarvioleNt, then the best way you can help children (if you really cared about them, that is), is to vow to never vote again, and work hard to persuade other women not to vote..
    _____________________________________

    Lastly, starvioleNt, (yes, I am going to add the letter ‘n’ to your name from now on, given that you condone the harm of men and children as long as a woman can get easy money)…

    While you claim CS laws are ‘fair’, I bet you would absolutely HATE to learn about Toban Morrison, the 28 y/o Canadian man who decided to hire a surrogate and become a single dad by himself :

    He wanted to be a father, but realized that a modern woman would be a huge risk to both himself and the children. He chose to not be a provider to a woman.

    Do you disapprove of Toban Morrison? Even though he uses his own money, while the millions of women who do the same use money paid by others (the taxpayer, the father, etc.)?

  205. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>>>I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    >>@imnobody Good for you. You belong to another generation. Women were raised in a different way then. You shouldn’t speak with this authority about things you don’t know a thing about. As my father says, ignorance is bold.

    Again, another example of hatred for old men, not for being stupid which is his real issue. I am old, and few of you can teach me anything about divorce matters. Back in the 60’s, I knew men who preached the red pill message. No one listened to them, but they well knew.

    TFH says:
    September 9, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    >>This is why old men don’t get it. They think that the heavily trained and controlled women of their generation are the natural state of female behavior..

    Bravo Sierra. I just wrote an article on DGM-4 about how the US society hates old men. Thanks for proving my point. I am old, and I suspect there is little you can teach me about divorce as experienced by men. Being old has nothing to do with it. Plenty of men got divorced 45 years ago, and knew all about it.

    Men who are stupid today would be stupid if they were young men today. I was divorced in 1973, and from 1984 to 1993, supplied no-fee counseling to divorced men. My age has nothing to do with it. Please stop blaming age or generation. Just another example of men fighting with men with no basis.

  206. Starviolet says:

    @tfh – I am not surprised that men don’t file for divorce as often as women in America or in countries where the divorce laws favor men. Women tend to be monogamous (or we can go with serial monogamists for the purposes of this argument). Men might cuckcold but they won’t share longterm. If a woman wants a new man, she has to actually get rid of the old one. Men don’t need a divorce to have new partner, whether they seek a regular longterm partner or a variety. They can keep their wives cooking, cleaning and raising the kids while they have someone new.

    @empath- I havent weighed everything according to my friends or people that I know. I do however consider that when I hear your stories here that I’m only getting half the picture. I’d love to read what your ex wives have to say as well so that I can get a more complete picture. IRL I get both sides which is why I take Internet stories about frivolous divorce with a grain of salt.

  207. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >> dragnet There is absolutely no legal prohibition anywhere in any law that prevents religious leaders from performance marriage ceremonies in the absence of gov’t marriage contracts.

    I know of one state at least which has a law making it a minor crime to perform a non-legal wedding. It would take an attorney from that state to say for sure it applies for this type of covenant marriage.

    Also, it takes access to a really good database such as Westpub, to make certain statements about laws in all states, and I do not now have access.

  208. TFH says:

    Eincrou,

    TFH has hammered this meme for several months now in various places, but I haven’t seen anybody really take it by the horns and consider what it means

    Thanks. It took me a long time to realize what the fatal flaw is, and until 2 years ago, I never would have considered this drastic opinion to be necessary.

    The androsphere is not good at focusing on high-impact memes. They get bogged down in the weeds far too much. For example, I keep posting the Toban Morrison thing all over the place, since it has IMMENSE value in both a) teaching other men what is possible b) making ‘feminists’ extremely angry that this is even possible, and that other men might do it. I hope eventually, people internalize the huge significance of Toban Morrison (who is not the first man to do it, but perhaps the first to proudly appear in a newspaper).

    Even if only a tiny number of men do it, for each one, there will be another 1000 that simply take less abuse from women/socons, simply because they know they have a backup option. Sort of like the same reason that societies with legal prostitution have better-behaved women, which benefits even men who would never go to a prostitute.

  209. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Four or five years ago, I wrote an essay on DGM-2, stating my belief that collectively American women are clinically insane. I present to you as evidence Starviolet.

    Note the correct definition of clinically insane. Mentally healthy people know what problems they have; know the solutions; and can implement those solutions.

    Neurotics know their problems; know the solutions; but cannot implement them.

    Insane people, such as Starviolet, simply cannot grasp reality. Yet, because of her total ignorance, she imagines she has a superior knowledge compared to us poor sinners.

  210. TFH says:

    Anon Age 70,

    Bravo Sierra. I just wrote an article on DGM-4 about how the US society hates old men.

    You (and Zed) are exceptions here. Just like grerp and Dr. Helen are exceptions to what we say about women, and Paul Elam is an exception to the non-activism of MRAs. There are very young manginas too. But old men, even divorced ones, very rarely take the red pill in the way you have.

    Something can be said about 95% of a group, can be said. Period….

    You should be attacking John Witten, not me.

  211. TFH says:

    StarvioleNt,

    Quit dodging, and read the links I provided. The first will educate you about child support (even though I doubt you will have a problem with the unfairness of it). Don’t talk about it until you can show you have read it.

    The second tells of a man who chose not to put his safety last. Please explain whether you approve or disapprove of Toban Morrison’s choices.

  212. Starviolet says:

    @ anonymous- “SV, it is not our responsibility to provided you with a basic education on divorce. Many of us have been studying divorce issues for many decades. I call this assigning homework, and you are not my teacher. You do indeed respond with anecdotes to statistics.”

    I am not assigning homework I am asking for evidence that supports your assertions because there is evidence that refutes it. If you don’t have any, just say so. But it seems unlikely to me that with all of these blogs and all of this research supposedly done here that no one can link anything that shows that the average child support payment is unfair or that shows the average alimony payment and how unfair it is. I guess I could look for this info myself, but I’m not the one claiming that there is a problem.

  213. Tim says:

    When the Japanese finally get their life-like sexbots on the the market, and they become affordable to the masses, all this will become moot. Millions of men will retreat to their bots and hobbies, leaving millions of women scurrying to find enough cats to keep them company in their spinsterhood.

  214. TFH says:

    StarvioleNt,

    We did provide links. I did in my comment above.

    Until you can read the link I provided, and discuss the points therein, you are simply not qualified to opine on the subject.

    In fact, I dare say you like causing drama here merely because you get gina tingles from it. That is common among the female trolls who come here. In fact, you are already betraying your husband by doing this (which is the same thing as a man seeking out Internet porn).

  215. Eincrou says:

    TFH,

    Unfortunately, the only memes that I see catching on are ones that inspire immediate emotional responses. “Male disposibility” really took off this year, and now many MRAs think they’re going to get women to share equally in the burden of dealing with the harshness of life on planet Earth.

    Meanwhile, they have no interest in surrogate mothers. As far-out as having an unknown woman incubate your child is, it’s waaaay less insane than railing against what has always been a necessary role for males for almost any species to survive. It’s as ingrained among the mass of humans as tribalism, I’m afraid.

    The ‘problem’ with your memes is that they are too cerebral. Internet memes have to inspire an instinctual and automatic feeling in the reader. It’s funny because the surrogate mother meme is supposed to get MRAs to generate a meme that would scare the crap out of feminist women. It’d definitely freak them out, but the first step isn’t catching on. lol

  216. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>You should be attacking John Witten, not me.

    I addressed those who made it an issue of old men, and will continue to do so. John was being stupid, yes, but that is not because he is old. Give it up.

  217. TFH says:

    Eincrou,

    Yeah. Too cerebral…

    But androsphere red-pillers are supposed to at least focus on what causes the maximum paranoia among their declared enemies. I sense that too many red-pill commenters/bloggers only care about discussing with each other, and not really causing great worry/fury to their enemies, which would require focusing on the 2-3 most profound memes..

    So even most red-pillers don’t know how to truly wage war (or are not really interested in *fighting* misandry).

  218. ybm says:

    Eincrou says:
    September 9, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    It really speaks to just how deep the ingrained cultural chivalry, agency denying and excuse making for women is. The ‘male disposability’ meme is one you have to accept in the beginning before anything starts to make sense.

    It is as you say, from step 1, that the majority of men who are around here fail. Right from the beginning they deny the male dispoability meme, or indeed EMBRACE it (aka man-up) while the female trolls simply deny, deny deny.

  219. TFH says:

    Anon Age 70,

    If it makes you feel better, there is only one group that actually wants to euthanize old men, and that is old women. They want old men to die so that more SS/Medicare money remains for themselves, and are happy to say so in major newspapers.

    So if you want to focus on those who wish to do the most harm to old men, old women are the place to look.

  220. Starviolet says:

    TFH

    I do not think that child custody should automatically go to the mother. I think that women get custody more often because women do most of the child care. If a man does most of it in a particular family then he should get custody. I’m fine with child support being a percentage of income. How much people spend on their kids varies with how much they make. I not think It is necessary to show how child support is spent in most cases. The average support payment is$400 or so. If the child is fed, clothed and housed them it is obvious where the money went. I don’t think that unemployed men should be imprisoned. How often would you say that happened?

    I don’t care about a man hiring a surrogate. None of my business.

  221. ezra says:

    Thank you Samuel for practical steps that I can take with women that treat their husbands like trash. Thanks for the book info as well!

  222. TFH says:

    It really speaks to just how deep the ingrained cultural chivalry, agency denying and excuse making for women is.

    It is not just cultural, but biological. The number of babies born does not drop even if most of the adult men die. Hence, every single human society will send a large number of men to die before any woman has to face the same risk.

    Biologically, that made sense. However, what has changed in the modern era is that women are now using only 10-20% of the reproductive capacity, yet still getting all resources funneled to them. In the old days, funneling all surplus resources to women correlated to the survival of children. But now it does not (instead, we see department stores filled with garbage that men don’t buy, houses built beyond basic function just so that women can show them off to their gaggle, etc.).

    That is why the huge adjustment of this misallocation of money-flow is just starting. The androsphere is the very first stage of the awakening against default male disposability.

    Male disposability was only justifiable when women were reproducing at full capacity, and there were no surplus resources for female self-indulgence. The earliest signs of this huge re-alignment have just begun.

  223. ybm says:

    “Male disposability was only justifiable when women were reproducing at full capacity, and there were no surplus resources for female self-indulgence. ”

    Yes that’s why I say it is cultural now, as it has no remaining biological relevance. Despite what hucksters and 100% of women believe. With the population as large as it is, everyone is disposable these days.

  224. TFH says:

    StarvioleNt,

    I do not think that child custody should automatically go to the mother. I think that women get custody more often because women do most of the child care. If a man does most of it in a particular family then he should get custody.

    OK. So far not bad…

    But since the existing laws do NOT follow this, you have just admitted that the existing laws are unfair, contradicting your earlier statement that they are not.

    Thanks for admitting the truth. Do that consistently over many months, and you might just approach the moral level of the average man. Some women here (like grerp, Suz, etc.) actually have..

  225. Eincrou says:

    ybm,

    I just think trying to fix ‘male disposibility’ is just a waste of energy and time for an already weak movement struggling to find its legs. The basic idea should definitely be part of our consciousness, but there are important goals that can be more easily accomplished.

    It’s a far greater challenge to get men to not be the first to stand up when (they think) their families or countries are under attack, than it is to fix bad laws. And considering how nearly impossible I believe the latter to be, that’s saying something.

  226. Eincrou says:

    ybm: “Yes that’s why I say it is cultural now, as it has no remaining biological relevance.”

    The human brain is a piece of hopelessly out-of-date hardware. Likewise, a strong desire to search for formerly rare fats and sugars are no longer relevant. Alas, the desire remains.

  227. Was Toban Morrison unable to adopt a child? Nothing would surprise me less than if adoption laws freeze out single men. Personally I find nothing strange or disturbing about what he did.

  228. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>So if you want to focus on those who wish to do the most harm to old men, old women are the place to look.

    Old women are not here attacking old men based solely on their age. Men are.

    It may be a surprise to you, but back in 1975, 37 years ago, there were 2,153,000 marriages and 1,036,000 divorces. Yet, people who hate old men assume men from that era can know nothing about divorce. STOP CONNECTING OLD MEN WITH IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY. Then, try to change the subject and misdirect your hatred for old men in another direction. Grow up.

  229. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Let me add a note here. Last year, on a man’s board, a young man actually proposed that every person be killed on that person’s 70th birthday. This sort of hatred comes right out of Goebbel’s program, and should be attacked wherever it is found. We are on a man’s blog right now, and when someone attacks old men in an especially unfounded manner, they need to be called down.

  230. Anonymous age 70 says:

    To adopt a child, you must satisfy a bunch of feminist social workers, not noted for their approval of heterosexual men, that you are qualified to care for a child. Don’t bother trying.

  231. Anonymous age 70 says:

    The most probable reason you don’t see a lot of old men on these blogs may in fact have to do with the reduced contact with Internet technology decades ago, not knowledge of divorce and marriage issues. I started on microprocessors in 1974. We used a 4 bit cash register microprocessor to produce a modestly priced Area Navigation unit for business jets. The Israeli Air Force used them rather than paying $100,000 for the military units.

    I taught various computer subjects to fellow employees, and after I retired I started using Linux. People my age mostly did not have advanced computer experiences.

    Also, many divorced in that era either committed suicide long ago (which is why I did suicide counseling for years) or have moved on with their lives, as many of you will eventually do.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chris
    Now, for the confessional among us, the Westminster confession (All Presbyterians, most reformed) specifically says that we should expand the grounds for divorce.

    Where does that document make that statement?

  233. TFH says:

    Anonymous Age 70,

    You are just seeing something that isn’t there.

    When someone like John Witten uses ‘I have been married for 44 years’ as the core basis upon which to deny the existence of misandry, you cannot expect the retaliation against him to *not* be based on his generational era. You cannot possibly expect this to not occur, and in fact everyone from WFPrice to PM/AFT has written about the generational chasm in blue pill vs. red pill awareness.

    The same goes for every time Bill Bennett writes an article. If you don’t like younger people saying what they say, you should silence the source of what they react to.

    Among well-regarded commenters in the androsphere, there are only about 3 (you, Zed, and maybe one other) who are over age 60. Meanwhile, there are at least 40 who are under 40. Even after accounting for a bias of younger people using the Internet more, this generational proportionality will cause ignorance by John Witten to be attributed to which generation he comes from.

    I have already said that more men of that generation were like YOU, rather than Bill Bennett, we would not be in this sad state here today. I think I have done enough to praise you as an individual and placate your emotions, which itself are off a very innocuous comment against John Witten. Others won’t be as quick to do damage control as me,..

  234. TFH says:

    Eincrou,

    The human brain is a piece of hopelessly out-of-date hardware. Likewise, a strong desire to search for formerly rare fats and sugars are no longer relevant. Alas, the desire remains.

    This will change in the 21st century through various technologies. Unfortunately, the process will be frought with trial and error, with manginas working hard to first men men *more* expendable, not less.

    They will get it very wrong many times before finally getting it right (the ‘getting it right’ part is known as transhumanism, and the ‘getting it wrong’ part are a bunch of manginas who think they are transhumanists, but in reality, they are pollutants just like the white nationalists who pollute the androsphere).

  235. greyghost says:

    TFH , and all
    i think the best way to deal with women like SV is to insure they are childless spinsters. You will not ever change her mind or attitude because things in her eyes are good for her.
    Eincrou
    At work a lot of guys know woman should have never been given the vote. I posted this up earlier but man what he said/wrote was so on target http://perno.com/amer/docs/Some%20of%20the%20Reasons%20Against%20Womens%20Suffrage.htm
    As an MRA the end game is the end of the female vote. We are a hell of a long way from there but that is one of the things that needs to be a part of the post feminist culture.

  236. greyghost says:

    TFH
    These guys are my heros. Please not the pure joy on the face of grandpa. Proud joy all wrapped up in one. http://www1.szdaily.com/content/2010-12/03/content_5140134.htm

  237. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    He is under investigation?? Merely for bypassing the legal risks of marrying a woman (given that he is a billionaire and all).

    Odd that surrogacy would be illegal in Hong Kong, but (at least until feminists outlaw it) legal in the US.

    One would think that with HK’s birth rate so low, they would encourage this (it takes 3.3 Hong Kong women to produce this many babies over their lifetimes).

  238. ybm says:

    No, this was 2-3 years ago. Nothing ever came from the ‘investigation’ or anything like that.

    In other words: Happy ending AFAIK :)

  239. greyghost says:

    ybm is right they half assed the investigation and it is over and the men and boys are happily ever after.

  240. Cane Caldo says:

    If you don’t like younger people saying what they say, you should silence the source of what they react to.

    Straight out of the feminist playbook. “If you don’t like me calling all men rapists, then tell men to quit raping.”

    This is why leaders, and potential leaders, won’t bother with the MRA/M crowd. There’s no way I’d link myself to such a victimization mentality. You scrounge for memes because you lack the courage of your convictions. You don’t believe you’re right; you just want to be believed.

  241. Chris says:

    Correction…. should NOT expand the reasons for divorce. See ch 24 section VI

    Of Marriage and Divorce.

    I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

    II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

    III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

    IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

    V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

    VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

    I need preview. When I comment.

    Link is http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c24.htm

  242. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    But you don’t like the Game crowd either, which is very much the opposite of a ‘victim mentality’.

    You are pretty confused…

  243. Chris says:

    SV

    Divorce is bad for you. See link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01712.x/

    Breslau J, Miller E, Jin R, Sampson NA, Alonso J, Andrade LH, Bromet EJ, de Girolamo G, Demyttenaere K, Fayyad J, Fukao A, Gălăon M, Gureje O, He Y, Hinkov HR, Hu C, Kovess-Masfety V, Matschinger H, Medina-Mora ME, Ormel J, Posada-Villa J, Sagar R, Scott KM, Kessler RC. A multinational study of mental disorders, marriage, and divorce.

    Objective:  Estimate predictive associations of mental disorders with marriage and divorce in a cross-national sample.

    Method:  Population surveys of mental disorders included assessment of age at first marriage in 19 countries (n = 46 128) and age at first divorce in a subset of 12 countries (n = 30 729). Associations between mental disorders and subsequent marriage and divorce were estimated in discrete time survival models.

    Results:  Fourteen of 18 premarital mental disorders are associated with lower likelihood of ever marrying (odds ratios ranging from 0.6 to 0.9), but these associations vary across ages of marriage. Associations between premarital mental disorders and marriage are generally null for early marriage (age 17 or younger), but negative associations come to predominate at later ages. All 18 mental disorders are positively associated with divorce (odds ratios ranging from 1.2 to 1.8). Three disorders, specific phobia, major depression, and alcohol abuse, are associated with the largest population attributable risk proportions for both marriage and divorce.

    Conclusion:  This evidence adds to research demonstrating adverse effects of mental disorders on life course altering events across a diverse range of socioeconomic and cultural settings. These effects should be included in considerations of public health investments in preventing and treating mental disorders.

    I work with one of the authors, and she is not a traditionalist: but she fairly reports the data.

  244. Pingback: The Mainstream Trains Men In Compatibility, Not In Attraction Where Most Men Need Work | The Badger Hut

  245. ballista74 says:

    But you don’t like the Game crowd either, which is very much the opposite of a ‘victim mentality’.

    You are pretty confused…

    Or acting quite purposefully. To sum up what I’ve read here and on his own place, here’s his belief:

    1. Men complaining about the rightful injustice that’s being brought upon them have a “victimization mentality” and should just STFU and take it, marry up the sluts or whatever, and continue to get victimized by women, the system, and everything that it stands for. To him you aren’t a good Christian or a good man if you don’t climb onto the Altar of the Vagina (Marriage 2.0) and sacrifice yourself up to and including death for her whims and her glory. After all, that is what “loving your wife as Christ loved the church” is for Marriage 2.0 today.
    2. Consequently MRA/MRM is anathema in his eyes. To him there are no problems, everything, such as the false rape accusations, child support system, divorce court, domestic violence laws are just overblown protestations from men who just got what was comin’ to them, and everyone that deals with such things and complains are just complaining about nothing (There is No Poon) and those involved are just delusional.
    3. Since in his eyes there is no problem with marriage and everything it stands for today (this follows from #1 and #2), he also opposes all solutions in response to such issues (Game in total).

    So in sum, it just seems like we have a traditionalist doing everything in his power to shove everything that makes the man’s role in marriage what it should be back into the box and make people think that there are no problems, marriage is just fine to undertake, and all will be peaches and roses before the Lord God and men. There is nothing here that hasn’t been seen before from the feminists of various stripes as propaganda to silence the opposition that is growing against them.

  246. ballista74 says:

    Glenn Stanton sums up the traditionalist defender of the status quo really well:

    Good men do what’s right, and they respect and care for the women in their lives. They work hard, they don’t make excuses, they know what their duties are, and they do them without complaining. They fight for what is right and hold accountable those who do wrong, including themselves.

    Dalrock analyzes the paragraph in the link, but the bold sections sum up the traditionalist opposition to men who are acting against Marriage 2.0 perfectly. Never mind Stanton and all traditionalists make themselves into hypocrites by the last sentence, and have a warped definition of what the first sentence means (usually it means “make yourself into their slave”).

    This kind of garbage needs outed and defeated as much or more than the feminist garbage, especially since it’s much more dangerous due to its insidiousness.

  247. Joshua says:

    TFH the reason why no one wants to get behind Toban Morrison is because what he did is fucking disgusting. Intentionally bringing a child into a single parent situation is child abuse. Hes the same as the single mother sluts. Not a hero i wanna pin my hat on.

  248. John Whitten says:

    Just for the record: I am 65 yrs old. I married in 1968. About 8 couples in my peer group married within 2 months of me. In about a year and a half we were the only ones still married to the same spouse. Two weeks before we married my wife and I had an argument about her disregarding my choice in an issue that had been settled. I insisted that I would be the head of our home or we would not marry. Over the 45 years the struggle for dominance has recurred many times, but my initial stance still exists. Where have I been for the last 40 years? I have been pastor of churches in IA, KS, NE, MI and AZ for 44 years. In most of those years I also worked a secular job. I have lived in the Phoenix metro area since 1983.

    I have not disagreed that feminism is destroying this country and ruining the lives of men, women and children. I have been patriarchal most of my life, I don’t know how that came to be. Perhaps I caught it from my father. I am not out of touch with the current generation and it’s problems, I deal with it as a pastor and preacher on a daily basis. I do my best to avoid using terms like “ALL or EVERY” when discussing something as diverse as the human race. The current state of affairs, with feminism in the drivers seat of our culture is horrible. I do not live in an Anabaptist enclave.

    About 6 years ago I found myself loving the widow and children of my friend who had recently passed. I was not trying to get her into the sack or enjoy some behind the scenes pleasure, just an honest open love for someone who was honest and above board. As can be imagined, when I expressed my feelings every thing came apart. As a result, she left the area with her children, my kids and grand kids no longer respect me, my wife is still with me but struggling with how a man may honestly love more than one woman. Most of my congregation walked, out only four remain. I refuse to accept defeat or compromise my convictions. I do not seek the approval of other people and I have behaved my self with honor and integrity regardless of what it cost me. I am neither ignorant or stupid, stubborn I proudly own.

    What have I done this last five years? I have refused to be pushed into a corner and packaged into a nice little box. I am not ashamed, I am angry with the way feministic thought has permeated our culture including churches. I am writing on my own blog and on others, under my own name, defending patriarchal practice (including the permission of polygyny). I conduct a program on Pal Talk and on conference calls every Saturday night. I speak at conferences that are pro patriarchy and manliness, my 4th one is coming up the end of this month in Missouri. I have helped found a national organization that promotes patriarchal families ( small but growing). I counsel men and women on the family values that most of the people on this blog would support. Some of the men I am and have counselled in recent months include a former NFL player, successful rap musician, an author and law enforcement officers.

    All of the above doesn’t mean a thing in the larger scheme of things. I only wrote most of it in response to accusations of me and my motives, accusations based on just a few lines on one thread. What does matter is that instead of just talking about it, I am doing something, anything I can to fight against the tide of feminist corruption that is ruining the lives of men as well as women and kids. I am who I say I am, nothing more and nothing less.

  249. TFH says:

    Joshua,

    TFH the reason why no one wants to get behind Toban Morrison is because what he did is fucking disgusting.

    You actually think that is a majority view in the androsphere? If so, you have no clue.

    If you think that is what most red-pill types think, you are quite, quite wrong.

    And one reason he is not as bad as single mother sluts is that he is using his own money. He is not taking payments from anyone the way single mothers are (whether the other parent, or the taxpayer).

  250. unger says:

    ballista: Cane said that? Yeah, he doesn’t much like Game (along with a fair number of other manospherians and dalrockians in good standing), but…the rest of it?

  251. John Whitten says:

    Ballista74 wrote: “To him you aren’t a good Christian or a good man if you don’t climb onto the Altar of the Vagina (Marriage 2.0) and sacrifice yourself up to and including death for her whims and her glory. After all, that is what “loving your wife as Christ loved the church” is for Marriage 2.0 today.”

    From my own point of view, I believe that preachers and teachers have been reading the Ephesians 5 reference regarding loving your wife as Christ loved the church all wrong. We are teaching in Bible colleges and seminaries that Christ loved the church and “gave Himself up for it.” Some translations say it that way, but the KJV does not use the word “up” in that passage.
    What is often overlooked is that Jesus did not die for a church or churches, He died for sinners and to be an atonement. When He gave Himself for the church, He gave Himself to be head over the church. In other words He gave Himself to be in charge of an lead the churches as Lord. This is the way husbands are expected to related to wives, to be their “head” or in charge, not some form of self-sacrifice for ungrateful, insatiable women. Oddly enough many men as well as women reject this idea because it really goes against the traditional grain of culture.

  252. Eincrou says:

    Joshua: “TFH the reason why no one wants to get behind Toban Morrison is because what he did is fucking disgusting. Intentionally bringing a child into a single parent situation is child abuse.”

    I agree, and I would never utilize surrogate motherhood. But, please don’t get so disgusted that you disengage your reason and miss the point. It’s to do damage to the expectation that women’s monopoly on reproduction should allow them to mistreat men desiring children.

  253. John Whitten, where is your blog?

  254. ballista74 says:

    Mr. Whitten:

    One thing that I see missing form most discussions of this type is the reality that neither men nor women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no game or license will do the trick.

    True and this (and everything else you write) has been addressed in most all discussions in one form or another, almost repeatedly (I’d give links on almost every point of this, but the spam filter will catch it then). Either you are not looking for it or are choosing to miss it. What most of us will observe is that women are the ones (by and large) whose word isn’t good. The worse part of it is that society and the church allow (ALL) women to get away with this. Do you see this as a problem, and what are you doing to solve it?

    A legal contract may be binding, with penalties for breaking it, but I maintain that such was never a marriage to begin with. All any of us have as we begin the journey of conjugal exploration is our integrity and love.

    If I read this correctly, you do not believe that a marriage is a covenant made in the sight of God, with pledges of piety made from the husband and the wife? As for the section I put in bold, you need to check your facts, because marriage was held in much higher esteem from the church and society with penalties included for breaching it. The second sentence is true in this day and age given the advent of no-fault divorce. There is nothing holding a woman into a marriage, in fact she is given every reason to break her commitment, while the man is given every reason not to. Fabulous cash and prizes in divorce court is a strong motivator for the woman. And the church is right there cheering her along the whole way.

    The sad part is that business contracts are taken much more seriously than marriages today, when the converse was true before feminism. This is an abomination before the Lord.

    Any man that doesn’t deal with a problem until it is broken, ought not own a car, for he will soon be sitting on the side of the road, cell phone in hand calling for help.

    The problem is that women can run out of marriage for any and every reason, including that she is not happy. Is that a problem in your eyes that the man should fix? Is a husband to tend to every emotional whim and fantasy of his wife?

    We will find ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to lump ALL WOMEN together with the feminists. . . Women en masse, are not our enemies.

    A rattler or a bear isn’t my enemy if I were to meet either in the woods. But I will react to either with extreme prejudice. But wait, neither has malice towards me and hasn’t made me its enemy. But both will do me in if I don’t give them the proper respect, and I will treat them as an enemy to my safety, life, and livelihood. Neither the bear or the rattler would attack me out of malice but out of instinct. The wise man would do well to act with prejudice towards both when they are near him.

    Same goes with women today, especially if you allow one power over you. You seem to not understand that the system has given ALL women extreme power over the men that they marry (and to a certain extent ANY man), to the extent of their finances, children, and even his life. Given this extreme power, the fact that women do have a sin nature, and all guarantees of commitment to marriage have been removed from her side of the equation, ALL women need to be treated with the respect afforded to the power that they have been given to destroy. This has been pointed out to you a couple of times already in other ways, and has also been written about numerous times. It can be 2 years married it can be 40 years, all it takes is a whim or passing fancy for her to exercise this power against her husband. As a man, to not recognize a grave threat to him when it comes near him is to not be wise.

    The moment a woman lays down all this power never to pick it up again will be the moment that I will not consider her in this way. Of course, I should point out as well that I don’t see any evidence that there are any women out in force to do such things. Accepting and benefiting from feminism is just the same as supporting it. Where are the women seeking to eliminate alimony, no-fault divorce, preferential custody, false rape accusations, and the like? All I see is nothing, and all I hear is crickets.

    I must be living in a different world. Yes, all women (men too) have a sin nature, but I find there are more than a few exceptions. Perhaps I am looking in different places.

    To educate you since you are ignorant on this topic, this is a very common teaching of the average church today. Women are good. Men are bad. Women are blameless and sinless angels. Men are sinful vile dogs which need to be brought to heel. They are wise to not come out and say this directly, but this has been chronicled just about everywhere as well.

    I have not disagreed that feminism is destroying this country and ruining the lives of men, women and children.

    I am not ashamed, I am angry with the way feministic thought has permeated our culture including churches.

    Yet given the things you have written, you either do not understand the nature of such things, or do not accept them. If I would have to assess the responses, it seems a natural conclusion could be that you are more a part of the problem than the solution.

  255. ballista74 says:

    ballista: Cane said that? Yeah, he doesn’t much like Game (along with a fair number of other manospherians and dalrockians in good standing), but…the rest of it?

    That’s my take-away from this comment. I presented a few other things that I can infer from what he wrote in that comment as well (IF what cane wrote THEN logical conclusion), along with other things on his blog.

    Furthermore, it’s not the first time I’ve seen the MRA/MRM and the issues brought up responded to in that fashion in order to discredit the issues involved. Needless to say, I’ve also seen several responses to such comments that started with vulgarities. But people that have dealt with the things the MRM/MRA addresses should be pissed off at Cane’s comment.

  256. TFH says:

    But people that have dealt with the things the MRM/MRA addresses should be pissed off at Cane’s comment.

    Yes. He would probably say the same things to blacks living under slavery.

  257. “Last year, on a man’s board, a young man actually proposed that every person be killed on that person’s 70th birthday.”

    Obviously that’s deplorable. What an idiot that man is.

  258. greyghost says:

    ballista74
    Mr Whitten is a classic blue piller. He is like a regular guy that just got married with the delusion of family and love and then begins to sense something is wrong and can’t understand why. So falls back on the social norms and taught traditions as a fix. His social norms also included christianity which in today’s world means churchianity. He came off as any feminist because that is all he knew.
    Now if the man works at a religious college and teaches other guys how to be preachers it will do him and us right as MRA’s to have him get some red pill and join the fight.
    I don’t like Caldo Cane to me he is a religious coward guys like that need to be bypassed and ignored just as starviolet. Some people have a role of life to be examples for others like those car accident films with the mangled bodies they used to show in high school for drivers ed. Use them as a training aid and waste little time in debate trying to change their mind. people like that don’t take that as someone helping them see the light, but rather I’m important they need me to agree with them.

  259. deti says:

    I read John Whitten’s comments with some interest. Not sure why. Here’s his blog, FWIW, which appears to advocate “Christian polygyny”:

    http://newlookatmarriage.blogspot.com/

  260. Cane Caldo says:

    @ballista74

    Not sure you’re understanding me, ballista. That could be my fault, but regardless you’re either being spiteful, or we’re using different terms, or you’re not fully understanding the problem.

    What do you mean by MRA/MRM? I mean “Men’s Rights Activism/Movement”. I saw “Awareness” the other day, and I think that changes the context somewhat; though not too much. I am not a fan of advocating rights generally, but rather emphasize freedoms and responsibilities.

    Since a lot of MRA/M guys are MGTOW, I should be clear that I don’t have any problem with MGTOW.

    Marriage 2.0 is inescapable for the married man, or the Christian man looking to marry, or the Christian man looking for a sexual relationship, kids, etc. It’s not a matter of what I like, but what is. Here are the various outcomes, based on the various relationship inputs, In the event of a separation:

    If you get married with a license, she gets the kids and cash.
    If you get married with a license and pre-nup, she gets the kids and cash.
    If you get married by common-law, she gets the kids and cash.
    If you get married in a religious ceremony without a license or pre-nup, she gets the kids and cash.
    If you live together long enough, she get the kids and cash.
    If you don’t live together, she gets the kids and the cash.

    If the Christian man desires to live a godly and sexual life, he has to get married. I haven’t laid down what all rituals and papers marriage this must entail: the churches and the states have, and I am called to be subject to them unless it directly conflicts God’s will. Is it God’s will that men not sign a marriage license when the state requires it? Take it up with God.

    Either way: Pick your poison, but don’t blame me. Get married; don’t get married; live together in a non-governmental “covenant” marriage; whatever–It does not matter. If you have kids with her, or live with her for a sufficient amount of time, you get to pay for it all.

    It’s not my fault you don’t like it. I don’t even care. I’m not here to be liked.

  261. whatever says:


    What do you mean by MRA/MRM? I mean “Men’s Rights Activism/Movement”. I saw “Awareness” the other day, and I think that changes the context somewhat; though not too much. I am not a fan of advocating rights generally, but rather emphasize freedoms and responsibilities.

    So you aren’t big on actually giving people anything, you are just big on them paying for it, that is paying high for nothing. How very American of you.

  262. imnobody says:

    One thing that I see missing form most discussions of this type is the reality that neither men nor women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no game or license will do the trick.

    Sorry, but this is nonsense and I had no time to address it before. If society was built assuming that the only important thing is that men or women had integrity, then there would be no law. But people are fallen so there needs to be a punishment for the ones who behave badly so other people don’t follow their example.

    Imagine a society that doesn’t punish the people who have debts and don’t want to pay them. Then a man asks for the law to punish this kind of people and he receives the following response:

    In reality, neither men and women are any better than their integrity. If a person’s word isn’t good, no contract or law will do the trick

    What do you think about this argument? Why, when it comes to women, people stop using their brains and start spouting nonsense?

  263. Elspeth says:

    Neither one of us had anything when we got married, but I don’t really have a problem with prenuptial agreements so long as they take all factors into account.

    As for having all the power, I understand how one can reach this conclusion, but I don’t feel very powerful. Divorce to me sounds more like mutually assured destruction than any kind of reward.

    There’s the very real issue of the grave sin being committed by divorcing my husband. Having grown up in a community where fatherlessness was and is rampant, I harbor no illusions nor do I labor under the delusion that my children would be “fine” or that they are “resilient” enough to recover.

    Nowhere, in my wildest imaginations can I see with a scenario where my leaving him nets me any kind of advantage. Even with “cash and prizes”, my standard of living would decrease significantly.
    There is also the significant relational, social and sexual loss.

    Misery is the only option should I use my “detonator”. My husband is handsome and smart. He would have no problem finding a woman (younger and a great deal hotter) willing to deal with his baggage.

    And again, all of that is after having to deal with the fact that divorcing my husband is a grave sin against my Savior. How to rationalize that?

    Objectively and in the current legal climate, the balance of power has tipped in women’s favor. Subjectively speaking, I don’t feel as if I have any power at all over my husband, and that’s a blessing for us both.

  264. @ Elspeth

    “…How to rationalize that?”

    If your hamster is broken, don’t fix it.

  265. Cane Caldo says:

    @whatever

    So you aren’t big on actually giving people anything

    Nonsense. I’m giving you the finger right now.

  266. imnobody says:

    @Anonymous age 70

    >>>>I have forty-four years with the same woman to my record and we are still going strong.

    >>@imnobody Good for you. You belong to another generation. Women were raised in a different way then. You shouldn’t speak with this authority about things you don’t know a thing about. As my father says, ignorance is bold.

    Again, another example of hatred for old men, not for being stupid which is his real issue. I am old, and few of you can teach me anything about divorce matters. Back in the 60′s, I knew men who preached the red pill message. No one listened to them, but they well knew.

    Sorry, Anonymous, I have been reading you (and agreeing with you) for years (since you were Anon age 68) and I respect you a lot, but you are way off-base here.

    Hatred for old men?? This is a very unfair statement and a complete nonsense. I don’t hate old men. Disagreeing with somebody is not hating them. You seem like those feminists that says “you must hate women” every time someone disagrees with them. I think you are projecting your own preconceptions onto my text.

    As somebody who has read me knows, I am not a young man, but a middle-aged man and, since time flies, I will very soon be an old man. My father is an old man and I admire his wisdom. If I hated old men, I would not have had quoted him. I have always thought (at least, for the last 20 years) that one of the problems of our age is the glorification of youth and the despising of old people.

    Since you are a red-pill man, you are likely to know that, although divorce was frequent in the 70s, young women are much worse than before. Every crop of women is worse than the previous one. John Witten seems to come from a subculture where women were traditional for a longer time than the mainstream society. I was only criticizing his ignorance not his age and, if you read my text with no preconceptions, you will see it.

  267. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>Sorry, Anonymous, I have been reading you (and agreeing with you) for years (since you were Anon age 68) and I respect you a lot, but you are way off-base here.

    Wrong! Anybody who discredits someone solely because of his age and generation is suffering from the standard hatred for old men so common in the USA today. Why did his age and generation even come up in the conversation?

    They had white knights and manginas 40 years ago. They have them today. More men have swallowed the red pill then in the past, solely because of the Internet. Back then the feminist liberal MSM controlled communications. Today, men control their own communications. If it were not for this, men would be just as ignorant and gullible as they were 40 years ago. But, we still have young manginas and white knights by the millions.

    White knight is white knight. Mangina is mangina. Age and generation has nothing to do with it.

    I understand why you don’t like being called down on this. It is a new concept to you. Why?

    Because you apparently live in the USA. You have never lived in a place where they do NOT hate old men, thus it is not obvious to you that they (you) hate old men, because you have no basis for comparison. I would never have understood this myself, if I had not expatted to a place where they respect old men.

    Just as most folks in the USA do not fully understand AW are clinically insane. If you have never known sane women, you cannot understand that the women you know in the US are almost all nuts.

    I find it interesting that when the Germans were attempting to dehumanize the Jews so their extinction would be acceptable to the German people, one thing they would do is accost old Jewish men in the street and totally humiliate them. Not young men. Not women. Old men. Cut off their beards, make them grovel in the street. If they ever do start exterminating men in the USA, you can be sure they will start with old men. Probably old men with lots of unemployment history and thus still owe child support well into their 70’s, as the children approach old age themselves.

    By the way, I am not saying who said what in regards to this attack on man based on their age and generation. I believe more than one person did. I linked only one comment. I simply am not going to take the time to go back and review exactly who said what. Whoever tried to link age and generation was out of line, and I am calling everyone down on it. Over 40 million men have been divorced by no-fault divorce since 1975, and they certainly know what happened to them.

    John was stupid because John was stupid, and his age and generation had nothing to do with it. Trying to shift blame to old women who aren’t here just doesn’t fly.

    There are too many divisions in the men’s movement. PUA’s; Game; expats; inpats; manginas; white knights; SoCons; Tradcons; Chrisitan males; the last thing we need is another division with other man based on their age or generation.

  268. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Let me add another note here. When a new concept is discovered, it takes time to be accepted.

    Have you ever seen on a blog or message board the statement that the USA hates old men? I have not. It is new to you, you had not thought about it in the past, partly because our society also hates all men. But, the hatred for old men is more intense, but we take it for granted so do not notice.

    Thus, it is a surprise to you to be told this. I understand this. It is part of the learning process on what it means to be a man in the US.

    You WILL read more about it in the future. There will be quarrels as many resist the concept. This is normal when new concepts are presented.

    And, as I said, I am not a wizard. The only reason I ever noticed that old men are hated in the US is because I live in a society where old men are not hated. This is the same reason I wrote many years ago that AW are clinically insane. I live in a place where at least part of the women are sane.

    In older times, rich people did not consider their kids educated until they had lived in other cultures at least two years. This is why. Only by living in another, different culture can you understand your own. I learned more about the US during my first visit to Mexico in 1983 than in many years living in the US. After that visit to Mexico is when I became an extremely militant MRA/FRA activist.

    We visited the state of Vera Cruz. My BIL drove us up into the mountains. We say a scene just like in a movie. There were women in the rivers with their skirts hiked up, washing clothes by hand. Their little kids were with them. Everyone was happy and smiling.

    I went back to the States, and saw this angry looking woman in a big Cadillac, driving into the mall. Clearly, very rich, she was all pissed off about something.

    The poor women in the river were happy, because at that exact moment no one was dying, and they had food for the next meal. That is the very moment when I first realized how disgusting AW really are.

  269. GKChesterton says:

    I think Elsbeth’s 8:19 post is spot on. Women are being incentivized to act irrationally. The fact is despite state welfare systems a divorced woman will not lead a good life. Her mating prospects decline, her happiness declines, her children suffer, and overall her community feels the impact. The Black Underclass as Fr. Neuhaus defined it is an example of that (we lost much when he died).

    A good crop of “senior” women who can rub in the disaster that is divorce will help. I also believe that we’ve been sliding anti-feminist as a society for about twenty years now because _both sexes_ ultimately don’t like it (revolutions only happen when a sizable block is upset with the status quo). Patriarchy is the only stable social institution humans have.

  270. Legion says:

    Wow, Anoymous got cranky with old age. I’m only a few years behind him and I hope it doesn’t happen to me.

    imnobody: Yes I have read his comments for years too. He’s different now.

  271. Anonymous age 70 says:

    No, not so. You just do not like being called down, as none of us do. The men’s movement is torn by every possible division,and adding the cultural hatred for old men is not an improvement. I don’t know how to make it any simpler. John’s problem had nothing to do with his age or generation. Don’t drag in cultural prejudices.

    By the way, I just realized I posted my item on hatred for old men on my own board, not DGM-4.

  272. Joseph says:

    @starviolet

    Dalrock added a editor’s note to one of your last comments and you haven’t responded. I would suggest you get on that or lose any validity you might have had. (Very little, but I’m giving you a chance)

  273. Joshua says:

    Hey anony we hate old men because you failed and left us shit. Get over it.

  274. Any single white male in the USA who wants to adopt… his only hope is to portray himself as gay.

  275. ipiblo says:

    I don’t play, I don’t pay.

  276. Starviolet says:

    Thank you! @ joseph. I’d missed it.

    @dalrock

    [D: I responded in part here a week ago. Given how slippery you are, I'll ask that you define unfair before I offer any more. Are you denying that child support laws overwhelmingly are used against men in favor of women? That men have their children taken from them against their will in vast numbers and due to no fault of their own? Are you denying imputed income, where a judge decides how much income a man must earn or he goes to prison? Do you deny that the tax code is biased against the "parent" who is kicked out of their kids lives, and in favor of the "parent" who does the evicting? Do you deny that while it is called "child support", the money goes to the mother who is not accountable in how she spends it? Just what about the system do you want proof of?]

    I don’t think that child support laws favor women so much as they favor the primary caretakers of children. I realize that in application this will favor mothers because they handle most of the child care in this country. Men and womn both seem to prefer women as the primary caretakers of children. As men and women are both legally and I think morally obligated to support their children I have no problem with child support laws in general. I don’t think that men typically have their children taken fom them against their will in vast numbers due to no fault if their own. Men arent usually denied access without cause. I am not denying that men are sometimes told that they must earn a certain amount and pay child support or go to jail, however I do not believe that this is common.

    I think that the tax code makes the person that earns the money pay taxes on it, and just like that money wouldn’t b taxed again if the couple were together when they paid their household expenses, it should not be taxed again because it was given to an ex for child care expenses. I agree that the mother is not accountable for how she spends the money, but I dont think that is necessary. Most child support payments do not even cover half of a child’s monthly expenses. If A child is fed, clothed and sheltered then it is obvious where the money went. I suppose we could have the mother bring her grocery reciepts, utility bills, clothing receipts and other variable expenses to court each month so that the father could look them over and complain about her purchasing organic milk and name brand cereal vs store brand. Then he could look at her waterbill and tell her to get a water conserving shower head and water her grass less. I don’t think that it necessary. They can go to court to discuss major expenses (education, braces, certain extracurricular activities) but the costs of raising a child are fairly consistent and there is no need for constant monitoring unless you have some suspicion that a child is being abused or neglected.

    I would like to know

    1. How often men request custody, shared or primary, how often this request is granted and how often it is denied. Also the reason for the denial. I suspect that men rarely request full custody.

    2. What the typical child support payment is, if it is not approx $400 like stats I linked said. I would like evidence of this. I think that those cases where men are forced to live in poverty because of child support are outliers.

  277. Legion says:

    Starviolet says:
    September 10, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Let me answer your two questions for you.

    Fuck off.

  278. deti says:

    @Star:

    “I don’t think that men typically have their children taken fom them against their will in vast numbers due to no fault if their own. Men arent usually denied access without cause. I am not denying that men are sometimes told that they must earn a certain amount and pay child support or go to jail, however I do not believe that this is common.”

    how do you know all this? Do you have statistics or studies to support your assertions?

    Please do not refer to the average child support payment or alimony payment. That’s already been debunked. SImply put, the number of men who don’t pay or cannot pay child support drags the average down. You cannot rely on a national average child support payment which appears reasonable to you, then proclaim the amount is “fair”.

    “Most child support payments do not even cover half of a child’s monthly expenses.”

    How do you know this?

    “I think that those cases where men are forced to live in poverty because of child support are outliers.”

    Why do you think this? On what do you base this speculation?

    Please answer these questions.

    “I suspect that men rarely request full custody.”

    Because they have learned that they won’t receive it more than 90% of the time.

    I’ll give you some anecdotal evidence since you seem quite fond of it. I had a couple of (formerly) dear friends divorce this past summer. They were married 15 years, separated for 2. She was constantly strapped for cash. She had to get a roommate when she first moved out. Then she had to move back in with her now ex husband because she couldn’t afford to live on her own. They had two teenage sons. She insisted on residential custody SPECIFICALLY so she could get child support and therefore afford the rent. Wife was given custody, no questions asked. His lawyer told him not to even fight it; custody defaults to the mother and with it, mandatory fixed percentage child support obligations.

    She does not need to raise her sons. She does not need them to live with her. They are 13 and 16. They don’t need a mom’s TLC. They need a dad’s guidance and strong hand. But no. She insisted on custody because it meant she’d get the cash she needs to afford living apart from her now ex husband. And it’s not as if she’s always there, anyway. She works weird hours and makes sure she takes the boys to their father’s place every weekend, so she can slut it up and f**k the badboys she missed out on.

    Now THAT”s divorce reality.

  279. Joshua says:

    @ legion

    So succinct. So true.

  280. greyghost says:

    Deti
    You waste your time trying to convence that female of anything. She is just being an attention whore slut enjoying having men jump through hoops pleasing her. She’s just some crazy chick. I bet she isn’t even married.

  281. ybm says:

    TFH says:
    September 10, 2012 at 5:41 am

    I tend to leave people alone who arrive in the former manosphere who have an imperfect or childlike understanding of what mra means, it’s really not their fault they are ignorant. As it is said, because it Is activism, it doesn’t need to be 100% ideologically pure in it’s membership (racism and conspiracy theorists/violence advocates are obviously separate from that) as long as the vanguard retains the ideology.

    One day at a time.

  282. Higgins 9.5; anyone have 10?

  283. Starviolet says:

    @deti how do you know that men would have been denied custody had they asked or that they even wanted custody if they didn’t ask for it? Again how many men ask for custody, how many are denied and why are they denied?

    I saw an anecdote from someone who claimed to work in family courts data entry. That hardly “debunks” anything. What is the typical child support payment then?

  284. Starviolet says:

    What percentage of divorced men pay alimony, how much do they pay and how long do they pay it?

  285. deti says:

    Star:

    Please don’t waste my time asking me questions. You are the one who has come here telling us that child support is inadequate and that men who get forced into poverty with chilimony payments are “outliers.”

    You made the assertion; you have the burden of proof and the burden of coming forward with evidence. Kindly provide your supporting evidence. Last chance. I won’t engage you further until you furnish your evidence.

  286. Dalrock says:

    Starviolet, if you are serious in wanting to understand this I would ask you to stop and take a step back. Think about why men marry, and what it is like for them to attempt to create a family and have it taken from them through no fault of their own. If a woman wants to have a child and be supported by a man, all she needs to do is ensure that she gets pregnant by a man (or even a boy) with sufficient means. She doesn’t need to honor wedding vows or even make any. She doesn’t require his consent. The state kicks in and makes it all happen. If she doesn’t want to be a mother, no problem, the law is on her side both before and after birth (abortion, no questions asked drop boxes for infants, etc.).

    But what would you tell a man who wants a family? Imagine a man who very much wants to have and raise his own children. What avenue is available to him? What legal/social avenue is there for him to have a reasonable assurance that his emotional and financial investments will be honored, that his rights as a father will be guarded?

    There is none. Marriage means he is on the hook to support the wife in many cases, but she isn’t on the hook to offer anything back. Divorce is “no fault”, but with the implicit assumption that the husband cheated or abandoned his family. This is why when we talk about the system you immediately go there, you instinctively start thinking about infidelity, abuse, and abandonment. That is what the system assumes; the man must deserve to have his children ripped from him along with his assets and income. Except the process very deliberately doesn’t make that distinction. It works that way whether he cheats, abuses, abandons or not. All it takes are those three magic words. Three words so powerful many believe that God Himself absolves the wife from keeping her marriage vow upon hearing them:

    I’m…

    Not…

    Haaaaapy!

  287. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    Here is an explanation of what men and women must do to secure families. Each task has a difficulty level. 1 is least difficult, 10 is most difficult.

    Here is what a woman needs to do if she wants a family

    1. Have sex with a man of sufficient attractiveness and get pregnant Difficultiy level: 1
    2. Get child support from the father by any means necessary Difficulty level: 1

    What a man must do if he wants a family:

    1. Learn Game and social situations, and show ability to execute and apply Game (8)
    2. Secure education (7 to 8)
    3. Secure lucrative employment sufficien tto support himself, a wife, and at least one child (9)
    4. Find woman of sufficiently good character and attractiveness whom he wants to marry, who wants to marry him, and who he is reasonably certain won’t EPL divorce him (11)
    5. Secure marriage (8)
    6. Live through first year of marriage (9)
    7. IMpregnate wife (6)
    8. Live through pregnancy (9)
    9. continue marriage through childbirth, ups and downs of employment and emotions, and going through life together (10)

  288. TFH says:

    deti,

    How do you know this?

    She knows this ‘in her head’.

    Plus, my comment at 9:37 PM on 9/9 already constitutes StarvioleNt admitting she was wrong. She said what the law ‘should be’ in order to be fair, we showed that it is not like that, hence her claim of ‘I don’t see the laws as unfair’ is destroyed.

    I think she truly does not know the difference between what she feeeeeeels, vs. actual laws in the legal code and how courts implement them…

  289. Legion says:

    deti says:
    September 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Finding both unicorns and mermaids would only be a 10 on that scale.

  290. TFH says:

    My link above to Novaseeker’s description of how Child Support works tells it all.

    StarvioleNt does not want to read that, since feeeeeeelings supersede facts, and if she feeeeels the laws ought to be a certain way in her head, then that is all that matters, dammit!!.

  291. whatever says:

    Cano snarls:
    Nonsense. I’m giving you the finger right now.

    Am I surprised by this? Of course not. “Freedom” is just nonsense talk. I’m certain he is big on “consequences” for peoples “actions”… which including daring to speak. And needless to say, someone else’s freedom ends where he is trivially inconvenienced…. or can at least imagine that he might be trivially inconvenienced at some point, maybe.

    But he bestows this great gift of absolutely conditional freedom upon me! Yeah. It’s worth nothing. Cano can take it back.

  292. gdgm+ says:

    re: Dalrock
    September 10, 2012@3:10 pm

    Think about why men marry…

    Reading these threads, I’m convinced that women don’t think about that – they don’t seem to know how (or care to know).

    …and what it is like for them to attempt to create a family and have it taken from them through no fault of their own.

    Do women actually want to ‘get’ that, even when men try to explain it to them?

  293. Starviolet says:

    @ deti – I have more than once provided a link to federal data on child support and a link to iinfo on the typical costs of raising a child. This data put both the median and the average child support payment at about $400 or less.

    I am not the one claiming that the laws need to be changed. Laws should be changed based on evidence. I am asking for evidence from people who seem to spend a lot of time discussing this issue.

    @dalrock – I don’t think that there is anything that can be done about women getting pregnant and men having to support the child or not if she aborts. The law cannot make men and women who are biologically different, equal there. I certainly feel for men who are faced with an abortion or birth that they didn’t want, but I don’t see a reasonable solution to that problem.

    There are no guarantees on either side in marriage. Women also deal with uncertainty in marriage with no assurance that their emotional and financial investments will be honored. They both have the same court system that they can use to make their case. If that system needs to be changed then there should be some facts that support that. In addition to those questions that i asked earlier can you tell me What percentage of divorces are frivolous?

  294. Starviolet says:

    @gdgm

    I think that men marry because they have found a woman that they want to spend the rest of their life with, having lots of sex and some kids along the way. Because they want to lead families. And so their mothers will get off their backs about it.

  295. deti says:

    Star:

    Your data on the national average child support payment is interesting, but doesn’t really support your argument. As I said before, and as you ignore, the number of men who pay NO SUPPORT AT ALL drags the average down. Thugs and criminals and badboys who spawn children aren’t known for their reliability in paying child support, despite their being in demand as casual sex partners.

    I’ll hamsterlate the rest of your reply to Dalrock:

    “@dalrock – I don’t think that there is anything that can be done about women getting pregnant and men having to support the child or not if she aborts. The law cannot make men and women who are biologically different, equal there. I certainly feel for men who are faced with an abortion or birth that they didn’t want, but I don’t see a reasonable solution to that problem.”

    Hamsterlation: Yeah, Dalrock, I really don’t give a shit that men want reproductive rights. The woman can do whatever she wants and there’s not a damn thing you men can do about it. She can kill her baby even though you would father it and support it. And she can have that baby if she wants. Even if she hates your guts and was good for nothing but a one-night romp, you’re on the hook for at least 18 years. Either way, you’re just gonna have to DEAL.

    “There are no guarantees on either side in marriage. Women also deal with uncertainty in marriage with no assurance that their emotional and financial investments will be honored. They both have the same court system that they can use to make their case. If that system needs to be changed then there should be some facts that support that.”

    Hamsterlation: Women want their stuff, but we all know teh menz are gonna skate. They get off light in paying child support. They don’t pay alimony. If they are under orders to pay, they just deadbeat out of it. As for the statistics about divorce, the reasons for divorce, and men getting taken to the cleaners—lalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” *Sticks fingers in ears*

    Star, Dalrock asked you to consider why men marry. He asked you to try to understand this issue by trying to see it from a man’s point of view. Instead, you respond with a cruel, heartless statement that “well, this is just the way it is and you men will just have to deal with it”. YOu did not answer any of our questions. You do not listen, you show no interest in hearing anything anyone here has to say. You have no empathy. Your responses exhibit the height of callousness, lack of feeling and downright cruelty.

  296. imnobody says:

    @Legion
    Thank you.

    @Anonymous age 70.

    I don’t want to fight with you. I would like not to project your preconceptions onto me. I have always respected old people and I hope to be respected when I am old and also now, when I am middle-aged.

    I understand why you don’t like being called down on this. It is a new concept to you. Why?

    Because you apparently live in the USA

    Sorry, but I have said here that I am from Spain and I live in Latin America (but not in Mexico).

    You have never lived in a place where they do NOT hate old men,

    Sorry, but this is not true. In Latin America old men are respected. In Spain there were respected until twenty years ago.

    However, old people being despised is not a new concept for me. I have thought about this for years. In ancient societies, old people were respected because they were considered sources of wisdom. The Roman Senate’s name comes from a “senis”, which means “old” in Latin. Our society has bought the myth of progress so everything old is despised and everything new is celebrated. This is why modern society is obsessed with youth and children. A big mistake in my opinion.

    most folks in the USA do not fully understand AW are clinically insane. If you have never known sane women, you cannot understand that the women you know in the US are almost all nuts.

    I agree with you. I only lived one year in the States, but I couldn’t agree more. This is why I didn’t want to stay.

    John was stupid because John was stupid, and his age and generation had nothing to do with it.

    This is why I try to say but you keep atacking me and imagining things that are not true.

  297. TFH says:

    Wedded Abyss is a great starter site for anyone just beginning to see how unfair the laws are :

    http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

    It does not go as far as the full horror, but is a great first-look, as it is a simple, one-page site.

    This is for thinking readers, not filibusterers like StarvioleNt…

  298. gdgm+ says:

    @SV

    And so their mothers will get off their backs about it.

    I thought your answer was OK, if tepid, until the last sentence quoted above. You had to sneak a female imperative in, the wishes of mums.

    Would you be in agreement with the reasons you state for men marrying? And are those reasons
    *good* ones?

  299. TFH says:

    From Wedded Abyss :

    5. Losing Custody of Children – Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

    6. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

    7. Children as Cashcows – The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

    11. Paternity Fraud – If you didn’t catch right away that your kids aren’t really your kids but instead were “sired” by some guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck in most states. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn. Read this case of the Toronto man forced to pay child-support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his but ordered him to keep paying anyway. In no other area of the law do we punish the innocent victim for the conduct of two other people

    Even more shocking is this New York Times article about a Pennsylvania man ordered to keep paying child support after his adulterous wife divorced him, and married the very guy she had the affair and conceived the child with. Today the bio-father, the ex-wife, and their bio-child live together under a single roof as a biologically intact family and guess who is still paying them monthly child support? Yes, the cuckold ex-husband still has to pay every month or go to jail. You can’t make this stuff up. Even cuckold porn doesn’t get this vile.

  300. greyghost says:

    She is just a crazy chick. let that ass wither on the vine. Just don’t marry her or better yet introduce her to manboobz

  301. deti says:

    @ Star:

    “I think that men marry because they have found a woman that they want to spend the rest of their life with, having lots of sex and some kids along the way. Because they want to lead families.”

    So, can you not see how a woman deciding she is unhaaappy and then divorcing, ripping away his children and then being given a court order entitling her to a third or more of his income might be considered just a bit… UNFAIR?

    Can you not see how he might think it’s a bit odd and unfair that the moment they marry, she turns off the sex spigot and declares she “just doesn’t want to do that anymore”?

    Can you not see how he might think it is unfair that he did nothing wrong except not be as hot as her previous alpha stud BF (but he earns more money), but she gets a third of his income in the no-fault divorce, all for the crime of not being good looking or exciting or dominant enough?

    It’s no wonder we are going down the tubes when we have women who think like Star influencing social policy.

  302. TFH says:

    deti,

    No, she cannot see it. Men are not fully human, in her eyes. The divorce laws are no more unfair to men than the beef industry is unfair to cattle.

    The real horror is that as a sahm, she might actually have a son. She is overtly ruining his life….

  303. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    There are no guarantees on either side in marriage. Women also deal with uncertainty in marriage with no assurance that their emotional and financial investments will be honored. They both have the same court system that they can use to make their case. If that system needs to be changed then there should be some facts that support that. In addition to those questions that i asked earlier can you tell me What percentage of divorces are frivolous?

    You ignored my question. I didn’t ask you if there are guarantees for marriage. I asked you what way a man can plan to have a family and expect his rights as a father to be honored. I pointed out that for a woman who wants to have a family the question is simple. Get pregnant.

    But you can’t take yourself out of the woman’s perspective, even for a heartbeat. Men’s hopes and dreams mean nothing to you. You don’t seem to be capable of understanding that they even exist. So you go back yet again to asking what percent of the men crushed by the system deserved it, how did the woman feel, etc…

    But I’ll ask again. How is a man supposed to become a father? What is the way he should go about this, with an expectation that his emotional and financial investment in his children won’t be trampled on short of him failing in some specific way? How can he set about becoming a father in such a way that he has rights to his children, just like women who become mothers do? If you had a brother who told you his dream was to one day have and raise his own children, how would you advise him? So far your answer on this blog has been too bad, men don’t have any rights and they deserve whatever the system does to them. Deal with it. This is why you are getting the kind of response from the other commenters that you are. Unless you show that you are capable of offering even a little bit of human compassion, why should we continue discussing the question with you?

  304. TFH says:

    What is regretable is that it seems like a waste of resources for both Deti and Dalrock to be expending energy on a woman who is clearly receiving entertainment (and possibly even getting gina tingles, thus cheating on her husband according the the Sheila Gregoire moral code) from their hard work…..

  305. Dalrock says:

    It isn’t a waste TFH. I understand that it is a longshot that I’ll be able to help Starviolet imagine for a moment that men are real life beings with hopes and dreams. But it is possible, and if not either way it is educational for the much larger number of people reading but not commenting. If I wrote a post explaining that many women (but not all) can’t conceive of men as something other than a walking wallet many wouldn’t understand. She so far has made the case better than anyone else could.

  306. Starviolet says:

    @dalrock – I would advise a man who wanted to start a family to choose his spouse wisely and to be so involved in the raising of his children that it makes sense or him to have primary or 50/50 custody in the event of a divorce. Both women and men risk having their child taken by the other parent. Women can “own” a child by using donor sperm and men by using a surrogate. Outside of that you will never be a child’s only parent so you will never have a guarantee of ownership.

    I keep asking about the numbers because the facts matter when you are speaking about changing laws. If there is a problem with custody and child support then answering questions about the typical child support payment, what percentage of men request custody and are denied and why, and how many of the divorces filed are frivolous is important. I can sympathize with you, but you cannot expect people to legislate based on feelings alone. There needs to be some proof.

    @deti – did you read the study that I linked during our previous convo about child support? The numbers only include those who paid child support and there is also some breakdown of amounts by income. I am still open to any data that contradicts those numbers.

  307. Dalrock says:

    @Starviolet

    I keep asking about the numbers because the facts matter when you are speaking about changing laws. If there is a problem with custody and child support then answering questions about the typical child support payment, what percentage of men request custody and are denied and why, and how many of the divorces filed are frivolous is important. I can sympathize with you, but you cannot expect people to legislate based on feelings alone. There needs to be some proof.

    You are asking me to prove to you that a system which assumes husbands are always in the wrong and punishes them accordingly is unjust. No statistic will accomplish that fact. Nothing would convince you that it isn’t just.

  308. ezra says:

    I had decided last night to be forever finished with the portions of the tread initiated by Starviolet. However, I just cannot understand how she can possibly not understand the terrible injustice perpetrated upon American men by divorcing women, using the children as pawns to earn cash.

    How can you believe that the woman, who is statistically more likely to have filed for divorce, for whatever reason (frivolous or for good cause) should just automatically be awarded more than 50% of the time with the couple’s children and possibly twenty percent of is income until the child is grown? How can you believe this is fair? You say, well, if he was a SAHD (or “more involved in child care”) then MAYBE he should get custody. HOW THE HELL IS HE SUPPOSED TO WORK??? If he was a SAHD, he now has to get a full-time job. He now must pay at least $200 per week in child care or day care if there are small children. If he wasn’t a SAHD (they are pretty damned rare), but rather cared for the children more because she was a “career woman” – another possible scenario in your fantasy world – well, why shouldn’t HE automatically get child support from her, especially since again, he’s going to have to farm out the children he loves caring for to another paid person? It probably rips his heart out to have to farm out his children when he was doing a fine job being their FATHER in the first place!

    Really, though, this is all just nonsense.

    If it’s all about “your specific divorce scenario”, then different Commissioners of the
    Court will rule all different sorts of ways, and The One With The Most Expensive Attorney will get what they want anyway.

    There must be a total overhaul of American divorce laws. Louisiana contemplated making true Covenant Marriage mandatory, but it is not law. It is an “option” that a couple may choose. There are stringent regulations to be followed in the event of a separation/impending divorce. This is, at least, a start. Not good enough, though.

    I say:

    Zero child support for Sluts who shack up and get pregnant, and/or have one nighters and get pregnant. No welfare, either. Nothing. Gosh, that’d probably dissuade a lot of slutty women from getting drunk and banging Mr. Bad. Suddenly, there would be white children to adopt in America again as well.

    Mandatory mediation if legal separation occurs. Lengthy mediation, not a one time session. Both spouses must work together, in presence of mediator, to come to agreement about finances and child care in event that divorce becomes final.

    Joint Custody always, unless one party is deemed mentally ill, severely substance addicted or severely PHYSICALLY abusive.

    No automatic child support to Mom; period of time elapses to see true financial needs if after mediation, spouses cannot agree. Court then holds recipient accountable, although this would be expensive, I’m sure.

    No matching fed funds for child support “collection”; arrears cease to be punishable as a criminal offense. The current state of affairs helps NO ONE; not hubby, not Momma, definitely not children.

    I don’t have a full answer; these are just my beliefs based upon my knowledge and experience watching my poor husband with his ex and watching my nasty ex-girlfriends who have tried and some succeeded, in taking their ex husband’s to the cleaners in court. Ruined the children in the process.

  309. TFH says:

    It isn’t a waste TFH. I understand that it is a longshot that I’ll be able to help Starviolet imagine for a moment that men are real life beings with hopes and dreams.

    I hope so. We have so few articulate red-pillers that for a misandric woman to receive entertainment from their hard work seems like wasting a precious resource – the bandwidth of these red-pillers. It means the misandrist might yet be winning by using up our scarce resource…. sort of like obese people stealing food from starving children….

    I hope some third party observers are learning from reading this…and eventually the ocean fills up by billions of pebbles being dropped in it…

  310. Starviolet says:

    @dalrock –

    “You are asking me to prove to you that a system which assumes husbands are always in the wrong and punishes them accordingly is unjust. No statistic will accomplish that fact. Nothing would convince you that it isn’t just.”

    No, I am asking you to prove that the system assumes husbands are wrong and punishes them accordingly. I am asking you to prove that by showing the percentages of divorces that are frivolous, the numbers of men that ask for custody and are denied and why, the amount of the typical child support payment, and how often men pay alimony, for how long and in what amounts.

  311. farm boy says:

    @SV

    Are you a robot?

  312. TFH says:

    The truth about how child support really works, form Novaseeker (reposted) :

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/2011/05/the-truth-about-how-child-support-works/

  313. Starviolet says:

    @deti –
    So, can you not see how a woman deciding she is unhaaappy and then divorcing, ripping away his children and then being given a court order entitling her to a third or more of his income might be considered just a bit… UNFAIR?

    Can you not see how he might think it’s a bit odd and unfair that the moment they marry, she turns off the sex spigot and declares she “just doesn’t want to do that anymore”?

    Can you not see how he might think it is unfair that he did nothing wrong except not be as hot as her previous alpha stud BF (but he earns more money), but she gets a third of his income in the no-fault divorce, all for the crime of not being good looking or exciting or dominant enough?

    It’s no wonder we are going down the tubes when we have women who think like Star influencing social policy.”

    I think that turning off the sex after marriage is wrong, and incredibly painful and unfair to the rejected spouse. What do you propose we do about it?
    I think that frivolous divorce is wrong. How often does it happen? Evidence that 1/3 is being taken? Yes, I ask again for evidence that this is typical. Proof is needed for changes to the law to occur.

    [D: No need to respond further to Starviolet.]

  314. farm boy says:

    Here is info about the typical child support payment.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/beauty-taming-the-savage-beast/#comment-54018

    Note that if the bad boys are not paying, the guys who make any kind of money are. No good deed goes unpunished.

  315. TFH says:

    Here is an even darker possibility :

    StarVioleNt, is already toying with the idea of deciding she is not haaaaapy, and taking her children from their father (along with his wealth). Cash and prizes for the unholy spouse to whom wedding vows mean nothing.

    She has heavily rationalized why what she is doing is not wrong, and thus is impervious to irrefutable evidence and facts.

    Her obtuseness here is a portent of what she has subconsciously already considered and possibly even decided upon.

    Reading between the lines, this could be the most likely explanation upon how she is convincing herself that what she plans to do in a year or two is somehow justifiable.

  316. farm boy says:

    @TFH

    So she is a robot that is unhaaaaappppy? What to do?

    [D: I have an idea.]

  317. sillybear says:

    You guys are aware that many women earn more than men, right? And that more of us are getting university degrees and joining the professions than men? And that many of us are smarter than you?

    I can’t imagine why many of you think you have the right to have authority over your wife. Odds are that’s she’s brighter than you and should be the one in charge. Unless you purposely married someone dumb because you were afraid of an intellectual smack down from a smart gal. In that case, carry on.

  318. Dalrock says:

    @Ezra

    There must be a total overhaul of American divorce laws. Louisiana contemplated making true Covenant Marriage mandatory, but it is not law. It is an “option” that a couple may choose. There are stringent regulations to be followed in the event of a separation/impending divorce. This is, at least, a start. Not good enough, though.

    I did some research on the movement a while back and still plan on doing a post on it. The basic concept seems on target, but from reading about the Arizona implementation (also voluntary) I’m not sure the legal side in the end would make much difference. The loopholes are too large, but the real problem is Christians appear to not really have the stomach for the concept.

    The Catholic Church issued a statement that couples shouldn’t feel the need to opt for the more stringent rules of divorce (H/T Bonald):

    If a couple chooses the standard marriage license, this
    choice should in no way be interpreted as diminishing their total commitment to a
    permanent union as required by the teaching of Christ and His Church.

    Evangelicals for their part seem to have lost interest in the whole project after making a suitable number of loud proclamations about how serious they were about the issue. This is too bad, because the real force of the movement would have come from the moral/church side. Besides, if the church doesn’t care for biblical marriage (and it is actually hostile to the idea) we can’t expect the legislatures and judges to get it right.

  319. farm boy says:

    @sillybear

    so much to learn

  320. ezra says:

    Thank you, Dalrock, for letting me know that there is another State with Covenant Marriage implementation (Arizona) and also for the correction in my statement that there are “stringent” requirements that must be met.

    I am not Catholic, however, the fact that the Catholic Church doesn’t further endorse true Covenant Marriage anymore doesn’t surprise me much. There are so many people professing to be Catholics even in the political sphere, and they apparently have no idea what being Catholic entails!

    Of course, this is true with evalgelicals and most other denominations, from my perspective at least. I was a Lutheran (as was my husband at the time) when we went through our divorce twenty years ago, and not a single person in the church so much as attempted to talk us out of it, or help us, or even counsel us. It has definitely not improved in twenty years.

    My husband was an unrepentant, philandering man and he took ME to the cleaners in our divorce, which I did not really want. I think that’s where some of my empathy for men comes from – I was treated like The Average American Male in our divorce.

  321. TFH says:

    sillybear,

    You guys are aware that many women earn more than men, right?

    Then your first order of business is to go out and eradicate the ‘pay gap’ myth that women earn 77c on the dollar.

    After you have eradicated that, only then come back here for your education.

  322. ybm says:

    You see now why arguing with a woman about these issues is a waste of time: Each women believes herself to be the sole arbiter whether the sub-species called ‘males’ are even entitled to grievances AT ALL. Then, once the grievance has been existed, it will simply be minimized or denied.

    Starviolet does not believe you are a human being Dalrock, Deti. Some sort of device to argue with on the internet, she likely has aborted her beta-boy husbands sons and despises her own father. I sometimes think she might be sarah walsh under an assumed name.

    Women need to get the fuck out of the way if they don’t show up on side, with the MRA.

    Starviolet needs to get the fuck out of the way.,

  323. ezra says:

    @sillybear: I couldn’t resist.

    You are not smarter than most men; you’re just more entitled, though, and that’s why we (women) are graduating college and working and earning more and not getting killed in “mancessions” – entitlement via the Government, in all forms, including but not limited to public education in America.

    Regarding the authority issue with husbands having the “right” to authority over their wives: you’re gonna’ have to take that one up with God.

    All I’ll say to you is WOW! You are REALLY missing out by refusing to be submissive and rebelling – marriage and ALL that comes with your relationship with your husband is SO much better when you follow the Original Plan…

  324. ybm says:

    sillybear says:
    September 10, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Why do you hate men? Why do you delight in seeing your sons suffer? Your fathers disrespected? Your brothers crushed under a boot?

    Why do you delight in the suffering of human beings you have never met?

    Do you profess to be christian as well?

  325. farm boy says:

    @ybm

    She made no profession of Christianity. That might explain things.

  326. ybm says:

    farm boy says:
    September 10, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Much to learn you have, young lad. That woman sounds almost 100% a conservative ‘christian’ woman. The men are stupid meme is faaaaaar more prevalent among christian woman than secular in my view. Among secular women its more of the ‘I don’t need a man’ than it is outright hate and dehumanization.

    No, only the adherents to the personal jesus and her holy snatch.

  327. Paul says:

    “No, I am asking you to prove that the system assumes husbands are wrong and punishes them accordingly.”

    Are you freaking kidding me? I can’t believe nobody mentioned that the law on domestic violence in the U.S. is called the Violence Against Women Act, written by the National Organization of Women, and then given to Biden (then Senator, now your V.P., high-fives all around!), that lead to the creation of the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. No, no assumptions of any kind there, right?

    Have you any idea the kind of penny-ante shit that can get a guy prosecuted by federal law? Basically, anything a woman goddamn wants to go after him for, because all she had to do was ‘feel’ victimized by that mean old man to get him tossed from the home. No actual evidence required. He’s gone out, she’s done, next to no lawyer fees or court case.

  328. ezra says:

    ybm says:

    September 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Much to learn you have, young lad. That woman sounds almost 100% a conservative ‘christian’ woman.

    True. Again, this is the primary reason I do not have any female friends my age. They are all about how “good” the woman is. Referring back to speaking earlier about the woman in her early thirties that I work for: she is an evangelical woman, married eight years. When she speaks about her HUSBAND, in FRONT of him, to other women, and in the presence of other men, it is more than obvious that she thinks he’s a bumbling buffoon. Especially in regard to the children. But she’s a “Christian” – a “good” woman. He’s just a stupid man. Like I said, she complains to women about his dipping Copenhagen as if he were mainlining heroin. She talks about his occasional binge drinking as if he cannot hold a job because he is such a drunk.

    If he speaks to someone in the house, she snaps at him across the room that he speaks too loudly. She emasculates him at every turn. She has no shame about doing this in front of other people, including me (I keep their children part-time).

    In her massive state of PRIDE, she thinks she is just perfect! Not a flaw!

    She knows absolutely NOTHING about men.

    Women are prone to self-righteousness big time, in Christian female circles and also outside. It is disgusting. When I see it in myself, it almost makes me want to vomit, because in the past I’ve done some of those things to my poor hubby.

  329. Cane Caldo says:

    @ezra

    You are not smarter than most men; you’re just more entitled, though, and that’s why we (women) are graduating college and working and earning more and not getting killed in “mancessions”

    It’s actually worse than you say. The entitlements are necessary because the colleges and jobs are so crappy that the otherwise eligible men–men smart enough to decide worthless degrees, piles of debt, and a life as a cubicle dwelling not worth it–forego them. This is especially true when they have no family; either because they are stuck in beta orbit, or because they’ve decided women aren’t worth the risk. Women, who accept the debt and office life, it must be deduced are dumber than men; especially since those beta orbiters are out there waiting for the pleasure of being fleeced.

    When she speaks about her HUSBAND, in FRONT of him, to other women, and in the presence of other men, it is more than obvious that she thinks he’s a bumbling buffoon.

    At some point, it becomes his (and everyone’s) fault this happens. A man should never let this pass. I don’t care if he’s getting drunk and throwing up on people’s shoes–a woman who publicly criticizes her husband in his presence is a woman who needs to be roughed up, and made to publicly apologize. Mrs. Caldo would never do this. I don’t even let this pass when women I don’t know do it to men I don’t know. I take pains to make sure they see my sneer.

    By the way, “hubby” is denigrating. If you keep using it, you will reduce his status in your own mind.

  330. ezra says:

    @Cane Caldo: Thank you for pointing out how horrible colleges are today. I have read about it, but have not researched it. I am thankful that neither my grown son, nor my husband’s grown daughter are attending colleges, but I don’t know where that leaves them either. They were both destroyed by their respective parent’s divorces twenty years ago. Neither of them knows how to be an adult in this world. We deal with the brokenness ourselves in repentance and try to show them that a real family is possible for them someday, and we try to lead by example as we are both lovers of Jesus Christ now. (We were not when we were previously married to our respective ex-spouses).

    I agree that Mr. H at my workplace should NEVER let Mrs. H talk to him the way that she does; it is humiliating for him and it makes the rest of us terribly uncomfortable. He is very dominated by her in many ways; not just this pattern of verbal abuse in his presence. She is a vegetarian, and she has therefore decided that there children will all be vegetarians, even though he is a meat-lover and hunts meat as well. That’s no big deal perhaps (although my husband says it divides the household) except that she bought books for their children describing how TERRIBLE people are who eat meat, who endorse the eating and slaughtering of meat, etc. I wonder why the children don’t respect their father??? They think Mom thinks he’s a terrible man! He kills innocent turkeys!

    She gets angry if anyone says anything like “His money” in reference to a purchase; she is upset that they are not acknowledging that she makes MORE money than him, and therefore it wasn’t HIS money that paid for something at all. She makes this well known.

    Anyway, I could go on, but you already know the story, I’m sure. I think I will find a way not to attend anymore social functions outside of my work there, because when I work for her, I work alone with the children for the most part and rarely have to see her doing these things to her husband unless he comes home early. I wish one of these other men would “sneer” at her as you say; no one does anything, but I think it’s because most of their wives do the same things!

    I appreciate your telling me about the word “hubby”; I had no idea. I use it when typing for abbreviation purposes; I do not call him this at all out loud! But I will now cease even writing it, for I had no idea it could have a negative affect upon my perception of him. He is a great man. He has endured a lot from me in the first two years of our marriage! I want to get better not stay stagnant, and certainly not worse!

  331. Lavazza says:

    Heidi Klum is divorcing Seal and is demanding full custody, while “fornicating with the help”. What type does he belong to?

  332. The covenant marriage movement died on the vine because very very few were opting to take that route.

    I have not researched it, nor can I imagine an empirical way to do so, but I will assume that more men than women asked their spouse to be to do this, and the women did not want it.

    Its a good test for a young man, offer up a covenant marriage, if she refuses, move on

  333. Cane Caldo says:

    What type does he belong to?

    The badwifechooser group.

  334. farm boy says:

    When she speaks about her HUSBAND, in FRONT of him, to other women, and in the presence of other men, it is more than obvious that she thinks he’s a bumbling buffoon.

    But that is how men are taught to behave by school, sitcoms, mothers, etc. Who is at fault for making it happen? Women. They deserve what they get.

    I do feel sorry for the guys. I do teach the correct way whenever I have the chance.

  335. Feminist Hater says:

    The fact that she was pregnant with another man’s child when they first met should have had alarm bells ringing. Can’t say I feel sympathy for Mr Seal.

  336. farm boy says:

    @Ezra

    I wonder if he would be better off divorcing the hag. It could not be worse than what he has. I don’t think she is going to change anytime soon.

  337. Ezra says:

    @farm boy:

    He has had an affair. I don’t know how long ago this happened, or with whom. She knows. I think if he divorces her now, he will be ruined. She has gone to “Christian” marriage counseling by herself, and the counselor has given her a copy of “Love and Respect” along with the workbook.

    She struggles with “forgiving” him for the “wrong he has done her”, without much perception of the “wrong she has done him”, except for a vague idea that she “doesn’t respect him”. But she thinks she doesn’t respect him because he had the affair, he spends too much, he drinks too much and he dips too much…she doesn’t understand, I don’t believe, that she NEVER respected him.

    As I said earlier, I think he deliberately chooses jobs far away from their home so that he’s gone all week. Then he comes home on the weekends to see his children (they have a brand-new one as well.) She is very angry that he’s seen the new child for just a few days.

    When he comes home she has a list a mile long for him to do. He works construction; he’s tired for gosh sakes!

    They have miles of debt (SHE spends too much, from what I know – I don’t know about him) and too much house. They have to pay me (and they do pay me well for child care) when she works.

    He has no way out without total destruction. Now, I’m not saying he’s a perfect man, or even a great husband, but he appears to me (I don’t know him well as he’s not around much) as totally whooped by her, although a good provider and a hard worker, and a good father.

    She faithfully attends a Terribly Feminist Church with a pastor who preaches – I’m sorry – Garbage. My husband and I visited one Easter. Horrible.

  338. blogster says:

    sillybear says:

    September 10, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    you have much to learn sillybear. you talk about intelligence, but in fact intelligence, broadly speaking, is the capacity to make finer distinctions. for example you go from mentioning the number of female university attendees/graduates and extrapolate that women should run households/relationships because they are ‘smarter’.

    There is academic intelligence – ‘smarts’ – that is getting the right answer on tests. Then there is leadership and dominance – a completely different set of skills and traits.

    Men generally speaking, have these traits more than women and actually act on them. Women want these traits in their men.

    You might claim that women are smarter – please get back to us when females produce their own mark zuckerbergs, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet’s etc. on a regular basis. As a female, you might score well on entrepreneurship exams, but only an insignificant fraction have the interest, desire, guts, balls and all round complement of required skills necessary to change the world, to lead, to be on the front line of life. This is what leadership is about.

    This is why men are born leaders and women with rare exceptions, never will be. This is why women intuitively look to men for leadership. Unfortunately, they are so fucked up by feminist programming that they are pulled in two different directions, schizophrenically.

    Try again when you have learned something. You sound like a university student.

  339. Lavazza says:

    FH, CC: I am asking because of this post by Badger:

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/alpha-photograph-of-the-month/#comment-8418

    It’s weird how somebody can go from alpha example to divorce grinder meat so easily.

    CC: Whom should he have married?

  340. farm boy says:

    @ezra

    The “father” part might be the only reason for staying. Other than that, he seems like he is already ruined.

  341. Ezra says:

    @farm boy: you’re probably right.

  342. ybm says:

    Lavazza says:
    September 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Boy that thread is a trip down memory lane. Its like a lineup of the women that couldn’t compete in Dalrocks comment section. They went down to the minor leagues I guess.

  343. Cane Caldo says:

    CC: Whom should he have married?

    Not a (now former) supermodel. Certainly not someone who doesn’t take her husband’s last name in writ and life. I would not budge on that. I don’t care if she was more famous than me. I don’t care what her manager says. I don’t care if it’s just a stage name.

    Probably some girl he met through his family. It’s a bit of a catch-22 for a celebrity: anyone who thinks they’re an equal is going to be trouble. Getting married let Klum see the real Seal, but apparently, she still thinks she’s Awesome Heidi!

  344. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    The covenant marriage movement died on the vine because very very few were opting to take that route.

    I think the problem is one level higher. Very few couples elected for the option because there was generally no enthusiasm for biblical marriage amongst Christians, especially their leadership. The whole movement from what I can find was about posturing how much better Christians were at marriage than everyone else, while avoiding all of the parts of the Bible on marriage which get in the way of feminism.

    Simply put, while Christianity remains outright hostile to biblical marriage any and every movement around marriage from Christians is doomed to follow the same basic script: Lots of boastful talk and (in some cases) bold claims that God personally spoke to them on the issue, a few readings from the Book of Oprah, and in the end a loss of interest.

  345. Ezra says:

    Dalrock, I do agree with you regarding covenant marriage. There are those in the Church who believe that, by virtue of both parties in the marriage being “Christian” (whatever that means to them), they’ll be just fine. Further, they believe they can just “fix” any issues that do arise with Christian Counseling.

    In our case, when our marriage got into serious trouble one year in (due mainly to my feminist tendencies and secondarily to my husband’s reluctance to get a job after finding himself unemployed), we both called our “Pastor”. We were separated at the time, with small children. He called ME back and agreed to meet with me, but never even bothered to call my husband back. It was amazing. I went once and then abandoned the entire process; my husband and I sought God on our own, and in His mercy He helped us (me, moreso than my husband, as I was the one with the unrealistic expecations of marriage) to see what needed to be done.

    My husband did ask that I call another Christian Counselor from a church where we were not “members”; he agreed to meet with us. He was a total wuss. My husband hated him. Even though we were scheduled to go back, this man cancelled our next session and the reschedule so far out, we would have divorced before he would see us again!

    So, I guess for a religion so bent on the “sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman for life”, we were a little more than disappointed at the “support” we received (none) in trying to fix our marriage relationship.

  346. Suge Knight says:

    Or… you could be option number four. Call her bluff. Tell her to do it, but not before giving her some reading material on how it will likely work out and to help give her an honest evaluation of her current stock.

  347. Pingback: The Chief Cornerstone of Marriage 2.0: Foolish Sacrifice | The Society of Phineas

  348. Beserker says:

    I would come under the 3rd Dalrock archetype, though I came close to going down the number 1 route, when the wife was enacting no sex and threatening divorce, over trivial bullshit a few years ago. I won that argument and psychological warfare though, literally by threatening to enact and carrying through to a certain extent the 1st Darlock archetype. I think the fact that other women find me desirable put the wife back into the “what do you want for dinner?”, place.

    Don’t give in, double up and fight back, you just have to be more cunning then the cuntiness that rules our declining Western world.

  349. Matthew says:

    deti: I love you and everything you say. No homo. But: I’ve noticed that you use the word “can’t” about females like Vizzini uses “inconceivable”, and I have formulated a suggestion. Instead of telling the ferals what things they “can’t” do that they clearly do actually do with impunity, I think you should make it conditional. Rather than telling some stupid schoolteacher “You cannot rely on a national average child support payment which appears reasonable to you”, inform her that “if you rely on a national average child support payment, we’re all going to laugh at you.” Stupid schoolteachers can and will rely on stupid shit unless there be social consequences for doing so.

  350. Pingback: Churchian Marriage 2.0 Illustrated | The Society of Phineas

  351. Michael says:

    @ Picture with women holding a bomb: “Are you good enough to stop me from using this?”

    Yes.

    Has anyone noticed shes holding the TNT handle with her one finger? All I need to do is take it away from her. Suddenly and without warning.

    Once I take away her power she has nothing.

  352. Mark says:

    @Tim:

    “”When the Japanese finally get their life-like sexbots on the the market, and they become affordable to the masses, all this will become moot. Millions of men will retreat to their bots and hobbies, leaving millions of women scurrying to find enough cats to keep them company in their spinsterhood.””

    Thank you for this post.As a professional investor……….. I and my associates have been paying very close attention to this “phenomenon” …….and it will happen!….I guarantee my last dollar on it! Internet porn has already decimated “wimmin”…..this will take them over the edge like you have never seen!….And I cannot wait!…….look out ladies….you are going to become obsolete!…..Lmao!…..and it looks good on you loser cunts!

  353. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”So if you want to focus on those who wish to do the most harm to old men, old women are the place to look.””

    The fucking murdering whores kill the unborn……why not the old?……think about it!

  354. ybm says:

    Mark says:
    December 9, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    I’ve told my family that if porn companies were publically traded I could have made us billionaires by now.

  355. Mark says:

    @Tim

    “”They want old men to die so that more SS/Medicare money remains for themselves, and are happy to say so in major newspapers.

    So if you want to focus on those who wish to do the most harm to old men, old women are the place to look.””

    Of course they do!……….Look at Dr.Helen…..what is she?…..A JEW!………..I am a JEW!……these scumbag Jews piss me off to no end! Who are the founders of modern day Femi-Nazim?…..Jew women! …….Who are the antagonists today of modern day Femi-Nazm?…..Jewish WIMMIN!…..and also…..who are also the modern day advocates of abortion?….Jewish WIMMINZ……and to top it all off…..who own the modern day Abortion Mills?…..and the doctors that own them?….JEWISH MEN!….backed up by the Jewish Femi-Nazi WIMMIN ………..”Murdering Scum”…..Don’t believe me?….check it out for yourselves!…..I have some VERY VERY bad people in my family lineage……and I am not proud of it!!!!!!!!!!!!………..

  356. Pingback: Welcome Aboard, John | Things that We have Heard and Known

  357. Pingback: Rebuking Cane Caldo’s Churchian Man-Up Rant (Part 1) | The Society of Phineas

  358. Pingback: BD #5 – It’s All Your Fault For Not Submitting To Your Wife. | The Society of Phineas

  359. Pingback: Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage? | The Orthosphere

  360. Pingback: Mohler Reviews Men On Strike | The Society of Phineas

  361. Your ideas are very interesting Dalrock. I often wonder what goes through the minds of men who choose to get married despite the “Detonator.”

    To me, the state of marriage is a problem, but also the very fact that the detonator even exists and the church is complacent to it (at best) is a much bigger one. What does that say about the church’s sentiment toward men, regardless of marriage?

  362. Oh, and Dalrock, I have something I’ve been trying to understand about traditionalists–because I DO hear some of them discussing biblical roles to being leaders. I’m wondering about your thoughts. My perception is of their response to men who are effectively victims of, say, the “contentious woman.”

    If he asserts himself as the leader of the household, BAD: He has to love like Christ loved the church and it’s the wife’s choice to be submissive, not for him to try to enforce.

    If he let’s her do as she pleases, BAD: He’s being a pushover and a poor leader against what Scripture commands, again sinning against his wife in the process.

    Let along framing the discussion in such a way that demonstrates that we care about the pain that HE is experiencing, just as it matters when any human being suffers from someone else: can we give the poor man an option of any kind? What subhuman objects of abuse does modern Christianity consider men to be?

    Again, wondering as to your thoughts.

  363. Pingback: Five years of keeping her happy proves David Swindle is a better man than you. | 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