Call the Kendrick brothers!

I think we’ve found the script for the sequel to Fireproof.

Empathologism shares a lesson to Christian husbands in his post The reverse nuclear option, the submissive Christian wife.  The lesson is from Dennis Rainey’s FamilyLife, and opens with a quote from Scripture to emphasize the message:

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, but humility goes before honor. PROVERBS 18:12

In the lesson we learn of a husband and wife who run a ministry.  One day the husband makes a decision regarding the ministry without first consulting his wife.  The husband recounts this story of his transgression with shame and tears in his eyes.  Being a modern Christian wife, she confronts his audacity in making a decision without clearing it with her first.  The husband makes the mistake of standing his ground, telling her:

The decision has been made, and it’s too late to change our plans now.

Overcome with rage and emotion, the wife decides to blow up the family.  She packs the kids in the car and announces they are leaving him:

Okay, Bill Bright! I’ll just leave! I’m not going to live where I have nothing to say about what goes on.

Now time for some patented misdirection.  The couple’s son chastises the mother for her decision to detonate the family:

Mom, this shows me the kind of person you really are.

This is crucial, because for the slower in the audience this will be read as teaching wives that they shouldn’t use threats to blow up the family to make their husbands submit.  But as both the opening quote from Scripture and the ending of the lesson make clear, the message that this is how a wife humbles a disobedient husband and brings him to heel is the real takeaway:

As her son’s words stung her, Bill burst through the front door and deliberately got in front of her car. He pleaded, “Don’t go, Vonette.”

He went on to apologize, and she did too. Then Bill backed up his words of apology by changing the decision…

The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to blow up the family.  Once the husband submits the wife can then apologize for threatening to destroy the family.  The wife explains:

I stayed because he took the first step toward reconciliation and working out our problems. It took a real man of God to admit he was wrong, and this gave me the courage to confess my poor attitude.

I know the story is too short to make an entire movie about, but it reinforces the modern Christian message on marriage beautifully while including sufficient misdirection to confuse those who claim to believe in traditional marriage.  My suggestion would be to create three or four different variants on this basic story, and tell parallel stories like they did in Courageous.  Make the men all heroic blue collar types, and show each one being beaten into submission by their wives with threats of familial destruction.

My first thought was to really grind in this message of the Holy Threatpoint by having one of the husbands play the role of the villain;  he would fail to submit to his wife when threatened and she would follow through and destroy their family.  Then she would use the family courts to bleed him white with child support and alimony.  In the end of the movie we would see him in a prison cell, having been driven to a life of crime in an attempt to pay the required sums to his wife.  However, then I remembered that this story was already included in the original Courageous.  I’ll leave it up to the Kendrick Brothers to decide if they want to weave a retelling of this moral into the sequel for Fireproof (should they accept the idea).  Either way, I think the sequel should take a page out of Courageous and end with the husbands all signing a formal pledge to submit to their wives in all things, and acknowledging that now they are doubly accountable.

You can read the full lesson here, and don’t miss Empath’s expert analysis here.  Also, if you haven’t already picked up a copy, check out Rainey’s book Stepping Up: A Call to Courageous Manhood.  You can see the advertisement for the video series based on the book here.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Dennis Rainey, FamilyLife, Fireproof, Foolishness, Kendrick Brothers, Lowering The Boom, Rebellion, Satire, Threatpoint. Bookmark the permalink.

579 Responses to Call the Kendrick brothers!

  1. TFH says:

    This is scary. That an entire religion has no idea how much they have deviated from their own principles, established over centuries…

    I notice that a lot of the Christian whiteknights are doubling down on their ‘man up’ demands….it is a sign that they are feeling the heat from Sunday Morning Nightclub and other corrective forces.

  2. sunshinemary says:

    On a side note, it is worrisome to contemplate how many Christian pastors are really following their wives’ leadership. Why did Vonette Bright suppose that it was her right to make decisions about a ministry that her husband shepherds?

  3. LiveFearless says:

    “I’ll leave it up to the Kendrick Brothers”Seriously… Russian roulette is a bad idea. You want influence the script? Contact me.

  4. Casey says:

    This ‘Man Up’ rehtoric is getting old fast.

    What we need is for women to ‘Women Up’, or better yet…..SMARTEN UP!

  5. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, modern ‘Christian’ women can have at it. They really are basically just letting their emotions run the show. The astounding thing is, that the more they call for men to ‘man up’ the more their men will fail. The fault lies not with husbands being mean and cruel but with women trying to assume leadership in their families and blowing it up when it doesn’t work out the way they envisioned.

    If a woman won’t submit, she ain’t worth the time or the effort to marry. She’s a pathetic attempt at being a man; and it really shows. The number of cocks they can now suck, in their quest for Godhood, is only matched by their ability to lie and con their way out of taking ownership of the hell they have bestowed on mankind.

  6. Solomon says:

    The sequel to Fireproof would necessarily be twice as disgusting as the original.

    The smackdown to Fireproof would be right about here…

    sorry for the big link, D

    cheers

  7. Casey says:

    Feminists have never had a problem with inequality………they just don’t like having the short end of the stick.

    Phase 1 was about furthering the feminist agenda under the banner of ‘fairness & equality’. Mission accomplished.

    Phase 2 was about controlling men, so they are NOT equal under the law in family/divorce courts. Mission accomplished.

    Now that men are appropriately caged & controlled………phase 3 of the plan is ernestly underway. That being the belittling, marginalization, and discrimination against men as a gender whether single, married, divorced, widowed, dead, or alive.

    The type of talk filling the airwaves these days is all about the SUPREMACY of women versus men.

    Truly Crap-tacular……and of course, total nonsense as well.

  8. TFH says:

    Why man up when it is easier to woman down?

  9. HanSolo says:

    I come from a very religious/Christian immediate and extended family. No signs of the dominating patriarchy to be found in the marital dynamics. In fact, it’s more the opposite in many cases where the wife is more dominant and bossy.

  10. Michael says:

    “with shame and tears in his eyes”

    Over one decision? What a sissy. What kind of women really wants to be with a man like this?

  11. feeriker says:

    Dalrock said: I know the story is too short to make an entire movie about…

    Now how do you figure that, my friend? Any group of people who can creatively distort Scripture the way the FotF lot and their media enablers do can certainly pad a story like this with a more than sufficient quantity of fluffy garbage with which to make a feature-length film (one that millions of gullible middle-class churchians will pay obscene amounts of money to watch).

  12. feeriker says:

    Also, if you haven’t already picked up a copy, check out Rainey’s book Stepping Up: A Call to Courageous Manhood.

    I do hope you’re not seriously suggesting that we part with our hard-earned money and actually buy any of Rainey’s scribblings. The thought of enriching this guy in any way is send my stomach into dry heaves.

  13. earl says:

    “The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to blow up the family.”

    The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to go to their other husband…AKA the government (satan). If a nagging woman threatening to leave meant that you would still keep your kids, home, income, etc…most guys would say “goodbye toots!”

    Women have no power to destroy a man…the government and judicial system do. I would venture that is who most guys are submitting to. The woman is just the middleman.

  14. “with shame and tears in his eyes”

    Over one decision? What a sissy. What kind of women really wants to be with a man like this?

    No No No No

    Don’t you get it? This is the reaction of a true man of God! Also, note that these folks are living sooooo right that their most profound argument, the one that nearly ripped them apart, was the one about the ministry.

    If this was developed further it would be that satan had grabbed hold of Bill’s heart was was angry at Bill for his ministry and wanted to use this family thing to set it back. In fact that would be in the movie, where at least one of the men is a preacher, and stuff like this causes his divorce.

  15. feeriker says:

    TFH said: This is scary. That an entire religion has no idea how much they have deviated from their own principles, established over centuries…

    My friend, DO NOT confuse the Christian faith of the Scriptures with the corporate churchianity that has overtaken –but not replaced– it over the last 1,700 years (the starting point of the decline was the Roman Emperor Constantine’s faux “conversion” almost exactly 1,700 years ago, but that’s fodder for another rant elsewhere) and that has metastasized in Amerika over the last two hundred years.

    The Faith is still very much intact; you just won’t find it inside of any of the expensive buildings own by incorporated denominations and run by salaried false teachers, nor on for-profit radio programs run by the likes of hucksters Rainey, Dobson, et al. (I’m citing “evangelical” Protestants as examples here because these are the ones I’m most familiar with, but I have no doubt that the Catholic church has its equivalents).

    You’ll find the Faith in small groups of families that meet in someone’s living room on Sunday mornings, or in groups of people praying in the fields as they toil away at their labors, or in gatherings of persecuted people in under-developed nations or non-western totalitarian societies who don’t have the luxury of “constitutional protections” of religious freedom or the curse of “official” churches.

    The challenge is to get people to wake up to the fact that they’ve been victimized by false teachers and their sham organizations. Until people in large numbers start dusting off their bibles and actually reading and understanding the message, that probably won’t happen (the very LAST thing churchian CEOs want is biblically literate congregations). Frankly, I’m not optimistic that the trend will kick off anytime soon.

  16. Casey says:

    @ Feminist Hater

    FH said:
    “If a woman won’t submit, she ain’t worth the time or the effort to marry. She’s a pathetic attempt at being a man; and it really shows.”

    Perfeict, that is it in a nutshell.

    If a woman tries to become a man………all you get is an inferior man.

    Same applies to men who try to become women…….all you get is an inferior woman.

    Why the #*$&@*# don’t we all just play to our strengths for the benefit of ALL concerned?

  17. thehumanscorch says:

    If a woman won’t submit, she ain’t worth the time or the effort to marry.
    She’s a pathetic attempt at being a man; and it really shows.

    This is gold.

  18. feeriker says:

    Why the #*$&@*# don’t we all just play to our strengths for the benefit of ALL concerned?

    Because women aren’t haaaaaaaaapy with the roles and strengths God gave them. That implies, of course, that it’s all GOD’S fault, but women (even, curiously, those who claim not to believe in God) don’t seem to have the intestinal fortitude to lay the blame where it supposedly lies.

  19. lzozozoziz

    hey dalrockasz nice postz!!!

    thanks for your invalauable service!! wish there were more dlarocksz!

    does anybody know of any good Christian books that agree with Dalrock which one can find in the bookstoresz?

    we should be reading Dalrockz booksz in da bookstore in da christian inspiration sectionsz!

    have you ever tried to get publishedz Dalrocksz?

    i know, i know dat your true Biblical Viewsz are probably not welcome in modernz bookstuores churchiansz.

    but dalrcok, are there any other authors you can recommend whose books are available in da bookstorez?

    (other than Jesus of course, but he nevr wrote da bookz lzizizlzozzo)

    tanksz alotsz! keep up da great, invaluable wokrz!!

  20. tz2026 says:

    Marriage may be a sacrifice, but it doesn’t apply to the man’s testicles.

    Murdering a marriage should be met with proper reciprocal self-defense.

    I’m looking for a holy mother and wife. As part of the courtship although I don’t normally do TV I will probably subscribe to Netflix and during an appropriate scene in Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy and make it clear the rather literal grave consequences if she even threatens to destroy our family.

  21. Miserman says:

    Dalrock, when you say, … check out Rainey’s book Stepping Up: A Call to Courageous Manhood, are you endorsing the book or is it another classic example of man-up feminist writing? According to Amazon.com, Dennis Rainey is the President and CEO of FamilyLife, a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ. That makes me think that the book is not red pill book, but blue pill.

  22. Miserman says:

    Dalrock, ignore my last post. I did a little digging. Rainey’s book is rain, as in feminism pissing down my back kind of rain.

  23. tz2026 says:

    Yes, it is an easy movie (just like Mom needs a $25k bed so you must give up your boat savings).

    A couple start a ministry. The man is wise and prudent. The woman keeps second guessing and making bad decisions. So the man starts NOT consult and get approval. Cue the scene above.

    Of course the wife needs to destroy the husband – get the house, render him homeless and miserable while she becomes a millionaire televangelist selling Christian theme park timeshares while wearing much too much mascara and praising the Lord in her clubhouse.

    But they reconcile and he becomes her lapdog.

    Simple isn’t it? Not even half bakkered.

  24. MarcusD says:

    “What kind of women really wants to be with a man like this?”

    I think that’s the answer.

  25. tz2026 says:

    I should note at one of the upstream sites I noted that if he already broke the faith by suffering her to teach and have a co-ministry, then not consulting her as equal partner would break an oath which was evil to make (like the Judge who said he would sacrifice as a holocaust the first person who came out of his door and ended up sacrificing his only child, his daughter.

    If you want a non-biblical marriage and say “I do”, it is hard to have sympathy. Focus on the Feminists can preach what they want. But the bible says the husband is to be the head, not the ass. But too many churches, like one’s rectum, are full of …

  26. Miserman says:

    A couple start a ministry. The man is wise and prudent. The woman keeps second guessing and making bad decisions. So the man starts NOT consult and get approval. Cue the scene above.

    I would see it as The woman keeps making brilliant decisions and her husband becomes jealous of her success and tries to assert his violent, rebellious authority by quoting scripture on head of the household. Finally, when his chauvinist attitude is not even stopped by his pastor screaming “How dare you!” at him for an hour … Cut scene above.

    Oh, my, I can already feel myself tearing up inside. I just wanna put on my pink bathrobe, get some ice cream and a box of tissues, then curl up on the couch with my better half and watch Nukeproof.

  27. feeriker says:

    tz2026 said: I should note at one of the upstream sites I noted that if he already broke the faith by suffering her to teach and have a co-ministry, then not consulting her as equal partner would break an oath which was evil to make

    Excellent point, one that we can be absolutely sure will not even be hinted at by the FotFites and their audience in discussions such as that in the source quoted in the OT. Imagine too the howls of churchio-feminist outrage (picture Mark Driscoll “praying” himself into a stroke at the news of a man exercising headship of his family – OH, THE HORROR!) at any man who dares mention this, let alone cite the scriptural references for it.

    But too many churches, like one’s rectum, are full of …

    I propose that, just for clarity’s sake in making the essential distinction, we encourage the use of of the symbol TM (for trademark, in miniscule font as a superscript, if possible) following the word “church” when using it to describe the Sunday morning nightclub, for-profit franchises that have taken the place of the New Testament original. That way there will be no doubt or confusion about what we are talking about when we offer descriptions like the one above.

    And yes, I concur – most church[TM] franchises today are exactly has you describe.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    sunshinemary
    On a side note, it is worrisome to contemplate how many Christian pastors are really following their wives’ leadership. Why did Vonette Bright suppose that it was her right to make decisions about a ministry that her husband shepherds?

    That’s easy. Even I can answer it. “Because no one ever told her otherwise, that’s why.

    Now, where did I put that button from the office supply store?

  29. AdmiralBenbow says:

    Okay, Bill Bright! I’ll just leave! I’m not going to live where I have nothing to say about what goes on.

    I see what you did there…

  30. feeriker says:

    AR said: That’s easy. Even I can answer it. “Because no one ever told her otherwise, that’s why.

    Can you imagine the fate of the brave (or foolish, depending on your POV) man (or men) who would dare to tell her otherwise – perchance even citing Scripture to back up their point?

  31. I stayed because he took the first step toward reconciliation and working out our problems. It took a real man of God to admit he was wrong, and this gave me the courage to confess my poor attitude.

    So, he’s wrong for assuming headship, but she’s just got a poor attitude for taking steps to destroy her family? Got it.

    Once again, the Feminine Imperative is now the Holy Spirit, and women are conveniently the only ones with the authority to assume the voice of God.

  32. Ton says:

    Another example of why I refuse to listen to Christain based relationship advice.

  33. Miserman says:

    So, he’s wrong for assuming headship, but she’s just got a poor attitude for taking steps to destroy her family? Got it.

    Rollo, don’t that women are incapable of moral failure? Any moral failure they exhibit is merely a echo of men they have encountered. :\

  34. WillBest says:

    While submission does mean that headship rest with the man, a good leader will consult those closest to him. A man not proper in headship should expect a rebellious wife. Women however need to be aware that their rebellion is itself a sin and not justified by the mans lack of headship and that it is their duty to follow such men.

    I don’t however feel that means they have to be a doormat. You can encourage proper leadership without humiliating/emasculating your husband or harming/destroying the marriage. A lot of times I feel men end up deferring to “nagging wife” because they find it easier to cave than stand their ground. You are going to have disagreement in your marriage, But what this woman did was the equivalent of holding her breathe until she got what she wanted. Unfortunately, we have installed a system that supports women’s right to do this.

  35. 8oxer says:

    Men do need to “MAN UP”; but not in the way that the white knights say. Men need to man up and quit giving their committment away to fatties, sluts, and other women who do not deserve committment. Men also need to “MAN UP” and quit supporting these parasite preachers, rabbis, and priests. It’s men’s money that keeps these phonies in fine linens and rich food. If your “man of the (loin)cloth” is preaching a hateful, anti-family message to you and your wife and kids, then its your duty to quit supporting him financially.

  36. Miserman says:

    Ok, I’ve also noticed that scripture quotes are chosen from evangelical translations, so words like “man” and “men” are used. For example, the above quote is from the “conservative” NASB, hence the use of the word “man.” Evafems (evangelical feminists) can easily criticize “liberal” translations for being gender-neutral to maintain their trad-con integrity while they use the masculine language of “conservative” translations to beat men into submission.

    A gender-neutral translation could too easily be used against them:

    Before destruction one’s heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor. – Proverbs 18:12 NRSV

  37. Miserman says:

    @WillBest

    I don’t however feel that means they have to be a doormat.

    This statement comes from feminist thinking, not men nor biblical thinking. Men who expect their wives to submit do not expect their wives to be “doormats.” However, feminists automatically accuse men who expect submission of wanting their wives to be doormats. So just stop saying things like “I don’t however feel that means they have to be a doormat.” You’re only echoing feminists thinking, not noble or rational thinking.

  38. Mark says:

    @feeriker

    “”If a woman tries to become a man………all you get is an inferior man””

    Hence……….a woman cop or fire(wo)man……..

  39. 8oxer says:

    Miserman sez:

    This statement comes from feminist thinking, not men nor biblical thinking. Men who expect their wives to submit do not expect their wives to be “doormats.” However, feminists automatically accuse men who expect submission of wanting their wives to be doormats. So just stop saying things like “I don’t however feel that means they have to be a doormat.” You’re only echoing feminists thinking, not noble or rational thinking.

    That’s exactly right. I have never been attracted to a doormat type, nor would I want one for any sort of relationship (much less to spend the rest of my life taking care of one in a marriage — it’d be like a life sentence or something).

    Men are attracted to sweet, feminine, hot women. If I could find a woman who was attractive, intelligent, socially savvy, and who had a reasonable chance of not divorcing me, I’d be married right now. So would most of the single men I meet.

    Wife material is someone who is solid, brainy, and completely dependable. This is the type of person you want backing you up in life, and is the antithesis of a “doormat”.

    Regards, Boxer

  40. feeriker says:

    Hence……….a woman cop or fire(wo)man……..

    … who overcompensate for their obvious shortcomings by doubling down and trying to be more manly than the men – often resulting in innocent people getting abused, injured, or killed.

  41. greyghost says:

    That doormat thing is spot on. In fact God’s wording was to Adam that he was getting him a helper not a freckin burden.
    from 8oxer
    Wife material is someone who is solid, brainy, and completely dependable. This is the type of person you want backing you up in life, and is the antithesis of a “doormat”.

    That is a no shitter there. And is the foundation of a biblical helper. If the bitch wants to play Christian wife. In other words bring something more than a pussy and a burden.

  42. earl says:

    “the Feminine Imperative is now the Holy Spirit”

    I’ve read up on who the Holy Spirit is…it has nothing to do with the Feminine Imperative.

    Now if you want to read up on demonic spirits…

  43. earl says:

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”

    Galatians 5:22-23

    So if some lady want to go all Holy Spirit on you with her FI…ask her if she is displaying these traits. I guarantee you peace and/or gentleness will not be there.

  44. Moral hypothetical here:

    “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” – Matthew 19:9

    I presume this verse can be interpreted as unisex since Churchian woman use it as the basis for leaving their husbands for spanking off to porn in order to justify their post-divorce cash & prizes. With that in mind, if Vonette were to in fact pull the trigger, drive off and divorce chump Bill, would she then be guilty of the sin of adultery if she remarried another man?

  45. Miserman says:

    8oxer

    A doormat wife would ruin sex. It would be like necrophilia.

  46. earl says:

    “would she then be guilty of the sin of adultery if she remarried another man?”

    Yes, because she already committed it before remarrying another man…as you notice there is no Bible verse allowing a woman the right to divorce. The only way it happened was because she did the nasty with some other dude and her husband divorced her. Even then her husband didn’t have to divorce her. It used to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the days before no-fault only a man could permit divorce.

  47. Bee says:

    @Rollo,

    “With that in mind, if Vonette were to in fact pull the trigger, drive off and divorce chump Bill, would she then be guilty of the sin of adultery if she remarried another man?”

    Yes.

  48. Anonymous age 71 says:

    The last woman I heard talk abou this did not say door mat. She said trained rat. Biggest trained rat I saw in my life, heh, heh.

  49. xna232stang says:

    “I presume this verse can be interpreted as unisex since Churchian woman use it as the basis for leaving their husbands for spanking off to porn in order to justify their post-divorce cash & prizes. With that in mind, if Vonette were to in fact pull the trigger, drive off and divorce chump Bill, would she then be guilty of the sin of adultery if she remarried another man?”

    Yes, verses like these are unisex. Unlike today, where writers treat everyone like morons who need everything spelled out, these verses were written with the understanding that they’d be interpreted as applying to both. There are other examples of these that would be more absurd if they were taken completely literally. I won’t find them, but trust me, they exist.

    But in congregations where simple, easy to understand verses can be rationalized away, imagine what can be done with verses like the above.

    I don’t care if there are beta and omega males stinking the joint up, but what bugs me about these eunuchs is that they feel the need to go around evangelizing their betatude and trying to win converts. The campaign to ensure that all women will indirectly become more “attractive” by ensuring that men are as unattractive as possible is ruthless indeed.

  50. MarcusD says:

    Then there’s this: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=819609

    [...] Nothing really to say…

  51. earl says:

    “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    This verse means a man could divorce his wife if she committed sexual immorality and he would not commit adultery if he married another woman.

    And back then…if a woman did this, she would be out on her ass in the cold or she would have to try her luck with the cad. There was incentive for her to NOT commit adultery.

    There is no unisex to this passage.

  52. freebird says:

    I don’t think any man “needs” that sort of treatment.
    (rollo)

    My hand ain’t gonna deliver me before the black robed and blue costumed agents of satan.

    (Whom obviously rules this world with help of the pretend xians.)

    The wages of sin are..

  53. Derek says:

    The other divorce passages from the Gospels (Mark is definitely unisex – and unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke contain no exception clauses):

    Mark 10:11-21 (ESV)
    And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

    Luke 16:18 (ESV)
    “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

  54. Jeremy says:

    Is there any domain left for men where a woman will not see fit to claim that she must have authority over it?

    I want to say, seriously, to the women who think they must have some authority over everything the man in their life does…

    FUCK YOU.

  55. 8oxer says:

    MarcusD:

    The forum at “Catholic Answers” rivals the forums at “Jezebel”, “Stormfront” and “Feministing” for how many deluded manginas can concentrate in one place online.

    I am not a Catholic, and have no interest in becoming one, but in my experience, Catholic Answers and its message board is not representative of the manly excellence one will frequently find among Catholic clergy, both ordained and lay clergy. People interested in the religion will do much better to seek out a priest in their local area, than listening to anything that is yapped by the women and their mangina footsoldiers on that message board.

    Regards, Boxer

  56. Mark says:

    @feeriker

    “”… who overcompensate for their obvious shortcomings by doubling down and trying to be more manly than the men – often resulting in innocent people getting abused, injured, or killed””

    I agree! I am 190lbs….do you think some 130lbs fire(wo)man is going to throw me over her shoulder and drag my ass out of a burning building?…I highly doubt it! What about the woman cop? What if she tried arresting me and I did not want to be arrested?…..can she “man-handle” me?…I doubt it!

  57. Mark says:

    @Jeremy

    “”I want to say, seriously, to the women who think they must have some authority over everything the man in their life does…

    FUCK YOU””

    My sentiments exactly!

  58. MarcusD says:

    @8oxer

    Yes, the forum is normally not helping the cause of the Faith. The traditional Catholic forums (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/) are generally much better.

  59. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Found another good article.

    http://modernreject.com/2011/03/the-single-christian-woman-blessed-or-doomed/

    A good read…..but,what is better are the comments.Cursor down about halfway through the page and the comments get really good! A real look into the inner workings of the hamster!

  60. Micha Elyi says:

    Men do need to “MAN UP”; but not in the way that the white knights say. Men need to man up and quit giving their committment away to fatties, sluts, and other women who do not deserve committment. Men also need to “MAN UP” and quit supporting these parasite(s)…
    Boxer

    True.

    By the way, anybody here do any business with Citibank? Don’t.

  61. Elspeth says:

    “With that in mind, if Vonette were to in fact pull the trigger, drive off and divorce chump Bill, would she then be guilty of the sin of adultery if she remarried another man?”

    Bill Bright is dead and Vonette Bright has to be at least 80 by now.

  62. Casey says:

    @ Mark:

    Mark said: “………I am 190lbs….do you think some 130lbs fire(wo)man is going to throw me over her shoulder and drag my ass out of a burning building?…I highly doubt it! What about the woman cop? What if she tried arresting me and I did not want to be arrested?…..can she “man-handle” me?…I doubt it!”

    Which is why you rarely see a squad car driven by a woman that doesn’t have ‘backup’ in the passenger seat. (a.k.a. a man)

    The absolute additional COST imposed on police forces should be reason enough to disqualify women from ‘playing cops & robbers’.

    It was rare 30 years ago for a squad car to contain 2 cops in my hometown….now that is all you see.

    A friend of mine years ago worked security for the hospital. One night the police (1 male, 1 female) brought in a drunk who had been injured during some sort of scuffle.

    The female cop flipped open her notepad and was doing some administrative crap when the suspect pulled a knife in the hospital E.R.

    Hospital security (my friend & another male security guard) and the male cop dove on this drunk and wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him, and cuffed him.

    My friend got to his feet, and witnessed the female copy, still standing there with her fucking notepad flipped open…….pen still in hand. A true hero…..things got a little messy, so she let the men clean it up.

    Nice work lady…………..I sure wouldn’t want you to break a ‘nail’ while actually putting ACTIONS behind your fucking hollow ‘EQUALITY’ words.

  63. lzozozlzizoz MAN UPZ!!! zlzzzoo

    hey da HAWAIIAN LIBERTATRISANZ trnaslated mypoemz peoeterzieyz:

    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/those-who-are-responsible.html

    *By making the following section of GBFM’S comment a list, I think the meaning is very easy to discern, so I only offer minor grammatical editing here:

    DA NEOECOCNTHZ
    1. deconstruct the great books on university campuses
    2. tell men they need to man up
    3. dumb down the entire schools system
    4. tell men they need to man up
    5. ass-rape men in divorce court
    6. tell men they need to man up
    7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neo-con wars
    8. tell men they need to man up
    9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
    10. tell men they need to man up
    11. encourage women to give their a-holes and ‘gina-holes early and often to douchebags
    12. tell men they need to man up
    13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neo-con movies, replacing them with ass-cocking gay cowboys
    14. tell men they need to man up
    15. print money from thin air and inflate and deflate bubbles to seize a man’s home and property
    16. tell men they need to man up
    17. encourage women to become fat, whiny bitches
    18. tell men they need to man up
    19. publish, promote, fund, and finance ass-cockers like tucker max who film secretive taping of ass-cocking sessions without the girl’s consent (tucker max rhymes with goldman sachs), repeating tucker’s lies that he is six feet tall in the neo-con mag, the weekly standard.
    20. tell men they need to man up
    21. transform the church from an institution where a man could once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three ass-cockers go to rope in a beta male to pay for the ass-cocker’s spawn
    22. tell men they need to man up
    23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
    24. tell men they need to man up
    25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neo-con women exalting ass-cockers, asscocking, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great books and men, and rewarding the servile future nannies of the nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
    26. tell men they need to man up
    27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocon) and taped it secretly without her consent. Remove all men from the publishing industry and replace deep, profound, real great books for men, with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty “romance” novels.
    28. tell men they need to man up
    29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalize men and force them to hand over their assets to women
    30. tell men they need to man up
    31. financially incentivize womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their future assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assets
    32. tell men they need to ma up
    33. fill the law schools with fat, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks and spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, and replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with Bernake’s Banker laws which exlats theft via the inflation tax
    34. tell men they need to man up.

    lzozoozozol

    what aalalz am i mizssing here:???

  64. YES EALRZ!!! YES!!

    earl says:
    September 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    “The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to blow up the family.”

    The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to go to their other husband…AKA the government (satan). If a nagging woman threatening to leave meant that you would still keep your kids, home, income, etc…most guys would say “goodbye toots!”

    Women have no power to destroy a man…the government and judicial system do. I would venture that is who most guys are submitting to. The woman is just the middleman.”

    As Earl notes, womenz are buttcoked and deousled in collegez and recuriyted into bernanke’s fmaily-detstroying, assett-seizing fmailiez.

    The bolshevickz Trotsky Lenin leveageaged feminismsmz to detsory the family in Russia fmeisnistz fmeinsistz revolustizonz zlzozizzo.

  65. 8to12 says:

    There is an interesting part on Emp’s sight that is also important:

    Bill’s eyes filled with tears, his head dropped a bit, and he began to nod. There was shame and sorrow in his voice as he began to tell about a disagreement that had momentarily threatened their marriage.

    This was obviously added, because they thought Bill Bright was modeling correct Christian behavior for men, but what he is modeling is a man that has “manned down” and turned himself into an emasculated wuss.

    There’s nothing masculine about this and (imho) nothing Christian about it either.

    How many men who are on the cusp of placing their faith in Christ will look at something like this and say to themselves: if becoming a Christian means I have to also become an emasculated wuss, then thanks but no thanks?

  66. Alex Ding says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    I just added your site to one of my main pages, Kick-Ass Sites:

    http://alex-ding.com/kick-ass-sites/

    Keep up the good work!

    [D: Thank you.]

  67. Puzzled Traveller says:

    I would have deep concern over marrying an allegedly Christian woman these days. Matter of fact I think it might be wiser to avoid them. Not only would you have the usual foolishness to deal with but you would come up against an almost unstoppable hamster turbo charged by the word of the Lord and all the crones and she-men at church.

    You can almost hear the conversations “I prayed real hard and I think God is telling me that you need to…” says the wife to her husband. “Pastor Bill says that you…X,Y,Z”

    “I went to the women’s retreat and we all agree that you are being abusive and are in sin for taking that fishing trip with your brother even though I told you we needed new kitchen counter tops…you selfish pig.” “The men’s group is coming over tomorrow to have you meet your accountability partner. I’ll be at my sister’s house until you get your priorities straight.”

    Bleh. Someone else man up and do the dirty work of taming their shrew.

  68. Classical Christianity wisely distributed risk and reward.

    A woman was to submit to her husband and provide him natural ginasexlzozizzizzloz and in return she would have access to his resources.

    Today she gets access to menz reousrces via the goevernementz and random, neggingz, gaming douchbagz menz get access to her butthozzlizlzzizolo.

    Da central banakesterz deosuled the church and da womenz but kept the facade institution of marriage alive so as to buttocck menz into fallacious, corruptz relationshipzz lzzozlzo.

    Modern marriagez is a corurptz benrnake money sheme fornte dby da churhc which does what no PIMP would ver do–charge menz for past use of a pusysysys dat othe rmenz get 4 free zlzizozzlozlzoz while alos getting her bingzzhzozlzilzoizolz as da neooctcotchna like it bets zlzlziuzzli

    lzozizizlzoz

  69. feeriker says:

    I would have deep concern over marrying an allegedly Christian woman these days. Matter of fact I think it might be wiser to avoid them. Not only would you have the usual foolishness to deal with but you would come up against an almost unstoppable hamster turbo charged by the word of the Lord and all the crones and she-men at church.

    Again, don’t confuse “Christian” with “churchian.” Admittedly, the former are as rare as Stradivarius violins; the latter are not only common, but an infestation.

  70. earl says:

    “lzozozlzizoz MAN UPZ!!! zlzzzoo”

  71. Cane Caldo says:

    @Elspeth

    Bill Bright is dead and Vonette Bright has to be at least 80 by now.

    Thank God for everyday miracles. We’re all better off. No more sickly, false tales from him. She’s probably missing him like she should have. Time will have cured her of hubris and he of his effeminate ways, and they will both be reborn in glory.

    I’m often struck not just by how good and just God is, but really smart!

  72. Feminist Hater says:

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/05/report-says-date-rapes-are-on-the-rise-at-harvard/

    Oh, looks like those Harvard chaps have been up to no good again. Tsk tsk, all of 23 ‘reported’ rapes in a whole one year! Be scared wimmenz, be very scared, I suggest you don’t attend Harvard, or Yale for that matter. You’re putting your life at risk!

  73. This was obviously added, because they thought Bill Bright was modeling correct Christian behavior for men, but what he is modeling is a man that has “manned down” and turned himself into an emasculated wuss.

    There’s nothing masculine about this and (imho) nothing Christian about it either.

    Correct. Though its even worse. I frankly do not believe the story as told. I do not believe Rainy asked that question, and immediately Bright hung his head and cried. This tendency is problematic and general, but more on that in a sec.

    Rainy thinks that is the perfect illustration of the Godly man. Hence he bends the truth a little and the ends justify the means in his mind, a “powerful testimony, teaching moment”. Between the image of foot washing, and then this image, we have a construct of the ideal Christian husband. he tries to serve, oh how he tries, but his MALE flesh, well, he cant handle it. Poor guy probably doesn’t light the burner in the morning either to heat the wife all day for sex.

    Ive seen Christians since Ive been a Christian, play very loose with truth when recounting things. It bothers me profoundly. God needs no white lie to express His awesomeness. Naturally i cannot be sure, but its just really hard to imagine that story as told. Frankly, its almost better that it was embellished.

  74. oblivion says:

    mgtow

  75. xna232stang says:

    @Earl

    “This verse means a man could divorce his wife if she committed sexual immorality and he would not commit adultery if he married another woman.

    And back then…if a woman did this, she would be out on her ass in the cold or she would have to try her luck with the cad. There was incentive for her to NOT commit adultery.

    There is no unisex to this passage.”

    Not in the way it’s written, but let’s say the circumstances changed and women weren’t going to be left out in the cold and were, in fact, given the same or perhaps more power to divorce a man as a man had back then. Do you really think this verse wouldn’t apply to them?

  76. earl says:

    “Do you really think this verse wouldn’t apply to them?”

    Adultery does apply to both genders…I think what people forget is the context of the time when this was spoken. Women couldn’t legally divorce..and only men had that power. The only way a woman could even instigate a divorce was to commit adultery first. Then the man decided to let her stay or go.

    So that is what was addressed.

    The no-fault divorce is a law that obviously very corrupt and a huge burden on everyone. Much like the laws the Pharisees were putting on people.

  77. herbie says:

    “It began when Bill had begun to make some key ministry decisions without consulting Vonette, even though the choices he was making directly affected her. One day as they argued about one of these issues, Bill declared, “The decision has been made, and it’s too late to change our plans now.””

    Trying to think of scenario…

    If Bill had decided that the Ministry and the family were relocating to Ethiopia, I can maybe give a pass to the drama hamster overreacting.

    I can imagine this kind of stubborn and inconsiderate behavior causing major turmoil, especially after the ketchup game earlier.

  78. feeriker says:

    “It began when Bill had begun to make some key ministry decisions without consulting Vonette, even though the choices he was making directly affected her.

    Directly affected her in what way?

    Inquiring minds that seek both context and the truth would very much like to know.

    I strongly suspect that FotF’s omission of this detail, however “trivial” or “irrelevant to the discussion at hand” (sez them) is not accidental. In all likelihood the “direct effects” Bill’s decision had on Vonette were relatively trivial, or at least not catastrophic enough to make her put her finger on the marriage destruction button. Far from being of the “we’re moving to Ethiopia next month to take over a mission there, so start packing” variety that Herbie mentions, one that would indeed have life-altering consequences for Vonette and their kids (and that Bill, being a man who, given his position, I would assume has at least a couple of ounces of common sense to his being, would certainly have with consulted Vonette about before making a decision), it’s very likely that the “key decision” was something more along the lines of “The Lord has called upon me to speak at several college campuses around the country for the next month on a set of issues that profoundly affect the youth of America, for which they need moral guidance RIGHT NOW. That means I’ll be on the road for the next four weeks, so there are some responsibilities you’ll have to assume while I’m gone.”

    Something else to chew on for a minute or two: if Bill’s decision that upset Vonette so much had been of the “we’re-moving-to-Ethiopia-next-month” variety, does anyone really think that the Bright’s son would’ve torn into his mother like he did, rather than sympathizing with her and backing her up gainst his father for causing the family so much grief? Me neither.

    Again, for all we know based on FotF (and Bill Bright’s) version of events, maybe Bill did make a life-altering decision that he would have been better of at least informing his wife of in advance (NOT, mind you, “asking her permission” – just informing her, in order to prepare her for what was coming. One doesn’t “ask permission” of one’s wife to do what God commands him to do.). But I doubt it. After all, if the point of FotF’s radio play (and that, as I said upthread, is exactly what I think this ultimately is) is to shame men into being submissive to their wives, wouldn’t it have been in their best interests to have provide the listeners with as much detail as possible? Me too.

    Methinks the real reason that the details of Bill’s decision were left out is because if the listeners were to hear how trivial it was, or at least hear that it was something not even remotely worth ruining a marriage over, it would have undermined not only the Brights’ credibility as preachers of the Gospel, but would also have undermined FotF’s faux legitimacy as “authorities” on Christian marriage and family life.

  79. pabarge says:

    The moral of the story is husbands must always back down when their wives threaten to blow up the family

    Teh sarcasm. It hurts.

  80. feeriker

    Yes, it was left out, in that Rainy did not see it fit to ask. Actually anyone without an agenda would immediately ask, “what was the big deal?”.

    In truth, the question was posed to Bright well in advance of the interview. he knew it was coming and was prepared for it. This is normal. But he couldnt admit any real problems, heavy problems, for a couple of reasons. One, if the problem was one she caused….well….that aint happnin. If the problem was a genuine screw up on his part, he may not want to admit it on air, and he certainly doesn’t want to draw her mind back to it. So, they brainstormed, what cutesy little christiany sounding problem can we over blow and make it seem like a marriage crisis WHILE teaching men how to lead…..er…..submit…..er…..serve their wives? Why that? Because everyone knows the number one problem in Christian marriages is men overdoing headship and not getting that they are servants. Everyone Knows That.

    The whole thing is cartoonishly concocted. Its like those goofy jokes the preachers always tell when they preach on submission. They share a bumbling idiot story about their awkward and ineffectual efforts to romance the creature of beauty, they make themselves out to be oafs, but….yuk yuk yuk…..”thankfully she puts up with me anyway, and guys, dont do like me, you can do better….yuk yuk yuk”….That stuff is mostly made up. The guy went to get flowers turns into how he was clueless about the location of the shop, didn’t know a rose from a tulip, drove across the front yard…etc etc
    From humor to fire and brimstone men are evil or stupid or both

  81. Elspeth says:

    Its like those goofy jokes the preachers always tell when they preach on submission. They share a bumbling idiot story about their awkward and ineffectual efforts to romance the creature of beauty, they make themselves out to be oafs, but….yuk yuk yuk…..”thankfully she puts up with me anyway, and guys, dont do like me, you can do better….yuk yuk yuk”….That stuff is mostly made up. The guy went to get flowers turns into how he was clueless about the location of the shop, didn’t know a rose from a tulip, drove across the front yard…etc etc

    It really bugs me when they do this. Our senior pastor doesn’t (thank goodness) but a couple of the assistant pastors do it.

    In fact, it took me a while into our marriage to recognize that my husband’s way of doing and being was in fact superior (gasp!) to almost every other husband I know except my father. When I was younger I thought all the self-deprecating, wife-as-queen trope was sweet.

    Or I did until I realized that it wasn’t trope, but that the wives were in just about every way that mattered, queens of their own little fiefdoms. I wanted no part of that.

  82. feeriker says:

    It really bugs me when they do this. Our senior pastor doesn’t (thank goodness) but a couple of the assistant pastors do it.

    My casual observation has been that it really depends on the makeup of the congregation on a given Sunday morning as to whether the pastor decides to toss the “husband as Stan Laurel/Oliver Hardy” or “husband as David standing in front of Goliath” image in his sermon. It’s almost always the former when women predominate in numbers present. Interestingly, it’s mostly latter when the pastor is gathered with the men of the congregation on a weekday night “Bible” study (which seldom ever involves the Bible, but that’s more fodder for another rant elsewhere).
    What disgusts me to no end is that the men in the congregation see this hypocrisy, yet never call preacher out on it. Either they’ve been too long immersed in churchian self-emasculation, or they’re afraid that any protest to pastor will echo back to their wives as “husband in rebellion.” Maybe some of both.

  83. What disgusts me to no end is that the men in the congregation see this hypocrisy, yet never call preacher out on it. Either they’ve been too long immersed in churchian self-emasculation,

    The men do not see it. Most men yuk yuk right along with it. They react as they should because they get rewarded with circle rubbing

  84. feeriker says:

    The men do not see it. Most men yuk yuk right along with it. They react as they should because they get rewarded with circle rubbing

    Yes, I believe you’re right, and I stand corrected. A man could expect a warmer and less life-threatening reaction from the Soviet Politburo, circa 1938, for standing up and saying something negative about Stalin than he could expect from any church congregation for standing up and calling out a pastor for saying something unscriptural or improper.

  85. casparreyes says:

    We don’t see it. Adam, the perfect man, didn’t see it. We don’t see it any more than women see their nuclear option as rebellion. We fail to confront the rebellion. That is our rebellion.

  86. 8oxer says:

    Yes, I believe you’re right, and I stand corrected. A man could expect a warmer and less life-threatening reaction from the Soviet Politburo, circa 1938, for standing up and saying something negative about Stalin than he could expect from any church congregation for standing up and calling out a pastor for saying something unscriptural or improper.

    The beauty of the free-market is the lack of necessity to call anyone out. All you Christian and Jewish fellas have to do is to snap the old checkbooks closed and quit supporting these frauds who teach your wives and kids that “fathers are optional” and “banged out hoes make good wives” and similar nonsense.

    Standing up in the religious service to shout the preacher down is actually counterproductive, in the long term. By shouting out disagreements, you’re only lending legitimacy where it isn’t deserved (Herbert Marcuse, the 1960s philosopher, used to talk about the futility of protest — google him for some good points on this).

    Starve these hucksters out, and let them take off their fancy clothes and get a real job. In the mean time, get with some of your solid brothers and sisters to study the religious texts and pray among yourselves. You can be a good Protestant/Catholic/Jew without supporting a bunch of parasites.

    Build your own communities and let the churchians starve. Our whole society (including those of us who aren’t religious) will be better off for this.

    Regards, Boxer

  87. BradA says:

    I see some confusion here. Focus on the Family is the organization James Dobson started, but is no longer a part of. Rainey is with Family Life Today. They are similar in “mission,” but completely different ministries. Dobson has his own ministry now as well with a radio show called Family Talk IIRC.

    I agree with the video Earl posted. Men do need to step up, but not in the way many think. Women are definitely a core part of the problem, but it is men that go along with sinful behavior and actions that are also a part of the problem. I think that enough blame exists to go around to many people. I suspect the speaker in the video would get called a white knight in many of the comment threads were he to post here.

    It takes many individuals, male and female, to build a godly society. The 50s were not Nirvana by any means, but we are certainly headed in a far worse direction now.

    =====

    I am not one to twist Scripture to fit whatever fad, but I think we have to be cautious when we don’t seek to understand the principles it is outlining and instead focus on strict word usage. The latter is vitally important, but may not always tell the whole story.

    This is a subject that has lots of pits and mines all over the place though and I couldn’t do it justice in a single reply or even a full blog post. But we are all foolish if we think men can ever magically make all things right, even if something put them fully “back in charge” as some seem to want.

  88. BradA says:

    Are my posts getting banned somehow? I am not seeing them after posting. I am not sure if anyone will see this though.

    [D: The wordpress spam filter flagged your last comment for some reason. I noticed it and fished it out before deleting the rest of the spam bin.]

  89. BradA says:

    Well that is a pain. Logging in after making the post before the previous one put it in the bit bucket. I need to get in the habit of copying things before I press the post button it seems.

  90. BradA says:

    Let me try this again:

    I see some confusion here over organization.

    FotF refers to Focus on the Family and is the organization James Dobson started a long time ago, but parted ways with for some reason a few years back. He has a new show called Family Talk, though I am not sure if that is the name of his new organization. Family Life Today is the one with Dennis Rainey. All three of these organizations cover similar topics and seem to have consistent views, but they are completely different groups.

    ========

    I like the video Earl posted and generally agree with that individual. I suspect he would be called a white knight if he posted comments here though, since he doesn’t claim that women have 100% of the responsibility for fixing things. Christians will do much better when they stop exactly any one individual, but I suspect that will be a long time coming, if ever. It is definitely a human trait. Someone will have the preeminence based on how things have worked in the past.

    (Sorry for the extra comments above. Feel free to delete those Dalrock if you can. I had another reply eaten the other day.)

  91. Dear BradA,

    You write, “I like the video Earl posted and generally agree with that individual. I suspect he would be called a white knight if he posted comments here though, since he doesn’t claim that women have 100% of the responsibility for fixing things.”

    Women initiate 80% of the abortions and execute 100% of the abortions by their choice alone.

    Dear BradA, are you saying that the 50,000,000+ murdered babies since Roe vs Wade are the man’s fault? How so?

  92. Puzzled Traveller says:

    Yeah that’s the thing that really stuck out to me about this story, what exactly was this awful decision he made? I gotta agree that it was likely trivial in order for the son to call his mom out. Especially since they decided to not reveal that little tidbit in the write up, methinks it was concealed with ill purpose.

  93. BradA says:

    @GBFM,
    > “Dear BradA, are you saying that the 50,000,000+ murdered babies since Roe vs Wade are the man’s fault? How so?”

    Yes, it was 5 of them in black robes shoved the law on the whole country, though it was fairly widespread even prior to that. Men voted over time for their pocketbooks and such rather than for what is right.

    Men acquiesced, at the very least, to what happened.

    Note that none of this says women are innocent, but it takes a man of character to transform things. See the life of Daniel for a good example of one man who stood up against the flow in spite of strong odds otherwise.

  94. BradA says:

    Thanks Dalrock. I must have gotten flagged that way somehow. Now everyone can see how I say basically the same thoughts twice.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    BradA
    I like the video Earl posted and generally agree with that individual. I suspect he would be called a white knight if he posted comments here though, since he doesn’t claim that women have 100% of the responsibility for fixing things.

    Clearly you haven’t bothered to actually read the site, don’t know what white knighting is, and the Apex fallacy is a foundational premise to your thought.

    Here’s direct question BradA: are adult women responsible for their actions, or not?

  96. lozozlo says:

    @Rollo

    Once again, the Feminine Imperative is now the Holy Spirit, and women are conveniently the only ones with the authority to assume the voice of God.

    I think what you are saying is that the FI has, in the mind of the Churchians, pushed aside God and His Truth ,given to us via the Holy Spirit in the Bible (one of the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN lzozlzlzo)?

    It seems that Earl has a different interpretation though…so I just wanted to ask for clarification, if I may.

    Thanks!

  97. Feminist Hater says:

    BradA, 5 men in robes make murder legal but every single woman who aborts does so with willful consent each and every time. Just because the corrupt and brought officials and judges debase your laws does not make the sin any less the person’s fault for partaking in it. It merely releases their true character for all the world to see.

    If tomorrow rape was legal, would you partake in it or not?

  98. greyghost says:

    BradA has that tendency to play the male headship game. He doesn’t seem to see as headship to hold women to account for decisions and action they have taken. The bible is used as a support for this way of thinking as so it is a strong belief that is a huge pussy pass.
    The question of women’s agency doesn’t matter in a sense. Yes they are responsible for their actions and need to be held to account. The thing is no woman sees it that way and never has though out history. The capacity to understand agency doesn’t exist in women period. (they don’t love) A sane civilized society and civilization takes that into account. as long as women are in authority over a society we will have what brought us all here to the manosphere in the first place.

  99. “BradA says:
    September 6, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    @GBFM,
    > “Dear BradA, are you saying that the 50,000,000+ murdered babies since Roe vs Wade are the man’s fault? How so?”

    Yes, it was 5 of them in black robes shoved the law on the whole country, though it was fairly widespread even prior to that. Men voted over time for their pocketbooks and such rather than for what is right.

    Men acquiesced, at the very least, to what happened.

    Note that none of this says women are innocent, but it takes a man of character to transform things. See the life of Daniel for a good example of one man who stood up against the flow in spite of strong odds otherwise.”

    Note how BradA says, “it takes a man of character to transform things,” but Brad does not say “it takes a woman of character to transform things.”

    Note also how BradA is not trying to transform anything, but just white-knighting and blaming every aborted little, innocent baby on men, from where he derives great and vast pleasure.

    BradA’s cherubic, puffy face is the modern face of churchian christianity.
    It is the face of the Decline of the West.
    It is the face of the Modern American Man.
    It is the face of divorce, debauchery, and letting your woemn get butetcockedz and desouled.
    It is the face of Eve as she suck on da lsostas cockas Serpent.
    It is the face of a neutered, little boy, worming his way in word games.
    It is the face of those who crucified Christ.

    Only a crazy, man-hating, Christ-hating, self-loathing Cretin would blame abortion on men first and foremost. But that is what makes BradA’s butt tingelzlozzlzizizozl.

    Thank God the Bible was written by Men and not BradA’s!

    Not only would BradA have had Adam be punished for Eve’s transgressions, but BradA would have punished GOD (The higher law) for Eve’s transgressions. And Satan would have emerged from the tomb of Christ instead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. As such are the notions that make the puffy, cherubic-faced BRadA’s butt go tingzzlzozlzuzyzlzlzozlzozlz, as he claps his man-hating hands every time a baby is aborted, so the sniveling Judas can use it as a prop to further condemn and blame men–his favorite past-time.

    lzozozizzlzozl

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Greyghost, “headship” all too often is just the same old same old White Knighting. That is, women are to be treated as adults, totally co-equal with men, in terms of choices they can make.

    But when it’s time to discuss responsibility, suddenly women are that “weaker vessel”, i.e. they are children who cannot be held to account for anything they do.

    Choices for women, responsibility for men. Women order off the menu, men pay the bill, or else.
    Women write the checks, men cover them at the bank. I can go on and on with analogies…

    This is feminism. This is, all too often, “traditional conservatism” as well. Because “traditional conservatism” is just liberalism circa 1975 or so in far too many cases. Why? Because “traditional conservatives” tend to define themselves almost entirely in terms of what they oppose (modern left liberalism) and thus they allow themselves to be defined by their putative enemies.

  101. earl says:

    “It seems that Earl has a different interpretation though…so I just wanted to ask for clarification, if I may.”

    I think we have the same idea.

    My interpration of the Holy Spirit is from the Bible. What I think Rollo is saying is that churches have replaced the Holy Spirit with whatever the woman wants….so they’ve turned the FI into the Holy Spirit.

    And these spirit are not the same.

  102. MarcusD says:

    The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s produced sweeping, far-reaching, fundamental changes in sexual behaviours, sexual desires, and sexual attitudes. Or did it? On closer inspection, many researchers concluded that men did not change all that much in their desires and attitudes, and their behaviour only changed because they got more opportunities to do what men had always been wanting to do. In contrast, women changed in much more fundamental ways. After the revolution, women approached sex and felt about their bodies in ways that differed sharply from previous generations (e.g., Birenbaum, 1970; Schmidt & Sigusch, 1972; Arafat & Yorburg, 1973; Bauman & Wilson, 1974; Ehrenreich et al., 1986).

    Baumeister, Roy F. “Gender and erotic plasticity: Sociocultural influences on the sex drive.” Sexual and relationship therapy 19.2 (2004): 133-139.

    —-

    The above quote (in a more philosophical way) is important also for the reasons that Anonymous Reader mentioned (above): TradCons and feminists both desire for men to continue in their same behaviors and responsibilities, but decide to restrict authority in favor of women possessing it. It’s seemingly one of the most important patterns to emerge in the last 50 years – women can do more (or all), but men have to do what they’ve always been responsible for. The idiom, “you can’t have the best of both worlds,” seems to be untrue in the latest iteration of society. Women can have the best of both worlds. The Eastern European version, “you can’t have the wolf fed and the lamb safe,” seems oddly appropriate, as well. In a sense, TradCons are preserving part of traditional society, but it’s quite convenient what they are preserving. Feminism wants the bill paid (just look around…), so it’s no surprise they would help TradCons out on that issue.

  103. earl says:

    “Women initiate 80% of the abortions and execute 100% of the abortions by their choice alone.

    Dear BradA, are you saying that the 50,000,000+ murdered babies since Roe vs Wade are the man’s fault? How so?”

    I’ll answer…men made those laws and technology possible. From what I can tell…the male “doctors” perform the abortions (I have yet to hear of a female abortionist).

    There is shared responsibility…it is probably the chicken-egg scenario. But men make the laws and technology and women take advantage of them.

    Even though there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth…if men decided to make abortion and birth control illegal and have only Biblical divorce as law…women wouldn’t get away with this stuff at the alarming rates they do. But like the first blood of heroes…the first guy that has the sack to do this will be tarred and feathered.

  104. earl says:

    In fact that video there opened my eyes more to the fact that women do have to take responsiblity for their actions. I was wrong in the fact that they are just manipulated into what they are doing. They have to make the choice into BEING manipulated.

    So going back to Eve…she chose to be manipulated into biting the apple…Adam chose to be manipulated by her. That is how sin works…and why it is important for the men to be the authority and take her requests with a huge grain of salt.

    If Adam chose to be manipulated by God…Eve might have told the serpent to shove off.

  105. greyghost says:

    Earl that last two comments you made are the best you have ever made.

  106. Earl writes,

    “I’ll answer…men made those laws and technology possible. From what I can tell…the male “doctors” perform the abortions (I have yet to hear of a female abortionist).”

    Yes–if Earl never heard of it, it must not exist!

    “Women were much more likely than male doctors to say they would do an abortion (18.6 percent v. 10.6 percent); doctors aged 26-35 and 56-65 were more likely to say they would do abortions compared to those 36-45 and 46-55; and physicians in urban areas were more likely to say they would do an abortion compared with doctors in smaller cities and rural settings. Meanwhile, doctors in the Northeast or West are more likely to say they would do an abortion versus those in the South or Midwest.”

    Earl writes, “There is shared responsibility…it is probably the chicken-egg scenario. But men make the laws and technology and women take advantage of them.”

    What Earl is saying is that because he is a man, the blood of all the aborted are on his hands, because as a man, he made the law and the technology. To further add to his sins, instead of trying to reform the law, Earl spends his time spouting false statistics in blog comments section, as Earl is Happy with the laws he has made as a man.

    Earl writes, “Even though there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth…if men decided to make abortion and birth control illegal and have only Biblical divorce as law…women wouldn’t get away with this stuff at the alarming rates they do. But like the first blood of heroes…the first guy that has the sack to do this will be tarred and feathered.”

    What Earl is saying is that he has no sack, which, in his view, makes him just like a woman and absolves him from sin and responsibility.

  107. MarcusD says:

    I have yet to hear of a female abortionist

    There are a sizable number of them. Ironically, I’ve heard of accusations of gender discrimination in that field/occupation. Anyhow, one notable female abortionist was Ruth Barnett, who performed approximately 40,000 abortions in Portland, Oregon, between 1918 and 1968.

  108. The above stats on genders of doctors performing abortions come from here:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/23/fewer-doctors-willing-to-do-abortions-new-study-shows/

    “Women were much more likely than male doctors to say they would do an abortion (18.6 percent v. 10.6 percent); doctors aged 26-35 and 56-65 were more likely to say they would do abortions compared to those 36-45 and 46-55; and physicians in urban areas were more likely to say they would do an abortion compared with doctors in smaller cities and rural settings. Meanwhile, doctors in the Northeast or West are more likely to say they would do an abortion versus those in the South or Midwest.”

    But no need for research when you can just “Earl” the data! :)

  109. earl says:

    “Earl that last two comments you made are the best you have ever made.”

    Thank you.

    If used correctly…it may be the best weapon to shut down the hamster. Even though the chorus of “blaming the victim” will erupt.

    Blah blah this man did this to me blah blah.

    Yeah what he did was bad…but you chose that man or to be in the situation to have those bad things happen to you.

    It even reminds me of something I heard a long time ago.

    Men do the picking…but women do the chosing.

  110. greyghost says:

    Follow your own comment Earl. The Hamster will never shut down for any logical or hysterical reason. White knighting and traditional men and blue pill betas with a romantic desire to see women as pure and good are the ones that need to understand. As horrifying as it looks red pill truth about women makes it easier to love women pain free than masking the reality with romantic delusions. (women like it too not based on what they tell you or how they vote but on how stable they become day to day in civil society) Once women are understood to be completely unnecessary for a society things change.

  111. earl says:

    “Once women are understood to be completely unnecessary for a society things change.”

    Well they aren’t completely unnecessary…they are the ones who desire their husbands and have to incubate a human for 9 months.

    So it is important for them to get married to a man they desire and to not dabble with sexual affairs unless it is in marriage….as this will effect both their desire and fertility the more slutty they become. If they marry a man they desire chances are she wouldn’t want to divorce him.

    That’s where their virtues lie.

    And women most likely would think twice if they didn’t have access to any form of birth control so they could keep their pregancy risk down while they try the cads…or weren’t cheered on to do these things by their evil stepsisters and white knights.

  112. greyghost says:

    So it is important for them to get married to a man they desire and to not dabble with sexual affairs unless it is in marriage….as this will effect both their desire and fertility the more slutty they become. If they marry a man they desire chances are she wouldn’t want to divorce him.

    That’s where their virtues lie.

    Women are with out virtue. They will BEHAVE that way when they know and feel it gets them the most under the guidance of hypergamy. in other words women don’t change and cant they will be the same slut baby mommas we see today frivorcing and twerking today all done for what ever personal selfish gain they think they are getting. (no need for reality of results) That same selfish drive with the same wicked selfishness will cause a women to avoid sex outside of marriage and behave with virtuous femininity if that is what gets her what she things is the most for her period. Any other thoughts is pure bullshit That is women. she is good because that is what she wants you to think about her.

  113. Brad
    he doesn’t claim that women have 100% of the responsibility for fixing things.

    I’m not aware of anyone saying women must fix things. It is often said that women must be fixed, very very different Brad. You are conflating and obfuscating like women do in discourse. Most Christian men here are 100% on board with men’s fault and men sorting it out. You miss that part the sorting is sorting women out. We’ve tried doing it by empathy and sympathy and SERVANT (big bold font) leadership. Now maybe we try by fiat.

  114. Grey
    all done for what ever personal selfish gain they think they are getting

    You are affording them too much credit in how they decide and go about things. They mainly lack sufficient cause and effect understanding, which would also include the ability to cause themselves gain as an effect of some planned present action.

  115. MarcusD says:

    Not that I agree with the viewpoint, but I will cite the etymology of the word “virtue”:

    virtue (n.)
    early 13c., “moral life and conduct, moral excellence,” vertu, from Anglo-French and Old French vertu, from Latin virtutem (nominative virtus) “moral strength, manliness, valor, excellence, worth,” from vir “man” (see virile).

  116. lozozlo says:

    @Earl

    Then we are in agreement.

    Love your posts, BTW.

  117. LiveFearless says:

    FOTF, FL, FR,FLR,Kendrick Brothers… Who really pays for their airtime, distribution, influence…? Interscope records has talented performing artists like Lady Gaga, Carly Rae Jepsen, Imagine Dragons, Ellie Goulding and Robin Thicke. Robin Thicke performs #1 song “Blurred Lines” – you probably heard it because of the State Farm sponsored MTV VMA’s &
    Miley Cyrus’ Twerking … Interscope is ‘owned’ by the same entities that ‘own’ the top CCM music labels. Don’t like the content of FOTF,FL,FR,FLR? You have a choice. Complain (ineffective), or start your own entity.

  118. BradA says:

    Several of you, such as AR, reinforced my point. Anyone who doesn’t hold women completely responsible for the problems is dissed. Right.

    I hold to individual responsibility, not blaming a single sex. Those who would do otherwise are ignoring a huge part of the problem.

  119. BradA says:

    LiveFearless, your argument was a big issue back in the dawn of CCM. It would apply to just about everything, including computers and even blogging sites. It is quite hard to get fully segregated that way today. Should Dalrock flee since I am sure WordPress has many bloggers that are completely wrong?

    That would be foolish.

  120. Dear BradA,

    You write, “I hold to individual responsibility, not blaming a single sex. Those who would do otherwise are ignoring a huge part of the problem.”

    When a woman commits a murder and kills an unborn baby, above you blame men, stating it was four men in black robes who killed the baby.

    How is this individual responsibility? You are stating the women had four accomplices in an act she performed alone. She chose to murder the baby, spread her legs, and had it murdered/vacuumed, not the men, and yet you blame the men. Does all the white knighting really get you laid, or just make you tingzlzlzo?

    If a man aborts a baby without the woman’s permission, is this also the fault of distant judges in black robes?

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    From what I can tell…the male “doctors” perform the abortions (I have yet to hear of a female abortionist).

    I met one a few years back, a friend-of-a-friend, although she insisted that she was not an abortionist but rather a surgeon who sometimes performed abortions. She “solved problems” for her patients, in her eyes, and some “problems” were “solved” via a D & C.

    Spend some time on the more radical feminist websites, and not only can you read about women abortionists, you can read about women herbalists who will help induce abortion in the “natural”, or “organic” way. Why do you suppose the original Hippocratic Oath, sometime back around 400 BC, included a clause about not prescribing any abortofacient?

    Back away from the pedestal, Earl…it’s not doing you any good.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Even though there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth…if men decided to make abortion and birth control illegal and have only Biblical divorce as law…women wouldn’t get away with this stuff at the alarming rates they do.

    Still have that problem with “some” and “all”, Earl. Men and women have been publicly opposing abortion for 40 years, passing laws that are struck down by the US Supreme Court, picketing abortion mills, and so forth. But most of these people are lower class to middle class. The UMC and upper class don’t want to give up abortion. And that’s where the country’s leaders come from. So nothing changes.

    “Some” and “all” are not synonyms.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    BradA
    Several of you, such as AR, reinforced my point. Anyone who doesn’t hold women completely responsible for the problems is dissed. Right.
    I hold to individual responsibility, not blaming a single sex. Those who would do otherwise are ignoring a huge part of the problem.

    BradA: Please read this article from Wikipedia, and avoid the use of this logical fallacy in the future.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Once again, I ask the direct question that BradA apparently will not answer:

    Are adult women responsible for their actions, or not?

    Does this “individual responsibility” apply to individual women, or not?

  124. BradA says:

    So you can’t read AR? I said all individuals are responsible for their actions. Maybe you need to read your own links before you post them.

    Blaming one sex is not appropriate any more than blaming the other is.

  125. Dear BradA,

    You write, “Blaming one sex is not appropriate any more than blaming the other is.”

    So when a woman murders a baby, both men and women are to blame?

    What about when a man murders a baby? Are women to blame too?

  126. Anonymous age 71 says:

    BradA says:
    September 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    >>I hold to individual responsibility, not blaming a single sex.

    As I have written many times over the years living in a different culture changes your view of your own native culture.

    In Mexico, the men have control of the political system, and use that control to abuse women to some extent. Thus, men, not women, are responsible for that abuse in whatever form it exists, even if there are women who aid and support that abuse.

    In the US, the women have control of the political system. Thus, women, not men, are responsible for that abuse in whatever form it exists, even if there are men who aid and support that abuse.

    The Supreme Court most likely did not initiate abortion, pretending it was in the Constitution, because ala Marx they wanted to destroy the nation. They responded to the whining and belly-aching of dearies. Once again, woman-fault. If women universally had renounced abortion, it would have never happened.

    No one is going to fix anything. This same nonsense, women taking over the civilization until they destroy it, has happened a number of times in history, and never have the men been able to re-take control again. And, there is no sign of it happening this time, either.

    I have tried to imagine what it would take to turn things around. The only possible way would be for something horrid to kill off millions of human beings, perhaps even decimate the world’s population.

    A major asteroid strike? A major epidemic? A total halt to the world’s economy for some reason, coupled with mass starvation?

    One thing I guarantee you will not reverse things. Talk-talk on boards. Deep intellectual discussions on “the way it should be.” Insults and name-calling on men’s boards and blogs.

    Women have control of the political system, and there is nothing happening which will force them to capitulate on these issues.

    If we had time the marriage strike would bring them to the table. But, we don’t have time. The collapse of the US is possible any time now. That does not mean it is going to happen at this minute. But, we are within the time range of possible collapse right now.

  127. TFH says:

    Sheesh, these parasites know no limits :

    From the NYT, ‘alimony for your eggs’.

    Since, you know, the man owes the woman. Nevermind that she was only going to use 10-20% of her lifetime reproductive potential, and only planned to have her first kid after 30 (when 80% of the eggs are already gone).

  128. Michael says:

    This Michael with your weekly spinster report coming to you live from Los Angeles :

    TWO FATTIES.
    TWO FATTIES.

    Hit on me at takami Sushi Bar. I had purchased a $450.00 watch before lunch and was taking the elevator down. TWO FATTIES got in said hello asked me where I was coming from…. my name… introducing themselves…. talking as fast as possible in as little time as possible. I was polite because I was in a really good mood and felt really relaxed. I said I just bought the watch it’s in this package… and the other says: YA WE WERE JUST CHECKING OUT YOUR PACKAGE while looking me up and down and this black dude starts snickering at me Now I think these TWO FATTIES were inebriated/ drunk because there is a bar called Elevate Lounge on the same floor and they were not in the sushi area. The other one says “let me see! let me see the watch!” and I’m like okay and show them the watch. The door opened and they started talking and I was like ya ya uh-huh ya nice meeting you .. have a nice night.. I gotta go.. I gotta go trying to brush them off.

    AS I was getting into my car my mood changed. I became really angry. I was really pissed off. I didn’t want TWO FATTIES talking to me. I wanted a CUTE GIRL IN HER TWENTIES TO TALK TO ME. Not TWO FATTIES. Perhaps they could smell the Sushi on me and were hungry. Who knows. But the thing that pisses me off is not only this happens to me and other guys I know (I’ve confirmed with the neighbor – we are the roughly same age and single) happens with confident fives and spinsters..

    What SHOULD be happening is CUTE GIRLS WHO ARE ALSO SINGLE AND “EQUAL” AT LEAST IN TERMS OF APPEARANCE SAYING HELLO IN PROPORTION TO THE FATTIES AND SPINSTERS . At least 5-10% OF THE TIME.

    But it’s not. It’s always Spinsters and Fatties. Always. And every time it leaves me feeling DEJECTED. It RUINS my social confidence/mood. There is NO WAY I’m on the salve level as these women. Even if I made 1/2 as much money and weighed twice as much. Yet = it always makes me DOUBT MYSELF and SECOND GUESS MYSELF. EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME. I start thinking “If these are the women hitting on me maybe that’s all I’m for” Then I have to fight those negative feelings and pull myself out of it.

    What do I have to do? Dress like booger from Revenge of the Nerds? Wear a no smoking sign T-shirt but with “spinsters” and “fatties” instead of “no smoking”?

    And I’m just a 7 in looks. I can’t imagine how this must be for guys who are actually “Alpha Male” 9’s and 10’s. I invite any single man on this forum who carries himself well (no socially awkward guys) of an appearance rating of at least a 6 to come to Los Angeles and tell me if you don’t get hit on my confident 5’s, fatties and spinsters at least a few times a week going out.

  129. RichardP says:

    Why does the Bible make the point that Eve was deceived, but Adam was not – if not to hold one gender more accountable than the other? Excusing women from the consequences of their choices appears to be a very Biblical concept. At least in parts of the Bible. (Consider also the requirements placed on the maiden caught lying in the field with a man in the Old Testament; none.) From the time I was a youngster I could never reconcile the “Eve was deceived but Adam wasn’t … therefore …” meme with the “all will give an account before God at the Judgement Seat” meme. If all will be judged according to the same standard, what difference did it make that Eve was deceived (or whatever way that idea plays out in our modern relationship with God)? Always made me wonder if there will be a different standard of accountability for women at the Judgement Seat. “Eve was deceived (so, not as accountable as Adam?) …”; “Of him to whom much is given, much shall be required (men rather than women?); Of him to whom little is given, little shall be required (women rather than men?) …”; etc.

    Also, study the changing biology of humans: men become more like women as they age, due to fall-off of testosterone and rise of progesterone. “Weepy old men” is a recognized phenomenon because of this. Women become more like men as they age, due to the fall-off of estrogen and progesterone (voices may deepen; they get more hairy; become less nurturing). Scientists can make male rats “nuturing” and female rats “agressive”and “domineering” by manipulating their respective levels of testosterone and progesterone.

    There is more to all of this than just “choose to do it”. You did not choose to be born. Neither did you choose your gender. Neither did you choose your unique hormonal make-up. You do not have free choice; rather, you have constrained choice. Your ability to choose (and what you have to choose from) is constrained by all of the things mentioned in this post, plus more. There is more to all of this than simple human agency. Those who insist that any given person can choose to be whatever they want to be – they just have to decide to choose – are showing themselves to be seriously uninformed.

  130. Michael says:

    “Why does the Bible make the point that Eve was deceived, but Adam was not – if not to hold one gender more accountable than the other?”

    Exactly

  131. RichardP says:

    Please add to the list of things we really have no choice over in my previous post the biology behind mental disease and mood disorders. I meant to include that and forgot.

  132. MarcusD says:

    @TFH

    Oh. Wow. They don’t stop trying, do they? “Men as beasts of burden.”

    They also have a really wrong-headed definition of “justice,” too.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    BradA
    So you can’t read AR? I said all individuals are responsible for their actions. Maybe you need to read your own links before you post them.

    I can read. Twice I have asked if you hold women – individual women – responsible for their actions. And twice you squirm around, but you can’t seem to do it.

    Blaming one sex is not appropriate any more than blaming the other is.

    Once again I ask, BradR: are individual women responsible for their actions, or not?

    Can you respond? Can you hold individual women to the same standard that you clearly hold men? I doubt it.

  134. Hey AR,

    It appears that BradA is not just a member of the mangina white-knighting club–he is the president!

    And thus he is unable to give a direct answer to a simple question, like a man might.

    Above BradA blames the blood of the 50,000,000+ abortions, made by a woman’s choice alone, on men. BradA seems to take great pride in all the blood on his hands, as he has done nothing to overturn the law, nor does he ever speak out against abortion. Instead, he rails against, castigates, and impugns men, bearing false witness.

    Yes–BradA sins against Jesus Christ by bearing false witness against men and blaming men for the deaths of 50,000,000 murdered babies, which were in reality murdered by the choice of women alone.

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Aged 71
    No one is going to fix anything. This same nonsense, women taking over the civilization until they destroy it, has happened a number of times in history, and never have the men been able to re-take control again. And, there is no sign of it happening this time, either.

    Once again, “Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb is a must – read.

    One thing I guarantee you will not reverse things. Talk-talk on boards. Deep intellectual discussions on “the way it should be.” Insults and name-calling on men’s boards and blogs.

    No, but if some number of men who know the truth about women manage to survive long enough, they can provide a nucleus for some node of civilization.

  136. Slargtarg says:

    The New frontier in divorce theft:

    THE end of a marriage is always sad, but divorce can be particularly devastating for a woman who still wants children but whose fertility is on the decline. Her ex may have many years left to start a new family of his own, but by the time she meets a new partner, it may be too late.

    Ronald G. Lieberman, a family law attorney in Haddonfield, N.J. Mr. Lieberman is asking his client’s soon-to-be-former husband of eight years to pay $20,000 to cover her egg-freezing procedure, medication costs and several years of egg storage. “When they got married, the expectation was they would start a family,” he told me. “Now she might not have the chance much longer.”

    Alimony for Your Eggs

  137. greyghost says:

    empathologism

    all done for what ever personal selfish gain they think they are getting

    You are affording them too much credit in how they decide and go about things. They mainly lack sufficient cause and effect understanding, which would also include the ability to cause themselves gain as an effect of some planned present action.

    It is very difficult to explain in a comment block. The “gain” is the drama of the endless pursuit of hypergamy with success being toasted ice. every thing from gina tingle social status,image, money ,fear emotional excitement, tenderness , roughness, hard soft doesn’t matter it all matters. A civil society will have women behaving with feminine virtue as the path to toasted ice. That is the best you are going to get. And we are god damn sure are not going to get there by making women virtuous.

  138. greyghost says:

    Slargtarg
    Ronald G. Lieberman, a family law attorney in Haddonfield, N.J. Mr. Lieberman is asking his client’s soon-to-be-former husband of eight years to pay $20,000 to cover her egg-freezing procedure, medication costs and several years of egg storage. “When they got married, the expectation was they would start a family,” he told me. “Now she might not have the chance much longer.”
    Lieberman will most likely get shot for even trying that stunt. That is a tailor made murder suicide emotion generator right there.

  139. greyghost says:

    No, but if some number of men who know the truth about women manage to survive long enough, they can provide a nucleus for some node of civilization.

    This is where I am at Anon 71. I’m more interested in owning weapons and surviving off grid. Maybe buy a machine that cuts eye glass prescriptions.

  140. At the risk of sounding like GBFM, something tells me that maybe BradA works in the bankster industry. Private gain with public risk sounds like the same underlying premise as woman gain (individually) men pay (universally). Also, we can note the “greater fool theory” of investing in women. The last idiot married me and I came up roses, surely there is an even bigger idiot out there to marry me up now that I’m older, EPL you go grrrl! And when she falls on her face BradA will be right there to remind us that we have ALL failed the wimminz. “Equal” blame to go around.

  141. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, gotta agree with GBFM here. The whole point of abortion legalese was to remove the choice from men and give it to women. At the fundamental level, it has worked wonders. Her body, her choice, remember, Bradsky!?

  142. hoellenhund2 says:

    “No one is going to fix anything. This same nonsense, women taking over the civilization until they destroy it, has happened a number of times in history, and never have the men been able to re-take control again. And, there is no sign of it happening this time, either.”

    That’s a given. This civilization obviously doesn’t appear to be salvageable any longer. But the Manosphere can still benefit the men of future societies by holding up our current situation as an example to avoid. The men of the future need to learn that they must resist the Feminine Imperative if they are not to become beasts of burden, they need to learn that democracy and female suffrage lead to inevitable collapse, tyranny and stagnation. That’s why I suggested before that the best minds of the sphere should get together and write a book or something to catalogue the current malaise and how we got here. Something on par with the works of the great authors of Ancient Rome and whatnot.

  143. earl says:

    “But no need for research when you can just “Earl” the data! ”

    I said I wasn’t aware…everytime in the news I hear about male abortion doctors. I don’t doubt there are female abortion doctors.

    And saying you’ll do an abortion…and actually having the business doing it are two different things.

  144. earl says:

    “Back away from the pedestal, Earl…it’s not doing you any good.”

    What pedestal?

    Why are you so quick to judge and put me down? Maybe I’m starting to figure things out…and your insults are complicating the process.

    I’m seeing the truth about women…they are driving the decline of civilization. Men need to stop following them down the wide path…and go back to the narrow gate.

  145. earl says:

    In fact here’s a little lesson for all the men around here.

    Present your facts…and keep your pride and judgements of proving somebody wrong out of it. You might get somewhere. I’m just as guilty as anybody else…but I’m trying to change.

    I’ve had a big epiphany…quit raining on my parade.

    I get that women are driving this…they take advantage of what is presented to them. However it would be better to focus our fury on the few evil men that either cave into white knighting corrupt laws…or more than likely set up this fiat system so they can get all the souls and money.

    The government and judicial system (Satan) is the enemy and the women are the middlemen.

  146. Earl writes, “In fact here’s a little lesson for all the men around here.

    Present your facts…and keep your pride and judgements of proving somebody wrong out of it. You might get somewhere. I’m just as guilty as anybody else…but I’m trying to change.”

    There you go again with, “I’m just as guilty as anybody else.” Fuck you Earl, you arrogant bearer of false witness against innocent men and rank, rabid disobeyer of Christ and Moses. Just as men are not guilty for women’s sins as BradA accuses us of being, we are not guilty for your sins. :) So stop bearing false witness against innocent men just to boost your vast and unbounded ego.

    Hey Earl, why not try following the words of Christ for change, instead of preaching to others?

    Matthew 7:3-5
    King James Version (KJV)
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    Are not Catholics supposed to honor the teachings of Jesus Christ, even if they pull false statistics out of bughizlzzizozlzo and pass them off as the gospel truth?

    Go forth Earl, and sin no more.

    lzozozlolozlzl

  147. Earl writes, “I get that women are driving this…they take advantage of what is presented to them. However it would be better to focus our fury on the few evil men that either cave into white knighting corrupt laws…or more than likely set up this fiat system so they can get all the souls and money.

    The government and judicial system (Satan) is the enemy and the women are the middlemen.”

    So Earl, why do you spend so much time attacking men on this blog and accusing them of your sins? Why do you make up fiat statistics and pass them off as gospel truth?

    Also Earl, are you a fucking idiot?

    You write, “The government and judicial system (Satan) is the enemy and the women are the middlemen.”

    Have you ever fucking looked at the Supreme Court Earl? Are only the men to blame on it, while the women are innocent and absolved of all their decisions?

    What about the fucking House or Senate Earl? Are only the men to blame in the house and senate, while the women are innocent and absolved of all their decisions?

    Who the fuck ever gave you the power, Earl, to condemn men on false charges and bear false witness against all men, while absolving all women from any responsibility?

    Are you that desperate to get laid? Why, as a supposed Christian, are you leading with your baser butt tinzgzlzozizngzzllzozoz over the Law of Moses and Christ?

    Earl is one of the biggest white-knighting manginas in the manosphere.

    Earl blames all the men for their sins in this photo:

    And he also blames them all for all the sins of the women.

    Apparently Earl has a huge crush on Ginsburg and is hoping his man-hating, fale-witness-bearing, Christ-hating. white-knighting manginary will gain him access to her bunhgzhzzozlzozlzlozzlzozozzizlzoizzlzoizozlzo. lzozlzoz

  148. Pingback: According to the Bible, Women Are Incapable of Love

  149. Above BradA blames the blood of the 50,000,000+ abortions, made by a woman’s choice alone, on men.

    If women could not vote, abortion would be far less available if not outright banned. I offer possible exceptions for California, and maybe…only maybe New York. If you oppose abortion, who populates the other side of the debate? If a man, he is token. In Texas who was running amok around the capital building? Women.

    It is hair splitting to say male doctors are doing the procedure. How do men play into “its her body her choice”? And when SHE chooses to lay still for the procedure, how is that on men? At best they share the irresponsible pregnancy.

    This, Brad, is what they (think) they wanted. They have had no restrictions for so long, no stigma, nothing but women are better than men thrown at them for decades. Men participate in that stupidity because they want The Lift.

    Whether women have or do not have agency, it should be imputed on them, like a mans income for CS levels, b y society and the church. You try and have it both ways, like most who want to keep on foot in the white knight suit

  150. Blaming one sex is not appropriate any more than blaming the other is.

    It actually is appropriate. I made a graphic on my blog, a basic teeter totter. One side was mashed flat to ground, the other sticking up. To correct that balance (of blame) you cannot apply equal measures of blame to both sides or nothing happens. Unless and until there is a direct message aimed squarely at women, from the church especially, no amount of addressing men in any way is going to be helpful in familial matters. Weekly, the church adds weight to the already grounded side of the fulcrum.

    You are unable to see past the romantic notion of balance and fairness. In this instance you are doing what I KNOW you’d get bent out of shape about if reversed. You are blaming the victim. You bounce from general to specific in order to be able to say both are to blame. But what about specifically on the issues of the Christian manosphere? Individual grievances men have, as we have been exploited by women, or by men and laws influenced directly by womens desire to do so, are not balanced issues, they are all but unilateral.

    We gotta share 50/50 is soft spoken harmless drivel and utterly lacks utility

  151. Earl and BradA exhibit the exact same manhamsters as Driscoll/Bennet/et al.

    Note how both will disobey Jesus Christ and God, so as to lie and make up statistics and bear false witness against innocent men, just to absolve women of all sin and destroy all men who try to lead women in a Godly manner by holding women accountable for their actions. They are motivated by base lust for pusysyysysys and bunghzozlziziozlzizol, and they will go so far as to sell their brother down the river, destroying him as Cain did to Abel–engaging in the Primest, Eldest Sin.

    Earl and BradA are tyrannical communists at heart, striving to set up Tyrannical Kingdoms wherein all the women are loyal to them, and all the men are to be blamed, castigated, impugned, and imprisoned on false charges, as Earl and BradA scheme, by creating false statistics, lying, and bearing false witness against men, in their white-knighting, mangina beta hope to score some pusyzyzysysysysp pusysysys pusysysys and bungzhzozlzizizlzizzolzzizzoz. Instead of building themselves up to attract women, they must tear innocent men down.

  152. TFH….from the article

    And yet it makes sense. Legal experts like Kevin Noble Maillard of Syracuse University speculate that a woman’s missed opportunities to have a baby during a marriage could be viewed as a form of “sacrifice” for which she should be compensated

    The article speaks to the fact that a woman may have entered a marriage expecting children. Hmmm.
    Men enter expecting sex. Many/most do not get sex as they would like, so when the wife frivorces, the man has lacked something that, like above, “during a marriage could be viewed as a form of “sacrifice” .

    He should be accommodated for missing some sex with his young wife, and that he has now to face serious dry spells, when sex was (like having a family) a part of the expectations. Perhaps they could award him access to her most intimate areas

  153. hoellenhund2 says:

    I’ve noticed there seems to be a fundamental conflict of interests between betas and women pertaining to marriage. I’d say the average beta’d prefer to get married young to a woman of equal attractiveness, but delay children for a couple of years in order to take advantage of the socially more or less sanctioned sexual outlet that marriage provides. After all, the main source of sex for betas, provided they have any, is an LTR or marriage, not STRs and ONSs.

    For women it’s different. As soon as they’re married, they expext to be paid for their “sacrifice”, so to speak, in the form of children. They don’t want to spend years having regular sex with their beta chump husbands in a childless marriage. They primarily need them as beasts of burden to provide for the children, which may or may not be the the husband’s.

  154. On the Biblical Psychology of BradA & Earl

    From their avatars, actions, and words, one can tell that BradA & Earl rarely get laid, if ever. There is nothing wrong with this, in the Christian sense, but yet it eats at them and causes them to feel jealousy and rage.

    And thus one can see them using and abusing Christianity to beat down tehir very brothers, as sure as Cain, jealous of Abel, killed him.

    The subconcious masterplan BradA & Earl/all the mangina white-knites is to bear false witness against all their brothers and incriminate them, aboslve all the women, and claim all the women for themselves. As fast as they can slip a knife into the back of an innocent brother, they wish to slip their cockasz into the bingzhzozlzizoz of all the sinning women, whom they claim to have the poer to absolve, as if they were Christ, Moses, and God themselves.

    This is a perverted, warped form of Christianity which is common to Churchianity. It is based on lies, seething jealousy, pride, base lust, anger, unholy rage, and baring false witness against the innocent while abosolving the wicked, driven by their massive mangina hamsters and the wishes of their tiny cockas zlzozozlzizlzlzzoz as opposed to that higher, exalted rationale and faith in Christ which springs not from the bingholzizozl and loins, but from the mind, heart, and soul.

  155. Ton says:

    That’s a bad ads idea Grey Ghost ( cutting eye glasses) and one I’ve not yet heard mention before.

  156. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but… love that family court (When will people get tired of the Constitution not applying there?):

  157. JDG says:

    RichardP Sep 7 8:52 pm

    The apostle Paul points out that Eve was deceived when explaining why women should not teach or have authority over men. Men and women appear to have been excused from various consequences because of varying circumstances. For example the women caught in the field were physically weaker than the man who could force her if he wanted to. In the city she could cry out and be heard. Another example was when Naaman asked Elisha to be pardoned for routinely bowing in the house of Rimmon due to the extenuating circumstance after being healed of leprosy.

    We are warned not to be deceived multiple times in the Bible (Jer 29:8, Jer 37:9, 1Cor 6:9, 1Cor 15:33, Gal 7, Eph 6:7, 2 Thes 2:3, James 1:16). I don’t think being deceived lets anyone off the hook.

    Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise – 1 Corinthians 3:18.

    Just my two cents.

  158. Oh, man. Now cometh the Gynocracy with jack boots. Male officers had dare not charge or accuse females with anything or they will summarily be treated as if they are sex offenders. Teh wimminz must not be doubted!

  159. earl says:

    “If women could not vote, abortion would be far less available if not outright banned.”

    And which gender allowed women to vote?

    See this process is all cyclical….all the way back to Eve eating the apple.

    Women cry that they want something…and men allow her to have it to stop her crying or to get in her pants. Even though he is going to pay for it in the end.

    I’ll go 70/30. 70% of the problem is an idea that Satan puts in a woman’s head…30% is men following along with it. That way I’m not a white knighter or mysoginist.

  160. RichardP says:

    I posted this on Empath’s site. I’m posting here also for those who may not follow the link at the top of this thread.

    “He went on to apologize, and she did too. Then Bill backed up his words of apology by changing the decision they had argued about. Later, Vonette wrote, “I stayed because he took the first step toward reconciliation and working out our problems. It took a real man of God to admit he was wrong, and this gave me the courage to confess my poor attitude.” ”

    Lots of apologizing here, but only one displayed true repentance. And here (Luke 17:3) is the Biblical example for taking the first step toward reconciliation. Did that happen in the example of the Brights? How, then, is/was this story a proper example for true Biblical-Christian behavior?

    “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”
    Luke 17:3 (kjv) (Compare to Matthew 5:23-24)

    I think this link contains an excellent discussion of the Biblical concept of rebuke first, forgive only when repentance is given. Maybe not all will agree with everything that is said, but it is still a good discussion.

    http://www.crcsa.org/SJul19.pdf

    “The doctrine of repentance as taught in the Bible is a call to persons to make a radical turn from one way of life to another. The repentance called for throughout the Bible is a summons to a personal, absolute and ultimate unconditional surrender to God as Sovereign. Though it includes sorrow and regret, it is more than that. It is a call to conversion from self-love, self-trust, and self-assertion to obedient trust and self-commitment to God. It is a change of mind that involves a conscious turning away from wrong actions, attitudes and thoughts that conflict with a Godly lifestyle and biblical commands, and an intentional turning toward doing that which the Bible says pleases God. In repenting, one makes a complete change of direction (180° turn) toward God.” (Wikipedia)

    Repentance = to turn from doing that which is causing offense. Dr. Bright repented, in that he rescinded the decision that had caused offense. How did Mrs. Bright repent? How did she turn from that behavior which was causing offense? The “behavior that was causing offense” was her rebelling against the manner in which Dr. Bright had made a decision. The only way that Mrs. Bright could have truely repented, could have truely turned from doing that which caused offense, would have been for Dr. Bright to have reinstated his decision and for her to have properly and obediently accepted that decision. Apparently Dr. Bright did not reinstate his decision, so Mrs. Bright never had the opportunity to repent, to turn away from doing that which caused offense (threatening to blow up the marriage because of the way Dr. Bright made his decision).

    Even if we grant that Dr. Bright should have included Mrs. Bright in the decision-making process, the linked article above makes it clear, as does Luke 17:3, that the proper reponse from Mrs. Bright would have been a rebuke to Dr. Bright. Threatening to blow up the marriage is something different from a rebuke. A rebuke is Biblical; what Mrs. Bright did was not. And I believe that a rebuke can be delivered by a wife in the submissive manner described by Hannah elsewhere. And as described elswhere, submission does not equal doormat. There has to be real discussion between husband and wife if they are to help each other grow.

  161. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/

    This is how your government will strip you of everything. By increasing valuations vastly more than the original purchase price, they can take a house that you paid for with cash, with no loans and no help, simply by increasing property taxes to rates which you cannot afford.

    Nice, eh? Don’t you just love those who know better than you and never forget to remind you of that fact by putting laws into place, that benefit them and degrade you into place? How lovely!

  162. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “”everytime in the news I hear about male abortion doctors. I don’t doubt there are female abortion doctors.””

    I have never met a female abortion doctor……..only males……..and they are Jewish. They are not welcome at the synagogue that I attend.

    “”I’m seeing the truth about women…they are driving the decline of civilization. Men need to stop following them down the wide path…and go back to the narrow gate.”‘

    Great comment!……….Great advice!

  163. Mark says:

    @FH

    Thanks for the link………this is one of the most “unbelievable” articles that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.Thanks again!….this is getting passed on to a lot of friends and business associates!

  164. earl says:

    “I have never met a female abortion doctor……..only males……..and they are Jewish.”

    Well George Tiller was killed in a reformed Lutheran church he attended. Is that another name for Jewish?

  165. I’ll bet he didn’t meet George Tiller.

  166. Ton says:

    The us government is corrupt at all levels, from city council’s to the feds in DC. None of it is worth a man’s loyalty and good will

  167. BradA says:

    AR,

    > “I can read. Twice I have asked if you hold women – individual women – responsible for their actions. And twice you squirm around, but you can’t seem to do it. ”

    And I have repeatedly said each individual is responsible for their actions. That would mean that individual women are responsible for their actions and individual men are responsible for theirs. You also end up with an aggregate effect of stupidity.

    So what is your point? Like making up strawmen that show you can’t read?

    You all must be insecure in your positions if you cannot deal with facts and have to jump to attacking the individual so quickly. Kind of weakens your message, but that is the big problem with a lot of the red pill sphere now. No dissent is allowed. A rabbit warren of another kind.

    Doesn’t blaming women for all the problems pedestalize them as well? How much power do they have in your eyes? They must be all powerful….

  168. BradA says:

    I would ask exactly what I said that made you all assume I am a white knight? Is it just the fact I don’t bow down to you or anyone else other than Jesus?

    What exactly does it take for you to decide someone is in your club rather than out of it? I guess that is the nature of a club, you have to put down those outside or it isn’t as specially to all of you.

  169. Yes BradA, men are guilty of not speaking the hard truth of the Cross, death to self and life of sacrifice in part because they do not want to sacrifice themselves. In my experience women being the “oppressed” class are most often the first ones to shout down the “privileged” men who dare to speak those hard truths. What we arrive at is a confederacy of laxity towards the message of the cross, a hardness in the hearts of women and a cowardice on the part of men who see things going horribly wrong in the families and the Church.

    The message that is necessary in this age is submit. Submit to Christ, and for wives to submit to their husbands. This is a nearly universal fault. We’ve ceased to give the proper exhortation for this failing because we have been taught that it is “oppressive” and made the submission of the wife dependent on the perfection of the husbands. A condition that God never set.

    “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell

  170. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » MEH. Hasn’t the churchy stuff pretty much always been about women controlling men, really? With an…

  171. Sir_Chancealot says:

    BradA, the reason people are responding to you like they are, is you are presenting yourself as a weasely, weak man.

    TWO people now have directly asked you (twice each) a form of the following question:

    Do you hold INDIVIDUAL WOMEN responsible for their choices?

    None of this “all people, blah, blah, blah, Society, blah, blah, blah.” bullcrap. Answer the question.

    Here is another one. When a woman kills a baby via her decison to abort, IS IT HER FAULT? That’s a simple yes/no question.

    Your attitude is why more and more men refer to the “church” as “churchianity”. You are so feminized, and have such a feminine way of thinking, that you can’t even see you are doing it.

    You answer like a woman, and it is disgusting.

  172. Say’s the fish to the duck, “What is this water you speak of?”

  173. Jim says:

    If men and women would become disciples of Christ most of the modern day problems we have would simply disappear. Yes, it is that simple.

  174. Infowarrior1 says:

    @jim

    I wonder how so many faux disciples manage to pass off as real disciples.

  175. Mark says:

    @IAL

    “”’ll bet he didn’t meet George Tiller””

    I do remember reading about this in our papers.The most famous abortion doctor in Canada,who just died recently was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler. This is what I was referring to in my previous post.This SOB was even awarded the Order of Canada.It is a very sad day in this country when a murdering bastard like this gets the highest award that the country has to offer.There was a Roman Catholic priest not too long ago that was also given the Order of Canada…..he refused it!…..because that would put him in the same league as Morgentaler…Good for the priest!

  176. RichardP says:

    @Sir_Chancealot – “You answer like a woman … ”

    Actually, it is you and others who are sounding like women – who insist their man can’t possibly love them, as he insists he does, because he has not declared that love using exactly the words the women want him to use, and in exactly the correct order. That is what is truely disgusting.
    BradA answered your questions. If you don’t get that, it is not Brad’s fault.

    And the questions you are insisting are yes or no questions about women and abortion really are not yes or no. The fact that you are insisting that they are speaks volumes. And abortion is none of your business. (Universal) You have no business discussing it. That is an issue between the woman, the man who got her pregnant, and God. Only. There is no place for discussing that issue in a public forum. If it doesn’t involve you personally, you should not be discussing it. And if it does involve you, you should not be discussing it publically. It. Is. None. Of. Your. Business. Except perhaps at the voting booth.

    Do you understand that there is a test in the Old Testament for a women caught in a compromising situation. A potient is given. If the child is not aborted, that means it is the husband’s child. If the child is aborted, that means it is not the husband’s child. Quaint, eh. If you know about this test, it should put a more realistic slant on the sanctity of life promoted by the Bible. (Do not take anything I have said here as a defense of abortion. It is only meant to be a defense of logic.)

  177. Mark, a holocaust survivor who went on to be awarded for being a holocaust perpetrator. The irony is awful.

  178. semicolon, I have nothing bad to say about Mark.

  179. Mark says:

    @IAL

    “”Mark, a holocaust survivor who went on to be awarded for being a holocaust perpetrator. The irony is awful””

    I know.I have never seen anything like this guy.I have been following him for years.He was always the talk of the city and Synagogue.

  180. Mark says:

    @IAL

    “”semicolon, I have nothing bad to say about Mark””

    Huh?

  181. Mark. I wasn’t implying that you were a holocaust perpetrator is all, sorry for my poor grammar.

  182. Michael says:

    @ feminist hater

    They don’t necessarily need to raise property taxes. They only need to lower interest rates and increase the supply of money. Just like what happened in the housing bubble. They created it. Property tax = no private property. It also discriminates against many one without children.

    I’ve been thinking…. There has got to be a country you can own a home. Somewhere…

  183. feeriker says:

    Micahel siad: Property tax = no private property.

    It’s so obvious, isn’t it? Yet it’s maddening, the huge numbers of people who just. don’t. get. it.

    I’ve been thinking…. There has got to be a country you can own a home. Somewhere…

    Maybe on some other planet or in an alternate dimension on this one, but not in the world we live in now (at least not that I’m aware of).

  184. I “own” my home in Alaska. No property tax, just the looming specter of “eminent domain”.

  185. BradA says:

    SirC,

    So how is answering that we all have responsibility for our actions weasily? We all do, whether some here want to admit it or not. It is certainly easier to blame one sex (the women here, males elsewhere) that to deal with reality, but go ahead. It is working out so well for all of you.

    It is over inflating the influence of women to claim they have the sole responsibility here. Life is that way. I know that is hard for some of you to deal with, but it is laughable to be accused of being weak here. Go one living in your fantasy worlds!

  186. BradA says:

    Dalrock, I have to wonder what I did to get into the spam filter. Is merely logging in after posting the problem?

  187. BradA says:

    (Another post prior to that one was eaten. That is why I ask.)

  188. Try logging out and back in, that usually works for me. If I write a post that is very lengthy I make sure I “right-click” copy it that way I can paste it if it gets munched.

  189. Micahel siad: Property tax = no private property.

    It’s so obvious, isn’t it? Yet it’s maddening, the huge numbers of people who just. don’t. get. it.

    That is true of course. And we all get it. I know I do.

    But if you want to blame the culprit for that one (at least on the North American Continent) the blame for property taxes lays solely at the feet of farming and Christianity. And I’m a Christian.

    Saving the souls of our children from eternal damnation is (IMHO) much more important than personal property. So….

  190. I would ask exactly what I said that made you all assume I am a white knight? Is it just the fact I don’t bow down to you or anyone else other than Jesus?

    No Brad.

    It is because you refuse to answer any direct questions that you know (that we ALL know) would out you as a White Knight.

    It is the opinion here among the posters in this community that YOU BELIEVE there is NOTHING a woman is responsible for and (therefore) men have to step up and Chivalrously marry them (even support their bastard children.) I am of the opinion that you feel that way NOT because of Jesus, but instead because you have daughters and your daughters can’t catch a man. So you blame your own gender for not manning up and relieving you of your fatherly financial burden of their support.

    That’s what I think. But since you wont answer any questions (and I’m not going to believe you even if you do), we’ll never know for sure.

  191. Laura says:

    I was married for over ten years. My husband was very, very demanding and controlling. Whenever he wanted ANYTHING, he always presented the issue as absolutely critical to the marriage. “If you really love me, you would do what I want (agree to what I want, give me what I want, etc.) and if you won’t do what I want, then I’m not sure that you really love me, and I will have to re-think my level of commitment to the marriage.”

    After seven or eight years of allowing him to micromanage every minute of my life and control every penny that I earned in this way, I finally told him that I thought that he was extremely immature to essentially threaten to divorce me several times a month. I also told him that I thought that it was very similar to a second-grader saying, “if you don’t do such and such, I’m not going to invite you to my birthday party.” He was very embarrassed that I had called him out on being so manipulative, and stopped doing it for a month or so, and then drifted back to his old ways.

    When he finally made his unilateral and irrevocable decision to leave the marriage, I was relieved, even though I was dead flat broke and unemployed (children 5 & 2). Up until that year, he had been making about $65,000 per year (1989). But when his income started rising substantially, he thought that he could afford to be a swinging bachelor. At the time of our separation, he had about $70,000 in credit card debt that I knew about, and another $20,000 of secret credit card debt that I found out when the FBI visited me a few years later in connection with an investigation that they were conducting on him.

    He threatened me repeatedly that if I didn’t agree to the custody schedule that he wanted (full custody of the five year old for him, full custody of the 2 year old for me) he was going to take both children to a country with no extradition treaty, and I would never see them again. We were still living under the same roof at this time. I went to an attorney to see if I could get some sort of restraining order to prevent him from taking the children out of the country, and the attorney informed me that the ONLY way to do that was to file for divorce, which I did. Our custody problems went on until the younger child was about 17, and EVERY time we went to court, my ex husband and his attorney went on and on about how I was the plaintiff, I was the one who ended the marriage, I was the one who filed for divorce.

    It may well be true that the majority of divorce cases are filed by the woman, but nobody on the outside has any real insight as to what led up to the divorce. Don’t focus on the paperwork — the Lord surely doesn’t. And if either party in a marriage is continually dropping hints that they are so unhappy about this, that or the other thing that they are contemplating their options, then that is the party that bears the bulk of the responsibility for killing the marriage. When you won’t shut up about your daily decision-making process (“I’m a Libra! I’m always weighing my options!”) to go or to stay, you pretty much guarantee that the other spouse will emotionally withdraw from the marriage, because they can’t be sure that the marriage is going to last much longer.

  192. Doesn’t blaming women for all the problems pedestalize them as well?

    Brad, you are suffering a simple effect of being steeped in feminized communication. To say that women are at fault means exactly what the sum of those words means, nothing more. You seem to read ONLY women are at fault when reading that. This tendency is born of responding to womens histrionics because they are incapable of communicating with a lack of subtext. They cannot read a simple statement and take it as it is. Seemingly you cant either.

    What others are trying to get you to say is “woman are to blame” without your stealth disclaimer that men are too. When something is out of balance, applying equal force to the two sides keeps it out of balance. Our TOPIC is women and their proclivities, how those are supported by the church, etc. You are trumpeting the exact same message that, from the pulpit, has helped create this mess. Unless and until women are spoken directly to and at, with no equivocation, and they suffer through the gnashing and hysteria that will result, yet are held consistently to a standard, only then will they collectively emerge different than today. Anything short of plain truth to them, and escape hatch, anything they can use to weasel, they will. You offer them every manner of not taking ANY responsibility. You have to imagine what they understand when they read “both men and women are to blame”. Remember, they see subtext. Your statement is true as stated. But they see in that statement a way to mitigate their own guilt in their minds. They will then proceed to do so on a case by case basis as they make choices. The simple filing of a frivorce? Easy, its 50/50 men and women ruining marriages right? And so on.

  193. Empath, excellent post. Perfect. Agree with all of it.

    There is zero chance that BradA has the capacity to understand any of what you just wrote. His mind is gone.

  194. greyghost says:

    Ton
    A SHTF scenario is mostly seen by people as a I got guns food and water I’m prepared. Those guys are used as a source of supply for gangs. Also because he is a one shot deal ( basically he made himself in to a deep storage battery.) Once he is used up he is thrown away (killed) They’ll keep his daughter and maybe his son as a new gang member.
    I have a mechanic friend that works with me that buys and repairs cars as a side money maker. He was in fort worth during eighties doing the same thing in the “hood” during the crack cocaine drug gang violence hey day. He knew guys that killed people he put the wheels and tires on their cars. He said he was at a guys house and saw unbelievable amounts of money. After a while he said it got too him, he said flat out those guys scared hell out him and he left town for a while. The point is you are a producer not just an employee you are valuable. Even something as simple as making seasoning packs from dry ingredient mixtures for crock pot cocking is valuable. Aquaponic farmers, technicians and mechanics that can repair cars and most importantly productive machinery used to produce needed items. An HR executive or a pot grower who will be more valuable in a SHTF situation. I thought of the ability to produce eye classes as an unknown or thought of capacity that can be just as valuable to long term survival as a rifle and 1200 rounds of ammunition. Skill and ability make one valuable and something to add to the team.
    I know off topic but is a window on the kind of men that some women are married to That other women will see as the invisible creeps. The buzz is that sometime in the next couple of months the fed is going to run out of lies. It should look like 1920 30’s Germany or sixties 70’s UK. should be some fun times.

  195. greyghost says:

    I wouldn’t say BradA ‘s mind is gone it is when a man becomes invested in something that becomes the end all cause. The ideas and churchian flavor of his foundation make him a big man of solid values in a blue pill world of the feminine imperative. In the red pill world things are different. The ironic thing is red pill world requires the something the churchian in blue pill world thinks he has in abundance and that is faith. Everthing you desire in society and family will come to pass when you truly accept that you are a man and live with faith. (Christian with game, he cusses and fights loves and hates, no man sees his actions as Christian at all, yet he has a strangely loyal wife to go with his faith in god)

  196. I wouldn’t say BradA ‘s mind is gone it is when a man becomes invested in something that becomes the end all cause.

    The end result is still the same: BradA has stopped thinking. That is why his mind is gone. If he stopped for just one moment and really started to assign blame for where the blame should be assigned, then he would begin to understand that everything he was led to believe was wrong. That is extremely frightening and hurtful to one’s pride. He isn’t going to give up the pride (the same way he isn’t going to answer a direct question.)

  197. Greyghost, I do agriculture, construction, hunting, fishing, medic and defense. I also have chemistry with which I can brine, smoke, can, cure, make tinctures and salves, soap, ALCHOHOL and other sundries. More importantly I am in a network with diesel mechanics, welders, machinists, gun-smith’s, better hunters and fisherman and younger backs for bringing in the raw materials.

    I need to support the network that supports me. Without that network we’re all weak. I don’t care how many skills you have in your set, you still need to sleep.

  198. Laura, that is a real sad story. And I’m sure that if we talked to your husband we would get an entirely different story.

    Question Laura, why is this….

    “If you really love me, you would do what I want (agree to what I want, give me what I want, etc.) and if you won’t do what I want, then I’m not sure that you really love me, and I will have to re-think my level of commitment to the marriage.”

    …a problem? You are his wife. Or should I say, were his wife. Here in the manosphere, that makes you his property. You are supposed to do everything he tells you to do. Here in the manosphere we all understand that a woman has NO moral agency (none) so if you are married, you do absolutely everything your husband tells you to do. As a man protecting his property, he has PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP. He tells you to do something, YOU DO IT for your OWN good. Then you stay happily married and he loves you the way he loves Christ. It is right there in the Bible Laura.

    You didn’t. Instead, you did what we here in the manosphere refer to as frivorce, you frivorced him. He didn’t cheat on you, or hit you. He micromanaged you. That is a man taking care of his property. And you expect us to feel sympathy for you?

  199. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”you have daughters and your daughters can’t catch a man. So you blame your own gender for not manning up and relieving you of your fatherly financial burden of their support.””

    Correct me if I am wrong here…….but,doesn’t this re-enforce MGTOW and the Marriage Strike? Subjects that we have debated at great length many times on this Blog.

  200. Mark, MGTOW for many reasons, not the least of which that marriage laws are so stacked against men. I think that BradA has daughter(s) and they can’t catch a man. Since he refuses to acknowledge that women have done this to themselves (by saying both sides are to blame) he is directly protecting the HONOR of his daughter(s) (should they exist.)

    At least that’s my take. We’ll never know for sure since I am not going to believe anything BradA says.

  201. IBB, I’d bet that she married an Arab man. Apparently her hamster couldn’t be troubled to believe Sally Field’s tale of custodial woe (Not Without My Daughter) could happen to her. She no doubt liked is social dominance BEFORE they were married, but her feminism couldn’t tolerate the mate that her raging hypergamy had selected for her.

    Sounds a lot like the shoe is on the other foot, vis-à-vis custody, micromanaging and waving the marriage detonator around to get their way, in this case.

  202. greyghost says:

    I art Laughing
    That is exactly what I had in mind. All of those skills from a group of like minded people. Good to have some red pill ideas in the group to keep things sustainable

  203. I’ve been stirring in red-pills for over a year now. We’re going to need that to keep everybody from weirding out. When the SHTF all of this egalitarian, group counseling crap is going to get thrown in the garbage pail. If we don’t fit together properly at that point it’s going to cost us our lives. I would throw in that we need to be hearing God’s voice to properly navigate the vagaries of the mess. I’ve been doing that as I prepare and it seems to help immensely.

  204. IBB, I’d bet that she married an Arab man. Apparently her hamster couldn’t be troubled to believe Sally Field’s tale of custodial woe (Not Without My Daughter) could happen to her.

    Possibly.

    But if you read her post, much of her angst towards her husband relates to the fact that she resented being ordered. Well, that IS his role, to order her, and she submits. If she can’t (or won’t) why did she get married? What did she think was going to happen?

    When a man married he already understands that his wife lacks moral agency. In her mind, cause and effect mean nothing (of course I can buy those $200 shoes because I want them and they will look good on me. The whole idea of worrying about paying for them is none of MY concern.) Men understand this. So we are required to “micromanage” (as Laura put it.) Maybe she needed micromanaging? And exactly how much of all that $70,000 credit card debt he had did SHE create? We’ll never know because I don’t think Laura would be honest with us about that anyway.

  205. Laura says:

    To Innocentbystanderboston:

    After our divorce, my ex was engaged to several different women, married two additional times, divorced again and then died in his mid 50s, thereby leaving Wife #3 as a widow. So, you won’t be able to get his side of the story. But if he were alive, I think that he would probably say that he left the marriage because he thought that I was boring.

    Before my ex and I were married, we attended church together, etc. Both my parents and his parents had 25 year plus marriages, so I thought that we had a good chance of having a lifelong marriage. As soon as we were married, he refused to go to church anymore — he said that I had “forced” him to pretend to be a Christian before we were married, because he knew that I wouldn’t have married him if he had revealed that he was an atheist. He “loved me as he loved Christ” — which in his case was not at all.

    He was a big believer in “Open Marriage” and wanted to have additional sex partners. I disagreed, but he did it anyway.

    I question whether someone who threatens a divorce on a weekly basis even has a marriage. It is more like a manipulative sexual relationship that appears from the outside to be a marriage because all the paperwork is in order.

    I was a virgin when I married my husband, I never cheated on him, and I have been celibate since the divorce for religious reasons. He has been dead for over five years now, and I am free to remarry, but at my age that seems unlikely. I NEVER threatened to divorce HIM, and I tried to get him to go to marriage counseling when he announced that he was divorcing me. I understand that many men are very angry about frivolous divorces initiated by women, but do you really believe that it is impossible for a man to be capricious?

  206. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    Here in the manosphere we all understand that a woman has NO moral agency (none)

    Not true.

  207. 8to12 says:

    @IBB,

    You are falling into @Laura’s tail-wagging-the-dog, straw-man trap.

    She presents an unbiblical example of headship that is (at best) an uncommon case, and then expects you to debate her as if it was the typical case.

  208. Some Guy says:

    Laura,

    I am experiencing pretty much what you describe right now. Every day I face the possibility of coming home and my kids just not being there anymore. My wife manipulated me by withholding sex for the first five years of our marriage. She then threatened to divorce me for the next six if I did not slavishly buckle down and do what she wanted. If I do not go along with her, she labels this as “abuse” and complains about it loudly and often to anyone that will give her an ear.

    The difference between you and me is that (a) you get some sympathy for enduring that horrible spouse of yours for so long… and (b) my wife has entire churches standing by to cheer her on and build her up and pat her on the back. I get zero sympathy (I get the man-up sermon from men and women alike) and I am assumed to be as horrible as your husband allegedly was just on the basis of my wife’s emotions. I ask people for help or I explain just how difficult this all is and they have no idea what to say. The narrative of the faithless good-for-nothing husband is ingrained: no one can conceptualize that a man could either be wronged or in need of assistance.

  209. Dalrock says:

    @Laura

    I was married for over ten years. My husband was very, very demanding and controlling. Whenever he wanted ANYTHING, he always presented the issue as absolutely critical to the marriage. “If you really love me, you would do what I want (agree to what I want, give me what I want, etc.) and if you won’t do what I want, then I’m not sure that you really love me, and I will have to re-think my level of commitment to the marriage.”

    The way your husband acted (per your description) isn’t how a husband should act. However, I think you are personalizing this far too much. This post isn’t about your marriage… or mine. This is about Christians teaching, modeling, this kind of threatening behavior as Christian marriage when done by the wife. This is being taught as biblical submission. Moreover, this is so accepted for modern Christians that practically no one notices that anything is wrong here. Do you not see the huge difference between a mass push to teach the wife threatening divorce as submission (the topic of the post), and your personal 1 off experience with a non Christian husband? I’m not saying you can’t share your own experience, but you seem to be struggling to distinguish between the two.

    It may well be true that the majority of divorce cases are filed by the woman, but nobody on the outside has any real insight as to what led up to the divorce.

    First the general was about you, and now you project your specific experience out to all divorcées. Are you aware you are doing this when you do it? If I were to stipulate that you had a valid reason to divorce (for the sake of argument), why then would you feel the need to say this? Basically you are saying, “Mine wasn’t frivolous, and therefore you can’t say any woman’s divorce was frivolous”. If you feel you’ve been falsely lumped in with the guilty, why is your first reaction to protect the guilty? Unless, of course, you aren’t really innocent.

  210. Change the name of the poster, the respective terminology regarding husband and wife and Laura’s story is not so much different than the typical testimony we see here. While it is plausible, the part that is doubly ironic is that Laura seems to miss that point.

  211. Put another way, welcome to the club Laura.

  212. She presents an unbiblical example of headship that is (at best) an uncommon case, and then expects you to debate her as if it was the typical case.

    That is why I waited for Dalrock to come in and put the discussion back within bounds, back where it makes sense. This part says it all…

    If I were to stipulate that you had a valid reason to divorce (for the sake of argument), why then would you feel the need to say this? Basically you are saying, “Mine wasn’t frivolous, and therefore you can’t say any woman’s divorce was frivolous”. If you feel you’ve been falsely lumped in with the guilty, why is your first reaction to protect the guilty? Unless, of course, you aren’t really innocent.

    Laura would have no reason to comment about her divorce not being a “frivorce” if she didn’t think that maybe it WAS a “frivorce.”

  213. Mark says:

    @SomeGuy

    “”My wife manipulated me by withholding sex for the first five years of our marriage. She then threatened to divorce me for the next six if I did not slavishly buckle down and do what she wanted. If I do not go along with her, she labels this as “abuse” “”

    WOW!………my sympathies my friend.That is no existence! Your ol’lady sounds like a Hitler in high heels.There has to be some way out for you.Start socking away as much hidden cash as you can….your day is right around the corner.I could not live like this.I would probably end up getting her “whacked”

    “”churches standing by to cheer her on and build her up and pat her on the back””

    I believe this.These “Christian” churches seem to be a joke! Thank God I am Jewish!

  214. Some Guy says:

    @Mark — I am held hostage. I will not leave my children. I will endure anything in order to be able to stay with them. Her power rests on her willingness to exploit this threatpoint.

  215. Michael says:

    I found my former boss on Facebook. Still rich. Huge Mac Mansion. Exotic cars etc.

    Well, it looks like his ungrateful wife is still up to her old tricks. Her posts on Facebook are downright embarrassing to this guy. She does nothing except travel to dance competition. He actually met her when she worked in Vegas as a Dancer. You know those dime-a-dozen dancers that are lucky to make 30k a year and rarely last past age 35? That was her. Well now she’s got photos with various men and still shops like there is no tomorrow. All these photos shopping, traveling, men, everything. Allot of these dance competitions are in Hotels. She is sharing photos from Hotels with these men and posts on Facebook in her room. I’m sure she’s not committing adultery though. After all if she was, why would she be so obvious about it? At least, according to the rumors in the office, that was her retort whenever they used to argue about it.

    Makes sense right?

    When we used to have company lunches and parties (forced on us of course – attend and make merry – or else) she used to constantly laugh and ridicule her husband in front of the entire table. I remember how he would get quiet and look down at his feet or change the subject every time. We are talking every single time, over the course of years.

    I now realize she had him by the balls. Totally. 100% She can do literally do ANYTHING she wants. She can cheat with anyone anywhere and spend as much of his money on anyone or anything and there is NOTHING – NOTHING – he can do or he would lose everything.

    I find it unbelievable after all these years she has (based on her Facebook profile) never let up with her embarrassing behavior.

    The system has been created to allow this to happen. Men are fucked. There is not going to any law changes. No fairness. No children or families will ever be secure as long as women are given carte blanche by our government.

    These laws will never be changed. I mean come on. I never see anything in the mainstream news. No protests outside of family court. Nothing. Just silently taking it or opening their wallets because they are trapped forced and have no choice.

    It’s very sad that female equality looks like this !! .

  216. Mark says:

    @SomeGuy

    “”@Mark — I am held hostage. I will not leave my children. I will endure anything in order to be able to stay with them. Her power rests on her willingness to exploit this threatpoint””

    You are a true man!…….stay true to yourself and those kids and raise them to be GREAT!. As far as the c*** is concerned……..your day is right around the corner! One day she is going to get hers….don’t worry! They always do! I have a sister like this.What a clusterf*** she is! She divorced a very good man for NO reason……and now she is the one who is hurting!…..Not financially,but,emotionally,socially etc. Remember,whatever you put out will return to you ten-fold!….and she will be getting hers in return…….this is what we Jews know…and Christians(the ones I know) have yet to understand!

  217. Laura says:

    When I said that “it may be true that the majority of divorce cases are filed by the woman, but nobody on the outside has any real insight as to what led up to the divorce” all I intended to convey was that people looking at a failed marriage from the outside don’t necessarily know what was REALLY going on.

    I’ve looked at a number of “manosphere” websites over the past few years, usually by following links about marriage/divorce. I often see statistics that say that women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases, and I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is. People often discuss divorce for months before the paperwork is actually filed, and the person who actually files is not necessarily the person who is gung-ho for the divorce. Jesus doesn’t care if you turn out to be the plaintiff or the defendant/respondent, although some people at your church may beat you up for being the plaintiff.

    Dalrock said: If you feel you’ve been falsely lumped in with the guilty, why is your first reaction to protect the guilty? Unless, of course, you aren’t really innocent.

    In what way did I attempt to protect the guilty? I agree that a big percentage of divorces are for fairly frivolous reasons, and I would further state that in the current legal environment, “the bigger sociopath wins” most of the time. IMO, at least 10 to 20% of both men and women are incapable of maintaining any sort of deep interpersonal relationship. Sometimes, these people end up married to one another, but oftentimes these people marry somebody who is more in the normal range, and who could have had a solid marriage if they had married someone else.

    To: “Some Guy” — It sounds as though you have been married for eleven years or less, and that your eldest child is probably age 10 at the most. If you are worried about your children being kidnapped, I would say that once the oldest child is 10, that is unlikely, and by age 12, almost impossible. Back in my day, there was no internet, and the kidnapping parent could tell the children that the other parent was dead and we are moving to XXX to start a new life. That really is much harder to pull off since the late 90s, and I haven’t heard about it happening much since then. The only exception would be if your wife is foreign-born and has dual citizenship, etc.

    As far as your marriage goes, I really do understand what it is like to have a spouse threatening to leave on an almost continual basis. I used to practice law, but am now retired. I have no idea what state you are in, or any other pertinent details of your life, but my general advice would be to try to get your wife into the workforce, and paying the maximum into her retirement account so that you don’t have to share as much of yours when the inevitable divorce occurs.

    Over the long run, your children may figure out what your wife is up to if they overhear some of your discussions with her, but there is no guarantee of this. If the youngest child is a boy, try to keep the marriage afloat until he is in the second grade. To the extent that you have any control over the situation at all, try to avoid having the initial separation occur in the months immediately preceding Thanksgiving/Christmas. Avoid a custody fight at all costs. Accept every other weekend even if your lawyer and friends are urging you to go deeply into debt to have a huge custody fight. If you talk to people you admire, and ask them who had the greatest positive influence on their lives, they will often name their mother or father as #1, but surprisingly often they name a Sunday school teacher or coach or Scout leader. The number of hours you spend with your children is important, but it isn’t the only thing that counts. With cell phones, Facebook, etc., it is much harder for a vindictive ex-spouse to destroy your relationship with your children these days, and the older the children are at the time of the break up, the truer this is.

    Go to the library and read every book about divorce and custody. Spend a day at the courthouse and attend various ex parte hearings, order to show cause hearings, etc., in front of a family law judge to get an idea of how things work post divorce. Try to keep your case out of court, but if you do end up there, remember that angry, bitter, sarcastic people are always at a huge disadvantage when their ex spouse presents as a calm, caring person who wants to solve problems in a businesslike manner and “move on” from the divorce to a glorious new future. Most of the divorce court judges are themselves divorced, and none of them care about who holds the moral high ground in your marital situation. It doesn’t matter whether your lawyer likes you or not, but it matters a great deal whether you rub the judge the wrong way.

    I know that you must be miserable now, but I hope that better days will be ahead for you. As the children get older, your wife will have less and less of a hold over you.

  218. greyghost says:

    Michael
    What you described is modern marriage of every married man here no man is exempt. And it is by law at gun point. I would never ever again fight for this country ever.
    l

  219. Chris_Williams says:

    “I’ve looked at a number of “manosphere” websites over the past few years, usually by following links about marriage/divorce. I often see statistics that say that women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases, and I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is.”

    Color me surprised. Typical NAWLT NAWLT NAWLT and snowflaking “my case is different from the statistics, so ignore the statistics.” I love the comments about her “Christianity”. Nothing says Christianity like trying to obfuscate the very serious legal issues that Christian men are facing today.

    “It may well be true that the majority of divorce cases are filed by the woman, but nobody on the outside has any real insight as to what led up to the divorce. ”

    And there we get to the meat of the post, well before her subsequent rambling: Protecting the hive, like a good worker bee. Defending women whom she knows nothing about and who, statistically, are likely to have divorced for non-biblical reasons. I can’t wait to hear her next post about what a good Xtian she is.

  220. Mark says:

    @Laura

    “”As the children get older, your wife will have less and less of a hold over you.””

    Thank you!…….This is what my sister is starting to see!………My 15 year old nephew wants to hang out with his father and Uncle Mark…..MEN!…..not his mother and her idiot friends! She treats her 14 year old daughter like her “little buddy”….L*…..this 14 year old has a mouth on her that would make a Marine Drill Sargent blush!…..My sister’s getting back exactly what she has put out!…….TEN FOLD!……..Shalom!

  221. greyghost says:

    laura is doing the ole play dumb routine with the reply to Dalrock.

  222. Laura,

    You are not getting it.

    There is no “glorious new future” for most men after they have been frivorced. Nothing. DEATH is their only release from their never-ending monthly checks that they send to their ex-wives who are now f-cking their new boyfriends in the house that the ex-husband bought and paid for. Can you see how horrible this is? Do you have any CONCEPT of how horrible this is?

    Forget about moral high ground. Morals have nothing to do with “frivorce.” It all about how the law looks at divroce, nothing more. The fact that she acting immoral makes no difference, the law is the law.

  223. Laura

    I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is. People often discuss divorce for months before the paperwork is actually filed, and the person who actually files is not necessarily the person who is gung-ho for the divorce.

    Yawn.
    Do you think (thats the problem, this statement is what “you think”) no one here knows this? Do you imagine that this hasn’t been controlled for in studies that arrive at the numbers showing women file more? Of course this dynamic you mention happens. Then there are other dynamics that skew the other way. Lets say a woman cheats, and the man files divorce under no fault. Looks like male filing but its woman caused. The converse is also true. You make a mistake thinking that this is a collection of weak minded men grousing about ill considered facts. You certainly are not the first woman to pop in and make pedestrian comments prefaced with “I think”

  224. Basically you are saying, “Mine wasn’t frivolous, and therefore you can’t say any woman’s divorce was frivolous”.

    Exactly what she is saying. But even women never divorced and never married will say what she is saying because viscerally they know they MUST HAVE the right to divorce and no condemnation, in case they need it………to be haaaapy

  225. Dalrock says:

    @Laura

    I’ve looked at a number of “manosphere” websites over the past few years, usually by following links about marriage/divorce. I often see statistics that say that women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases, and I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is. People often discuss divorce for months before the paperwork is actually filed, and the person who actually files is not necessarily the person who is gung-ho for the divorce.

    Who files is (statistically) a good measure of who pushed for the divorce, and whether we are talking about filing or instigating the vast majority is by women, and generally the reason is they expect to profit from the divorce. I’ve explained this with references to academic papers here. The thing is, there really isn’t any question about what the system is designed to work like. Our divorce process is designed to punish (and threaten to punish) husbands, whether they are guilty or not. This is why when men in the manosphere point out that the system is unfair, the typical response from women is prove that men whose wives divorce them don’t deserve to be punished. This is also why secular academics and Christians like Rainey/FamilyLife and the Kendrick Brothers all celebrate the idea of wives using threats of divorce to hold power over their husbands.

  226. Some Guy says:

    @Laura — I see that you’re trying to help and all… but just so we’re clear… seeing my kids every other weekend, keeping in touch via Facebook, and hoping that they at least get a decent Scoutmaster… that is an endgame that is as bad or worse than the kidnapping scenario.Do you have any concept of how humiliating that would be? How painful it’d be to watch them bear the brunt of my wife’s shortsightedness? And what’s more to have to pay for it all?

    I’m sorry, but having to see the state behave as if I were guilty of domestic violence and to then watch the church do everything it can to see that she’s set up with the next patsy… that would be it for me. If I were to set myself on fire at the courthouse steps, everyone would assume I was an unhinged crackpot. That’s what I thought when I’d heard of such men before.

  227. Laura,

    I’ve looked at a number of “manosphere” websites over the past few years, usually by following links about marriage/divorce. I often see statistics that say that women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases, and I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is.

    Are you kidding?

    SHE GETS MONEY EACH MONTH! She keeps the house and she gets money. And she is free to now f-ck whoever she wants from now until her death. There is no financial downside (for her) if she wants out of the marriage, she just gets out and keeps everything (including the kids.) Don’t dismiss that.

  228. Highwasp says:

    “The difference between you and me is that (a) you get some sympathy for enduring that horrible spouse of yours for so long… and (b) my wife has entire churches standing by to cheer her on and build her up and pat her on the back. I get zero sympathy (I get the man-up sermon from men and women alike) and I assumed to be as horrible as your husband allegedly was just on the basis of my wife’s emotions. I ask people for help or I explain just how difficult this all is and they have no idea what to say. The narrative of the faithless good-for-nothing husband is ingrained: no one can conceptualize that a man could either be wronged or in need of assistance.”

    …and not just husbands, but men and boys, or simply males in general. Unless a man does what the misandrist culture dictates (make yourself ‘successful’, valuable, attractive, useful, protective and able to provide for the woman) he is considered ‘a loser’, hateful, abusive, a liar, a cheat, ‘dead beat’, suspicious and guilty…. The opposite of how women are treated basically.

    “zero sympathy” for men is what misandry is all about. It’s what our culture is built on. You are getting a long term, first hand dose of just how far these attitudes and beliefs really go. Your red pill isn’t being willingly swallowed, incrementally in pill form – no – your red pill is being injected directly into your arms and legs while you are helplessly tied to a chair, with a gag in your mouth and nobody around to hear to your grunts of protest… except us other red pill types who have survived long enough and found we could loosen the bindings, free ourselves and removed the gag. We hear your message. After enduring the same sort of torture that you are, all lot of us men simply decide to go our own way and be the men we want to be, taking our experiences and attitudes with us, benefitting other men and ourselves in the process.

  229. Who files is (statistically) a good measure of who pushed for the divorce

    Fingers in ears, wiggle…..la la la la

  230. Mark says:

    @greygost

    “”I would never ever again fight for this country ever.””

    I have to leave the office…but,not until I comment on your post! This is the end result my friend! I do not like to hear this but,you have a VERY VALID POINT! I have heard this in your country as well as mine. “Why defend a country that treats us like scumbags”?……and you are correct! I know veterans here(and the USA) that have returned from the Middle East,only to have divorce papers waiting for them,kids are gone….and she is “shacked up” with a new man. I know exactly where you are coming from and what you are saying.This is the end result of belittling and demeaning MEN! Now Wimminz want into combat?….Ya right!(Gags)….This is the result of all these years of Femi-Nazism!….and to be totally honest with you……it is not going to hurt my feelings one bit to see those body bags returning to our home countries full of dead women! That is what they want….GIVE IT TO THEM!!!!! The thing that bothers me the most is…..sending a bunch of Femi-Nazi loser c***’s into a theater of war guarantees our defeat! I do not like to lose as I assume you do not either!

  231. Mark says:

    @greyghost

    Sorry,……….Congrats to you on your military service……*handshakes*

  232. Of course the whole exercise that Laura is inflicting on us is that there is no threatpoint and men are running into their own EPL frivorce paradise instead of what the laws, culture and the media are screaming at us.

  233. feeriker says:

    Laura said:
    I’ve looked at a number of “manosphere” websites over the past few years, usually by following links about marriage/divorce. I often see statistics that say that women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases, and I think that this statistic is not really as meaningful as some people think it is. People often discuss divorce for months before the paperwork is actually filed, and the person who actually files is not necessarily the person who is gung-ho for the divorce. Jesus doesn’t care if you turn out to be the plaintiff or the defendant/respondent, although some people at your church may beat you up for being the plaintiff.

    “Paging Deti… please bring your hamsterlator…paging Deti…please bring your hamsterlator…paging Deti…”

  234. Very few women are able to see through their own “I believe” statements to contradictory truths. Some just can. Another set that seems to often get it are second wives of frivorced men. But do not expect Laura to suddenly see past her solipsism based preconceived notions.

    “I didn’t do that and none of my friends did, therefore it is not done”

    there are three lies in that statement made by some hypothetical woman

  235. Jesus doesn’t care if you turn out to be the plaintiff

    How did I miss this?

    This is an incredible rationalization. I suppose The Personal Jesus doesn’t care so long as you are happy. But this statement is like saying of rape, “Jesus doesn’t care if you are the rapist or the victim”

  236. feeriker says:

    Chris_Williams says:

    I love the comments about her “Christianity”. Nothing says Christianity like trying to obfuscate the very serious legal issues that Christian men are facing today.

    Change the second “Christianity” to churchianity (preferably in italics). It makes your point much more accurate when the distinction is added.

  237. Michael says:

    @ Greyghost

    But now that everyone recognizes the problem why isn’t anything being done to correct it?

    I don’t see anything on the news. I don’t see protests. I don’t see photos of outbursts at judges in Family Courts. I don’t see petitions. I don’t see hackers crashing feminist websites. I see nothing except this forum.

  238. Michael

    The reason is “The Lift”. Its as simple as that.

  239. Feminist Hater says:

    Listen, women are not interested in fixing the system. For them, it ain’t broke. If Laura really were taken by a cruel man who frivorced her, she would be on board with us entirely. Our protection is also an innocent woman’s protection.

    Sounds to me like wanting more to protect the gains made by the injustice of divorce laws.

    Laura, God doesn’t like divorce, he hates it. Only one mitigation is allowed for divorce, that is sexual infidelity. In your case, your husband cheated numerous times, thus you could divorce. Therefore, you have no skin in this game. This debate is not about you. Dalrock has already pointed this out to you.

    Currently, when a wife cheats on her husband, her husband is between a rock and a hard place. He tries to divorce her, his right might I add, he is faced with alimony and child support as the innocent party. The man who did nothing wrong is the one on the hook, do you not get how absolutely wrong that is? There is no debate here, divorce laws are wrong and evil.

    The problem, however, is that women are taking advantage of these laws, and that is a sin women need to confront and be confronted about. It is evil, the women who partake in it are evil. The feminists who bring these laws to light are evil, it is about time they are fought and brought to justice.

  240. If Laura really were taken by a cruel man who frivorced her, she would be on board with us entirely

    Nope, not at all. That is no obstacle for the juking ability of the hamster

  241. Slight addendum Empath:

    I haven’t done it, my friends haven’t done it therefore it is not done. (Because if it was it would make us look or feel bad).

    On the other hand when applied to frivorce for cash and prizes turning out to be an unmitigated rose parade it goes more like this:

    I haven’t done it, my friends haven’t done it but it simply has to work. (Because if it does it would make us look and feel good).

    You simply have to remember the hamster prism that any situation is viewed through.

  242. Listen, women are not interested in fixing the system. For them, it ain’t broke. If Laura really were taken by a cruel man who frivorced her, she would be on board with us entirely. Our protection is also an innocent woman’s protection.

    It is getting broken because of MGTOW. The less and less men marry, the more and more women who DON’T have a man in their life to wield their “threatpoint” the more “broke” the system gradually becomes. That is why so many churches are starting up so many groups to try and motivate the never-married bachelors (in their congregation) to get married.

    A woman can only divorce her husband for cash and prizes. A single woman (be she a Christian or not) can’t divorce anyone for cash and prizes. All she can do to get cash and prizes is try and get pregnant and marry government. This is evil, but it will NOT be brougth to justice as it is currently the law.

  243. Feminist Hater says:

    And that is the point Laura. Women are using divorce to drive men into doing what it is that women want them to do. They do it by using the ‘threat of divorce’ to drive the husband to submit to them or by actually divorcing and allowing the courts and biased judges to do the work of turning the husband into a walking wallet.

    It has become a money making scam and the cost is family, holiness and honesty, besides the obvious cost of a family’s wealth.

  244. Laura says:

    At the time of my divorce in 1990, 90% of California divorces involved couples with a negative net worth. They weren’t splitting up assets, they were splitting up debts. Many of the divorces going on these days must involve couples in which one or both parties have lost their jobs and/or their house already.

    I don’t deny that some women live high on the hog after a divorce, but I was dead flat broke, and so were the other divorced women in my apartment complex. Women are often very naive about what sort of standard of living they will be able to maintain post divorce, but in a high cost of living area, women divorcing a guy with an average income know that they will have to go back to work if they aren’t working already, and they know that they will be living on a very tight budget one way or another.

    To Some Guy: Your children are going to “bear the brunt” of your wife’s foolishness whether the marriage lasts or fails. You are talking about being humiliated by a divorce — let me urge you to fight against your pride. Pride can lead you into spending a fortune on a divorce/custody fight that drags on for years and doesn’t ultimately do you any good, and some lawyers will take advantage of your pride to lure you into turning your divorce into WWIII. You go broke and your children are destroyed.

    Most people only have a few true friends in this life — if your wife is turning the entire church congregation against you, don’t look for friends there. Since she apparently is badmouthing you to the congregation already, in the event of a divorce you are going to want to change churches anyway. It must be very difficult for you to continue attending a church where you don’t feel respected. Really, your situation must be very difficult. As a licensed member of a state bar, I can’t advise you to do anything that might be illegal in your state, such as secretly recording your wife as she rants and raves, threatens to divorce you over some trifle, etc., but if she is very attached to having a high standing in the community, then in the event that the marriage folds before the children are grown, the existence of embarrassing tapes might be a potent negotiating tool.

    I didn’t mean at all to suggest that you should hope that your children would have a good relationship with a scoutmaster or Sunday school teacher instead of having a good relationship with you. I only meant to point out that human relationships are somewhat unpredictable, and the spouse who gets the bulk of the custody time isn’t necessarily the spouse who ends up having a close relationship with the children. Children know if someone truly cares about them, and they often form a powerful and lasting bond with Sunday school teachers and scoutmasters for that reason, even though the number of hours that they spend with that person is quite limited. Try to take your eldest child out of the house alone at least once or twice a month. As the other children get older, do the same with them. Drive them to sports or dancing lessons or the orthodontist, and rearrange your work schedule to make this possible if you need to do so.

    Try to get in contact with old friends from high school, college, etc., and also form some new relationships with other people completely outside your wife’s circle so that you aren’t having to start from scratch socially in the event of a divorce.. You are very angry, and dealing with really deep feelings of betrayal and fear of being publicly humiliated. You have very little control over the situation that you are in and the stress must be almost overwhelming. If you are determined to stay with the marriage until the bitter end, I can understand that, because that is what I did, but do make an effort to have some sort of social network where your castrating wife isn’t actively sabotaging you.

    If you find yourself identifying with men who have set themselves on fire in front of a courthouse, then I would urge you to see a therapist, WITHOUT your wife’s knowledge. Pay cash to keep it private. If you live in a small community, go to someone outside the community. If after a few visits with the therapist, you aren’t hitting it off with him, then switch over to somebody else. Try to find a guy who has a social background somewhat similar to your own and has also gone through a brutal divorce.

  245. “Laura” is a troll.

  246. I know, Captain Obvious tight?

  247. greyghost says:

    But now that everyone recognizes the problem why isn’t anything being done to correct it?
    Michael
    You are special A man of the red pill. As normal as it seems to you and your buddies here you exchange with here it is not normal to see things the way you do in the public at large. Also there are those that know full well what is going on and are afraid and some just plain like that way. The church took the cowards way and became churchian. Most of what men have done was based on survival, kindness, blind faith in the constitution and most importantly done from the belief that women were virtuous. Churchianship, white knighting, and social conservatism is based on the belief of female virtue.
    I would go the surrogate route in your shoes and get over to Indonesia and get you a case of gandarusa for yourself and sell some to your re pill PUA buddies. Get a rifle and enjoy the decline.

  248. feeriker says:

    It is getting broken because of MGTOW. The less and less men marry, the more and more women who DON’T have a man in their life to wield their “threatpoint” the more “broke” the system gradually becomes. That is why so many churches are starting up so many groups to try and motivate the never-married bachelors (in their congregation) to get married.

    Amazing, isn’t it, that the same churches[TM] that can’t be bothered to mentor and shepherd the young men and women of their congregations in the biblical precepts of courtship and marriage are all champing at the bit to kick off “man-up-and-marry-them-sluts”/Sunday Morning Nightclub advertising sessions.

  249. At the time of my divorce in 1990, 90% of California divorces involved couples with a negative net worth. They weren’t splitting up assets, they were splitting up debts. Many of the divorces going on these days must involve couples in which one or both parties have lost their jobs and/or their house already.

    But that doesn’t matter. He’s still going to pay even if they have negative wealth. And if he can’t (or wont) pay, he goes to jail. And for many of these frivorces, she instigated it because her life was miserable. And it was miserable because HE LOST HIS JOB/BUSINESS/HOUSE/. That is justification for her to leave the marriage because she is NOT a moral agent.

    Frivorce negates three of the most important marriage vows: for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.

    Get it Laura Troll?

  250. Amazing, isn’t it, that the same churches[TM] that can’t be bothered to mentor and shepherd the young men and women of their congregations in the biblical precepts of courtship and marriage are all champing at the bit to kick off “man-up-and-marry-them-sluts”/Sunday Morning Nightclub advertising sessions.

    What choice do they have?

    They can’t mentor on the biblical precepts because those put the men in a position of headship and that is a NON-STARTER for a church if the Pastor wants to remain employed. So, the less and less men marry women, the more and more the chuch needs to guilt them into doing so.

    I have a daughter. I have skin in the game. As a result, I do NOT like MGTOW. I understand why men do it, but I hate it. And believe me, if my daughter brings a nice young, sincere, Christian man home, I guarantee you I will be his greatest ally feeriker because I am greedy and want my 12 grandchildren.

  251. feeriker says:

    “Laura” is a troll

    Yeah, that blinding flash of the obvious suddenly struck me as I slogged through her verbal vomitus heaved up at September 9 @4:58PM. I was actually going to respond until I read it all the way through.

    This, however, had me ROTFLMAOing:

    At the time of my divorce in 1990, 90% of California divorces involved couples with a negative net worth. They weren’t splitting up assets, they were splitting up debts. Many of the divorces going on these days must involve couples in which one or both parties have lost their jobs and/or their house already.

    Wow, lemme see if I can wrap my head around this piece of unimpeachable “logic”:

    Two broke-ass people (maybe due to the hard times afflicting growing numbers of people through no direct fault of their own, or maybe because they’re lazy, selfish, unmotivated, impecunious PoS who “just aren’t very good at the game of life”) with barely a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of between the two of them decide that, since they can’t make it together, they’ll go their separate ways, still broke and without immediate prospects, each deciding to face the world separately, alone, without ANY resources of their own, rather than working together to better their lot, combining what resources they do have and relying upon each other’s strengths to overcome their adversity and build a life together.

    Yeah, THAT makes perfect sense. [/headshake/][/eyeroll/]

    I’d like to say “only in Kalifornia,” but of course I know better.

    And, yeah, it seems to describe Laura’s divorce.

  252. It took until that last paragraph where she was offering advice nonchalantly to husbands about how to go about getting therapy if they had the urge to immolate themselves on the courthouse steps, so you got there faster than I did freeriker. I was skimming though, so I need some credit for that.

  253. Shades of Woolybumblebee MGTOW mocking right there.

  254. Many of the divorces going on these days must involve couples in which one or both parties have lost their jobs and/or their house already

    See, your opinion, you use the word “must”, meaning you conclude. But this is not correct, and you could have picked that tidbit up even in the mainstream media. Divorce rate dropped in the recession.

    Women indeed do end up worse off much of the time. Yet they persist frivorcing. Kids are much more likely to have issues after a divorce, yet women keep frivorcing. They are able to convince themselves that THEY will be the exception.

    You sure write lots of words simply to be hawking your opinions. The folks here, the ones who have been ripped from family by frivorce…..the men….they tend to actually dig in and read and research. Its usually in the period just after the divorce that men do this, intensely, because it is so striking how it differs from what you are saying which is what “everyone knows”

  255. Laura says:

    Empathologism, you are the one who needs to read more carefully. I said NOTHING about the divorce rate going up or down.

  256. Michael says:

    @ empathologism

    What’s a lift? Also no offense but your avatar is really ugly. As in so ugly I flinch and wince in a split second of mental pain.

  257. I said NOTHING about the divorce rate going up or down.

    There is SO MUCH you didn’t say. You also didn’t say how much of that $70,000 credit card debt that you and your ex-husband accumulated was yours. You also didn’t say what every man here is hoping against hope that you will say: no-fault-divorce should be outlawed.

    Say that. Just say that, and maybe people will start taking you seriously. If you are incapable of saying that, they will continue teasing you for the troll that you are.

  258. Michael says:

    @ Greyghost

    If by special you mean the “red pill” is stuck in my throat as I decide if I want to heave it back out as it slowly makes its way down your right.

    No surrogates. I’m going to bypass this with a mail order bride and extensive pre-nupt. I’ve thought about it and decided those are the keys to getting around the red pill. Red pill involves effort and uncomfortableness. It turned my still northern lake into a messy lake Michigan.

  259. Laura says:

    To: Innocent Bystander I have no problem at all agreeing that No Fault Divorce should be outlawed. With no fault divorce, you actually end up with a situation in which “marriage” really doesn’t exist. Marriage is now a Government-sanctioned sexual liaison of indeterminate duration. Not an appealing prospect for Christians, and really not too appealing for anybody.

    I would also require that all babies be DNA tested at birth before the father’s name goes on the birth certificate, and I would cap child support in cases where the father’s income is extremely high, especially if his high income is unlikely to last throughout his working years (e.g. professional athlete.) I would force a six-month waiting period between applying for the marriage license and the marriage ceremony. The church is completely fouled up, with Christians divorcing while members of one church, and then trotting down the street to become members of another church, where they can marry again and repeat the process.

    I would also like to add that when I earlier referred to “moving on to a glorious new future,” I was being facetious. Many of the books about divorce and custody issues written in the 1970s and 1980s assumed that EVERYBODY in the family would eventually benefit from the divorce if only they approached the situation in a positive way because they would be meeting their self-actualization needs or something. I think most people who divorced in the 80s would have recognized this allusion, but upon reflection I realize that most people divorced in the mid-1990s or later probably would NOT, as at least some of the books being written now do not sugarcoat the reality of broken homes, etc.

    The societal pendulum will eventually swing back in the other direction. My guess is that the bottom will fall out of the economy in a big way within five years, with most or all of the government social programs either being discontinued de jure as the government goes broke, or discontinued de facto (inflated away, etc., your EBT card is loaded with dollars, but the dollars aren’t sufficient to pay for anything) When there is no Plan B, women will put up with anything & everything, including serial adultery, physical abuse, etc., as long as the husband can provide food for her and the children..

  260. Manlyman says:

    But this one’s DIFFERENT ! (Lifted from Just Four Guys)
    Carolyn FB says:

    September 7, 2013 at 3:10 am

    “This is a very well-informed article. Not sure if I am the only black woman responding but I would like to share my thoughts because your words hit me to the core. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the women who were around me were older and seem to complain a lot about black men, in addition to the media’s portrayal of black men. Both of my parents were uneducated blue collar workers and we lived better than most in our city. In fact, my father didn’t earn his degree until 2005, a year after obtaining mine. However, I fell into the whole idea of people without a degree were incapable of a certain “lifestyle” nor were they refined enough to date me.

    Yes, listening to my single girlfriends who were in their late 30s early 40s while I am in my mid-late 20s, seeing the men vanish from our family reunions due to divorce and such, and reading that bull in magazines/blogs had altered my views of uneducated, blue collar men. I became very fearful and because of those experiences, I subscribed to the superiority channel and where it landed me was alone, depressed, angry and bitter. Then, I subscribed to all the other destructive stories on why I was single. Having an advanced degree, white-collar profession and high-paying salary was what I thought would earn me the type of man I desired.

    I rarely dated blue-collar men because most behaved in an insecure manner, but perhaps it was the attitude and unaware behaviors that I projected that made them withdraw. I dated men who looked great on paper, but were complete jerks and assholes. I wondered why I attracted such arrogant, selfish, emotionally disturbed, ruthless men. I got to the point where I trashed my entire dating life in the garbage can and resigned to singleness for the remainder of my life at 32 years old. I learned that my thoughts, attitudes and feelings attracted such men who I thought was on “my level”. To be honest, it’s quite embarrassing because I could have saved myself so much time and pain had I known that it was me who had to do some real soul searching and redefine love and happiness.

    The problem was never about earning power, it’s socialism/classicism…being able to validate myself to others by impressing an imagery of success and perfection. Nowadays, we Black women think there are no good men left because we are looking for him to have a degree, a nice car, big house, fine clothes, and a corporate job. We are told that love and family look a certain way, not that we actually have to BE in love or BE a family, just as long as it looks that way.

    At the end of the day, I just desired a man who was nice, loving, compassionate, sincere, hard-working, smart, and God-loving. I met that man. He holds a high school diploma and he is a blue collar worker. At first, I struggled with the idea of a future with him because the level of his education and line of work, BUT I realized that those things say nothing about who he is and who he can be for me. What black women fail to realize is that we shut ourselves from love, marriage, and family by the choices we make and don’t make. Yes, there are men out there who come with a whole host of problems, but that’s everybody, white collar professionals included.

    What’s so destructive for Black women is for us to close our minds and hearts to all the possibilities. Not only are we resisted in dating outside our race, cutting out the majority of eligible bachelors in the US, we cut out the mass majority of men in the African-American society which leaves Black women vying for a small pool of Black men on top of competing with women of other races. All for image.”

  261. I said NOTHING about the divorce rate going up or down.

    True, and I read it just exactly as you wrote it. When you said that you think most of the people divorcing were doing so after a job loss or home loss, it implies that there is a correlation between the recession and people divorcing. If you meant no subtext inference that would be amazing.

  262. Michael

    The Lift (not A lift) is a representation of what drives white knights and female pedestalization in general. Its any form of positive feedback from women.

  263. @empathologism

    Re: The Lift

    I like the way you think.

    Down with “manginas”! This way to a better future!

    *

    *

    If only there was a way to prevent men from receiving “The Lift” from women… Perhaps, more modest female clothes would obscure a woman’s femininity and inhibit the “blue-pillers” from receiving “The Lift”?

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  264. Highwasp says:

    Laura – recording a conversation, argument, rant, threat or simple public discourse is illegal unless the person being recorded knows and consents. like a rock concert being recorded or sampled without consent is called a ‘pirated’ recording – on the other hand, a voice mail is consent, since the person speaking knows they are being recorded. ‘leaving a message’ therefore can be used as evidence…

    Setting an iPhone on record mode, next to a table in a restaurant so as to record a particular conversation, is not legal = inadmissible evidence, cuz the party being recorded don’t know they are being recorded, therefore can’t consent – is this accurate?

    it’s my present knowledge that this distinction (knowing one is being recorded v. unknowingly being recording) is being reviewed by the ‘powers that be’ and they might come to include that all or some AUDIO recordings are legal, but for now recording a spouse at home – or a concert – or sampling and reusing a James Brown song, are all illegal…

    – if the recording is unknown to those being recorded it is illegal, therefore a crime prosecutable against the spouse (or whomever) doing the illegal recording. seems like bad legal advice to suggest otherwise.

    VIDEO is different. VIDEO recordings are all admissible. VIDEO with audio is even better but one might have to strip off the audio file off before a judge can allow it as evidence. And VIDEO is so much more informative… .02¢

  265. Laura says:

    empathologism: What I said was: “Many of the divorces going on these days must involve couples in which one or both parties have lost their jobs and/or their house already.”

    The divorce rate goes up and down over time, and the “top reasons” for divorces change somewhat over a period of time. For instance, after WWII, there were a lot of divorces related to adultery, because couples had been separated for long periods of time during the war, and there were a lot of divorces related to the fact that the marriage itself had been impulsive and based on fleeting emotions.

    Money problems are a big reason for marriage failures, but a certain percentage of marriages end up in divorce court whether economic times are good or bad. There almost certainly is some sort of correlation between recession and the divorce rate, but I did not address that. My statement was quite clear in its meaning. The country has experienced hard economic times since about 2008, and many people getting divorced during this recent period have probably experienced the loss of a job or a house, leaving them in poor financial circumstances even before they attempt to set up separate households. That doesn’t mean that the loss of the job or the house necessarily triggered the divorce, although it can’t have helped.

    As to how much of the $70,000 in credit card debt was mine, the answer is almost none of it. When we married, my husband ran up credit card debt, and I got a job at an inner-city liquor store and gradually paid off some of it, but he kept charging more. About two years after we married, I got a job as a flight attendant, and we agreed that ALL of my income from that job would be placed in a segregated account to be used for a house down payment, since he saved ZERO out of his Air Force Captain’s pay plus flight pay.

    I saved up about $6000 (in the late 70s) and went to the credit union to deposit my latest check while he was out of town. When I deposited the new check, I found that the account was almost empty. When my husband came back into town the next day I asked him if he had withdrawn the money. He admitted that he had, and explained that he had to do it because the credit card debt had gotten so big that it was an “emergency,” and that it was stupid to be paying high interest on credit card debt when money was sitting in a credit union account earning low interest. He said that he realized that the money was supposed to be used for the house down payment, but he didn’t realize that he wasn’t supposed to access it for other purposes even in an emergency. He promised that it would never happen again, that all future earnings that I had would be used for the house down payment.

    But about six months later, there was an exact repeat of the previous episode, and he made another insincere apology, again claiming that he thought that it was OK to use the money when the credit card debt got to an emergency level, and then he capped it off by telling me that I was too stupid to understand how interest rates worked, and that if my money meant so much to me, that I should take his name off the account. I was extremely angry, and I did tell him that I did NOT want to have a separate account that he wasn’t part of, but I didn’t want to be married to the sort of person who could not be trusted. He apologized profusely for the “misunderstanding” about how the money was to be used, and promised to replace some of the money he had taken, and made up an elaborate chart showing how the money would be repaid over the coming months — he actually made one payment before stopping.

    I begged him to chop up the credit cards and get rid of them, as we would never get ahead unless he did. He said that closing the credit card accounts would hurt our credit rating, and interfere with our ability to buy a house, and that the solution was to seal the cards into an envelope and put them in our home safe and only use them if an emergency came up. Otherwise we would focus on the house down payment. A few months later, I walked by his home office and the door was open, and I could hear him on the phone with someone, rattling off the credit card 16 digit number plus the expiration date. When he got off the phone, I confronted him for taking the cards out of the safe despite our agreement. He was triumphant! He had NOT taken the cards out, he merely had the information on a few of the cards memorized so that he could charge whatever he wanted without physically handling the cards. At this point it really did dawn on me that he wasn’t just bad with money, he was a full-blown crook.

    He was a pathological liar, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on child pornography, hence the later investigation by the FBI and the revelation of the secret credit card accounts. My ex spouse had no sales resistance, and admitted that it made him feel special to spend money freely He could not defer gratification AT ALL, and as time went on in our marriage, his inability to handle money became more acute, as his expensive tastes in European clothing, apartments, wine, high stakes gambling, etc., greatly outstripped his rise in income.

    My story in this case is not that unusual, except for the child pornography aspect. Many men and women have been married to someone who was insane with money, and until you have been there, you can’t imagine the despair of dealing with someone like that. He spent all of the money that I earned on himself, he spent money I inherited on himself, he spent financial gifts from my family on himself. His parents gave him a large sum of money in the late 80s to buy a house, and he bought the house and then got a second mortgage and sucked all of the equity out of it. The more he wasted, the cheaper I got, because I was terrified that our marriage would end through death or divorce and I would be stuck with the debt. He then taunted me for being a “scrivener.”

    I get the fact that the men on this website are bitter about the divorce laws in this country, and I agree that they have every right to be bitter. But no fault divorce can also screw women over, because rotten people are sometimes male and sometimes female.

    The divorce laws will probably be reformed in some major way within the next 10 years or so. If they aren’t, then marriage will completely die out except in the upper classes and among the truly devout (Amish, etc.)

  266. Laura says:

    Highwasp: The taping rules vary from state to state. My assumption when addressing Some Guy was that a taped recording would NOT be admissible in court in his state (I don’t know what state he is in.) However, even an inadmissible tape can be used to pressure a spouse in a case like this. If Some Guy’s wife is presenting herself as the poor martyr in their marriage, the existence of a tape montage of her going ballistic over every little thing that went on in their home that didn’t go her way could be enough to persuade her to settle a divorce quietly out of court. Even if the tape cannot be played in court, a court-appointed custody mediator might be persuaded to listen to it, and even if he refused to listen to it, he might be swayed by the fact that you are insisting that the tape is dynamite, while the spouse is insisting that it should not be played.

    The bottom line is that Some Guy’s wife appears to be very focused on what the community thinks of her, and probably wants to preserve her reputation as a Saintly Wife within her own extended family. (Sadly, Some Guy also appears to care what the members of Phony Church think of him.) If we assume that at least one of Some Guy’s children is school age, then we have to wonder whether his wife is making some or all of her threats in front of that child, or whether she just turns on the heat when she and Some Guy are alone. In short, does she care if the children know that she is a b***h? If the children don’t know the real score, she may be willing to cut a deal rather than have an ugly divorce where the children end up realizing that she is the one who killed the marriage.

    The longer Some Guy holds out in his unenviable situation, the more likely it is that the children, especially the eldest one, will figure out that Mommy has a Public Persona and a Private Persona.

    In the meantime, I say tape as much as you can, and by all means save a copy of any nasty messages left by voice mail, email, etc.

    As an added benefit, beginning to openly videotape her will shut her up in mid rant. But Some Guy didn’t say that she is quick tempered or a ranter, so it’s hard to say if this will help him much.

  267. turning towards the older feminstz like laura is a losing gamez

    let the dead bury the dead

    and come ride with da GBFM

    and the new fmeinistsz my good friend miley cyrus new video lzzozoz:

    llzozoozozz

  268. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”It is getting broken because of MGTOW. The less and less men marry, the more and more women who DON’T have a man in their life to wield their “threatpoint” the more “broke” the system gradually becomes””

    This is exactly what I am seeing!

    “”That is why so many churches are starting up so many groups to try and motivate the never-married bachelors (in their congregation) to get married.””

    Yes! Funny story.About 5 years ago an Evangelical Pastor friend of mine invited me to his Church as he “had to talk to me”.He did not tell me that it was Singles Night! Anyhoo,I mingled and had about about 7 or 8 women around me at once.Why not…I was wearing the nicest suit and was driving the nicest car of all the other men.But,then something amazing happened.One of the women asked me..”Which Christian Congregation do you belong to?”…..My reply….”I do not belong to a Christian Congregation…I belong to a Synagogue”……L*….all of a sudden the women disappeared!……L*……Imagine that? I felt like a leper!…..L* Fortunately for me I have a thick skin!

  269. Miss Cyrus has some intangible alien quality about her. Slut on steroids? Maybe it’s too much club scene for her?

    Yuck.

    A.J.P.

  270. @Mark

    Are you sure you’re not a troll?

  271. Mark says:

    @AJP

    I am very sure……..are you sure you’re not a troll?…or just some useless panty waste?

  272. Chris_Williams says:

    “He was a pathological liar, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on child pornography, hence the later investigation by the FBI and the revelation of the secret credit card accounts.”

    Oh, I see. This story keeps getting better and better. I wonder if anyone ever saw “Mr. Laura” and Jeffrey Dahmer in the same place at the same time?

    Pretty telling how she never mentions this at the beginning of her first post, yet throws it in once people point out her disingenuous motives. Whenever I mention why I don’t like my High School’s Asst. Dean, I NEVER start out by mentioning his thing for 12 y/o girls – nope..Instead, I make post after long-winded post about how he didn’t say “hi” to me in the hallway a couple days before he was arrested. Priorities, you know?

    “no fault divorce can also screw women over, because rotten people are sometimes male and sometimes female.”

    Again, here we come to the primary purpose of her post – passive-aggressive distraction from this blog’s purpose. As well as “‘snowflaking”, in an effort to make the blog not about STATISTICAL trends, but anecdotes. Forget what a good 80% of divorced Christian men deal with nowadays – Dalrock needs to play host to the 24/7 Laura Show. Fortunately, several other posters seem to have caught on to the narcissism inherent in these posts.

  273. Pjay says:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf

    50% of first marriages end in 20 years – maybe over time, women have realized this is something to use as leverage….

  274. Alan Perrick

    Re The Lift

    Its not what you are thinking, though that is certainly I guess an aspect. The term comes from the dynamic that took place when, as teens boys try white knight beta strategies in the back seat with the GF (well, thats where we did it in the late 70’s).The boy tells the girl things like “Im not like other guys”….or he infers that by all the things he says. He is saying he values HER, not just her body so to speak, when she finally relents and gives him what he is saying he isnt really after, “The Lift” is when she raises her butt off the seat to allow the pants to come off.

    So those men never lose the urge to white knight women because they get “The Lift”….but later in life its not sex necessarily, its a nice comment from a woman on a blog comment, an email saying “wow you are so bold to go against the other misanthropes”, preachers get The Lift from the women of the church in positive feedback on his sermons that build women and tear down men. The Lift is any form of action or comment from women that let a man know he has somehow pleased her , which in this case means he is actually not even worth more to her than tossing him an occasional Lift nugget. And yet men chase The Lift. Watch for it right here, a guy will pop in time to time and get him some from a random woman and we can watch

  275. Yes Laura is writing her memoirs before our eyes. Best stop responding to them, it stimulates more writing

  276. Buck says:

    RE: Laura,
    Always the same,
    “he is a loser, scumbag, dope head, thief, pervert, violent, dishonest, abusive, spendthrift, ex-con, net-porn addict blah, blah, blah…..YET….he got the girl!!!!
    hahahaha

  277. oblivion says:

    re: Laura

    laura’s hamster says “im gonna turn dalrocks page into a lifetime movie special because i was the perfect snowflake and my husband made me unhaaappppyyyy!!”

  278. Casey says:

    @ Michael
    Michael said:

    “The system has been created to allow this to happen. Men are fucked. There is not going to any law changes. No fairness. No children or families will ever be secure as long as women are given carte blanche by our government.
    These laws will never be changed. I mean come on. I never see anything in the mainstream news. No protests outside of family court. Nothing. Just silently taking it or opening their wallets because they are trapped forced and have no choice.
    It’s very sad that female equality looks like this !! .”

    Michael, this has NEVER been about female equality……….it has ALWAYS been about female domination.

    The TRUE people in charge, (who you never hear, see, or sense their presence)……WANT it this way. This is the best way to assure a baby-making society where the dangerous class (men) are held firmly in check by women.

    Name me ONE revolution where women charged the battlefield and overturned the ruling oligarchy.

    It’s a shell game at best. If men were enslaved directly by the state because of this (accurate) perceived threat, there would be bloodshed by morning.
    BUT
    Enter useful idiots (women) into the fold, and you can enslave an entire gender while playing the ‘judicial prudence’ & ‘fairness’ cards while doing so.

    Come on……women can’t ACTUALLY be expected to be held accountable to their ‘equality’ rhetoric?

    Right?

  279. I doubt there was child porn involved. I saw that accusation unfold on a guy I knew in Texas. It didn’t go to police or anything, just the wife hyperventilating in divorce. Turned out the guy was looking at porn and clicking the button for the category called “teens”. I am not supporting his porn use, but they did PC forensics (he paid for that of course) and found only mainstream of age female and male+female porn. But the guys reputation inside the circle of acquaintances was marred for good.
    Tossing the child porn allegation is predictable here because she would not expect us to rise to the bate that the pedestrians do, like “abuse” and such.

  280. Some Guy says:

    How do you handle the accusation of abuse socially before government/legal gets drawn in? I’m talking about where raising your voice and/or not doing what the wife demands is being equated to abuse by your wife and her churchian enablers.

    If I talk about how volatile that label is, then I’m accused of being paranoid.

    If I talk about the use of that term is being expanded to create a false equivalency with “real” abuse of the black eye, broken arm, and “rape rape” variety… them I’m accused of being pedantic or of changing the subject.

    If I point the intentional deception related to that word is part of a naked attempt to coerce me… then I’m overreacting and judgmental and it’s impossible to have a conversation with me about anything.

    And always always always the push to sit down with a minister and then try what he says… because, after all, my way isn’t working.

  281. Some Guy says:

    “If I point the” should be “If I point out that the”

  282. We’ve seen how the concept of feminism has introduced it’s definitions of “abuse” into church. How they have marginalized any scriptures that point to the proper functioning of marriage. Suggesting that a wife’s body belongs to her husband is abusive, while what the husband with his body can be viewed as “adultery”. The radfems claim that sex is rape, the act of penetration is abuse. How long before we see the suggestions that requesting sex from our wives is “harassment” and “coercive” and is tantamount to rape because of the “privilege differential”. Marital sex is going to be labeled abusive, and believers are going to be the worst perpetrators.

  283. Some Guy says:

    That’s another thing.

    This type of abuse is defined as something that only men are capable of. I asked my wife if there were any way that her complaining, criticizing, henpecking, nagging, and threats of divorce could be considered to be abuse.

    The answer was a flat “no.”

  284. hurting says:

    Some Guy says:

    September 10, 2013 at 10:36 am

    SG,

    In general, you can’t object to the co-opting of the word ‘abuse’, because you are a member of who has been deemed to be the only demographic capable of such. Your objection to being labeled thusly is prima facie evidence of your guilt.

    All of the modern, feminist discussions of ‘abuse’ are manifestations of cultural Marxism designed to destroy the pillars of Western society. No more, no less.

  285. Suggesting that a wife’s body belongs to her husband is abusive, while what the husband with his body can be viewed as “adultery”. The radfems claim that sex is rape, the act of penetration is abuse. How long before we see the suggestions that requesting sex from our wives is “harassment” and “coercive” and is tantamount to rape because of the “privilege differential”.

    Just don’t marry those types of women.

    Radfems are the most lonely group of women on the planet. They have themselves to blame even if they would never admit that. But although it is not in the nature of women to call out other women whome they might disagree with, you aren’t going to find too many women (who actually enjoy sex) to ever label penetration as abuse. And your wife’s opinion is really the only opinion that matters on this one.

  286. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, this is why marriage has been destroyed. People are not born marriage ready, they are made marriage ready. Making marriage a priority is a chore that society or a community has to work at in order to protect its very foundation. However, now children, teenagers and young adults are left to their own devices in a world where everything goes and nothing is forever. A marriage is just a kick starter for a more empowered woman down the line.

    It’s maddening to me, it’s quite literally able to suck the life from me. What exactly does society, women, feminists, pastors, ‘man up’ lecturers, ‘traditional’ women, Christian women and sundry expect from men like me? There is no possible way for me to be what they want me to be. They’ve destroyed literally everything that is needed to produce the masculine man they seem to want. And the real funny thing is that they don’t really want me to be that masculine man anyway, too unattractive for that, but by the same token, the attractive man out there has no reason to be the masculine men all these grievance groups need because their attractiveness gives them all they want or need without having to work for it. Funny shit ladies, haha fucking ha!

    As far as all Christian men not being pansies goes… It doesn’t matter a stiff, it’s not masculine men these women want, it’s ATTRACTIVE AND EXCITING masculine men that these women want, ‘Christian’ hasn’t got a thing to do with it. The rest of Christian men are not worth a damn, even though this society only survives by the sacrifices made by these same men, cause quite frankly, when attractive men get everything they need without effort, they have no reason to build or maintain, and can quite easily become business banksters and wall street shitheads, making a living squeezing money out of other men.

    So exactly what is it women want? A masculine man? An attractive man? Both.. all rapped neatly into one? Well, how exactly do they expect that to happen? Where are these men being made? Does anyone care? I don’t think so. It’s all a scam anyway so that women can have their cake and eat it too, and then blame you for making them fat…

    If Christian women expect attractiveness, masculinity, a riveting sexual and scientific conversationalist, who writes Nobel Prize winning science journals whilst squeezing a romantic lovefest novel out his ass every other weekend, who also just happens to be sweet and caring when they need him to be but an ass kicker who takes names and keeps score whilst beating up gangbangers with his left pinky, who loves children and animals, who by day works his ass off at the biggest Engineering/Architecture firm in the land and by night becomes superhero Mr Crotch Rocket McHard the Third, who drills her for 4 hours straight while she screams the Lord’s name, who then takes the children to school in the morning while she talks to her friendies about the days past where she had the football team but then became a super Christian, after an incident with the coach of the team drilling her too hard led her to Christ, who am I to complain? I can’t even begin to compete, I’m shut out before even beginning and have never be taught or mentored to be this kind of man…

    I just don’t even know what these people are thinking. It’s a crazy world out there and bitches expecting such shit, well, go chase it sisters, it’s simply just not worth it anymore.

  287. What exactly does society, women, feminists, pastors, ‘man up’ lecturers, ‘traditional’ women, Christian women and sundry expect from men like me?

    Money. They want your money.

    You were born male. So (in their eyes) you will create more wealth than you will naturally consume in your lifetime. Therefore, it is your responsibility (as a male) to give that excess wealth to the Church/Government/Wife to make them “whole” because they depend upon you.

    If you are too ugly to get a woman to marry you, then your excess wealth needs to be confiscated by government to subsidize single moms. Someone has to pay for them, you are the ideal candidate because you don’t already have a wife and children to support. It falls to you.

    They want your money FH. Its always been about the money.

  288. @SG

    The abuse card can be played both ways… It’s a trump card for her, but you can play it as well. Document, document, document everything. Constantly threatening abuse charges is a form of emotional abuse. 25 Signs Your Narcissistic or Borderline Wife or Girlfriend is Traumatizing You. is a good read.

    It’s easy for people to say “just don’t marry a woman like that” but decisions made ten or fifteen years ago were not necessarily made with foreknowledge. Women can and do change, often for the worse. I’m not a fan of baiting her into doing things just to have a few good reactions on video, but the fact is, it takes only the accusation on the part of the woman but the man has to have hard proof.

    If your wife is already at the point of threatening abuse charges and discussing said abuse with church elders, she is establishing evidence that will nail you. You don’t know how much time you have, but a weak defense is better than no defense. Some video of her striking you, threatening you or obviously being emotionally out of control could mitigate a lot of the damage she might throw at you later. The problem is how to play the card. Once she knows she’s been filmed… she has a choice, either to back down or to go nuclear. Ugly options, but options are better than a straight-jacket.

    If you have time, game will help, but a woman that’s already threatening abuse charges and discussing said abuse charges with church leadership sounds like a woman who’s had some counsel. The fact she doesn’t see her behavior as being verbally and emotionally abusive is irrelevant. Because it is. Evidence demonstrating said behavior could give you a fighting chance.

  289. It’s easy for people to say “just don’t marry a woman like that” but decisions made ten or fifteen years ago were not necessarily made with foreknowledge. Women can and do change, often for the worse.

    True.

    And forget about changing. It may just be the woman that she really is (and you just never knew it.) This is particularly dangerous if you refuse to live with a woman before you get married. Sadly (and this isn’t Christian) it is almost impossible for a man to know if the woman he wants to marry is BPD before he marries her if he hasn’t lived with her first. Because the BPD woman (he is dating, but not living with yet because they aren’t married) is clever enough to hide her true intensions towards being a force of pure destruction in his life. She will NOT be able to hide her antics if she lives with him before marriage. He is going to be able to bless her out for who she is.

    Toad is right, you need to record something. If she is using a threatpoint, you MUST have legal leverage so if you are forced to talk to a 3rd party (someone with legal authority over your life in someway) having eveidence to support your sincerity takes the legs out of a destroyer to whom you are unfortunately married. Yes, she could go nuclear but if she is going to do that, she was going to do that regardless. It is only a matter of time because she not only does not love you, she is incapable of love. At least her going nuclear (her wrath) will bring her own demise as your evidence in a courtroom assures (at worst to you) MAD (mutually assured destruction.)

  290. feeriker says:

    “im gonna turn dalrocks page into a lifetime movie special

    I think I’ve finally figured out that “Lifetime” is really an acronym for “Lying, Infantile Feminists Emotionally Trashing and Injuring Men Everywhere.”

  291. feeriker says:

    How long before we see the suggestions that requesting sex from our wives is “harassment” and “coercive” and is tantamount to rape because of the “privilege differential”. Marital sex is going to be labeled abusive, and believers are going to be the worst perpetrators.

    Indeed. I have to believe that there’s a special place in hell awaiting churchians who have been enabling and encouraging all of this nonsense.

  292. Women can and do change, often for the worse. I’m not a fan of baiting her into doing things just to have a few good reactions on video, but the fact is, it takes only the accusation on the part of the woman but the man has to have hard proof.

    I thought similar when I saw the advice to avoid marrying a woman like that. I think every women has the potential to play the abuse card. Every last woman.

    This advice to document is sage for anyone presently walking this gauntlet. There was a guy, John Dias, who had a website called something like Dont make her mad .com. On he he sold video and audio equipment for this purpose, and he told his compelling story. I forget the details but it was something that happened after several incidents of made up abuse and cop calling, his wife was wanting to argue, he kept avoiding her, she walked calmly to the phone, called 911, and said she needed help she was scared.

    Cops came, it took him some convincing but they finally agreed to look at the video before they took him away. It was an amazing thing. He may have still had to go with them because of the must-arrest” laws in some states. Other men started sharing their success stories. It works. If its really happening, bust her big….once….and she’s done. Short of that, you are toast

  293. hurting says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    September 10, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    Seconding (or thirding) the idea that ‘just not marrying’ BPD/NPD women is that easy. Hindsight really is 20/20, and beyond the ‘hiding’ behavior on their part is the matter of children. While children are indeed a blessing (the most blessed, if you will), they require tons of time and energy and sacrifice, and it’s when the first child arrives, I suspect, that even the most closeted BPD/NPD can’t hold it together anymore.

    I don’t put a much stock in the various personality disorder distinctions and generally view the helping professions with a very dim view (if it was science, they’d just call it science, instead of social science) due to their inherent amoral view of the world (“sin to syndrome”). Nonetheless, I know what I saw firsthand as the most incredibly selfish behavior I’ve ever witnessed, labels be damned.

  294. Laura says:

    Empathologism: The FBI investigated my ex for producing and selling child pornography a couple of years after we divorced. I don’t know what triggered the FBI investigation, but it wasn’t me.

    Kiddie porn is a huge industry, so obviously some percentage of the population is buying it.

    From what I have seen, most people who have run up gigantic credit card bills have some kind of addiction (gambling, shopping, drugs, etc.) The people who get financially trapped by credit card payments over a period of time are often just self-indulgent and bad at budgeting, or overwhelmed by a one-time catastrophe, but the people with the absolutely breathtaking levels of credit card debt have very serious issues beyond the financial ones.

    Men love formulas, so here’s a formula for the manosphere:

    Credit card debt > annual income = mental disease or defect.

    When it rains, it pours. If your spouse has some kind of secret bad habit, they may spend you into the poorhouse to pay for it. Dave Ramsey can’t help these people, because it isn’t just a budgeting problem. And yes, a lot of women are really, really foolish with money, and blow staggering amounts of their husband’s money on recreational shopping, endless redecorating, online poker, etc.

  295. Random Angeleno says:

    @Some Guy
    Begin. Recording. Everything. Now. Video. Audio. Whatever. The point is she’s got the head start and the frame control on you. You have to flip the script. Remember she has lost all feeling for you, she’s done and is looking for her cash and prizes. Legal, illegal, at this point, I wouldn’t care. You’ll secrete copies everywhere and you’ll drop them like bombs at the appropriate times. If “face” means that much to her, that’s your leverage. If she has used abusive language at or at least in front of the children, that’s gold in your hands. Use it. If you go to jail, guess what, when you’re not making money, she’s not making money off you.

  296. hurting,

    I don’t put a much stock in the various personality disorder distinctions

    Neither did I. But I do now knowing that women are not moral agents. If you understand that a woman is likely to do exactly as empath said, call the cops simply because she’s scared (really just pissed off, not scared in the least, but is going to get EVEN), you will understand the main difference between men and women. And it is that BPD that enables this distinction to manifest itself into a direct legal and financial danger for you.

    and generally view the helping professions with a very dim view (if it was science, they’d just call it science, instead of social science) due to their inherent amoral view of the world (“sin to syndrome”). Nonetheless, I know what I saw firsthand as the most incredibly selfish behavior I’ve ever witnessed, labels be damned.

    At one time, when Christian leaders (more sepcifically Catholic leaders) would figure out that women were “nuts” and did all that they could to harm everyone in their life that loved them (people who cared enough to stay with and try and help a sociopath) then they would peform the rite of excorcism. I am not even kidding.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

    What is really going on here hurting, is she is BPD. Dr Scott Peck referred to these women as PEOPLE OF THE LIE.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

    And they would almost always be women. And Dr Peck came to the conclusion that these PEOPLE OF THE LIE (these women) were what they were(and harmed the men in their life that were stupid enough to love them) because they had a destructive/sinister relationship with their fathers. (See, Dr Peck says that, and women who are BPD can be releaved to know that it is not their fault, it is someone else.) Again, the core principle here is women are not moral agents. They are NOT accountable. And when you deal from that position (and you are a sociopath as BPD women are) you are capabale of anything. And it is never your own fault.

    As Christian men, if we fall in love with these women, were f-cked. Seriously, we are f-cked. That is pretty much it for us on this planet, our lives on this planet is going to suck and we are going to die. That is why you’ll never hear me criticisize any man who insists on living with his girlfriend for a while before he gets married because 40 in prison is less a hell on earth than being married to a BPD.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/borderline-personality-disorder-sick-or-just-crazy-asshole/

  297. oblivion says:

    “Men love formulas, so here’s a formula for the manosphere”

    laura’s hamster is >her critical thinking= she is still here trying to create a lifetime movie

    watch out guys, laura was the perfect snowflake and the $70,000 of credit card debt just happened overnight. its all her evil mans fault. Its not like laura could have taken any responsibility for the family finaces ( shes so empowered) and ran a simple credit report online.

    laura’s hamster>any personal responsibility= a lifetime movie
    nawalt x laura’s hamster= enough kinetic energy to light new york city at night

  298. Laura,

    Men love formulas, so here’s a formula for the manosphere:

    Credit card debt > annual income = mental disease or defect.

    Here is a better formula…

    Credit card debt > $0 at the end of the month = not a moral agent

    Men are accountable and are quick to criticize other men when they screw up and get themselves in trouble with the credit cards. Women? Not so much. That is because they always have excuses (always) and are not moral agents.

    Here is a handy-dandy expression that we (as Christians) need to remember about credit cards: Usury is unChristian. I hate to get all GBFM lolzzlololzlol on this board but its right there in the Bible Laura, NO USURY.

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/usury

    Now we are kind of dependant on usury if we want to have a house (unless you can pay cash for a house, good luck with that.) But in almost all cases, pay all your bills at the end of the month. All of them. Pay off all your debt. To welch on debt you weren’t supposed to have in the first place, not only is it sinful and unChristian, its just immoral.

  299. Laura-Troll-whateveryourrealnameis,

    You seem like an intelligent person. Your writing has some merit. Those are my compliments to you. Regarding your husband and the merits of your divorce, I don’t believe you. I am not buying your story about your husband. If he was all those things, kiddie porn, credit cards, (and cheating on you) and you didn’t know, I can’t even imagine a woman such as yourself (with your intelligence) being duped to this level of foolishness.

    I’m sorry Laura, what you are saying does not add up….

  300. @IBB

    “Just don’t marry those types of women.”

    Well there it is guys, the manosphere can call it quits IBB has discovered the solution to all of our problems.

    It seems to me IBB that the culture is effecting the women we have married. Maybe Captain Blowjob needs to register as a sex offender because he thought NAWALT. Are you sure you’re not a woman?

  301. I don’t believe it either. It seems like a story that has needed escalation over the time since it occurred in order that it stay edgy enough. Maybe I’m wrong, and I’m not going up thread looking, but didn’t this divorce happen before internet? I mean, not that there was no child porn, but pre-internet its orders of magnitude more far fetched.

    Or is the allegation he did that years after the divorce.

  302. Mark says:

    @empathy

    “”she walked calmly to the phone, called 911, and said she needed help she was scared.””

    Great Advice! I have seen this work.About 10 years ago a friend had this “psycho c***” as a g/f(I think he went out with her 3 times).Anyways,she showed up at his house one night…..started a fight….he told her to “LEAVE NOW”….she slammed her head on the hallway door frame big lump and bleeding.She picked up her cell phone and called the cops.Little did she know that he was video recording the whole thing.The cops arrived and he showed them the video.They escorted her out of the house and that was it.Little did the moron cops know that they were also being recorded.He then went after the Police via their Police Services Board and filed a formal complaint against them….for failing to give her a restraining order(which he asked for)…failing to arrest and charge her for false reporting to the Police..etc..etc. He ended up winning and these cops got into a boat load of shit because of the Video……..it does work!

  303. feeriker says:

    Laura said:
    Men love formulas, so here’s a formula for the manosphere:
    Credit card debt > annual income = mental disease or defect.

    No, my dear little hamsterbatrix, your formula “equals” the following: immaturity, irresponsibility, and recklessness, NONE of are “mental diseases,” but are, rather, “defects” of character – that apply to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN EQUALLY.

    Hopefully you’ve shared that part of your “formula” with your sestren in the femisphere.

  304. MarcusD says:

    “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible” – Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

  305. oblivion says:

    @marcusd

    congradulations! i would like to nominate marcus for quote of the day :)

  306. oblivion says:

    the smoking gun of laura’s lifetime divorce drama we all had to endure.

    laura says “At the time of my divorce in 1990, 90% of California divorces involved couples with a negative net worth.”

    “The FBI investigated my ex for producing and selling child pornography a couple of years after we divorced. I don’t know what triggered the FBI investigation, but it wasn’t me.

    Kiddie porn is a huge industry, so obviously some percentage of the population is buying it. ”

    there was no internet in 1990, therefore there was no child porn ring that your husband was running/involved with at the time of your divorce. that is unless there was home movies being filmed and sold at/from your house. which one is it laura??? tell us more about your vhs criminal past.

    now please leave, u stupid hamster troll.

  307. Legion says:

    feeriker says: September 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    “I think I’ve finally figured out that “Lifetime” is really an acronym for “Lying, Infantile Feminists Emotionally Trashing and Injuring Men Everywhere.””

    I’m stealing that.

  308. George Zimmerman should be getting a helmet-cam for the rest of his life. Might have done him some good a few times now.

  309. hurting says:

    IBB,

    Still don’t know if I was ever married to one or not, but I definitely agree with your observation that a woman who calls the cops to intervene in a marital dispute either a) does not know the full consequences that such an action could bring about (“doesn’t understand cause and effect very well”) or b) does understand and fully well intends to use them to her advantage.

  310. there was no internet in 1990, therefore there was no child porn ring that your husband was running/involved with at the time of your divorce. that is unless there was home movies being filmed and sold at/from your house. which one is it laura??? tell us more about your vhs criminal past.

    I had already busted her on that

  311. Chris_Williams says:

    “there was no internet in 1990, therefore there was no child p0rn ring that your husband was running/involved with at the time of your divorce. ”

    She sure seems infatuated with “Korn”, Oblivion. Why is that? Since our thread’s so horribly derailed, ponder this – why are modern women so fascinated by sexual deviancy…? Witness the number of chick dramas & books where rape, childhood trauma, etc are basically used as a substitute for plot. Perhaps the “Trauma lit” genre is the sum-total of tropes irresistible to modern female sensibilities – male predation, righteous female victimhood, erotic submission, and unfulfilled Electra Complexes.

    This garbage drove me to abandon fanfiction websites around the early 2000’s, right when more female “authors” started to write stories. Come to think of it, our guest’s comments are not unlike some of the worst female written fics I’ve read.

    Now, in re: our resident femme-fic-writer’s latest tale, it may be helpful to add that nobody buys tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of any adult films-least of all illegal ones. More than 10 years ago, one of the big news magazines found that pirated “Korn” was readily available to consumers (what’s the original film maker going to do? File a copyright complaint?) Not to mention that for less than $10,000 you can BUY a child even in the United States and not bother with movies at all (see, e.g., Misty VanHorn). Of course, Brilliant Criminal Mastermind Mr. Laura knew none of this…

  312. greyghost says:

    I art Laughing
    Florida is an alimony for life state. The wife is a lawyer I think and has money. She wants a divorce and is trying to unload the liability.

  313. greyghost says:

    Man that Laura divorce thing is still here. Why don’t she just do a twerk video like everybody else. Everything she said her husband did is the exact thing wives all across America do with credit cards. She just wrote about her own divorce and switched the sex of the players. By the 90’s and a guy in the military I say bullshit. A better story would be about how he was fucking the hell out of the bitches when he went on deployment.

  314. Yeah, any bets on her getting disbarred for making a false report? 4:1 against. Takers?

  315. Laura says:

    To: Some Guy

    Because this is more of a “men only” website, I won’t be visiting or posting here after today, but I have thought of you a number of times today, and I wanted to give you some parting advice:

    (1) Random Angeleno is probably correct. It does sound as though your wife is already in the final stage prior to dumping you, in that she has already informed your church leadership that you are not a worthy husband. By doing this, she has already “tested the waters” to ensure that she will still be held in high regard in the community post divorce.

    (a) Start putting cash in a lockbox, and keep the lockbox at a friend’s house. If you have any sort of personal property such as guns, tools, stamp collection, etc., also take those elsewhere, especially if you can do it without your wife noticing. Getting the guns out of the house also prevents her from talking about how scared she is of you being so angry and having guns in the house, etc. If you know that you will have to sell off a collection of guns or stamps, etc., because you bought some or all of them during the marriage, sell the collection now and pay off your student loans, your car, etc.

    (b) Mentally detach yourself from your material possessions such as your house and furniture. You may end up with a reasonable settlement, and you may not, but you will survive one way or another, even if you suffer a fairly severe drop in your standard of living initially. You really don’t want to live in a home that is a shrine to your former marriage anyway. It is often better to walk away from the equity in the house and try to hang on to your pension plan, but in today’s environment, it is hard to say. But women are often emotionally attached to the house and furniture, so try to make that fact work in your favor.

    (c) Spend money NOW to repair/maintain your car, to get your dental work up to date, to buy a new suit, etc. The best situation to be in with a car going into a divorce is a Honda or Toyota with low miles that is paid for or almost paid for. If your oldest child is probably going to need orthodontic work, get that started now, and pay off as much as you can. Think about other similar items that can be handled now while you still have discretionary income and some savings.

    (d) If your parents & siblings are unaware of how bad things are, it is probably better not to tell them. They will have great difficulty concealing their knowledge from your wife, and if your wife thinks that you are planning for a divorce, she will jump the gun and file immediately. (It matters little in the long run who files first in a situation like this — don’t panic if you get served with papers out of the blue.)

    (e) Start trying to find an attorney, and once you find one, consider paying him a retainer NOW while you still have money. (Obviously, do NOT do this from your cell phone or home computer). Make a list of board-certified specialists in family law in your area, and talk to people who are in the process of getting divorced now, as well as people who got divorced a couple of years ago. Ask both groups of people whether their lawyer was better than their ex’s lawyer, and ask people who were divorced a couple of years ago if their lawyer was ethical, whether he tried to pour fuel on the flames to make matters worse and thereby increase his own fees, etc. The people who work at the courthouse are not supposed to give attorney referrals, but if you chit chat with them during a slow period and then show them a list of people you are considering, they may well be willing to comment on the ones they have dealt with. “He used to be really good, but for the last year or so he seems to be coming to court unprepared.” This information can help you enormously. If you are tight on money, ask the courthouse clerk if he has seen any “up and comers” in the legal profession who do a good job on divorce cases, but maybe aren’t board-certified yet and charge lower fees.

    (f) Get some kind of calendar or daily diary from the stationery store, and keep track of your children’s appointments and activities in it, in ink, not pencil. Put a check mark next to each one that you attend, and put an “x” or something next to the ones that your wife also attends. Your wife may tell the judge or mediator that you “never” go to PTA, parent-teacher conferences, swim meets, piano recitals, etc., BUT if you have made what is known as a “contemporaneous record” of your involvement, you can rebut her allegations, and if she hasn’t kept a comparable diary, then your word will trump hers. Most cases don’t actually go to trial, but the calendar can also be shown to the court-ordered psychologist or mediator, etc. It depends on what the process is in your jurisdiction.

    (g) Document everything you can, including tape recordings of whatever verbal abuse your wife is dishing out.

    (h) Get books from the library on what you need to do a “do it yourself” divorce. If you have all of that assembled prior to beginning to work with an attorney, you can save yourself thousands in legal fees. Write down your wife and your children’s social security numbers in several places, such as your pocket diary.

    (i) Start looking for apartments (and condo developments that have a steady supply of rentals). It’s too soon to sign a lease, but you need to get an idea of what will be out there when the need arises. A home near your eldest child’s school would be ideal. Once the separation occurs, you will be strapped for cash, so you’ll probably have to live in whichever apartment you pick for a lot longer than you think. So put some time and thought into picking your new place.

    (j) I don’t know where you live, or whether your wife works outside the home at this point, but the chances of your being able to get primary custody of the children are probably poor even if you are wealthy. Focus on trying to win what is winnable, preferably at the bargaining table, but in court if necessary. In your case, I would say focus on making sure that the children stay in the local area. Beware of any lawyer who tells you that you have a good chance of winning primary custody, unless there is a whole lot more going on with your wife than you have disclosed here. The legal profession is in dire straights right now, with far more attorneys than necessary to handle the number of cases coming through the door. Some of them will promise you the moon and the stars to get you to hire them, but they won’t be able to deliver it no matter how much you pay.

    (k) If your wife does not work full time, your financial situation is going to be very tough post divorce, and you may be forced to pay your wife’s legal bills as well as your own. Try to get her to go back to work now, or at least get her to commit to go back at some fixed time. “When Timmy starts first grade.” Try to tape record this conversation or at least document the conversation in your diary. If you are currently working overtime, you need to discontinue doing so, unless refusal to work overtime might cost you your job. Your alimony and child support will be based on recent gross earnings, which isn’t fair, but that’s the reality.

    (l) When negotiating a settlement, try to settle quickly while your wife is still excited about being free from you. When she starts having financial problems, it may be difficult to get her to sign off on anything, and the meter will keep running on the legal bills.

    (m) Read every divorce/custody book at the library if you can do so without your wife finding out. Take notes. Be aware that the local legal situation may not be very similar to the experiences of people writing the books, and that any specific legal theories discussed in the books may be badly out of date if the book is more than a few years old.

    (2) Do not admit to anyone that you are experiencing depression or serious anxiety issues unless you pay for the counseling with cash, and use a counselor who is completely outside your social circle. “I’m not depressed, I’m just unhappy about the divorce and the resulting financial and custody problems.” Do not talk to anybody at your church about your marriage. They have already made it plain to you that they are on your wife’s side, not yours. Even if it is pure pretense, try to project a sane, sensible demeanor. “I’m sorry that Marjorie is unhappy and has decided to end our marriage. At this point, I just want to focus on what is best for the children.” If you present as bitter or explosively angry, your wife’s complaints about you will be validated, and your chances of getting significant custody will be reduced.

    (3) No matter how bad things get in the short term, keep your perspective. My brother killed himself during the course of a divorce when his children were toddlers. After his death, his former wife refused to allow anyone in our family to have contact with the children because she was afraid that we would tell the children that she was to blame for his suicide. When the children reached their 20s, they sought us out on their own initiative. Your wife has tremendous control over the children in the short term, but many women in her situation end up overplaying their hand. If my brother had not taken his own life, his situation would have eventually resolved itself, and he would now have two really great adult children to spend time with. They turned out very well in spite of everything, but they are haunted by the fact that their father somehow wasn’t able to go on living, even though they needed him.

    (4) Try to eat right and get a little exercise every day, even if it is just walking the dog at night. Take things one day at a time, and things will eventually, gradually get better.

  316. Z) Don’t take advice from internet trolls.

  317. oblivion says:

    “Because this is more of a “men only” website, I won’t be visiting or posting here after today, but I have thought of you a number of times today, and I wanted to give you some parting advice”

    hamster translation: because i am so full of crap and everybody called me on it, i still need to try to control the narrative and leave with some sense of my hamster intact. heres another long winded essay dispensing advice that nobody really needs, but will make me fell better about myself. after all, i did go to dalrocks blog with the best intentions and those mean men there wouldnt listen to my point of view.

  318. greyghost says:

    Z+1) start a new hobby and invite some guys you work with over to the house to meet the family and then start to spend time out with “xyz” buddy. Start working out and hanging with your boys to get her used to being out of the house when not at work . Get you some side pussy and let her know your story. Then run that ass. Me personally I wouldn’t waste time on another woman but spend your time learning how to make money off books.

  319. oblivion says:

    @chris

    She sure seems infatuated with “Korn”, Oblivion. Why is that? Since our thread’s so horribly derailed, ponder this – why are modern women so fascinated by sexual deviancy…? Witness the number of chick dramas & books where rape, childhood trauma, etc are basically used as a substitute for plot. Perhaps the “Trauma lit” genre is the sum-total of tropes irresistible to modern female sensibilities – male predation, righteous female victimhood, erotic submission, and unfulfilled Electra Complexes.

    im not an expert but i think women are really into that stuff because they want to be dominated by the most dominate male. thats the fantasy, the invading army came to town and the viking man pinned the women down and there was nothing she could do but take it. the most dominate male is the sperm that every women wants and how she gets it is the story. the more drama added to the equation and the happier she is. with all that being said ( women dont like rape and rape is not ok)

  320. herbie says:

    Re The Lift and White Knighting:

    I think you guys are way too harsh on Laura here. She has gifted a lot of truth here and maybe I’m naïve, but the way she has described her divorce is very similar to mine, excluding the one child with me – one child with you, and the porn thing. Otherwise, to me, she has really endured these hardships with her ex or her profession has allowed her to understand the dynamic. Not to be rude or give an out for Laura, but my friends spent plenty of time downloading and uploading to Usenet groups or alt.binaries back in 1995.

    Didn’t Laura say she was a virgin when she got married? I find that to be very commendable and her compassion for brother Some Guy seems genuine to me. I read a post from Some Guy and I can identify myself once in his position. Maybe pray that ‘game’ can help him out. :p

    It is amazing to me how intelligent and extremely articulate the men here can be and pick apart and dissect her statements so well, but then can instantly delve into the name calling.

    “Most of the divorce court judges are themselves divorced, and none of them care about who holds the moral high ground in your marital situation.” Laura

  321. greyghost says:

    Yeah the broad gifted you dumb asses a lot truth ha ha ha ha

    Dalrock if Richard Pryor was still alive he would be shamelessly stealing your material.

  322. I think “the Lift” concept is an important one. I’m going to “empathologism”‘s blog to look for more info.

    A.J.P.

  323. oblivion says:

    @herbie

    but my friends spent plenty of time downloading and uploading to Usenet groups or alt.binaries back in 1995.

    she got divorced in 1990 and said there was an fbi investigation into child porn and her husband a couple of years (2) later. the internet wasnt invented then. and when called out about it she decided to write another long winded essay giving advice. she also mentioned that her brother commited suicide from a divorce. the reason she came here the last few days is …..are u ready for it????

    Just because she frivorced her husband, it doesnt make her as bad as every other women who frivorced their husbands. she is special, she is a pure snowflake sprinked with nawalt who did the right thing and needs validation so that she doesnt feel that guilt that she did the same thing to another man that crushed her brother (who she loved) and caused her brother to die. (commit suicide) u can also reference this point when she says she doesnt want to see anyone light themselves on fire at the family court steps.

    I want u to see this, take the red pill with open eyes and u’ll see it also.

  324. herbie says:

    I want to see. But honestly, her latest ‘essay’ was excellent advice for someone preparing for a divorce. Somehow I missed this brother business and how it is so certain a ‘frivorce’ was involved.

  325. greyghost says:

    I saw a picture of a naked woman on the internet back in 97 98. She pretending to be tied up with something stuck in her. This is really silly to debate as Oblivion was saying she just wants attention and to feel better about screwing over another human beings life. Just think the greatest achievement she has to take from this life is she violated a commitment under god for selfish reasons hurting someone that made a commitment to her.

  326. herbie says:

    Just wanted to point out that there was a way for even my non-geek buddies to spend hours downloading smutty pictures long time ago, way AFTER there was an internet. It is silly to debate.
    I thought I read a lot of the mindless spending her husband was practicing and could really identify with the thousands of dollars that go poof because your spouce does not even think of you at all, or the family. My nut job was on all kinds of SSRI’s and SSNI’s for 13 years off and on and the manic episodes were something that can destroy a marriage, easily.

  327. oblivion says:

    @herbie read it again, its paragraph 3, second to last paragraph in essay. wow!! she finally shut up

  328. People that burn themselves on the courthouse steps don’t pay alimony, child-support or lawyer fees. Something tells me she works for a divorce attorney.

  329. herbie says:

    Thanks Oblivion. I see now and embarrassed only because I read it twice. :p

    I must have saw this from a perspective that she can identify the damage and control the nut jobs have over you.

  330. herbie says:

    OK enough white knighting I’ll be late for my lift.

  331. Is this a serious debate, that it was possible to download kiddy porn in the 80’s. Yea, i remember some usenet boards with black and white “animated” pictures. Unbelievable that this technicality even came up. Someone channeling their inner Gore?

  332. Laura says:

    Herbie: Thank you for your supportive posts.

    To the rest of you: I was barely 19 years old when I married, and I was immature in many ways, and badly prepared for marriage in a lot of ways, but I did try hard to make it work. I probably did think that I was a special snowflake at 19, but I got over that within a few years. The decision to divorce was entirely my husband’s. He refused to go to marriage counseling, refused to reconsider, refused to even postpone the process until I could find a decent job. He had no Biblical basis for leaving the marriage, so the “frivorce” was all his.

    My husband was an Air Force pilot when we met and married. About five years later, he was forced to leave after getting two Article 15s and a lesser punishment of some kind within about an 18 month period. The Article 15s were for selling three Corvettes he purchased through the PX in Europe for a profit and for going AWOL while briefly assigned to fly out of Africa. The lesser punishment was for falsifying sick leave paperwork. He told me that he got an honorable discharge, but he would not show me the discharge papers. So, he had been out of the military for over a decade before he was investigated by the FBI.

    As far as the massive pile of credit card debt, I did pay off a lot of it, but it made no real difference, because he was a spree spender. Thousands of dollars were spent paying fines and penalties connected with the Corvette selling, and his pay was docked as punishment also, at least one of the times, maybe for all three incidents. At one point it looked as though he might be convicted and end up spending several years in Leavenworth. I never said he spent the whole $70,000 on pornography. He spent money on everything, including women he met in Europe and gambling. After getting out of the military, he continued to spend wildly, and had further legal problems, and it all cost money that we never had. He was a hard worker, and always earned a good income, but he always spent far more than he earned.

    The photographs that the FBI showed me in the early 90s were of 7 and 8 year old girls. They were all still photographs that they thought were probably made in France. If videotapes were involved, that was not revealed to me, and the case almost certainly predated the internet by several years.

    All sorts of pornography has been available since the first camera was invented in the 1800s. I’m sure it is cheaper and easier to find now, but there have always been suppliers and customers for dirty postcards and whatever else could be produced. Before the internet, the profit on pornography was probably much higher than it is now, because it had to be physically transported from one location to another, and sooner or later you would get caught by the postal inspector, etc.

  333. I will wait for the Hallmark movie

  334. Laura says:

    Dalrock:

    At 6:51 pm, I Art Laughing posted:

    People that burn themselves on the courthouse steps don’t pay alimony, child-support or lawyer fees. Something tells me she works for a divorce attorney.

    This post appears to be an incitement to the poster known as Some Guy to kill himself. As Some Guy has been quite open about experiencing extreme distress as he waits for his wife to begin the divorce process, and as he appears to have experienced some suicidal ideation about setting himself on fire, the above post is both irresponsible and cruel. In fact, it’s demonic.

    I have already stated that I am a retired attorney, so I Art Laughing’s insight that I might work for a divorce attorney will not be missed by your community.

  335. @ Empath,

    Wherein Laura eventually runs off with said postal inspector who is conveniently widowed with 3 adorable children and a lodge in the mountains that they get snowed-in at on Christmas.

  336. @ Laura,

    I have a grim sense of humor, don’t ask why because you don’t want to know. I find it far superior to no sense of humor at all. I was not the one who brought up self-immolation, I was the one who made light of it. Maybe you could check out a psychology textbook and read the section on “suicide ideation” and get back to me when you have more education than I do in counseling.

    You are a troll, and a wicked one at that.

  337. greyghost says:

    Laura just called the cops on you man and claimed to be scared.

  338. Chris_Williams says:

    ” I won’t be visiting or posting here after today”
    lol!
    As verbose as the last snowflake who wrote on here, and even less believable.

    “All sorts of pornography has been available since the first camera was invented in the 1800s. I’m sure it is cheaper and easier to find now, but there have always been suppliers and customers for dirty postcards and whatever else could be produced. Before the internet, the profit on pornography was probably much higher than it is now, because it had to be physically transported from one location to another, and sooner or later you would get caught by the postal inspector, etc.”

    Excellent. The more she can be goaded into posting passive-aggressive copypasta, the better. Particular for people who want to discuss serious issues. At times it is better to engage these types than to ignore them.

    Herbie’s wondering why these posts are a problem? Picture this: you’re attending a neighborhood meeting about child abduction; a family who’s recently lost a child is in attendance. The local flying saucer nut barges in and talks about the need to protect children from
    Klingons. When he’s called on his behavior, he just talks louder and longer about investing in new photon torpedoes.

    It’s disrespectful. It’s narcissistic. It’s a transparent deflection from a serious threat (women frivorcing due to laws that have enabled them) in favor of a nonissue (the small number of alphas able to “frivorce” – none of whom are enabled by governmental/judicial biases). Lastly, it makes a mockery of the pain felt by men who are suffering right now and who, lacking presidential commissions or pro-male courts, are relying on Dalrock for guidance.

    Moreover, Buck’s point earlier today was 100% correct. The end result of Mr. Laura’s behavior? She threw herself at him, while Christian McMilquetoast was left out in the cold, holding his …um…Bible. And this is supposed to refute the manosphere’s arguments ….how?

  339. @ Laura

    After your disingenuous story of frivorce and woe, you come in here and give you divine and inspired wisdom in how to deal with frivorce? First, hand experience? How many marriages have you “helped” end? My comment about your clearly disturbed sense of propriety was pointed at none other than you. If you don’t see the irony in a frivorcer retired attorney giving advice to the poor suicidal men of the manosphere it’s little wonder why my dig escaped you. Seeing as how you’ve hopelessly misplaced your sense of humor (no doubt near your sense of ethics) I don’t really expect you to get any of this.

    Now excuse me while I reschedule the slot that’s opened up at the Rape Survivor Workshop now that Ariel Castro is unavailable.

  340. @ Greyghost

    She’s an attorney. Oh noes! Should I be scared or should Dalrock be?

  341. Laura says:

    I’m not making a mockery of the pain felt by men who are suffering. You have me mixed up with I Art Laughing.

  342. Come on Laura, a barely-19 year old (your words) marrying an air force pilot? Where did you meet him? At the mall, the arcade, or the skating rink? How long did you know this almost pedophile? Was this Second Lieutenant (I certainly hope no older than that, pervert) your date to your Junior Prom?

    Please stop. You tell one lie, we catch you in it, and you compound the issue by telling another.

  343. oblivion says:

    does anybody have an elephant gun to put down laura’s hamster already? we have over 300 posts deep on this thread and still she continues. the hardest hamster to put down in the lawyer hamster, it gains strength arguing no matter how poorly it does it. the wheel of the lawyer hamster is made of tar and its harder to throw it off its set path. its heart is like that of a cobras, all life could cease from the body yet the heart still keeps beating.

  344. @ Laura,

    “I’m not making a mockery of the pain felt by men who are suffering.”

    As a matter of fact, that is precisely what you ave been doing, and that was the precise reason that I mocked YOU and for the ironic reasons I have already outlined.

  345. Laura says:

    IBB: There was another pilot in my husband’s class (from Tennessee) who married a 17 year old. It wasn’t that unusual in the South in the mid to late 70s. That was back before the internet. . . . Some of the pilots were probably as young as 21/22, so the age gap wasn’t that much.

    I Art Laughing: Maybe I shouldn’t have handled any divorce work. I only did a couple, but maybe it was wrong. It didn’t seem wrong at the time, but maybe I should have refused the cases. And I do have a sense of humor, as I laughed at Greyghost’s calling the cops post. But I’m still not laughing at what you posted, and I think you should ask Dalrock to remove it for you.

  346. Chris_Williams says:

    “I only did a couple, but maybe it was wrong. It didn’t seem wrong at the time”

    Proverbs 30: 20

  347. oblivion says:

    @all lets let laura keep digging a deeper whole for herself lol. as a man who has dated a few female lawyers, she has got to be the worst female attorney ever. keep it up laura lol

  348. oblivion says:

    btw, she lauphed at the calling the cops post because she recommended it to her female clients to totally ruin the mans life

  349. oblivion says:

    notice how she says “some of the pilots” by not telling how old her husband was when she met him lol. what are we on her tenth post without answering any questions. her trying at misdirection has left her in no direction other than our ridicule.

  350. @ Laura

    Male-spaces. Did you miss the directions to your book-club.

    Maybe you should take someone’s word for it that I didn’t offend, failing that if I did offend (and I didn’t mean to) most men like to deal with this stuff on their own. The term “hypoagency” is taking on a whole new clarity for me.

  351. Laura says:

    Chris Williams — Given the divorce laws in America as they currently exist, I think that those who are dumped by their spouse need legal representation, and I don’t think that it is wrong for a Christian attorney to represent the dumpee. Maybe,though it is wrong to represent the dumper, even when the situation sounds awful from the dumper’s point of view. Or did you post a reference to Proverbs 30:20 to accuse me of being an adulteress?

  352. oblivion says:

    to all on thread please note that laura wont go into oblivion land

  353. Well, I made a mistake. Solipsism would have made quite a bit more sense than “hypoagency” when it comes to females barging into male spaces with such gusto.

  354. Chris_Williams says:

    “…I think
    …I don’t think (like we hadn’t noticed)
    …accuse me”

    The reversion to type is proceeding even better than I expected. Anyone who questioned my earlier sketch of female thought processes on this thread (personalizing, snowflaking, argument by anecdote, “protect the hive” instinct) – please pay close attention.

    An excellent counterpoint to those who claim “Christian women are different”.

    As I said earlier, “don’t feed the trolls” is not always the best policy. Engaging them can be quite instructive – especially for some commenters here, who get taken in by superficial “niceness” & don’t understand why we’re giving a “good Christian lady” a hard time.

  355. Laura says:

    Oblivion: When my husband and I met, he had very recently turned 24, and I had turned 19 the week before. What does it matter what I say? You are just going to call me a liar again.

  356. greyghost says:

    She is just having fun riding the emotional roller coaster. This is more interesting and stimulating than anything else. Even the people not posting most likely enjoy the actual realty drama. Every where else in the world every one is guarded and used canned speech to avoid saying something wrong. By law no real beta male can speak from his heart to his girlfriend or wife and she is lonely and miserable. As the story from Manlyman posted from some woman. Good men seemed so insecure around her and she attributed it to her success. Bad boys and jerks were the kind of guys she attracted (guys like that seem confident and sure in an insane world because they don’t give a fuck about you as a person) She would always date those guys and get burned. (this is what misandry gets you ladies) this is the world of women a miserable lonely world full of men that can love you to death and you can not tingle for them by laws of misandry and the feminine imperative. Laura lives in that world she’s a lawyer hell she helped make it. She has nowhere to go speak from base invigorating emotion using her skill and education. Lonely indeed and can’t get away from it. One of you guys are going to have to hit that one day. Do one of those Mark Minter things

  357. Chris_Williams says:

    @Oblivion – by the way, are you interested in 1970’s-1980’s air combat? I am. Interesting note about American pilots from that era – MANY of them were a lot older than the air crew from previous wars. Not the dashing young boys and 24 year olds you’d expect in a bad romance by a bad [female] writer – nosiree… Lots of men in their 30’s and 40’s when you look at pictures from back then. Or even older. One of America’s top pilots in ‘Nam started out flying propeller planes in WWII. A wrinkly old family man. Not the kind of guy to sweep a young kid off her feet.

    Just an interesting tidbit..

  358. Debra Winger wannabe you thinking Chris?

  359. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/09/11 | Free Northerner

  360. drfuture says:

    Interesting (new to the Manosphere here, but I’ve heard good things)…

    Bill Bright was the guy who came up with the “Seven Mountains” of Dominionism, in which they said their Christian band should take over dominating control over all the “mountains” of society, including government, education, entertainment, media, etc. Funny then that he couldn’t even exercise such “dominion” even under his own roof – I suspect this is common, and their aggressive attempts at theocratic control in society may just be men trying to “making up for their shortcomings” in their manliness home front, if you know what I mean. This is probably why the Bible beats home the principle that if a man does not have his own literal house in order, he is not fit to govern “bigger things”, and shows an improper reflection in his marriage of the relationship of Christ and the church. In any position of authority in which he has “dominion”, he will need to exhibit the ability to have a stiff spine against withering criticism and whining, and if he cannot resist it at home, he probably will not be any better at running the world, or any parts of it (including ministries).

    As a practicing (and I mean “practicing” (with much to learn)…) Christian, I find an honest read of the Bible, minus the Christian establishment, is far more extreme in these matters than even Dalroc or others in the Manosphere have been willing to go.

    But three cheers for their brave and pioneering labors!

  361. @Laura

    At the rate you are going you will have spilled all your guts and then won’t have anything left to “stick around” with… Do you plan on leaving us in a couple days? L.O.L.

    A.J.P.

  362. oblivion says:

    ‘What does it matter what I say? You are just going to call me a liar again.’

    hamsterlation: you caught me lying so many times that i am going to give u some information that is not really important (truth about some small trivial thing, maybe truth) in order to make all the things i lied about go away.

    notice how all the other lies can just be glossed over by one small kernal of “truth”

  363. Georgia Boy says:

    OT but I think it’s germane to this blog and in case you should find it useful, I have a suggestion for a manosphere PSA.

    It’s fall once again, at my company that means it’s time for the annual charitable giving drive. In case you don’t work for today’s liberalism-infected corporate culture, most companies don’t seem to make many donations directly to non-profits anymore. They run these drives to get the employees to do it. (Then they run glossy ads in the news all like, “ABC Corporation employees gave 1.2 million dollars back to the community this year, see, we’re a good company, feel good about us and give us lots of government contracts!” Thus the one percent get the good will they need to stay on top, and outsource the cost to us proles.)

    These campaigns are major sources of funding for the people who power the grievance industry. Your company probably gives you a pamphlet with a list of the orgs that get the money if you don’t specify otherwise. In mine I find: women’s shelters and r@pe crisis centers (I’m sure you’ve read the exposes of how they incentivize domestic violence and abuse accusations against men and help break up families), orgs giving financial support to single moms and help to continue the lifestyles they’re choosing, and legal services for undocumented immigrants. We need to be careful who we give to, as some of these orgs may be feeding hungry kids, but they also then turn around and advocate for the sorts of anti-male attitudes and absurdities we read about in the manosphere all the time. (But your money won’t support that part, trust us.)

    A lot of the liberal college majors in gender studies, sociology, social work, etc. end up working in these places. They become the ever-expanding bureaucracy of grievance, the people whose very paychecks depend on not seeing the real truth about what they are doing to family and society, the culture that does things like get you fired from your job when you state an opinion on the Internet, the advocates who push for more and more misandric laws and rules, the legitimatizers and normalizers of societal breakdown.

    But most of these charity drives allow an employee to choose to either contribute to a general fund, or direct his contributions to a specific org. This gives us an opportunity to help de-fund feminism, and tip the system of social incentives back towards good families, the solution to social problems that actually works.

    In my company last I checked, the Boy Scouts was still an option, and it is one of the few orgs left that teaches real leadership and citizenship to boys. The YMCA is there. There also is a group house for troubled boys, not perfect but at least it’s trying to help. Direct your money out of the general fund, where it’s probably spent by a company committee of employees who buy into the Cathedral agenda, and towards a pro-family and male-positive agenda.

    (Be a little careful of religious orgs, which are often separate from, and not necessarily indicative of, the church in the org’s name. Catholic Charities seems to be the favorite example.)

  364. 8to12 says:

    @Georgia Boy,

    You should avoid corporate charity drives (like the United Way), because the donations are fungible. When you specify that your donation must go to the Boy Scouts, it frees up other dollars from the general pool to be allocated to other organizations. If you want to donate to a group, you should write them a direct check and avoid the corporate charity game.

    They are also a bad idea from a personal financial standpoint. That 1-2% you donate out of each check would, if put into a 401k instead, add up to a significant amount by the time your retire.

    I know there is a lot of pressure in some companies to donate to United Way, but it’s your money (you earned it) and no company has the right to demand you give away part of your hard earned pay. One way to handle this is to tell them all your donations go to your church, and that if you donated to the United Way that you would have to lower your church donations. If they say you can “stretch” and give to both, then say if you were going to stretch and sacrifice it would be to give more to your church, not a secular organization. Make it a religious issue.

    Or, just tell them no, which is what I did years ago. My boss was shocked to the point of outrage (because he was also under pressure from his boss to have everyone participating), but I stood my ground, and nothing ever came of it.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  365. feeriker says:

    drfuture said: As a practicing (and I mean “practicing” (with much to learn)…) Christian, I find an honest read of the Bible, minus the Christian establishment, is far more extreme in these matters than even Dalroc or others in the Manosphere have been willing to go.

    Yes, absolutely. Reading the Bible on one’s own, minus any “interpretations” offered up by others (which usually are not only not needed, but are also WRONG) is really, IME, the only way to gain a meaningful understanding of the Word. Such an understanding is often completely at odds with what is offered up from the pulpit on Sundays by preachers who know that their congregants don’t know any better. Maybe this is why “bible study” in so many Protestant churches[TM] today intentionally focuses on books “about” the Bible rather than the Bible itself (I actually had the pastor of my last church tell me, in answer to the question of “why are we not simply studying the Bible itself in men’s bible study on Wednesday nights, rather than reading books by the latest best-selling authors on what [they think] the Bible says, books that generally do nothing but enrich the authors and their Christian bookstore retailers while leaving us with no more understanding of the Word than when we started?” His response: “some people find the Bible too difficult to get through on its own.” Seriously.)

    Heaven forbid that the average churchgoer actually read his Bible and come to understand its real meaning for himself.

  366. 8to12 says:

    It’s amazing how women continually invade men’s spaces and then are flabbergasted when the men not only don’t listen to what they say with reverence and respect, but actually tell her they don’t want her there.

    If a man went onto a women’s forum to straighten them out and tell them the way things really work, he’d be roasted and banished immediately. Yet, women seem to think men should welcome what they wouldn’t put up with.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  367. Georgia Boy says:

    My solution is to give a fixed amount to the corporate drive, as a one-time gift (they allow that here instead of paycheck deductions). It keeps the managers satisfied, but doesn’t allow myself to be used for the greater glory of ABC Corporation. Most of mine goes through church-affiliated orgs like child sponsorship.

  368. My point exactly 8to12. Masculinity is “demonic”, “cruel”, “irresponsible”, insensitive, and mean. We clearly need more women in here so that we can learn how to behave in polite society. What this place needs is a woman’s touch? Female co-authorship Dalrock?

  369. Notice,

    Dalrock has not spoken in a few days…..Laura has been here for a few days….

    Skullduggery!

    Dalrock….if you can see this, enable “find my phone” and we will come get you

  370. IAL

    I had a conversation this morning with a Christian psychologist (also a minister of some local church). he was talking about what you allude to, learning from women how to behave in polite society

    I was actually impressed with the guy. He is some kind of counselor. He said he gave up doing marriage work because the totality of Christian and psychological teaching is centered on making men communicate like women. His age is tough, late 60’s to mid 70’s I guess.
    He also shared that he used to do premarital counseling and realized that a wedding was an event in a timeline for men, while the wedding day said to women “now I have a lifetime to work on this relationship”. There was more, and all of it sharply red pill.
    I wonder what type of folks he actually counsels. Based on what he said to me, if a man brought his wife to that guy, she’d be out the door in a second. She would see it as you mention, the husband must be taught to be polite…..like her.

  371. 8to12,

    I don’t mind women posting here. I mind the lies. Laura is disingenuous.

  372. When men talk like men (not swearing necessarily) women cry. This is not acceptable.

    I will occasionally talk about conversations from work with my wife. I try to recite direct quotes and give her a feel for male interactions that I know will be slightly shocking to her. Not locker room talk but more like the good-natured put-downs that don’t sound good natured at all, the ribbing. I am trying to condition her a bit so that she doesn’t break into tears when she observes this behavior for herself.

    Women generally don’t understand that there is a reason why men do this, it’s like coded communication where guys can correct each other and praise each other in a face-saving way. Better to diffuse with humor and rough banter than sitting down and “sharing our feelings” over job site garbage (that we probably don’t want to be dealing with in the first place).

  373. When men talk like men (not swearing necessarily) women cry. This is not acceptable.

    It may not be acceptable but they aren’t going to stop. Women cry because they don’t want to hear men talk like men. It’s hurtful. And women “feel” more than men.

    A man can be programmed not to “feel” anything. And when that happens, it becomes impossible to hurt that man (physically or emotionally.) Women can’t do that, it is not in their wiring. They can not be programmed in that manner. Which means that certain things that men must do could never be done by women because it hurts too much.

  374. I didn’t really specify what was unacceptable or to whom it was unacceptable.

    If women insist on being in all of the spaces men are going to start talking like women or be labeled as “abusive”. I think we are yet to see the full cultural gravity of women coming to dominate all of the space. Backlash in 10…9….8.

  375. Jen says:

    For me, more than the angry words towards women, is the realization that the men on The Manosphere hate women. If these men hate women so deeply and thoroughly, then, what about other men? Perhaps they, too, feel this way. I generally have thought of men as “white knights” (while being realistic about sexual behavior). Here, “white knight” is a term of derision. Just freaking depressing.

  376. deti says:

    Interesting thread this turned out to be.

    Laura:

    You got divorced because you chose your husband poorly. You have called your late ex husband a spendthrift; an adulterer; an immature, irresponsible liar; and a child pornographer. It is simply inconceivable you could not see any of these red flag character deficits before you married this man. You didn’t choose well. You married a bull alpha flyboy who tingled your nubile 19 year old body. He was a lying sack of shit douchebag, you had at least an inkling that he was a douchebag and you didn’t care; and you got what you paid for. No schadenfraude; just is what it is.

    I do fail to see how your story was really relevant to the issue of female rebellion against the rightful headship of a man in his marriage and his home.

    The reason I question some of the detail you talked about, and your good faith, is because you didn’t acknowledge a single thing you did to cause the breakdown of your marriage. If your story is to be believed, the entirety of your marital problems was 100% his fault; and your conduct within the marriage was absolutely blameless. But it wasn’t. Even if your conduct was completely flawless and you were a model wife, you still made the error of selecting him in the first place.

    You did give Some Guy good advice on preparing for an imminent divorce.

    The thing about unauthorized or unconsented audio or video recordings: The laws on consent and agreement to being recorded vary widely from state to state. Some states have criminal penalties. I would never advise anyone to break the law. That said, Laura is right that even an illegal recording once divulged can be used as settlement leverage. It can also be used to disprove allegations of domestic abuse; or to show that the wife (not the husband) is the aggressor.

    Even if it’s an illegal recording, that recording could be the difference between a minor misdemeanor conviction and having to stand trial for a felony rape, aggravated battery, or aggravated assault charge. Sure, you recorded her illegally and the local DA charges you with misdemeanor eavesdropping. With a good lawyer or quick action you might be able to plead that down to a disorderly conduct charge and pay a fine and do community service. With no recording, you might face felony charges. A man will have to weigh his options carefully.

  377. Jen, has it occurred to you that we might not “hate women” but some of us might just hate how women have to encroach on everything? We have to be chided and lectured in historical male spaces and are not allowed any place where women do not come and lecture us about what is acceptable behavior? If men were to insist on masculinizing traditionally female spaces do you think maybe the reaction might be perceived as “hate”?

    If “equality” meant no space for females how do you think women would receive it? Would “equality” be a dirty word? Could we rail against the unfairness and elitism of women? Talk about how much they “hate men”?

  378. deti says:

    IBB:

    Way up thread you asserted that women have no moral agency. I disagree with this.

    Women are independent actors, moral and otherwise. A woman is an autonomous being who has full agency to act within her own free will; and therefore the moral accountability for her acts, whatever they are.

    It cannot be otherwise. If it’s really true that women have no moral agency and therefore have the mental and moral capacity of minors, then they really are not responsible for anything they do. If they are little more than children, and lack the capacity to take on responsibility, then the manosphere is dead wrong to insist on moral, legal and factual accountability from women for their own decisions.

    God made it clear that women are independent moral actors and are independently accountable to God and others for their actions. He made this clear when he confronted Eve with her sin of listening to Satan and taking the forbidden fruit. God laid out for Eve what her sin was, and then gave her a consequence for it. He did the same with Adam. Thus: Eve’s sin, Eve’s punishment. Adam’s sin, Adam’s punishment. If Eve had no moral agency, she’d be incapable of sin; and God would not have been able to punish her.

  379. Feminist Hater says:

    When women can put men in jail to get ass raped for being poor, when a woman can blow up a family, destroy the lives of her children and husband to which she made vows before God, when a woman can kill an unborn child and it’s called a ‘choice’ but when a man does it it’s called murder, when a woman has the right to choose, but a man no recourse but to pay up, when a woman asks for chivalry and death to protect her but then mocks and ridicules men and doesn’t respect them, when a woman says that men hate women because of mentioning the above… then you know something Jen? It might just be you that hates men…

  380. Ton says:

    Laura is a woman running down her ex husband, the reality is he was most likely a great guy, but a boring beta despite his sexy alpha job.

  381. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Back away from the pedestal, Earl…it’s not doing you any good.”

    What pedestal?

    The one that you seem pretty clearly to put women on. Come on, man, you can’t assert that all abortionists are men without an underlying premise that women are somehow too good to ever engage in that business, can you?

    Why are you so quick to judge and put me down? Maybe I’m starting to figure things out…and your insults are complicating the process.

    Judge? Nah. Point out the obvious? Yeah.

    I’m seeing the truth about women…they are driving the decline of civilization. Men need to stop following them down the wide path…and go back to the narrow gate.

    Part of the truth about women: they are not better than men, they are not worse than men, but they are not the same as men.

  382. herbie says:

    Wait! Laura! My email is herbie.headley@yahoo.com and I need you to give me your number. :p

  383. herbie says:

    That should have read “you need to give me your number”, game #101

  384. Highwasp says:

    Jen: “Chivalry is dead and women killed it”

  385. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    September 7, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    >>Once again, “Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb is a must – read.

    http://32-72.hostmonster.com/Public/Miscellaneous/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf

    Interesting view of the life cycle of civilizations. But, until you read SEX AND CULTURE, a main ingredient is missing. Indeed what causes a group to explode into conquest of an existing civilization? Unwin says the sexual freedom of women causes expansive forces. Restricted sexuality; powerful and growing. No limits on female sexuality; and the nation collapses.

    I note with some interest that Laura advises men not to fight for custody. Totally unbiased viewpoint, yes?

    Later, she also says just walk away from the equity in your house.

    Michael: Prenups are worthless in almost every state in the Union. Do nothing which involves pre-nups, because they are worthless.

    >>Jen says:
    September 11, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    >>For me, more than the angry words towards women, is the realization that the men on The Manosphere hate women.

    Only women who deserve to be hated. Which includes most American woman today. I realize most of you think you are absolutely wonderful. You have never known any other kind of women but American women, American women of today, and they deserve to be hated. And, the women from sane cultures well know it, too.

    American women even hate themselves. They have the largest rate of emotional and mental illness in the world.

    Yet, no matter how bad they have become, we are supposed to worship them? How funny!

    Not to mention the average man is exposed daily to hatred of all men by AW. TV. Magazines. Radio. Women at work. All day long. Yet, no matter how badly women act out towards men, we can’t express our feelings for it, because some knucklehead might interpret it as hatred for women? You don’t like being hated; stop being hateful.

  386. Anonymous Reader says:

    Herbie, I think her number might be 867-5309…

  387. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Age 71
    Interesting view of the life cycle of civilizations. But, until you read SEX AND CULTURE, a main ingredient is missing. Indeed what causes a group to explode into conquest of an existing civilization? Unwin says the sexual freedom of women causes expansive forces. Restricted sexuality; powerful and growing. No limits on female sexuality; and the nation collapses.

    Agreed. There are many ways to find Unwin’s book. Here is just one:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Sex_and_culture.html?id=9345V3BQmqwC

  388. 8oxer says:

    Ton:

    Laura is a woman running down her ex husband, the reality is he was most likely a great guy, but a boring beta despite his sexy alpha job.

    My thoughts exactly, from the beginning. How many times have you heard a brother tell a sob story about how he was thrown out of his house, got all the debt (that the wife most likely initiated) with accusations that he was a rapist/child abuser/pervert/scumbag for good measure?

    This cunt, Laura, is the kind of woman that does that shit.

    Deti:

    You got divorced because you chose your husband poorly.

    I always love your comments, Deti, but I think you’ve got this one backwards. Laura’s husband got divorced because he was a fool and chose to marry a bitch like her.

    She’s been posting messages here for a few days, and I already can’t stand her. My hat’s off to the poor simp for putting up with her incessant bullshit for more than a week. I’m sure he’s glad, wherever he is, that we’re dealing with her rather than him.

    Regards, Boxer

  389. Laura says:

    deti: I was a 19 year old fool when I got married to my husband after knowing him for only six weeks. You are absolutely right that I chose poorly, and I will go farther and say that the marriage was doomed from the start. But my parents actually approved of the marriage, so I did not marry against their advice. I didn’t find out about the child pornography until less than a year before we separated. Up until finding out, I really did try to keep things together, and managed to do so. After finding out, I was filled with despair and my husband did see that. At that time, his income was about to triple or more, and he decided to divorce while his tax returns were still showing a much more modest income.

    There are many things that I could have done a lot better as a wife and mother, and I repented long ago. I also look back in shame at some things that I did during the divorce and custody fight, such as going through his trash after he put it in the apartment complex dumpster, etc. I know that I have some serious character flaws of my own that I will struggle with for the rest of my life, and these were in existence before my husband ever came into my life.

    You said, “I do fail to see how your story was really relevant to the issue of female rebellion against the rightful headship of a man in his marriage and his home.” How do you define “rightful”? My husband admitted committing adultery two or three years into our marriage, and I forgave him. Should I have divorced him when I had the Biblical opportunity? And if one party to a marriage routinely threatens divorce over trivial matters, are the parties still actually married, or is their relationship a mere sexual liaison in God’s eyes? Would you say that there are some people who are incapable of forming or maintaining a true marriage?

    Whatever sermons I heard prior to marriage consisted mainly of sentimental slop about Jesus being able to fix anything. I don’t blame anybody but myself for the poor choice I made in picking a husband, but “worldly” advice about marriage during my high school years (which I never received) might have done a lot more to prevent my marriage disaster than the vague “learn to compromise” stuff the church was doling out.

    ********************************************************************************************************************

    In my posts to Some Guy, I think that I did try to convey the information that tape recording someone without their knowledge is a potentially criminal act. Perhaps I should have stated that more directly. Several years ago, there was a good website that summarized the taping laws of all 50 states, but I don’t have a link, or even know if it still exists. My understanding is that those who secretly tape record are rarely prosecuted because the government finds it convenient to have the laws limiting taping on the books, but fears that if a case went all the way to the highest court in the state, the State might actually strike the law down. So although it may be technically illegal in a jurisdiction, it still frequently occurs. People do need to weigh the risks involved. I only brought it up because it appears that Some Guy is in a pretty tight corner at this point. Some Guy also needs to be aware that Mrs. Some Guy may have been taping him for the past several months or more.

  390. Laura says:

    Anonymous Age 71:

    I don’t know anything specific about Some Guy’s circumstances, except that the eldest child is probably no more than ten years old. But some men DO get sucked into fighting for custody in a situation/jurisdiction in which they have no realistic chance of prevailing. Between the divorce settlement and the legal fees, the man is then hopelessly underwater and can’t afford to restart his life. In some cases, the man may be so broke that he falls behind on his child support payments and he ends up losing his driver’s license, passport, etc And men do end up in jail for non-payment.. Excessive time at the courthouse can also lead to job loss, which starts a cascade of life destroying events, especially in today’s miserable economy.

    If there is little equity in the house, it doesn’t make sense to fight for it. “Trade” her the house for something else, and try hard to hang on to your pension plan.. If there is a lot of equity in the house, he should consider trying to suck it out with a second mortgage if he has other debts. Lots of times women are emotionally over-invested in the house, and I was just encouraging Some Guy to take advantage of that, if the situation arises. Where I live, lots of people are still underwater on their mortgages, and house prices here have been gradually dropping since early 2009. Everybody who posts on this blog seems to be on the right hand side of the bell curve, so my guess is that Some Guy can tailor my general advice to his specific circumstances.

    If Some Guy’s wife is a full time housewife, the chances are simply overwhelming that she will win custody. But children over the age of fourteen can be very hard to stop if they want to leave Mom’s house and move to Dad’s house. My advice would be to at least consider the strategy of accepting the likely outcome of a trial by negotiating the best deal that he can get, and then move to a decent place near the children’s school as soon as he can manage it. Even if he just has every other weekend on paper, if he lives close to the school he may be able to arrange to see them a lot more often than that.

    If he is living in the children’s school district, and the wife marries somebody the kids don’t like, then the option exists for them to increase the amount of time that they spend with Some Guy.

    Also, if the settlement is negotiated, there is a better chance that they can eventually have some sort of businesslike relationship for sorting out issues with the children that come up post divorce. After a trial, all bridges are burnt, and new legal bills are created every time that there is a difference of opinion.

  391. oblivion says:

    @all does laura ever just shut up????

    but “worldly” advice about marriage during my high school years (which I never received) might have done a lot more to prevent my marriage disaster than the vague “learn to compromise” stuff the church was doling out.

    there u go snowflake, blame the church for your poor choice

    . But my parents actually approved of the marriage, so I did not marry against their advice

    there u go snowflake, blame your parents

    I heard prior to marriage consisted mainly of sentimental slop about Jesus being able to fix anything. I don’t blame anybody but myself for the poor choice I made in picking a husband

    there u go snowflake, keep the lies coming

  392. Anonymous age 71 says:

    At this time, I believe what Laura says about her marriage. And, also her legal information is not all bad. But, I don’t care. She well knows this is intended to be for men. But, since she legally can, she rudely comes on here when she well knows she is not wanted.

    And, her real message is NAWALT.

    We know not all women are like that. But, as MarkyMark has said, the problem is women who aren’t like that seem to be unable to give enough clues so we lowly men can tell the difference.

    And, if a woman does seem to pass the screening, she can change her mind any time she wants with total impunity.

    Therefore, any man who gets married in the USA today (actually since around 1984 when marital rape became the norm in the USA) is pretty much as insane as AW are.

    Women here in Mexico (except those who have studied in the US) would not butt in where they are clearly not wanted. It is called good manners, something unknown to AW.

    And, another note on Jen’s comment that men here hate women.

    Since the mid 60’s, there have been feminists who have been openly saying that 90% of all men on the planet must be killed. I subscribed to Ms. Magazine for years. They not only said it. They had lengthy articles written about the idea of killing several billion men because of their personal hatred for all men. This is a hatred which even exceeds Hitler’s rather modest proposal to kill a few million Jews.

    And, they are still saying it, and on the Internet. I read one such current article this last week.

    Let me add that this is the only original feminist goal which has not been met already.

    I cannot imagine any men in the manosphere saying such a thing about women. And, if one did, he would be immediately taken to task or banned by the man board.

    Yet you are worried about our hatred for women. For reasons known only to yourself, you seem totally immune from even noticing the worst hatred ever to exist in the history of the world. But, you are worried about a few thousand men who would be glad if they never again saw a woman in the distance nor heard her constant shrieks of rage about nothing.

    Also, virtually not a woman on the planet speaks out against this hatred. Maybe Camille Paglia or Schlafly or Charen? But never the women who come here to accuse US of hatred for women.

    I am sure this outrageous conduct on your part will convince men in the manosphere to stop hating women? Hee, hee.

  393. Bee says:

    @Laura,

    Sorry to hear your marriage was so difficult.

    I am doing a research project on how Christians make major decisions. I would like to get your input on some questions:

    While dating, what attracted you to your husband? Please be specific about physical, social, financial, religious, family, and masculine traits

    What did you do or ask him in order to verify his Christian faith?

    Did your father and mother also probe or question this man’s Christian faith?

    Did you know any of his siblings or parents before dating him?

    In addition to your parents, did you ask any other adults for counsel on whether or not you should marry him? If “Yes”, how many separate counsel conversations? (Don’t include anyone you asked after you had already made up your mind to marry him.)

    Did you set apart time to fast and pray before making the final decision to accept his marriage proposal? If “Yes”, how long did you fast?

    Looking back, what clues or red flags were present which you overlooked or minimized while dating and engaged?

    At the time you got engaged, how many times had you read through the book of Proverbs?

    At the time you got engaged, how many times had you cried out loud for wisdom? (Not a quiet prayer as you were getting ready for bed, but an active, loud, vocal, pleading God for wisdom to enter your heart and mind.)

  394. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I remember a case in the 80’s. when I was doing legal research to improve my counseling of divorced fathers. One of the states in the N.W. 2nd had a law which made it illegal to record telephone conversations without at least one party being aware of it.

    A husband secretly recorded his wife and her lover plotting his death. The District Court said the recording could not be used, due to the violation of the law. The high court in that state said that was not rational that people could plot murder and the only conceivable way of detecting it was not allowed. So, the recording went.

    I realize things change.But, for sure there are states where you can record; record; record if even one person in the room is aware of it.

    Best solution for most men: Do not ever get married. Once you do the government owns you, and your wife will be the government executioner. (Note for Laura and Jen: married and faithful for 38 years to a Mexican woman so you need not bother with the usual shaming language. I also live in rural Mexico.)

  395. Laura says:

    Bee: I wouldn’t mind helping you with your survey if Dalrock will help you to email it to me.

    Anonymous at 71: I don’t criticize, much less shame, the decision of any man or woman to stay single. You truly have been richly blessed to have a faithful marriage for 38 years when society has gone to Hell in a handbasket during the same decades that you have been married I do realize now that women are not welcome on this site — I did not realize that when I first commented. I had intended to stop posting on this site last night, but decided to respond to a thoughtful comment from “deti.” I had also hoped to hear back from Some Guy, but maybe he isn’t a frequent commenter on this blog.

  396. Look at this line:

    I wouldn’t mind helping you with your survey if Dalrock will help you to email it to me.

    Smells fishy… And, the commenter “Bee” is giving merciful wisdom in the form of questions. “Laura” just doesn’t deserve or appreciate. I’m going sour on “Laura”. Put me on the other team.

    A.J.P.

  397. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Of course, Dalrock owns this blog, and who is welcome here is his decision. But, yes, most men here would prefer women not come here for very apparent reasons. The main one is we simply don’t need to hear the woman’s viewpoint. The woman’s viewpoint has been featured in every form of media for over 45 years, and most of us are sick of it. A men’s blog is still one of the few places men can discuss their own viewpoints. when the women let us do it.

    Women like Jen have only ever heard the woman’s viewpoint, and women like her cannot imagine men would have a different viewpoint after the way men have been treated by women for 45 years. So, when she discovers what men actually think about how women treat them, she starts wtih the name calling of woman haters.

    I often use the ante-bellum slave owners as an example. And, I do not mean any form of racism. Slave owners actually believed the slaves were happy as slaves. Because they would ask them if they were happy.

    And, a slave of any intelligence knew to say, no, he was not happy, would be a very big mistake. “Yes, massa, I’s so happy!”

    That is the reality for most men who want to work and hold a job in the last 45 years. Example is Larry Summers, who simply reported a very obvious truth about most women and math. To get and keep a job of any significance, a man has to say, “Yes, massa; I’s so happy.”

    So, over the last 45 years most women have totally lost contact with reality and actually believe only some psychotic woman hater would not be happy with his lot in life in the USA.

  398. oblivion says:

    “I do realize now that women are not welcome on this site — I did not realize that when I first commented. I had intended to stop posting on this site last night, but decided to respond to a thoughtful comment from “deti.” I had also hoped to hear back from Some Guy, but maybe he isn’t a frequent commenter on this blog.”

    your arent welcome here because your a lying sack of hamster. any honest women is welcome here. what is this the second time that u said you were going to leave? i love how no matter what happens or what u post u can just change ur mind and not stand by your word.
    im too busy watching what ur doing at this point to listen to what ur saying. good bye.

    this is a lesson for all men on the manosphere. quit listening to what women are saying and just watch what they do. you will know what the truth is then. take if from the bible (im not christian) judge somebody by thier fruits. apple trees make apples, if there is an orange on an apple tree u should guess that its really an orange tree, no matter what the apple tree tells you.

    @someguy, dont take the honey tasting poisen

  399. Bee says:

    @Laura,

    Dalrock does not list an email on his site. He rarely ever responds to commenters on his About page. I don’t have his email.

    I could email it or fax it directly to you.

  400. oblivion says:

    call me crazy but wasnt the last 5 day tirade of laura to wear us down and get our email addresses???

  401. Deti,

    Way up thread you asserted that women have no moral agency. I disagree with this.

    Women are independent actors, moral and otherwise. A woman is an autonomous being who has full agency to act within her own free will; and therefore the moral accountability for her acts, whatever they are.

    This is true for some women. Unfortunately, it is not true for most women.

    It cannot be otherwise. If it’s really true that women have no moral agency and therefore have the mental and moral capacity of minors, then they really are not responsible for anything they do. If they are little more than children, and lack the capacity to take on responsibility, then the manosphere is dead wrong to insist on moral, legal and factual accountability from women for their own decisions.

    Several points to be made here:

    #1) The “manosphere” does not have a series of very clear, well defined ideas, on everything that is encompasses. I think the 19th Amendment and Women’s Suffrage was wrong. I also think the 26th Amendment was wrong. Are these ideas that all men in the “manosphere” agree on? Doubt it. But these are important to me because I know that women are not moral agents. And your life (and my life) are put in jeapordy when women enter the voting booth and do what women typically do, vote for the candidate that they feel acts in what they believe to be the best interests of women as opposed to men who vote for candidates who act in the best interests of their families and their country.

    #2) When a man murders someone, men typically line up to volunteer to send that man back to God. Typically, we don’t want him anymore on this planet. When a woman murders, women quite often start running on that hamster wheel (faster and faster) in a way to rationalize that woman’s actions in anyway they can to remove her accountability. I couldn’t believe this until I overheard women discussing at work one day about how they felt Andrea Yates’ husband should have been found guilty of the murder of their five children because he didn’t get his wife teh kind of help that she needed. Yes, these women were nodding in agreement, it had to be HIS fault that she did what she did. This type of thinking (so common among women) is a perfect example of why they lack moral agency. To be perfectly honest, I was very pleasantly surprised that the women on the Jodi Arais jury found her guilty. I believe they are the exception, not the rule.

    #3) I believe that women are property. She is the property of her father until she is married. He is responsible for her because she is not a moral agent. When she get married, the father gives his daughter away to her husband who now owns her. Now her husband is her owner, she is HIS property. He has headship because she is not a moral agent. They knew this thousands of years ago, it was as true then about women as it is today.

    God made it clear that women are independent moral actors and are independently accountable to God and others for their actions. He made this clear when he confronted Eve with her sin of listening to Satan and taking the forbidden fruit. God laid out for Eve what her sin was, and then gave her a consequence for it. He did the same with Adam. Thus: Eve’s sin, Eve’s punishment. Adam’s sin, Adam’s punishment. If Eve had no moral agency, she’d be incapable of sin; and God would not have been able to punish her.

    Eve ate the apple, something that God specifically forbid her from doing. That is the FIRST example of women not being moral agents.

    Then she gave it to Adam for him to eat of it. Had she not have done this (of her own free will), Adam would have continued to obey God and not eat of it. Adam’s sin was listening to his wife and doing what she told him to do (something God forbid the both of them to do.) Bad on Adam.

    What I have told Jen (about making marriage work) is for women to do whatever their husbands tell them to do. Men are supposed to be responsible to know right from wrong. If a man is behaving wrong, other men step in and fix the problem. Women? Women should do as they are told by their husbands because they are not moral agents.

    We don’t have to agree Deti, but I’ve lived on this earth far too long (lived with women and learned from their behavior) and I’m convinced (for the most part) women are not moral agents. I wish all women had the moral clarity and accountability of an Ann Coulter, but unfortunately they do not. They are emotional first, logical second.

  402. Laura says:

    Bee, I can’t possibly post my email address.

    The answers to the first four question are pretty much contained in my prior comments. The answer to the next two questions is “no.”

    The answer to the red flag question would be that he told a stupid lie to another man that we met (the day after we became engaged) and the other man called him on it. Also, he was inconsiderate in small ways while a guest at my parents’ house.

    I had read the book of Proverbs straight through at least once at that point in my life, possibly twice.

    Final question: Never.

    Best wishes on completing your study of Christian decision making.

  403. Chris_Williams says:

    “Yet you are worried about our hatred for women. For reasons known only to yourself, you seem totally immune from even noticing the worst hatred ever to exist in the history of the world. But, you are worried about a few thousand men who would be glad if they never again saw a woman in the distance nor heard her constant shrieks of rage about nothing.”

    Quite right. Note how the default response of all female critics has been to play up their victimization and deflect attention from the general trends in society. My case consists of “X”; therefore, disregard all instances of “Y”, even though “Y” is the rule-not the exception. Criticizing my fellow snowflakes makes me feel bad – therefore, quit making me feel bad, even if you’re shining a light on the damage Gynocracy has done for the past 5 or 6 decades. Never forget – it’s all about my special life story and my all important feelings.

    Hard to tell what’s more repulsive about the “fairer sex” nowadays – the narcissism, or the illogic.

  404. Chris_Williams says:

    “I didn’t find out about the child pornography until less than a year before we separated.”

    And then…

    “The FBI investigated my ex for producing and selling child pornography a couple of years after we divorced. I don’t know what triggered the FBI investigation, but it wasn’t me.”

    Hmmm…I bet those 7-8 y/o French girls are proud of her. She let a child predator run free for at least two years – probably even longer. All the while knowing he had money & the means to travel abroad, and therefore needed to be turned in ASAP before he disappeared.

    Pretty cold, even for a gal like her. (Apologies to Heath L’s “Joker”).

  405. feeriker says:

    For me, more than the angry words towards women, is the realization that the men on The Manosphere hate women. If these men hate women so deeply and thoroughly, then, what about other men? Perhaps they, too, feel this way. I generally have thought of men as “white knights” (while being realistic about sexual behavior). Here, “white knight” is a term of derision. Just freaking depressing.

    Hooooh, boy!

    Hey, guys! It looks like between Laura and Jen, we have a case of “dualing hamsters” [cue “Dueling Banjos” theme here]

    I think the gold-plated pocket hamsterlator that deti gifted me can handle this one, so here goes:

    “No matter how hard I try, I just can’t address or answer any of the absolutely and obviously valid points the men here bring up about women today being such entitled, self-centered, manipulative, man-hating bitches, so I’m going to just project and accuse THEM of being the hateful ones. Since I can’t relate to anything beyond my own narcissist and solipsistic view of life, it can only be that men not only hate all us wimminz, but hate themselves and each othertoo. I mean, there just can’t be any other explanation. I mean, I just knew that all men are white knights, that God designed them that way and put them here on this earth just to make sure that precious little entitled snowflakes like me don’t EVER get our feelings hurt. And for the life of me, I just cannot BELIEVE that they reject that role, that they actually think they have purpose and value just as men themselves. Why, the RAW NERVE! I can’t believe they’d insult me so!”

  406. Hey, guys! It looks like between Laura and Jen, we have a case of “dualing hamsters”

    Hate to White Knight here, but I think Jen is okay. When she asked how to have a good marriage and I told her to obey/submit to her husband (in all things) she didn’t fly off the handle. She said something like “…well that is not that hard.” I actually think she’s trying.

    For Laura, I just think she’s lying.

  407. feeriker says:

    Hate to White Knight here, but I think Jen is okay.

    Even after this: For me, more than the angry words towards women, is the realization that the men on The Manosphere hate women. ?

    Seriously?

  408. Legion says:

    oblivion says: September 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm

    lol. I didn’t bother to finish reading her first attempt at drivel. Haven’t read anything but her name since then. You all have greater constitutions than I to wade thru her scribblings. Not to my taste.

    I have read all of your replies to her though.

  409. Note how the default response of all female critics has been to play up their victimization and deflect attention from the general trends in society.

    Pretty much this x 100. Moral relativism has enabled some to live solipsistically despite worsening trends…

    A.J.P.

  410. Laura says:

    I never saw any child pornography during the time we were married, I just overheard my husband talking about it on the phone the summer before we separated. He more or less admitted to me what he was doing, and I was unsure whether it was my duty to try to turn him in (without having any physical evidence), or my duty to remain loyal to him. I ended up falling into despair, and my husband decided to divorce me, partly because I now knew too much, and partly for financial reasons. I have freely admitted to being ashamed of things that I did and failed to do during the divorce and child custody period of time in my life. i did cooperate fully with the FBI when they asked me but they ended up dropping their case against him because they didn’t think that they could get a conviction against him in ultra-liberal San Francisco.

    There are lots of general trends in society that have helped to screw up marriage, and I NEVER denied it. In the 60s, a guy could pay his own way through college by working in a factory or driving a forklift in a warehouse. When he graduated debt-free at 22, he could get a decent junior-executive position with a salary and benefits. A decent house in an OK neighborhood was probably 1.5 times his annual income, and he could save up enough for a down payment in a year or two, especially if his wife worked for the first year or two of the marriage. So, he was “marriageable” at 22.

    A guy today graduates with back-breaking student loan payments, and can’t find a job that pays more than $12/hour even though he has a diploma. He can go out and party, but he can’t get married, and the women he meets KNOW that he has no ability to leave his parents’ basement. Similarly, women are graduating at 22 with a degree with little market value, and student loans so onerous that they need to work full time at whatever lousy dead-end job that they can find all through their prime reproductive years to make the payments.

    Plenty of the “frivorces” that I have seen involved couples who just had too much on their plates: two careers, young children, a fixer-upper house, credit card debt plus student loans, you name it.. They were mentally and physically exhausted, and often the women were sleep-deprived. People should honor their marriage vows and just muddle through the bad circumstances as best they can, but when the majority of churches have no issue at all with allowing church weddings with all the trimmings for people who are on their third or fourth marriage, it’s hard to convince women that they aren’t entitled to a “second chance at happiness.”

  411. Bee says:

    @Laura,

    “The answers to the first four question are pretty much contained in my prior comments. The answer to the next two questions is “no.” ”

    I have read all of your comments on this post and you don’t provide any specifics to questions 1, 2, and 3. Provide amplification to those three questions.

    Thanks for sharing your experience.

  412. @Laura

    There are lots of general trends in society that have helped to screw up marriage, and I NEVER denied it

    So? It takes more than “not denying” to right the boat…

    the majority of churches have no issue at all with allowing church weddings with all the trimmings

    You already know the right thing to do… You must go to the churches that aren’t the majority and build something good there. Even if you can’t get married, or can’t get married right away, of course you could help out and contribute to the effort to fix the weakening marriage institution and other parts of society.

    Save other people from hurting the way you do right now. Isn’t that the charitable decision?

    A.J.P.

  413. Laura says:

    Bee:

    While dating, what attracted you to your husband? Please be specific about physical, social, financial, religious, family, and masculine traits

    He was tall and fit, but not handsome, the social status of his family was similar to mine, maybe a bit higher; he was a pilot and had also traveled a lot before entering the AF, which was a huge contrast to my parents, who never did anything, and never went anywhere, partly because of my father’s health issues.

    At the time we met, my husband was a 2nd Lieutenant w/flight pay, but he was in debt and I didn’t know it. He never took me to any fancy restaurants or anywhere special, just Pizza Hut, etc., and I was fine with that. This actually gave me the false impression that he was probably careful with money, which he wasn’t. He had two younger siblings and his family was normal, but I didn’t actually meet any of them until the wedding. He was masculine, but not in any over-the-top Ernest Hemingway sense. He just seemed young, healthy, male, and full of life

    What did you do or ask him in order to verify his Christian faith?

    I did ask him if he was Christian before accepting a date with him. He assured me that he was, although he admitted he wasn’t attending a local church at that time. Since it was quite common for guys to drop out of church after confirmation, or upon entering college, and not return to church until they stated dating seriously, this did not strike me as unusual. While we dated, we attended a local Presbyterian church, and his behavior there was absolutely fine.

    Did your father and mother also probe or question this man’s Christian faith?

    No. My mother might have asked ME, and my answer would have been “yes” because that was what I had been told.

  414. Laura says:

    Alan J. Perrick:

    My ex husband died a number of years ago, so I could remarry if the opportunity ever presented itself. I would actually be interested in doing something along the lines that you mentioned, but the few churches that are really trying to hold the line on marriage-for-life are unlikely to allow a woman who has been divorced to teach anything, and I do understand and accept that. It’s the female teacher issue plus the marital failure issue.

    I’ve learned a lot from looking over this website over the past few days, and following a few of the links. I was surprised to learn that the average age of women is now 28. I knew it was rising, but thought it might be about 25 or 26 at this point. In my area, a lot of young people with modest incomes now set up housekeeping, with both working, and each filing taxes as head of household (and claiming one child) and getting an Earned Income Tax Credit once they have two or more children.

    It was also an assumption of mine that the reason that the twenty-somethings weren’t getting married was that men in their twenties were finding the economy so harsh that they stayed in adolescent mode for longer, living at home, etc.. In other words, getting married when you don’t have a decent job or money in the bank and you do have student loan debt forces you to confront the fact that you have failed to achieve the middle-class markers of good job and financial independence that your parents and grandparents achieved by age 22 or 23. If you don’t really seek a marriage, then you don’t have to confront the fact that you can’t afford it. This particular problem may ease up somewhat over the coming years, as the number of college students took a big dip last year, so the whole student loan debt-slavery problem may sort itself out over the next decade, although that is of little comfort to the people already struggling with unmanageable debt loads. I didn’t see any comment threads on this issue, so maybe this isn’t actually a major part of the problem of delayed marriage?

  415. MarcusD says:

    @Alan J. Perrick

    Well, the two have a very close semantic profile, but I’ll let Dalrock be the final say on it.

  416. Bee says:

    @Laura,

    Thanks for sharing the details.

    It distresses me greatly that most Christians do not use and apply wisdom in deciding whom to marry.

    The end goal of this project is a Wise Decisions or Wisdom Seminar that I hope to teach at Churches and Christian Retreats. It may be several years, or longer, before the Seminar is completed.

  417. Laura says:

    Bee:

    I pray that your seminar materials, when completed, will make a real difference in people’s lives. I know that it will take a lot of hard work for you to complete the project. One step at a time!

    If I may make a suggestion, I think that the divorce rate within the ranks of church members could be reduced significantly if some sort of marriage preparation AND financial education took place at the beginning of the high school years BEFORE the young people start dating seriously and before they are legally able to contract a debt. By the time people are offered a pre-marriage course, they are already engaged to be married, and plans for the wedding are already well under way. Even if one or both parties begins to have serious misgivings about the upcoming ceremony, they may continue down the path that they are on due to the money already spent and the social embarrassment of calling off the wedding. I’m against grandiose weddings for pretty much the same reasons.

  418. Chris_Williams says:

    “Smells fishy… And, the commenter “Bee” is giving merciful wisdom in the form of questions. “Laura” just doesn’t deserve or appreciate. I’m going sour on “Laura”. Put me on the other team.”

    Yes … shouldn’t take too long to look at her [their] IP address[es] and take care of business – as needed.

  419. There are myriad efforts to do pre-marriage seminars and counseling. Sure, people do not avail themselves as much as they should, but they are there. I read frequently remarks that if people sorted mates better it would alleviate the rate of divorce.
    I’m sorry to burst bubbles but even though that is a good thing to aim for, it avoids confronting the problem, and in many ways helps grow the problem. the problem is the primacy of happiness and the avoidance of long-suffering….for anything. In fact as people believe today and have for decades, the goal of the sorting would morph into which mate will best make me happy.
    fact is, people need to sort themselves, inside. And, the common sense thing to do when addressing a problem is to go after the biggest bite first. That bite is reflected in the fact that women file most divorces, especially frivolous ones.

    While everyone could use a dose of learning about long-suffering, on this issue at this time, unless women are bluntly and boldly called out and stigmatized for their role in rampant familial destruction, no amount of preparation will change the direction by a single degree.

  420. Luke says:

    Georgia Boy says:
    September 11, 2013 at 9:53 am

    “But most of these charity drives allow an employee to choose to either contribute to a general fund, or direct his contributions to a specific org. This gives us an opportunity to help de-fund feminism, and tip the system of social incentives back towards good families, the solution to social problems that actually works.

    In my company last I checked, the Boy Scouts was still an option, and it is one of the few orgs left that teaches real leadership and citizenship to boys.”

    NO!! Nobody give to the Boy Scouts anymore! Their national leadership got taken over by liberals, just as the Girl Scouts went bad years ago. The successor group for what the Boy Scouts used to (laudably) stand for is http://www.traillifeusa.com . (The one for the Girl Scouts is American Heritage Girls, at http://www.ahgonline.org). These organizations deserve all the help good men can give them.

  421. Laura says:

    empathologism, what you say is true, people need to overcome immaturity and selfishness in themselves rather than just blame every marital problem that they ever encounter on having married the wrong person. But surely some people in the pre-marriage classes DO come to realize that they really aren’t ready to marry anybody at all.

  422. Chris_Williams says:

    “That bite is reflected in the fact that women file most divorces, especially frivolous ones.”
    And what’s the first instinct of women when they’re reminded of this fact? To “defend the hive” with tu quoque arguments aimed at shifting the discussion back to men and how they’re failing to meet female expectations. Recall her previous statements:

    “no fault divorce can also screw women over, because rotten people are sometimes male and sometimes female.”

    “do you really believe that it is impossible for a man to be capricious?”

    “majority of divorce cases are filed by the woman, but nobody on the outside has any real insight as to what led up to the divorce”

    Laura sez –

    “people need to overcome immaturity and selfishness in themselves rather than just blame every marital problem that they ever encounter on having married the wrong person. But surely some people in the pre-marriage classes DO come to realize that they really aren’t ready to marry anybody at all.”

    Yes; someone who abetted a child predator because she “wasn’t sure” it was her duty to turn him in cares about protecting adult men from frivorce. Pretty interesting how her first reaction is, not concern about her husband’s victims, but defending herself (don’t criticize me because I didn’t have any evidence, even though I claimed there were thousands of dollars worth of his pictures lying around).

    That level of stupidity and selfishness is, however, one of the first believable things she’s posted – I’ll give her that.

  423. Bee says:

    @Chris Williams,

    “Yes … shouldn’t take too long to look at her [their] IP address[es] and take care of business – as needed.”

    I am not Laura. I am a guy married to a woman. Neither my wife or I have ever been divorced.

    @Dalrock,

    You have my permission to comment here on whether my or not I have the same IP address as Laura.

  424. Bee says:

    @Chris Williams,

    “Smells fishy… And, the commenter “Bee” is giving merciful wisdom in the form of questions.”

    If you interrupted your paranoia about Trolls long enough to think, you would realize that my questions are not merciful but embarrassing. It is humiliating to reveal that a person made foolish choices when they got married and did not follow Biblical principles.

    Four or five months ago I asked similar questions to Connie. Connie refused to answer these questions. Connie claimed to be a Christian and was divorced twice and now married for a third time.

    I give credit to Laura for answering these questions.

  425. Chris_Williams says:

    “If you interrupted your paranoia about Trolls long enough to think, you would realize that my questions are not merciful but embarrassing. It is humiliating to reveal that a person made foolish choices when they got married and did not follow Biblical principles.”

    If you interrupted your White Knighting long enough to think, you’d realize that that was a quote of another commenter, sweetie. I’m an agnostic on the theory myself. But hey – joust away, Sir Bee! Get your face red White-Knighting for Laura!!! Have a good morning (if you’re on the US East Coast), and be sure to tell your wife (if you have one) about the cute divorcee you met in the comments section @ Dalrock’s. :)

  426. Bee says:

    @Chris Williams,

    Here is where you showed paranoia about trolls:

    “Yes … shouldn’t take too long to look at her [their] IP address[es] and take care of business – as needed.”

    Yes, I have a wife.

    from my earlier comment to you:

    “I am a guy married to a woman. Neither my wife or I have ever been divorced.”

  427. Bee says:

    Here is another Christian woman who made the foolish choice to marry a Bull Alpha:

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/alpha-mail-be-careful-what-you-chase.html

  428. Laura says:

    Chris Williams: Did I say that I was unconcerned with the victims? This happened twenty-five years ago, and I have repented for the sins that I committed during the marriage, as well as those that I committed during the divorce and custody fight. And I have already stated that I have repented.

    If a husband is doing something illegal, should the wife immediately call the police on him? Should she immediately file for divorce, or would that be a “frivorce?” If you are a Christian, lets see which Bible verses you use to back up your position. Think carefully, because this situation comes up in plenty of marriages, from working off the books to selling guns without the proper paperwork to picking up arrowheads at a state park (a felony, by the way.)

    I only post as “Laura”. Your idea that I am impersonating other people on this website is wrong.

  429. Chris_Williams says:

    “Yes, I have a wife.”

    Well, that settles it.

    My mistake, Mr. Man Who Is Married. When you and your 19 year-old lil’ lady go to Pizza Hut tonight, give her my regards. Tone down the gambling, and don’t crash your Air Force jet (or are you some ground crew schmoe?) Anyways, I don’t care what INTERPOL or the FBI suits say about you – jet jocks are the best!

  430. deti says:

    Laura :

    Your further answers to Bee’s questions reinforces my viewpoint that you chose your husband poorly. You bear the responsibility for your failure to vet him. Just as I thought, and as I said earlier, you married a bull alpha flyboy because he tingled you.

    The reasons for increasing age at first marriage are manifold and synergistic, in my opinion, but it’s quite simple and basic. Feminism freed up women from having to depend on men for anything. Instead, she can pursue the attractive men for sex for as long as possible. She doesn’t have to answer to her father or a husband because she has her HR/PR/paper pusher cubicle job. If things get bad she can rely on daddy government, the ultimate sugar daddy/beta provider.

    Alpha men are fun for sex and they give her validation. It’s not until she’s around 27 (at the absolute EARLIEST) that she starts thinking about The Future. So she starts looking for a man to marry and is positively dumbfounded that the attractive men don’t want marriage. They just want fun. And they’ve stopped calling her. So she has to look downward to the less attractive men for marriage.

    The main reason for delayed marriage is that women by and large do not want to commit at an early age because of “fear of missing out” and because another, better offer might come along when she’s already tied down. Second, she believes (and mostly with good reason) that marriage will always be there for the taking, so why rush? (And the numbers bear this out. Women in their late 20s to their late 30s are still marrying for the first time. A lot of these women have double digit Ns; but they are still able to find men willing to marry them.) Closely related to this are the facts that young women want to have their fun and they don’t want to have to answer to a man.

    By the same token, the men from about age 18 to age 30 get next to nothing. Having an education, a job and a car isn’t good enough now to get and hold a woman’s interest. Those men realize that busting your ass for years and years to get a barista job at Starbucks or a deputy assistant vice manager store at BigBoxRetail Store doesn’t make economic sense. The pay is shit, the prestige is shittier, and the working conditions are terrible. So instead he decides to earn just enough to support himself.

    He’s already learned that if he’s going to attract a girl, his intelligence, college degree, entry level job and Toyota Corolla aren’t going to do it. He sees broke musicians in garage bar bands slaying more poon in a month than he’s seen his entire life. He sees douchebag dickbag assholes like Laura’s ex husband, who delight in treating women like absolute crap, getting more ass than he’s ever seen. He sees accomplished PUAs who write about pickup for a living reaching Ns into the triple digits, and they don’t have to commit, or invest, or marry.

    So these guys aren’t ready for marriage because it makes no sense to do the things to get ready. They aren’t getting the signals to get ready. They learn the hard way that even if they do those things and prepare to be husbands and fathers and providers, one of two things are increasingly likely to happen:

    1. He can’t find anyone to date to whom he’s even marginally physically attracted.
    2. He is at extreme risk of divorce and losing everything he’s worked for, even if he is absolutely not at fault at all.

    So a rational man asks the perfectly rational questions:

    Why?

    Why should I do all this? Why should I spend years getting a degree and a job and a career? So I can get married to a woman who (1) isn’t attracted to me; or (2) has had sex with so many men she can’t even remember them all; or (3) will get unhaaaappy and divorce me? So I can waste my life on a woman who doesn’t want me and never did in the first place?

  431. deti says:

    Bee and Laura:

    In my opinion, the primary problem driving divorce today is the following:

    1. Too many women are married to men they aren’t attracted to.

    2. It is far, far too easy and financially lucrative for those women to divorce the men they’re married to.

    3. Women’s expectations of marriage are sky-high unreasonable – she expects endless happiness, fulfillment, fun and trouble-free living.

    All the rest – financial issues, financial problems, immaturity, nothing in common, differences in religion or child rearing, exhaustion – all of these are symptoms of the base problem.

    The base problem is that a good number of women settled for their husbands.

    They get supremely disappointed when they discover marriage isn’t a Garden of Eden.

    These women are shocked to find out that their husbands want things from marriage too.

    They are flabbergasted to discover that saying “I do” at an altar actually means she took on a commitment, and she has to — *GASP! * LIVE UP to that commitment.

  432. deti says:

    Laura:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-weakened-signal/

    I commend the above link for your reading about what’s happening with men today.

  433. feeriker says:

    @deti:

    Well said, brother, but ultimately wasted on Laura, methinks.

  434. @Deti

    Whatever men want from a marriage is abusive,

  435. Laura says:

    deti said:

    “men realize that busting your ass for years and years to get a barista job at Starbucks or a deputy assistant vice manager store at BigBoxRetail Store doesn’t make economic sense. The pay is shit, the prestige is shittier, and the working conditions are terrible. So instead he decides to earn just enough to support himself.”

    The whole marriage-delay syndrome really does have frightening societal implications. The men aren’t serious about their careers during their twenties, which is when they have the most energy, drive and ambition, and the women are living a degrading life and end up unable to bond to anyone in marriage and with infertility-inducing venereal diseases. In many cases, people are having their children a decade later than their parents had them, and they will be helping their own children transition into adulthood with college and wedding expenses when they are almost ready to retire, IF they have their own student loans paid off by then.

    And those big box retail and Starbucks jobs now sometimes force people to interview two or three times for a chance to be hired. On the flip side, the number of people working for cash seems to have greatly increased, so the taxman isn’t getting any of that. Another website that I look at is very doom and gloom on whether the global economy will be able to survive the next few years without a cataclysmic crash. Nobody in our society actually produces anything real anymore.

    The hope that I have is that the Lord is in control, and that the pendulum will eventually swing back. These trends that are in full flower now were only in their embryonic phase during the seventies. My generation was the first to spend its childhood watching idealized depictions of family life on TV for endless hours while both parents worked full time. The 1960s reruns that I was watching all day long during the summers were very unwholesome when taken as a whole. The families that were presented as being “middle class” were actually upper middle class or better in most cases, and every problem the family encountered was quickly solved to the absolute satisfaction of everyone. The overall effect was to make the average life of the average family look miserable and almost impoverished. The “divorce/romance porn” and “real estate porn”, etc., that are now ubiquitous have completely distorted the average woman’s conception of what is worth having, and what is realistically achievable, and what a real marriage might look like. As they say in England, “It will all end in tears.”

  436. Feminist Hater says:

    So I can waste my life on a woman who doesn’t want me and never did in the first place?

    This is it in a nutshell. There is simply no point in marrying a woman older than 24. They are not attracted to you, never have been and never will be. If a woman were attracted to you, or a man like you, she would have been married at a young age.

  437. Bee says:

    @Chris Williams,

    “My mistake, Mr. Man Who Is Married. When you and your 19 year-old lil’ lady go to Pizza Hut tonight, give her my regards.”

    Why yes, Mrs. Bee and I did go to Pizza Hut last weekend. It happened to be the Pizza Hut where you work as a waiter. It was interesting having you as our server. Your abusive and cynical attitude made for a challenging evening. Thanks for the invite to come back but we are going to go to Appleby’s tonight.

  438. people need to overcome immaturity and selfishness in themselves rather than just blame every marital problem that they ever encounter on having married the wrong person. But surely some people in the pre-marriage classes DO come to realize that they really aren’t ready to marry anybody at all.

    Not according to the pastors and Christian psychologists Ive spoken to about this. The cite one over riding issue, the woman blaming the man. Its comprises almost all the counseling they do. One Christian psychologist told me last week that he discontinued couples therapy because of that. He either had to pander to the woman, or the couple would not come back. The women sometimes got so angry they walked out mid session.

    Stick-to-it attitude deficit is not a balanced problem. It is significantly skewed to the female side. No pre marriage counseling will fix that. When she says she married the wrong person, that is the hamster talking. She means that she blames him, but wording it this way seems better.

  439. Laura says:

    empathologism: I was really trying to refer to the pre-marriage counseling and group workshops that some churches have for engaged couples. A man I went to law school with went to the Catholic version of this (pre-Cana, circa 1992)) and he said that he was surprised by how many issues the class brought up that he and his fiancee had not addressed already, because he and the fiancee were both such highly verbal people. Ultimately, he and his fiancee decided not to marry, and broke up. He didn’t explain why, and I didn’t ask.

    I don’t think that any church would actually consider this, but now that the average age of marriage has risen to the late 20s for women, and maybe 30 or more for men, a few hundred dollars per couple to an investigator for a background check might turn up information that would end up preventing an ill-advised marriage. Debts, judgments, prior divorces & annulments, arrests, convictions, resume lies about age, education, positions held, & income history, mysterious gaps in employment, military record, etc.

    I saw an interview with a marriage counselor a while back (religious background unknown) who said that it was amazing to him how many couples he dealt with who had gotten married without being in agreement on where they would live after marriage, whether they would have children, etc.

  440. Yeah, like I said, anything a husband wants out of a marriage is “abusive” any excuse to bail out of a marriage for the wife is acceptable on it’s face by Churchianity, from “financial abuse” to expecting to have sex with their wife. We’re still waiting for women to cry “sexual harassment!” within the bounds of marriage but I suspect that it won’t be too long now, and of course be a “Godly” excuse for divorce.

    I’m sure the reason the divorce rate is so high in Churchianity is skyrocketing because of men though, and not because the Disney princesses in the pews think that they should by marrying Eric’s male equivalent of the virgin Mary.

  441. deti says:

    Empath, IAL:

    This is why marital counseling is a joke. It almost always devolves into the counselor and the woman ganging up on the man.

    The man is told that he needs to communicate better. But in fact what’s really going on is that he IS communicating just fine; it’s just that the wife doesn’t like what she’s hearing from her husband or doesn’t want to do what he wants from her.

    Husband says he wants more sex; wife says she does too but she’s too tired/stressed/the kids are a hassle/you never help me around here/you don’t do enough housework. At the end of the day, she isn’t having sex with her husband because she’s not attracted to him. If he were a hawt guy she’d crawl over broken glass to have sex with him after her breastfeeding infant puked on her and after a double shift at work. But because he’s not hawt, she’s not feeling it. Bottom line: If your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you it’s because you are not attractive to her and she wants someone else; or she just doesn’t want you. Period. Full stop.

    But instead of the counselor telling him that she’s not attracted to him, he is told to do things for her. He is told to rub her feet, do more dishes, tell her more about his days at work, emote, tell her all about his feelings, and take on more child care responsibilities. This just makes it worse.

    And one of the reasons she might not be attracted to you, husband, is because you’re not as attractive as the 15 other guys who banged her before you did. You just plain don’t get her wet. But that’s not talked about.

    And one of the reasons she might not want to have sex with you is because of the extreme guilt she had from her premarital abortion after one of her boyfriends knocked her up and she is really still in love with that guy. But that’s not brought up either.

    No, she doesn’t want to sleep with you because you don’t give her enough foreplay. You don’t do enough house work. You don’t care enough about her feelings. You don’t talk enough about your feelings. You don’t communicate well. You aren’t nice to her.

    It’s all your fault, husband. If this marriage fails it’s because of YOU, not her.

  442. I am aware of those. I attended pre Cana, circa 1986, when I had a brief marriage that ended by me catching her en flagrante.

  443. feeriker says:

    This is why marital counseling is a joke. It almost always devolves into the counselor and the woman ganging up on the man.

    Since almost ALL marriage counselors are either women or feminized manginas incapable of seeing the husband’s perspective, this stands to reason.

  444. Laura says:

    deti: A marriage counselor once told me (at least 20 years ago) that the main reason that marriage counseling doesn’t work is that couples wait too long to go to marriage counseling, so that one person is just going though the motions — they have actually already made the decision to divorce. I don’t know if that was true then, obviously things are even worse now.

    I get what you are saying that the problem is that the wife is making excuses for not having sex, etc., but I have seen a number of marriages fail over the years that were related to the wife going back to work as soon as the baby was old enough for daycare (six weeks) not because she wanted to, but because the couple was deeply in debt. Women who stay home and breastfeed are often very vicious to women who work full time, telling them that their children won’t be able to form a bond with them, etc. A lot of the breastfeeding and attachment parenting stuff is good, up to a point, but it can be used as a status weapon to shame women who remain in the workforce.

    With the combination of the hormone crash after childbirth, the brutal schedule of getting up early to get the baby ready for daycare, and coming home late after picking the baby up from daycare, plus the drudgery of small kids and the endless housework and errands, they blame the husband for the situation that they are in, even if they are more at fault for the debt problem that forces them to work full time than he is (e.g. if SHE was the one who whined for the McMansion, or if she was the one who ran up the student loans or credit card debts) and they withhold sex and turn into total shrews because he still has some leisure time and she has none.

    People can put up with anything as long as they can see an end to it sometime in the near future, but when they can’t, and they aren’t getting enough sleep, they aren’t going to behave well. I don’t think that it is grounds for divorce, and as a practical matter, a divorce will do the woman no good because her financial situation will only get worse. If having the woman quit her job is simply impossible, then getting Mini Maids for a while would probably be cheaper than counseling, and have a better chance of saving the marriage.

    empathologism: That must have been a brutal shock. Obviously no pre-marriage counseling can do any good for people who have ZERO integrity.

  445. E says:

    If he were a hawt guy she’d crawl over broken glass to have sex with him after her breastfeeding infant puked on her and after a double shift at work.

    LOL. Hyperbolic much?

  446. Elspeth says:

    I’m E, Dalrock. Had the wrong emailed entered. Sorry.

  447. People can put up with anything as long as they can see an end to it sometime in the near future

    By the numbers, men “put up with anything” when there is no end in sight. Men see marriage as an event, done, women see it as a chance to work on the relationship for as long as it needs work. That simple difference, told me by a Christian counselor last week (socially, not in a session) explains much.

  448. Deti is right. All the foot rubs and crap hoops to jump through will not solve the problem…period. Because during all that, if she decides to step outside the marriage, it takes all of a quick phone call saying “meet me in 5 minutes at the park”…and she is off, raring to go, lathered and ready. No foot rubs, no emotional bonding time, no conversations leading nowhere, none of that, just BING! Come and get it.
    I differ from deti only in that I do not believe most women can remain that attracted to a man. Vast majority cannot. The guy may be hot, in that other women would pounce him, its just that the wife is bored and wants to be owned by some strange. Game, more alpha, or more supplication, whichever path he chooses it will only succeed if she has an underlying commitment to make it succeed. There is impetus on her, in other words, and if she is unwilling the very best case is she stays faithful and he gets obligation sex time to time

  449. Elspeth says:

    If he were a hawt guy she’d crawl over broken glass to have sex with him after her breastfeeding infant puked on her and after a double shift at work.

    That’s some serious hyperbole, Deti. LOL. I am attracted to my husband and I find that incredulous.

    I differ from deti only in that I do not believe most women can remain that attracted to a man

    Expecting the passion to remain at the level you feel at the very beginning is foolish, a recipe for divorce. But still, it is possible for some attraction to remain over the long haul. The problem is that women too often expect the Hollywood fantasy.

  450. feeriker says:

    Elspeth said: Expecting the passion to remain at the level you feel at the very beginning is foolish, a recipe for divorce.

    Yes, exactly so. While I would like to say that “common” sense dictates this and that it should be taken as axiomatic by both parties involved at the beginning of every serious relationship, unfortunately, the adjectival qualifier before the word “sense” is one of the most tragic misnomers of the English language. Most women today demand that the passion be an eternal flame and that their man stay “hawt” over the entire course of their relationship as a precondition for her remaining committed to it.

  451. Chris_Williams says:

    “It happened to be the Pizza Hut where you work as a waiter.”

    Keyboard Hero’s back!!!

    Um-if the internet tough-guy act impresses Ms Bee (who certainly exists, because you said so, and that settles it) – cool. But FYI, don’t let folks like me bait you into revealing info about your family. I’m just doing it because … well … your reactions are fun. Other people might not have the best of motives.

    @Deti:

    QUOTE: “But instead of the counselor telling him that she’s not attracted to him, he is told to do things for her. He is told to rub her feet, do more dishes, tell her more about his days at work, emote, tell her all about his feelings, and take on more child care responsibilities. This just makes it worse.”

    I was reading the usual bilgewater from Focus on the Family not too long ago – this could practically have been taken word for word from their materials. Perhaps they’re clueless, or perhaps the females on their staff are just “policing the hierarchy”, as desctibed in one classic manosphere article about female advice to men on relationships.

    Let’s see – what’s the result of foot rubs, flowers, etc on a Churchian woman who’s falling out of love?

    -Her husband reverts to a subordinate role in the relationship, which disgusts her. (Despite all the “bad girl” posturing promoted by “Lara Croft” tropes, women are programmed to follow a strong male lead).

    -Husband demonstrates low SMV, making her feel that she can “do better”

    -The nature of sex becomes an exchange for goods/services (maybe, if I choose the Super-Size Bouquet, Suzie won’t “have a headache” tonight!) which repels the woman even more

    QUOTE: “It’s all your fault, husband. If this marriage fails it’s because of YOU, not her.”

    I read a Christian website where one man posted his pastor’s words to him after he sought help winning back an unfaithful wife. He was asked “what he had done” to make the marriage fail. Absolutely disgusting. Not to mention further proof of how the church itself, and not just the legal system, is stacking the deck against one gender. There will be no reduction in anti-male laws for the time being. A misandrist church will not agitate for social change within a culture that shares its [misandrist] values.

  452. mustardnine says:

    @ Deti and CW,

    I have a close Christian friend, recently frivorced in exactly the way you outlined. 25 year marriage. The proximate cause was a Churchian-lady-friend (who was doing a frivorce herself, creating a pretext for divorce by my friend’s wife. (Herd mentality, anyone?) . And the pastors/counselors of the church? Took the wife’s side, of course, all the way through the process. My friend had taken every bit of church-beta advice they gave. Divorce happened anyway. My friend left that church. Ex-wife is still there, in good standing.

  453. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    “That’s some serious hyperbole, Deti. LOL. I am attracted to my husband and I find that incredulous.”

    Of course it’s hyperbolic. So what? It’s there for the purpose of illustrating the principle that a woman who’s attracted to her husband will have sex with her husband because she wants to do so.

    Most women aren’t having sex with their husbands because they don’t want to; and they don’t want to because they aren’t attracted to them.

    So, Elspeth, can we at least agree on the important part and leave out the hyperbole you don’t like? Can we at least agree, as I said before, that

    “At the end of the day, she isn’t having sex with her husband because she’s not attracted to him. *** If your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you it’s because you are not attractive to her and she wants someone else; or she just doesn’t want you.”

  454. deti says:

    “Expecting the passion to remain at the level you feel at the very beginning is foolish, a recipe for divorce.”

    That’s not the problem. The problem is that many women are marrying men they NEVER WERE attracted to because they confused the desirability traits with the attraction traits, and hamsterized themselves into believing their desire for his money, his industriousness, his ambition, and his kindness was in fact attraction. It wasn’t. It was, as Alte would say, “marrying for money”.

  455. Feminist Hater says:

    Ha Deti, it’s pretty much all about attraction. You either have it or you don’t. There would not be marriage, if women didn’t marry for money and only for attraction instead. Attractive men wouldn’t get married, for obvious reasons, and women wouldn’t feel any attraction for the rest of men. Perhaps it’s for the better that feminism and ‘no fault’ divorce came to pass. The truth now blindly stares us in the face and unattractive Christian men can no longer ignore it. 85 % of men, more like 98 % for Christian men, are not fit for marriage. Christian Marriage should only be for attractive people.

  456. Elspeth says:

    So, Elspeth, can we at least agree on the important part and leave out the hyperbole you don’t like?

    Good morning Deti. Yes, we can agree on the important part. I often wonder though if you recognize how much you use hyperbole to make your point.

    The problem is that many women are marrying men they NEVER WERE attracted to because they confused the desirability traits with the attraction traits, and hamsterized themselves into believing their desire for his money, his industriousness, his ambition, and his kindness was in fact attraction.

    I understand what you’re saying here, really. And in the case of Christians who are doing the thing right, I can see how this might happen on occasion. However, I’ve read enough of what you write to know that you are usually referring to the dating and marriage markets on the whole, not just among Christians, so I have a question.

    Since most couples (including many religious couples) have sex before they get to the altar, is it really possible for what you refer to as the vast majority of women to be marrying men they aren’t attracted to? Is it just possible that they are sincerely attracted at first and later on when the realities of marriage set it, something changes? We already know that most people (and most women in particular) aren’t well suited to or prepared for the realities of marriage and family life.

    Further (and yes, I note the irony of this coming from me), the idea of marrying solely for attraction isn’t optimal in my opinion. There is something to be said for marrying on the basis on industriousness, kindness, spiritual compatibility, etc.

    Having been through the unequally yoked, scraping by and building from nothing, and past baggage issues, I know how hard that can be. I’m grateful for those early years of struggle, but this is a pampered culture. Most people aren’t able to tolerate it and need to start out from an advantageous position to even consider marrying. That goes for men and women alike.We coud do away with no-fault divorce as a starting point, but the whole ‘marry for attraction’ thing isn’t working out.

    Christian Marriage should only be for attractive people.

    I know that was sarcasm, but it still saddened me a little to read it.

  457. Ton says:

    As a rule folks marry people they are settling for ie settling down. This does not play out well given women’s biologically programmed tingle addiction

  458. Elspeth says:

    As a rule folks marry people they are settling for ie settling down.

    Is this really true???

  459. 8to12 says:

    @Elspeth said: “As a rule folks marry people they are settling for ie settling down…Is this really true???”

    IMHO, as a rule, this is not true. Most of the men I know were satisfied with their choice of a wife when they got married. We forget sometimes that 50% of marriages DO NOT end in divorce. But rules are not absolutes–there are always exceptions.

    What of the woman whose bio-clock is loudly ringing in her ears; who is thinking “if I don’t marry somebody–ANYBODY–right now I won’t ever have a child”? If she has been holding out for Mr. Right (aka Mr. Perfect in every way) for years, then there is a good chance she will “marry down” out of desperation to have a child. It’s unlikely she was satisfied with her choice in a husband, but rather found him acceptable at the time.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  460. 8to12 says:

    @Elspeth said: “Is it just possible that they are sincerely attracted at first and later on when the realities of marriage set it, something changes?”

    I’m convinced most women today (Christian or otherwise) don’t know what it means to be married.

    100 years ago, the older women would tutor the younger women on the responsibilities (and realities) or marriage. Women went into marriage with their eyes wide open.

    But not today. Today it’s all about the courtship fantasy, which generally goes along the lines of:

    1) There is an attractive man that is seemingly out of her reach
    2) She captures the man with her allure (and thus is elevated to the level of the man, as opposed to the man being brought down to her level)
    3) They marry and live happily ever after

    Unfortunately, the “happily ever after” part (the actual marriage) is so undefined in her mind that she NEVER moves on from courtship fantasy. She spends her marriage wondering where the romance has gone, which means where did the courtship fantasy go.

    This is why the typical marriage advice for men is such a disaster. It essentially advises men to throw themselves romatically at their wives–to bring themselves down to her level–which destroys the courtship fantasy (which is about the woman being elevated to the level of a higher level male).

    It shouldn’t be like that, but that’s the culture we’re stuck with.

  461. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    “Is it just possible that they are sincerely attracted at first and later on when the realities of marriage set it, something changes?”

    Well, yeah. That’s pretty much what Athol’s site is all about, isn’t it?

    Here’s the extreme version of it:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/10/newlywed-wife-charged-with-second-degree-murder-in-death-husband-in-montana/

    Money quote:
    Nobody is shocked at all … She’d been telling people she knew she never wanted to be married, she just wanted to have a wedding, and that’s apparently what they were arguing about.”

    Now, NAWALT is certainly true without question, but this extreme does make clear that some number of women want to get married while not necessarily wanting to be married. Regardless of their religion, or lack thereof…

  462. feeriker says:

    What of the woman whose bio-clock is loudly ringing in her ears; who is thinking “if I don’t marry somebody–ANYBODY–right now I won’t ever have a child”? If she has been holding out for Mr. Right (aka Mr. Perfect in every way) for years, then there is a good chance she will “marry down” out of desperation to have a child. It’s unlikely she was satisfied with her choice in a husband, but rather found him acceptable at the time.

    I’ve been acquainted with at least six women over the last few years who match your description (i.e., single, with baby rabies, and pushing forty [the new "brick wall" age for fertility, an age threshold so reckless and idiotic I can't begin to comprehend why any woman would even dream of going there]). NOT ONE of these women had any interest at all in marrying, and not one of them did. ALL of them went the turkey baster/sperm donor/ONS route to conceive (one of these women, apparently sufficiently intoxicated with the hubris that the current feminist reign of terror encourages, was honest enough to brag to me that she essentially “Shanghai’ed” an acquaintance into a ONS and that he’d be hearing from her attorney shortly about child support).

    It doesn’t take much thought to realize why this makes perfect sense in the current cultural climate. Just as men have no need to buy the cow when all the free milk they could ever want to drink is being offered them by the tanker truck full, why would any woman, with so many thirsty milk drinkers around (all she has to do is make a halfhearted sales pitch and she’s guaranteed to find at least one customer for her milk), and with the State as her partner in crime, have any need for marriage in order to have a child?

  463. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    I believe most men are satisfied with and attracted to the women they marry. Men marry for sex. So if he isn’t sexually attracted to her, he’s not going to marry her.

    I believe most women marry men who are acceptable, tolerable. I don’t believe most women marry men they are sexually attracted to. I’ve seen too, too much divorce and heard way too many women admit as much on these sites and elsewhere. And the same goes for Christian women too.

  464. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    I believe most men’s attitudes toward marriage are: “I have some caution and trepidation, but this is the right thing to do and I really love her and want to have sex with her because I’m really hot for her.”

    I believe most women’s attitudes toward marriage are: “The hot men I really want wouldn’t marry me. This guy seems nice; seems kind. Works hard, likes me. Would be a good dad to my kids. He doesn’t trip my trigger though. Oh well. No one else is making me any offers. He’ll be all right, I suppose. Guess this one will haffta do.”

  465. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    “the idea of marrying solely for attraction isn’t optimal in my opinion.”

    Then, respectfully, you haven’t been paying attention. I think we’ve pretty well established that even among Christians, the marriages that seem to be the most successful are the ones in which the wife is strongly sexually attracted to the husband.

  466. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Well, yeah. That’s pretty much what Athol’s site is all about, isn’t it?

    Here’s the extreme version of it:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/10/newlywed-wife-charged-with-second-degree-murder-in-death-husband-in-montana/

    The other thing that case is almost certainly an example of is what I’ve been writing about the status of divorce for women. Given that the (legal) divorce process is fully tuned to make divorce effortless if not profitable, why take the incredible risk of committing murder? There may have been a life insurance motive here, but I recall a recent case where the murdering wife came right out and said she killed him because she didn’t want to be a divorcée.

  467. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, I believe that Elspeth may have meant to write this:

    the idea of marrying solely for attraction isn’t optimal in my opinion.

    Both of you are correct, IMO. Tingles are not enough by themselves, and as Dalrock has pointed out if Game is the bedrock of a marriage it’s not going to be very strong down the line. So solely is not optimal. But if there isn’t attraction at the start, and some degree of attraction in the long term, then both man and woman are going to be miserable, each in their own way.

    “Tingles uber alles” is a roadmap to Alpha widowhood and/or unhaaapiness.
    No tingles? More unhappiness, perhaps of the long-term, grey grinding sort.

  468. Elspeth says:

    “the idea of marrying solely for attraction isn’t optimal in my opinion”.

    Yes. Thank you, Anonymous Reader.

    Your addition of the word solely captures what I meant to say better than my initial comment did.

  469. deti says:

    OK. Let’s put your statement in its full context regarding that marrying solely for attraction is not optimal. When we do, it’s clear that we circle back around to the oft-stated notion that male perfection is demanded. He has to be the PERFECT blend of alpha and beta, tingles and provider, balls and brains, looks and foot-rubs.

    “Further (and yes, I note the irony of this coming from me), the idea of marrying solely for attraction isn’t optimal in my opinion. There is something to be said for marrying on the basis on industriousness, kindness, spiritual compatibility, etc.

    “Having been through the unequally yoked, scraping by and building from nothing, and past baggage issues, I know how hard that can be. I’m grateful for those early years of struggle, but this is a pampered culture. Most people aren’t able to tolerate it and need to start out from an advantageous position to even consider marrying. That goes for men and women alike. We could do away with no-fault divorce as a starting point, but the whole ‘marry for attraction’ thing isn’t working out.”

  470. Elspeth says:

    Don’t tire of arguing with me, Deti? If I didn;t know better I’d think you enjoy it, :) .

    Okay, you win. I am probably the last person to be arguing this position of mine anyway.

    By the way, no foot rubs here. He never helps with the laundry, and washes a dish maybe once a year; twice in a good one. And still somehow I’m okay with my less than perfect husband.

    3, 2, 1…

  471. Here’s the extreme version of it:

    Dalrock, I assumed you’d see that and place it in the memory banks. Did you see the related opinion piece by the psychologist talking about how many miserable marrieds there are? Ive got a post in my hopper about that opinion piece.

  472. hurting says:

    On women marrying men to whom they’re not attracted…

    Yes, some simply marry men for whom they feel no attraction despite having given up the goods, so to speak, prior to marriage. They hold their noses and sucker the guy in ‘bait and switch’ style; there the basis for all the jokes about getting married and the (in)frequency of sex thereafter. Other perhaps felt some attraction at first, but let it give way once overwhelmed with the tremendous responsibilities brought on by marriage. The problem lies in the vastly different tools at the disposal of the two parties. Women generally hold all of the high cards (threatpoint) and can essentially tell their husbands when to jump and how high. By the time men figure it out, it’s too late – they’ve got a couple of kids and are in mid-career. Play by her rules or it’s Game. Set. Match.

    On marriage counseling…

    It should be called divorce counseling. All the talk of improving communication is a red herring. Men don’t ‘communicate’ in marriage because they know that it will not be received well. Your wife does not want you to ‘communicate’ differently, she wants you to ‘communicate’ something different altogether. These are not the same thing.

  473. On marriage counseling…

    It should be called divorce counseling. All the talk of improving communication is a red herring. Men don’t ‘communicate’ in marriage because they know that it will not be received well. Your wife does not want you to ‘communicate’ differently, she wants you to ‘communicate’ something different altogether.

    This is true if she is BPD. Yes the counseling will do no good because her brain is oatmeal. She is so far away from moral agency it is impossible to live a lifetime with her.

    Otherwise, no. They want you to communicate differnetly. If it isn’t working getting a 3rd party to sit in the room you can communicate what you are thinking and although it will sting her (what you have said) she will feel happier with you that you took the time to have the counseling in the first place. If she truly loves you she might even be willing to change. But the more suffisticated she is, the more she will need an unbiased third party in the room where you can “safely vent” without fear that she will pick up the phone and call the police.

  474. hurting says:

    Another point on marriage counseling…

    I wonder if ever in the history of the profession, a counselor has simply told a wife to sex up her husband more/better pursuant to his asking. No demands for more romance, chore helping or emoting from the husband – just the plain suggestion that she hold up her end of the bargain.

  475. hurting says:

    IBB,

    My experience notwithstanding, I disagree (and should have pointed out my agreement with Deti who put forth my point upthread).

    Women do not need to be full-blown BPD to believe that marriage counseling is the process whereby they get there husbands to knuckle under and change the message (communicate something different) as opposed to delivering it differently.

    They do this because they can. Marriage counseling simply can not work because it lacks a moral framework (it can not recognize the moral/ethical absolutes inherent in Christian marriage because it is steeped in secularism.

  476. They do this because they can. Marriage counseling simply can not work because it lacks a moral framework (it can not recognize the moral/ethical absolutes inherent in Christian marriage because it is steeped in secularism.

    That is the way it used to be. LESS AND LESS it is this way.

    Did you watch the movie “Analyze This” with Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal? Billy Crystal works as a psychaitrist and marriage counselor. He is having a marriage counseling session with a couple who are both 50 and the wife is complaining about something mundane her husband said and he found that humorous. After a 5 second pause he said the following…

    I think you should do whatever your husband tells you to do. You are 50 years old, live a little!

    She smiles and says “okay.” And her husband is grinning from ear to ear. All his sexual fantasies are about to be fulfilled from now until his death. All she wanted is vindication from a 3rd party (a professional, credentialled, 3rd party) to tell her that it is OKAY to do whatever her husband tells her to do. Marriage SAVED! And this is happening, I’ve seen it.

    It just doesn’t happen (ever) if he is on drugs, an alcoholic, beats his wife, f-cks other women, or spends all the money on porn or video games. At that moment (and the marriage counselor is going to know it) you would get entirely different advice.

  477. hurting says:

    IBB,

    Are you seriously using an example from a fictional movie to prove your point?

    None of the readings suggested from counselors my ex and I saw had anything that deviates from the feminist imperative (I refer to the readings as opposed to the pure counseling so as to isolate the effect of my own situation). All marriage counseling, even the putatively Christian, is indeed churchian at best.

  478. Are you seriously using an example from a fictional movie to prove your point?

    I can’t use a real example other than the ones from people I know personally who have echoed similar statements.

    Remember it is always about the money. The thing is Marriage Counselors want to make money. They only make money if what they do adds value. If they can start saving marriages, then they add value. If more and more people have their marriages saved by the advice given in these counselling sessions, then what they are doing matters. And largely (what I have heard) is that more and more counselors are telling women who are married to husbands (who no longer make them happy) husbands that avoid the three A’s (abuse, addiction, adultry) to do whatever he tells her to do.

    That usually fixes almost everything. The man loves to hear that. And (largely) if she was serious about saving her marriage, she notices a NEW MAN when she just does whatever he tells her to do. Now all those “tinglings” get fulfilling because her husband realizes that he is THE MAN and boy does that change everything.

    And the counselor helped.

  479. hurting,

    None of the readings suggested from counselors my ex and I saw had anything that deviates from the feminist imperative (I refer to the readings as opposed to the pure counseling so as to isolate the effect of my own situation). All marriage counseling, even the putatively Christian, is indeed churchian at best.

    Were you addicted to internet porn?

    Were you using drugs?

    Were you f-ckign other women?

    Were you hitting her?

    Are you an alcoholic?

    If the answer is NO to all of those questions, then exactly (PRECISELY) what “advice” did your marriage counselor give you that was “churchian” and wasn’t “…woman, submit to your husband…”? Because she obviously had to have a complaint that needed fixing, what did the counselor suggest that YOU DO if he or she wasn’t telling your wife to SUBMIT?

  480. Missed a few IBB:

    Where you making her feel loved?

    Where you doing your share of the housework?

    Where you taking out the garbage?

    Where you making her happy?

    Where you leading her spiritually in the direction she desired to be led in?

    Were you reading her mind with 100% accuracy?

  481. Hannah says:

    On Marriage:

    @Elspeth:
    “Expecting the passion to remain at the level you feel at the very beginning is foolish, a recipe for divorce.”

    I don’t understand what’s foolish about this? Why shouldn’t a husband or a wife expect to remain passionate about their spouse at the same intense level as day one? Why is this a recipe for divorce? Thanks in advance!
    It could be that this is something I ‘need to understand’ when talking with other women so I don’t pressure them so much then! But I for one, am just as attracted and physically connected to my husband as in the beginning (nearly 14 years) and would like to hope that we will continue to be just as attractive to one another for many years ahead! :) I fail to see this as foolishness….

    On marriage counselling:

    Give it a big fat miss! It’s all geared from the feminine perspective… and whatever you ‘learn’ will be poison you’d wanna do your best to unlearn real quick!

  482. G-I-L

    Where you making her feel loved?

    Where you doing your share of the housework?

    Where you taking out the garbage?

    Where you making her happy?

    Where you leading her spiritually in the direction she desired to be led in?

    Were you reading her mind with 100% accuracy?

    That is not marrital counseling. No certified, licensed, marrital counselor (that gets paid for a living to counsel) is going to ask those questions. Ever. They would never have another client. They would have to make a living doing someting else. Those are the questions a wife’s mother might ask (because her daughter is perfect, flawless, and unhappy) not a serious, educated, professional.

    Use your head. But I’d like a serious answer from “hurting.”

  483. IBB, I’ve seen pastors do it from the pulpit, I’ve seen it from the “Weekend-to-rememberers”. Sure it’s always screened as “A lack of proper communication” or something else. If you hadn’t noticed a lot of people are making very good livings doing nothing more than dispensing blue pills.

  484. Elspeth says:

    I don’t understand what’s foolish about this? Why shouldn’t a husband or a wife expect to remain passionate about their spouse at the same intense level as day one? Why is this a recipe for divorce? Thanks in advance!

    Hannah:

    I think you misunderstand me. In the eearly days of our courtship, just the anticipation of seeing my husband would make my knees weak.

    We’ve been together 2 decades now. I am always happy when I kow he;s coming home, but my knees don’t wobble.

    We have very passionate relationship. To this day, I occasionally have wives tell me when I talk to them about stuff in their own marriages: ‘But you and SAM are different. You just don’t get it.”

    But it;s a different kind of passion than before. More mature, less heady, deeper. We’re actually k in one of those nice honeymoon-like phases long term amrried couples occasionally get to enjoy and it’s really nice.

    The reality however, is that the out of control, crazy kind of passion we had at the beginning has evolved. And that isn’t a bad thing. It’s a really, really, good thing.

    I stand by what I said: to expect that level of intensity to last always and forever is why a lot of women can stick it out.

  485. Hannah says:

    Hey Elspeth, thanks for your response :)

    Right, I think I understand better now, perhaps we are using the word passion differently then…

    To me the ‘weak at the knees’ thing is about hyper-vulnerability in the early stages and when you’re unsure if this is going to last. To expect that rush to last forever would be folly, I agree.
    But passion is stronger than that. My man and I both expect that electricity to last – it’s what glues us together!
    I encourage female friends to actively increase/maintain this passion toward their husband and have always figured that the intensity that my husband and I have is possible for any couple?

    Small things, like maintaining modesty between us even after more than a decade together means that we’ve not reduced each other to an unattractive level of commonplace….
    If that doesn’t make much sense it’s because despite everything I AM ok talking about, I despise talking about basic bodily functions etc! Yeah so anyway, my husband and I are both like this, so we have kept some kind of sexual mystery that is alluring to each other :) Even during childbirth I am intensely private preferring to be completely alone (my midwife has said I’m like a cat!?!), and my husband is very much the type to disappear even when conversations become personal, let alone the actual events!
    We’d both have done well in biblical times with the man waiting outside the tent to be given his child to then announce to the world – “I have a son!” :)

    Other things, well I guess if a woman wasn’t finding her husband attractive, I’d strongly advise her to stop reading and watching romantic fiction etc… lower the bar to reality woman! How hard is it to become a little more grateful for what life has presented you with?!

    And the main one – daily sex. For so many reasons. But for this particular conversation – it keeps the passion at the same level as in the beginning! Beautiful. Essential. And actually thinking about it, it’s the best defense AGAINST divorce for myself and my husband that we prioritise this… not letting the ‘busyness’ and drain of life rob us of our intimacy.

    Hope that makes sense, I’m not arguing against you at all Elspeth, just filling out my thought :)

  486. Elspeth says:

    No, I didn’t think you were arguing against me at all. We may still be talking about different things (my weak knees were about something entirely different than fear) but we’re on the same page.

    I’ve never found my husband unattractive. Never. I am often incredulous when I read the stories of women losing attraction for their husbands. I can NOT relate to that at all.

    I wish I could remember the post where Empathologism describes the difference between that heady new love and a love that is still passionate but deeper and richer. He did a good job on that one, and that’s what I’m referring to here.

  487. Elspeth says:

    But I for one, am just as attracted and physically connected to my husband as in the beginning (nearly 14 years) and would like to hope that we will continue to be just as attractive to one another for many years ahead! :) I fail to see this as foolishness….

    Okay, I’ve had a chance to process this more. My first response to you was rife with typos for a reason.

    You feel this way all day, every day? I’m impressed. I have the genuine hots for my husband, and his behavior indicates that the feeling is mutual, but there are those days, LOL…

    Long hours at work, kid stuff, bills, little personality quirks and annoyances. This stuff sometimes gets to us and while we love each other, and no one is going anywhere, we have spats. I look at him and think, “Are you serious?” I don’t verablize it, but I think 10 minutes away from him might do me good.

    He looks at me and thinks, “Are you serious?” And he might go in the room and close the door for a minute. In thoe moments neither one of us are thinking that we love one another the same as we did on day one, or how hot the other is, or any of that. LOL.

    The thing we have always done is put that to the side when we go to bed. No taking all that stuff to the marriage bed (95% of the time). No holding grduges. No bad mouthing one another to friends or family. All of those things have helped to keep the passion alive for us.

    But I’m not gonna pretend that it’s all perfectness all the time, because it’s not. I’m fine with that. We’ve never been separated. We’ve both been faithful. That alone puts us in the top what? 10% of marriages? The fact that after nearly 20 years we’re still in love, still having sex, still enjoying each other’s company, and are as committed to be here as we were at the beginning is enough for me.

  488. 8to12 says:

    @IBB said: “That is not marrital counseling. No certified, licensed, marrital counselor (that gets paid for a living to counsel) is going to ask those questions.”

    When we tried marriage counseling two decades ago (with a certified Christian counselor recommended by our church) those are exactly the question he asked. It essentially came down to “was I sacrificing enough for her?”

    When I tried to make a list showing exactly what housework each of us was doing (and I included things like cutting the grass, changing the oil int the car, and other traditional men’s chores) he cut me off, because I wasn’t taking the conversation in a positive direction. Instead, he had us focus on (1) finding out why my wife wasn’t happy and (2) what I could do to make her happy.

    That was reality, not something from a movie.

  489. hurting says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/call-the-kendrick-brothers/#comment-93525

    IBB,

    These are typical of some of the questions I was asked. No, I never did anything remotely like what you suggested; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

    You are right about marriage counselors being driven by money, but remember that they still have the potential to derive an income stream from the victims of divorce (the spouse, likely the wife, who needs validation for nuking the family).

    My experience was similar to what 8to12 describes: when I brought up factual assertions about what happened in the household about mundane yet important things like the level of effort my wife put in to maintaining the household, I was castigated for being too critical, regardless of how I presented the information.

    Other than the fictional movie example, on what do you base your assertions?

  490. greyghost says:

    Anonymous Reader
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/call-the-kendrick-brothers/#comment-93471 Your comment here is one of the ways this liberation thing doesn’t work. By law a man is a wimp if he is a good man. With misandry all there is left is the tingle. The feminine imperative wants the only check on female behavior is the tingle. That world will make a woman insane. (and everybody else along with her. A sane society does understand more than tingle is needed for a marriage . In fact tingle is really unnecessary. Real tingle for a woman comes from the admiration and status she receives as a good and successful wife. By the way a man working towards the honor of his marriage and not preoccupied with maintaining wife’s happiness is game with out having game. The tingle will come by default. That why churchians are so full of shit and are of no faith. Handle your business and the tingle is just there. And so is the neighbors slut daughter. Hey I just threw that in there to be an ass.
    Elspeth
    You are a good wife

  491. gdgm+ says:

    A related example of… feral sensibilities?

    Female friends: I love my friends more than my man

    For years, I was the poster girl for the single life. In fact, it took me until the age of 48 to find what I had spent so long searching for: a man I could see myself growing old with, who genuinely considered my happiness.

    But to my dismay, I have discovered that now I have him, I actually prefer spending my free time with my friends.

  492. When we tried marriage counseling two decades ago (with a certified Christian counselor recommended by our church) those are exactly the question he asked. It essentially came down to “was I sacrificing enough for her?”

    When I tried to make a list showing exactly what housework each of us was doing (and I included things like cutting the grass, changing the oil int the car, and other traditional men’s chores) he cut me off, because I wasn’t taking the conversation in a positive direction. Instead, he had us focus on (1) finding out why my wife wasn’t happy and (2) what I could do to make her happy.

    That was reality, not something from a movie.

    Whoever that is, is not a marrital counselor. The minute he “cut you off” you look at your wife and say “…okay this is just silly. He’s not letting me talk, I think we are done here, lets go see a professional.”

    I don’t care if your church recommended him. He wasn’t worth a nickel and he better not have charged you anything.

  493. My experience was similar to what 8to12 describes: when I brought up factual assertions about what happened in the household about mundane yet important things like the level of effort my wife put in to maintaining the household, I was castigated for being too critical, regardless of how I presented the information.

    Other than the fictional movie example, on what do you base your assertions?

    From people who make money doing this. I know quite a few marrital counselors and they would never EVER ask those questions. They would lose their license if they did because they are not helping. You never-EVER cut someone off when they are talking, that is not counseling. If the client wants to take the discussion in a certain direction, YOU LET THEM. You let them because that is the ONLY WAY you are ever going to understand what they are feeling.

    Did you actually pay this person any real money? Or is it just some Pastor at your church that you talked to because if it is, he is useless. If you did pay, did you sue this counselor of yours to get your money back? If not, you should have. They can help, forget blue pills or red pills.

    I have a real hard time believing you paid a professional any real money and this person “cuts you off” when you are talking. That makes ZERO SENSE.

  494. I just thought of something else why I find this discussion unbelievable….

    I wasn’t taking the conversation in a positive direction. Instead, he had us focus on (1) finding out why my wife wasn’t happy and (2) what I could do to make her happy.

    That’s HIS job. That is why you went to see HIM (or her.) If she is not HAPPY she needs to COMMUNICATE to HIM (or her) and YOU as to what is making her MISERABLE. No marriage counselor that does this for a living (not a serious one) would ever expect the husband to read his wife’s mind and know (and do) everything to make her happy. How are you supposed to save your marriage if what you need to do to make your wife happy, you can’t do? Because that is quite often what happens, what would he suggest then, that she divorce you because you can’t make her happy?

    Sorry 8-to-12, I’m not buying what you are selling. If you want people who are NOT in the manosphere to take people in the manosphere seriously, you need to be serious in what you are saying. I have real hard time believing that it happened as you said because that isn’t any help and you would have a real hard time getting a health insurance company to pay on a claim for this kind of mental health. His advice is worthless. And serious licensed marrital counselors are NOT worthless.

  495. feeriker says:

    For years, I was the poster girl for the single life. In fact, it took me until the age of 48 to find what I had spent so long searching for: a man I could see myself growing old with, who genuinely considered my happiness.

    But to my dismay, I have discovered that now I have him, I actually prefer spending my free time with my friends.

    Yet another example to strengthen the message: NEVER MARRY A WOMAN OVER THE AGE OF 30!

  496. 8to12 says:

    @IBB said: “Whoever that is, is not a marrital counselor. The minute he “cut you off” you look at your wife and say “…okay this is just silly. He’s not letting me talk, I think we are done here, lets go see a professional.”

    It’s easy to tell people long after the fact what they should have done in the moment.

    It’s another thing to actually be living in the moment making decisions in real time. When the presumed authority in the room (the marriage counselor) takes an action, the typical reaction of a young married man isn’t likely to be “I know more than this guy.” It’s more likely to be “he’s the authority on this marriage counseling stuff–that’s why we came here–let’s work with him.”

  497. 8to12 says:

    @IBB,

    You’ve got two guys who said they had similar experiences in marriage counseling, and your reaction is they both must be lying. OK.

    I don’t know what else I could tell you at this point to change your mind. Even if I did, I don’t see that it is worth my time to try.

  498. Its’ not worth it. You are not going to change my mind. You didn’t see an actual marriage counselor. I do believe youboth talked to someone, but it is more likely a Pastor or someone not licensed. This person is not going to help you. Am I correct to assume that your wife of two decades ago eventually frivorced you anyway? If so, I am truly sorry 8to12. I am terribly sorry that the two of you didn’t get the help you really needed that could have saved your marriage.

  499. Some Guy says:

    My experience with about a half dozen counselors contradicts the Admiral’s view here.

    It’s all “man bad woman good,” cutting the husband off at the knees, and the woman’s feeeeeling being the final determinant in a relationship’s validity. It’s all dressed up in church-speak and/or psychobabbel, but there really isn’t anything there.

    If a woman has lost attraction or else is in the throes of a hypergamic fit… everything in the counseling sessions will feed it and help her feel self-righteous about it. The counselors know that as soon as they challenge the woman in a significant way, they are fired– just like the pastors in most churches. Like most “we need to talk” type conversations, the only acceptable/thinkable outcome is the husband making more concessions.

  500. feeriker says:

    @IBB:

    Either you just happen to be acquainted with all of the “outliers” in the field of marriage counseling (i.e., those who actually take a neutral and unbiased stance in their interactions with couples, who understand that the two sexes act and think differently and counsel each accordingly, and who know how to communicate with actual human beings in the real world within the context of their real-world problems rather than based on theory learned in some college textbook), or you’re just spinning yarns here.

    Almost every man here (and outside of this blog, if you were to take a random sample on the street) will tell you that his experience with marriage counseling went EXACTLY the way 8to12 and hurting describe. For a man, these experiences are the norm, whether the counselor is “Christian” or secular. The only mystery is why so many men still continue to seek such counseling at all and for any length of time, given its systematically and flagrantly misandric flavor, not to mention its utter failure to save marriages in more cases than not.

    Of course this also means that your assertion that no professional counselors operate in the manner described is nonsense. They do, with absolute and sickening regularity. In response to the inevitable question of “who would pay such a person for such incompetence?”, there are a couple of answers I can think of off the top of my head:

    1. Husbands desperate for marital guidance, but who have never been through the counseling gauntlet and thus don’t know any better and have no idea what a rude awakening they’re in for.

    2. Husbands acting on the advice of their feminized churchian pastors (and who also don’t know any better and are in for a rude awakening).

    3. Husbands who have been falsely accused of DV by their wives and who are undergoing court ordered counseling (the alternative being to rot in jail for a few weeks or months).

    4. Wives who want validation of what they’re going to do anyway (i.e., frivorce their husbands) and know that they’ll get this validation from just about any counselor they pick at random out of a phone book. These wives are also likely to be the same ones with their fingers poised just above the nuclear marriage detonation button, giving their husbands the ultimatum of “we’re going to counseling, or I’m outta here and I’m taking the kids with me!”

    Again, take a random poll of any ten men in your community who’ve been through marital counseling and I guarantee you that at least nine of them will fit into one or more of the four categories I list above and that their experiences with the counseling/counselor will match almost exactly what 8to12 and hurting describe.

    Sorry 8-to-12, I’m not buying what you are selling.

    Sorry, IBB, but I’m not buying what you’re selling. It doesn’t look like any of the other men here are buying it either.

  501. 8to12 says:

    @IBB,

    It was a licensed marriage counselor. Professional office in an office park, diplomas, signs on the door, the whole deal. Company health insurance (at a secular company) paid for it (it would not have paid for counseling by a pastor).

    No, we did not end up getting divorced. We are in fact still married

  502. feeriker says:

    8to12 said:

    No, we did not end up getting divorced. We are in fact still married

    My wife and I also are still married, DESPITE the (supposedly “Christian”) counseling we received rather than because of it. Had we followed our counselor’s recommendations we would’ve been over as a couple many years ago, with what in hindsight would’ve been disastrous after-effects for both of us.

    My advice still stands: if you want to maintain even a hope of saving your marriage, avoid marriage counseling like you would avoid the plague.

  503. 8to12 says:

    @feeriker said: “My wife and I also are still married, DESPITE the (supposedly “Christian”) counseling we received rather than because of it. Had we followed our counselor’s recommendations we would’ve been over as a couple many years ago, with what in hindsight would’ve been disastrous after-effects for both of us.”

    I would have to agree with that. In our case I’m convinced my wife didn’t want to disappoint her father, so she hung in there. Over time we worked out our issues (but not entirely) on our own.

    After he father died, her sister’s marriage went to hell in a hand-basket overnight. All due to a sudden change in her sister’s attitude.

  504. 8to12,

    No, we did not end up getting divorced. We are in fact still married

    Excellent. I am very happy to hear that.

  505. feeriker,

    Either you just happen to be acquainted with all of the “outliers” in the field of marriage counseling (i.e., those who actually take a neutral and unbiased stance in their interactions with couples, who understand that the two sexes act and think differently and counsel each accordingly, and who know how to communicate with actual human beings in the real world within the context of their real-world problems rather than based on theory learned in some college textbook), or you’re just spinning yarns here.

    I don’t think I am acquainted with outliers. I agree (two decades ago) with much of what you guys might be saying, but things have changed now. Marital counselors have far more data points to work with and they tend to give much better advice.

  506. “No true marriage counselor……..”

  507. What IBB is really suggesting is that virtually all marriage counselors are completely objective and have not adopted the culture of feminism that we are all swimming in. They go to feminized Churchian sermon’s, get feminized psychology and counseling reading, read the checklist of 48 signs that a wife is being abused by her husband and yet they are completely neutral in their dealings between husbands and wives because they are just that professional? LOL.

    Seems like IBB is more enamored of the theory of counseling more than the actual practice of it by actual human beings living in a feminized culture.

  508. What IBB is really suggesting is that virtually all marriage counselors are completely objective and have not adopted the culture of feminism that we are all swimming in. They go to feminized Churchian sermon’s, get feminized psychology and counseling reading, read the checklist of 48 signs that a wife is being abused by her husband and yet they are completely neutral in their dealings between husbands and wives because they are just that professional? LOL.

    Abuse? Full stop. Did you call to make the appointment or was the appointment MADE FOR YOU by the court? Big difference.

    If it is a court mandated counseling session (because she called the police and got the restraining order because you somehow scared her) then of course, they will not be objective. They are going to (possibly wrongfully) assume the WORST about YOU. In these cases, you have to SELL YOUR INNOCENCE to the counselor and it might not be a hard sell. The only way that happens is by remaining quiet in these sessions, (not raising your voice no matter how annoyed you are, that you are there needlessly) and wait until you are asked a direct question. Then answer it honestly, calmly, lucidly. Then shut up. When you are HONEST about the situation (and your wife starts rambling to justify her behavior in calling the cops, rambling to contradict your complete honesty, starts spinning the hamster wheel anyway she can) the counselor is going to know she’s got a screw loose. It’s not a hard sell. They see this shit all the time. They are going to know if you are a true abuser OR if you just married a woman who is BPD.

    I don’t have to tell anyone in the manosphere that the laws and odds are stacked against you, they are. The first woman I was ever engaged to was BPD and (sure enough) one day when I wasn’t making her feel special, catering to her every need, (the day my parents threw me a party for their son graduating from college and I was hanging with my friends and not her) she called the cops and got the restraining order. And when we met the judge, low and behold I got it quashed. That only happens because the judges see these things all the time and when he saw what a rambling wreck she was (in court) and how calm and straight forward I was, he vacated it. And she went batshit crazy right there (her entire world was destroyed because a person in authority told her that he thought she was lying) and stormed out of the courtroom in a crying fit because she wasn’t happy. I remained calm. And I won. But if I had gone in there to court with a chip on my shoulder, she would have had the order maintained for a year or more. Either way, I got out of it cheap because I didn’t marry her. So that was good.

    Same thing with the counselors. If you were ORDERED to attend this meeting (because your insane wife called the cops because in her BPD mind you were abusing her) then right off the bat, you are guilty until proven innocent. But to prove your innocence is not a hard thing to do with a marital counselor if you keep your remarks cool, honest, and even. I know how difficult that is, believe me. But you can do it and they will believe you because any woman who is insane enough to false accuse her husband of abuse is not going to be able to sell her shit to a counselor who sees her antics for a living.

    If YOU make the appointment because you want to work on your marriage with your wife (and the counselor knows this) then, yes, they most certainly WILL be objective. It is all in the MOTIVE on how this session came about…. really. Try and put yourself into the mind of the counselor for just a moment. If it is the man who wants to work on his marriage and he seeks them out for help, DAMN STRAIGHT they are going to be truly helpful. You demand results and you will get it.

  509. Umm no IBB, I was referring to the culture not the specifics of a case. All of your reply speaks to that same culture. Are you also suggesting that the culture as suggested in your post sees through all the antics of women? That police and judges generally side with the falsely accused men? You’d think with all of this clear eyed lucidity VAWA would sunset for good, child custody rates would start balancing and sunshine and rainbows would be springing out all across the land. Any idea when we can expect all this good news?

  510. Are you also suggesting that the culture as suggested in your post sees through all the antics of women? That police and judges generally side with the falsely accused men?

    Don’t lump.

    Police are not paid to see through the antics of women. Police are paid to remove you from thehouse, not judge if she is insane.

    The JUDGE is paid to see through her antics. And quite often they will because they see it all the time. Initially, they will assume the worst about you. But if you remain calm, cool, even, and honest, you are probably going to win. When I won the Detective got angry with the judge because he assumed the worst and continued to do so even when she went batshit crazy. But he isn’t paid to see the truth. Cops are paid to be manginas. :-)

  511. Wow, apparently paying someone means that whatever bias that the culture would inculcate dissappears. Money is the root of all good? What if I told you I got paid to see through delusional BS on the internet? Would you thereafter believe me when I thought I had found it? Seems like maybe so.

  512. New sig line:

    Paid to be right 100% of the time.

  513. hurting says:

    IBB,

    You are delusional.

    Not a single poster here has corroborated your view of the marriage counseling world. Quite to the contrary, all of us have given you specific, real world examples from our own lives that are remarkably similar, and that support the assessment of the divorce-counseling complex as feminist imperative-infused.

    Any counselor who proffered a biblically oriented view of marriage to clients would roundly be drummed out of town. Submission is at odds with the Duluth power wheel which undergirds all of the helping professions’ view of marriage.

  514. What are district attorney’s paid to do? Prosecute crimes, correct? Actual crimes?

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/Hancock-County-prosecutor-admits-to-ethics-violations.html

    Seems like there is more of this going on but only the absolute worst get called on the carpet and have their wrists slapped.

  515. feeriker says:

    IBB said Don’t lump.

    Now you’re just clutching at straws. As anyone with even casual exposure to the system knows, cops and judges are both cogs in the same system that is steeped in/predicated upon the Duluth Model/feminist imperative of social engineering masquerading as “justice,” a system deliberately designed to consign men to the furnace while extracting every ounce of anything of value out of them before throwing them away.

    Your counter-examples are just plain ridiculous, so much so that I’m amazed you cited them with the expectation that anyone would take them seriously.

  516. deti says:

    IBB:

    I have never, ever in my life seen or heard of any kind of marriage counselor, Christian, pastoral or otherwise, attempting to resolve an issue in counseling by telling the wife to submit to the husband.

    Never. Not once.

    I’m not saying it’s not the right approach. I’m just saying I’d be floored if it had ever actually been tried. I don’t think it has, because I am sure the result would be the woman running out of the session screaming “sexist!” and her filing a complaint with the oversight board/committee that regulates that counselor’s profession or licensure.

  517. What if I told you I got paid to see through delusional BS on the internet? Would you thereafter believe me when I thought I had found it?

    I’d ask who your employer was and what THEY got our of what YOU did.

    A man seeks out a marital counselor (on his own) because he loves his wife and wants to save their marriage. That is his motive, save the marriage. So of course, the counselor is going to be more objective. An abusive man would not do this.

    Your counter-examples are just plain ridiculous, so much so that I’m amazed you cited them with the expectation that anyone would take them seriously.

    Don’t. I don’t care if you do or don’t. I just have more faith in the system than you do.

    The word “abuse” got my attention. When that word gets used (with respect to counseling) now the “motive” for the counseling might not be on the part of the man. He must SELL HIMSELF as NOT being an ABUSER. What part of that is incorrenct? What part of that don’t you take seriously?

    You guys are filling in all the blanks here. Define the motivatiosn for your counseling gentlemen. Were you FORCED to see these people or did you seek out these people of your own free will?

  518. deti says:

    IBB:

    Another reason a man might not want to tell a counselor “This isn’t working, he’s not letting me talk, we’re wasting time and money” is because the husband’s nuking a counseling session will be evidence in any later court proceedings.

    Here’s how it will be spun:

    “He got up and STORMED out of the counseling!”

    “He was so ANGRY!”

    “He REFUSED to go to counseling!”

    “I was patient. I tried to go to counseling. I begged him to go, pleaded with him. I tried to save our marriage. We even went a few times. But he just wanted to talk about himself. It was all about him, him, him. And when he didn’t get what he wanted, he just left.

    “He said the most AWFUL, INSULTING things to me and the counselor!”

  519. The motivation is that all of his training is pointing him at the Duluth model, that he lives in a culture that defines radical female chauvinism as the sole universal good, and that if he even breathed a whisper of the Bible he would be run out of town on a rail. I know marriage counselors, I’ve observed the advice they have given in several situations, it is universally hamsterbatory. The motivation is to not be seen as a sexist, which being translated means: do what the women say; make the woman happy.

    “If momma ain’t happy…”

    Paid to be right 100% of the time. (By an unspecified governmental organization).

  520. Random Angeleno says:

    My $0.02: IBB is delusional. Yes there do exist counselors who do it the way he thinks they should, but anecdotal experience between myself and my friends is that at least half of them take the feminine perspective first and foremost.

    One more aspect to this, in most cases I know about, the wife picked the counselor. Including mine. If the couple stumbled onto a counselor who didn’t take her point of view, guess what, the wife didn’t want to go to that one anymore; she’d go shopping until she found one who told her what she wanted to hear. Awful lot of counselors willing to sell themselves out that way. They take the money, counselor gets hubby to beat himself into prostration and the couple get divorced anyway. It’s damn racket…

  521. deti says:

    You know, I’ve just seen this happen so many times, that I think counseling just isn’t helpful no matter what the counselor says. This is because where things in a marriage get so bad that they are talking about counseling, the wife has already made up her mind that the marriage is over.

    I’ve talked before about my friends married 17 years, 2 kids. She had for years talked about being unhappy in her marriage; husband didn’t work hard; constantly living in poverty; she had to go back to work; she was stressed out with panic attacks; he didn’t lead, she took on leadership roles in the family, etc. She moved out; they agreed to go to counseling with a pastor while they saw separate counselors.

    She would go to their pastor for counseling. He wanted to save the marriage; she really didn’t care. She was just done, just checked out. Her mind was already made up that she wanted out; and nothing anyone said was going to change it. In the end, counseling just delayed the inevitable at least in that instance.

  522. hurting says:

    IBB,

    For the record, I went willingly (no involvement from the legal system), albeit naively to no fewer than four different counselors with my now ex-wife over the course of our 18-year marriage. None of these people could respond to logic in any meaningful way as there views are so corrupted by the Duluth model and other trappings of Cultural Marxism.

    The entire industry is about keeping woman happy. Not happily married, necessarily, but happy. As Deti said , and as I also alluded earlier, any counselor who put forth a biblical view of marriage would be out of business if not censured professionally.

  523. My $0.02: IBB is delusional. Yes there do exist counselors who do it the way he thinks they should, but anecdotal experience between myself and my friends is that at least half of them take the feminine perspective first and foremost.

    I would say, more than that even. But you guys aren’t answering the all important question:

    Did she call the police and file abuse charges against you and forced you to go to counseling against your will OR do you love your wife and you’ve discovered that the two of you can’t communicate and you want to bring in a 3rd party to help the two of you communicate with each other better?

    That’s it. Answer that question first (the motive for counseling) before we talk about how the marital counselor is going to counsel you. Forget about what the police think. Forget about everything else. Get to the root, stop dancing around….

  524. hurting,

    For the record, I went willingly (no involvement from the legal system), albeit naively to no fewer than four different counselors with my now ex-wife over the course of our 18-year marriage. None of these people could respond to logic in any meaningful way as there views are so corrupted by the Duluth model and other trappings of Cultural Marxism.

    What was their diagnosis for your ex-wife’s condition? Did she have a mental disorder of some kind? Did they prescribe her any medication? How about yourself, did they diagnose you?

  525. feeriker says:

    I’m not saying it’s not the right approach. I’m just saying I’d be floored if it had ever actually been tried. I don’t think it has, because I am sure the result would be the woman running out of the session screaming “sexist!” and her filing a complaint with the oversight board/committee that regulates that counselor’s profession or licensure.

    And if the this scenario were to happen when the counseling is pastoral, the pastor can be immediately certain that this couple will very likely never set foot in his church again because the wife got “offended” by what he had to say.* That in turn means one less tithe to his church and thus a smaller paycheck for him next month. It would probably also mean that word of what happened would reach the church elders almost immediately (this being a body of men dominated by their wives, as was the case with the husband in counseling in this example, or even, in some churches, a body of women), leading them to express their extreme displeasure at the pastor for having alienated members away from the church. The wife will also no doubt trumpet what happened to other women in the congregation, leading to a hen chorus of censure against the pastor for daring to express views on marriage counter to the feminine imperative.

    In other words, as has been pointed out here before, it is in NO churchian CEO’s best interest to alienate his most influential customers, no matter how unbiblical and destructive their behavior. I hate to put it in such crass terms, but that’s really what is going on whether anyone feels comfortable admitting it or not.

    (* While the odds are remote of any pastor actually saying anything in a real counseling scenario that offends the wife’s sensibilities, the shock of not having her viewpoint rubber-stamped with pseudo-scriptural advice will very likely unhinge her. That, after all, is the only reason she agreed to sit through counseling in the first place.)

  526. hurting says:

    IBB,

    You need to relax and you need to read more than you type. I sincerely doubt that any of the posters here are relating views informed by experiences with court-mandated counseling. However ineffective ‘voluntary’ counseling may be, I’m sure that the success rate (saved marriages) for court-mandated counseling approaches zero.

    I loved my wife deeply, but she was not interested in what I was trying to communicate, with or without a counselor.

  527. I loved my wife deeply, but she was not interested in what I was trying to communicate, with or without a counselor.

    Fair enough.

  528. hurting says:

    IBB,

    Thanks for recognizing. Understand that I, nor many of the posters who share my view, would waste our time sharing our experiences just to ventilate. We’re all engaged in a daily battle to either save our marriages or get on with our lives, as it were.

    The key takeaway from us, if I may be so bold as to speak for others, is that not only does counseling not help – it actively hurts marriage. Men need to hear this view when they are badgered into going to counseling, because the badgering is just beginning for them in all likelihood.

  529. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth You are a good wife

    Thank you, sir. I try mightily.

  530. Some Guy says:

    I’m with hurting.

    I am currently being bullied/coerced/manipulated into going to counseling for the nth time.

    Women generally ask for counseling because they have rejected their husband. The counselor basically gives you a chance to look like you’re not a team player so that she can have those feelings validated.

    You’re there because of hypergamy. She doesn’t take you to counseling to work on the relationship– she’s staging her exit and getting her story in order. If she stays, it is only because the counselor has helped talked you into making enough concessions that you are still useful as a mule. Somehow… whatever it is that she’s supposedly going to do to reciprocate never comes up.

    And note that if you go in using any sort of masculine, direct communication style, that is the first and only thing they’ll work on for a while. My, how they will call your cold, logical, brash self on the carpet! But she can say whatever about how little she loves you, how little she sees in you… and this means nothing. The man is the “mean” one, after all.

    If you stand up for yourself or give a red pill type line… there’s a good chance that the counselor will go nuclear on you. The religious ones are liable to pull your wife aside to pray with her and to encourage her for being so longsuffering living with such an unspiritual dolt. It’s unreal.

    The secular ones don’t seem to be particular invested in keeping the marriage together. If the wife isn’t playing nice, they’ll let her go off. I stayed for one-on-one with that one and she ultimately had nothing to say other than that it was probably over and that the best I could do was just agree to everything she demanded.

  531. You seem to be the only one tap dancing around IBB. Many people have tried to save their marriages by voluntarily going to counselors. Those counselors have a bias that you will not allow in your paradigm, so now we all get to see you dance around the obvious. It’s quite entertaining; watching you try to wriggle around a sizeable number of basic manosphere concepts.

  532. Bee says:

    I also have never heard of or met a marriage counselor that encouraged wifely submission. Someone mentioned half might, that number is way, way too high.

    Many marriage counselors encourage divorce for lots of non-Biblical reasons. Do some of them get kickbacks from divorce attorneys?

  533. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    What was their diagnosis for your ex-wife’s condition? Did she have a mental disorder of some kind? Did they prescribe her any medication? How about yourself, did they diagnose you?

    Are you actually suggesting that marriage counselors are licensed to dispense psychotropic medications?

  534. I’m shocked that anyone who has any experience in the real world would deign suggest that counseling is on balance a good thing. There are even statistics that show it more often results in divorce than not.
    The Christian psychologist I met the other week had to quit doing couples because they would leave….at the wife’s direction, when he did not start with “well, we have to get you two communicating” (code for he must communicate like a woman)
    What is the agenda here IBB? Why are you “married” to this idea?

  535. Are you actually suggesting that marriage counselors are licensed to dispense psychotropic medications?

    They are if they are medical doctors. Or (in some cases) Nurse Practitioners. Moreover, they often have someone at the “practice” that is licensed to dispense if there is a diagnosis for bi-polar or BPD.

    The Christian psychologist I met the other week had to quit doing couples because they would leave….at the wife’s direction, when he did not start with “well, we have to get you two communicating” (code for he must communicate like a woman)
    What is the agenda here IBB? Why are you “married” to this idea?

    It’s not that I am married to is (per se) but I have seen marriages saved because of their efforts. And all too often (if there are no issues with alcohol, drugs, abuse, or infidelity) it boils down to either a breakdown in communication or a problem with sex. Marital counselors can help with BOTH of these situations.

    This guy is GREAT!

    You’ll notice he criticizes both genders equally. Both men and women have their communication faults and he does a DAMN GOOD JOB (from a Christian perspective) defining the differences. And yes, he’s gone on the record to advocate that women should submit to their husbands. And still they come to him and pay him big bucks.

  536. Anonymous Reader says:

    Me
    Are you actually suggesting that marriage counselors are licensed to dispense psychotropic medications?

    IBB
    They are if they are medical doctors. Or (in some cases) Nurse Practitioners.

    Perhaps this accounts for your view of the marriage counselor business. You are confusing psychiatrists (medical doctors) with marriage counselors ( B.A. in “counseling”, maybe).

    Ask the men here who have tried to tell you about the marriage counselor business: “Were any of your marriage counselors medical doctors?” and see what the answer is.

  537. feeriker says:

    And all too often (if there are no issues with alcohol, drugs, abuse, or infidelity) it boils down to either a breakdown in communication or a problem with sex. Marital counselors can help with BOTH of these situations.

    I have yet to encounter a single Christian marriage counselor or couples therapist who will go anywhere near the subject of physical intimacy problems within a marriage. It appears to be the Chernobyl of Christian marriage and family therapy: a taboo, a place NEVER to be visited, something strictly off limits.

    I’ve brought the question up before, but I cannot for the life of me understand why there appear to be ZE-RO professional “intimacy therapists” (substitute “sex” for intimacy if you prefer) who come at the problem from a biblical perspective. Is it due to the traditional “prudishness” that seems to be almost part of the Christian’s spiritual DNA? Is it due to the fact that most Christian counselors/pastors/therapists don’t consider sex important to a marriage? Both of these things?

    For a marriage counselor to ignore or refuse to address physical intimacy issues in a troubled marriage is like a neurosurgeon ignoring or refusing to look at an x-ray of the baseball-sized brain tumor in his paralyzed patient.

  538. For a marriage counselor to ignore or refuse to address physical intimacy issues in a troubled marriage is like a neurosurgeon ignoring or refusing to look at an x-ray of the baseball-sized brain tumor in his paralyzed patient.

    Okay, I would like to personally award feeriker 1,000,000 internet points for this one. I agree with this 100%.

    Sex is critical. He needs it. She needs it (maybe even more than he does.) She certainly needs his intimacy. A woman can spoon with a man for 17 hours. And an excellent marital counselor can help with this. Christian counselors? I wouldn’t call this discussion taboo, but you can see they are clearly uncomfortable talking about it, that’s for damn sure. And that is too bad.

  539. Some Guy says:

    For Churchian counselors, sex talk is generally deferred til “later.” (Read: never.) They wouldn’t suggest working on it when the wife is pissed enough to demand counselling– they basically believe that she is the gatekeeper of sex after marriage anyway.

    They don’t believe in 1:Cor 7– if you ask about it they will often make sex contingent on your good behavior, being like Jesus, going to church, etc. They don’t really get that the whole point of that chapter is to make sex into a bedrock, conflict-free area of the marriage… in order to protect both the husband and the wife.

  540. feeriker says:

    @IBB:

    Sexual dysfunction within a marriage, whether due to one (or both) spouse(s) cheating on the other, repressed sexuality in one spouse due to emotional baggage or trauma in their past, “sexual baggage” in one spouse’s past not present in the other’s (i.e., high N count before marriage), or other similar factors very often is the root cause of other serious problems in the marriage rather than a symptom of them. This is something that far too many counselors and therapists, especially Christian ones, miss because they just never consider it or deliberately ignore it. This, IMO, is why so many marriages fail even despite the intensity of efforts through counseling to save them that focus on other problem areas of the marriage. Like the modern allopathic medicine that is today’s norm, the treatment focuses on symptoms and ignores or misses the root cause of the illness. Thus the cure fails over the long term.

  541. Ton says:

    Marriages fail because men expect women to act in good faith without using a strong pimp hand, massive social and legal tools to enforce decent female behavior

    Sure there is always a real live special snowflake who does not require much in the way of masculine management, but a man is unlikely to marry one of those 5 chicks.

  542. highwasp says:

    “The Christian psychologist I met the other week” – “This guy is GREAT!” of course he is and he’s the one example which proves the point… marriage counselors help keep marriages together.

  543. (From the video) right away IBB, ALL my boxes touch. I take great satisfaction in hockey/splitting fire wood/history and enjoying my wife’s intimate company. So much for that theory…..

  544. MarcusD says:

    It appears to be the Chernobyl of Christian marriage and family therapy

    An apt reference, given the name of the zone surrounding the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Alienation

    Sexual dysfunction within a marriage, whether due to one (or both) spouse(s) cheating on the other, repressed sexuality in one spouse due to emotional baggage or trauma in their past, “sexual baggage” in one spouse’s past not present in the other’s (i.e., high N count before marriage), or other similar factors very often is the root cause of other serious problems in the marriage rather than a symptom of them.

    Sexual experience prior to marriage is usually symptomatic of problems/issues, as well. In fact, once we start walking backwards to get a glimpse of the big picture, we can see that something as seemingly insignificant as a different variant of a dopamine receptor can kill off your marriage.

  545. (From the video) right away IBB, ALL my boxes touch. I take great satisfaction in hockey/splitting fire wood/history and enjoying my wife’s intimate company. So much for that theory…..

    None of mine touch. I do ONE THING at a time. I focus on that one thing. I do it very well. And I move on to the next thing. And when I am focused on that one thing, that is the only box I have open at the moment. Any other things related to what I’m doing, they will have to wait until I am finished with that one box.

    I have many interests (many boxes) but only one open box at any moment.

  546. Well, looks like he has one guy figured out. I can focus and like to focus, but I also have a multidisciplinary approach to most things I do. I like to carry on conversation while I am eating, where I can discuss religion, history, biology, sociology and politics between salad and desert. I find this quite convenient when I’m doing things like typing a response based upon a hypothesis of the human brain posted on a blog discussing postmodernism because I need to synthesize human language and type it into a keyboard while considering how all of these different boxes relate and hopefully create a cohesive point. Your mileage will likely vary.

  547. Opus says:

    This is my first comment on this thread – I guess I am not very interested in hypothetical sequels, and missed viewing the original. Given that it is about marriage and happiness I thought you would be interested in the data I have from the 2000 sweep of the National Child Development study which compares marital status at age 42 with Life Satisfaction. My source is an OUP book on Happiness.

    The least satisfied are the Widowed followed by the Divorced (average satisfaction about 6.4), then the Separated and above them the Single with Life Satisfaction (6.5) then above them – a big jump – the cohabiting and above them at the top the married (7.5).

    Yesterday I was reading in different book by a tenured Mangina Professor but on a scientific subject (also OUP) a throw away remark by the author that Education was essential for women’s happiness [why am I betting he has many female students] – your declaration of Independence has a lot to answer for. Extrapolating, the above study would appear to imply that education is not a necessary or indeed a likely component of happiness, and I can also say that arguably one of the most soberly sensible women I ever knew – far more so and more naturally than most of the Oxbridge-type educated women – left school at fifteen. Book smarts are no substitute for natural intelligence. As my first mentioned book also reveals, the more people believe financial success to be to their important, the more dissatisfied with home and family life they are. No wonder those aging OKCupid Cougars in training are so miserable. :)

  548. Hannah says:

    @Elspeth:
    “I wish I could remember the post where Empathologism describes the difference between that heady new love and a love that is still passionate but deeper and richer. He did a good job on that one, and that’s what I’m referring to here.”

    I’d be keen to read that if you discover it sometime…

    Your marriage sounds great Elspeth – not going to bed with issues is a huge key to success :)

  549. Some Guy says:

    I don’t think the counseling people really understand that their services are necessarily a performance review for the husband. The wife is unhappy and rebellious… and she is reaching out to the nearest enforcer for help in dominating and/or disposing of her now-inconvenient man.

    This can happen fast– one year, you can do no wrong. Now all of a sudden you can do no right as far as your wife is concerned. And you have to sit down and do “listening” exercises with someone that is basically done with you. These self-professed experts on human nature cannot see how deep of a betrayal this is. (When the guy made a lifelong commitment, he actually meant it.) Even counselors steeped in Eggerich’s “Love and Respect” model cannot see how this is fundamentally disrespectful. They have no concept of the fact that the wife may not be committed to the relationship or the process– they will typically not invest any significant amount of effort determining whether she meets the prerequisites for successful counseling. The concept that she might be arbitrarily and frivolously done with the marriage is not even on the radar.

    The reason for this is that they assume that the man is automatically the problem because women are naturally monogamous and more mature emotionally, etc. etc. The counseling reveals just how fickle and mercenary the woman is… and this is absolutely stunning to a blue pill man. The fact that this causes pain and emotional distress in the husband is of course used against him. He is even belittled for not being in touch with his emotions and being unwilling to share them. But this environment is anything but a safe place for him. If he actually shared how it made him feel, he will be mocked for being weak by his wife… or else his rage and anger will lead to a sharp rebuke and a loss of the credibility in the maturity tug of war of the counseling process.

  550. Some Guy, not just more mature emotionally but, shall we say, more gifted spiritually. Women don’t make mistakes and aren’t unhappy unless their is a man somewhere behind it all. They are “responders” so if they find themselves in a negative place that is simply a response to the inputs that a husband has made. It seems like most counselors apply the “garbage in garbage out” model of understanding computers to women. They are merely being acted upon as if men are sitting at the keyboard programming their emotions/spirit/soul. What else is a woman to do if she is unhappy? Of course she need’s to get her “inputer” tuned up (operator error).

  551. I don’t think the counseling people really understand that their services are necessarily a performance review for the husband.

    The progression is usually a seed in planted by another woman. That women either has an issue with her husband, or, she has just read one of myriad Christian marriage books that give examples of marriage issues, and magically she finds one. This is a source for what they all crave…empathy. So your wife hears this wife complaining…AND receiving empathy, and she goes reading these books or just copies her friend. The issues in the books become issues in the marriage. The books recommend counseling. The other source for these issues is romance novels.

    So yes, the performance review is vs a job description written in a book that is marketed to women.

    You point out the no win situation thereafter. If he weeps, he is a wimp and she respects him less. If he rages or even asserts dogged determination,… that will not work either. The wife has her head set on divorce, and if she dangles that there is a potential solution it is not real, it’s a manipulation tool to keep him under her power even after he moves out. This is why women panic when the men heal enough to start living a bit and are prepared for the final date of the divorce. She loses all power over him emotionally. She will then rage herself, make things up, whine to friends, create legal drama….all this starts with a conversation with some other women who seems to be getting extra empathy.

  552. hurting says:

    SG,

    Again, great insights, but I think that a great number, perhaps the majority of counselors, really do believe all that underpinnings of the Duluth model (e.g., male privilege). They probably do not understand fully and/or care to understand the consequences of divorce for their brethren, however. I do believe incentives matter greatly, and that if the only marriage counseling sessions schedule from this point forward were only those freely initiated by husbands the entire industry as we know it would dry up in a month. No man who has seen the inner workings would ever sign up for such self-flagellation.

    Empath,

    Regarding your comment about women panicking when their frivorced husbands finally start to rebound, I am seeing this very thing materialize in my own life in a very big way, although it has occurred well after the issuance of the final decree. My ex is miserable and has doubled down on her play to make my life a living hell as well.

    Word of advice to all men being browbeaten into marriage counseling: DON’T.

  553. MarcusD says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2423318/Brad-Pitt-crashes-couples-wedding-hold-reception-hotel.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Plenty of comments, some along the lines of: “I’m not a Pitt fan. But it’s all good fun. Only a very insecure man would not have introduced his bride/fiance to Pitt.”

  554. Mr. Teebs says:

    My wife and I have had some interesting discussions over the last several weeks on our respective reactions to Fireproof. The movie never sat quite right with me, and it was refreshing to come here and see like-minded opinions that gave voice to my own distaste over the lopsided emphasis on unconditional responsibilities incumbent on only one party in the marriage. Yes, Christ’s charges to men and women are different, and they are unconditional. But by utterly excluding the charge to one without so much as a fleeting mention of the charge to the other, we walk away with a wholly unbalanced perspective.

    I posed this question to help her understand just how I felt after watching this movie and listen to her breathless encouragement for me to take the Love Dare: “What if the plot had exactly gone something like this instead?” …

    Title: Fireproof – the alternate universe edition
    Protagonist: Catherine
    Antagonist: Catherine’s husband, Caleb
    Plot: Caleb, a firefighter, spends most of his time with his buddies at the fire hall. He demonstrates virtually no commitment to his marriage and does as he pleases, rarely meeting or even caring about his wife’s needs. Catherine responds by nagging, complaining, emotionally manipulating, and taking matters into her own hands. To cope, Caleb develops an infatuation with a sexy paramedic, clearly more attractive and a “trade up” from Catherine’s dowdiness. It is reinforced multiple times that Catherine’s nagging – while perhaps not entirely rationalizing Caleb’s behavior – is still the dominant cause and the script is clearly sympathetic to his plight. Finally fed up, Caleb serves divorce papers to his wife. Devastated, she seeks counsel from her mother and is surprised to find that a similar crises occurred in her parents’ own relationship. Catherine’s mother challenges her to take a 40-day “Respect Dare” in which Catherine unconditionally respects and submits to her husband, even though he is clearly “…disobedient to the Word.” Catherine then proceeds for nearly the entire duration of the movie – with only the occasional bout of frustration and discouragement – to demonstrate absolute, unwavering, unconditional respect for a man whose actions repeatedly do not merit her respect, and who is not loving her “…as Christ loved the church.” She finds it difficult, as her husband is not only unresponsive, but openly hostile to her. Her friends coach her to stick it to him, but she remains committed to the path Christ has defined. Eventually, her quiet and respectful manner convicts Caleb of his selfish and hurtful ways, He commits his life to Christ and begins leading his home in love – all without Catherine nagging, scolding, emotionally manipulating, withholding sex, or wresting her husband’s leadership role, regardless if it is poor leadership. Caleb however, never exactly comes out and openly repents of initiating the divorce and abandoning their marriage vows. After all, Catherine drove him to it through nagging and clear disobedience to the Word of God – inviting the consequences through the work of her own hands. The movie ends happily, and the redeeming and influential power of unconditional respect is celebrated by all. The movie closes with an appeal for women to experience the transformational power in their own marriages by taking the “Respect Dare.”

    Need I say more?

  555. Excellent Mr. Teebs, my sentiments exactly.

  556. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mr. Teebs
    Need I say more?

    Well, you could tell us how your wife reacted.

  557. mustardnine says:

    Empath said:

    The progression is usually a seed in planted by another woman. That women either has an issue with her husband, or, she has just read one of myriad Christian marriage books that give examples of marriage issues, and magically she finds one. This is a source for what they all crave…empathy. So your wife hears this wife complaining…AND receiving empathy, and she goes reading these books or just copies her friend. The issues in the books become issues in the marriage. The books recommend counseling. The other source for these issues is romance novels.

    I absolutely agree. The common factor I see here is the Scripting Factor. Increasingly (over the past couple of centuries actually, as media-literacy has increased — first newspapers, then books, Sears catalogues, women’s magazines, the movies, and television, and LAWS — and now social media including texting and Facebook) people are willing to be, or forced by enormous social pressures to be, SCRIPTED. Playing out pre-scriptions, assuming that they will “work” as advertised. (I saw it on Fireproof, after all.)

    This seems to be particularly true for women, though of course men have been adversely affected, too. (More, I am sure, than most of us realize.) Following scripts (very easy and short-term focused) has replaced the real work of participating-in and creating a good reality (much more difficult, much more long-term, but with the benefit being some expectation of future good — like happy grandchildren, for example).

    To give a little context, I teach math to high-schoolers (private Christian school); and I observe that the girls, (age 15 + or -) are operating out of completely feminized, hamster-friendly scripts. And so are their mothers. It is Disney World.

    So, back to the topic, a “Christian counselor” generally serves to provide little more than a very easy, self-justifying script for a woman, which she and her hamster are ready to carry out. On the other hand, relating to, sexing, working alongside a real husband (sometimes tired, sometimes dirty, sometimes sexy, sometimes angry) is totally different, totally unexpected, totally unprepared for; and eventually totally rejected — either for a divorce, or a frivorce, or an “unsatisfying” (didn’t fit the script) unhaaaappy lifelong marriage. Dirty laundry, stinky babies, car trouble, getting fired from your job, PTSD are simply NOT part of the Received Script.

    I would observe that many modern churchmen are handing out unrealistic scripts (rather than the more realistic, but more difficult and mysterious, Mind of God), and this is as bad or worse for their listeners than the scripts of their secular brethren, because the Churchian BS is distributed as being the Unchallengeable Authority of God Himself — we have a Bible Verse, you know.

    If what I am saying holds water, a practical question is, Can “The Script” be unscripted at all? And if so, to what degree? And how?

    Thanks to all the commenters who are trying to address this. Your insights are often very clarifying and helpful.

  558. Mr. Teebs says:

    How did she react? On a scale of 1 (blue pill) to 10 (red pill) I would put it somewhere north of 7 but shy of 8. The hamster wheel doth rotate, but the resistance thereto increaseth more.

  559. Anonymous Reader says:

    The hamster wheel doth rotate, but the resistance thereto increaseth more.

    Then progress was made towards the desired state. Good.

  560. BradA says:

    Long ways back, but it seems the charge against me is that I won’t say “women are the whole problem.” That is idiotic.

    I would put forth logic, but it seems that the idea here is to just completely blame women for everything that is wrong and act as if men play no role in things at all. What about those men who enable women? Aren’t they part of the problem?

    Dalrock, I am not sure the entire part of your brief comment above, but that is why I asked the question at some point about exactly what “moral agency” meant. I want to make sure I am addressing the term as it is used. I would read “moral agency” as “being responsible for your actions,” but that would then seem to apply to any human, especially per the Scriptures. I cannot find anyone who is not personally responsible for their choice (or not) to follow Jesus, for example.

    I would be interested if you ever had a post explaining that as it seems to be coming up a bit more lately. (Perhaps farther back as well.)

    So much of this “women are the sole problem” seems nothing more than my own children’s frequent claims that “it wasn’t their fault.”

    I would also correct everyone to note that I do not blame men for taking a MGTOW approach. I would probably do that myself if I were suddenly single. I still view it as falling short of God’s plan, but the modern environment is far too hostile for marriage and I don’t know what advice I would give to someone at the start of the path other than “be very careful” and “realize getting burned is highly likely.” My own children have all rejected me for their dysfunctional birth family, so you don’t have to worry about me complaining that my daughters can’t find husbands.

    I would go into more personal details, but that would just get twisted, so believe whatever idiocy you want. I will comment here when I feel like it (unless Dalrock asks me to stop) and you can keep being idiots.

    Do know that you are not doing much to help other people see the truth. It seems more like a treehouse club where the main activity is to bash those who are not in enough. Though isn’t that just like what women are supposed to do?

  561. BradA says:

    BTW, thanks for the note I Art Laughing. I need to train myself to save what I type before hitting submit. It seems to be a problem with logging in after pressing “post,” at least for me.

  562. C says:

    Sorry but it’s clear you have a bone to pick and are going to find fuel for your fire everywhere. As I read this story I saw a marital argument where both parties sinned, the man made the first step to reconcile, and this leadership in repentance led his entire family towards repentance & reconciliation. We have no idea the background of what’s been going on; what led the wife to this point. Obviously she was in sin. Yet apparently her husband also saw merit in her counsel, as happens fairly often in good marriages.

  563. Of course that’s what you saw because you see the world that way. It’s brilliantly designed to accommodate the behavior of women. The problem is the scenario would play out similarly even if the wife had relations with a professional sports team under a stop light.

  564. @ C – it was a fictional “movie” -get it ?

  565. BradA’s hamster seems alive and well. Women don’t have to be the “sole problem” for them to bear a preponderance of culpability. Finding some flaw in the man does not obviate her culpability.

    “You have gazed upon another woman, I am now justified in dropping this anvil from 10,000 feet upon your head!” exclaims wife.

    “You’re right honey, I have sinned and nothing you do wrong from this point are you responsible for. If dropping an anvil on my head will make you feel better I deserve nothing less. Drop away.” replies BradA.

    While this seems very Christ-like it’s nothing more than a codependency with the addiction to feminism. Thank you for the demonstration Brad.

  566. Brad recasts the narrative as an absolute so that he can refute absolutes.
    Never seen that before

  567. Pingback: Advice from an expert (on failing as a husband). | Dalrock

  568. M. says:

    That means SHE is a coward, a family traitor and a blackmailer. No deal with such a bitch.

  569. Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas

  570. Pingback: The crazy dictator. | Dalrock

  571. Pingback: An Example Of How Women Create Laws To Destroy Marriage … | Rejecting Modern Women

  572. Pingback: The wake-up call. | Dalrock

  573. Pingback: When Dennis Rainey got it right. | Dalrock

  574. Andrea-Renee says:

    Is it wrong me. ( as young woman) to write that would the wife from Firepproof was a b — lady-dog? This it just me? I use to be a “woman bible study” but now I just can’t take th is Gods is love …, and the woman are are kind like. I I want know more Aboutt ” The Lord is a man of War” and the like…. But I can’t go PK
    Aloa why can it ever the wife who is addition to porn. ” I will not compete with it….” You don’t have to. But if you would cook me a meal….

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