He ruined the surprise.

Christian mommyblogger Jenny Erikson is outraged that her pastor ruined the surprise she had planned for her husband.  She explains in How My Husband Found Out I Was Leaving Him:

So there you go. My Pastor had actually told my husband, based on a fourth-hand rumor, without talking to me first, that I was planning on leaving him. That. Just. Happened.

“I filed for divorce last week,” I told him flatly. “I was planning on telling you this Friday.”

That her husband would defend such an outrage is one of the many reasons she decided the father of her children had to go:

My husband defended him as doing his pastoral duty. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said, “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

The comments are quite telling about the state of modern Christianity, with a few Christians going against the grain pointing out her obvious rebellion and the majority (including Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant commenters) lining up to throw her pastor (and marriage) under the bus.  I can only assume she needs all the internet support she can get, because dating as a single mom is hard enough without google making it harder for her.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Divorce, Feminists, Jenny Erikson, Stantons Heroes. Bookmark the permalink.

386 Responses to He ruined the surprise.

  1. the pussy pass will get women out of hell, too?

  2. Ryan says:

    Hover your mouse over her pic: “Jenny Erikson – Conservative Blogger”

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Look a the image she chooses to post at the top of her blog. What do you see?

    (FWIW, That’s not wine in the glass. That appears to be a Bloody Mary.)

  4. Casey says:

    Women are hopeless.
    They can defend their every bad decision with yet another one.

    Men need to ‘go their own way’ and create a strike.
    A generation of women going childless will right this ship.

    Unfortunately, it is unlikely anything short of an economic collapse will bring about the catalyst necessary for women to realize ONE……SIMPLE……..TRUTH!!!

    They NEED us in order to survive.

    Even in the current construct, if you take away the propped up support of ‘Government Dad’…..you would have women starving in the street by Friday.

  5. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, just another reason to pile on the ‘don’t ever get married or care about women again’ mound.

  6. Feminist Hater says:

    There is no ‘righting’ this ship. It needs to sink. Perhaps God didn’t intend to destroy us by floods or fire but by simply letting humanity destroy itself.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Digging further, it appears the mommyblogger has been tossed out of the church. Her latest update states this, and includes the disciplinary announcement that apparently was read in church. So there are some denominations that still engage in church discipline to some degree, up to and including excommunication & public announcement of same.

    Doing a search on the term “classis” it points to any of several Protestant denominations that originated in NW Europe, most likely the Netherlands. Not the RCA, for sure. It would be interesting to determine which denomination, in the interests of finding the denominational position on divorce per Dalrock’s long-standing quest.

  8. Oblivion says:

    did she ever think that maybe she was undatable because:

    1) she is a fat single mother
    2)with 2 children
    3)who doesnt know how to keep a commitment?
    4) she cant keep any kind of intimacy?

    Jenn we can all tell by the picture that ur husband looks like a gentle guy. Notice how she didnt blog about how abusive he was. (physically,alcaholic, sleeping around etc)

  9. Feminist Hater says:

    Ah great, two more sluts are going to be groomed by mommy! Woohooo! The future PUAs will be delighted!

  10. RICanuck says:

    Quite the set of comments on that post. I had to reply to Tara’s comment of June 12, 2013. I was being unironic because I was surprised that a woman would critique another woman, however gently. Let’s see if it my response to Tara gets deleted:

    RICanuck says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:41 am
    I restores my faith to see a Christian woman who believes in sanctity, healing, and placing God first.
    Thank You, Tara!

  11. Feminist Hater says:

    Nah, her husband wasn’t an abuser and he wasn’t a cheater. He obviously didn’t have enough game and was too beta. He obviously tried to choose a Church that was more traditional in its actions but, as can be seen by everyone now, that won’t work at all. When a woman no longer feels attraction for you, there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. You will be getting a divorce. She will destroy absolutely everything in her path, including you and your children. She will do whatever it takes to divorce you, including making a scandal out of the whole thing.

  12. brian says:

    She’s worried about how the dating market’s gonna be tough because she told the world how she blew up her family.

    Seems like introspection and future time orientation are completely gone.

  13. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said

    Is it just me, or is the subtext here that she was challenging him to stand up to her like a man?

  14. That. Just. Happened.

    People without a sense of humor shouldn’t try to include Simpsons-style cutesy emphasis in their blogging. It doesn’t go well.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    Is it just me, or is the subtext here that she was challenging him to stand up to her like a man?

    The Final Fitness Test, surely the last in a long, long series. Go look at the now out of date family portrait image. What do you see? I note in the “about” section she refers to her “smart mouth”.

    Wonder what her N was prior to marriage?

    “Just happened” isn’t merely a pop culture reference, it is also a go-to all purpose excuse for bad behavior.

  16. sunshinemary says:

    The comments under this article…dear Lord.

    I’m going to copy this conversation here because I suspect it will be deleted.

    Cindy Brown: And the Word also states clearly the circumstance that would allow divorce, which is adultery.

    Ruth: Personally I don’t believe it’s quite that literal. So if a husband was beating his wife she should stay with him?

    aharris: There’s more than one way to commit adultery. Seems like this man was no longer cleaving to his wife in his heart.

    sunshinemary: The meaning of the word used for adultery in the Bible refers to sexual sin. It doesn’t mean “no longer cleaving to one’s wife in one’s heart.” It means having sexual relations with another person to whom one is not married.

    Adultery is the only grounds which are given in the Bible for divorce, and it is only given to men. There are no (as in zero) grounds given in the Bible for women to divorce their husbands. I’ve studied this matter very carefully; there is no biblical permission any place in God’s word allowing for a woman to divorce her husband. That doesn’t mean she cannot separate from him (“A woman is not to depart from her husband,” St. Paul wrote, “but even if she does…”) of course, which is situations of significant physical abuse might be necessary.

    So how are we to understand that the God who said that He hates divorce and has given no biblical grounds to women for divorce has given one woman named Jenny the green light on this?

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    SSM, I’m sure any of several people can instruct you in how to get screen shots / screen grabs.
    Typically saved as TIFF images, screenshots / grabs can be very useful to save online comments.

    Oh, and SSM – try to imagine what it is like for a man to live, day after day, with women such as that. Women who rake through the Bible to find a snippet they can twist to justify whatever their rationalization hamster currently wants. I mean really, deeply, ponder what it would be like to be with someone like that day after day. In time, if your imagination is good enough, you might realize where some of the anger of the MAndrosphere comes from, and why it is so personal.

  18. Aurini says:

    She does make one statement which is a legitimate criticism of her Church:

    “Did I ever tell you about the time My Pastor commented on my Facebook wall that I was in direct violation of Romans 13 by being involved with the Tea Party movement? Yeah, that happened. And it was the day before I was hosting a ladies tea party for the sisters in his congregation.”

    They show some obvious theological confusion (the dictates of a Democracy [foolish though they might be] are to participate in it, so she is hardly disobeying by doing such), and too much nosiness – to an extent this usurping her husbands authority, “beta-izing” him in her eyes – but given the larger context, I think it’s safe to say that something larger was at play.

    Had she been foremost a wife and a helpmeet, she would have been doing this with her husband’s approval. Had she been doing it as Christian, her argument would have been over their misunderstanding of theology, not the fact that they ‘embarrassed’ her (how can you be embarrassed when somebody criticizes you for something you didn’t do? I feel embarrassed for the criticizer). The proper solution would have been to ask her husband to defend her and – if he’d refused – accept his headship, even if she didn’t agree with his reasoning. As the Captain, he might have argued that “Yes, I believe they’re wrong, but this isn’t a battle worth fighting. Being part of this community is more important than having a pet project.”

    She comes across as extremely egoistic, with a desire to be proved right 100% of the time. This is a twisting of a masculine virtue.

    Perceptions matter with our species; a good man will apologize if he’s in the wrong, but he won’t bow and scrape before the multitudes. Not for his own vanity, but because his strength and public face are assets he uses to protect those under his care.

    In her care she’s mixing this form of male pride with female vanity. “I always have to be right! Look at how right I am! I won’t compromise!” She won’t even compromise to support her husband.

  19. Aurini says:

    @SSM: in Windows there’s a program called “Snipping tool” which allows you to grab an image of whatever’s being displayed on your screen at the time.

  20. Opus says:

    I sometimes think that America unnecessarily made life difficult for itself by seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is the last of these aspirations which is so difficult of achievement. Where I am, we find life liberty and the pursuit of gardening a more achievable set of objectives.

  21. deti says:

    Reposted without links so as to avoid moderation.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same old shit, different day.

    Jenny Erikson is divorcing her husband because she’s unhaaaappy and it was tooooo haaaaaarrrrrd.

    On May 1, 2011, she wrote this in “Thoughts on the Royal Wedding: It’s the Marriage that Counts”:

    “Marriage is hard. Sometimes it sucks. Tough. Deal with it. When you set out on a journey with another person, you hold that person’s hand through storms and sunny afternoons alike. Hopefully your days will be mostly sunny with a small storm here or there, but there are no guarantees in life.

    “Marriage vows do not ask us to have and hold each other until death do us part, or until life gets crappy, whichever comes first.

    “Marriage is commitment, not an excuse for a party. No Brad Pitt, you and Jennifer Aniston did not have a successful marriage, and you saying so doesn’t show maturity or emotional evolution, or whatever anyone wants to call it. It mocks and belittles marriage, and shows a blatant disregard of your own commitments.

    “The deprecation of marriage by celebrities (royalty included) makes it impossible for me to get super excited about Will and Kate. I wish nothing but the best for the newlyweds, and hope that through the years they will prove my cynicism wrong. I hope they will be each other’s best friend and truly love one another, and not become another couple that disparages their vows with secrets, lies, cruelty, affairs, and eventual divorce.

    “Now please excuse me while I go kiss my husband and remind him that I love him.”

    Just over two years later on May 21, 2013, she announced her divorce with a mix of sarcasm and “I don’t really know what happened; I just know I can’t be married to the great father of my kids anymore”:

    The post is “10-years,9 months, 12days and 2 kids later…”

    “I know the question you want answered: What happened? Sorry to disappoint you, but nothing happened. We could blame the fact that we got married too young or too fast, or had kids too soon, or worked too many long hours, but the fact of the matter is that lots of relationships include those variables and turn out just fine in the end.

    “There is no one moment in time a person can pinpoint and say, “Aha! That’s when it all started to fall apart!” You don’t just wake up one day and say to yourself, “You know, I think I’ll file for divorce today. For kicks and giggles.”

    The very next day, May 22, 2013, Jenny tongue lashed her detractors and critics with the ubiquitous and predictable “Don’t you dare judge me!” in her post “Divorce Piety”:

    “To every person that has insinuated or even flat-out accused me of sinning by separating from my husband after years of prayer, reflection, denial, realizations, more prayer, begging, and even more prayer — please un-bunch your pious panties and go read Matthew chapter 7. There’s something in there about a log and speck you might find particularly interesting.

    “I needed a time-out for my marriage — possibly a permanent one. But every person that tells me I’m going against God’s will by separating from my husband drives me further away from wanting to reconcile with him.

    “Details aren’t needed. Leif is the father of my amazing children, and I want nothing more than to be his friend again someday, regardless of what happens in our marriage. But things have been very broken between us for a very long time, and it took every ounce of courage I had to take the step that went against everything my religious culture told me but somehow I knew God was telling me was right.”

    Deti: There you have it. I’m not haaaaappy, I want a divorce, I got God’s permission, and you caaaaaaann’t juuuuuuudddge meeeeeee.

    A week later on May 28, 2013, comes the COMPLETE aboutface from her May 1, 2011, post in which she admitted that marriage is hard work and she was up for it. Here’s what she said in “The Things People Say”:

    “Marriage isn’t a joyride — it requires a lot of hard work. Tell me about it! It requires extra hard work when one person thinks everything is just fine and the other is miserable. You can only drag the horse to the water so many times and watch it not drink before you throw your hands in the air and walk away. Sometimes it’s not about giving up; it’s about letting go.”

    My. How far she came from two years before when she said:

    ““Marriage is hard. Sometimes it sucks. Tough. Deal with it. When you set out on a journey with another person, you hold that person’s hand through storms and sunny afternoons alike. Hopefully your days will be mostly sunny with a small storm here or there, but there are no guarantees in life.

    “Marriage vows do not ask us to have and hold each other until death do us part, or until life gets crappy, whichever comes first.”

    Nope. That’s out the window now. Now it’s “I didn’t give up; I let go”.

    Ah. I see. I’ll do the hard work so long as everyone else sees things EXACTLY like I do. Hamsterlated, this is “My husband is a simpering beta who couldn’t see how unhaaaaappy I was and wouldn’t submit to my leadership, so I am leaving him.”

    Jenny Erikson is just another example of how feminism has completely overtaken and destroyed the North American Church. This woman believes she is completely in the right and she is A-OK with divorcing her husband. Her comments sections are mostly “I’m praying for you” (not for her children, not for her STBX husband, but for the sinalicious bag of bones who is destroying everything around her) and “You Go Grrrrl!”

    Disgusting.

  22. For what it’s worth, I hope there’s a special place in Hell for pastors who use public Facebook postings to admonish their flocks. Sheesh. Why not just act out people’s sins in the sanctuary with puppets? But of course, we only have her word for all of that. Regardless, the things she reports about her own behavior are damning enough.

    It’s unfortunate that (again, assuming her story is correct) people were gossiping instead of going directly to the husband or the pastor, and that the pastor had to act on a rumor. But she created that situation by trying to keep it hushed up. The pastor was presented with a situation where one of his flock apparently was about to commit a grievous sin against another, and there wasn’t much time to spare. Even leaving out the husband’s authority over the marriage, he needed to know so he could take steps to protect himself — and if there was nothing to protect himself from, why the need for secrecy? It was obviously too late to call them both in for clearing the air and counseling, so what was left but to try to limit the damage?

  23. sunshinemary says:

    @ Aurinin

    Thank you. I’ve taken a screen shot of the conversation and saved it in Paint.

    @ Dalrock
    You have asked in the past where are the pastors who are serious about following the Bible on the issue of divorce. Consider Jenny Erikson’s most recent post:

    I am ‘As a Gentile & Tax Collector’ AKA – I Was Ex-Communicated Today

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/10/14/i-am-as-a-gentile-tax-collector-aka-i-was-ex-communicated-today/#comments

    Perhaps Jenny’s ex-pastor is one who is serious about following the Bible on the issue of divorce. Notice what she asks in response to her ex-communication: “Where is the love, people?”

    The idea that supporting women who are in unrepentant sin is loving is rampant in the modern church.

  24. MarcusD says:

    If you’ve got Firefox v.17+ you can:
    1) Hit: Shift + F2
    2) Type: screenshot –fullpage filename.png to save an image of the entire page.

  25. earl says:

    “My husband defended him as doing his pastoral duty. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said, “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

    The fact this woman is making statements like this is one of a thousand reasons I’m becoming apathetic to all western women.

    I give props to the guy…at least he defended another man.

  26. MarcusD says:

    Okay… before “fullpage” should be two en dashes – – with no spaces between. WordPress seems to have combined the two into an em dash.

  27. lgrobins says:

    Wow….just wow. This takes the cake. The countless times I have written “modern women” this is a textbook case of who I am talking about. And the conservative part….arghhhh!! At least with feminists you know what you are getting and someone whose actions match up with their beliefs. These so-called conservative “babes” are so much worse.

  28. MarcusD says:

    “Why not just act out people’s sins in the sanctuary with puppets?”

    I’ve seen it before, and it isn’t pretty.

  29. earl says:

    Although I think she is more mad at the pastor that her little plan was revealed by him instead of her. After all everything has to be about her.

  30. earl says:

    “the pussy pass will get women out of hell, too?”

    Unlike our court system…God is a JUST judge.

  31. sunshinemary says:

    My husband is a simpering beta who couldn’t see how unhaaaaappy I was and wouldn’t submit to my leadership, so I am leaving him.

    Apparently he must be submitting to her leadership now that she’s divorcing him; I noticed in the latest post that he no longer attends the church he preferred to stay at, despite the fact that the pastor and congregation have taken his side. A thread that has run through their marriage is that she didn’t like that church and wanted to leave it but he said no. He’s no longer saying no now, though.

    Too bad Mr. Erikson didn’t read Deti’s latest post at Just Four Guys before he got married:

    Be the Man in Your Marriage

  32. deti says:

    The new meme along the lines of “I’m not haaaaaappy”:

    “Yooooooouuuu caaaan’t juuuuuuudge meeeeee”

    or

    “Doooon’t juuuudge meeee”

  33. earl says:

    One of the benefits of confession in the Catholic church. The priest can’t bring that type of stuff up.

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

  34. earl says:

    “The new meme along the lines of “I’m not haaaaaappy”:

    “Yooooooouuuu caaaan’t juuuuuuudge meeeeee”

    or

    “Doooon’t juuuudge meeee”

    New? Where have you been…that’s been line #1 of most terrible excuses of females.

  35. donalgraeme says:

    What an evil, disgusting creature. But what is even more appalling, and evil, is the support that she receives for her blatant disregard for God’s laws.

  36. deti says:

    “try to imagine what it is like for a man to live, day after day, with women such as that. Women who rake through the Bible to find a snippet they can twist to justify whatever their rationalization hamster currently wants. I mean really, deeply, ponder what it would be like to be with someone like that day after day.”

    I know them all . So do the Churchian women.

    “Judge not, lest ye be judged!” Usually truncated to “Judge not!” or updated from the KJV to modern English to “Don’t judge!”

    “Let you who is without sin cast the first stone!” The hamster loves this because this verse means that no one can ever, ever criticize her or question anything the Churchian woman says or does. This verse has the double benefit of allowing her to cry “hypocrite!” at any critic.

    “Take that log out of your own eye before you come at me about the speck in my eye!” This is also used as a shield against criticism and an excuse against self-reflection.

    Jeremiah 29:11: “I know the thoughts and plans I have for you, saith the Lord; plans not to harm you, but to prosper you and give you a future.” God is gonna get out His goodie bag for me!!!

  37. donalgraeme says:

    @ Earl

    That only applies if she confesses. From what I understand the pastor here heard some rumors and tipped the husband off. That, plus the fact that she was ex-communicated, gives them a thumbs-up in my book.

  38. earl says:

    “What an evil, disgusting creature. But what is even more appalling, and evil, is the support that she receives for her blatant disregard for God’s laws.”

    Welcome to the world of modern women…and the modern judicial system. I’d say the spirit of the anti-Christ is alive and well.

  39. earl says:

    @deti

    So…turn those verses back on her when she decides the 6,000 things that are wrong with you. It’s not like women are that great judges of character anyway.

  40. sunshinemary says:

    This whole post is really, really depressing.

    Jenny:

    things have been very broken between us for a very long time, and it took every ounce of courage I had to take the step that went against everything my religious culture told me but somehow I knew God was telling me was right.

    Does anyone besides me struggle with hatred, which Christians are not supposed to have, for women like this? And has anyone noticed that a shockingly large percentage of women, even Christian women, are like Jenny?

    I get called a misogynist pretty often by other women (both overt feminists and covert Chrissto-feminists) online, and I always say that it isn’t true, but sometimes I think that maybe it is true a little bit, and not only is it true, but being a misogynist in the face of modern womanhood is actually entirely rational. How does one not hate something so contemptible? But how does one square hatred with the love that the Bible commands us to show?

    I know, I know, love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?

  41. 66A says:

    This is why a revocation of unearned and undeserved ‘right’ is in order, and on the horizon.

  42. earl says:

    “But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?”

    I think at a point…some people just aren’t going to be saved. You have to cut them off.

  43. Deti: There you have it. I’m not haaaaappy, I want a divorce, I got God’s permission, and you caaaaaaann’t juuuuuuudddge meeeeeee.

    Yep. Thing is, no one (okay, almost no one) gets married expecting to get divorced. Everyone thinks his own marriage will be one of the 40%-50% that avoid the temptations and overcome the struggles. Everyone who says “for better or for worse” means it at that moment, and really thinks, “I know it’s going to be hard at times, but I’m not going to be like my parents/friends/co-workers who couldn’t hack it. We’re going to stick it out no matter what, and we’re so good for each other that I can’t imagine anything we couldn’t handle.” Some even say, meaning it: “My parents’ divorce was so painful for me that I would never put a child through that. I would stay no matter what, to save my kids that pain.”

    But women, unless well-trained in virtue to do otherwise, are true to their feelings, and her feelings changed. It’s not so much that it got hard (more on that below), but that she didn’t feel like being committed to it anymore. She probably can’t even see the conflict between her words today and those of two years ago, because those were written by a different woman who felt differently about this man.

    The other day, a captioned picture was popping up on the Facebook walls of some women I know (not the happily married or stable single ones, believe it or not). The gist of it was, “I’m not perfect, but I don’t pretend to be someone I’m not. I’ve done some bad or stupid things in the past, but I’m happy/proud about who I am now.” The first part is noble enough sentiment, but it goes downhill quickly in the second sentence, because the subtext there is, “Since I just admitted to my bad past acts, you don’t get to bring them up. I’m declaring myself as starting here with a clean slate, so you have to take me as I appear now. Don’t ask about my N, or that rumor you heard about me and the basketball team. I just said I’m not proud of that stuff, so bringing it up now would only serve to beat me up about it, and you don’t want to be mean, do you? I’m proud of who I am today, so you can either accept this new-and-improved version of me or shove off.” What she’s saying there is that she is not the woman who did those past bad acts. That was some other woman, one she has a sort of psychic connection to, sort of like a past life (probably why women tend to like the idea of reincarnation so much). Someone whose mistakes she’s learned from, but not someone she has to answer for. She’s off the hook. And if she screws up today, she can wake up tomorrow, declare herself having learned another lesson yesterday, post the picture again, and start fresh as a new person again.

    Oddly, I think part of the problem is that people don’t have enough problems. I think when people speak that “for better or for worse,” they imagine major catastrophes: he gets laid off and they end up homeless, they have a miscarriage or a deformed baby that needs constant care, their house burns down. They gear up for the big disasters, prepared to show their mettle and stick it out where other couples quailed. And then the big disasters don’t happen: life just kinda plods along, with nothing bad happening but nothing particularly exciting either, and ennui sets in. They were prepared for big dramatic challenges, but not for daily drudgery.

  44. @ Casey:

    I agree. MGTOW is the only rational and emotionally safe way for a man to live in our current pathological culture.

  45. Deep Strength says:

    @ SSM

    Does anyone besides me struggle with hatred, which Christians are not supposed to have, for women like this? And has anyone noticed that a shockingly large percentage of women, even Christian women, are like Jenny?

    I get called a misogynist pretty often by other women (both overt feminists and covert Chrissto-feminists) online, and I always say that it isn’t true, but sometimes I think that maybe it is true a little bit, and not only is it true, but being a misogynist in the face of modern womanhood is actually entirely rational. How does one not hate something so contemptible? But how does one square hatred with the love that the Bible commands us to show?

    I know, I know, love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?

    Matthew 15 NASB

    15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will [k]know them by their fruits. [l]Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will [m]know them by their fruits.

    21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

    Anything that bears bad fruit — anger, bitterness, divorce, etc. — is clealy not of God.

    16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh [g]sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you [h]please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who [k]belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

    If someone claims to be a fellow believer you should show them where they are in error via Matthew 18. If they choose not to listen, then they should do as that church did.

    Commendable job by that pastor throwing her out of the church for divorcing her husband.

  46. deti says:

    @ earl:

    “turn those verses back on her when she decides the 6,000 things that are wrong with you.”

    The great Solomon II had a classic post a long time ago telling men to “fight like a girl”. His post encouraged men to argue and fight with women the way women fight:

    1. using appeals to emotion

    2. hoisting women on their own petards with their own words

    3. responding to questions with questions

    4. Insisting that he be held to the same standards to which she holds herself (i.e. none)

    And he said in his New Year’s Resolutions post:

    There’s no future in being a better man, so I will work hard to become a better woman. I
    will give myself free reign to do whatever I want whenever I want, and I will do so with
    impunity. I will demand the best for myself because I deserve it, and shame those who do not
    immediately offer it. I will be faithful to my partner when it suits me, and adventurous when
    it doesn’t. I will be bad and demand nothing but good in return. I want it all, and I want you
    to give it to me right now. I will find power and self confidence by being sexually
    promiscuous while ignoring the fact that I’m not accomplishing anything that your average
    chimp at the zoo hasn’t. I will demand that you accept, embrace and celebrate my actions
    because I am being true to my exceptionally unique self. I will righteously criticize those who
    engage in the exact same behavior I do, because unlike them, I’ll do it with style. Most
    importantly, if my Sex andt he City lifestyle doesn’t pan out, I’ll blame it on whoever or
    whatever is closest to me.

  47. deti says:

    Here’s the Solomon II New Years Resolution text with cleaned up formatting.

    Sorry, Dalrock.

    “There’s no future in being a better man, so I will work hard to become a better woman. I will give myself free reign to do whatever I want whenever I want, and I will do so with impunity. I will demand the best for myself because I deserve it, and shame those who do not immediately offer it. I will be faithful to my partner when it suits me, and adventurous when it doesn’t. I will be bad and demand nothing but good in return. I want it all, and I want you to give it to me right now. I will find power and self confidence by being sexually promiscuous while ignoring the fact that I’m not accomplishing anything that your average chimp at the zoo hasn’t. I will demand that you accept, embrace and celebrate my actions because I am being true to my exceptionally unique self. I will righteously criticize those who engage in the exact same behavior I do, because unlike them, I’ll do it with style. Most importantly, if my Sex andt he City lifestyle doesn’t pan out, I’ll blame it on whoever or whatever is closest to me.”

  48. Look a the image she chooses to post at the top of her blog. What do you see?

    (FWIW, That’s not wine in the glass. That appears to be a Bloody Mary.)

    C’mon now, maybe it’s my particular area of expertise but that is most definitely a Grapefruit Cosmo Martini. I’ve seen thousands of them in the hands of women celebrating their recent divorce and cashing in on their dumbfounded christian Beta husbands.

    Anecdotal, I know. Maybe I’m jaded from my unique exposure to this as part of my illustrious career,..

  49. Hey guyzz!! Meet the crew,..or what was the crew,…

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/about/

    https://www.facebook.com/JennyErikson

    Jenny Hoadley Erickson – let this be a lesson to you Christina gentlemen, if your wife insists on retaining her former surname, you will endure the same fate as “Left: The father of my children, and soon to be ex-husband.”

  50. earl says:

    Women (and some men) generally use scripture much like Satan did to tempt Jesus. Twisting the words for their own benefits. Without any regard for the context or the message of what the Scripture was telling. Not to mention picking and choosing certain passages.

    Women love the judge not lest ye be judged part…the submit part not so much.

  51. Opus says:

    So I got on the case. Jenny Erikson seems to have been married for just over a decade and has children; Republican of politics and Christian of religion. She also seems to be a self-serving self-publicist. She says her job is in social media but I was unable to find out exactly what that involves or for whom, but she must be important because she has no less than Ten Thousand followers on Twitter and has seen fit to post no less than Sixty Thousand Tweets.

    She refers to her daughters as ‘Thing 1 and Thing 2′ and to the Pastors of the Church in the document wherein she is excommunicated as ‘guys’. Is there not a delicious irony in that someone who swears by social media should object to being ‘outed’ thereby? (live by the sword: die by the sword)

    Would I be correct in supposing that she has political ambitions and that she is now going to claim victim status as a sort-of Christian Rebecca Saunders?

    There must be a Circle of Hell for people like her: I will look at my Dante.

  52. earl says:

    “if your wife insists on retaining her former surname”

    A lot of females I know on facebook go the former surname and then present surname together. Tells me a lot about them.

    Even saw one of my exes who just got married do the same thing. Had to smirk at that one.

  53. donalgraeme says:

    @ SSM

    Deep Strength provided a solid scriptural response, so I will stick to a simpler set of answers.

    Does anyone besides me struggle with hatred, which Christians are not supposed to have, for women like this?

    No, its not just you. I think we all fight against it. Prayer helps, so that we don’t let the seeds of anger and hate germinate within us.

    And has anyone noticed that a shockingly large percentage of women, even Christian women, are like Jenny?

    I’m surprised you haven’t realized it by now, but women like Jenny are the norm. They are the base, raw, primal expression of the fallen nature of womankind. Strip away all careful instruction and proper rearing, and you get women like her. What should shock us is not that she is the norm, but that there were periods in human history where women like her weren’t.

    But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?

    You love them by rebuking them, by pointing out there sin, and refusing to join in it. Offer to pray for them to turn away from the path of evil. If they reject this, you have done what was required of you. Everything else is on them.

    @ Cail Corishev

    But women, unless well-trained in virtue to do otherwise, are true to their feelings, and her feelings changed. It’s not so much that it got hard (more on that below), but that she didn’t feel like being committed to it anymore. She probably can’t even see the conflict between her words today and those of two years ago, because those were written by a different woman who felt differently about this man.

    This gets to the heart of it. Women don’t have the same sense of time and place that men do. This is why TFH’s point about women being awful at understanding cause and effect is so on point. Women, being creatures of ever fickle feelings, only have a sense of here and now. This leaves them with no sense of attachment to the past, as well as no understanding of how the past might affect them now. I’m sure Rollo has a post or two to explain more, but the frailties of being a woman force them to “live in the moment.”

  54. ballista74 says:

    But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?

    See Deep Strength’s comments and Proverbs 6:16-19. A woman like this is contemptible. She has made herself into what is to be hated, therefore she deserves rejection of all of those who are in Christ. What does Christ have to do with such wickedness of one who has trampled upon the blood by her wicked actions? (Hebrews 10:26-31)

    Because this individual has requested to resign from the church of Christ [Side note: WTF? I am still a member of Christ’s church — just not this particular congregation. I have never asked to be removed from my savior, whom I rely upon daily. Gah.

    Jenny is not a member of Christ. What does Christ or the Father have to do with utter darkness? She removed herself from Christ via her unrepentant wickedness. Her only way back is complete reconciliation and submission to her husband. Save that, she is contemptible and vile and has no place with Christ or in a body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

    Unfortunately, there are legions that are just like her, wiping the name of Christ in the dirt to justify their wickedness and hatred towards God. No doubt, she will find the excuse to multiply her sins by fornicating with another man. She will find a home, it is just not with the Godly.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    I’m going to copy this conversation here because I suspect it will be deleted.

    Others have already mentioned taking a screenshot. Another option is to print the page to pdf instead of a physical printer (at least in Linux it is an option). Before I posted this I printed the page to pdf and also used webcite to create a cached link of the page.

  56. @Rollo

    Those pics are a disaster.This woman’s jaw has its own area-code. The corners look like they’re sharp enough to puncture sheet-metal. Her post-nuptual pull in the dating world is going to be even worse than the average divorcee stepping back on the carousel.

    The fact that she’s such a Romney-worshipper should tell the observer all he needs to know. Romney was the epitome of the conservative mask on the same leprous decaying face of neoliberal globalism. This woman’s conservativism falls just as short as she cashes in her family for grrrrl power stickers and a free divorce appletini at the local club. The other bloggers Dalrock mentioned on cafemom also claims to be a conservative. I was unaware that conservatism had any advocacy at all for the breakdown of the nuclear family. Soon these women will be voting for King O’s 3rd term out of necessity as they loot ex husbands for spending money and the rest of us poor bastard tax payers for living expenses.

  57. earl says:

    “Unfortunately, there are legions that are just like her, wiping the name of Christ in the dirt to justify their wickedness and hatred towards God.”

    Plausible deniability is their god.

  58. feeriker says:

    “Christian” mommyblogger? What is even remotely Christian about a woman who gets angry at her pastor for refusing to enable her in nuking her marriage and destroying her family?

    I’ll just asume, Dalrock, that this was an oversight on your part and that you meant to say “churchian.”

  59. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    OT, but may be useful:

    @sunshinemary
    If you are a Windows user, then you can (1) make use of “print-to-PDF” via CutePDF (http://www.cutepdf.com/products/cutepdf/writer.asp) — the appliation becomes one of your computer’s printers and you use your browser’s “Print” function to make the PDF from the page, and it’s free software — or (2) make use of Alt-Print Screen (or Shift-Print Screen) copy-to-clipboard function with your favorite graphics program and paste in a snapshot of the page(s).

    I’m sure there are similar programs for the Mac, and PDF/Postscript printing is built in to most Linux/UNIX systems.

    The advantage of most print-to-PDF writers is that you can copy text from the PDF you print and save. Printing to a graphics file doesn’t give you that flexibilty.

  60. Opus says:

    So I checked: It has got to be the Ninth Circle (Treachery) and specifically the Fourth Round named after Judas Iscariot where the traitors are frozen in Ice and thus unable to communicate. Dante, simply way ahead of the curve here, as this is surely the cruellest punishment for social-media sluts like Ms Erikson.

    I wonder how that on-line dating is coming on with PUAs lining up to Pump and Dump, but they will first have to negotiate that Man-jaw.

  61. 8to12 says:

    Chrome has a built in PDF printer.

  62. Micha Elyi says:

    “I filed for divorce last week,” I told him flatly. “I was planning on telling you this Friday.”
    –Jenny Erikson, who styles herself a Christian mommyblogger

    Surprise! And because she fits so much of the femme foetal profile, I expect she’ll soon be telling her circle of female friends/fans “I don’t understand how this could have come as a big surprise to him, it should have been obvious to him for years that I was unhaaaaappy and about to leave him.”

    My husband defended him as doing his pastoral duty. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said, “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

    She had “a thousand reasons”, eh? Clearly she’s been counting and storing up these excuses for a long, long time. My recollection is that there’s credible research (probably in McConnell & Braver, 1998) that the average divorcing female has mentally checked out of the marriage two years before she springs the divorce papers on her man. And for much of that time she hides from him her intention to divorce him.

    Oh, and yes I agree that the pastor was “doing his pastoral duty” in tipping off her man about the circulating rumors regarding his marriage.

  63. Feminist Hater says:

    God – Perhaps, if he agrees with her.
    Family – Well no, just detonated that and destroyed her daughters’ future.
    Politics – Really no 1!
    Wine – Going to need lots to cover for the loneliness of post divorce.
    Cats – Goes without saying. She needs to include them.

  64. ospurt says:

    I see that “Fireproof” is being touted in the comments by some as a resource that could have helped her husband save the marriage. We all know how that works.

  65. Robert says:

    I have to say, after reading her screed – as childish as she seems – I have to agree that it was a sleazy thing for the pastor to do. As far as the pastor knew, it was idle gossip at that point – which may or may not have been true. He should have confirmed it first before speaking to the husband. Even better – tell the wife that if she doesn’t tell the husband quickly, he feels it is his duty to do do himself. In any case it sounds like he is best rid of her.

  66. beta_plus says:

    Holy Manjaw, batman! Wondering how much arm hair she has and what her index finger ratio is.

  67. RICanuck says:

    @Deti, SSM, Rollo, Feminist Hater, et al

    Jenny is a good Christian woman and you guys should lay off of her. She has a Bible verse inked on her.

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/07/14/the-girl-with-the-bible-tattoo/

    (sarcasm off)

    P.S. @ Ospurt, I was very tempted to reply to the ‘Fireproof’ comment, but as a mediocre (not a good) Christian, I decided not to.

  68. Bee says:

    Each of the commenters which defended her are disgusting. Many are ignoring the divorce she initiated and focusing on some lame “mistake” by the Pastor.

    More disgusting, some of the commenters claim to be Pastors.

  69. Hugh Mann says:

    Opus – “she refers to her daughters as ‘Thing 1 and Thing 2′”
    You realise that’s a reference to “The Cat In The Hat Comes Back” ?

  70. RICanuck says:

    Now regarding Jenny’s excommunication, I am impressed that a Protestant church takes the communal role of the church so seriously, and made a public and unambiguous judgement.

    Now for a bit of speculative theology. Please be aware that this is just speculation here, I don’t want an interdenominational bun fight, nor to play dueling Bible verses nor encyclicals.

    Is it possible that bad but repentant people can get to heaven? Is it possible that good but unrepentant people can go to Hell?

    I am thinking of the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector in the Temple. We know that none are without sin, and that all will someday stand before the Throne of Judgement. When we are judged by the All Good, All Knowing, All Loving, and All Just God, we shall have all of our sins presented to us, even the ones we have buried deep in our subconscious. It cannot be anything but terrifying.

    Did the tax collector admit all his sins and throw himself on Mercy? Did the pharisee turn away from Judgement, rather than face his sins. We do not know, Jesus did not tell the end of the story. But it seems to me that a turn away from judgement is to turn to Hell.

    Reading Jenny’s reaction to her excommunication, it seems that she has turned away from judgement, of a sin she admits and justifies.

    I don’t know how other readers feel about this, but it scares the crap out of me. Not just for my sake, but for Jenny’s too. Think of her and her children.

  71. ospurt says:

    Get Married: Check
    Have a couple of “Awesome Kids”: Check
    Become UnnnnHaaaaapy: Check
    File for divorce: Check
    Go Skydiving: Check
    Get some ink: Check
    Try and capitalize on the YOLO lifestyle and unchain her hypergamy as she mounts the carousel at 30 with kids…..that’s the modern script isn’t it?

  72. Beta male white knight says:

    I’m sick of Protestantism. It’s bullshit rebellion against the marriage of Christ and his church the Catholic Church that he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against. It’s the root of confusion because people shop around for churches the way modern women shop around for men. There is no divorce. Period. Don’t worry you don’t need to be an expert in biblical exegesis. The church does it for you. And it’s right and protected by the Holy Spirit. This was Jesus promise.

    Divorce is liberal bullshit.

    2) 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.

  73. feeriker says:

    More disgusting, some of the commenters claim to be Pastors.

    Disgusting, yes, but hardly surprising.

    If feeriker had dictatorial powers over everything, there are some changes that he would make that would impact the pastoral “profession”, among them:

    1. No more admissions to Bible colleges and seminaries of candidates who are right out of high school. At a minimum, candidates for admission must have at least a decade of “real work in the real world” under their belts.

    2. No admissions to anyone under the age of 40.

    3. No women admitted – under ANY circumstances whatsoever. Period.

    While such changes might not completely eliminate examples of “pastors” of the sort who support the Jenny Eriksons of the world (and who do other things just as vile “in the name of Jesus”), I believe they would go a long way toward making such people less ubiquitous.

  74. Bee says:

    These quotes shows she has been ignoring the admonition for Christian wives to aspire to have, “a gentle and quiet spirit.”

    “My husband defended him as doing his pastoral duty. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said, “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

    “Months and months ago, when I was going through the emotional throes of holy crap I think my marriage is over and what the eff am I supposed to do about that, a friend said to me, “Can you please make a decision so you can get back to snarky political commentary?”

  75. TFH says:

    This article, while great, also falls into the basket of “We really, really wish the subjects being discussed here could see this article”..

    The selfish Christian slut needs to see it.
    The husband needs to see it (and join up with us).
    The pastor needs to see it.

    These excellent articles really need to be seen by the people mentioned in them, in a way that we can be aware of…

  76. TFH says:

    donalgreme,

    This is why TFH’s point about women being awful at understanding cause and effect is so on point.

    Thanks. That women cannot connect cause and effect is also the reason why female suffrage sets in motion a very predictable set of problems. It proves that democracy has a life-cycle, after which the rise of a misandric police-state is a certainty.

    This woman really thinks she is a ‘conservative’ too. She is certain of it, even though her actions would have been considered pretty un-traditional even in America of 1995 or so (let alone earlier).

  77. TFH says:

    Man…. if only Jenny Erikson could see this article AND the comments…….

    SunshineMary,

    Instead of taking screenshots of them for US to see (not much that will surprise us), perhaps you should post a link to this article *over there*. That will be both fun and instructive…..

  78. sunshinemary says:

    Thank you to those who gave me information on how to save the conversation via screen shots and print pdfs and to the reader who emailed the pdf to me. I appreciate it.

    @ Deep Strength, donalgraeme, ballista74

    Thank you for the Scripture and feedback. Probably I’m not unique in this, but once in awhile something makes me see the enormity of what has happened to modern marriage, especially within the church, and I’m just so frustrated by it. And it’s not just the women; many of the women are at the level of Jenny, but nearly as bad are the men who defend them. I have recently had an interaction online with a complementarian pastor who was trying to find common ground with Christo-feminists. The Christo-fems were attacking him relentlessly and I asked him, “Why would you want to find common ground with these women who are in rebellion against God?” And he rebuked me for saying that! Because, he said, it wasn’t right for me to judge them and say they were in rebellion. And he was a pastor!

    @ Robert:

    I have to say, after reading her screed – as childish as she seems – I have to agree that it was a sleazy thing for the pastor to do. As far as the pastor knew, it was idle gossip at that point – which may or may not have been true. He should have confirmed it first before speaking to the husband.

    Respectfully, I disagree with you, sir. These people are (supposedly) Christians. Therefore, the husband and wife are one flesh, and the husband is the head of their marriage. It was right for the pastor to speak with the husband in this matter; pastors should approach husbands first in any matters that concern the family so as to avoid usurping the husband’s authority in the home.

  79. tz2026 says:

    One problem is that if the husband wins in any fair contest with his wife, “The Husband is guilty of beating his wife”.

    In the instance above, I would drain the bank account and give far more than a tithe to the Pastor (and take a loan that would involve joint responsibility), as well as “taking the kids away for a very, very, long weekend, crossing as many political boundaries as possible until I was somewhere without an extradition treaty, or at least well bribable locals.

    As a Catholic, Marriage is indissoluible. Jesus gave a very narrow exception using the greek word “porneia” (or whatever it was in aramaic), which we interpret that the marriage was/is not valid – that consent was or could not be given when either party said “I do”.

  80. For those looking for a way to print web pages and other content to a PDF file – this is a handy printer driver for Windows which’ll make the output into a PDF file: http://www.cutepdf.com/products/cutepdf/writer.asp

  81. Mark says:

    I posted the following, let’s see if she will let it through:

    —————–
    “You are a poor example of a Christian.

    “Till death do us part.” Were you being more sincere when you made that vow in the presence of God and man? Or are you being more sincere now.

    What a joke. Obama’s promise has nothing on yours. If you commit to your husband, you should keep him. Period.

    Fortunately, men will be able to google you before engaging with Satan’s spawn.”

    ——————
    She divorces her husband shamelessly then issues a worldwide hussy announcement for white knights and manginas. Women like here are the reason the West is in terminal decline.

  82. jill says:

    The pastor is an effective red herring.

  83. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I posted that I guarantee you there is another man in this case. I did not accuse her of adultery which is a different matter. There are emotional affairs, and due to her public chastity [/sarcasm] she may indeed wait for sex until after the divorce. But, there is another man at least in the wings. Her language profiles that way.

    As far as a woman planning her divorce two years ahead, while I am not sure about the two years, I am sure almost always she has it planned way ahead. And, her husband is the last to know. Her friends all know. If she works, fellow workers well know ahead of time. And, yes, maybe even his mother knows before he does. She is angry because this was supposed to be her little secret and the mean ole’ pastor ruined her special surprise.

    Robert says:
    November 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    >>As far as the pastor knew, it was idle gossip at that point – which may or may not have been true.

    Read it again. I believe the pastor called her before talking to the husband, and she declined to discuss it. That was her chance. Also using the term gossip to describe something she has admitted was true, is purely feminine.

  84. Someone who knows the situation and the pastor has a different observation on the nature of Jenny’s pastor. Surprisingly enough, the “eeevil” pastor may not be all that after all…

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/06/12/bitterness-truth-twisting/comment-page-1/#comment-423143

  85. there is another man at least in the wings. Her language profiles that way.

    Can you share your analysis with us?

  86. Mark says:

    Better than screenshots, get the Firefox ScrapBook add-on and use it to save the entire page in your sidebar:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrapbook/

  87. Ton says:

    There is liberty in the UK? Y’all hide it well

  88. I’ve been reading some of the other posts, and in one where she obsesses over “her” Keurig and whether she should take it or not after telling him he could keep it. After talking to her therapist, she asks her Ex if she can have it, and he says “sure.”

    The next time she’s stopping by, she finds out that, not only was he ok with her taking the Keurig, he freakin’ buys a new one!

    And what is her reaction?

    Why couldn’t he just sacrifice the Keurig for me? Why does he always insist on his own way?

    The poor guy just can’t win…

  89. Mark says:

    There are probably other *men* in the house, at lease so she dreams. Dude groupies because she was on Good Morning America. A bonafide TeeVee star, she is.

    Apparently, Victoria Secret is suitable for her daughter so she had to tell the world. The latest in Christian conservatism: Victoria Secret, hot wears for Christian teens:

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/02/19/gma-is-in-the-house/

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2013/03/mom-says-victorias-secret-okay-for-tween/

    If you’re in California, she’ll soon be on the dating circuit. Wear a condom. Enjoy.

  90. js says:

    Looks like she was a member of : United Reformed Churches in North America

    from the link that NorthernObserver posted.
    “What this means is that they will eventually get up in front of the entire congregation, where my children still attend every other week with their father, and announce to all that I am an unrepentant sinner, and will be “suspended from all privileges of church membership, including the use of the sacraments.” Our church order (Article 55) says my offense will be explained, which as far as I can tell is that I filed for divorce without their permission.”
    www. urcna. org/ sysfiles/ site_uploads/ custom_public/custom2520.pdf
    remove spaces to link (so would post)

    Wonder if dalrock can do a examination of their divorce justifications , if any.

  91. Caspar Reyes says:

    Commenter Chris Marquardt recommends the moovie Fireproof, and believes it would have saved his marriage. He also recommends the following link:

    http://www.ultimatehusband.com/TUH_articles.htm

    The article makes me cringe, but I’d be interested in others’ commentary on it, as my wife is still in the throes of blue-pill “wisdom” in such a way that nothing chez moi will improve until she comes out of it. I am still looking for my voice in a not dissimilar situation.

  92. It’s not unusual for the woman insisting on a divorce to get upset when the man doesn’t appear to be as emotionally distraught as she expected he would — or as much as she pictures herself being.

  93. Captain Obvious says:

    Good comment RICanuck. That verse is what I always fall back on when I no longer know what to pray for.
    “Have mercy on me God, a sinner”.

    One cant help but feel utterly alone when going to a “christian” church these days and only feeling the increased heat from the flames of hell. I find it much more appealing and honest in the company of unabashed sinners than some western church.

    To be a sinner is one thing. To clothe your sin in a righteous garment and call it Holy is a whole other territory of evil. I’m quite certain that when Jesus returns he will set about the righteous work of destroying the modern churches first and foremost and sending those lovers of iniquity to their much deserved dinner date with Satan and his hell fire.

    All of you are right and in complete accordance with the word of God to feel anger and even HATRED, (yes thats right) for these damnable people and their preaching of sin as acceptable and also from God!

    It is written that ” Be angry and do not sin, Never let the sun go down on your anger.”

    SSM: when you felt that anger and utter contempt towards this woman and her acts, that comes from a righteous place
    God destroyed many Israelites for calling their sins righteous and appropriating pagan worship to the name of the Most High. He sent invading armies in to murder, rape and destroy a people whom He made a covenant with. He even told them He would make them eat their children due to starvation.

    Do not think for one second that righteous anger is out of place or somehow “wrong”. In fact condemning these acts and cutting all fellowship with the perpetrators is an act of Godly love.

    People who call themselves christian these days should be preaching day in day out for the nominal church to FERVENTLY REPENT or God will send them all to hell. TO BEG FORGIVENESS. We all need to repent for this wicked world we live in and how much our lives intersect and allow sinful behaviors to influence and rule over us. We need God’s judgement over us to correct us and guide us. Like RICanuck said…..we need not fear or run from that. All of god’s judgements are JUST. HOLY and very much needed!

  94. Hmmm – she could interpret that as he’s not nearly as invested in her and the relationship she just detonated as she thought he was.

    I can see how that’d be upsetting to a special snowflake… :)

  95. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I saw that pic, too. Rollo is correct on the contents.

    Elsewhere on her site she talks about her best friend Ashley. Here’s Ashley’s Twitter page:

    https://twitter.com/TXTrendyChick

    Gotta love the background pic: legs, FMPs, alcohol, and a foot tattoo! Foot tattoos are for girls who want the lifestyle that goes with the Tramp Stamp, but not the rep. Important lesson for men: Watch your wife’s (and potential wife’s!) friends because they resemble what she wants to be like.

    I read a couple of Jenny’s other posts, but I had to quit because it made me sad. Her madness is in full flower, she knows she’s behaving badly, but she doesn’t have the tools to know how to stop.

    Above, Bee made the comment that as secondary concern is that this woman does not have a gentle and quiet spirit. I would make the case that this is the primary problem in her life. It is not even ironic, but coincidental, that a conservative-minded woman would have this problem. They are lauded for their spunk (in more ways than one) all day, everywhere.

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    Also: Quit bad-mouthing the pastor and the husband. There is no reason to trust the divorcing party’s testimony of events. She blogs about divorcing her husband, and you don’t think it’s not only possible but likely that she was spreading that poison on Facebook? What good man, husband, or pastor lets that slide to his flock? Have you not read The Whispers?

    Furthermore, she told so many people in her church (we know they must be women) about her plans to divorce that she had a hard time discerning who it was that spoke to the pastor.

    And here you want to add some blame to the husband and the pastor? That is treachery.

  97. They Call Me Tom says:

    “But how does one love a sinner who insists upon you also affirming, validating and supporting her sin rather than hating it?” –Sunshine Mary

    “I think at a point…some people just aren’t going to be saved. You have to cut them off.” –Earl

    “…where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” –Many times in the New Testament

    You’re right to feel what you feel SSM, and it is entirely Christian, even those Christians who want to focus on the NT alone have to realize that cutting off/ casting out/ etc. are spoken of more than a few times in the NT alone.

  98. Furthermore, she told so many people in her church (we know they must be women) about her plans to divorce that she had a hard time discerning who it was that spoke to the pastor.

    Here’s her timeline:

    From http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/06/11/how-my-husband-found-out-i-was-leaving-him/

    What happened was that I had a friend. She was a relatively new friend, but we had a connection, and I trusted her. I had been talking to her for several weeks about possibly finally ending it because I just couldn’t take it anymore, and then one Tuesday I told her I was going to do it on the upcoming Friday.

    Long story short: Instead of telling me she didn’t believe I was doing the ‘Christian’ thing, she told her husband, a seminary student. Instead of encouraging her to talk to me about it, he told one of his professors. Instead of encouraging his student to talk to his wife to talk to me about it, he told My Pastor. Instead of asking if the initial contact had been made, as per directed in Matthew 18, My Pastor began harassing me the next day via phone, email, and text.

  99. lgrobins says:

    Besides the more craziness of her support of her 9 year old wearing Victoria Secret, this gives a better view of how she looks…..eeeks

    http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/mom-says-victorias-secret-okay-tween-132303210–abc-news-parenting.html

  100. Remo says:

    I guess it truly is impossible to keep a wife without either being a fulltime a**hole or the threat of starvation hanging over her head. If you are a kind and loving man, you don’t hit her, cheat on her, and create an atmosphere of continuous fear eventually she will get bored and hit the nuclear launch button and the government will make sure she is rewarded for doing so. No wonder that the bible did not give women the permission to divorce their husbands. It is impossible to be married and be a biblical man in this age. Either the government and its assurances for evil behavior go away, marriage goes away, or kindness goes away – pick one.

  101. lgrobins says:

    and oh “conservative mom blogger” why do we never hear “conservative wife blogger”? Because its cool to put your kid first and not your husband. We are “stay at home moms” and not “housewives”. Never thought much about it before, the difference is subtle, but actually so important.

  102. Pingback: Harmful Risk Aversion: Example II | Things that We have Heard and Known

  103. Dalrock says:

    @Beta male white knight

    I’m sick of Protestantism. It’s bullshit rebellion against the marriage of Christ and his church the Catholic Church that he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against. It’s the root of confusion because people shop around for churches the way modern women shop around for men.

    Good point. Since she is (was?) a Protestant now she can church shop her way to the RCC. The second commenter to her most recent post regarding being disciplined by her church invites her to do exactly that:

    Let us discuss the merits of Catholicism Miss Jenny, you’re welcome here.

    Regarding:

    There is no divorce. Period. Don’t worry you don’t need to be an expert in biblical exegesis.

    There is no need because in the RCC what you need is to get a good canon lawyer to explain that you never really married. That is in fact what one Catholic commenter advises (to another commenter) on the post I first linked to:

    …was this a Catholic marriage? Were you unable to receive communion because the first marriage wasn’t annulled? You CAN get that if you speak to an understanding priest. Sending hugs to you as well!

    Edit: To clarify, I don’t see this as an RCC vs Protestant issue. Both sides struggle greatly with this.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo
    C’mon now, maybe it’s my particular area of expertise but that is most definitely a Grapefruit Cosmo Martini. I’ve seen thousands of them in the hands of women celebrating their recent divorce and cashing in on their dumbfounded christian Beta husbands.

    That would account for the color, and it was the color that confused me. On reflection, a bloody mary would be served in a different glass, possibly with a stalk of celery.

    My mixology is out of date. Your booze-fu is far superior, I bow to your mastery!

    Nobody has commented on her facial expression, and I find that more revealing than her drink choice…

  105. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo
    Elsewhere on her site she talks about her best friend Ashley. Here’s Ashley’s Twitter page:

    Yep. Awzum, to be sure. I’m sure that, like Jenny, she has a “smart mouth”, and also like her friend does not know when to shut it. If a few androsphere men decided to create a parody web site of the modern Churchian mommyblogger, it would look rather a lot like this one.

    Like watching a video of a landslide onto a house, in slow motion.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    lgrobins, that article is revealing. One might ask, how much solipsism, attention whoring, childish overage-teenage rebellion and plain old boneheadedness can a woman put into a single sentence? Let’s look…

    “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having cute panties and bras from the big girl store,” Erikson, of San Diego, Calif., told ” Good Morning America.”

    Victoria’s Secret is not the “big girl store”, it’s a women’s store. 9 year old girls are not women.
    Who discusses their daughter’s choice in underwear with anyone, especially national TV shows?
    How boneheaded do you have to be to do these things?

  107. JDG says:

    Hover your mouse over her pic: “Jenny Erikson – Conservative Blogger”

    Unfortunately “Conservative Blogger” is now the same as “Right Wing Feminist Blogger”.

  108. Bucho says:

    Rollo Tomassi says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    “Hey guyzz!! Meet the crew,..or what was the crew,…

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/about/

    https://www.facebook.com/JennyErikson

    Jenny Hoadley Erickson – let this be a lesson to you Christina gentlemen, if your wife insists on retaining her former surname, you will endure the same fate as “Left: The father of my children, and soon to be ex-husband.””

    Now this is getting to easy! I clicked on her Facebook pic and some dude had commented “The picture of a woman who doesn’t take crap from nobody!”

    Looks like the soon to be former Mrs. Erikson has some moxie!

  109. JDG says:

    There is no ‘righting’ this ship. It needs to sink. Perhaps God didn’t intend to destroy us by floods or fire but by simply letting humanity destroy itself.

    2nd Peter 3:
    9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
    11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

  110. Bucho says:

    And further scanning through this chicks pics, lots of pics with her and various who’s whos of the Republican Party.

    Oh, and hubs real name isn’t Leif. And there were some comments on some that alluded to the fact that he lost a bunch of weight a few years ago.

  111. Jen says:

    Pardon me, but by calling the husband and then the wife, wasn’t the pastor actually trying to save/protect this marriage? Isn’t that the right thing to do? ‘Rumour’ or no, the man was concerned enough about the state of those in his flock that he followed up on the information, tried to clarify it, and was making an effort to help the couple by calling a woman who’d been hostile to him previously, thus proving himself willing to take an arrow or eight. How is that problematic? IMO not only did the pastor do the right thing, the wife should have (should have…) realized he was also throwing up a big warning sign for her benefit, not as harassment.

    Very sad and irritating tale all ’round. Of course, there but for the grace of God go I…God forbid.

  112. The pastor tried texting the wife, got blown off, so – to me – it’s no surprise that he added 2+2 and called the husband.

  113. Todd says:

    Is it just me or is “Snark” –which this woman and her supportive gal pals appear so proud to possess in spades– one of the ugliest things a person can express. It’s pride and immature rudeness and self-centeredness and smugness and cowardly passive-aggressiveness all rolled into one.

    The moment I detect it in women (or in men who want to be women), I cease taking anything they say seriously. It seems to me to be one of the clearest indicators of emotional immaturity and instability.

  114. Bluedog says:

    @vascularity777 November 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm qua @ Casey:

    “I agree. MGTOW is the only rational and emotionally safe way for a man to live in our current pathological culture.”

    I think Yes and No. For one – I’ve taken to seeings MGTOW as its been defined by Stardusk and Barbarosssa on their Youtube channels where they pontificate on it ad nauseum. They seem to me to be as fantastic mathematicians who are masters of the numbers 1-100 million, and ignorant of all the rest. I think a key place to start is Stardusk’s “The Time for Pretense is Over” (http://youtu.be/4UYVHjMOMKc) which should serve to undermine any protests of moderation Stardusk may give elsewhere. You understand that one and you understand that of all the rest, the most extreme interpretation of this meaning is likely the correct one. He seems to be a man without sisters, daughters, nieces, aunts or friends … he fails to acknowledge that women are 1/2 our history and prehistory – that by the grace of childbirth, death in childbirth, midwifery and yes – female mate selection – he and we, are here today. As much as he rants on about them, he seems to know nothing of women, other than as opposites on the sexual dyad. That women are simply – human, seems to escape his philosphizing.

    When you get Stardusk and Barbarosssa’s MGTOW, at least as I see it, it starts to seem like the male counterpart to the Strong, Independent Woman (TM) brand that Rollo recently fisked. Strong and independent – because independent of men.

    In other words: breaking the dyad – going autonomous. So MGTOW is kind of like feminism: fully realized.

    I’d break MGTOW out some. MGTOW as autonomy from women is a legitimate choice, just as women’s decision to be autonomous from men is a legitimate choice. But this road, as taken by either gender, should be identified and called out – specifically for the benefit of the remainder of either gender who would choose to reject it. Many, men and women, would choose that we go on a dyadic, interdependent species.

    Now – MGTOW as strike against misandry or deleterious family law, or MGTOW as self-preservation, or MGTOW as simple individual choice without a greater statement of autonomy from the opposite gender, … these are all largely inevitable it seems. And I would imagine that if you have a large contingent of women declaring independence from men, it should come as little surprise that you’d find men in some number similarly declaring their independence. Generally though I’ve given to thinking that’s not what most people at Dalrock, SSM or RM are about, or here about.

  115. JDG says:

    She has kids? This is so sad. She is going to destroy their home and permanently scar their children.

    From her post:
    Did you know that apparently it’s up to men in the church to decide if you have cause for divorce, not God?

    From the Bible:
    1 Peter 5:
    1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, … 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.
    — Yes those men in church are to tell you what God has said about blowing up your family.

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.
    — The apostle Peter said you should submit to your husband, not frivorce him.

    1 Cor 7:
    10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
    — The apostle Paul said (speaking for the Lord) you shouldn’t leave your husband, but if you do you must remain single or return to him.

    Mark 10:
    11 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.”
    — Jesus said that if you divorce your husband and marry another, you are committing adultery.

    Those letters from the Bible were written to people who for the most part had their spouses picked for them, yet somehow God has made an exception for her?

  116. JDG says:

    deti says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Well said.

  117. JDG says:

    Does anyone besides me struggle with hatred, which Christians are not supposed to have, for women like this? And has anyone noticed that a shockingly large percentage of women, even Christian women, are like Jenny?

    I don’t think I struggle with hatred so much as anger (which may be justified). I definitely see in the overwhelming majority of today’s self professed Christian woman the same attitude as this woman.

  118. JDG says:

    Deep Strength says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Yep!

  119. JDG says:

    I’m surprised you haven’t realized it by now, but women like Jenny are the norm. They are the base, raw, primal expression of the fallen nature of womankind. Strip away all careful instruction and proper rearing, and you get women like her. What should shock us is not that she is the norm, but that there were periods in human history where women like her weren’t.

    I am truly amazed at the quality and dept of thought and logic made by participants on this thread. Yes this is now the norm. The fallen, twisted , debased character of what was once long ago good, is all that remains with out the training and guidance that once produced righteous deeds. Even when the heart was lacking, the benefits of discipline remained. But alas no more.

    The only way back now is through a broken and a contrite heart. For God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble.

  120. JDG says:

    I should amend my previous comment to: The only way back for her now is through a broken and a contrite heart. For God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble.

  121. MarcusD says:

    Nature versus nurture. Literally.

  122. Pingback: Linkage: Stadium Love Edition | Patriactionary

  123. earl says:

    It doesn’t matter what religion you subscribe to…women will try to twist the rules to satisfy their desires.

  124. earl says:

    “I’ve had to do all my own dishes. Leif used to do that. (Credit where credit is due.) Also, I don’t have a working dishwasher at the moment, so it’s all by hand. Ugh.”

    That poor woman. Her laments sadden where my heart used to be.

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/06/03/when-life-hands-you-lemons-grab-the-remote/

  125. Opus says:

    Jenny Erikson

    God (as revised by Jenny) Family (as reduced by Jenny) Politics (safety-net now required) W[h]ine

  126. RICanuck says:

    The ‘you go grrl’ comments have been removed from Jenny’s post.

  127. Amused Observer says:

    The comments are still there. There’s an “older comments” link. I don’t think she’s seen anything yet. Maybe someone should tweet this dalrock post to her. She seems to have been twitting constantly all weekend.

  128. Bob says:

    “Christian mommyblogger Jenny Erikson…”

    Dalrock, shouldn’t that read Churchian mommyblogger Jenny Erikson…?

  129. mrsdarlings says:

    Haha..that’s all I could do…is laugh.

  130. Amanda says:

    Deeply saddened by this post. What makes Jenny’s deeds even worse is her public discourse over it, because she will lead others astray. I am angry at the fact that she publicly justifies her actions as “God told me to divorce.” That will provide fodder for other weak minded people. She has very little understanding of the Bible, because there is no counsel against the Lord. Not sure who she’s hearing from, but it’s not the God of the Bible.

  131. mrsdarlings says:

    She’s not much different from the woman who wrote to us…very clueless as to how she is part of the reason a or the problem exists….here is what a woman wrote to us…

    http://housewifesexuality.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/a-women-wrote-to-me-in-her-supposed-humility/

  132. mrsdarlings says:

    What’s exciting is seeing what she’s going to do about the situation.

  133. The comments from both Jenny and her readers often kept going back to that revisionist WWJD concept, something that was the final stumbling block on my way to the faith of ages.

    WWJD is a flawed question for most because they project their own desires and cultural mores on to him as they are unequipped through lack of reading to decide what Jesus would actually do. It becomes a convenient morally permissive omniscient demand to surrender to the self, the polar opposite of Christ’s imploration.

    I believe the God I worship is as different from theirs as Buddha is to Bacchus. Their Jesus is a man who would never render judgment for sinful behavior, only condemning the things no sane man or woman finds good. Their Jesus is a complete pacifist robbed of any male power or authority. Their Jesus listens and does not speak except to reaffirm what they want to hear. Their Jesus is one of the slimy salesman that the Christ took the whip to in the Temple at Jerusalem. I think in coming times, the scourge will be reapplied to the holy-rollers and cheap salesmen in our Temples.

  134. 8to12 says:

    @Robert says: I have to say, after reading her screed – as childish as she seems – I have to agree that it was a sleazy thing for the pastor to do. As far as the pastor knew, it was idle gossip at that point – which may or may not have been true. He should have confirmed it first before speaking to the husband. Even better – tell the wife that if she doesn’t tell the husband quickly, he feels it is his duty to do do himself. In any case it sounds like he is best rid of her.

    She has deleted the critical comments from her blog. The one I wrote yesterday is long gone. Here is essentially what I said.

    The pastor heard a rumor that she was going to divorce her husband.

    The pastor confronts her (before he talks to the husband) and asks her bluntly if the rumor is true.

    She refuses to confirm or deny the rumor. Instead she gives non-committal answers and dodges the question. “It’s just a rumor; I need to speak to my husband first.” Anyone with a brain knows that if someone refuses to give say a rumor is false and is instead gives evasive answers that the rumor most likely true.

    After the pastor talks to the wife, he informs the husband of the situation. The husband then confronts the wife, and she admits that she is planning on a divorce.

    That is the actual timeline SHE lays out in her story.

    The pastor, imho, acted correctly. He confronted her first and then brought everything out into the daylight. It seems what the wife is mad about is the fact that her husband wasn’t left in the dark about her plans to divorce until SHE was ready to spring it on him. She thought she could continue to work her plans in the darkness, instead of having them exposed by the light of day.

    And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. (John 3:19-20)

  135. David J. says:

    @ Cail Corishev: “But women, unless well-trained in virtue to do otherwise, are true to their feelings, and her feelings changed. It’s not so much that it got hard . . . , but that she didn’t feel like being committed to it anymore. She probably can’t even see the conflict between her words today and those of two years ago, because those were written by a different woman who felt differently about this man.”

    I think you nailed it, Cail. I have struggled to reconcile my own ex-wife’s self-contradictory statements — all the way from the explicit, uncomplicated initial vow of “for better or worse, for richer for poorer” to the later flood of syrupy affirmations in birthday and anniversary cards, all of which eventually became vicious invective and a divorce (and subsequent remarriage) without any biblical basis. I’m convinced that her current syrupy words about (and marriage vows to) her second husband will, in the not too distant future, go the same route. (Albeit, in his case, I believe, she’ll be moving from rose colored glasses to something closer to an accurate perception of his character.)

    There is no explanation in logic, or doctrine, or biblically significant facts. It’s as simple as you say: her feelings changed; she didn’t feel like being committed to it anymore; and, as a result, she can’t even see the conflict between her words today and those of x years ago, because those were spoken/written by a different woman who felt differently about this man.

    This is a valuable, helpful insight, and I appreciate it.

  136. To clarify, I don’t see this as an RCC vs Protestant issue. Both sides struggle greatly with this. — Dalrock

    Yes, the same scenario could play out at most Catholic parishes, with one exception: individual Catholic churches don’t “excommunicate” people or kick them out of the parish, and there wouldn’t be any public announcement of such. A priest could refuse to give her Communion if he knows she’s in a state of mortal sin, but that happens rarely enough that it makes national news. And as one of her commenters assured her, she could just find a more “understanding” priest to give it to her. It might play out differently, but the same underlying problems are there.

  137. David J. says:

    I posted the following comment on Jenny’s site:

    Jenny: Perhaps this approach will get your attention — I will focus on the area of your life that you seem to care most about: your Tea Party conservatism (which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly). Your response to your church’s discipline reveals a pronounced tendency (I’m tempted to say an inability, but I’m trying to be optimistic) to respond to something with which you disagree with attitude and sarcasm and (attempted) wit/humor, but without logic or anything even close to an accurate or fair treatment of the governing documents (here, the Bible’s teachings on divorce and on church discipline). Here’s the part that I hope gets your attention: your amateurish and wrong-headed essay in response to your church’s discipline calls into question the credibility of anything you’ve written on political/governmental issues. If you, as a professing Christian, can be so wildly and heedlessly wrong about the source of truth for your faith (i.e., the Bible), how can anyone have any confidence in your analysis and application of the source of truth for your politics (i.e., the Constitution)?

    To put it another way, you have clearly jettisoned the authoritative truth of the Bible because it is at odds with your personal wishes and feelings. There’s no reason to believe that you don’t do the same as to your political views and the law of the land. Your treatment of spiritual issues is as odious as liberals/Democrats’ treatment of political issues — you, like they, are operating solely in the realm of feelings and wants, not in the realms of truth and reality.

    Does that help you see the gravity of your wrong-headedness about your marriage and your faith? I hope to God it does.

  138. “I’ve had to do all my own dishes. Leif used to do that.”

    I’m guessing that this was one of his many attempts to make her happy. Guys, if your wife seems out of sorts, NEVER do her stuff for her in hopes of making her happy. IT DOES NOT WORK. It’s possible that nothing will work, but this certainly will not. What would improve your mood — someone offering to do some of your work so you can relax — will not improve hers. The last thing an irritable woman needs is more free time to think about it.

    I think you nailed it, Cail. I have struggled to reconcile my own ex-wife’s self-contradictory statements — all the way from the explicit, uncomplicated initial vow of “for better or worse, for richer for poorer” to the later flood of syrupy affirmations in birthday and anniversary cards, all of which eventually became vicious invective and a divorce (and subsequent remarriage) without any biblical basis.

    You’re welcome, and that got me thinking: my ex-wife’s over-the-top hatred for me at the end of the marriage had little basis in fact, but the same could be said about her intense admiration for me when we were dating and engaged. Both were based much more on her internal emotions than on an honest appraisal of me or what kind of husband I would be. Neither was based on reality. That might be a red flag for guys to watch out for: does she seem too happy, too agreeable? Compliments are great, but if a woman insists that she thinks you’re perfect, she may just be riding the rush of some personal fantasy, and you just happened to get in the way. There will always be a certain amount of letdown after the honeymoon period is over, but if she’s wearing rose-colored glasses that make you look like Fabio, things could get ugly when she takes them off.

  139. 8to12 says:

    @JDG says:

    From her post:
    Did you know that apparently it’s up to men in the church to decide if you have cause for divorce, not God?

    My body; my choice thinking. Or in this case: my marriage; my choice.

  140. Something of note about dear Jenny Erickson: the social pressure she has placed on herself due to being a conservative has prevented her from further exploding the family by denying the father access to the children. (She rationalises this by gushing about what a great dad he is.)

    My ex-wife didn’t seek alimony because her parents made it clear they didn’t approve of such things in the event of a divorce due to affairs on her part. The threat of losing her parents’ acceptance molded her behaviour and caused her to spout off rationalisations about how “I don’t want to sponge off someone else”.

    Women need society and need a society that cares about them, including saying “no”.

  141. Bee says:

    @jill,

    “The pastor is an effective red herring.”

    Excellent point. Almost all of her commenters followed the red herring.

  142. Blake says:

    The woman filed for divorce and got mad because she was forced to tell her husband before she moved out and is now blamecasting just like our current president.

    So much for conservative and God fearing.

    Dalrock, I’ve been lurking for a while, first time post. I really appreciate this site and comments.

  143. Boxer says:

    Like many of you, I left a comment on Jenny’s blog. I suppose I should start the magic countdown until the moment it disappears.

    I don’t understand the anger against Ms. Hoadly-Erikson. She was just “following her feelings” and “being true to herself” when she destroyed the lives of her poor little girls, effectively making them bastards, and denying them a normal relationship with their father.

    Don’t any of you have any compassion?

    Jenny: I understand you, and I wish I could mount my white horse, like a knight in shining armor, to save every harlot and ho who makes a selfish decision. Unfortunately, I see what happens to “good men” when they do favors for trash like yourself (your husband serves as a very effective exhibit in this regard).

    I truly hope you find happiness with the descending series of low-quality men, who will happen to find you temporarily useful, now that you have proven your own inability to keep your most important and meaningful committments.

    Best Regards…

  144. Pingback: Conservative Women Eager to Claim the Feminist Label | Unmasking Feminism

  145. Farm Boy says:

    SSM – try to imagine what it is like for a man to live, day after day, with women such as that. Women who rake through the Bible to find a snippet they can twist to justify whatever their rationalization hamster currently wants.

    She can’t do that. She had her hamster surgically removed. It can now be seen traipsing around her website

  146. Farm Boy says:

    my ex-wife’s over-the-top hatred for me at the end of the marriage had little basis in fact

    Happened to.you too, huh? It is odd that the fella who was awesome a few years before is now the devil incarnate. And he didn’ t change during the interim.

  147. Farm Boy says:

    Does unhappiness lead to rebellion

    Or does rebellion lead to unhappiness

    Or are these the wrong questions?

  148. feeriker says:

    TKI said Their Jesus is a man who would never render judgment for sinful behavior, only condemning the things no sane man or woman finds good. Their Jesus is a complete pacifist robbed of any male power or authority. Their Jesus listens and does not speak except to reaffirm what they want to hear. Their Jesus is one of the slimy salesman that the Christ took the whip to in the Temple at Jerusalem. I think in coming times, the scourge will be reapplied to the holy-rollers and cheap salesmen in our Temples.

    Beautifully put. I’ve heard it said that if the Jesus of the Gospels was to appear in any random “Christian” church in Amerika on any given Sunday, he would be tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail. Given not only the Jenny Erikson example, but the rantings of so many other self-described “Christians” on topics as varied as politics, business, and “education,” I cannot help but wholeheartedly believe that this is true.

    @JDG says:

    From her post:
    Did you know that apparently it’s up to men in the church to decide if you have cause for divorce, not God?

    My body; my choice thinking. Or in this case: my marriage; my choice.

    If established Amerikan churches today were anything other than tax-exempt, money-grubbing social clubs that were worthy of comparison with the original First Century body of believers, they would seriously consider the de facto ex-communication (or “de-fellowshipping,” to borrow the term used by Jehovah’s Witnesses) of women as a general rule, admitting them to the fold only once they demonstrate the properly submissive, humble, and worshipful behavior mandated by the Scripture and toss their attitude of rebellion aside.

    On that same note, it would make my century to read that the pastor of Jenny’s church had taken things one step further and not only addressed her sinful frivorce of her husband in front of the entire congregation on a bright Sunday morning, but that he also delivered a hellfire-and-brimstone sermon on divorce for the benefit of any other members of the congregation, male or female, considering frivorcing their spouse, along with a call to immediate repentance for any others who might have already done so – and a message of ex-communication/de-fellowshipping for any who refuse to repent.

    I know, I know: baby steps. That Jenny’s pastor did what he did was amazing in and of itself, something we’re unlikely to see from any other Amerikan pastor for years, if not decades (indeed, anyone wanna bet that at least one Protestant denomination [I'd lay odds on the ground being broken by the Methodists, Episcopalians, or Presbyterians], if one hasn’t already done so, will pass some sort of formal ordinance against punishing frivorce?).

  149. earl says:

    “Beautifully put. I’ve heard it said that if the Jesus of the Gospels was to appear in any random “Christian” church in Amerika on any given Sunday, he would be tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail.”

    Or crucified.

  150. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I posted something and it did not appear at all. So, she realizes she is being called to account. Yesterday, my posting did appear.

  151. freebird says:

    “Their Jesus is one of the slimy salesman that the Christ took the whip to in the Temple at Jerusalem.”

    Yes,yes!

    The pastor heard the rumours from on the the inner circle of the COVEN inside his church.

    1.Because whilst women be herd creatures,they are also spiteful backstabbers.
    2.Because Jenny-darling was so PROUD of her strike she had to brag to the coven.
    3.The title of the article says it best,”He ruined the surprise,”
    Jenny-darling wanted so badly to see the anguish and hear the howls of pain,she has been wrongfully denied the reward for her SPITE.

    This is the evil that happens inside the church itself,when the women gather alone,often under the pretense of ‘women’s bible study classes.’

    I could damn near guarantee Jenny-darling wanted to one-up the coven,inside the ‘women’s bible study class.’

    Is Jenny-darling an
    “associate minister?”

    Just asking

  152. earl says:

    Rebellion leads to unhappiness.

    It’s the only thing women are good at leading.

  153. Farm Boy says:

    So if the husband is a great father, that isn’t part of any excuse. And the benefit to the kids is not enough of a reason to stay married. What is it that she might be after?

    Perhaps the answer begins with a T.

  154. freebird says:

    The Lutherans have gone effeminate also,serving gynocentricity over God,one Sunday at a time.

  155. Farm Boy says:

    They NEED us in order to survive.

    No they don’t.

    http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/the-end-of-men

    If all of the men were beamed out, they could probably still borrow from China I suppose.

  156. Farm Boy says:

    My body; my choice thinking. Or in this case: my marriage; my choice

    But is not the marriage a joint venture?

  157. 8to12 says:

    @Farm Boy says:
    November 24, 2013 at 10:59 am
    My body; my choice thinking. Or in this case: my marriage; my choice

    But is not the marriage a joint venture?

    Is not the creation of a child a joint choice?

    Excuse me, how could I have been so politically incorrect. I meant fetus, as we all know it’s not a child until every part of its body–including the head–is outside of the mother.

  158. earl says:

    It’s a joint venture.

    She gets all the perks, he gets all the responsibilities.

    Once she loses the perks…it isn’t so joint anymore.

  159. Mr. Roach says:

    “Is it just me or is “Snark” –which this woman and her supportive gal pals appear so proud to possess in spades– one of the ugliest things a person can express. It’s pride and immature rudeness and self-centeredness and smugness and cowardly passive-aggressiveness all rolled into one. The moment I detect it in women (or in men who want to be women), I cease taking anything they say seriously. It seems to me to be one of the clearest indicators of emotional immaturity and instability.”

    Todd, I could not agree more with your sentiments above, and this is why the Ann Coulters and other shrill right wingers on mainstream TV are very off putting to me. I would never want to be with someone so aggressive, lacking in gentleness, and humility. It’s ugly. And while it may be “right wing” it is not conservative or traditional in any sense of the world. And this particular form of argument, that forswears logic, step-by-step analysis, and further deliberately shows disrespect to the listener is quite contary to the western tradition of rhetoric.

    It is however in the woman’s tradition of the schoolyard and the sorority house and the sewing circle. Women simply cannot avoid personalizing a debate. They will always insult, mock, roll their eyes, question manhood, etc., and, in the case of woman, question her social status and deliberately try to engage the emotions and pride.

    Don’t go tit for tat with this kind of stuff. And your repulsion is a sign of good sense.As far as dealing with a woman in a household, simply “I am the boss” works better than logic, which you can see how easily it is twisted by someone of bad faith seeking to rationalize their conduct.

  160. Bradford says:

    Boy, this thread is a real barnburner. I have been following Dalrock for a few months now. I don’t normally comment, but this lady’s insufferable self promotion in combination with an utter lack of self awareness is just hard to witness in silence. She went on after her divorce to write an article on the blog “the stir” titled “10 Things to Say if You Want to Destroy Your Marriage”. Yes, this is who I will take marriage advice from…….

  161. From her post:
    Did you know that apparently it’s up to men in the church to decide if you have cause for divorce, not God?

    It must be nice to have such a close, personal relationship with God that you can just ask him for a personal exemption from His written rules, completely ignoring any earthly authority He might have provided to be your guide.

  162. I guess it’s none of her husband’s business what happens to his marriage.

  163. earl says:

    Women have continued to declare war with men…they just don’t use overt weapons like men use when we go to war.

  164. feeriker says:

    From her post:
    Did you know that apparently it’s up to men in the church to decide if you have cause for divorce, not God?

    Apparently Jenny doesn’t do irony. If she did, she’d realize that in 99.999 percent of today’s Protestant churches (just her bad luck that she and her ex-husband seem to have picked one of the rare exceptions), the “men in the church” would be just fine with whatever reason Jenny had offered for frivorcing her hubby – or even if she gave no reason at all.

    That Jenny just happened to have been a member of one of those one-in-a-million Protestant churches that let GOD judge her decision seems to have induced a massive overdose of solipsism, eyebrow-raising even for a woman of her type.

  165. Pingback: Dark Brightness | Haters to AntiChristianism

  166. Farm Boy says:

    Who cares if the guys judge her; she should be judging herself

  167. @Farm Boy, women crave male approval and acceptance, which is why she reacted so poorly to being excommunicated.

    A buddy of mine was excommunicated when he was 18 due to his lifestyle of partying, drinking, and carousing. Nowadays he acknowledges it was the right thing to do and has returned to fellowship 13 years later.

  168. @Aaron the Just

    Excommunication is a perfectly Biblical tool to bring a rebellious and disobedient “believer” to heel. If a believer cannot maintain the behavior Biblically demanded of a Christian, he or she must be excommunicated from the body of Christ until such a time as he or she understands what it means to be part.

    This is another modern confusion with the three levels of belief. Today it is “Believe like we do, behave like we behave, then finally we’ll show you compassion.” It should be “We will show you compassion, behave like we behave, and you will find yourself believing what we believe.” If somebody is not walking the walk, surely their hearts are not yet given over to christ. It’s often said we do what we believe, but far more often it is that we believe what we do. Actions are evidence of faith, and in a dearth of evidence for belief, one must be thrust outside to enter again as a true member incorporate in the body of faith.

  169. Je Suis Prest says:

    @ Farm Boy

    Does unhappiness lead to rebellion

    Or does rebellion lead to unhappiness

    Or are these the wrong questions?

    I’ve been doing some other reading and came across something that might answer your question. The following is from Catholic Tradition.org and is based on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

    AS VIRTUE LEADS TO HAPPINESS, so vice causes unhappiness. Virtue coordinates human energies under the control of reason or of reason enlightened by Divine faith. Vice dissipates human energies in the random impulses of the sense appetite. Virtue gives a man peace within himself, with God and with his fellow-men. Vice sets a man at war with himself, with God, and with his fellow-men.

    As VIRTUE IS A GOOD HABIT, so vice is a bad habit. As good acts form a virtue or good habit, so bad acts form a vice or bad habit. As virtue disposes human powers to good acts in accord with reason, so vice disposes human powers to bad acts against reason.

    SIN THEN IS BOTH the cause and the effect of vice. Sin or evil actions lead to the formation of vices or bad habits. Vice in its turn leads to further sin. Therefore the primary cause of unhappiness in human life is sin.

  170. TFH says:

    For one thing, Jenny Erikson is the poster-slut for how many women who think they are staunch conservative Republicans (see her hypergamous pictures with Mitt Romney) are still outright feminists, who have ability to see the inherent contradictions in their views. I bet she truly thinks ‘gay marriage’ is a bigger disincentive to straight men entering the institution of marriage, than people like her. I also bet her views on socialism and redistribution don’t extend to not taking assets and alimony from the husband.

    Also, it is not often that a man-jaw is so pronounced, but this woman is too much. She might as well be Vincent ‘the Chin’ Gigante in drag.

    She is far too unattractive, on top of being a single mother, to get anywhere in the San Diego dating scene. Southern California still has women who are a lot more attractive than what one would find in the interior US. She has no chance…

    On top of being a single mother, with articles like this bound to turn up on Google (which was thwarting her dating life even before this article).

  171. Pingback: God never tells a woman to violate His commandments, not even if she is really, really unhappy. | Sunshine Mary

  172. 8to12 says:

    After reading her blog on the Keurig, I’m just shaking my head.

    It’s Just an Appliance…I think

    * He got the Keurig (a $100 coffee maker) in the divorce.
    * She decides she wants it, and asks him to give it to her. He agrees.
    * Instead of giving her the old Keurig, he buys her a brand new Keurig and gives it to her.
    * She gets mad that he bought her a new one instead of giving her the used one. As she put it:

    So the dude bought me a new Keurig, which then of course brought up all of these new questions like — what the hell? I could’ve just bought a new Keurig. We don’t have the money for a new Keurig. Why couldn’t he just sacrifice the Keurig for me? Why does he always insist on his own way?

    He could have given her the old one and bought a new one for himself (or he could have told her to stick it when she asked for it to begin with), but instead he did something nice for her. The result? She gets mad at him. One more bit of proof that being a nice guy doesn’t work.

  173. Michael says:

    @ TFH

    “She is far too unattractive, on top of being a single mother, to get anywhere in the San Diego dating scene. Southern California still has women who are a lot more attractive than what one would find in the interior US. She has no chance…”

    I second this 100% from Los Angeles (beach side).

    Even if she lost all that weight attended gym/fitness classes, vegetarian only diets, health store regimines / anti aging supplements (HGH etc) SHE HAS TWO KIDS STRAPPED TO HER HIPS. Not to mention the fact she has proven herself a TURNCOAT and FRIVORCER and layed it out for all the world (including her children when they grow up – at least they will see the truth about mommy) to see.

    The best she could get out here is to be used as a booty call by “mommies new friend” while her children in the next room hide under the bed sheets in horror.

    I will bet ANYONE ON THIS THREAD she believes her market value is virtually unchanged.

  174. Bee says:

    @Michael,

    “Not to mention the fact she has proven herself a TURNCOAT…”

    I like the your description of her as a turncoat. She has stabbed her husband, children, and close relatives in the back. There is a reason God says that divorce is “treachery”.

  175. Anonymous age 71 says:

    For Dalrock: Today in First Baptist Church in McAllen, the pastor was talking about his mother having a wreck when he was a small boy. He hit the windshield and bounced into the back seat.

    He commented that his skull was split from here to there, then he said, “That will help you understand a lot about me.” Or something like that. And, laughed. In fact, everyone but me laughed.

    clearly implying he is goofy, or that is how I took his “joke”.

    Disgusting. Gotta’ portray himself as brain damaged to please the dearies, I guess.

    It wasn’t funny.

  176. Anonymous says:

    Non-thinking, hypergamous bored ‘ho letting her “tingles” do the walking ’cause “something had been missing long time” making her “not haaapy”… she has a lot of nerve calling herself “conservative” when she lives by no principles other than her loins.

  177. “So the dude bought me a new Keurig”

    This is the guy she claimed is a great father, that she wants to stay friends with, right? And he’s already “the dude” in public writing? Yeah, I’m sure her kids aren’t picking up on that disrespect at all.

    It always amuses me when women claim they’re going to stay friends because he’s really a good guy (just not good for her) and father, or that they never bad-mouth the ex in front of the kids. It’s always such a lie. Some do manage to keep it amiable, but I’ve never seen a divorcee completely avoid calling the ex names in front of the kids. It’s understandable: if she didn’t want to call him names, she wouldn’t have divorced him.

  178. Buck says:

    RE:
    Anonymous says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    “Non-thinking, hypergamous bored ‘ho letting her “tingles” do the walking ’cause “something had been missing long time” making her “not haaapy”… she has a lot of nerve calling herself “conservative” when she lives by no principles other than her loins.”

    Her politics/religion/family etc are secondary to the SPOTLIGHT…
    I’m pretty sure she is loving all this blog attention, she is the quintessential attention whore.
    Come on folks, she has a blog…a forum where she drones on and on about HER life, HER struggles, HER kids, HER marriage, etc.
    Hate to break it to ya, but most people live pretty boring lives.
    All this blog attention is getting her moist. This on-line world IS her world.
    Total self absorption is evidenced in many way;
    suicide attempts…notice me
    tattoos…notice me
    wild promiscuity…notice me
    divorce drama…notice me
    relationship drama…notice me

    When someone has no God or eternal frame of reference, if the here-and-now is all there is, then the need to create drama becomes a very logical ploy, as pathetic and damaging as it may be.

  179. TheAntigrrrl says:

    I am with SSM, it is really hard not to hate this woman. The more I read her blog, the more I want to punch her in the face. How can she write all that crap down and have not one iota of recognizing what a complete …something…she is. Boggles me.

  180. Edwin says:

    She’s obviously out of line, but I gotta say her pastor was in fact a dick, and her husband didn’t help by insisting that they keep going to that church.

    The guy freggin bothers you and meets with you for shopping for lingerie? What the hell?

    I appreciate that this is at least one church/pastor who doesn’t put up with divorce, but will all such churches/pastors ALSO be such a nonsensical dick?

    Is this what Christianity has come to? Either you’re crazy mormon-like psycho or you totally accept any level of divorce, alimony, keeping kids away from the Dad, and not getting re-married to keep the alimony?

  181. Edwin says:

    Sorry, I wanted to add “is there no middle ground?”

  182. greyghost says:

    Is this what Christianity has come to? the answer is no, however the Christians that practice Chritianity are now practicing churchian. They just still call themselves Christian.

  183. TFH says:

    however the Christians that practice Chritianity are now practicing churchian. They just still call themselves Christian.

    This is exactly the same thing as Marriage 2.0 still being called ‘Marriage’, even though the laws are so different from what any traditional society would consider remotely sustainable.

    This is why SoCons still want to shame men into ‘marriage’, while refusing to see that there could be a difference between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 (which should not be called ‘marriage’ at all, but rather a ‘politicized relationship contract’).

  184. As noted by a commenter above, this woman thinks her SMV is unchanged after 10+ years and two daughters by her first husband. Absolute delusion. Also, she suffers from depression, which she self-medicates with alcohol. I know, because it takes one to know one.

  185. 8to12 writes:
    * He got the Keurig (a $100 coffee maker) in the divorce.
    * She decides she wants it, and asks him to give it to her. He agrees.
    * Instead of giving her the old Keurig, he buys her a brand new Keurig and gives it to her.
    * She gets mad that he bought her a new one instead of giving her the used one. As she put it:

    “So the dude bought me a new Keurig, which then of course brought up all of these new questions like — what the hell? I could’ve just bought a new Keurig. We don’t have the money for a new Keurig. Why couldn’t he just sacrifice the Keurig for me? Why does he always insist on his own way?”

    –lolzlolzlzlzolz Yes, and savor that delicious “We don’t have the money for a new Keurig.” “We”? WE?! Yes, she assumes the prerogative to dictate to him his spending, from the imagined platform of the now nonexistence “we”. (Well, just imagine the political economy of the house before the frivorce.) And, of course, she prefers that he should “sacrifice”– just go without coffee, you dull beta boy!– for her. Oh, why can’t he just read her mind? Why oh why can’t he understand what makes her haaaapy?

    Now she’s saddled with some damn dirty brand new coffeemaker, which spoils her rich aroma with the sad fumes of clinging betatude, while that indifferent needy bastard gets to enjoy coffee of his own. The nerve . . . .

  186. Note in particular: “I could’ve just bought a new Keurig. We don’t have the money for a new Keurig.”

    –The semantics of this kills me. >IWe< don't have the money" . . . .

    If she goes and buys it, she's Miss Independent. But if he goes and buys one, it must be with (so she necessarily implies) *our* money. In one breath she asserts that the expense would be nothing to her, but yet is crippling for this post-couple which somehow lingers on in the financial imagination (but don't the courts agree?) as a real couple.

    I agree with what someone said above, that she probably maintains this "wonderful father to my children" schtick because her conservative-blogger bona fides compel it, but she must be horndogging for alimony, if only as another way to hound the poor man.

  187. Cane Caldo says:

    @Edwin

    but I gotta say her pastor was in fact a dick, and her husband didn’t help by insisting that they keep going to that church.

    The guy freggin bothers you and meets with you for shopping for lingerie? What the hell?

    I appreciate that this is at least one church/pastor who doesn’t put up with divorce, but will all such churches/pastors ALSO be such a nonsensical dick?

    Is this what Christianity has come to? Either you’re crazy mormon-like psycho or you totally accept any level of divorce, alimony, keeping kids away from the Dad, and not getting re-married to keep the alimony?

    On the basis of the words of a sociopath woman who:

    1) divorced her husband for unspecified reasons
    2) tells multiple other church members about her secret but upcoming divorce; throwing them in the path of multiple sins
    3) goes on national television to defend her decision to take her daughter shopping at Victoria’s Secret

    you have formed your conclusion that the pastor is a dick.

    If the pastor is a dick for opposing that, what does it make you for taking it?

  188. Edwin says:

    dude, GTFO, the pastor sounds like a jerk-off. Whining that you took your kids to Victoria’s Secret, and even demanding a meeting with you? I’d punch the guy right in the face
    What’s so bad about taking your kids shopping to Victoria’s secret? Do you really think they understand the “sexy” aspect of it? Just tell them it’s an underwear store and they’ll go bac to playing their gameboy and picking their noses and shit. They sure as hell don’t want to go shopping so they’re totally oblivious. I think the kids will survive. The store is NOT “pornographic”

    Severe reprimand for just trying to deal with two kids?
    Getting pissed about suggesting a nursery?

    Who is this guy, Ralph Kramden? What the hell?

    She’s a bitch for leaving him (then again, so far we don’t know ho much alimony she’s asked for), but this guy wasn’t helping by insisting they go to that church despite her pleas

  189. ybm says:

    edwins a chick, rack it.

  190. Blake says:

    Then I remembered that ‘we’ don’t have money anymore. We’re legally separated, which means that he has his money, and I have my money. Well, he pays support, so technically it was his money, but you know what I mean. And the dude bought me a Keurig, when he could have given me mine and kept the new one for himself.

    Translation: I think I may have f’d up by leaving such a kind hearted man.

    I mean, it’s not like we’re getting back together or anything, but I think it shows that he cares. And that could be a rekindling of a friendship.

    Translation: I need to squelch any idea that I f’d up by leaving.

  191. Cane Caldo says:

    @Edwin

    Dude, you’re being a numbskull. She took her daughter shopping at VS; as in: For her daughter. If you think nine-year old girls are clueless and uninterested in the power of sex then you don’t really know any nine-year old girls.

    Do you really think they [nine-year old girls] understand the “sexy” aspect of it?

    Understand? No. Are they chomping at the bit to understand; as in they can already tell this is something to aspire to, and that there is power and desire within the realm of sexiness? Most definitely. Sasha Glassman laid one on me in first grade while I was in the listening to a book recording. First grade is five-to-six-year olds. Newsflash: Girls aren’t boys, and they aren’t innocent.

    Dude, did you see or hear the pastor’s actual words? No, you’re taking them on the testimony of the frivolously divorcing woman, i.e., a liar, a cheat, and a fraud concerning one of the most important decisions of her life. And you think she’s telling the truth on a BLOG, and in social media? You GTFO.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    Edwin, I posted this earlier:

    “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having cute panties and bras from the big girl store,” Erikson, of San Diego, Calif., told ” Good Morning America.”

    Victoria’s Secret is not the “big girl store”, it’s a women’s store. 9 year old girls are not women.

    Who discusses their daughter’s choice in underwear with anyone, especially national TV shows?

    How boneheaded do you have to be to do these things?

    And an addendum: if Erickson wants her daughter to get knocked up before her 18th birthday, she’s definitely on the right track. However, if she doesn’t want a teenaged babymomma in her family, then she’s on the wrong track.

  193. Edwin says:

    //She took her daughter shopping at VS; as in: For her daughter.

    OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH
    Then that makes the pastor’s anger seem more reasonable. I still wouldn’t be comfortable with some guy dictating stuff in my personal life. Then again, following your links apparently it was a whle public TV thing, whih is kinda messed up. If it were really that big a deal for him he should have just kicked both her and her husband out as an embarassment to the church. Somerhing about stringing them along still makes it seem like maybe he just likes being a dick. You could call it “forgiveness”, but often it actually works from a self-righteousness and moralizing standpoint on the part of the “forgiver”.

    Even assuming she’s blowing the two kid-related examples out of proportion, there’s still the one where she’s saying he publicly stated (on her facebook wall*) that he said she was in violation of Romans 13 by being involved in the Tea Party.
    Invlovement in the tea party? No pastor should be that involved in their followers’ personal lives. Please.
    I re-iterate, the guy sounds like a dick, and the husband wasn’t helping by staying at that church despite her pleadings.

    The whole situation sounds screwy to me. Just a conflagration of jerk offs everywhere. Her obvious self-centeredness did not responds well and broke the straw on the camels back

  194. Dalrock says:

    @Edwin

    Even assuming she’s blowing the two kid-related examples out of proportion, there’s still the one where she’s saying he publicly stated (on her facebook wall*) that he said she was in violation of Romans 13 by being involved in the Tea Party.
    Invlovement in the tea party? No pastor should be that involved in their followers’ personal lives. Please.
    I re-iterate, the guy sounds like a dick, and the husband wasn’t helping by staying at that church despite her pleadings.

    Given that this is a woman who sees herself as the wronged party since she wasn’t able to fully ambush her husband with a frivolous divorce, why are you giving her and not the pastor the benefit of the doubt? No matter what she does, no matter how terribly she is treating others, she sees the others as at fault and treating her badly.

    She doesn’t give us the actual details of the facebook incident which has so many panties all bunched up, so I’ll offer an example where her story might be “true” in her own mind, but the pastor was in the right. If she was on facebook ranting about how government doesn’t have the right to tax us, we’ll revolt if they do x,y, or z, etc. would her pastor be in the wrong for leaving a reply to the effect of “Keep in mind what Romans 13 says about Christians being subject to governing authorities”. Do you doubt she would frame that exchange exactly the way she did? Keep in mind this is the woman who when her husband bought her a new coffee maker, she went online and wrote about how he had wronged her. Think about it.

    When we know the details her claims of victimhood are clearly absurd, yet when she withholds the details you want to give her the benefit of the doubt. Why?

  195. Edwin says:

    I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt, I’m just saying her accounts taken at face value do paint the picture of a dick pastor.
    Though I suppose your point is also very likely to be correct. That’s how people like that operate. It’s like the “fish dicks” episode of South Park, the one with Kanye West

  196. Mark says:

    I just went over to Jenny’s Blog to have a quick read……The comments!!!!!……LOL!…….Love them! I see a lot of guys from here commented…Good Work Guys!

  197. Mark says:

    @Deti

    “”Jenny Erikson is just another example of how feminism has completely overtaken and destroyed the North American Church””

    Agreed!….If you want to see an even worse picture of feminism I invite you to attend a Synagogue sometime.There you will find the “Leaders” of the Feminist Movement!

  198. Anonymous Reader says:

    Edwin
    I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt, I’m just saying her accounts taken at face value do paint the picture of a dick pastor.

    So you are not giving her the benefit of the doubt, you’re merely assuming everything she says is true…

  199. EJ says:

    Dang – y’all are gossiping just like a bunch of old biddies across a back fence.

  200. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock and Edwin

    I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt, I’m just saying her accounts taken at face value do paint the picture of a dick pastor.

    You are “just saying” that now. Before you were “just saying” that the pastor was a dick; in a manner as if you knew. Like Dalrock, I want to know: “Why?”

  201. TFH says:

    Edwin might very will be the other man that Jenny is slutting it up with. The pastor knows that Edwin is a party to the adultery, which is why Edwin has a vendetta against the pastor (who appears to be highly regarded by the rest of the church).

    Jenny sent Edwin here to do some attempted damage control (which is not working).

  202. Then that makes the pastor’s anger seem more reasonable. I still wouldn’t be comfortable with some guy dictating stuff in my personal life.

    Then by all means find a nice, modernist church where the pastor just gives sermons about vague platitudes and never confronts anyone about actual sin in their lives or gives them specific instruction on how to live more virtuously. There are plenty such churches available, in every possible denomination.

  203. Edwin says:November 24, 2013 at 10:41 pm
    I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt, I’m just saying her accounts taken at face value do paint the picture of a dick pastor.

    Since you’re ignoring the comments from other parishoners who say the pastor is anything but a “dick”, you are giving her more than the benefit of the doubt.

  204. WillBest says:

    I tried to point out on her post, but I doubt it went through. Google isn’t limiting her potential. Single mom, that will mommyblog about you to a few thousand strangers, and 90% of all the baggage is something that has to come out before extracting commitment from another man,

    Her real problem, and the thing she was hating on the Pastor for, is the loss of control. She doesn’t get to dictate how and when a man finds out stuff about her and doesn’t get to photoshop the event so to speak even if she wasn’t planning to outright lie about it. That scares her because it robs her of one of the primary single mother delusions “if they only get to know me first”.

  205. APB says:

    “To every person that has insinuated or even flat-out accused me of sinning by separating from my husband after years of prayer, reflection, denial, realizations, more prayer, begging, and even more prayer — please un-bunch your pious panties and go read Matthew chapter 7. There’s something in there about a log and speck you might find particularly interesting.
    ========

    Is that the best she can do?

    The Bible has plenty of quotes proclaiming one AS A SINNER for NOT judging.

    At lease she can’t really claim to be a Christian if she can’t grasp that basic tenet of Christianity…especially if she stopped at Matt 7:1.

    http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm

    Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

    This is the verse so many use to try to shame Christians for discerning poor behavior, ethics, morals, and values: the “judge not lest ye be judged” verse. So many times people, mostly teens have emailed us saying “judge not lest you be judged” regarding our analysis reports which reveal to their parents the content of movies. Using only Matt 7:1 is entirely incomplete. This verse is not speaking to not judging at all — it is speaking to not judging unfairly or any other cheap and selfish way. Read the rest of the story …

    Matt 7:2-5 “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, His judgment of us will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense thinking of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother’s eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin].” At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

  206. an observer says:

    What she said:
    “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

    What she meant:
    “Look what you made me do!”

  207. Norm says:

    How dare the pastor act like a congregation leader would have 2000 years ago. Keep up with the times. ;). If Christian leaders would never have comprimised with society (especiallly during the 60s and 70s) we would be better off. But this was foretold. We are where the Roman Empire was during the mid to late 400 AD pereiod.

  208. Feminist Hater says:

    Wait, what?! This bitch complained because her ex-husband brought her a new coffee machine? I can’t even…

  209. Feminist Hater says:

    Well, he might as well have defended the pastor considering she had another 999 reasons she was still going to divorce his candy ass.

    You see, you see how easily a woman can change? She was all about staying through the difficult times and making the marriage work, she was supposed to be that woman! Yet, she dismissed the marriage so easily in the end. As if it was nothing. Her daughters didn’t matter, her vows didn’t matter, God didn’t matter. No woman, not Dalrock’s wife, not SSM, not any single woman will stay married to you if they don’t tingle. Notadamnone!

    Don’t get married.

  210. Ton says:

    It’s funny when tradcons/ socons fight

  211. earl says:

    Marriage used to be a contract. You know, the same thing as a piece of paper you sign agreeing to the terms on that piece of paper. I take that serious enough to read the whole thing before agreeing and understanding what it means to sign my name on there. You never know what might be hidden in the fine print.

    Women don’t play by those rules……..ever. Everything about them is hidden find print. Which is why they should never have that power.

  212. earl says:

    “Wait, what?! This bitch complained because her ex-husband brought her a new coffee machine? I can’t even…”

    The first one had sentimental value. Which apparently means more to bitches.

  213. @earl
    My ex-wife got our Keurig. I also bought her a 43″ TV, a Dyson sweeper, and some kitchen knives during the “swan song” phase of our divorce.
    Out of nowhere, she moved $10k of debt I agreed to pay in the divorce settlement onto her own cards, then lent me $15k from her credit cards after it was legally final when I had some unexpected (non-divorce-related) financial mishaps come up.
    She still has a box she keeps on her dresser with all the cards, notes, etc. I sent her last year. I’ve got no idea how her new man can stand that. And never underestimate the importance of hardcore game in a divorce… I didn’t think it would work, but it did.

  214. The first one had sentimental value.

    No, if he’d given her the old one and bought a new one, she’d have bitched about that. It goes back to what someone said about divorcees planning it for two years on average. Whatever the correct number, that’s a long time to build up a narrative in your mind about how it’s supposed to go. He’s supposed to go through the same emotional turmoil she’s gone through, alternately loving and hating her, fighting to keep her and fighting over the stuff. Lots of fighting, lots of drama. There’s probably supposed to be a failed reconciliation or two, showing how hard they tried to make it work (and perhaps offering some hot and angry make-up sex). In the end, things are supposed to cool into a platonic friendship, so he can come over and clean the leaves out of her gutters for her. The entire process should provide enough emotional ups and downs for a book, or at least a series of blog posts.

    He’s not supposed to just shrug and skip the drama by buying a second coffee maker.

  215. Hmm, let’s see… nine-year-olds being taken shopping to PINK by Victoria’s secret… check. Daddy’s not in their life as much anymore… check. Warm southern California weather and bikinis… check. My Angel Card (with VIP status) is fully paid up and ready for a shopping spree… check.

    Sounds like the smart bet here is to hit up San Diego in 2022, once mommy has finished training two innocent girls into how to be game-chasing sluts. (Hopefully they don’t inherit mommy’s manjaw, but instead some of their father’s softer features become more prominent.)

    @Edwin
    The above scenario is exactly what the poor pastor of these poor little girls was trying to accomplish. Victoria’s Secret is not a friendly place for little girls, and once you shop there as much as I do, you will be qualified to comment. Personally I’ve found it’s a good place to pick up high school seniors. Is that you what you want these little girls trained to do in 9 years?

  216. earl says:

    “She still has a box she keeps on her dresser with all the cards, notes, etc. I sent her last year.”

    Not surprising. For as much as women seem to hate us and want us out…they can’t seem to delete all the physical memories we bring them.

  217. earl says:

    “No, if he’d given her the old one and bought a new one, she’d have bitched about that.”

    True.

    That must be why you want to say as little as possible to women. Give her the old one, buy a new one and don’t tell her about it.

  218. feeriker says:

    Earl said Marriage used to be a contract. You know, the same thing as a piece of paper you sign agreeing to the terms on that piece of paper. I take that serious enough to read the whole thing before agreeing and understanding what it means to sign my name on there. You never know what might be hidden in the fine print.

    Women don’t play by those rules……..ever. Everything about them is hidden find print. Which is why they should never have that power.

    I really think that men could argue, with complete validity, that Marriage 2.0 today constitutes an adhesion contract (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract) and is thus legally unenforceable, null, and void.

  219. deti says:

    It’s now time to use pictures to help us understand this little drama. Key in this, however, is Leif’s role.

    Take a look at this photo of Leif Erikson (!!) and Jenny Erikson.

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/about/

    Jenny: Around 29 or 30 years old (that would make her around 34 now). Former party girl, probably a “reformed slut”. Was very cute in her early 20s. Probably holds a degree in communications or public relations. Liked her alcohol then just as she likes it now. Probably not a virgin when she married Leif. Currently going through YOLO and FOMO syndromes. Is currently very unhaaaaappy. Pose and facial feature analysis: She’s leaning into him, but has body turned away. Eyes have hard, steely gaze. Smile looks forced. Face is pudgy. Facial expression betrays all kinds of StrongIndependentWoman ™ and Idontneedaman attitude. This comes out in her writing, which drips with snark and sarcasm. This is the mark of a woman who isn’t truly living out a Christian walk. The fruits of the Spirit are among other things, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control. Her writing bears none of these things.

    Leif: Looks to be around 33 or 34 (would be around 38 now). Partied up a little in college but nothing major. A couple of serious GF but nothing he could make last. Works in some field in which he doesn’t get outside much. Probably an office job of some kind. Note the soft, doughy body; the pasty skin; the gentle, manicured hands with wedding ring prominently displayed; the permanent wave hairdo; the hipster glasses and goatee. Note especially the sad eyed squint and the broad, feminine smile. You can tell just by looking at him that he’s been thoroughly betafied. Nice guy, lifelong Churchian and a victim of the educational and spiritual malpractice perpetrated on millions of boys and young men.

    Leif bears his share of the problem. He’s beta through and through. He let Jenny rule the roost. He doesn’t stand up for himself. He probably doesn’t lead her in devotions or prayer the way she wants him to. He doesn’t bust a move and go for the sex he wants with his wife. He doesn’t plan anything, do anything or preside over anything. He never put his foot down; never told her no; never blasted through a shit test. He gave her everything she wanted. He told her how pretty she was. He was cloying and compliment-seeking with her. He let her control everything; let her take on the prominent role in the family. He let her go out on Girls Nights Out so she could party it up and relive her “glory days” and do who knows what else.

  220. greyghost says:

    I didn’t get all of that Deti but it does look like she has a boy friend and doesn’t like him at all.

  221. Casey says:

    This Jenny Erikson is the epitomy of feminist dogma.

    She is following the script of ‘Eat, Pray, Love’ perfectly….but she is only part way through the chapters. You know……she’s at the point in the book where you detonate your life and the lives of the loved ones around you.

    She is overweight & likes her drink……
    She is smart-mouthed & proud of it…….

    She has distanced herself from:
    1) her husband
    2) her daughters (referred to as Thing 1 & Thing 2…..would be a catchy Dr. Seuss reference if she hadn’t decided to destroy her family.

    In short, this woman is a failure as a mother, a wife, & a person.

  222. deti says:

    I forgot this crucial piece of analysis on Leif:

    Note his beta body language. There are some alpha elements (facing camera head on, shoulders and hips squared to camera). But, what negates those elements is the beta: He’s leaning into her, with head tilted slightly toward her.

  223. 8to12 says:

    The Tea Party connection here highlights an underlying issue that rarely gets talked about in the manosphere.

    It’s a well established (but no well known) fact that the Tea Party movement was organized and driven not by men, but by stay at home moms. Most of the major groups (like Tea Party Patriots) were founded by SAHMs. Why? Because they (unlike most men who work full time jobs) had the free time to do it.

    Political efforts rely on grass-roots volunteers; specifically people with a lot of time on their hands. The left/liberals rely on young people, college students, and those dependent on the state. The right/conservatives rely on SAHMs. Without a significant number of volunteers, political campaigns rarely succeed.

    If you wonder why tradcon politicians cater to women, this is it. Just like pastors, their careers depend on staying on the good side of large numbers of SAHMs. Taking the vote away from women wouldn’t make any difference, because tradcon politicans would still have to pander to SAHMs in order to secure their volunteer help with their campaigns.

  224. earl says:

    Leif needs to look like my avatar.

  225. 8to12 says:

    @deti,

    Leif also seems to have a number of strong points. He’s decent looking, not overweight, and I’m guessing that since he could afford to let his wife be a SAHM that he makes decent money.

    Just as he is, he’ll probably have women throwing themselves at him once the divorce is final (although they will probably be the 30+ carousel riders he should avoid).

    If he’d take the red pill, learn some basic game, and few hours each week working out he could probably have his pick of women. Plenty of women in their late 20’s would look favorably on that version of Leif.

    If she got upset with him buying a coffee maker, what will be her reaction when he hooks up with a woman younger and hotter than his wife? The headline on her blog will read something like “My Pervert Ex-Husband is Dating a Child–He’s 40 and she’s only 27.”

  226. Feminist Hater says:

    If she got upset with him buying a coffee maker, what will be her reaction when he hooks up with a woman younger and hotter than his wife? The headline on her blog will read something like “My Pervert Ex-Husband is Dating a Child–He’s 40 and she’s only 27.”

    Can’t wait to read that blog post. He actually seems like a really nice guy. He will end off better than her, far better in fact. This woman deserves all the pain and misery coming her way.

  227. deti says:

    8 to 12:

    All you said is very true. Note that what’s really going on here with Jenny divorcing Leif is his behaviors. All those behaviors are learned. If they can be learned; they can also be unlearned and modified.

    And about the Keurig coffeemaker – he’d have upped his chances with her if he’d just bought her a Mr. Coffee coffeemaker for $15 at the Wal-Mart. The domestic appliance equivalent of a bag of Skittles.

  228. Nunya says:

    “… there you go. My Pastor had actually told my husband, based on a fourth-hand rumor, without talking to me first, that I was planning.”

    The “rumor” was true.

    Women… They are insane.

  229. Mr Roach,

    Todd, I could not agree more with your sentiments above, and this is why the Ann Coulters and other shrill right wingers on mainstream TV are very off putting to me. I would never want to be with someone so aggressive, lacking in gentleness, and humility. It’s ugly. And while it may be “right wing” it is not conservative or traditional in any sense of the world. And this particular form of argument, that forswears logic, step-by-step analysis, and further deliberately shows disrespect to the listener is quite contary to the western tradition of rhetoric.

    That is the reason why I love Ann Coulter. She is so logical. And there is only one way to feel about no-fault-divorce, to recognize it as evil. There is no other way. Ann is a true Christian and would never divorce anyone. She doesn’t get married BECAUSE there IS no-fault-divorce. She is a WGHOW, can’t say I blame her.

    Ann Coulter is only off-putting to you because you are struggling with trying to please people who’s thinking is illogical. Don’t. Don’t do that. There is a reason to be aggressive, and to lack gentleness and humility about this. Have zero-tolerance for hamsterization.

    To the rest of you…

    Her love of Mitt Romney and her involvement in the Tea Party has nothing to do with Jenny’s antics. These are her only good qualities. She is a selfish b-tch who just happened to make the correct political choices, that’s it. That doesn’t make her a good person NOR does it make the Tea Party or Mitt Romney supporters bad people. Stop errecting strawmen.

  230. hurting says:

    Farm Boy says:
    November 24, 2013 at 10:10 am

    It is indeed a paradox how one can go from the penthouse to the outhouse even over time. I’ve come to the sad realization that my now legally ex-wife really did ‘settle’ for me. She was able to paper over her settling for a long time when things were still fresh and new (young children), but eventually she couldn’t hide her contempt anymore.

  231. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    Still having a hard time understanding the amicable divorce. Really having a hard time understanding how women can expect their husbands to be friends with them – even if they don’t take them to the cleaners in the settlement.

  232. earl says:

    Sure Leif displays beta behaviors in the photo…and should learn some game. But the important thing to keep in mind is that the loss of the feminine with Jenny is why this marriage crumbled. By all accounts Leif was doing the masculine thing.

    It used to be having a good job, being responsible, and having kids was what women looked for in a man….and while it’s not thrilling…it is also not boring. Now all we have is women trying to seek every thrill they can in their pointless lives.

  233. 8to12 says:

    Her comments on the cafemom dating post seem to indicate she has an inkling that her post-divorce life won’t be all that and a bag of chips.

    * She doesn’t have a job (the “I’m a writer” lie won’t work).
    * She’s dragging two young children in tow.
    * She has spent her entire adult life allowing someone else to provide for her (and likely expects any guy she gets involved with to do the same).
    * She frivorced her husband (no adultery, no abuse, no abandonment).
    * She made it clear her primary reason for leaving her husband was that he “oppressed” her; she’s going to want to wear the pants in any future relationships.

    But it’s all google’s fault, because google (just like her pastor) tells men the truth instead allowing them to remain in the dark so she can manipulate them.

    Anyone can see that the best thing that could happen would be for her to come to her senses, swallow her pride, cancel the divorce and go back to her husband. It looks pretty obvious though that this is a lesson she will have to learn the hard way, and she’ll learn it long after it’s too late to restore her marriage.

    Of course, then she’ll be mad at her ex-husband, because he didn’t wait for her.

  234. Feminist Hater says:

    Have to agree with IBB. The Tea Party links are red herrings. You’ll find over time, that the realisation of her marriage falling apart will make her turn around on her political ideals and become democrat. Mark my words.

    Women who are part of the Tea Party do so because they’re either married or want to be married to a masculine man rather than the government.

  235. Tam the Bam says:

    “Jenny sent Edwin here to do some attempted damage control (which is not working).”
    Ha! Good catch.
    And “he’s” just not doing it for her, so poor widdle Erikson Jenny has to wade in herself.
    “Dang – y’all are gossiping just like a bunch of old biddies across a back fence.”
    There’s that handy word again. “Gossip”. I feel so .. so .. .. shamed ..

  236. Marissa says:

    8to12@9:50a.m., interesting comment. An influx of Churchian types, especially women, in any political movement is bound to take its influence from such surges of estrogen. I have been involved in libertarian circles for the last 3 or 4 years and there is now a lot of hand-wringing over the participation of women (hand-wringing by women and spineless men). Apparently we’re all a bunch of sexists for not focusing on “women’s issues” and for having the gall to suggest women’s brains, and thus motivations, are different which is why the message of smaller government and personal responsibility does not appeal to them as much. I fear the additional women (and men who cater to them) will do the same thing that has happened to churches and “conservatism”: water down the message to meaninglessness. It’s like a plague of locusts devouring everything with which it comes into contact.

  237. Eidolon says:

    It’s an interesting irony that it’s relatively rare for men to behave in this way, even though it would be far easier and more practical for them.

    Most men who are worth anything, if you took everything they have and dumped them in a new city with one month’s rent, could probably get their lives up and running again almost immediately. Their skills, talents, and knowledge make them valuable to employers, and those things can’t be taken from them. Most would probably look for employment in their field of choice, and if it wasn’t immediately forthcoming they’d take a minimum wage-ish job to keep them afloat while they search. Within a few months they’d probably have a good-paying job again and be on their way to renewed success.

    Yet very few men do this, even when their wives make them unhappy. Primarily women do this, despite their lacking any marketable skills, and despite the fact that they now lack the qualities that made them attractive to their husbands in the first place.

    They’re like 65-year-old construction workers, kept on at their current job in appreciation of their previous dedication despite not being able to contribute much now, getting fed up because “they’re not taken seriously,” quitting, and trying to get a new job. Nearly all the things that made them valuable for the job are already used up, and they have little to offer a new employer.

  238. HawkandRock says:

    “Does anyone besides me struggle with hatred, which Christians are not supposed to have, for women like this? And has anyone noticed that a shockingly large percentage of women, even Christian women, are like Jenny?”

    I still struggle very much with anger toward my ex wife who was a Jenny. SAHM who met a stud at the gym and suddenly the last 8 years of our 10 year marriage (4 kids) became unbearable for her. No abuse, no adultery, no abandonment, no drinking, no drugs, … just a boring provider.

    I think what made me most confused and angry was the absolute outpouring of support she got for divorcing me from her family and from women I would have previously called friends. “Life is too short to be unhappy.” “You are so strong.” “So brave.” “Your kids will be better off with a happy mother.” etc. etc.

    If you have kids, once she checks out, there’s literally nothing you can do except roll over and get raped. Yeah…. ANGER.

  239. greyghost says:

    “Her love of Mitt Romney and her involvement in the Tea Party has nothing to do with Jenny’s antics. These are her only good qualities. She is a selfish b-tch who just happened to make the correct political choices, that’s it. That doesn’t make her a good person NOR does it make the Tea Party or Mitt Romney supporters bad people. Stop errecting strawmen.”

    Damn, I didn’t think I would ever say this about one of your comments. You have nailed it dead center. So what the tea party is SAHM, Of course women are self centered. What the fuck they are women. The best The MRM can hope for is that all men and the government and cultural institutions understand that. From there base laws and decisions as detached as possible from being based on pleasing women. Adam’s sin,the church’s sin and the folly of all civilizations is from listening to women and not listening to god or common sense and logic for you godless savages out there.

  240. @8to12 @Marissa Any political movement is doomed when men, as a whole, live under the thumb of their wives, or live in supplication to women. (E.g. MRA males, involuntarily celibate males, etc.)

    There is really no worthwhile solution other than mass suppression of women’s participation in public spaces as a whole. It’s a shame this means the NAWALTs don’t get to play, but that’s just the way life is.

    In times past, women who wanted to opt out of marriage were given the option to participate in, say, a convent, where their behavior could be patrolled by other women, and who ultimately came under the authority of a priest and the church which could shut down an unruly convent that was at risk of turning into a coven.

  241. Farm Boy says:

    It’s like a plague of locusts devouring everything with which it comes into contact.

    What do you expect? Women are built to garner resources.

  242. Farm Boy says:

    In times past, women who wanted to opt out of marriage were given the option to participate in, say, a convent,

    Or be a teacher or nurse, very worthwhile professions. Under the direction of men of course.

  243. Casey says:

    As if we needed any further proof that Dear Jenny is living out Eat, Pray, Cats to its fullest. See attached link.

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/30-things/

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/07/14/the-girl-with-the-bible-tattoo/

    Another (newly inducted) tatted up slut……going for her own mid-life crisis at age 30.

    She wants to be a bad-ass.
    She’s SO adventurous & intriguing, right lads?

    She is a burden the rest of society must bear.

  244. 8to12 says:

    @Feminist Hater says: “Women who are part of the Tea Party do so because they’re either married or want to be married to a masculine man rather than the government.”

    It wasn’t a coincidence that the Tea Party movement was all about economics, with virtually zero trace of social issues.

    Government social programs are, for the most part, wealth transfers from men to SINGLE women.

  245. TFH says:

    It wasn’t a coincidence that the Tea Party movement was all about economics, with virtually zero trace of social issues.

    The Tea Party had a pure, small-government message only for the first 3 months. After that, women started to get involved, and the flaw of the Tea Partiers was exposed. They were actually *excited* that 55% of Tea Partiers were women, when in fact the participation of women made their objectives unviable. The Tea Partiers were exposed as supplicating beta males.

    Women will never be in favor of shrinking government. Expecting women to want small government is like expecting government employees to want small government. There were even female Tea Party leaders who said that government spending that goes to women (that is, 70-80% of all govt. spending) should not be reduced.

  246. Farm Boy says:

    Her list of 30 things has nothing related to children.

  247. @Casey

    What struck me about that list is that I’ve done most everything on it at my tender age of 31… except for things that don’t apply to me, or are obviously stupid, like buying a lotto ticket, getting a tattoo, or being called a “babe” by Rush Limbaugh on the air. (Geez, her hypergamy is showing.)

    Now, skydiving and helicopter rides ain’t cheap… how is she affording all this when she can’t afford a new Keurig? Those things are $80 if you go to Bed Bath & Beyond with one of those 20% coupons they’re always mailing out!

    @8to12

    It’s also intriguing how Tea Partiers seemed awfully interested in same-sex marriage, despite their muteness on every other social issue. I myself have had arguments with women in the middle of a frivorce who asserted strongly how same-sex marriage will destroy the family… completely oblivious to their own family they’re destroying.

  248. Farm Boy says:

    So she now has a tramp stamp.

    Does not the bible prohibit tatoos?

  249. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, I admit, I had some hope for the Tea Party. However, it seems they were co-opted early by the SoCon Republicans and it has been kinda down hill from there. If Socialists are merely Communist lite then the current Tea Party is just Tradcon lite.

  250. feeriker says:

    Marissa said I have been involved in libertarian circles for the last 3 or 4 years and there is now a lot of hand-wringing over the participation of women (hand-wringing by women and spineless men). Apparently we’re all a bunch of sexists for not focusing on “women’s issues” and for having the gall to suggest women’s brains, and thus motivations, are different which is why the message of smaller government and personal responsibility does not appeal to them as much. I fear the additional women (and men who cater to them) will do the same thing that has happened to churches and “conservatism”: water down the message to meaninglessness. It’s like a plague of locusts devouring everything with which it comes into contact.

    This has already happened politically.

    To veer slightly OT, this illustrates perfectly why libertarianism that has been engineered into a POLITICAL movement cannot be anything other than an abject failure (the deterioration of the Libertarian National Committee over the last decade, the nadir of which was the nomination of BOB BARR [!!!!] in 2008 as the party’s presidential candidate, serves as the premier example of such failure). Too many people forget or ignore the fact that libertarianism, which is summed up in simplest terms as the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) in action, is by its very nature anathema to any form of politics. Politics, after all, is organized aggression on a society-wide scale. To politicize libertarianism is akin to committing sinful acts in order to ensure that Godly righteousness prevails. The means, by its very nature, undermines and render null and void the ends.

    To veer back toward topic, yes, it’s small wonder that the libertarian philosophy finds relatively few women as adherents. Assuming responsibility for one’s own behavior and the results therefrom, which translates into self-reliance and that as a matter of logical course also means application of the NAP, isn’t very popular with either sex, but is especially repellent to the sex that has been steeped in the entitlement mentality for generations.

  251. 8to12 says:

    @TFH,

    If government programs was a transfer or wealth from men to ALL women, then your statement would be correct. But it’s not. The one group of women that are net losers in the government “spread the wealth” scheme is stay at home moms. They were willing to campaign for smaller government, because they were the one group of women that was actually paying for (instead of benefiting from) larger government.

  252. greyghost says:

    The tea party being a SAHM thing was a good thing. Wicked selfishness of women playing the broken clock thing and being good helpers to their husbands. Not for any noble reason of freedom, god, country, fairness, love, none of that o anything else. That is how a responsible man runs shit. The smartest thing for an MRA type would be to join the tea party and push those politicians. Use them bitches as a club against the liberals as they have used them against you.

  253. @ Bluedog:

    For me MGTOW is about self-preservation. I’m not attempting to form a “strike” against women or relationships. Each person must weigh the cultural risks and choose accordingly. At my age MGTOW is not as difficult to live as it would be for young men, so I therefore hesitate to offer advice to young men regarding this type of life choice.

    Amazing the amount of animosity men and women have against each other. Our innate differences are not taken into account by mental health “professionals”, or by our professional politicians who make up the laws and rules. Women have all the advantages from both these sources.

  254. Opus says:

    It is all too easy to lay into Ms Erikson. Sadly she does not use her own web site much. As I said she prefers Twitter which she bothers a number of times a day. Is she in some way important? – for as I said she has 10,000 followers, not exactly in the Alan Sugar or Stephen Fry class (a few million) but even so…

    I suggest making her life miserable on Twitter is the better option, and right now – up this last hour – she has had the nerve to assert that Porn (for men of course, not the female 50 Shades of Rapety rape variety) is adultery – talk about casting the first stone or judging not. Someone (not myself, as I cancelled my Twitter account when I figured it would not be long before I upset HMG sufficiently as to run the risk of imprisonment) has thus made a cutting remark thereto about her Divorce. You can do the same. On the other hand it probably gets her off, as victim and feeds her narcissism.

    I have noticed in her writing a tendency to objectify. I of course did not realise that Thing 1 and 2 was a reference to Dr Seuss (I don’t think we have him) but it still struck me as an odd way to refer to ones children, and then she looked her husband in the ‘eyeball’ – we normally say eye, meaning a meeting thereby of minds. Eyeball is too clinical.

    Typical thirties divorcee I would say unaware that freedom does not mean increased SMV. She will be in for a shock I suspect. I thus predict soon a change of politics, and a kinder softer church – the Democrats seem more to her present style. In the meanwhile she has the distinction as a person excommunicated of joining a select club of largely men.

  255. TFH says:

    8to12,

    The one group of women that are net losers in the government “spread the wealth” scheme is stay at home moms. They were willing to campaign for smaller government, because they were the one group of women that was actually paying for (instead of benefiting from) larger government.

    Tea Party women just want brutal childimony laws and other mechanisms that make Marriage 2.0 a form of tight slavery. In other words, their message is “what my husband earns should not go to other women. Only to me!”. At the same time, they would never agree that their husband can be allowed to work fewer hours.

    Democrat women : All men should be taxed to pay for all women.
    Tea Party women : My man should be taxed to pay for ONLY me and not other women, even if I leave him and take the kids. He should continue to pay ME!

    Plus, it has been documented that lefty women have also infiltrated the Tea Party, based on the fact that some Tea Party female leaders openly state that government spending on women should not be reduced.

    No small-government movement can have substantial female participation. Only a few like Ann Coulter could participate in a way that didn’t destroy the small-government goal.

  256. TFH says:

    Opus,

    but it still struck me as an odd way to refer to ones children,

    When the purpose of children is nothing more than :
    a) Social status props
    b) Conduits via which to extract payments from the man, under penalty of imprisonment, while making this theft/slavery look honorable via use of ‘for the children’.

    In the US, ‘child support’ is always a percentage of the man’s imputed income, not any fixed dollar amount. The woman has no accountability on how she spends it, and is not required to spend it on the child. Under the Bradley Amendment, a man is imprisoned if he is unable to pay, even if he loses his job in a recession. It is a sordid industry that keeps all sorts of ‘social workers’ employed, and divorce attorneys collecting fees for years after the divorce.

    It is the most unjust law in America in the last 140 years.

    The US divorce rate would plunge if only a) custody was joint instead of defaulted to the mother, and b) if ‘child support’ was paid in the form of vouchers that could only be spend on the child, rather than cash without accountability.

  257. Casey says:

    @TFH

    Spot on!

    Child support is nothing but a mechanism to get cash into a woman’s hands…..where she will soon spend it on HERSELF.

    This nonsensical argument that women are somehow ‘givers’ rather than ‘takers’ is utter bullshit.

    A child is NOT better off in a single-mom headed household.
    They are in reality at a significant disadvantage.

  258. Casey says:

    @ TFH

    I also agree with the accountability statement.
    That is something NO woman wants……accountability.

    Lack of accountability is THE single point that shows feminism to be what it truly is…..CLAPTRAP.

    Equality/authority does NOT come without responsibility. Yet it is this responsibility portion of the equation that women rail against; and are in a continuous state of busying themselves to foist responsibilty for their own reckless actions upon someone else.

    Kick out the false stilts upon which women elevate themselves, and you would suddenly find a more HUMBLE North American woman.

  259. Feminist Hater says:

    For some reason, even if the stilts were kicked out from under them and they became more humble, they would still be a waste of time. The biggest problem that feminism heaped on women was allowing men to realise exactly what they are. It removed the mask.

  260. Mark says:

    @Deti

    Great analogy of that family portrait! I look forward to seeing Leif within the Manosphere very soon!

  261. MarcusD says:

    “If she got upset with him buying a coffee maker, what will be her reaction when he hooks up with a woman younger and hotter than his wife? The headline on her blog will read something like “My Pervert Ex-Husband is Dating a Child–He’s 40 and she’s only 27.””

    So often when women make mistakes (which is to say, a deliberate course of action that they came to regret), and they were under about 25 years of age, they were “children” when they made them.

    I can’t help but notice the weird dissonance in the descriptions. Women supposedly mature faster, and are legally adults at 18, but if they make mistakes at say, 24, they were “children.” There’s little doubt in my mind that they were allowed to make those mistakes as “adults” but then somehow have the ability to revert to infantilization as a defense. In fact, I think I’ll call it the “infantilization defense”.

    As always, fighting for the best of all worlds.

  262. You know what makes me laugh about this Dalrock. She posted this back in June and got a ton of shrews and manginas cheering her on. Then months later you find it, and through you the manoshpere proceeds to unleash hell with a beautiful combination of cold logical arguments and good old fashion trolling. You’re doing the Lord’s work Dalrock, keep it up.

  263. MarcusD says:

    Twitter confirms a variety of suspicions about Leif: https://twitter.com/Tremorden

    (Quite enlightening.)

  264. Still having a hard time understanding the amicable divorce.

    I don’t get it either. Once sex is out of the picture, what’s the point of staying friends? If there are kids, you should be polite and respectful in front of them, of course, but beyond that, why try to maintain a friendship?

    There’s no question that “we’ll always be great friends” is a critical part of the break-up/divorce narrative for many, many women, though. I suspect it adds a chapter of redemption to cap off the story.

  265. Have to agree with IBB. The Tea Party links are red herrings.

    Damn, I didn’t think I would ever say this about one of your comments. You have nailed it dead center.

    Thank you very much FH and greyghost.

    8-to-12

    Government social programs are, for the most part, wealth transfers from men to SINGLE women.

    Correct. The premise here is twofold: #1) these women can not possibly find a man that would marry them for a lifetime so of course tax those same men who refuse to fall on the sword and #2) since the 19th Amendment, this is the best way for liberals to win elections.

  266. Marissa says:

    I clicked on the Twitter link and noticed the abandoning Mrs. Erikson’s picture–she looks like she’s lost quite a bit of weight. Methinks she understands the SMP better than she lets on, no?

  267. Casey says:

    @ Marissa,

    Maybe……but more likely she has posted a 5 year old (or more) picture of herself.
    Women lie like cheap carpeting when it comes to themselve & dating.

  268. Casey says:

    Even if she has lost the weight…….so what? It’s clear she’ll fatten up again in a new relationship.

    Meh!
    Pass

  269. Opus says:

    @Marcus D

    Re-tweeting your just-ex wife’s and her ghastly friend’s Tweets has got to be the ultimate in Beta-dom. Notice he was praising her to the sky only weeks before the split.

  270. Anchorman says:

    Wanted to wait until a Friday, huh?

    Grab the last paycheck, stash it in the second account she set up, and leave him flat-footed.

    Surprise!!! You’re now only part of your child’s life, so sayeth the government.

  271. 8to12 says:

    @MarcusD says: “Twitter confirms a variety of suspicions about Leif: https://twitter.com/Tremorden (Quite enlightening.)”

    It would be nice to contact him with the idea of pulling him into the red pill world and helping him. Maybe someone can tweet him and let him know his life is being discussed on a message board (and for once, it’s not a bunch of women patting his wife on the back for dumping him).

    If for no other reason he might end up being an example of how red pill thinking could help a man rebuild his world after a frivorce.

  272. Anchorman says:

    “Why does he always insist on his own way” says the frivorcing woman without a hint of irony or shame.

  273. Looking Glass says:

    I think the “amicable divorce” attempt by a lot of frivorcers comes down to wanting to rebuild their Beta Orbiters. If she can have a Beta Orbiter that was her husband (she’s demoted him in Status), it’s not a risk to her own status. Or so she thinks.

  274. Marissa,

    –she looks like she’s lost quite a bit of weight. Methinks she understands the SMP better than she lets on, no?

    She knows SMV. She is looking for a new man (or to please a man she already has) so she is dieting.

    I remember tyring to explain once (as a male representative on a women’s forum) why it was so important for women to stay thin (particularly if they want to “catch a man” they didn’t already have.) This was in two parts, first part emotional , second part physical:

    #1) men like to BRAG they they have a thin woman, they like them to show them off, gives them an emotional lift among other men whom they compete (alpha-beta) and
    #2) men are sexual perverts and think thiner = tighter, gives the men the physical lift of snaring a spinner because men think they are just better in bed

    The only ones on that other forum who were horrified by #2) were the fattest women on the forum. They proceeded to give me a list of links with supporting data telling me how wrong I was about #2. I kept telling them their links didn’t matter, it only mattered what men thought. Fat women telling men that being fat means they are tight is like GM and Chrysler executives (and UAW workers) telling the whole world their cars are the best because their cars win Car of the Year, even though they can’t sell enough of them to stay in business without taxpayer TARP money.

  275. MarcusD says:

    @8to12

    This is a situation where I wish there was some “Red Pill 101″ guide that eased people into the idea, rather than a rather large jump from society’s PoV to Red Pill.

  276. Feminist Hater says:

    Going according to his twitter, I wouldn’t have even been aware that his wife had divorced him…

  277. shinzaemon says:

    @ deti

    I really like your well thought out comments, but look at that picture. A plain looking rebellious woman like that does not DESERVE an ALPHA. I think applying game should be reserved for attractive and pleasant women.

    They deserved each other, I don’t think he owed her anything. The SMV looks equal to me.

  278. Boxer says:

    Going according to his twitter, I wouldn’t have even been aware that his wife had divorced him…

    All too typical among my acquaintances who divorce. The woman celebrates her good fortune (freedom, cash, prizes, and open seats on the carousel) publicly and with great fanfare. The man simply tries to keep up a good face and “take the high road”.

  279. All too typical among my acquaintances who divorce. The woman celebrates her good fortune (freedom, cash, prizes, and open seats on the carousel) publicly and with great fanfare.

    This is what’s happeneing to my brother-in-law’s ex-wife. She has already moved her boyfriend into the house she’s renting on my brother-in-law’s support check. Of course, she’ll never-EVER marry him and void the check. And because women vote, we have politicians who will make sure this process remains law.

    Repeal the 19th Amendment.

  280. Ton says:

    Nothing foreshadows the destruction of america like the notion supporting mittens romney is a net positive

  281. Feminist Hater says:

    Isn’t that just like the Repugs, bringing mittens to a glove fight…

  282. 8to12 says:

    @MarcusD,

    “No More Mr. Nice Guy” is probably as close as you get.

  283. Boxer says:

    8to12:

    “No More Mr. Nice Guy” was my induction. I did the exercise in which I reconnected with my father, to whom I had not spoken in years, largely because of my parents’ divorce. Then I found the NMMNG forums, where I was steered to roissy and inmalafide. The rest is history.

    Boxer

  284. 8to12 says:

    @FH,

    A lot of guys go easy prior to the divorce being final in hopes they “nice” their way back into her good graces and avoid the divorce.

    Little do they realize that this is the exact opposite of what they should do. He is reinforcing her fallback plan; the one every frivorcing wife has in the back of her head: “if things don’t work out, I can always get back with my ex after a few years, because he loves me and will always be there for me.”

  285. Ton, I really don’t know what your problem with Romney is. He’s had one wife. He stayed married to her. He’s made millions of dollars. He doesn’t support no-fault-divorce. He hates abortion. He hates illegal immigration. He hates taxes. He hates government and vowed to shut it all down (starting with PBS.) He hated ACA and vowed to give the entire country a Presidential waiver from it. He has identified Islam as the greatest threat to the United States. He’s had 5 sons and like 20 grandkids or whatever it is. And he could embaress the President in a debate that didn’t matter because the President’s voters were all going to vote for him anyway. What GOP candidate would you have taken over “Mittens?” Seriously? There were none better Ton.

  286. Pirran says:

    @Deti, Earl, 8 to 12, Cail, Marcus D

    Here’s the smoking gun…

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2011/07/12/my-wedding-day/

    And if you ever wanted proof of Roissy, Roosh and the Manosphere’s observations on clueless beta behaviour and female tingles, here it is:

    “Leif was my best friend in the entire world. He knew everything about me. He was my shoulder to cry on when I went on bad dates. I knew everything about him, and even listened to his work stories that I didn’t even understand because I don’t understand computers. But we were just friends.

    Seven months before I put on that white dress, we watched Life With Mikey. I have no idea why. But that’s the movie that we watched. When it ended, he leaned over and kissed me. I hit him. And then I said three words that changed everything.

    Do it again.

    So he did. And we kissed. For a while. And then, this man that I loved more than life itself, but only in a platonic fashion just the hour before, asked me to marry him.

    I said yes.”

    CH could not satirize this.

  287. Opus says:

    Oh my God.

  288. Seven months before I put on that white dress, we watched Life With Mikey. I have no idea why. But that’s the movie that we watched. When it ended, he leaned over and kissed me. I hit him. And then I said three words that changed everything.

    Do it again.

    So he did. And we kissed. For a while. And then, this man that I loved more than life itself, but only in a platonic fashion just the hour before, asked me to marry him.

    I said yes.

    She’s BPD.

    100 years ago, they either lobotomize women who exibit this behavior or the Catholic church performs the Rite of Excocism.

    She divorced her husband because she never loved him because only in the world of unicorns farting rainbows do you love a man more than life itself in a platonic fashion.

  289. She’s BPD.

    I think most US and Canadian women are.

  290. Michael says:

    @ Ton and IBB

    This is a good thread. I’m enjoying reading this.

    So please do not turn this into a political diatribe. What you two sheep don’t realize is both ruling political parties are virtually identical Both are corrupt. Both undermine the Constitution. Both are bought and paid for. Corrupt politicians are the natural byproducts of our morally defunct society. They are a stage fixture of empires in decline.

    I imagine similar conversations among the ancient Roman populace, preceding it’s downfall about which senator was better. However they were all corrupt and those few who were honest were sidelined and shut out just like they are today.

    So unless you support a third party please save your breath. Thank you.

  291. I think most US and Canadian women are.

    The more special we raise our women to be, coupled with those women growing and realizing that they are NOT that special, that they are NOT going to get everything in life that they always wanted, the more this Borderline Personality manifests itself. She is the only thing in her life that she cares about, she certainly doesn’t care about her kids and she resents her husband. Men who act this way eventually do something that lands them in prison. For women, we just give them no-fault-divorce and cash and prizes, that way it is only one man that is totally screwed for her useless lifetime support, not a state full of taxpayers.

    Where is that youtube scene or Sharon Stone going nuts in the front yard of Sam Rothstein’s/Robert DeNiro’s house because he stormed out of the house after he picked up his wife at her boyfriend’s restaurant, and then the police show up?

  292. “And then, this man that I loved more than life itself, but only in a platonic fashion just the hour before, asked me to marry him.

    I said yes.”

    Hmm, have we finally found that most elusive of beasts: the woman who married a man she wasn’t attracted to?

  293. Opus says:

    She was still a teen when she married. I wonder how Leif got to be in LJBF zone so soon, and I wonder also why she decided to marry him – could it be that she was sick of pump and dump and thought she could escape slut-dom by marrying her geeky-friend who up till then had received no benefits? She says he was her shoulder to cry on so probably she was being pumped a lot and dumped equally. Would I be correct in guessing that some Alpha had blown her out only hours or days before Leif’s proposal? Then (I am guessing) she (re) discovers God. Being big on morality is easy when you are married with children and spotless but now she needs one very large hamster to square her circle of treachery to her husband. Her blog sets out her view of herself which she wants to believe but there is that other part of her that craves cock – alpha dick – and now she is ready to return to the carousel.

    Notice also her admission of DV – now if I were Leif I’d be screen-saving that for my future custody fight. People who then promptly fall in love (immediately following a sexual assault or attempted rape) with the man they have been dragging around like a wet cat are clearly one loaf short of a sandwich.

    This is just getting worse and worse. :)

  294. Michael says:

    I read her husband is in I.T. (computers). I wonder what his salary is? I pray he is not hurt and punished by his turncoat wife and forced to pay for her as she lifts her legs (with the help of a small crane) for the next ____ in line.

    She can blog about being religious and conservative while her crane is lifting her thighs up in the next room as her innocent children have to hear “mommies new friend” making funny noises with mommie.

    I pray the father gets full custody.

  295. Eidolon says:

    Holy crap, that’s not normal woman crazy, that’s actual mentally-ill crazy.

    We all know the playful hit — “Honey, how do I look?” “Eh, you’ve looked better.” “Hey!” *playful hit*

    We know the “I don’t have proper impulse control” hit, when she’s really upset and doesn’t know what to do and just wants to express that she’s upset.

    But hitting a guy after a kiss? The way she says it doesn’t sound like a light, uncertain slap. It sounds like she actually hit him. And then turning around and demanding another kiss? That’s seriously messed up. I can’t really imagine the thinking that goes into that. I don’t know any BPD people, but it sure sounds like some sort of disorder.

  296. Casey says:

    GIRLS 101

    A woman SAYS whatever she FEELS!!!!

    The fact that her feelings change does not make her a liar. The fact that you took her word as fact…..also does not matter.

    Only men lie when they say shit & change their mind later. That’s a clear lie. How dare you mislead a woman like that.

    Anyway……to sum up ALL Women’s Studies Courses:
    WOMEN GOOD!
    MEN BAD!

  297. I pray the father gets full custody.

    You’re kidding, right? She’s alive and not in prison. She’ll get primary custody if she wants it.

  298. Boxer says:

    Holy crap, that’s not normal woman crazy, that’s actual mentally-ill crazy.

    No, it’s not a mental illness. Jenny Erikson isn’t pushing around a shopping cart talking to empty air about “aliens” or “the freemasons” or “the jews” or “the mormons”. If she were, I’d have a bit of sympathy for her.

    In reality, she’s found the same loophole all the other frivolously divorcing cunts have found, and she decided to exploit it. She’s lazy, of dismal moral character, and without any sort of ethical framework… but she’s not mentally ill.

    Regards, Boxer

  299. TFH says:

    Casey,

    Keep in mind that Republicans are the ones who are extremely zealous about jailing ‘deadbeat Dads’. Even in the case of Jenny and Leif Erikson, the typical ‘social conservative’ would be fine with her getting the money, having no accountability on whether she spent it on the kids, and jailing Leif if he fell behind in payments (even if due to a recession).

    This convinced me that ‘Social Conservatives’ are economic leftists, and are vastly more similar to Democrat leftists than they realize. They favor any and all redistribution, even one that is effectively an 80% tax rate, as long as the payer is a man and recipient is a woman. They will abandon any and all right-wing principles when the prospect of groveling to a woman presents itself.

    I mean, they think they can reduce single motherhood by punishing MEN.
    They think they can reduce abortions by punishing men (“abortion only happens because the man somehow failed the pregnant woman, so by giving her rights to his next 21 years of income, we might get her to relent on the abortion. Women, angels that they are, would never abuse this law, because I said so as a SocialConservativeEconomicLeftist”).

    For this reason, I can no longer vote Republican, and thus don’t vote at all.

  300. Casey says:

    Disorder……whatever.
    The women comes across as a rebellious child.

    She is “damaged-goods” in every sense of the word.

    * 30
    * Frivorced
    * Tendancy to be fat
    * 2 children in tow.
    * Unpleasant

    Where do I sign up for THAT deal?

  301. MarcusD says:

    CH could not satirize this.

    Always worth a try – I’ll send it to him.

    Notice also her admission of DV – now if I were Leif I’d be screen-saving that for my future custody fight. People who then promptly fall in love (immediately following a sexual assault or attempted rape) with the man they have been dragging around like a wet cat are clearly one loaf short of a sandwich.

    I saved a copy, and he’ll get it whenever he shows up into the manosphere.

  302. TFH says:

    MarcusD,

    This does exist :

    Wedded Abyss :

    http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

    The Misandry Bubble :

    http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

    Yes, it would be good if we became activists at this point, and reached out to Leif…….

  303. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    “I pray the father gets full custody.”

    Michael, for God’s sake…….you’re a lawyer. You know that isn’t going to happen.

    Better yet, this c*nt waited out the 10 year clock in California.
    You know what THAT means, don’t you?

    PERMANENT ALIMONY!!
    Even the f*cking child support will end when the girls are 22.

    PERMANENT ALIMONY….how sweet is that?.

  304. TFH says:

    My above two links are in response to MarcusD’s quote :

    This is a situation where I wish there was some “Red Pill 101″ guide that eased people into the idea, rather than a rather large jump from society’s PoV to Red Pill.

    Wedded Abyss is the briefest, easiest into. The Misandry Bubble is the longer version, and gateway to the androsphere for a first timer (or so was my intent).

  305. feeriker says:

    Michael said:
    What you two sheep don’t realize is both ruling political parties are virtually identical Both are corrupt. Both undermine the Constitution. Both are bought and paid for. Corrupt politicians are the natural byproducts of our morally defunct society. They are a stage fixture of empires in decline.

    Nailed it.

    THANK YOU!

  306. TFH says:

    Casey,

    Even the f*cking child support will end when the girls are 22.

    This is now extended until the children are 26 (twenty-six), under Obamacare. See The Spearhead for details on this sleazy trick that the feminists jammed through in Obamacare.

  307. They favor any and all redistribution, even one that is effectively an 80% tax rate, as long as the payer is a man and recipient is a woman. They will abandon any and all right-wing principles when the prospect of groveling to a woman presents itself.

    Neoteny

    Women MUST be cared for because they have VALUE.

    Men MUST care for them because they do NOT have VALUE.

  308. Pirran says:

    @MarcusD

    Talking of CH, one of his latest post seems, somehow, apropos.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/the-female-preference-for-badboys-quantified/

    You do wonder what would have happened to Sadboy Leif’s marriage if he’d just slapped her back and THEN kissed her. Badboy code-nerd Leif? Ah, no, perhaps not.

  309. You do wonder what would have happened to Sadboy Leif’s marriage if he’d just slapped her back and THEN kissed her.

    She’s BPD so she would have had him arrested. Then (a few months later) he’d have been in court and she would have pressed charges to the fullest extent of VAWA law. He might have had a felony conviction on his permanent record, but at least he wouldn’t have married her or had to support her. The bad thing is, his children would never have been born. That slap would have been a retro-active abortion.

  310. MarcusD says:

    @TFH

    Thanks for the links. That’s basically what I’m looking for. I think a directory of all relevant sites of the manosphere (i.e. short introduction + a blogroll with short descriptions). I guess I might just have to make it myself.

  311. TFH says:

    IBB,

    I hope you are seeing how a woman like Jenny Erikson (who calls herself a conservative, churchgoing, tea-partier) are greatly reducing the pool of next-generation men available to your daughter. This thread alone covers

    a) female selfishness
    b) female mental disorders around marriage and sexuality.
    c) female reduction of her own children to ‘things’ and ‘wealth/status extraction conduits’.
    d) the preposterously unfair laws a man would fall under in this day and age

    Now, even if your daughters are unlikely to behave like this, why should any man of their generation take the risk to find out?

    If you are worried about the prospects of your daughter getting married, Jenny Erikson (and women like her) are precisely your enemy. Not the men who choose to avoid their clutches.

  312. feeriker says:

    The bad thing is, his children would never have been born.

    Given the kind of wife and mother that she’s turned out to be, that might not have been a bad thing.

  313. Mark says:

    @Boxer

    “”Jenny Erikson isn’t pushing around a shopping cart talking to empty air about “aliens” or “the freemasons” or “the jews”””

    “”or “the jews”””……L*……Shalom!…….L*

  314. TFH,

    If you are worried about the prospects of your daughter getting married, Jenny Erikson (and women like her) are precisely your enemy. Not the men who choose to avoid their clutches.

    I know. That’s why I’m calling her out…

  315. TFH says:

    Casey,

    * 30
    * Frivorced
    * Tendancy to be fat
    * 2 children in tow.
    * Unpleasant

    You forgot the rather superlative manjaw. She might as well be Vincent ‘The Chin’ Gigante in drag…..

  316. unicornhunter says:

    @TFH The US divorce rate would plunge if only a) custody was joint instead of defaulted to the mother, and b) if ‘child support’ was paid in the form of vouchers that could only be spend on the child, rather than cash without accountability.

    In the state purple state where I live, the presumption is the custody will be joint. However, custody is defined as deciding things like elective surgery, where the kids will attend school, and under what religious tradition they will be raised. Parenting time is more likely to not be divided equally which then effects child support. Additionally, in more and more states, neither party can move the kids without going in front of the judge and I hear that more often than not the judges are telling the moving parent that it’s too bad they’re moving, but the kids aren’t coming with them. OK, I only know of one case, but the woman remarried and moved to a neighboring state and her son stayed with his dad.

  317. Mark says:

    @Michael

    (From Casey)……..””Michael, for God’s sake…….you’re a lawyer””

    You are an attorney. I think this thread deserves a “legal opinion” from yourself as to “Leif’s Predicament”(even though you might not practice family law) ….No offense my friend …….Just asking your professional opinion as an attorney and a resident of the State of California. Thanks.

  318. Opus says:

    The worst thing about her is neither the man-jaw nor the frivorce or even the fact that she tends to be fat but her unpleasantness. So many anglo-women (but not SSM) seem to regard unpleasantness as a desirable quality or at least perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour. Take just now on her Twitter. Mystic Philosopher has called her out and what is her response? – that HE is sick and needs help. This from the woman who justifies her behaviour by saying that one should not judge. Who are those twenty thousand followers of this dim-witted vile female?

  319. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”She might as well be Vincent ‘The Chin’ Gigante in drag…..””.

    …………My favorite Mafia Don.He walked around Manhattan in his pajamas & slippers…looking like an invalid for years.Leader of the Genovese Family. You have to give this guy credit.He fooled Government Shrinks for years…..while maintaining his powerful position.She is not even close to being someone of his demeanor,character,intelligence,ambition or drive!

  320. TFH says:

    Opus,

    Who are those twenty thousand followers of this dim-witted vile female?

    Other women like her, looking for validation and a template, for doing the same.

  321. HanSolo says:

    OT but some of you might be interested to see my post on the fact that 2013 never-married white female levels has reached all-time highs in every cohort from 20-49.

    http://www.justfourguys.com/2013-never-married-rates-reach-new-highs-but-change-might-be-coming/

    However, the 5-year marriage rates jumped for females from 20-34 so this may mean that the never-married % will level off or even slightly decline. Is it simply that the economy is a bit better now and all those pent-up marriages happened or are younger women cluing in a bit?

  322. John Galt says:

    @Jenny Erikson (rom the post Dalrock linked: “So I think that when I do eventually go on a date, it’s going to have to be with someone that already knows me better than Google does.”

    Yep, an admission she was already screwing around when she was contemplating frivorce.

  323. TFH says:

    HanSolo,

    That is what I have been worried about. As Dalrock has pointed out, quite a few men make little or no money, and so women don’t want them. It may not be the MEN who don’t want to marry. That also means that they would like up for slaughter if the economy improved to the extent that they made enough.

    So it is not a marriage strike. A ‘striker’ is only one who could easily marry, but has chosen not to (whether due to fear of misandric laws, or due to the supreme supply of casual sex available to men in the top 30-40% or so of status/game/attractiveness, or some combination thereof).

    We don’t know if any significant number of men are real strikers, or just men who were waiting to make enough, and then line up to marry the sluts…

  324. Pirran says:

    Just to add to the sum of sassy sincerity that is Jenny Erikson, here’s her post on teen serial train wreck Jenelle Evans latest beau on The Stir:

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/164667/jenelle_evans_man_turns_up

    “Nathan was blow-drying Jenelle’s hair for her. She said that she told him she’d go out to eat with him if he did her hair for her…….So let me get this straight? She got her man to do her hair so he could take her out to eat? That guy just might be a keeper, which is good, since apparently they’re house hunting.”

    Why didn’t you blow-dry my hair for me, Leif? WHY??? Don’t you know that’s the go-to behaviour for REAL men who REALLY care? Then you could have saved our marriage and we would be just like celebrity heroin abusing, DUI infested single-mom Jenelle and her latest hero???

    This woman is a plateful of OSSUM.

  325. HanSolo says:

    TFH, that is interesting. I have often thought that at least among the 20-29 y/o women that it is more the women that are postponing marriage than the men. Look at how during WWII you took a ton of young men out of the population (giving more power to the men) and the average marriage age dropped. It’s an interesting twist that the women may not have wanted to marry men during the Great Recession because the men weren’t earning enough.

    Plus, throw into the mix the fact that a lot of young singles were living at home so probably couldn’t afford to live on their own as a married couple if neither had a job.

  326. infowarrior1 says:

    Feminism is the waster sent to destroy:

    http://empathological.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/into-the-maw-of-the-matriarchy/

    There is a cancer growing in the church for some time:
    http://www.podles.org/files/Church-Impotent_Chapter6.pdf

    You will find links on my blog to another blog that charts the history of gynocentrism starting from the 12th century which coicides with the feminization of the church at the same century.

  327. Farm Boy says:

    * 30
    * Frivorced
    * Tendancy to be fat
    * 2 children in tow.
    * Unpleasant

    Where do I sign up for THAT deal?

    It can be had in any town or city in America.

  328. Bucho says:

    I checked his twitter feed pics and I noticed he was still wearing his ring on an 8/11 post.

    Also, he also refers to his kids as thing 1 & 2. I’m sure his kids will love that when they get older….

  329. Anchorman says:

    The “Thing 1″ and “Thing 2″ is not all that uncommon. I’ve seen kids wearing t-shirts, like those worn in Cat in the Hat. The kids probably think it’s cool. Just saying.

  330. race says:

    Anyone want to start a betting pool on who with and how long she’s been having an affair?

  331. MarcusD says:

    @Bucho

    Also, he also refers to his kids as thing 1 & 2. I’m sure his kids will love that when they get older….

    I’m thinking privacy is the concern.

  332. HanSolo says:

    My comment above should say 20-44 y/o white non-hispanic never-married rates have reached all-time highs. The 45-49 level dropped from 9.0% to 8.9%.

  333. GKChesteron says:

    I’m surprised none of you have noticed that _she kissed him as she prepared to betray him_.

    She is Judas come again. Which is why, while I don’t like the more inane dick comments on the blog, the hate of her should be visceral. Anyone that attacks the pastor (I’m looking at you Eric) is just evil.

  334. GKChesteron says:

    And by-and-by, I wouldn’t post on a site that evil if I were any of you. This is a woman that plotted to spear her children and kissed the man she claimed to love while walking out the door. What she would do to ANY information she can glean off of you should be considered problematic.

  335. Legion says:

    Cail Corishev says: November 25, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    My ex filed when my son was still 15. Took time to sell the house. Then when my son was 18 and out of high school, I moved from New England to the West.
    It was good to be amicable while we finished raising our son. I left because she still had expectations that I always told her wasn’t my problem.
    Yes, they really want the beta orbiter helper.

  336. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    November 25, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    I struggle even with the idea of cordiality with my ex, specifically because I have sons. Divorce, especially in the case of ongoing confiscatory child support and/or alimony, is not a single, transactional event. It is the repeated kicking in the nuts of a man by a woman with her willing accomplices. How does one just ‘take that’?

  337. hurting says:

    TFH says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Seconding this. The vast majority of people, including self-proclaimed conservatives (and there are very, very few true conservatives on either the fiscal or social axes), are at a minimum, woefully ignorant of the machinations of the domestic relations industry in this country and how incontrovertibly unfair it is to men. Men are mules to be harnessed for the benefit of others, namely women.

  338. hurting says:

    unicornhunter says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Presumptive joint legal custody means nothing unless accompanied by presumptive joint physical custody, the latter of which, as you seem to suggest, drives child support calculations. The real answer is presumptive legal and physical custody being awarded to the non-divorcing parent. Period.

    Never gonna happen.

  339. hurting,

    The vast majority of people, including self-proclaimed conservatives (and there are very, very few true conservatives on either the fiscal or social axes), are at a minimum, woefully ignorant of the machinations of the domestic relations industry in this country and how incontrovertibly unfair it is to men. Men are mules to be harnessed for the benefit of others, namely women.

    All true. All of it.

  340. hurting says:

    Boxer says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    Amen. We need to stop pathologizing dishonorable behavior (“sin to syndrome”). This (these) women are not mentally ill – they’re just unscrupulous.

  341. Jeremy says:

    “I’ve decided to betray you, so damn that pastor to hell for betraying me in my planned betrayal of you!”

    The mind boggles.

  342. imnobody00 says:

    Edit: To clarify, I don’t see this as an RCC vs Protestant issue. Both sides struggle greatly with this.

    Quite right. But there is one difference. In non-Protestant churches (Catholic, Orthodox and others), a believer does not feel entitled to shame a priest and do it speaking in the name of God. S/he knows s/he doesn’t have a spiritual authority to do that. When Luther democratized spiritual authority so every believer could interpret the Bible as he saw fit, he was (unconsciously) paving the way to the Church of the Holy Hamster.

  343. Keoni Galt says:

    Reading the first 20 or so tweets from both of their accounts gives enough clues about what went down in this particular frivorce.

    Here’s one of her tweets: “Married men: your porn habit is an adultery habit http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/11/25/married-men-your-porn-habit-is-an-adultery-habit/ … (I love this guy)”

    Followed a few tweets later with: “By choosing to not publicly delve into my soon-to-be-ex-husband’s sins. That’s between him and God now. :-)”

    And then “Thankfully I only have to justify my decision to God, despite what some people have tried to tell me. I’m good with that.”

    It seems readily apparent what happened here:

    Wife loses all tingles for her thoroughly beta-fied hubby after popping out Thing #2, and stops having marital relations with him for a long period of time.

    Then she catches him whacking it to teh Pr0n, which now gives her the personal approval and dispensation by God to get a divorce. This case is the perfect anecdotal example of the doctrine taught by the Sheila Gregoire Seminary of Feminist Churchianity and it’s specialty of preaching from the Book of Oprah.

    Mz. Leif actually believes God wants her to blow up her family through the Family Court system over her husband’s “adultery.”

  344. Jenny decides to rake Leifs. Then after she formed a pile she took flame to it.
    The city (Dalrock) came by and took great umbrage and injunctioned the burning, and she was issued a ticket, for which she took great umbrage, until she saw it was for entry to the family court.
    They compromised and sent one of those massive sucking trucks. Leif was mulched, combined with manure, and now, well, there is some greener grass on the other side of something.

  345. MarcusD says:

    “I got game! The game is ‘Sorry!'”

  346. 8to12 says:

    @KG,

    Equating porn with adultery creates a loophole so big you could drive a truck though it. One that far too many “Christian” women are manipulating to their advantage.

    As you pointed out, when a wife can cuts off her husband it creates a huge temptation. Given how accessible porn is today, it’s all but inevitable that the husband will give in to temptation–the temptation created by his wife’s refusal to have sex with her husband–and relieve himself. The wife can then declare herself to be the injured party and condemn the husband (the exact situation found in the movie “Fireproof”).

    While the don’t deny each other instructions by Paul are appropriate here, this verse also applies:

    “And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Luke 17:1

    Like the wife that cuts off her husband. IF she caused her husband to fall into sin by cutting him off, then her sin is actually worse according to the very next verse:

    “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” Luke 17:2

    Declaring “porn is adultery” has literally given so called Christian women a license to manipulate their husbands into actions to justify a divorce.

  347. Pingback: Soothing words for the unrepentant baby mama. | Dalrock

  348. I just read Erikson’s blog. Sickening. While I would probably have my differences with her pastor on a number of matters–while there are two sides to every story, he appears micromanagy–I’d say it’s fair not to take our eyes off the ball: what she did–divorcing him–had no Biblical basis and, on balance, was far more destructive than anything her pastor had done.

    I cannot say that I am surprised. And that kind of crap is exactly what stokes cynicism among the gentlemen. That it gets a pass in a large swath of Church circles is reprehensible.

  349. Michael says:

    @ Mark

    “@Michael

    (From Casey)……..””Michael, for God’s sake…….you’re a lawyer””

    You are an attorney. I think this thread deserves a “legal opinion” from yourself as to “Leif’s Predicament”(even though you might not practice family law) ….No offense my friend …….Just asking your professional opinion as an attorney and a resident of the State of California.”

    -Hello Mark. I wish I could. However I specialize (exclusively) in a niche area of Federal Law. I represent cases in Federal District Court. These cases are decided by Magistrates (there is no jury present) and ASL (associate law judges). I have no experience in family court (no jury present either) or with divorce. My cases typically involve mitigation and/or arguing regulatory technicalities. It’s all paperwork. These are “closed door” proceedings.

    I would like to elaborate however I use a fake email address on this forum because I’m afraid if my opinions were outed it would effect my business and the people I work with.

    Since I’ve started reading this blog I investigated “no fault divorce” and was shocked to learn the state/government are invalidating (in essence) legally binding contracts. This is against civil/common law. A husband and wife are forced by the state to become a legal partnership. They are required to get a marriage license to procure recognition and benefits (tax breaks, name changes , etc). However when one of the parties breaches the contract (forced and required under law as a condition of a legal marriage) the contract is automatically abated as “no fault”. Think about that for a a few minutes. Marriage is a legal contract. Yet this refuses your rights of protection. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding..

  350. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Michael says:
    November 26, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    No, you understand perfectly. Good job. Thus, there is no valid contract for men to sign on to. Thus, only idiots and fools will “marry.”

  351. Novaseeker says:

    Since I’ve started reading this blog I investigated “no fault divorce” and was shocked to learn the state/government are invalidating (in essence) legally binding contracts. This is against civil/common law. A husband and wife are forced by the state to become a legal partnership. They are required to get a marriage license to procure recognition and benefits (tax breaks, name changes , etc). However when one of the parties breaches the contract (forced and required under law as a condition of a legal marriage) the contract is automatically abated as “no fault”. Think about that for a a few minutes. Marriage is a legal contract. Yet this refuses your rights of protection. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding..

    It’s less a contract than a state-conferred status, which can be unwound at any time by one of the parties, in which case the state will adjudicate any disputes regarding division of assets and liabilities accrued during (or even before) the status, the disposition of custody over the children, and the financial equities moving forward (support, alimony and so on).

    This was a quite deliberate change. I remember taking a family law class in law school, just for interest. At the time (a few decades ago), the cutting edge was moving the paradigm of family law away from contract models to status models. This was being actively pushed by feminist lawyers (shock, surprise), and they won, largely, in the 1980s and 1990s pretty much everywhere. Family law is now not about contracts but about status — a status that is granted by the state and can be taken away by the state at the request of one party.

  352. feeriker says:

    No, you understand perfectly. Good job. Thus, there is no valid contract for men to sign on to. Thus, only idiots and fools will “marry.”

    To repeat a point I’ve made before, Marriage 2.0, for all practical purposes, constitutes an adhesion contract and thus cannot possibly be a legally binding under the precepts of common or civil law, fiats and pseudo-legal verbal gymnastics by corrupt legislative bodies and courts to the contrary notwithstanding.

  353. hurting says:

    Michael says:
    November 26, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    No, Michael, you pretty much have it right. The problem with no-fault divorce is that it retains vestiges of the compensatory damages that used to be part of fault-based divorce. I am not a lawyer but have a rudimentary understanding of contract law and have never heard anyone articulate a logical reasoning behind this phenomenon.

    What other area of law could one expect to dissolve a contract without even being asked to prove breach on the non-dissolving party and not only not pay for the privilege but expect the non-dissolving party to continue to perform if even in part?

    No reasonable person would ever assume that this is how state-sanctioned marriage (and divorce) works in this country, hence few deign to ask and effectively none are warned by those who have a moral obligation (yes, clergy, I mean you) to educate themselves and others.

  354. Novaseeker says:

    What other area of law could one expect to dissolve a contract without even being asked to prove breach on the non-dissolving party and not only not pay for the privilege but expect the non-dissolving party to continue to perform if even in part?

    Again, not a contract theory at play here legally any longer. It’s a joint status that is conferred by the state and then revoked upon the request of one party to the status. The rest of it is decided on “fairness”, leaving aside the reasons for the split in that calculus (because to do otherwise would undermine unilateral, no-fault divorce).

  355. TFH says:

    The problem with no-fault divorce is that it retains vestiges of the compensatory damages that used to be part of fault-based divorce.

    As I wrote elsewhere :

    No fault divorce by itself, can be ok.
    Alimony and asset division can be justified, if indexed to fault.

    But one CANNOT, and I mean CANNOT, combine the two into a norm of no-fault receipt of monies.

    I mean, the divorce rate would still be just 10% if no-fault divorce comprised of a walk-away with no rights to any money or custody. That is just preposterous. It only exists at all because :

    a) Most people are willing to violate the basics of the US Constitution when things are packaged as a woman being wronged by a man (SoCons are notorious for being addicted to this drug).
    b) Most people are willing to enact a system where children can be used as moral cover and a conduit via which to whitewash this extortion and socialist redistribution.

  356. PUMPsix says:

    Miss Erikson wrote: “I think there’s a name for religious groups that won’t let people leave on their own accord. I think it starts with C, and it ain’t Church.”

    Likewise, there is a title given to women who put their children though the ordeals of parental divorce. It starts with C, and it ain’t Christian.

    Meh. Another two children who will grow up with issues.

  357. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/27 | Free Northerner

  358. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    November 26, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Nova,

    Our posts crossed last night in the ether. Is there a concise reference of this ‘contract to status’ morphing you could point us to? Are there analagous statuses elsewhere in life?

    Presumably the putative reason behind this phenomenon is the expediency conferred by the process and/or the ida that the fallout is localized to the marriage participants, no? In other words, while it may not be fair that men get killed in divorce, it is more fair to society that just the affected men get killed rather than everyone bear the cost because the men directly involved have at least some capacity to control their own destiny.

  359. Opus says:

    Funny

    I thought matrimony was governed by Ecclesiastical Law: ‘Dearly beloved We come together in the sight of God to witness the union of this man and this woman in the Sacrament (or state ) of Holy Matrimony according to GOD’S HOLY LAW’.

    Contract Law it is not despite any apparent similarities. If marriage were subject to contract law I think marriages would be void for uncertainty and lack of consideration, and would look more like prostitution or slavery but I hand that idea over to Novaseeker.

  360. Novaseeker says:

    Hurting —

    It’s really been a big debate in family law over the past several decades regarding the paradigm. I’ve linked few law review type articles below (one is an abstract only I think).

    The idea behind marriage as status isn’t really one of expediency, but rather that the state/community has an interest in defining the rights and duties of the parties to a marriage which is stronger than the interest the individuals have in defining those rights and duties themselves. So a status paradigm is going to be more hostile to attempts by individuals, such as through pre-nups, to “write their own marriage rules and laws”, and rather views these as a community-based set of rules and principles that are “conferred” by the state as a part of the marital status being conferred. The contra view of marriage as contract tends to emphasize the obligations of the parties to each other per the covenant/contract, and is also more open to the parties varying the terms of this contract by mutual agreement.

    There has always been a tension in family law between the status aspects of marriage and the contract aspects of marriage. Marriage-as-status is not new — it’s actually an old principle. There was a period in which the contract aspect came to the fore for a while, in terms of pre-nups and the like, but the status aspects have never gone away, and likely have strengthened in recent decades. The tension is unresolved at this point. Feminists have kind of gone back and forth on this distinction, with some arguing against status (because it is based on sexist, patriarchal ideas about marriage) and in favor of contract (people able to redefine roles in a non-sexist way), and then others arguing against contract (seen as potentially robbing women of benefits — the argument that “women do poorly after divorce financially” due to contract-based ideas of family law) and in favor of a state-conferred status that is simply not a patriarchal-based one. And some more recently are arguing in favor of an even more open-ended system which is based on neither status nor contract (one of the articles below does that, arguing for a regime of marriage law that views marriage as a scheme of distribution of rights and benefits, rather than as a legal status or as a contract). What they are trying to do is find the best paradigm that suits women the best, in effect, although this is cloaked in language regarding flexibility and so on (almost all of this runs to the benefit of women), and they’re not terribly happy with either status or contract.

    It’s probably going to seem pretty nebulous to you, and these are just the intellectual currents that, over time, have influence in what family courts are doing — not family court decisions themselves.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2030915

  361. Robert says:

    Sunshine – Ah yes, I missed the part where the Pastor spoke with her first.

  362. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    November 27, 2013 at 9:23 am

    Nova,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, it is a bit of a nebulous distinction. I did find another article that suggested that the theory of marriage in this country has gone from status-contract-status over time and one that acknowledges the presence of both in varing degrees throughout history. From a layperson’s perspective, it candidly seems like a distinction without a difference. The esoterica involved here in terminology seems secondary to the ultimate goal to facilitate the levelling of the playing field from the bad old patriarchy to what we have today. So I totally understand the idea that the state’s interest (as a proxy for society’s) supercedes that of the individuals involved, but I don’t fully get that it’s a matter of changing the view from one to the other (contract or status) but more of a change in the zeitgeist.

  363. Novaseeker says:

    Yeah it has to do with the legal theory behind it. A contract legal theory will tend to be more open to having the parties decide what should happen, less hostile to pre-nups and so on … but … can potentially be more open to concepts like breach of contract and damages for breaches. A status legal theory will generally be more hostile to the parties drawing up their own rules, but the “content” of what that “status” means can, of course, be changed over time by legislatures and judges, such that what the status means at any one point in time is a moving target.

    Right now, status is ascendant. We’re in a phase where the gay marriage debate has emphasized very strongly the “status” aspect of marriage (this is the entirety of what gays were looking for, because they could largely achieve much of the same thing by means of contract already), and at the same time the idea that the “content” of the “status of marriage” is subject to being redefined. So we’re in a period where the status model is ascendant. It is a reflection of the Zeitgeist, to be certain, but that Zeitgeist is interacting with existing legal theory to produce what we are seeing. The legal theory isn’t simply an empty vase in the process, really, and the gay marriage advocates, who were well schooled in existing family law and the theory behind it as well, were very intentional in emphasizing this aspect of family law theory in their push.

    My guess is that US family law is going to stick with this period of status model for a while, where the state continues to redefine the boundaries and the content of what the status means, and then slowly move to something else — something probably more fluid than status, but not as open-ended (and personal-driven) as a full contract model.

  364. Opus says:

    I was wondering: is Status theory a new invention? I had never heard of it. Contract, Tort and Criminal Law are all I know about. Sounds to me rather un-egalitarian, with those who have the Status lording it over those who don’t. Is this perchance an American attempt to rediscover Aristocracy (you know you want to ;)).

    In England where most people marry in an Anglican Church there is – despite the change in who may marry – no authority to marry two people of the same sex, and thus such people – marrying in a register office – will at best be seen as having a different sort of marriage. Pre-nuptial agreements have no authority anywhere in English Law and thus although there is nothing to stop you entering into one they cannot bind the court. The debate therefore as between a contractual and a status basis is thus immaterial.

  365. Jenny and her friend Ashley, these conservative talkers, are a major part of the weakness that the conservative movement has actually cultivated. They smile, crack a Shiner, snap a pic of some BBQ, and parrot talking points. I cannot listen.
    I wonder if they could actually defend their beliefs. Or, are they tingling by their proximity to conservative power brokers.
    I wonder how difficult it would be for one of the politicians or more famous pundits to get Jenny and Ashley in a MFF threesome. I’d be wary if I was Ashleys hubby, her BFF just jettisoned hers, so……
    They have no idea about the things they espouse on conservatism. Yet they get plastered all over the media, media of their own creation or not

  366. Maunalani says:

    Where can I find a church like this?

  367. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    Hmm, have we finally found that most elusive of beasts: the woman who married a man she wasn’t attracted to?

    Heh.

    There are enough clues to suggest a case of carousel-rider-marries-beta-then… here to choke a horse.

  368. Ton says:

    All chicks are three tequila shooters from a girl on girl experience

  369. Pingback: Links and Comments #18 (Thanksgiving Edition) | The Society of Phineas

  370. aaronthejust says:

    @Maunalani

    Conservative Mennonites or Brethren (they shun anyone who gets divorced); basically any that aren’t in the MCC.

    Reformed churches outside of the apostate, mainline Presbyterian churches

    Most oddball “home” churches–double-check before showing up that they aren’t being run by the women.

  371. Pingback: November 2013 Entitlement Princess Of The Month » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  372. Pingback: AHHH Sound - LiveFearless

  373. Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man

  374. Pingback: A Heart of Gold, in a Pyrite Desert - Stares at the World

  375. Pingback: The Red-Pill Truth For Men | The Society of Phineas

  376. Jason says:

    Well….I read her “whole” post and all the comments.

    First…she is drinking a “cosmo” in her avatar picture. Not a “bloody mary”
    I personally don’t drink. There is no sin in drinking…..but if your are going to be a “christian-mommy-blogger”

    Well…..

    Posing in an avatar like that says “let’s party” and let us remember “who” made the “cosmo” a popular drink…..those ladies with the bad haircuts on the hit series “Sex In The City”

    that aside…..

    She spent half of the post tearing up her pastor with every slight he ever committed…real or imagined and could tell other people about her “leaving” the husband….but couldn’t tell him???

    Lukewarm Christian. Lukewarm conservative.

    I noticed that just about all, if not all the women who replied to her blog gave her the “you go girl” speech!

    Remember men to stand firm. Not waver in your Faith and belief of our Savior…Jesus Christ. Sin is sin. All of it. When we all stand one day before a very Holy God….there will be no “negotiating” what sin is, or what was deemed right or wrong….or “kinda” good or “kinda” bad.

  377. Maunalani says:

    Seems like the pastor figured her out early on.

  378. Pingback: Can a Christian woman divorce her husband if she is really, really unhappy? | Wintery Knight

  379. Pingback: 1st Feline Battalion » Blog Archive » Plenty of Blame to Go Around Here

  380. Pingback: Gratitude: happiness doubled by wonder. | Sunshine Mary

  381. Pingback: When your ex-husband refuses to become your beta orbiter. | Sunshine Mary

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