Trapped!

Jenny Erikson is trapped!  No, not in an unhappy marriage.  That is stage 4 in having it all.  Please try to keep up.  Jenny is currently in stage 5, moving quickly to stage 6:

5:  Is forced to divorce the bad man who made her unhaaapy by doing everything she demanded he do.

6:  Basks in the drama of a newly divorced woman, wronged by her ex husband and the society which forced her to marry the wrong man.

Steps 7 & 8 are just around the corner, although she has a great deal of discretion on how long she chooses to spend in step 7 and of course a great deal of uncertainty about step 8.

7:  Has sex with the most attractive men who are (still) willing to have sex with her.  Since this misguided attempt at reliving the glory of her twenties is generally an immense disappointment, she then wants to quickly move on to:

8:  Finds her secret multimilionaire hunky handyman who insists that she marry him, thus returning her to the higher social status of wife.

Jenny has made it her life’s work to be a living breathing manosphere cliché.  First she married her beta orbiter.  Then she had her two children in wedlock while writing about how she loved her husband for his foot rubs.   Then 9 months after writing Happy 10th Anniversary to My Darling Husband Leif she suddenly discovered that she had been trapped in an unhaaapy marriage for years.  You can’t make this stuff up.

professionaldivorceevenn

The real problem for Jenny is the profound contradiction between her trademark claim of placing God first while setting out to be the lowest form of mommyblogger, the professional divorcée.  Her signature twist as a professional divorcée is that she does this from the conservative, pro God, pro stay married perspective.

This is a trap of her own creation.  If she wants to continue to receive the attention fix of her chosen profession, she will be faced with the unrelenting demand to write posts about how her divorce has harmed her children, how her household experiences chaos without a father/husband, how much she likes being divorced, and the ups and downs of her quest for more men (see her head start on this essential topic here).  This is just the baseline publish or perish requirement for a professional divorcée mommy blogger though.  To keep her signature twist, she will also have to write posts moralizing about marriage and the importance of staying married even if you aren’t happy.

Identity crisis

As an entertainment site for mothers, The Stir has two fundamental demographics:  I Love My Husband and Proud Single Moms.  Moving from the former category to the latter (and back) isn’t a problem for a mommyblogger, but Jenny can’t claim the former as a professional divorcée, and can’t claim the latter while claiming to place God first, moralizing about marriage, etc.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Having it all, Jenny Erikson, Stantons Heroes. Bookmark the permalink.

844 Responses to Trapped!

  1. Minesweeper says:

    Ouch! If she is reading this it must be getting close to the bone by now.

  2. freebird says:

    The hamster always wins.

  3. freebird says:

    Damn you minesweeper,I wanted first!

  4. Hopeful says:

    Why the obsession with this woman?

  5. Minesweeper says:

    @freebird – couldn’t resist :)

  6. PuzzledTraveller says:

    I’ve found a problem.

    In her article you link to about her Wedding Day. Third paragraph. Third Sentence. That there is the problem. Poor Leif in some part did this to himself. She settled for him and he settled for someone that he knew was only settling for him. Guys and gals, don’t do that.

    From her article:

    “He was my shoulder to cry on when I went on bad dates.”

    Boom. Nuclear headshot. Right from the horse’s (heh) mouth.

  7. HawkandRock says:

    That “10 Things to Love About Being Single..” is so inane and affected, I honestly feel embarrassment and deep pity for this Woman.

    My God! These are the “Top 10″ things she destroyed her family for? She chose to put her children through this for these things?

    Just profoundly sad. This woman is clearly delusional. Nevertheless, The Validation Machine® will make sure that she not only feels comfortable in her delusion but “brave”, “strong”, “independent”, “empowered”, “beautiful” and all kinds of “sexyfantastic.”

    I just don’t like this world much anymore…. and I think it’s pretty much done with me too.

  8. @Hopeful,

    Because she is a woman who claims to be Christian and conservative in her politics yet readily destroyed her family because of her poor emotional control.

    She is the current example of what Dalrock has been talking about for the past several years with regards to Christianity and divorce.

  9. Paniym says:

    Dalrock, you are right. This has become the most entertaining example of feral womanhood I’ve ever seen. It’s absolutely mind blowing her complete hypocrisy and duplicitous nature on display. This brings such vindication to the manosphere.

    She is so out of touch with reality that she doesn’t even have to keep her hamster wheel turning. When you’re that deluded you don’t even try to justify things in your own mind. She obviously doesn’t have a conscience to sear. It doesn’t even occur to her or enter her psyche.
    She is so clueless it could be disturbing if it wasn’t so entertaining.

    Oh, well, such is the nature of feral womanhood on display. In reality it’s sad. I’m sure Leif will soon be joining the manosphere and gladly taking the red pill.

  10. HawkandRock says:

    @hopeful. Not buying into your framing this as “obsession.” Astonished fascination maybe more accurate.

  11. Redman says:

    The only travesty is that the culture and the law supports this crap. She should be free to suffer the consequences of her ‘freedom.’ Rot in hell Jenny, and yes, you are inferior.

  12. deti says:

    HOpeful:

    It’s not so much an obsession as it is an examination. Jenny Erikson is more than a “living breating manosphere cliche” as Dalrock cogently says. Indeed, her entire blog is a real-time chronicle of everything Dalrock has written about marriage 2.0, women’s approach to it; and our culture’s enabling of it. Look at her: Claims to be Christian. Marries a beta orbiter who she settled for and who knew she was settling for him. Tries to make it work through her snark, sarcasm and general sassiness. Has two kids with him. Extols the virtue of marriage (outwardly).

    Then suddenly drops the bombshell. She’s not haaaaappy. God has given His stamp of approval because God is a God of Love and wants her to be haaaaappy. She announces her divorce, then her outrage at her church calling her out on her sin. Then the hamster spins into 8th gear, trotting out the usual Bible verses “you can’t judge me” and “mote/beam” and “cast the first stone, sinners”. Then the inevitable thoughts of returning to dating post-divorce.

    It’s as if Dalrock created Jenny Erikson and cast a manjawed, oddly masculinized actress to portray her. Except he didn’t. She’s as real as the concepts written about here every day.

  13. Ollie says:

    @hopeful, HawkandRock
    Not an obsession, just an excellent “case study” worth presenting to the class. Astonished fascination also works too.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    Well, neither should have gotten married there — they both knew it was settling, and when that happens from the very beginning, it’s big trouble for both. Her’s obviously a hapless beta, and she was foolish enough to marry her beta emotional tampon. It’s a mess. Still, you’re supposed to stick with the mess you make when you are married, but to be honest this marriage had divorce written all over it long before the vows were ever spoken — a match that never should have happened.

  15. crowhill says:

    Wow. She really is the poster child for much of what’s wrong with the modern female. Her “why I divorced” post is really amazing.

  16. CB says:

    An insidious form of divorce is divorcing with children involved. Having gone through this, as a child, I consider it to be spiritual rape.

    From Jenny Erikson’s website.

    Q: What about the girls?

    A: They are bright and wonderful children who are very loved by two devoted parents. With some counseling and time to grieve and adjust, they will be just fine.

    No, they won’t. Rationalizing your children’s well being, and I am doubting you will give your children to their bio father, is the epitome of solipsism.

    Cash and prizes.

    Q: How can you call yourself a Christian?

    A: If you call yourself a Christian, you have no business asking that, you hypocrite. If you don’t, then the only answer I have is that I believe in the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that my soul was bought at the price of His blood shed on the cross. That doesn’t change with my marital status.

    If you are a practicing Christian you have no business going this route, hypocrite.
    If you are a practicing Christian you would be seeking alternatives or reconciliation, I have read the Bible is a good place to start, hypocrite.

    Hypocrite is a word I don’t think you know what you think it means.

  17. Cane Caldo says:

    I’m looking at your Venn diagram, and I have to say…I think I have what it takes!

    Seriously, she’s crazed. This is what happens when we try to accept the tenets of faith and marriage revealed by God, and also try to pursue the world’s message of personal happiness and achievement. The good news (compared to an actual brain damaged person) is that there is probably nothing wrong with her brain. At any time she could admit what she is doing, stop doing it, and repent.

    I don’t think it’s an obsession at all to highlight the corrupting words and deeds of a Christian spreading filth to over 10,000 Twitter followers, and hundreds of thousands of readers at The Stir. It’s a service to her and others.

  18. WillBest says:

    “can’t claim the latter while claiming to place God first, moralizing about marriage, etc.”

    This would be true if her target audience were men. Fortunately for her target audience is emotional women who probably rally to her as they can see she is being attacked from the comment section.

  19. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    but to be honest this marriage had divorce written all over it long before the vows were ever spoken — a match that never should have happened.

    Why in the world did you say this? Who’s side are you on? You should have stopped here:

    you’re supposed to stick with the mess you make when you are married

    That’s it. That’s all there is to it. If they had done so, they would have become the match that should have happened.

  20. I’d love to read her response to this post, but she’ll never write one.

  21. Ashley lakes says:

    Puzzled tracker that line seemed to be important to me too.

    “A shoulder to cry on?” I can’t imagine crying to my husband about another man. I would not comfort a man I had feelings for because a more beautiful woman would not have him.

    Poor Leif should have walked away after that.

    That is so blatantly crassly disrespectful.

  22. What I find amusing about this rebellious woman is that she won’t disclose exactly why she is getting divorced. Which means that her husband did nothing wrong as far as I’m concerned. Sure he is a Delta (using Vox’s hierarchy), but there would be nothing wrong with that if she had been an obedient (to God) and submissive (to her husband) wife.

    Instead, she decides to nuke her family for the sake of some chance at banging a better man.

  23. Dalrock,

    Serious question, why do you keep directing internet traffic to Jenny’s blog? Even bad press is better than NO press. I have no respect for her. I’m going to assume you don’t respect her either. I resent everything about her because of what she did to her husband. At this point, the best thing the manosphere should do regarding Jenny is to set phasers to “shun.” She gets the silent treatment. She becomes a non-person.

    Christ commands that we are to forgive her so we must do that. We should pray for her, pray for her husband and their beloved children, but I don’t think its a good idea to keep linking to her screed. Lets do to her what Tucker Carlson did to Dr Helen’s book Men on Strike, lets disregard her and her feelings and thoughts, utterly. She is not the least bit sorry for what she did, she becomes the person of which we do not speak. She becomes taboo.

  24. Cranberry says:

    Dalrock, I’m a regular reader but seldom comment. This would be amusing if it weren’t such a tragic example of everything you write about.

    I only had a superficial understanding of the meaning of “hamsterbation” until I read her divorce Q&A post.

    She’s announcing the divorce but refuses to discuss the reasons and expects respect for her privacy and reticence on the matter. I don’t understand this except as attention seeking, like a teenager who cuts but refuses to say why she did it.

    She talks about how her children “will be fine” after counseling and time to grieve, and then a few Q’s down says “apparently, stability is important” in custody arrangements. Disgusting lack of empathy for her children and failure to realize she cannot restore what she so brutally destroyed.

    Is she in the habit of deleting negative comments? wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

  25. Anonymous age 71 says:

    HawkandRock says:
    December 3, 2013 at 8:45 am

    >>I just don’t like this world much anymore…. and I think it’s pretty much done with me too.

    And, what do you know about the world? As far as I can tell, you only know a small part of the North American part of the world. Life in other nations is completely different, and men are usually treated with respect. Before you give up on the world, find out what most of the world is like.

  26. Adonis says:

    Subscribed

  27. You can’t make this stuff up. — Dalrock

    Indeed. She could be the poster child for the phrase, “Women are true to their feelings.” As long as she was happy (or at least content), she was true to her marriage vows and perfectly willing to lecture other women on the same. As soon as she became unhaaaappy — as soon as her feelings changed — she no longer saw any need to be true to those vows. In fact, breaking them became almost a holy imperative. [NAWALT]

    For her as an individual, it’s very sad; and if she had kept this mess private, it would be unseemly to talk about it. But she has taken this very public stand of, “Marriage is forever except when an unhappy wife convinces herself that God is pointing her to the exit,” and that’s a big problem. That way of thinking (among other things) is killing our society; it must be opposed and shown for the destructive lie that it is, and she’s provided the perfect opportunity.

  28. Ras Al Ghul says:

    The real entertaining part will be if her daughters ever start to read her . . .

  29. Bucho says:

    All things considered, I think there may be some clinical psychological issues going on with this chick. Unfortunately, with the currently trends in life and marriage counseling, she probably won’t get the help she needs.

  30. DrTorch says:

    Wow, what an eerie testament to the accuracy and precision of Dalrock’s observations over the years. I agree w/ deti’s comment above.

    “Christ commands that we are to forgive her so we must do that. ” She’s not the least bit repentant at this point, so no you are 100% wrong, the command is NOT to forgive. That is part of the feminist drivel that has entered the Church. We are commanded to excommunicate her and treat her like a “tax collector.” Once again a testament to God’s greatness as He provided the one character that is universally despised, regardless of time and place.

    This woman has earned the role of pariah, and should be treated as such. It is part of God’s mercy to discipline her as such to bring repentance. There are lessons to be learned here, although I certainly understand the notion of no press is better than bad press. It’s a legitimate (but personal) decision to forego reading her profane blogging.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Hopeful

    Why the obsession with this woman?

    This is the final stage in the denial game, and as such it has become something I look forward to. It starts with “Women don’t divorce frivolously” (prove it). Then the denial moves to “If they do, they don’t tell the world they did.” Then it moves to “And if they did, they would be ostracized by polite society for doing so” combined with “and they would know they had done something terrible”.

    Once you push through all of the layers of denial, you get to “Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Don’t you know women do this all the time?”

  32. Anyone catch her biopic? It’s just her with a fruity alcoholic drink. No kids or ex-husband.

    Should be very telling of what kind of woman she is.

  33. Cranberry says:

    @Bucho, I glossed over a few of her other articles. Almost every photo of her features her posing with a glass of wine or some other (presumably) alcoholic beverage. “Cheers to the single life!” is the caption on her Cafe Mom page. I’m guessing she’s got a screwdriver there, or she was too eager to get down to drinking to bother with a proper champagne flute for the mimosa.

    She headlines her blog with God, Family, Politics, Wine (in that order). I’d guess Wine, etc. take a much greater place in her hierarchy than she will admit to herself. I have nothing against drinking, but I’ve noticed something about women who make jokes about the place of wine in their lives (unless their job is sommelier or they own a vineyard) are trying to use humor to cover for their drinking habits which are likely growing out of control. If those habits are not actively causing their unhappiness, then they are exacerbating a problem that has a solution: stop drinking.

  34. feeriker says:

    As an entertainment site for mothers, The Stir has two fundamental demographics: I Love My Husband and Proud Single Moms. Moving from the former category to the latter (and back) isn’t a problem for a mommyblogger, but Jenny can’t claim the former as a professional divorcée, and can’t claim the latter while claiming to place God first, moralizing about marriage, etc.

    But of course Jenny doesn’t really have to worry about her reputation. She is, after all, in the business of feeding hamsters. These ravenous, never-sated creatures will gorge themselves on anything that they find tasty, no matter how non-nutritious or outright toxic the food might be. Indeed, hamsters will eagerly eat themselves to death, just as heroin addicts will overdose in their quest for the perfect high. Jenny’s target readership consists of exactly this type, however loudly “conservative” or “Christian” they might claim to be.

  35. This is why I just shrug my arms and let you brilliant chaps sort it out. Only Christ himself need bother with these jezebels. Don’t get married.

  36. Ras Al Ghul, as soon as they get a FB page or a Twitter account, just link it. With Jenny as their mother they’re bound to have one.

  37. bradford says:

    Dalrock,

    Response to hopeful was brilliant. I was also tiring of the Jenny Erickson saga. Was starting to feel like ” piling on” , but I see your point now, denial, denial, denial.

  38. Minesweeper says:

    @Dalrock
    Once you push through all of the layers of denial, you get to “Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Don’t you know women do this all the time?”

    Did you not miss out the they should be praised, revered and financially\emotionally supported for their courageous action that will empower countless number of her friends to do the same ?

    Or does that come after ? I’m confused….

  39. Bucho says:

    @Cranberry
    “I’m guessing she’s got a screwdriver there, or she was too eager to get down to drinking to bother with a proper champagne flute for the mimosa.”

    Haha that’s probably it! And poor Leif is probably getting billed for this lifestyle.

    Unfortunately, this will not end well. Those booze filled late night benders with a possible combination of mood stabilizers has her on the fast-track to being a walking mess. I feel bad for her children.

  40. Casey says:

    Lucky for dear Jenny………she has ample reserves of ‘SNARK’.
    AND
    She comes fully equipeed with a Hamsterizer 10,000. The Girls Girl of HAMSTERS.

    I don’t believe she gives a care about any of what is being said about her on this blog. If she did, she’d stop posting such stupid comments on her own site.

    She is, however, a wonderful textbook example for the Red Pill men (& ladies) trying to learn something here on Dalrock’s site.

  41. tacomaster2 says:

    Dalrock, I’ve been reading your blog for some time and I guess I missed your initial post with the 8 steps in having it all. Thanks for linking to it. I think those steps can be seen throughout our society. They are universal truths.

  42. Dr Torch,

    She’s not the least bit repentant at this point, so no you are 100% wrong, the command is NOT to forgive. That is part of the feminist drivel that has entered the Church.

    Hmmmm.

    Well, let me correct my earlier statement as I didn’t word it properly. Christ commands that we are to forgive those who trespass against us. That is right there in the Lord’s Prayer. There is absolutely NO feminist drivel in the Lord’s Prayer, none. Remember Dr Torch, Christ the Lord reduced God’s 10 Laws down to 2….

    Love God the Father with all your heart and soul and mind and…

    …love your neighbor.

    You can pretty much substitute “forgive your neighbor” for “love your neighbor” as that is what Christ was saying. Technically, you don’t have to forgive Jenny (personally) as she didn’t do anything (personally) to anyone on this blog unless Leif or his children post here. She trespassed against THEM, not anyone on this blog. But we should forgive her for what she did to marriage in general. That you and I are commanded to do. That is part of being a Christian.

  43. Cranberry says:

    She already has that haggard I-drink-too-much look about her eyes. The bloated fleshy face and puffy eyes are evidence of too much drink and the very poor quality sleep she is getting as a result of trying to be a party girl. You might be able to get away with that when you’re in your early 20s. MIGHT be able to. But after 27 or 28, you absolutely must slow down or suffer from disastrous physical and psychological consequences. I’ve seen more than a few family members go through such turmoil, which is one big reason why I don’t drink alcohol. It’s a lonely row to hoe, being a party ho.

  44. Martian Bachelor says:

    It’s way off topic, but is another one from the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up Dept, and will maybe provide a much needed chuckle:

    ‘Tis the Season of Blood, Guns, Violence, and Hyper-masculinity (Oh My!)

    #summary: As a hyper-feminist, she’s scared.
    Quick, some big strong RealMan (TM) *do* something! lol

  45. @innocentbystanderboston

    No, Christ commanded us to forgive those who both wrong us and ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not a feeling, it is an action you take in response to someone who repents of their past sins against you. God, after all, does not forgive everyone. Only those who truly repent.

    As for Jenny, she has not sinned against anyone here, only her husband and her children (and her church). She is a rebellious wife who deserves scorn. She is Gomer to Hosea.

    If you pray for her, pray that she realize her error and reconcile with her husband before he finds a replacement wife. Much easier for him to do so than for her to find a replacement husband.

  46. feeriker says:

    IBB said At this point, the best thing the manosphere should do regarding Jenny is to set phasers to “shun.” She gets the silent treatment. She becomes a non-person.

    Unfortunately, that will have no effect whatsoever on Jenny or her followers – because those followers are hamsterbating women, which is the only following Jenny gives a damn about.

    Anon 71 @Hawkandrock >>I just don’t like this world much anymore…. and I think it’s pretty much done with me too.<<
    And, what do you know about the world? As far as I can tell, you only know a small part of the North American part of the world.

    I’d give Hawkandrock the benefit of the doubt. Maybe by “this world” he was referring to is just the western, English-speaking world. If that’s true, then I share fully his feelings. I’m long past done with it too.

    Ras al Ghul said The real entertaining part will be if her daughters ever start to read her . . .

    If they aren’t already, her daughters will no doubt become so thoroughly damaged by their mother’s frivorce and subsequent hedonic lifestyle, or at least her attempt at it, as well as the almost certain attendant parental alienation from their father, that they’ll be in no shape to make any kind of rational judgment about the verbal vomitus that she leaves all over the blogosphere.

    DrTorch said We are commanded to excommunicate her and treat her like a “tax collector.” Once again a testament to God’s greatness as He provided the one character that is universally despised, regardless of time and place.

    This woman has earned the role of pariah, and should be treated as such. It is part of God’s mercy to discipline her as such to bring repentance.

    THIS. Forgiveness and grace without repentance is meaningless. Unfortunately, excommunication is unlikely to have any effect at all. While it was a potent tool hundreds of years ago when the RCC was the only game in town and excommunication meant not only being cut off from the church, but from one’s community and even one’s family as well, it is has almost no power in the modern era where churches of all types are a dime a dozen, one available to suit any customer’s preferences. As others here have commented, all Jenny has to do (and she’s probably already done it) is to find a local congregation of the Church of the Feminine Imperative, which will not only forgive her for her sins, but welcome her with open arms and catapult her into a leadership position.

    She headlines her blog with God, Family, Politics, Wine (in that order). I’d guess Wine, etc. take a much greater place in her hierarchy than she will admit to herself.

    In the interest of both honesty (hah!) and truth in advertising, Jenny really needs to invert the order of these things, although it’s admittedly hard to guess whether it’s God or family that is the lowest thing on the pecking order.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    Why in the world did you say this? Who’s side are you on?

    Nice way to put it, as usual.

    My observation was simply this — that pair was a pair that never should have married. Since they DID marry, they should have made it work. But it would have been better for them had they never married, probably.

  48. swift,

    If you pray for her, pray that she realize her error and reconcile with her husband before he finds a replacement wife.

    I’m not going to address the rest of what you’ve said other than to say that the above quote is excellent advice. Yes that is a good prayer for pretty much everyone in general.

    Jenny, if you are reading this (we know you aren’t, but still maybe one of your followers are), it’s not too late. You can still undo what you did. Go back to your husband and beg him to forgive you. I pray that you do, not just for you and for him, but for your kids.

  49. Norm says:

    It is good you are calling her out on her BS. How many women who claim to be Christian want “out” of their marriage now that Jenny opened the door for them. Your posts also may convince some women to work on their marriage.

  50. feeriker says:

    Jenny, if you are reading this (we know you aren’t, but still maybe one of your followers are), it’s not too late. You can still undo what you did. Go back to your husband and beg him to forgive you.

    As they old saying goes, with God all things are possible. However, some things aren’t at all likely. Jenny going back to her husband and getting down on her knees and begging his forgiveness is one of those (this requires something called humility, a quality that Jenny clearly lacks altogether). I expect that snakes and rodents will become best friends before such an event occurs.

  51. sunshinemary says:

    IBB

    Jenny, if you are reading this (we know you aren’t, but still maybe one of your followers are), it’s not too late. You can still undo what you did. Go back to your husband and beg him to forgive you. I pray that you do, not just for you and for him, but for your kids.

    Out of curiosity – would you advise her ex-husband to take her back if she were to do that?

  52. Spacetraveller says:

    Thank you for breaking things down so clearly, Dalrock.

    Much as this saga is a sad testament to modern life, it is also an important lesson for the rest of us who are still learning how things work, and why we are where we are…

    So kudos to you for exposing this treachery that this woman exhibits.

    She is what I often call a ‘reluctant bride’ on my blog. No man should be on the receiving end of a reluctant bride. For he will always be on the receiving end of contempt. He will never get respect. And the problem is, he won’t know it until one day he suddenly does. As Leif found out the hard way.

    I really sympathise with you men. I really do. I wish you get a better deal in marriage than you currently do. But that requires that women ‘woman up’. I hope things change for the better. Too many of you are getting short-changed and it is simply not right.
    Leif deserves so much better than this…

  53. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    Nice way to put it, as usual.

    Did I offend your pragmatic sensibilities?

    My observation was simply this — that pair was a pair that never should have married. Since they DID marry, they should have made it work. But it would have been better for them had they never married, probably.

    Who are you to make such a declaration on what God has done? “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.“; that’s what Jesus said. What GOD hath joined together…Novaseeker says should not have happened.

    And you’re not merely observing–observation is done in silence–you’re pronouncing upon. You’re giving her and the women who sympathize with her cover that they have only undone what you say should never have been done.

    So, I ask you again: Who’s side are you on?

    @Dalrock

    This is the final stage in the denial game, and as such it has become something I look forward to.

    Haha! It is as if there was a script. Whether you’re talking about how to become a professional divorcee or how to guard against our culture, it always comes back to “Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Don’t you know women do this all the time?”

  54. Minesweeper says:

    swiftfoxmark2 says:
    December 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
    If you pray for her, pray that she realize her error and reconcile with her husband before he finds a replacement wife. Much easier for him to do so than for her to find a replacement husband.

    Actually you’d be surprised, generally the wimmenz are hyper-motivated to reclaim the status of belonging to a husband, hyper-motivated in a way they will never have been before even before marriage (desperation may be closer to the truth).

    Generally though they tend to marry way down the scale from whence they came and left of their own accord. Laughably so, in my ex’s experience anyway and all her friends.

    Mostly the guys are in no rush at all to go back to marriage, fool me once …

  55. Novaseeker says:

    No, Cane, I clearly said that people should stay together once they are married. My point is that there are higher and lower risks when you are pre-marriage, and this was a high risk. Had I personally seen this happening with a friend, I would have tried to stop them from getting married. That doesn’t mean, once they do marry, that they have cover to divorce. Once you are married, you are married. Before you marry, though, you have to evaluate the decision and try to mitigate the risks, and abstain from marrying where there are blinking red flags left and right.

    Go ahead and try to twist that into a point you want to make, which is never the point I was making, as I have now tried to clarify for you twice.

  56. Mary,

    Out of curiosity – would you advise her ex-husband to take her back if she were to do that?

    I don’t know ANYTHING about their marriage, their situation. I have never had to go through the Hell that Jenny has put her ex-husband thorugh so I can’t even imagine how hard this must be for him. But if she truly repented Mary, if Jenny was truly sorry for her indiscretions about blowing up their marriage, truly wanted her husband to give her a second change and take her back, I would certainly hope that Leif would not only forgive her (as Christ commands) but to consider taking her back. And that is not for him or for her, but for their kids.

    Mary, you have kids. I have kids. Marriage is for the kids. God in His infinate wisdom understands how important it is for kids to know that mom and dad are married, are one flesh bound to each other until death they do part. That is critical for kids. That is why divorce is so digusting, so sinful in God’s eyes.

    Again, I don’t know Leif. I just…. I just hate divorce. As far as I’m concerned, divorce is Satan’s greatest temptation for man and woman.

  57. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    That doesn’t mean, once they do marry, that they have cover to divorce. [...] Go ahead and try to twist that into a point you want to make, which is never the point I was making, as I have now tried to clarify for you twice.

    It’s not over, Nova. Your words do nothing but reinforce the notion that they should be divorced, when what she and others like her should be doing is confessing their sins, repenting, and going back to her husbands. Who, pray tell, do you think is going to read your words here and come to that conclusion? No one, and you know it.

    I haven’t twisted a thing. You’ve demonstrated faithlessness here, and you just don’t like it being called out.

  58. Jeremy says:

    Hopefully soon we’ll hear about her polyamorous solutions to not divorcing, and how God spoke to her with this possible solution in some kind of hamster-wheel prayer session. After all, why should she give up the beta foot-rubs for a new sexual partner when she can have both?

  59. Jeremy says:

    Oh, I would like to be the first to welcome Leif into the Manosphere.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cranberry
    “I’m guessing she’s got a screwdriver there, or she was too eager to get down to drinking to bother with a proper champagne flute for the mimosa.”

    My guess on an earlier thread was a Bloody Mary. Rollo assures us that it is a grapefruit-tini, current fave of the Strong, Independent, Recently Divorced woman. I don’t wish to do the research (that’s ex-bartender, thanks) so I’ll take him at his educated word.

    Details aside, as I pointed out on an earlier thread, it’s the image she chooses to put at the top of her blog. It’s what she wants to show the world. And it’s not an uncommon one, sadly, as many bartenders can attest. There is a fuzzy line between drinking for conviviality and self medicating with booze, but it’s there.

    Spacetraveller
    She is what I often call a ‘reluctant bride’ on my blog.

    A useful and accurate term. Plus a bit more gentle on the women than the words used by the androsphere.

    No man should be on the receiving end of a reluctant bride. For he will always be on the receiving end of contempt. He will never get respect. And the problem is, he won’t know it until one day he suddenly does.

    The question for men is, among others, “How to detect the reluctant bride before committing?” and that is one of the topics kicked around in the androsphere. Dalrock’s two postings on “interviewing a prospective bride” are a good start.

    The warning signs for Lief were all over the place, from her use of him as an emotional tampon to her hitting him after he kissed her. This is, as others have noted, a classic example of a woman marrying her beta-orbiter. Once the youngest child is old enough to be easier to care for, the woman’s attraction being pretty much gone, she’s gonna be unHAAAAAPy.

    Because she married a man she wasn’t really attracted to. Which never happens, except when it does. In an earlier time, she’d be pressured by the older mares of her herd to stay with him, no matter what, “do it for the children”. But then in an earlier time he might have been quietly talked to by older men who would point out “Look, she’s not all that into you, she’s just man hungry and hot to be married”, and so perhaps she would have married some other man.

    In an abstract, analytical sense it would be interesting to know what her N was at the time her father dragged her down the aisle. I speculate it was not 0, and that she married Lief on the rebound from a more alpha man – for whom she has pined, from time to time, ever since. But that is mere speculation on my part.

  61. TMG says:

    I am acquaintances with dozens of “conservative Christian” women through social media and many of them think Jenny Erickson is awesome. Christianity is doomed.

  62. deti says:

    1. IBB: “ Jenny, if you are reading this (we know you aren’t, but still maybe one of your followers are), it’s not too late. You can still undo what you did. Go back to your husband and beg him to forgive you. I pray that you do, not just for you and for him, but for your kids.”

    SSM: “Out of curiosity – would you advise her ex-husband to take her back if she were to do that?”

    I would tell Leif to forgive Jenny. But I would advise him never to take her back and reconcile/remarry.

  63. Cane Caldo says:

    @SSM

    Out of curiosity – would you advise her ex-husband to take her back if she were to do that?

    Absolutely, and without reservation. Things must not be allowed to be the same, and there must be demonstrations of a changed heart, but it’s unquestionable that it is God’s will; laid out in Scripture, and upheld by the saints.

  64. Escoffier says:

    “But I would advise him never to take her back and reconcile/remarry.”

    +1

  65. Pingback: The Forgiveness Gospel | Something Fishy

  66. deti says:

    I see no problem with the simple observation that Leif and Jenny should not have made the decision to marry. Though God joins them in marriage, in the first instance they had to decide of their own will to marry. To say otherwise is to deny both of them had agency in the matter.

    From Jenny’s descriptions, it’s a fact that she wasn’t really all that into Leif; that he was her beta orbiter; and that they made a rash, ill considered decision to marry. She settled for him. He knew she was settling for him.

    Is anyone declaring they should divorce? No. Is anyone excusing her decisions? No, because they are clearly groundless.

    The observation is important because this exact same scenario plays out all the time in this screwed up SMP. It’s important for illustrative purposes; not for prescriptive purposes.

  67. DrTorch says:

    “You can pretty much substitute “forgive your neighbor” for “love your neighbor””

    And you’re 100% wrong again. The word “love” is one that gets twisted plenty in our culture, and not just by romantic pop music songs. It is not loving to “forgive” this woman (also per your definition), as it does nothing to driver her toward repentance.

    That is why it is crucial to interpret scripture in light of other scripture, in this case Prov 27:6 is a good place to start. Meanwhile, your interpretation of “love” and “forgiveness” reek of 20th C feminist implorations of what feels right.

    You are right that there is no feminist drivel in the Lord’s Prayer, which is why it is so offense that you add it in.

  68. 8to12 says:

    Isn’t holding open the possibility of reconciling with her husband should single life not work out part of the typical frivorcee mindset?

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    The observation is important because this exact same scenario plays out all the time in this screwed up SMP. It’s important for illustrative purposes; not for prescriptive purposes.

    There is a lot of confusion in various parts of this ‘sphere concerning the difference between “descriptive” and “proscriptive”. To put it another way, a lot of people seem determined to confuse “is” with “ought”; i.e. some man states “These facts are observable, they describe how this situation is“, to which various people respond, “But that’s not how it ought to be, how can you say that!”.

    It’s as if one is walking down the street, and sees a car speeding into an intersection, and says to passersby, “That car is about to be in an accident”. Who would be so foolish as to scream back, “But that’s not what ought to happen!”, as if by shouting really loud Newton’s laws of motion can be temporarily repealed.

    To be descriptive is to observe and state fact. It is not a value judgement, it is not approval, it is not exhortation to go and do likewise. It is to say, “That car is about to be in an accident”, based on observable reality.

  70. 8to12 says:

    @Cane Caldo,

    If my wife frivorced me, slept with 1 (or more) men, and then came crawling back to me on her knees saying she wanted to reconcile and be my wife again, I’m not sure I could forgive her at that point. I’m almost certain I could not take her back.

  71. TFH says:

    So, has Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson actually become aware about what we have written about her? About the immense number of warning beacons we have placed around her for any man smart enough to do a Google search on her before entering any sort of relationship with her?

    The full effect of this is only realized if she sees what we have all written about her.

  72. Pingback: We Can See Your Heart Under There | Things that We have Heard and Known

  73. Jeremy says:

    Every time I click on the tab with this Dalrock post in it, I start laughing. I don’t even need to read the (probably excellent) comments. The sheer fish-tank clarity into female hamsterization/self-destruction that this story provides is enough to make me laugh at a blogger (Jenny) who has violated all logic. This is a person who openly defined their marriage as the best thing they ever did, part of gods plan, etc… only to go back on their word not 12 months after reaffirming that was the case with anniversary wishes to her husband while he had taken her to Waikiki….

    Someone should quickly preserve her blog and writings in their entirety, even outside of the wayback machine, just to demonstrate female insanity when it comes to men. In the world of mental gymnastics, Jenny is a perfect 10.

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Deti (emphasis mine)

    From Jenny’s descriptions, it’s a fact that she wasn’t really all that into Leif; that he was her beta orbiter; and that they made a rash, ill considered decision to marry. She settled for him. He knew she was settling for him.

    He should have known she was settling for him, and I can’t imagine his gut wasn’t screaming this (as was hers). But I’m fairly certain Leif is from the modern Christian culture. The model for modern Christian men is Fireproof, which teaches husbands how to (re)court their wives, and is also seen as the model for men to court their prospective wives. That all of his submission and supplication suddenly ended with her realizing that she loved him and wanted to be married to him makes sense in the theologically cross-dressing Fireproof frame of mind. Think of that final scene in Fireproof where she suddenly realizes what a great man he is, and that she wants to be his wife. Then the movie even cuts to a wedding. While it is insane, when you consider how this unfolded from Leif’s perspective it actually all happened exactly as the Book of Fireproof told him it would. This is the modern Christian view of courtship and marriage. The only part that doesn’t make sense to him is how it could have possibly have gone wrong? And of course the answer in his mind is he didn’t give enough foot rubs, submit enough, do the Love Dare hard enough.

  75. Spacetraveller says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    “The question for men is, among others, “How to detect the reluctant bride before committing?”

    Um, I must not tell you men what to do :-)
    But, if you pushed me to the wall, here is what I would say (under duress, lol).

    We women are tricky beings. We know that, you know that. LOL.
    This is why it is imperative that if a man must marry a woman, he be older and wiser than her. I agree with the general Manosphere advice that a man should not be marrying too young. For he needs to be more ‘worldly’ to figure out women first, and in particular, the woman he intends to marry.

    That said, you are right that Leif really did things wrong. I wouldn’t say ‘he had it coming’ as such, but he really messed up, yes. How could he ask a woman to marry him who had shown no sexual interest in him until minutes before he proposed?
    And I say that as a fully paid up Catholic woman!
    (Um, it is indeed possible to be clearly sexually interested in someone without going overboard, I hasten to add, just so you know, lol. A discerning man should be able to detect this in a woman, I reckon).

    You make an important point. Where was his father? Where were his borthers and male friends? Why did no-one advise him about this? And if they did, why did he not listen?

    But…despite all his ‘mistakes’, by all accounts he was a good husband and father. I still maintain he should not have been treated the way he was. I think the chronic lack of respect he experienced was very much a reversible phenomenon. Game may have helped, but that would have required that Jenny be prepared to respond to it. Which, given that she was never really attracted to him in the first place, she perhaps would not have been prepared to bother with.

    One of the hallmarks of a ‘reluctant bride’ is the unwillingness to ‘work through’ the hard times. They are only in it for the good times, because those good times are a ‘compensation’ for the ‘hard work’ she is already going though in ‘putting up’ with a man she does not truly love.

    What a tragedy for all concerned. Especially for the daughters.

  76. Okay Mary…

    Cane and I say Leif should take Jenny back (both with some major conditions.) She is his wife and when I married my wife it was for life.

    Deti and Escoffier say that Leif should NOT take her back, forgive only.

    So….. if you want to spin up your own discussion on this on your own blog (on what ex-husbands should do if their truly repentant wife begs them to take them back) you might get more traction ther.

  77. Ashley lakes says:

    I hope she turns back so that she doesnt end up like “must be nice” lady. It is like being happy in a life that defies their feminist ideals makes “must be nice” lady crazy.

    I guess when women fail to stick their landing and marry the perfect man post divorce, they become insanely jealous.

    We now drive an hour to go to our old church instead of the one right next to us.

    Main reasons
    1. Abortion is always a mans fault sermon
    2. Must be nice lady who had 3 children different fathers
    Examples
    We spent the last 2 weeks in Miami because my husband had a contract there and I always go with him if I like the area and we can get a free 2 bedroom and kitchen/living room set up at a nice hotel.
    “Must be nice.”
    My husband takes our son for father/son time so I sleep in on Saturday.
    “Must be nice.”

    Yeah it is nice that is why God set it up that way. He wants his people to prosper.

    Also you staying married interrupts their ability to mate poach. That is when must be nice lady becomes you should come over to my house without your family lady.

    My husband magically fixed our dishwasher because he has an uncanny ability to fix things.
    “You should come over to my house and fix things because you are a real man.”

    Even if she had married him instead of me she probably would have destroyed him and been through with him by now.

  78. feeriker says:

    Isn’t holding open the possibility of reconciling with her husband should single life not work out part of the typical frivorcee mindset?

    Yes. It’s otherwise called “keeping all of your options open.” The indulgences issued by the RCC during the Middle Ages served, for all practical purposes, much the same function.

  79. ahlstar says:

    sunshinemary says:

    December 3, 2013 at 11:15 am

    IBB

    Jenny, if you are reading this (we know you aren’t, but still maybe one of your followers are), it’s not too late. You can still undo what you did. Go back to your husband and beg him to forgive you. I pray that you do, not just for you and for him, but for your kids.

    Out of curiosity – would you advise her ex-husband to take her back if she were to do that?

    Honestly, sunshine mary, if a man were to ever see real, genuine, biblical repentance as only true salvation from the Lord can bring about, it may not be possible to remain unmoved by it. Compared to what her husband has already seen and grown accustomed to, he would probably know real from fake and take her back.

  80. Escoffier says:

    The phrase “truly repentent” complicates matters a little, but a big problem with this particular woman (and others like her) is that what she “truly” believes (or to say better, “feels”) is subject to change without notice. Or, perhaps with subtle notice that only the most clued-in man will pick up on.

    So–follwing this hypothetical–she may well believe herself “truly repentent” at the moment she is begging him to take her back. But unless he is a fool, how could he trust that?

    Forgiveness does not require deliberately putting oneself once again the path of the same speeding truck. It’s enough to forgive the truck and then stay out of its way.

  81. deti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    “The warning signs for Lief were all over the place, from her use of him as an emotional tampon to her hitting him after he kissed her. This is, as others have noted, a classic example of a woman marrying her beta-orbiter. Once the youngest child is old enough to be easier to care for, the woman’s attraction being pretty much gone, she’s gonna be unHAAAAAPy.
    “Because she married a man she wasn’t really attracted to.”

    The reason the observation that Leif and Jenny probably never should have married in the first instance is important is because this kind of thing happens all the time. He’s a commitment slut just looking for some reasonably attractive girl to show some interest. He can’t get a date to save his life. She, on the other hand, is in the same boat most other HB 5s, 6s and 7s find themselves – hot enough for a good time and a few laughs; not hot enough to marry. Dates lots of hot guys but for reasons she has never been able to figure out, she can’t extract commitment from any of them. She’s been burned one too many times. Staring down the barrel of spinsterhood and probably getting pressure to marry, she gulps hard, looks at the beta orbiter who’s always there, and marches him to the altar.

    More importantly: How many men outside of naturals and the manosphere would see any of this as “warning signs? Most blue pill men would see this as “Aha! It’s finally worked! She’s come to her senses! She sees what a great guy I am because I’ve been so nice to her. She finally sees how all those other guys were jerks to her. I can now be free to just be myself because she loves me for the great, nice, good man I really am.”
    And they say this because they have grown up their whole lives hearing everyone around them say “just be nice. Just be yourself. All those girls who are dating jerks and bad boys and dickbags – they are just being stupid. They will come to their senses and you’ll be around to date and marry them when they finally grow up.”

    Anyone with two weeks of reading in the manosphere would see this from a mile away. But most men like Leif won’t see it because they’ve never been trained to see it. In fact, they’re trained to ignore it and wait for it to pass.

  82. Eidolon says:

    Having read a few of those entries on her blog, I retract my earlier theory that Ms. Erikson has mental problems. Her brain works fine. She’s just a despicable person. I hope that one day she will recognize and reject her sin and come to God with earnest repentance. A husband would probably be very helpful in encouraging her to do that, but we can hope for the very unlikely possibility that she does it on her own.

    It’s amazing, once you recognize the pattern, how you see it all over the place. The wife likes to watch Food Network shows. There’s a show called Restaurant Express where a few people have to set up little restaurants all over the place to win a restaurant gig. There are two women who, in the past, I probably wouldn’t have thought about. One is South Korean and was living in Mississippi, and one has 7 kids and is a single mom.

    Now that my eyes are open, I can see some interesting things. One doesn’t simply move from South Korea to Mississippi with no English skills and no family or friends there. The only way to make that happen that I can think of is to marry some guy for a green card then divorce him. Lo and behold, they lightly touch on the fact that she’s divorced. The “tough-guy” host talks about all the “obstacles” she’s overcome and builds up her self-esteem.

    The other woman has 7 kids and is a single mom. I assume any woman who was a widow would say “widow,” so that means that she kicked out the father of her 7 kids. She goes on an on about how hard it is, how she wants to provide for them, how sad she is that she couldn’t give them certain things, how her kids are all that matter, blah blah blah. And of course the host encourages her and praises her strength and talent.

    The lack of shame in our society is one of the cruelest kindnesses I can imagine. In an earlier era these women would fear the shame of these actions and would not go through with them. In our day they do these destructive, evil, manipulative, selfish, awful things, and they’re praised because they “overcame obstacles” (that they created for themselves and others).

  83. 8to12 says:

    @DrTorch,

    And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    Love your neighbor as yourself.
    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    “As” in the first two verses means “in the same manner” or “using the same standard.”

    The point isn’t that we shouldn’t have standards for others, it’s that we shouldn’t have one standard for ourselves and another for everyone else.

  84. Dalrock says:

    @8to12

    @Cane Caldo,

    If my wife frivorced me, slept with 1 (or more) men, and then came crawling back to me on her knees saying she wanted to reconcile and be my wife again, I’m not sure I could forgive her at that point. I’m almost certain I could not take her back.

    I can’t speak for Cane, but we don’t know that she has been with any other men (yet). She is signaling her interest in finding new men, but if she has been with one I haven’t seen her state such. This would be in my understanding the point at which divorce would turn into adultery, and the husband would then have to consider taking an adulterous wife back vs allow his daughters to grow up without him in the home. But I think this reinforces Cane’s point; without adultery this is a painful but in the end fairly straightforward decision. If she repents and wants to reconcile without having gone to the step of adultery, he should take her back.

  85. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “He should have known she was settling for him”

    Agreed.

    “and I can’t imagine his gut wasn’t screaming this (as was hers). “

    I doubt it. Even if his gut was screaming this; he was probably trained carefully and assiduously, over the course of a couple of decades, to ignore it.

  86. 8-to-12,

    Isn’t holding open the possibility of reconciling with her husband should single life not work out part of the typical frivorcee mindset?

    I don’t remember that being part of Dalrock’s 8 steps. You always wind up with the millionaire handyman so there is no need to reconcile.

    It doesn’t really matter. She’s not going to beg him to take her back, won’t happen. She should, but she won’t. I have known a lot of women who have frivorced a lot of men, and I have never-EVER known a frivorcing woman to beg her ex-husband to take her back. They are never sorry for doing what they’ve done. She is always having too much fun sleeping with her new live-in-BF who truly tingles her gina and spending the beta-male-exhusband alimony check. Why give all that up? If you have no fear of God’s wrath (and they don’t), your remaining days on this Earth you get it all, this is a win-win!

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    The phrase “truly repentent” complicates matters a little, but a big problem with this particular woman (and others like her) is that what she “truly” believes (or to say better, “feels”) is subject to change without notice. Or, perhaps with subtle notice that only the most clued-in man will pick up on.

    As Cane said, things must not be allowed to be the same. In my mind one essential marker of repentance would be her agreeing to get out of the blogging/gossip/snarky commentary business entirely. Agreeing to the biblical role of wife would be another very important change.

  88. HawkandRock says:

    Probably not as much as you because I am half your age but I have been through a divorce that devastated me emotionally and financially. I have also lived in London for two years (even worse than the US) and in China for almost a year (the most materialistic place I’ve ever experienced).

    Bottom line: The laws might be better elsewhere but hypergamy is a biological female imperative crossing all languages, cultures and political borders.

    After 10 years of marriage and 4 kids, my wife met a stud at the gym and suddenly remembered how unhappy she had been for the last 8 years of our marriage. The outpouring of support she was shown by her friends and literally everyone in our church stunned me. It still stuns and stings me. One — ONE — of our mutual friends called her out. Her mother and sister also told her how wrong she was. All three have since come around though. They are with her 100% now.

    I now pay for the house she occupies with her stud and my kids. THAT is the world that has discarded me (except for my $) and the one I have no use for.

  89. Escoffier says:

    There is a “srructural” problem here, isn’t there? That is, leaving aside what scripture and/or morality may (or may not) require of him, assuming she were to repent. Suppose she does (or says she does) and he lays down all the right conditions, she professes to accept them, and he takes her back. Won’t her base-nature (hindbrain or what have you) inevitably interpret that is weakness on his part? And then won’t that send her hypergamy sonar pinging? So right from the beginning of the “re-commitment” he will have provided a big DHV which helps kill her attraction.

    It’s similar to what Nova pointed out. These people are not suited for one another (and she seems not to be suited for marriage at all). The demands of righteousness and morality are in conflict with the imperative of base-nature, and she has shown herself incapable of controlling or even understanding her base-nature.

  90. feeriker says:

    I can’t speak for Cane, but we don’t know that she has been with any other men (yet). She is signaling her interest in finding new men, but if she has been with one I haven’t seen her state such. This would be in my understanding the point at which divorce would turn into adultery, and the husband would then have to consider taking an adulterous wife back vs allow his daughters to grow up without him in the home.

    Being a high time preference type (aren’t almost ALL women?), Jenny clearly isn’t looking at the long-term “big picture” (how many women ever do?) and thus doesn’t reaiize that taking the next step (i.e., taking on new “boy toy”) is tantamount to giving Leif a “Kick This Slut To the Curb Free” card. IOW, if she ever discovered that life as a cat-keeping divorcee is making her more unhaaaaaaaaappy than her worst day of married life ever did, she’s screwed (figuratively speaking, of course). One she’s “pumped and dumped,” she’s stamped herself with the seal of adultery, giving Leif the perfect biblical pretext to make their civil divorce a biblical one.

  91. TFH says:

    So right from the beginning of the “re-commitment” he will have provided a big DHV which helps kill her attraction.

    Yes. Totally. He would effectively be admitting that he cannot do better, and that she can treat him very badly, without consequence.

    Note that this was not true in the old days, when a woman could not leave a marriage without seeing a loss in living standards, due to a loss of marital assets.

    Dowry existed in many nations for many centuries, for a very good reason : to prevent exactly the type of behavior we are seeing from Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson.

  92. arid2385 says:

    You know, I think it’s significant that she says her dad “dragged her down the aisle.” I think that there are genuinely mixed messages sent to Christians about the role of attraction and feelings. I’m sure her family and friends were insistent that she had found such a good man to love her and to create a family with.

  93. Hawk,

    I now pay for the house she occupies with her stud and my kids. THAT is the world that has discarded me (except for my $) and the one I have no use for.

    And that totally sucks, its horrible. And your situation is the cardinal rule as to why so many men boycott marriage and GTOW. And your situation perfectly describes why frivorcing women do often do NOT remarry. If they are already sleeping with the man they love AND they get a government-enforced-check and a house from the man they had to (temporarily) marry (but never really loved) there is a financial disincentive to remarry. The stud, she uses for tingles. She uses you for resources. She gets it all and THIS is the narrative the frivorcing women want to hear on blogs like Jenny’s.

    They don’t get remarried. Why would they do something as stupid as that when that costs them the monthly check? You have already gone “all-in” on sin and frivorced, just move the poor, great looking, alpha-stud into your bedroom of the home that your ex paid for….

  94. Boxer says:

    So, has Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson actually become aware about what we have written about her? About the immense number of warning beacons we have placed around her for any man smart enough to do a Google search on her before entering any sort of relationship with her?

    Oh, she knows all right! You can read it in the subtext of yesterday’s inane article, where she castigated a tiny outlier (so-called polyamorous people who indulge in group sex with the façade of commitment) for her own misdeeds, which are arguably much greater than the average libertines who have someone on the side. She did this under cover of standing up for gay couples and polygamists. Having come from that particular tribe (Boxer was born a Mormon, practicing atheist) I found this especially humorous.

    Dalrock has really done quite a thorough job explaining her motives, including those drives and desires which are probably operating, between her ears, at a less-than-conscious level, steering her toward ever greater blunders and fuck-ups.

    Ms. Erickson: since I know you’re reading, I won’t jump on the dogpile, but I hope you take these articles with an open mind. A smart person would use such feedback to gain some precious self-awareness and save herself from any further disasters. Think of your children.

    Just sayin’.

    Regards, Boxer

  95. TFH says:

    If she repents and wants to reconcile without having gone to the step of adultery, he should take her back.

    What safeguards does Leif have against her changing her mind later, that too with the full force of the state behind her?

    The ONE positive for Leif is that the alimony 10-year clock gets reset. She will have to do a full new 10 years if she wants to re-divorce after re-marriage. For this reason, I don’t think she wants to reconcile even though she has very low SMV in the dating market, as she is getting his money and the kids anyway.

  96. Boxer,

    Ms. Erickson: since I know you’re reading…

    You really think so? I don’t. I don’t think she gives a d-mn what Dalrock posts about her situation. As such, not only do I think she doesn’t read this board, I am not even sure if she is aware the board exists. If she really cared what men thought about her situation she wouldn’t have done what she already did to her husband. She doesn’t care. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and her actions say that she is the only thing that matters in her own life.

  97. Lol, taking her back…. you cans are to die for!!! What a laugh!

  98. grrrrr! Should be ‘guys’ not ‘cans’.

  99. Mr. Roach says:

    It’s true, Leif was a beta orbiter. Then again, and I know we put a negative spin on it, but some women *do* realize that these guys are better, they do appreciate their charms and loyalty, do realize they’re better to marry, and do stick with them and their marriages. It’s called maturity and growing up. It’s called the power of persistence. How many average guys have you known who finally go the girl simply by hanging around a lot. You see it all the time, which is why you can’t let your wife have a bunch of “guy friends.” It’s retarded.

    She married this guy relatively young. He’s the father of their two kids. He may have been wimpy and boring and reliable, but people stick with marriages all the time because they find divorce to be an unthinkable wrong to their children, to God, to their reputation among friends and family, etc. They may complain and have dull sex lives, but they tough it out.

    Jenny’s problem is that she sounds kind of uprooted. I don’t hear her talking about mom and dad and the people she grew up with. It sounds like Leif picked the church and she stuck with it.. She picks churches and beliefs like she picks a blouse. It’s not like the Church of her parents and grandparents that I and other Catholics/Orthodox/Jews mostly have.

    And she is very very very narcissistic . . . more than usual, or at least as much as the average already very solipsistic modern women. So she is so proud of her snark and “smart mouth,” but she can’t string together a coherent set of thoughts. She can’t show critics any respect to reveal her thought processes or address their arguments that appeal to facts, evidence, biblical text, and the like. Indeed, she’s pretty dumb as best I can tell, a mediocre writer who believes her talents are limitless. Leif at least figured out how to earn a living, which she will now reap the fruits of.

    I find it hard to believe she didn’t tough it out past year 10 for alimony reasons. She seems that conniving. I also think all the people she met at the RNC (last summer) had a lot to do with her falling out of love with Leif. Maybe she had a hookup or at least a crush. Lots of power-hungry bimbos and partying at those things that appeal very much to a shallow loser like Jenny.

  100. TFH says:

    IBB,

    If she really cared what men thought about her situation she wouldn’t have done what she already did to her husband.

    Women, especially ones like Jenny Erikson, don’t understand cause and effect very well.

    She has no idea what these writings are doing for her dating prospects.

    But it is best if she reads these writings, as it will provoke her into attacking and sending other church sluts and manginas here, which will be glorious.

  101. Boxer says:

    Lol, taking her back…. you cans are to die for!!! What a laugh!

    That was my initial reaction also. Of course: We can say that, because we don’t have kids with one of these crazy broads.

  102. TFH,

    But it is best if she reads these writings, as it will provoke her into attacking and sending other church sluts and manginas here, which will be glorious.

    That is not going to happen. And even if it did, they will be moderated, Dalrock will read their screed, Dalrock will nuke those comments, and Dalrock will not let those posters in. If I had to guess, he probably throws out more than 50% of the moderated posts from the newbies (some of those are feminists posting vile filth.) That is about how much I throw out on my blog, just crap responses that never comes through.

  103. deti says:

    There is the biblically correct thing to do. Then there is the pragmatic, sensible thing to do.

    The biblically correct course is to take her back, if and only if there is true repentance, and if and only if she changes. He should at a minimum insist on the following:

    1. No more blogging. About anything. Ever. Just before she pulls the plug on her blog she openly confesses that she was wrong and recants all the nasty things she said about Leif.

    2. No chatting online. No social media.

    3. She quits drinking and goes to AA.

    4. No girls nights out.

    5. Her life is an open book. He has open access to her cell phone and email accounts.

    After one year of living like this, he will think about taking her back.

    The pragmatic, sensible thing to do is to say “I forgive you. But you and I are done. I will never remarry you under any circumstances, no matter how much repentance you demonstrate. We never should have married in the first place because you don’t love me and you aren’t attracted to me.”

    This does not free Leif up to marry, unless and until she has sexual relations with another man. At that point she will have committed adultery as to her marriage to him; and he would be free to remarry.

  104. sunshinemary says:

    Cane Caldo

    Absolutely, and without reservation. Things must not be allowed to be the same, and there must be demonstrations of a changed heart, but it’s unquestionable that it is God’s will; laid out in Scripture, and upheld by the saints.

    What if she doesn’t evidence much of a changed heart but still wants to reconcile?

    I’m asking not because I think it will happen in this case but because the Bible says men may only divorce their wives if the wife was an adulteress (Catholics disagree that he may divorce her even in this case). But it doesn’t say what to do if a wife wants to come back. If he’s still married to her in God’s eyes, then he has to take her back if she asks no matter how obnoxious she still is, right? Or wrong?

    IBB

    It doesn’t really matter. She’s not going to beg him to take her back, won’t happen. She should, but she won’t. I have known a lot of women who have frivorced a lot of men, and I have never-EVER known a frivorcing woman to beg her ex-husband to take her back.

    1. I know one couple who remarried. I know a number of couples that reconciled post-filing but pre-finalizing.

    2. Though I wouldn’t call it frivolous, I filed for divorce from my husband almost thirteen years ago. I later asked him to reconcile, and he agreed. Thankfully.

    3. In 40% of divorces, one or both parties would be open to reconciling:

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-20/opinions/35278848_1_divorce-rate-divorce-process-divorce-cases

    4. And furthermore, something like a third of couples who do divorce end up having sexual relations with one another during the first year post-divorce (I can’t remember what the exact statistic was – it might have been higher; I learned this in a divorce manual someone lent me a long time ago when I was considering getting divorced), implying that there is still something between them.

    I think reconciliation could be a way to at the very least make things better for their children.

  105. sunshinemary says:

    My last sentence in my previous comment was meant in general, not specific to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Erickson.

  106. earl says:

    Obession…if anything it is a cautionary tale to guys that even the Christian conservative women can go nuclear on you if you are beta and have no game.

  107. Escoffier says:

    “What if she doesn’t evidence much of a changed heart but still wants to reconcile?”

    Speculating here, but I don’t see that as a danger. First, because it’s unlikely, and second, hopefully even someone as … out of tune with female nature as Leif would see through it.

    What’s much more likely is that her post-divorce life turns out far less fab than she predicted or hoped and she convinces herself that she has truly repented and then puts on a spectacular show for him. This, too, I think is unlikely, given what I have read from her. But it’s more likely than the lukewarm request. She seems prone to rather wild emotional swings. Plus, in her desperation (assuming it comes to that) her hindbrain will know that she has to put on a good show to up the chances of success.

    And, beyond all that, if she were to ask to reconcile in a lukewarm manner, and he took her back, that would be a whopping DHV far greater than if he did so in the face of (genuine or feigned) repentance. (Which would itself entail a non-trivial DHV.)

  108. MarcusD says:

    Saw this posted yesterday (it’s been around): http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~andrew5/cute/marriage.txt

    Some of those things just seem appropriate.

  109. The question earl, the keeps popping into my head when you mention ‘game’ is…. why would anyone want to game that type of women?

  110. Martian Bachelor says:

    @AR

    It gets even more mixed up when you apply Newton’s Laws in a predictive fashion (-taking into account the probabalistic implications of uncertainty): “That car should hit the pedestrian in ~0.6 sec.”

  111. Lol, are you people being daft?! Don’t answer that.

    If a woman has the gall and utter disrespect to put you and your family through the divorce meat grinder, you don’t take her back, full stop. End of.

    If she’s willing to do it once, she’s will be willing to do it again.

  112. deti says:

    “If he’s still married to her in God’s eyes, then he has to take her back if she asks no matter how obnoxious she still is, right? Or wrong?”

    So long as she does not commit adultery, he is still ontologically married to her. He may live apart from her; they may have a legal divorce; but he is still married to her.

    Taking her back as a wife is another matter entirely. In my view, her continued sin and refusal to repent would justify separate living; justify even a legal divorce. So, no, he does not have to take her back if she asks when she continues being obnoxious and stiff-necked.

    He does not have to take her back even if she repents fully and truly does change. He could, but I don’t see that he’s required to do so, biblically or otherwise. His taking her back in that instance would cause all the problems TFH and Escoffier have outlined. There would be nothing to stop her from changing her mind again, begging the question whether the repentance was genuine in the first instance. Why should a man put himself through this?

    I told the story last year of my friend with two teenage kids. His wife divorced him because she was unhaaaappy. She made hints of reconciliation; he said no. His reply was simply “I’m not going through this with you again.”

  113. Jacob Heisenberg says:

    Escoffier says:
    December 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    There is a “srructural” problem here, isn’t there? …………………………………[deleted]
    Won’t her base-nature (hindbrain or what have you) inevitably interpret that is weakness on his part? And then won’t that send her hypergamy sonar pinging? So right from the beginning of the “re-commitment” he will have provided a big DHV which helps kill her attraction.

    It’s similar to what Nova pointed out. These people are not suited for one another (and she seems not to be suited for marriage at all). The demands of righteousness and morality are in conflict with the imperative of base-nature, and she has shown herself incapable of controlling or even understanding her base-nature.
    —————————————-

    I think this analysis is right on and I think this is the basis for the advice you see in the manosphere that, if your woman dumps you, you should NEVER take her back. There’s basic biology and evo-psych underlying these relationship dynamics and, further, at that point (of accepting her back) you create the market floor for her value in the SMP. She’s settling for you, declaring it openly, and you are a tool. Leif should hit the gym and get himself a better model, and a nicer one.

  114. earl says:

    “why would anyone want to game that type of women?”

    It’s more of a man already married to that type of woman and doesn’t want to get divorced. He should give game a shot.

    Now us single chaps have more freedom on the if or who we want to game.

  115. Mary,

    That is a lot to consume. Step-by-step…

    1. I know one couple who remarried. I know a number of couples that reconciled post-filing but pre-finalizing.

    I don’t really count the reconciling post-filing but pre-finalizing. I have known people who have done that. In the one situation where the couple remarried, was the divorce a frivolous one?

    2. Though I wouldn’t call it frivolous, I filed for divorce from my husband almost thirteen years ago. I later asked him to reconcile, and he agreed. Thankfully.

    Knowing what you have told everyone about your situation, yours was not frivolous. I am glad that he agreed to reconcile and I am very happy that you forgave him. That must have been very difficult for you to do.

    3. In 40% of divorces, one or both parties would be open to reconciling:

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-20/opinions/35278848_1_divorce-rate-divorce-process-divorce-cases

    I figured it would be higher than that. Pretty much all the guys I have known who have been frivorced (and almost all of them had children with their wives) would be happy to take their wives back, specifically for the children. Yes they are open to reconciling. But that never-EVER has happened (that I have seen) because she is having too much fun.

    She wasn’t happy. The sex was not good. He didn’t make enough money. There were not enough steaks in the freezer. He started gettng fat. She used facebook and hooked up with an ex-BF she truly loved (but didn’t marry because he didn’t make enough money.) Her ex-husband didn’t want to convert to her new religion. Maybe he “yelled” at her and that was all the reason she needed. Or maybe her ex-husband was just too critical of her drinking or smoking or whatever behavior. Or anything? Bottomline, she wasn’t happy and she didn’t love him. She is NOT going back to her husband, not if she is having sex with her new boyfriend AND getting checks from her ex-husband AND living in the house that her ex-husband pays for, a house that she got a court ordered restraining order to prevent her ex from ever entering. NOW she is truly happy Mary. She gets it all, money and resources from the man she resents AND sex from the cock that truly makes her gina and anus tingle. She is happy because Satan has a got a very strong hold over her life and she gave in to all his temptations. Eve has eaten another apple.

    4. And furthermore, something like a third of couples who do divorce end up having sexual relations with one another during the first year post-divorce (I can’t remember what the exact statistic was – it might have been higher; I learned this in a divorce manual someone lent me a long time ago when I was considering getting divorced), implying that there is still something between them.

    That doesn’t surprise me. That is him loving his wife (hoping that he can f-ck her back into loving him) and her being horny and just banging her betamale ex because… why not? What difference does it make? It doesn’t mean anything.

    I think reconciliation could be a way to at the very least make things better for their children.

    We have kids. So you get this. They have kids. That is why Jenny should go back to Leif and why Leif should take her back, forget everything else (for the moment) and think of the children. Truly THINK of the children. As Megan McArdle has said repeatedly on her blog, at the Atlantic, and now at Bloomberg, “Marriage matters.”

  116. Bucho says:

    @ Space Traveller and Anon Reader

    “You make an important point. Where was his father? Where were his brothers and male friends? Why did no-one advise him about this? And if they did, why did he not listen?”

    Sadly, most of the men I know would not have a frank discussion with their friends about this. Not so much as not creating an awkward situation, but they themselves don’t know any better themselves. Most of my friends and co-workers act like they are perpetually one step away from the dog house. Either that or they are on cruise-control “happy wife, happy life” mode and the hen pecking doesn’t phase them any more.

    On a personal note. I was at a Christmas Party a few years ago at my brother and his wife’s house. One of her co-workers was there and we ended up hanging out that night. She was friendly and she looked alright, but at the end of the night I just couldn’t see myself beyond friends. My brother got all over my case for not asking her out, like interrogating and such. Long story short, I found out from another one of her co-workers several months later that she had been terminated from her company for abusing sick leave. Said that she said she was depressed but was really drinking a lot and had been posting pictures of her self on Facebook at places like Disneyworld having a great time while she was on sick leave. It was also around that time I saw her mugshot online for a DUI. Not sure if my brother or his wife ever picked up on any of these issues….

  117. Bucho says:

    @ Mr. Roach

    “Leif at least figured out how to earn a living, which she will now reap the fruits of. ”

    I wonder, since he works in the IT field, if he was the one that set up her website for her…..

    “I also think all the people she met at the RNC (last summer) had a lot to do with her falling out of love with Leif. Maybe she had a hookup or at least a crush. Lots of power-hungry bimbos and partying at those things that appeal very much to a shallow loser like Jenny.”

    I thought the same thing too. Even if not a hook up, lots of powerful men there that gave her the tingles….

  118. I would say Jenny is all but finished as a writer unless she fully embraces the feminist side, because there are enough of her fellow Christians, male AND female, who aren’t going to forget this. Also it’s hard to throw stones at swingers for destroying marriage while you’re destroying your marriage. So the various groups she might attack in the future to try and prove her conservative cred will always have this frivorce to throw back in her face.

    She’ll have to start going all Anita Sarkeesian and just start blocking people and not allowing comments on the stuff she writes if she wants to keep this fire from spreading further. Even then she’s pushing water up a hill.

  119. deti says:

    Leif and Jenny Eriksen is what happens when a man marries a woman who’s just not all that into him.

  120. arid2385 says:

    Mr Roach: “Then again, and I know we put a negative spin on it, but some women *do* realize that these guys are better, they do appreciate their charms and loyalty, do realize they’re better to marry, and do stick with them and their marriages. It’s called maturity and growing up. It’s called the power of persistence. How many average guys have you known who finally go the girl simply by hanging around a lot. You see it all the time, which is why you can’t let your wife have a bunch of “guy friends.” It’s retarded.”

    Yeah, this is what I mean about the mixed messages. On one hand, women are criticized for marrying their beta orbiters for stability, companionship and family, and on the other hand, criticized for not appreciating their beta orbiters for the stability, companionship and family life they provide.

    Frivorce is inexcusable. Once you do take that step, it’s done. At the same time, I think Christians would do well to put more energy into articulating why people should decide to enter into marriage in the first place. (The Catholic Church does provide a rationale and teleology of marriage). If people think that the point of getting married is to perpetually feel a certain way, then obviously when they stop feeling that way, they will cease to see why they ought to remain married.

  121. arid2385 says:

    “Once you take that step” meaning getting married, not divorcing. Scripture speaks of possible reconciliation.

  122. The only one, to me that is, that seems ‘trapped’ is Leif. Poor little dim dim sluttart Jenny is not trapped, she is basking in the glory of her sin, like a little school girl.

    All the while, Leif cannot say or do a damn thing for fear of losing his children for being made to look like an abusive husband if he says or does something that puts a spotlight on her sins. She knows this. She is free to do as she pleases, he is stuck paying the bills, looking like a fool and forced to be a sexless eunuch for the rest of his life. Yea, take her back… maybe if she promises and is forced to give him sex every night at least three times.

    She is not the one trapped in this scenario.

  123. Maeve says:

    So, Ms. Erikson thinks that with a little time and therapy her daughters will be fine. They won’t be fine. It’s not ever going to be OK for them again and no amount of trying to rationalize it away will change that. Those girls need their father, not the parade of boyfriends their mother will soon be bringing home.

  124. Mr. Roach says:

    I will note one other thing. When she praises Leif in happier times, rarely is it for some great, manly traits of character. He’s obviously just a very nice, devoted guy. She says she loves him because he loves her so much. He changes diapers, etc. He gets a few points for being chill or being tall, but it’s all for beta behavior. He probably hurt himself over the years in this fashion, building up resentments, and maybe using sarcasm against Jenny’s sarcasm as a defense mechanism. Who really knows?

    Incidentally, lots of guys get this advice: you gotta be nice to your wife, I could never do that she’d kill me, gotta check with the boss, etc. This is advice I got and this is what I saw in my parents marriage. Truthfully, they are still together and still pretty happy, and my Dad has major economic hand, physical fitness, and overall social strength and abilities that my mom lacks. She’s miss tough girl at home, but wilts on the outside. He was in sales and traveled a lot and definitely had options. But they both stuck it out, though I can’t help but think the henpecking gets old. Then again, no marriage is perfect and happy all the time, best I can tell. They all have friction, a lot of it. People used to stick it out because the alternative was unbearable. That’s basic deal with my folks. And they find they can work through the tough times.

    That stick-to-it-ness is more important than game and all this other shit. You can’t outgame a hot wife forever; lots of other guys have something you can’t have: They’re different, they’re someone else. They have a novelty factor. You need real character, and you need to, as in sales, make that clear how you feel about it and the alternative. Jenny apparently had this too, or at least expressed it. Then she went to the RNC . . .

    Anyway, Jenny is a just a typical American whore in the end. Not terribly complicated, and Leif got burned, but it seems he landed a very hot wife for a while–she’s undeniably pretty now and in her youth–but it’s hard to resist society completely, game or no game. There’s too many temptations and too many forces working against you.

    Incidentally, I’ve not gotten married and am not so sure it’s worth it these days.

  125. DrTorch says:

    ” from Leif’s perspective it actually all happened exactly as the Book of Fireproof told him it would. This is the modern Christian view of courtship and marriage. The only part that doesn’t make sense to him is how it could have possibly have gone wrong? And of course the answer in his mind is he didn’t give enough foot rubs, submit enough, do the Love Dare hard enough.”

    Yes, that’s why Leif should be reading all of this (and more). He seems like a good-looking guy, fairly tall. He should be a lower alpha, yet he’s a delta/gamma. He should “man up” but not in the trecherous Dennis Rainey way, but in the true way. Frankly, Jenny has a complaint against the churchianity that encouraged her husband to be a wuss. Leif should be trained to be a leader in his home, confident in himself. Stop supplicating to Jenny.

    She’d be back in a heartbeat. Leif can then guide her in repentence, to him and to the Lord.

  126. David says:

    It’s crazy when she mentions praying for God’s Will, whatever that might be. As if God wills divorce. It’s amazing what convoluted and tortured logic is used to come to this conclusion. Part of this is bad religious education, I guess. They are always quick to point out the story of the tax collector or the adulteress but conveniently leave out what they were told after repenting (i.e. stop doing it).

    Reminds me of a time recently when reading the church bulletin for my old parish and seeing the name of the lawyer who promulgated the no-fault divorce for my former spouse; he was listed as being a proud parishioner. I contacted the parish office to ask if this was a misprint or how this fit in to their parish’s mission statement.

    The response: The sounds of crickets.

  127. David,

    Reminds me of a time recently when reading the church bulletin for my old parish and seeing the name of the lawyer who promulgated the no-fault divorce for my former spouse; he was listed as being a proud parishioner. I contacted the parish office to ask if this was a misprint or how this fit in to their parish’s mission statement.

    The response: The sounds of crickets.

    Thats easy to explain.

    #1) the person you were talking to in the parish office never really thought about this until you mentioned it. And the moment you mentioned it, that person in the office (probably just a church volunteer) didn’t want to say the wrong thing for “legal” purposes or…

    #2) the lawyer in that church donates a lot of money to that church and the person in the Parish office may or may not CARE that the lawyer blew up your marriage so long as the money keeps flowing into the church

    I’m sure there are other things but yeah… crickets. That is to be expected (either that or they just hang up the phone when you ask a question like that.)

  128. earl says:

    ” Leif should be trained to be a leader in his home, confident in himself. Stop supplicating to Jenny.”

    That would fix most…if not all the problems. Not just for him…but all us males in general.

  129. Mr. Roach says:

    People with low IQs should not try to be professional writers. Less/fewer conscious/conscience, she makes mistakes that evidence a poor education and weak brainpower. Just saying.

  130. feeriker says:

    As Megan McArdle has said repeatedly on her blog, at the Atlantic, and now at Bloomberg, “Marriage matters.”

    Megan McArdle actually wrote something sensible?

    WHOA! I feel the earth reversing its rotation!

  131. Escoffier says:

    Don’t worry, she didn’t mean it.

  132. Megan McArdle actually wrote something sensible?

    She does that a lot. She is a big proponent of marriage.

  133. feeriker says:

    @Spacetraveller
    Where was [Leif Erikson’s] father? Where were his borthers and male friends? Why did no-one advise him about this? And if they did, why did he not listen?

    Your handle is most appropriate to this post, as you seem to have emerged from another planet, one on which fathers, uncles, and elder brothers, to say nothing of close male friends who had “been there and done that,” look out for and mentor young men navigating the MMP, more often than not preventing men like Leif from making the catastrophic, life-altering mistake he made (to be fair, men on this planet used to do that regularly too not so long ago).

    Alas, said era is long, LONG gone from the societal mainstream, now existing only in a few obscure and close-knit religious communities such as the Amish and fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints communities, to name just two prominent examples. When it comes to courtship (to use a quaint and archaic term) and marriage, the young single man in the western world today is on his own as never before. Fathers, uncles, older brothers, and close male friends either 1) are just too lazy and self-centered and can’t be bothered to do the right thing, or 2) their own marital relationships are such nuclear disasters that the last thing they should even think of doing is giving advice to any other man.

    You know, I think it’s significant that she says her dad “dragged her down the aisle.”

    One could easily interpret this as a sign that her daddy knew what piece of work she was, was sick and tired of having to deal with her drama, and was determined to make her some other man’s burden at the first available opportunity (“get yo ass down that aisle to that altar, beeeyotch!”). Had Leif noticed this at the wedding, and had he been astute enough to realize what it signified, he hopefully would have RUN, FAST AND LONG, and not looked back.

  134. Cane Caldo says:

    @8to12

    If my wife frivorced me, slept with 1 (or more) men, and then came crawling back to me on her knees saying she wanted to reconcile and be my wife again, I’m not sure I could forgive her at that point. I’m almost certain I could not take her back.

    As Voddie Baucham says: “I just deliver the mail, I don’t write it.” I’m certainly not saying it would feel good. I don’t see how it could.

    @Dalrock

    As Cane said, things must not be allowed to be the same. In my mind one essential marker of repentance would be her agreeing to get out of the blogging/gossip/snarky commentary business entirely. Agreeing to the biblical role of wife would be another very important change.

    Exactly so. Myself, I would not consider anything said while not on her knees.

    @Dalrock and Boxer

    You both made the comment that Lief has to make the decision about what is good for his children. He should consider them, yes, but of more pressing concern is (supposing Jenny repents and makes that desire for repentance manifest through real changes in behavior) whether he is actually going to be Christian, e.g., Christ-like. This isn’t a feelings or damage-control question, but a question of obedience.

    @SSM

    What if she doesn’t evidence much of a changed heart but still wants to reconcile?

    I’m asking not because I think it will happen in this case but because the Bible says men may only divorce their wives if the wife was an adulteress (Catholics disagree that he may divorce her even in this case). But it doesn’t say what to do if a wife wants to come back. If he’s still married to her in God’s eyes, then he has to take her back if she asks no matter how obnoxious she still is, right? Or wrong?

    Yes, it (the Bible) does say: It says take her back, or remain alone. It also says he would be forcing her to adultery. As far as Lief is concerned: In the same way that we say of women: “You made a bad choice in men when you married the beta/niceguy or alpha/asshole: Make it work.”, Lief has to recognize that he chose this broad, and she’s his until death. To choose otherwise is to profane the Gospel and Christ’s glory. His glory is in redemption and unity with His bride the Church.

    And, again, I would only take requests from forgiveness from such a person if she were in prostrate, and immediately acquiescing to my commands. (Deti’s list is a good start) For someone who has written the things Jenny Erikson has written, that would set her heart on fire if it was not actually and truly broken in repentance.

  135. Escoffier says:

    “She is a big proponent of marriage.”

    Well, but from the perspective of an economist–that is, she goes on a lot about the economic or social benefits. But when push comes to shove, is she really ready to choose marriage over feminism or libertarianism? I see no reason to believe so. Even if, as is likely, she will remain married unto death, I expect I will never, ever read a single work of hers that so much as acknowledges, much less denounces, marriage 2.0.

  136. TFH says:

    Megan McArdle married a man 9 years younger than her…. a man so desperate that he solipism’ed his own SMV. Extremely few women would be happy with a man who is younger, lower status, and a mangina…..

    But in economics matters, she is one of the few women who might understand cause and effect well enough to see that current laws might be a disincentive for higher-SMV men (and thus one of the reasons why she could not get one)…

  137. greyghost says:

    Is there any way we can get Lief to the manosphere to see this conversation? That would be interesting because what he is going through is normal every day shit for family men in the west these days.

  138. feeriker,

    Fathers, uncles, older brothers, and close male friends either 1) are just too lazy and self-centered and can’t be bothered to do the right thing, or 2) their own marital relationships are such nuclear disasters that the last thing they should even think of doing is giving advice to any other man.

    I’m going to take a third option here. I fear (and I say this with great caution of being a father and not knowing everything) that fathers, uncles, older brothers, and close male friends don’t always know exactly what the right thing is. Moreover, fathers, uncles, older brothers, and close male friends probably realized a long time ago that if a man has decided that he wants to get married, (and she said yes) that’s it. The man in question is probably not going to listen to other peoples’ advice (no matter how good it is) as it is typically unsolicited advice. They think their situation will be different because they are too stupid to realize that don’t know everything.

    When I got married, I didn’t ask a single person that I knew what they thought of my wife, nor would I have listened if they had told me not to do it. As it turns out, marrying her was one of the best deicisions (if not THE BEST decision) I have made in my life. But I am one of the lucky ones. I guessed right. Others here at Dalrock’s blog are not so lucky and I have great sympathy for their situations.

  139. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    Is there any way we can get Lief to the manosphere to see this conversation? That would be interesting because what he is going through is normal every day shit for family men in the west these days.

    Yes! This is what the androsphere is extremely bad at. We don’t recruit new candidates at all. Someone who is capable of contacting him on Facebook or whatever (i.e. willing to use their real name) should do so.

    Furthermore, the shock of the red pill takes time. It takes considerable effort to learn the concepts (and the corresponding unlearning of false blue-pill training). That is even for men who are capable of being red pill to begin with.

    At the same time, if, after two years have passed, he is still blue-pill and doubling down on his pedestalization, my sympathy for him will evaporate……

    That is why Tucker Carlson is such a fool. He got a false rape accusation himself. He went through a big ordeal for that. And YET is a pedestalizing blue-pill mangina. In fact, it seems his brush with the feminist police state is inducing him to double down on his mangina-views…

  140. thebechtloff says:

    @TFH
    Someone sent Lief a link to Dalrock on twitrter.

  141. Marriage, it seems, is either for stupid people or incredibly lucky people. All the rest should stay well clear.

  142. The Rigorist says:

    “You can’t make this stuff up.” – Dalrock

    Actually, you can.

    I have to ask, how confident are we that this person exists?

    Maybe it’s because I’m an elder geek and I remember that there are now women on the internet. Maybe it’s the report of the Silk Road successor, Sheep Marketplace, vanishing with millions in BitCoin ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25185225 ). Maybe it was an earlier fraudulent series of “posts” from a woman performing her romance novel in a blog or two ( what was her name again? ) or Lonelygirl15 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonelygirl15 ).

    This tragedy is just a bit too perfect.

  143. earl says:

    “Is there any way we can get Lief to the manosphere to see this conversation?”

    He is going through something that makes a lot of men come to the manosphere. Question is how will he respond to the information presented.

  144. Karl says:

    >> why do you keep directing internet traffic to Jenny’s blog? Even bad press is better than NO press. I

    No, we are trying to clarify her character via Google-trailways. So that she can’t screw over any more guys.

  145. TFH,

    Megan McArdle married a man 9 years younger than her…. a man so desperate that he solipism’ed his own SMV. Extremely few women would be happy with a man who is younger, lower status, and a mangina…..

    That is one way to put it.

    Another way to put it is a young man married an extremely intelligent, Ivy-League educated woman, who is 6’2″, thin, and rather attractive, a woman (I might add) who has been saying how important marriage was in all her posts LONG BEFORE she met him. SHe has been writing for over a decade. He understood what was important to her. So he had a lot of data points to work with when he decided to go down on bended knee. His was an informed decision.

    Maybe because he was 26 and she was 35 when they got married, he settled because he had a higher SMV? Maybe? Or maybe he was just looking at her MMV which (assuming all her accomplishments) was quite high.

  146. The Rigorist says:

    That was supposed to be “there are NO women on the internet.” Rule 31.
    Err FAIL. sorry.

  147. TFH says:

    thebectloff,

    Good! Each such action might bring in new recruits. Eventually, one of the new recruits becomes Spartacus….

    I mean, people who have been brutalized by divorce laws include Alec Baldwin, Mel Gibson, Hulk Hogan, Kenny Rogers, etc. If we can’t get at least covert support from one of them, we are not reaching the threshold yet….

    Even if Leif recoils in horror and becomes a mangina, that, too, brings in new recruits from men who see that and think in visceral revulsion “whatever he is, I must become the opposite” (which is how Manboobz Futrelle has done so much to increase androsphere traffic).

  148. TFH says:

    IBB,

    By age 35, her looks were down to a 5. Plus, she has too deep of a voice for what an attractive woman should have.

    And being 6’2″ only works for a woman if she has a supermodel’s posture and walk. Otherwise, she becomes a gangly Giganta.

    I know you want your daughters to have very good options when their time comes, but no, that lens is not how to interpret Megan McArdle’s marriage. You will find yourself rationalizing ways to assign higher SMV and MMV to women, than they hold…… beware…

  149. Or maybe he was just looking at her MMV which (assuming all her accomplishments) was quite high.

    Lol, did IBB just say that with a straight face? We just love those feminist qualifications!

  150. She can’t control her voice or her height. She can control her weight (which is low for her height as she is thin) and some of her looks (she has very long hair which men like.) You can assign a 5. I’ll assign an 8 because her writing is awesome, I think she has a pretty face, and most importantly she has a Degree from either Columbia or Princeton which tells me she’s real smart.

    To me SMART = HIGM MMV

    YMMV….

    From a pure looks perspective, Katie Perry may very well be a perfect 10. Perfect hair, perfect face, perfect tummy, perfect boobies, perfect everything. SMV off the chart. However, from a MMV (given the crap one British actor had to deal with in his divorce) I’ll mark her down to about a 3 or even a 2. I would never want any son of mine married to something like that as she will ruthlessly destroy him, Kimmy Kardashian-style. F that.

    MMV matters more than SMV. Always did. Always will.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    feeriker
    Megan McArdle actually wrote something sensible?

    IBB
    She does that a lot. She is a big proponent of marriage.

    So is she married, yet?

  152. And being 6’2″ only works for a woman if she has a supermodel’s posture and walk.

    Ireland Baldwin (also 6’2″) learned that from her frivorcing mommy Kim Basinger. I am VERY happy that she told her mom to screw and reconciled with her father, Alec.

  153. Casey says:

    Katie Perry……please there are MUCH better looking women out there.
    AND
    Many more who don’t sing Claptrap Feminist songs.

    Let’s hear her ‘Roar’ at age 40.

  154. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    Megan McArdle married a man 9 years younger than her…. a man so desperate that he solipism’ed his own SMV.

    When did this happen? I used to read her old blog and it seemed obvious she was single and desperate, at that time.

  155. myne88 says:

    Just wow. I can’t believe this guy. He manages to break out of the friend zone and then he immediately proposes to her? Wtf? Maybe if he has just gotten a piece and busted off that rusty nut he would have realized she wasn’t so great. But probably not.

    In any case, it’s a perfect example of how supposedly intelligent women can so easily hamster away gross hypocrisy.

  156. Bucho says:

    I saw someone had linked to his twitter feed last week. I skimmed through a few of his tweets and I sensed at his tone that he is none the wiser to the situation. Maybe she has convinced him that this divorce is a good thing for both of them.

    @The Rigorist

    “I have to ask, how confident are we that this person exists?”

    The truth is stranger than fiction.

    At this point, I’m sure she does in some fashion. Yes her stories could be embellished, but I think I think we have pretty much seen her true colors, and the basic narration of crazy wanting out of her boring, yet stable marriage is probably there. She’s probably bs’ed enough that she even believes her own non-sense and probably until now, not many people have challenged her. In this day and age, even the mentally ill have access to the free form of the interwebs….

  157. Casey,

    Katie Perry……please there are MUCH better looking women out there.

    There are some women that look better, not MUCH better, no. There is a reason why she was voted the most beautiful woman in the world at either Roling Stone or whatever publication that was. Physically, she is a 10. She does not get 350,000,000 youtube views for her videos because of her voice or the lyrics.

  158. Smart is fine, sass is not. However, smart doesn’t raise MMV and it doesn’t lower it either. A woman who is 35 literally has no MMV, she lost it all wasting 20 years doing other stuff, who knows what… it doesn’t matter though, her MMV is shredded. Of course she might still get married but it won’t be a marriage that lasts or a marriage in which she respects and admires the man she is with.

  159. FH,

    However, smart doesn’t raise MMV and it doesn’t lower it either.

    It raises it.

    Dramatically.

    People want to breed SMART children.

  160. Don’t think I have a 10 when it comes to women, I’ve seen a couple 9s though, with small imperfections that rendered them unable to qualify as 10s.

  161. Bucho says:

    @IBB
    “From a pure looks perspective, Katie Perry may very well be a perfect 10.”

    Oh the power of a good makeup artist….

    http://entertainment-crunchz.blogspot.com/2013/08/katy-perry-without-makeup.html

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    fh
    A woman who is 35 literally has no MMV, she lost it all wasting 20 years doing other stuff, who knows what… it doesn’t matter though, her MMV is shredded. Of course she might still get married but it won’t be a marriage that lasts or a marriage in which she respects and admires the man she is with.

    Not necessarily the case, although likely so. An older man, in his 40′s or even 50′s, who had been married before, might be able to make such a marriage work, provided the 35 year old was grateful enough to learn how to submit to his leadership. But that would depend in turn on what she was bringing into the relationship – better not be a cruise-ship worth of baggage – and that in turn depends on what she was doing. I doubt that McArdle was riding the carousel, for example. A mid-30′s women with a very low N would be rare, but not nonexistent.

    That hypothetical man would need to be ready to deliver a major load of alpha anytime, anywhere, as required. IMO.

  163. Casey says:

    @ IBB

    I didn’t realize we were bowing down & trying this in the court of ‘popular opinion’.

    Here’s my truth: I find many other women more attractive than Katy Perry (especially in her sphere – entertainment).

    Large breasts alone do not a 10 make.
    I will agree that she nets out to a 2 or a 3 after discounting her ‘attitude’.

  164. IBB, a question. How smart is a woman who waits till 35 to marry? Most of her ‘breeding’ potential is done.

    You’re equating books smarts with intelligence. Men don’t mind actual smart women, but books smarts, as in old feminist women who spent years on their careers, doesn’t up their MMVs, no matter how much you want it to.

  165. Sorry, that should say ’37′… as is written in the article Bucho just linked.

  166. bike bubba says:

    I’m with those who say that, absent adultery, Mr. Erikson can take his wife back. I tend to interpret 1 Cor. 7, however, as noting that the man whose unbelieving wife has left him is free to remarry. Verse 15 notes that the believing spouse is “not under bondage” in such cases. You can argue that either (a) he’s not compelled to compel her to stay, or (b) he’s free to remarry in this case. One could even argue that (c) Paul assumes adultery as a motive for the unbelieving spouse to leave.

    So it’s not implausible for her to try to return and find that he’s rightly moved on. Hopefully this scares her a touch.

    But if she does, Lord willing, repent, I’m also with those who would recommend he hold her to some Biblical accountability. Her writing indicates consistent drunkenness, a requirement for exotic vacations and preparations for her wedding, and a penchant for exhibitionism in blogging, writing, and politics. Add to that the financial and emotional costs of divorce, and she owes him big time.

  167. feeriker says:

    IBB said Or maybe he was just looking at her MMV which (assuming all her accomplishments) was quite high.

    What the heck do her “accomplishments” have to do with her MMV? (Hint: nothing. In fact, if anything, they probably worked against it.)

  168. Casey says:

    37……..3 years ago.

  169. Casey says:

    And the bride kept her maiden name.
    Color me surprised.

  170. Bucho says:

    Oh and one more link to round out today’s discussion….

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-erikson/9/7a4/b88

  171. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    To quote yourself……..””Jenny has made it her life’s work to be a living breathing manosphere cliché””

    I believe this quote to be the entire summation of your last 3 posts…………I have this in my own family. Shalom!

  172. bike bubba says:

    Reasons I do not count her as a believer: refusal to submit to church discipline multiple times, sees nothing wrong with taking kids into Victoria’s Secret despite her own admission they use soft porn to advertise, the drunkenness, the materialism (that Keurig, trips to Hawaii), and the divorce for non-Biblical reasons.

  173. feeriker says:

    Megan McArdle actually wrote something sensible?

    She does that a lot. She is a big proponent of marriage.

    No, she doesn’t “do that a lot.” Most of what Megan writes, especially on matters economic, is ignorant and sophomoric nonsense. And so what if she’s a “big proponent of marriage?” How does that translate into “sensible” in today’s culture?

    Sorry, pal, but epic fail in the logic department.

  174. @Dalrock

    Just a suggestion, but I was thinking you should make your next post on this subject an open letter to Lief. Reach out to the poor guy a bit.
    @TFH,
    I agree the red pill world needs a little more outreach. I try on my blog to get my fellow geeks to take the red pill.

  175. TFH says:

    IBB,

    People want to breed SMART children.

    And yet, you are not yet able to digest that the son-in-law of your dreams, who :

    i) Has a very impressive job (beta bucks) and high IQ
    ii) Is a beta provider
    iii) Will give tremendous respect to you as the father-in-law…

    Is a Chinese or Indian fellow of your daughter’s generation. You will have to come to terms with the fact that by the time you are shopping for a son-in-law, this will be the last major pool of beta bucks available.

  176. TFH says:

    Yeah. Mr. and Mz. McArdle have the ages exactly reversed. 37 marrying 28 is quite ideal if it were the man who is the older one.

    Gender-role-reversal and thus age-reversal? Fail.

  177. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    You both made the comment that Lief has to make the decision about what is good for his children. He should consider them, yes, but of more pressing concern is (supposing Jenny repents and makes that desire for repentance manifest through real changes in behavior) whether he is actually going to be Christian, e.g., Christ-like. This isn’t a feelings or damage-control question, but a question of obedience.

    Just to clarify, my answer was that if she hasn’t yet committed adultery (and we have no indication that she has), your statement that he had to take her back if she repented was painful but straightforward. I referenced feelings, but not from a decision making perspective. I think this is quite black and white.

    But there is still the issue of what is required of him if she did commit adultery and then wanted to repent, which you addressed in response to SSM:

    Yes, it (the Bible) does say: It says take her back, or remain alone. It also says he would be forcing her to adultery. As far as Lief is concerned: In the same way that we say of women: “You made a bad choice in men when you married the beta/niceguy or alpha/asshole: Make it work.”, Lief has to recognize that he chose this broad, and she’s his until death. To choose otherwise is to profane the Gospel and Christ’s glory. His glory is in redemption and unity with His bride the Church.

    I should state upfront that I’m not in a position to argue with you on this. I don’t know the answer, and unlike the same question without adultery the Scripture may leave some room for interpretation. You’ve already done the level of study I would need to do to be comfortable offering a solid answer on this, but I have not. So with this lengthy but essential preface out of the way, I’m not sure our comments are in disagreement. Your wording suggests to me that in some way at least this would be a judgment call for Lief (if she committed adultery and then repented), with the critical caveat that this wouldn’t free him to remarry. However, I may be misreading you.

  178. TFH,

    And yet, you are not yet able to digest that the son-in-law of your dreams, who :

    This one is not up to me.

  179. TFH,

    Yeah. Mr. and Mz. McArdle have the ages exactly reversed. 37 marrying 28 is quite ideal if it were the man who is the older one.

    Gender-role-reversal and thus age-reversal? Fail.

    Well…. not yet.

  180. TFH says:

    IBB said :

    People want to breed SMART children.

    Whatever her IQ may be, if she is reproducing at the age of 37+. the chance of Down’s Syndrome is high. The IQ of the child will be higher if the man reproduces with a 21-year-old waitress.

    *High age of mother = Downs Syndrome.
    *Down Syndrome >> mother’s IQ at time of conception, in determining whether the kit is smart or not.

    IBB’s rationalization hamster is alive today (some days, it is asleep), as he is worried about son-in-law prospects at the moment (even though the perfect solution is obvious, as I described above).

  181. TFH says:

    IBB,

    How old is your daugther, and do you have just one daughter or two? If so, what are both their ages?

    By knowing their ages, we can know how old they will be in 2020 (when the Misandry Bubble deflates), and in 2025, 2030, etc. and help you formulate an action plan now…..

    If you think things today are scary, things will be quite more extreme by 2020…

  182. JDG says:

    You can pretty much substitute “forgive your neighbor” for “love your neighbor” as that is what Christ was saying. Technically, you don’t have to forgive Jenny (personally) as she didn’t do anything (personally) to anyone on this blog unless Leif or his children post here. She trespassed against THEM, not anyone on this blog. But we should forgive her for what she did to marriage in general. That you and I are commanded to do. That is part of being a Christian.

    I think I’ll have to disagree with this. I don’t think you can just trade forgive with love. You can still love while with holding forgiveness as an attempt to encourage the offender to repent.

    The apostle Paul wrote:
    3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

    I don’t think it would be fair to say that the offender was forgiven. Nor would it be fair to say that Paul and those in the congregation did not love the offender. Some times one must be tough in order to love. Please understand I’m not defending anyone who might be taking pleasure in this tragedy. I’m just pointing out that we should not confuse love with forgiveness.

  183. FH,

    IBB, a question. How smart is a woman who waits till 35 to marry?

    Not very. I would like to see 90+% of all women married before 29. We used to be there. We aren’t anymore. And that is wrong, your point is taken. Megan McArdle has even gone on the record stating that people should get married younger! Lookie here!

    http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/05/29/the-many-cases-for-getting-married-young.html

    Yup, Megan said that FH.

    But this might not have been up to her. She has to be asked. Neither you nor I could speculate as to whether or not she was ever asked prior to God joining her with Peter. But I’ll tell you this, her writing has illustrated (over the years) that she was approachable. She put herself out there. She wanted very desperately to be married. She even wrote an essay encouraging her readers to approach her for that very thing!

    Megan was NEVER a Kate Bolick.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/308654/

    Most of her ‘breeding’ potential is done.

    Oh they are pushing out the puppies even into their late 40s now. The greatest risk here obviously is the Down’s Syndrome, but advanced maternal age (which was typically 35 and above) OB’s have been raising the bar on that one.

  184. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    But it is best if she reads these writings, as it will provoke her into attacking and sending other church sluts and manginas here, which will be glorious.

    That is not going to happen. And even if it did, they will be moderated, Dalrock will read their screed, Dalrock will nuke those comments, and Dalrock will not let those posters in. If I had to guess, he probably throws out more than 50% of the moderated posts from the newbies (some of those are feminists posting vile filth.) That is about how much I throw out on my blog, just crap responses that never comes through.

    I wouldn’t toss them out. You can see this kind of thing pretty regularly on some of the old posts. Someone shows up to screech and set me and/or the commenters straight. Unless there are other obvious troll markers I let them through. The only thing I’ll sometimes do is put them on the moderation list (not the blacklist) so they don’t go nuts and leave a rash of childish comments all over the site. If after a number of comments they don’t show any interest in at least engaging in a discussion then I’ll finally ban them.

    As for her knowing about this blog, I’m almost sure she does. Over the weekend (I think, maybe a day or two before) I was sending over 1,000 hits a day for several days to her personal blog. That isn’t a lot of traffic, but given the relative sleepiness of her blog and her thirst for attention I can’t imagine that it didn’t register. Plus, I noticed that a number of commenters linked back because I was getting a few hits the other way.

  185. Bucho says:

    Jenny said “Add to that my 125 calorie-a-glass wine habit …”

    It looks like Cranberry called it earlier in the thread

  186. Eidolon says:

    So is there anywhere where she explains why she’s so thrilled with gay marriage, what with being such a pious Christian and strong conservative? Those things seem incompatible, though of course less incompatible than they are with frivorce.

  187. John Galt says:

    @IBB: “We have kids. So you get this. They have kids. That is why Jenny should go back to Leif and why Leif should take her back, forget everything else (for the moment) and think of the children. Truly THINK of the children. As Megan McArdle has said repeatedly on her blog, at the Atlantic, and now at Bloomberg, “Marriage matters.””

    You’re an idiot. If Leif takes her back, he has taught his daughters that their mother’s behavior is OK. Far better for them to see her destroying her own life as an object lesson. Assuming he can somehow prevent his daughters from being raped by one of the thug boyfriends.

  188. Dalrock says:

    @Mr Roach

    Leif got burned, but it seems he landed a very hot wife for a while–she’s undeniably pretty now and in her youth

    From John Galt’s link immediately above (among everything else) it is clear she craves attention from men. She certainly was much prettier when she was younger, but now I wouldn’t call her hot. The party girl lifestyle seems to have caught up with her with a vengeance. See the photo of her on this page on her blog, and the last photo in this post at The Stir.

  189. earl says:

    “I could’ve left her with Leif when he was home, but if I was getting out of the house for an hour or two by myself, I certainly wasn’t going to spend the time exercising.”

    Boy she really loved her husband didn’t she.

  190. John Galt says:

    My favorite comment is @Jenny “I have never had to purchase my own drink when I’ve been out in my perfect dress. See? I told you it was magic.”

    Hoo boy….

  191. Eidolon says:

    Personally I think a woman’s view of gay marriage would be a useful way to discern how Christian she is about marriage, and how much of a flight risk she might be. A woman who accepts the modern view of marriage with respect to gay marriage, it seems to me, is very likely to be a believer in Marriage 2.0, whereas one who holds to the Christian view of marriage and rejects what she’s told in the news and in movies, music and TV is more likely to be a believer in Marriage 1.0, to the extent that anyone is at this point.

  192. Dalrock,

    As for her knowing about this blog, I’m almost sure she does. Over the weekend (I think, maybe a day or two before) I was sending over 1,000 hits a day for several days to her personal blog. That isn’t a lot of traffic, but given the relative sleepiness of her blog and her thirst for attention I can’t imagine that it didn’t register.

    If that’s the case (and I hope you are reading this Jenny), then I’d like very much for Jenny to post here to answer for what she’s done to Leif and her kids.

    Jenny, tell you what, if you post on Dalrock’s blog and explain to us why you thought it was right and just and God’s will to nuke your family and your husband, I promise not to f-cking lambast you. I can’t speak for the rest of the guys here, but I promise you I won’t.

    The gauntlet has been thrown down. Be a woman Jenny, and show yourself here. Lets see how much courage of your convictions you really have. Dalrock, if she posts, please let her message in (uneditted.)

    Plus, I noticed that a number of commenters linked back because I was getting a few hits the other way.

    I’ve actually been getting all of 20 whole hits a day (whoopie-do!) on my stupid blg from people coming in for you blog so, 1000 doesn’t seem all that far fetched.

  193. PuzzledTraveller says:

    See,

    This is wild speculation on my part, and like just my Internet opinion man, but given that she wrote a super sappy article about her anniversary and how full of awesome being married was, then only nine months later is divorcing and saying how suck it all is and that her husband did nothing wrong, specifically, well my opinion and speculation is that in those types of scenarios it is often that a wife has met someone else. The ole ILYBINILWY – speech.

    If I had to guess…that would be my guess.

    I don’t laugh at their situation, whatever the cause. It sucks. But just from a perspective of looking at the background of how they came together as described by her in her articles, you can spot that a blow out was highly likely at some point without careful behavior management on both their parts.

    The reason I postulate the theory of another dude, is that wives who are gushing about their husbands don’t just up and run off or run out, unless they met a new dude. That’s been what I’ve seen in this life. Just saying.

    Hope for both their sakes, that wasn’t the case though. It’s ugly to watch, ugly to live through, and an ugly stain on everyone for years to come.

  194. TFH says:

    Eidolon,

    Her Christian Conservatism is convenient for her, due to :

    i) Being a major GOP volunteer, enabling the procurement of gina tingles from being in the same room as Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, etc.
    ii) Lip service to religion is a way to run moral cover for her sinful hedonism.
    iii) She gets a lot of attention from church whiteknights, and from other church sluts who want to emulate her. In her mind, she is a major celeb, and thinks she can talk about her divorce to get attention in a way that a major Hollywood actress would…

    The only flaw was that the Pastor prevented the ambush she had planned for Leif. Otherwise, being a conservative Christian was the perfect cover for her, with the rest of her community willing to run interference for her.

    Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson is a perfect example of everything Dalrock exposes. All the various traits, in one person.

  195. feeriker says:

    Jenny Erikson (from the link John Galt provided):

    Add to that my 125 calorie-a-glass wine habit … well, I may have gained three six (ok, fine) nine pounds.

    A very interesting “hamsterial” way to quantify one’s excessive alcohol consumption. One wonders when Jenny will roger up to how many of those “125 calorie-a-glass” servings she drinks per day (I’m guessing that she’s not just some liquor store owner’s preferred customer, but his savior).

    But. I have this magic dress. It’s black. It’s satin. It’s strapless. It’s corseted and has a cute swingy short skirt. It’s the prettiest dress I own. It might even be the prettiest dress over made. I have never had to purchase my own drink when I’ve been out in my perfect dress. See? I told you it was magic.

    A coating of vanilla frosting on a turd doesn’t change the fact that it’s still decorating a turd. Nice try.

    I went to the Blogger’s Bash at FreedomWorks to grab some dinner and warm beer (supposed to put that on ice before the party starts, guys), and then caught a ride with a friend to the GOProud party.

    I don’t even want to know what kind of “beer” this warm liquid was. So is there anything even remotely alcoholic that this creature DOESN’T drink?

    Jenny might as well just have a bullseye tattooed on some part of her anatomy.

    Like fish in a barrel…

  196. Boxer says:

    I’m not linking to her latest article up on the femtard “Stir” blog, but it’s called something like “signs you’re healing after a divorce”. Quoted verbatim:

    Bottom line — when things get so bad in a marriage that you call it quits, you wonder if you’ll ever be able to move on from this person that you went from loving so much to being confused by all the time to just really not liking at all. This person that has devastated you and shattered your dreams and just made you feel plain old unlovable.

    This, as her article of yesterday, suggests that she is indeed being effected by the feedback which so many are leaving on all her blogs.

    She certainly is a cunning manipulator, pouring out just enough in the way of details to give plausible credibility of having been “poor and persecuted” — yet still being vague enough to claim to be taking the high road.

    Regards, Boxer

  197. earl says:

    Well I supposed I spoke too soon. She really did love “him”.

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/2010/07/13/25-reasons-i-love-leif-on-our-eighth-anniversary/

    BTW…I’d give her a 6.

  198. Eidolon says:

    @TFH

    I can definitely see the advantage to her, claiming to be conservative and Christian. That differentiates her from other, nearly identical EPL-ers just enough to create a niche. I’m just curious if there are any posts where she discusses her rationalizations for why gay marriage is totally cool, scripture to the contrary, where her thinking might prefigure her eventual frivorce. But I don’t want to have to read any more of her snarky, juvenile prose to find out.

  199. Who is John Galt?

    You’re an idiot. If Leif takes her back, he has taught his daughters that their mother’s behavior is OK. Far better for them to see her destroying her own life as an object lesson.

    Apparently, Dalrock, Cane, and SSM are all idiots too?

    Assuming he can somehow prevent his daughters from being raped by one of the thug boyfriends.

    This is one of the many good reasons why Leif should take her back, so Jenny’s future alpha-cock boyfriend doesn’t get drunk and molest one of Leif’s daughters.

    Here that Jenny, GO BACK TO LEIF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  200. TFH says:

    I’m just curious if there are any posts where she discusses her rationalizations for why gay marriage is totally cool,

    She wants to be in the cool cliques in the nightclub circuit. She cannot be known for being a conservative, so this is a concession….

    Plus, she surely has a gay male friend or two, to help her adjust to clubbing again. She had to become acceptable to them, in some way.

  201. Eidolon says:

    @TFH

    I bet you’re right about the gay male friend. She probably craves male attention too much to settle for one man in her life. She seems like the type who would most enjoy having the tame male around to appreciate her.

    That really does seem to be the solipsistic view on homosexuality, doesn’t it? Some people who engage in that behavior were nice to me personally, therefore the behavior is acceptable. A lot of women seem to feel that way.

  202. Amanda says:

    @ Maeve

    Yes, I also think Ms. Erikson is being naive if she thinks the kids will just “be ok” after divorce. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen this book:

    http://www(dot)amazon.com/The-Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-ebook/dp/B006GI6G6C/ref=pd_sim_b_7 (link broken)

    It was a long-term (25 year) study of children of divorce, and absolutely refutes all those nice platitudes about how the kids will be just fine. My own parents divorced when I was 18, and it has had its toll.

  203. JDG says:

    I am acquaintances with dozens of “conservative Christian” women through social media and many of them think Jenny Erickson is awesome. Christianity is doomed.

    Christianity is alive and well. Christ’s church is not made up of everyone who claims the title ‘Christian’.

    Matt 20:
    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

    What I think we are seeing is the beginning of the separating of the wheat and the tares and the filling up of the cup of wrath. And we had all better watch ourselves lest we too fall to some snare.

  204. feeriker says:

    Christianity is alive and well. Christ’s church is not made up of everyone who claims the title ‘Christian’.

    Exactly so. We need to stop the abuse of the word “Christian.” This is why the term “churchian” needs to be used WITH REGULARITY to ensure that we accurately describe people like Jenny Erikson and those who enable her, as distinct from Christian (better perhaps is the term “Christ follower”).

  205. arid2385 says:

    @feministhater: “A woman who is 35 literally has no MMV, she lost it all wasting 20 years doing other stuff, who knows what… it doesn’t matter though, her MMV is shredded. Of course she might still get married but it won’t be a marriage that lasts or a marriage in which she respects and admires the man she is with.”

    You are projecting what you want to be the case onto reality. Regardless of your opinion of it, the reality is that women continue to marry later and well. But more importantly, the sad fact for a number of women is that plenty do want to be married and are not. Many of them are Christian women who have been waiting precisely because they are not in the world, riding the carousel and expect to marry God-fearing men. If feminist carousel-riders are unmarriable to good men, so are PUAs and otherwise worldly men to good women.

    The irony of these discussions is often that, not only are people preaching to the choir, but they are aiming arrows at the choir as well.

  206. Bee says:

    What is better than a free nanny? A free nanny that also pays you money every month.

    From Jenny E’s. blog:

    “But only one more day of that for me, because Leif is in charge of them from tomorrow evening until Sunday! Holla! Don’t get me wrong, I miss them like nutso when they’re gone, but I’m glad they love their daddy, and honestly, it gives me a few days to play catch up.”

    “Time to recharge. When Leif has the girls, it’s completely guilt-free time to myself. I know they want to see him and vice versa, and that they’re with someone that loves them (almost) as much as I do (they lived in me — trump card!). Of course I miss them, but I’m glad that they have a relationship with their dad.”

    She gets 72 hours per week of no kids at home so she can have time to work on advancing her career to someday move to DC and get one of her dream jobs as a full time policy wonk or Fox News hostess.

    Farm Boy wisely noted that her 30 item Bucket List makes no mention of anything to do with her kids. Nothing to do with her husband either. This women was never trained for, culturally prepared for, or suited for proper marriage.

  207. Dalrock,

    I don’t mean to threadjack, but Mary and Megan are both special to me.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/detroit-goes-down.html

    SSM,

    I am sorry to hear that the Federal Judge allowed the bankruptcy to go forward in your home state today. Although I am not sorry that it happened. It had to happen. Math assured that eventually it would happen. And I don’t know how many Detroit pensioners are in your family (if any), but I hope (financially) you guys will be okay.

  208. TFH says:

    For those of you who think Jenny has not had sex with a man other than Leif since in the last 6 months, I can only say that y’all haven’t been single for a long time…

    i) She wrote about how Google was harming her dating prospects.
    ii) Big emphasis on drinking and going out.
    iii) Openly says that a certain dress causes men to buy her a lot of drinks, and brags about how often this happens.

    There is no chance she has not had sex with a man other than Leif in the last 6 months. If there is even any talk by her of her going back to Leif, it is because her dating prospects are far worse than she anticipated.

    So for those saying that adultery should be the reason he does not take her back (although he should persuade her to let him have the kids, if possible), suffice it to say that the chance she has had sex with another man is virtually 100%.

  209. bike bubba says:

    When I take a look at the full picture–divorce without acknowledgment of Christ’s claims in the Sermon on the Mount, rejection of church authority to discipline, attending a gay pride event, fairly heavy drinking, taking kids to Victoria’s Secret while knowing they use soft porn in ads, letting strangers buy her drinks while she wears a “come hither honey” dress, fairly exhibitionist behavior online, having a huge issue over a luxury coffeemaker, lots of fancy vacations, refusal to take care of one’s body even for one’s husband–I’ve got to suggest that, whatever she’d say about her own faith, she was a theological liberal or even outright unbeliever masquerading as a member of an evangelical church.

    And +100 for what Amanda says. Divorce is a wound that does not heal. One can pick up one’s life, but the kids of divorce and their parents can agree; it does not heal, but leaves a nasty scar.

  210. John Galt says:

    @TFH: Which is precicely why IBB is an idiot for wanting Leif to take Jenny back. The marriage is dead. She cheated.

  211. earl says:

    I would think sex would be her only hook to get a man at this point.

    No dude is going to care that she writes for some place.

  212. JDG says:

    After 10 years of marriage and 4 kids, my wife met a stud at the gym and suddenly remembered how unhappy she had been for the last 8 years of our marriage. The outpouring of support she was shown by her friends and literally everyone in our church stunned me.

    This kind of thing ticks me off. There are churches out there (usually small) that will hold the adulteress accountable, but when this occurs she just picks up and moves to the church down the road.

  213. Anon says:

    HawkandRock,

    I now pay for the house she occupies with her stud and my kids. THAT is the world that has discarded me (except for my $) and the one I have no use for.

    If you still have your passport, consider absconding to an acceptable country that does not extradite. I am sure you can find a list of that somewhere (France and Indonesia are two that I know of)….

    Then, once there, write a blog that communicates with your children directly. As you have 4 kids, it will not be possible for their mother to brainwash all of them….

  214. Boxer says:

    John Galt sez:

    … is an idiot for wanting Leif to take Jenny back. The marriage is dead. She cheated.

    It’s really a brutal dilemma. Do you laugh in the face of a cheating whore who wants to reconcile, knowing that your kids are young and you will miss them? On the one side, you could take her back for their sakes, and dump her sorry ass after they are grown. On the other, you could laugh in her face and take your chances, and know that even if the worst happens, your daughters will know that their father is a *man* who didn’t sacrifice his dignity.

    I would never judge a man like Leif, for whatever choice he makes, and I can’t imagine having to make that choice. All the more reason why I am never going to marry an American whore, and give her kids to hold as hostages against me.

  215. Bucho says:

    @TFH

    “Plus, she surely has a gay male friend or two, to help her adjust to clubbing again. She had to become acceptable to them, in some way.”

    I would assume yes by what she said in the link to the black dress story….

    “GayPatriot tried to help me, and I believe his exact words were, “Yeah … this zipper isn’t going to stay up.””

  216. Boxer says:

    On Twitter, 5 hours ago, @JennyErikson tweets:

    Oh good Lord. Someone has dedicated an entire BLOG (or at least series of posts) to what a harlot I am. Can we say stalker?

    ehehehehehe!

  217. earl says:

    Well there you go…she admitted she’s a harlot.

    I choose to not call Dalrock a stalker though. He hasn’t admitted as much.

  218. RICanuck says:

    For those who say we should lay off Jenny, I say that she needs to be made an example of. Keep piling on! Women have trouble understanding how men think and feel. If we can keep piling on ‘good Christian’ Jenny, some of them might begin to understand that we really do value loyalty and kept promises.

    For those who wonder if Leif should take her back once she is tired of the ‘glamourous’ single life, I say he should for the sake of the children’s needs and wants for an intact family. But, she sleeps in the spare room or the couch. She has defiled the marriage bed which is sacred, and should not be allowed back in. If she steps out and parties before the kids have left home, toss her out again. And if she has not shown repentance when the kids have moved out, sell the house and let her find her own place.

    The guy across the street from me used to live with his wife and mother-in-law. They both used to come out and rag on him in the garage workshop. His wife found a boyfriend and left my neighbour. Well, she got bored or the boyfriend got bored, and he took her back and reconciled. Until the next exciting boyfriend, eat, pray, love, and move with him to Latin America. But it’s not a total loss, she left her mother behind. When his mother-in-law comes to the garage workshop she brings a sandwich. He’s told me that his wife is never allowed back in the house, but his mother-in-law can stay. She’s doing a lot more cooking and cleaning than she used to.

  219. Bucho says:

    In other news, someone else is about 100 Sandwiches away from a ring….

    http://300sandwiches.com/

    Maybe things would have turned out better for Jenny and Leif if she focused her energy on making sandwiches instead of sarcasm….

  220. TFH says:

    For those who say we should lay off Jenny, I say that she needs to be made an example of. Keep piling on!

    Of course. For the simple reason that she is ‘inspiring’ other women to do the same. Divorce is contagious, and women like to copy other women, rather than think for themselves.

    But I bet all the divorce attorneys who might get business from divorces inspired by Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson would love to send her a gift basket. She has generated big bucks for them.

  221. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    I choose to not call Dalrock a stalker though. He hasn’t admitted as much.

    I’m still laughing about this woman, who fancies herself a member of the paparazi, and who makes it her business to critique the private lives of others… as she is now to be found whinging and getting some victim cred about having the spotlight turned in her direction.

    Jenny is at least as much a public victim as whatever nobody stars on “teen mom” or some “polyamorous” family. She has no problem lambasting these other people, and as a public figure she has absolutely no expectation of privacy, particularly when she has spent years airing her family’s dirty laundry on several web pages. The “stalker” accusation, in this context, is fairly incredible.

    Regards, Boxer

  222. Boxer says:

    typo: public “figure”, rather than public “victim”, lol

  223. feeriker says:

    I’ve got to suggest that, whatever she’d say about her own faith, she was a theological liberal or even outright unbeliever masquerading as a member of an evangelical church.

    That appears to go without saying. Actions speak far louder than any words.

    Divorce is a wound that does not heal. One can pick up one’s life, but the kids of divorce and their parents can agree; it does not heal, but leaves a nasty scar.

    Selfish creatures like Jenny Erikson don’t care one wit about that. In fact, taking into consideration BB’s statement quoted in the first paragraph above, it’s difficult to believe that she fears God’s judgment at all (those pseudo-evangelicals who practically worship the Republican political party demonstrate very clearly that they fear Caesar’s power and worship his authority over just about everything else. The “evangelical Christian” veneer is really just that, nothing more.)

  224. @Boxer,

    I saw that tweet too and replied
    “Commenting on information a public figure has made public is hardly stalking.”
    I love how she’s resorting to feminists debating tactics so fast. She’s a week tops away from saying Dalrock has a small penis, can’t get laid, and lives with his mom.

  225. earl says:

    @Boxer

    I’d compare her stalker accusation to the woman who wears next to nothing looking out the window and gets offended when some dude looks at her.

    They start out feeling all huffy…but internally love the male attention.

  226. Cane Caldo says:

    Oh good Lord. Someone has dedicated an entire BLOG (or at least series of posts) to what a harlot I am. Can we say stalker?

    She jumped straight to the last of Dalrock’s stages of denial.

    The dramatic emphasis is (capitalization, overstating the case) something young men looking for a wife should take note of. A quiet and gentle spirit is probably the best indicator of good wife material. A loud and raucous one being the worst.

  227. TFH says:

    I couldn’t help but notice that in the 9 months that elapsed between her ‘Happy 10th anniv to my Leif’ and the announcement of divorce, a certain small event took place.

    The 2012 election.

    She spent a lot of time volunteering, and even got to be in proximity to Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney’s sons. This gave her some electric gina tingles.

    And even though the election was lost, the tingles she got stayed. That meants that ‘Five minutes of alpha is greater than 10 years of Beta’. Notice how quickly she divorced after the election. Her announcement was in May 2013, so the decision to leave was perhaps in December, January, or February…

    Right after the election, and the cluster of cascading gina tingles she received due to the time and place she was in while working on the Romney/Ryan campaign…

    If you are wondering what changed in those 9 months (probably less than 9 months), wonder no more. Paul Ryan probably just shook her hand and said a couple of sentences to her, thanking her for volunteering. One of Mitt Romney’s sons chatted with her for 2 minutes. Based on that, Leif was out.

  228. feeriker says:

    I couldn’t help but notice that in the 9 months that elapsed between her ‘Happy 10th anniv to my Leif’ and the announcement of divorce, a certain small event took place.

    The 2012 election.

    She spent a lot of time volunteering, and even got to be in proximity to Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney’s sons. This gave her some electric gina tingles.

    And even though the election was lost, the tingles she got stayed. That meants that ‘Five minutes of alpha is greater than 10 years of Beta’. Notice how quickly she divorced after the election. Her announcement was in May 2013, so the decision to leave was perhaps in December, January, or February…

    Ya just gotta love the Party of Family Values[TM].

  229. Bucho says:

    @ feeriker

    “Ya just gotta love the Party of Family Values[TM].”

    Well, we can’t blame them too much if all she got was the tingles just by shaking hands. She should have had more self control.

  230. gmg says:

    Oh, so the ENTIRE blog is about her, right? Yep, she is so delusional…everything is about her.

  231. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    Divorce is contagious, and women like to copy other women, rather than think for themselves.

    Explicated here http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-whispers/

  232. Anyone with two weeks of reading in the manosphere would see this from a mile away. But most men like Leif won’t see it because they’ve never been trained to see it. In fact, they’re trained to ignore it and wait for it to pass. — deti

    This whole comment is excellent. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way; maybe men should know better; maybe we should be able to see the warning signs; maybe we should be wise enough to recognize when something is too good to be true. But most of us aren’t, and I seriously doubt that Leif knew she felt like she was “settling” for him. As you and Dalrock both pointed out, from his perspective, he was being rewarded for following the Nice Guy script. All the things we see as red flags looked like green and checkered ones to him. He let her cry on his shoulder about Bad Boys, and one day all that devotion and unconditional love paid off when there was a spark and she realized he was what she’d been looking for all along. The time spent being “friends first” was supposed to give them a strong foundation and make the eventual romance that much stronger.

    Which is all total crap, every last bit of it. But no, most guys don’t know that, and not in a “we really know it deep down but don’t admit it to ourselves” way, either. They really have no idea that it’s a lie.

  233. 8to12 says:

    @IBB said: Oh they are pushing out the puppies even into their late 40s now. The greatest risk here obviously is the Down’s Syndrome, but advanced maternal age (which was typically 35 and above) OB’s have been raising the bar on that one.

    This is nothing but crap feminist-propaganda.

    The bar hasn’t been raised in reality. They just want you to think it has. Take a look at the video and info at this link.

    http://www.socalfertility.com/age-and-fertility/

    This doctor (unlike most fertility doctors that are simply pandering to women for money) has the decency to stick to the facts instead of pitching unicorns and rainbows.

    At 40, 90% of a woman’s eggs have genetic abnormalities; the miscarriage rate is 33%; the fertility rate per month is only about 5% and even with in Vitro Fertilization.

    According to this doctor, the best way for a woman over 40 to get pregnant is via an egg donation program–that’s right, by using some other (younger) woman’s eggs instead of her own.

    That’s the reality for 40 year old women trying to have a child.

  234. Bee says:

    @Deti,

    “More importantly: How many men outside of naturals and the manosphere would see any of this as “warning signs? Most blue pill men would see this as “Aha! It’s finally worked! She’s come to her senses! She sees what a great guy I am because I’ve been so nice to her. She finally sees how all those other guys were jerks to her. I can now be free to just be myself because she loves me for the great, nice, good man I really am.”
    And they say this because they have grown up their whole lives hearing everyone around them say “just be nice. Just be yourself. All those girls who are dating jerks and bad boys and dickbags – they are just being stupid. They will come to their senses and you’ll be around to date and marry them when they finally grow up.” ”

    You nailed it. This is what I was taught.

    Look at all the supplicating (“romantic things”) Leif has done:

    Beta orbiter
    Wore the tux she picked out
    Big wedding ceremony
    Anniversary trip to Hawaii
    Washed all the dishes
    Changed lots of diapers
    I think he put her through college (I could be wrong on this)
    Took a whole day off work on the day of her 30th birthday
    Bought her a new Keurig after the divorce

    All for naught, it did not get him anywhere long term with her.

  235. Solomon says:

    @Anonymous Reader- you said:

    “it would be interesting to know what her N was at the time her father dragged her down the aisle. I speculate it was not 0, and that she married Lief on the rebound from a more alpha man – for whom she has pined, from time to time, ever since. But that is mere speculation on my part.”

    Quite right.

    This WHOLE THING IS ABOUT SEX.

    Jenny knows the glory of alpha cock, and she has ‘cameled’ through the Leif desert of no orgasms, which is doable enough, but not forever. NOT forever. Now, the clock is ticking, the mirror is harsh with her, and she is willing to camel no longer.

    She has to have that alpha sex. Preferably with a stiff side of dominance, how she always liked it.

    The kids don’t matter. The bible doesn’t matter. The shaming doesn’t matter.

    She wants the D. She NEEDS it. All the pontificating and rational protest are *nothing* in light of this need, and I mean nothing.

    God designed her to be this way, and she

    1) clearly made a terrible choice in husband to begin with (the only buyer in the market, most likely. Nobody wants to marry this kind of girl- sass, snark, booze n all)

    2) Has no self-discipline. This is one of the purposes of fasting. So that the demands of the flesh are not strong enough to overpower the determinations of the heart for God. Jenny would argue that her self-discipline is all spent in her camel effort of tolerating the desert of dissatisfaction for so long. I can appreciate the rebukes of Jenny found here, but Leif *is* part of the problem. He guzzles the same blue pill that I did for so long.

    Fact is, if the dude had some understanding and some courage, he would be married for many moons. Same is true of me, and many others here.

    I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate here, but I really can’t blame the girls entirely for this dilemma. The generations before her that embraced the lies of feminism sold this couple down the river before they were ever born.

    Jenny couldn’t find good strong dudes like she would have preferred, and couldn’t live up to their standards if she did. They are super-rare, because of the blue pill lies. Additionally, Leif didn’t cut his own balls off. They were removed by others. Neither one of them got jack-sh*t for godly instruction and wisdom, same as everyone else here. Seriously, they were doomed from the start.

    This thing works out in a textbook manner because of the enormous and aged apparatus which we are born to, and flung into with abandon.

    Where is the godly man to tell Leif the real deal?
    Where is the godly woman to counsel Jennny to some deference?

    How can we despise the student whose only teachers were liars or absent?

    she knows better? sure.

    she has the same access to information that I did when I made my shitty choice in a wife.

    She had the same “information” we all did.

    There is nary a truth to be found outside the Christian manosphere, when it comes to M/F relations. Her information was so deceptive, she never had a chance going in.

    Now that she is getting a good dose of reality, she knows bailing on the marriage is a mess, but it’s not nearly the crisis of not getting all the gratification everyone told her she was entitled to in this life. That gratification rules fleshy humans. It’s the only thing there is- Not just selfish gratification, too, but true NEEDS abide, embedded by the Creator.

    and her window is closing…

    yes, her future holds great suffering, and so does her children’s future.

    but she’ll deal with that after she gets her fix. It’s that important.

    Just as with drugs, it will be a terrible price she pays, a steep cost that wasn’t worth it

    but just like the junkie, they can’t think clearly. They are not rational.

    They are reduced to needy sub-creatures in terrible bondage…

  236. Christians 4 Christ! says:

    Let’s be real here. We won’t be talking about divorce a decade from now because no one will be getting married anymore. And if they do, it will be to three or four people at once. Think it can’t happen that fast? Just a decade ago not a single state had gay marriage. In all seriousness gentleman, ours is probably the last generation of monogamists.

  237. “She chose to put her children through this for these things?”

    The most important thing to children is that their parents are happy.

  238. MarcusD says:

    Divorce is contagious, and women like to copy other women, rather than think for themselves.

    Even further explication here: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/re-httpdalrock.html

  239. an observer says:

    she has not sinned against anyone here

    Divorce is infectious. It sets a bad example, and perpetuates the feminist victimhood meme.

    The most important thing to children is that their parents are happy.

    Divorce takes five years off a childs life. And from recollection, parental unhappiness only became an issue when they insisted on sharing it around.

  240. TheAntigrrl says:

    Sounds like the typical low conflict/no conflict marriage, divorces in these marriages have been shown to be far more damaging to kids long term then divorces where daddy and mommy were having screaming matches on a regular basis. Have fun trying to keep your daughters off the pole and the crack pipe lady…..

  241. Ashley lakes says:

    I agree with thf and others there is another man or men. 99 per cent probability.

    Also those photos of her are rough! That must be why she didn’t take the family photo down. She was perhaps 28 bmi. Now perhaps 35.

    She gained a lot of weight and looks like she has been hard partying and it has aged her.

    Lack of dicipline

  242. Puffyjacket42 says:

    @arid2385

    “You are projecting what you want to be the case onto reality. Regardless of your opinion of it, the reality is that women continue to marry later and well. But more importantly, the sad fact for a number of women is that plenty do want to be married and are not. Many of them are Christian women who have been waiting precisely because they are not in the world, riding the carousel and expect to marry God-fearing men. If feminist carousel-riders are unmarriable to good men, so are PUAs and otherwise worldly men to good women.”

    No. He’s stating reality as is. MMV = SMV +- other factors affecting marriageability. For a woman especially, SMV and fertility (heavily linked to age) far and away form the biggest parts of MMV. This has been discussed many times. A woman at age 35 has already lost a huge portion of her SMV (and by extension MMV).

    People commonly misunderstand MMV and SMV to be separate variables, when the reality is that the two are heavily linked. It’s rather funny to hear people say “Yeah I know she’s 35 but she’s intelligent and has a great personality! She has a high MMV!” Unfortunately for a woman, as her SMV approaches zero, there’s no amount of education, “accomplishments”, personality, intelligence etc. that can save her from that fate. To borrow someone else’s words, its the equivalent of painting racing stripes on your ’88 oldsmobile. Sure it’s possible she may get married, but her choices are greatly reduced.

  243. Bucho says:

    Well, let’s look at the the bright side of this whole mess. When you really get down to the nuts and bolts of it biologically, a portion of Leif’s Nordic DNA has been passed on to the next generation. And judging by the family pictures, there were at least 2 attempts.

  244. Anonymous says:

    Did someone say Rationalization Hamster? This one’s clearly her’s:

  245. Anonymous says:

    Hey, news flash! She’s got a new post at Cafemom on The Stir: “The Number 1 Sign You’re Truly Healing After a Divorce”
    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/164907/the_number_1_sign_youre

    Second comment from John Galt: “You’ve moved REALLY fast for having been married 10 years. When do we meet your new man? “

  246. You are projecting what you want to be the case onto reality. Regardless of your opinion of it, the reality is that women continue to marry later and well. But more importantly, the sad fact for a number of women is that plenty do want to be married and are not. Many of them are Christian women who have been waiting precisely because they are not in the world, riding the carousel and expect to marry God-fearing men. If feminist carousel-riders are unmarriable to good men, so are PUAs and otherwise worldly men to good women.
    The irony of these discussions is often that, not only are people preaching to the choir, but they are aiming arrows at the choir as well.

    Uhm, are you butthurt some? Listen, if women continue to marry ‘later and well’ then obviously there shouldn’t be a problem with plenty of women wanting to marry and not being able to. Perhaps you mean they want to get married younger? Well, where are these unicorns? I’ve yet to meet them.

    Whether women can continue to get married later and well, doesn’t change the very ideal that they should be getting married younger instead, which would increase their MMVs and decrease their likelihoods of sexual activity with other men other than their husbands. Both allowing them to have healthy children and be far more attracted to the husband they marry and bonding with him for life. Very Christian ideals. The more marriage age swings towards older marriage ages, the more women will be left in the cold of no marriage, their MMV plummets after 30, practically dead between 35 and 40. For the most part they, will still get married to older men, possibly divorced and in their 50s, but that will dry up as more men grow up with a little red pill wisdom.

    I will say this, pendulums swing and reality will be the eventual kicker that swings the pendulum back towards younger age marriages. It’s daft to talk of ‘the reality of this or that’ when you have the reality altering interference placed on society by the State.

    I think you and IBB are also forgetting something though. A low MMV doesn’t mean someone cannot get married, it just means that the purchasing power of their ‘marriage currency’ is devalued.

  247. Glenbert says:

    @C4C holy cow! That video was like a law school exam for red pillers. It was so action packed with red pill concepts; I don’t even know where to begin!

  248. Urgh, sorry for the typos, early morning post and all that… it’s just before six in the morning here.

  249. I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Jenny might be an alpha widow.

  250. Christians 4 Christ! says:

    “@C4C holy cow! That video was like a law school exam for red pillers. It was so action packed with red pill concepts; I don’t even know where to begin!”

    Are you saying monogamy = blue pill and polyamory = red pill?

  251. Glenbert says:

    Not at all. Red pill is about understanding the underlying mechanics, regardless of how they are used.

  252. sunshinemary says:

    This Jenny woman is quite the prolific, though not terribly talented, writer. She has yet another article that she posted earlier today:

    New Dating Site Brings Back ‘Chivalry’ by Forcing Men to Open Their Wallets

    It’s about a dating site that sets up men who want to pay for dates with women who want a man to pay for their dinner. They are calling this “chivalry,” though I could probably come up with another word to describe it if I tried. Anyway, here’s the money quote from the former Mrs. Erickson:

    I’m a huge fan of the antiquated concept of men paying for dates, and not just for free food. I like the idea of a man wanting me to feel cared and provided for. I like getting dolled up, and I want a man to feel proud when I’m on his arm.

    Hey, any of the single guys here want to take Miss Jenny on a date? Your treat, of course. Feminist Hater, I hear she’s single…and you’re single… and neither of you is getting any younger, you know. :)

  253. electricangel says:

    The Private Man says:
    I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Jenny might be an alpha widow.

    I think we all assumed it. Alpha Widow is the top phrase to come out of the ‘sphere, beating “hamster” by a mile.

  254. Mr. Roach says:

    The thing I find most disagreeable about this Jenny chick is that she looks at dozens of comments, many of them detailed, sensible, some said compassionately, citing biblical texts and her own writings in many cases, and all she does is reduce it all to “trolls” and “hate speech.” She can’t make an argument, and she can’t make a counter-argument.

    For most women, the internet is just an amplification of the pseudosophisticated relationship talk–i.e., gossip, excuse-making, and passive aggressiveness–that girls start to do in junior high and apparently never stop. They’re almost universally, as a group, not fit for the realm of ideas. They’re not hte upholders of morality; they’re only the upholders of conventional wisdom. When moral men set forth that conventional wisdom in the day, women did a lot to reinforce it, because they wanted to be liked, popular, and in line with popular opinion. But now that the top, the elites if you will, and men in general are confused and anti-civilization, all hell has broken loose.

    This woman is like certain other widely panned female bloggers focused upon and disliked by so many of us because she is simply a visible microcosm of a much larger problem that is so infrequently criticized in the legacy press, ministry, and other organs of culture.

  255. Feminist Hater, I hear she’s single…and you’re single… and neither of you is getting any younger, you know.

    LOL @ SSM!

  256. @Dalrock You can’t make this stuff up.
    Unless they can make this stuff up.

    The K in Erikson was once a C when Shirley MacLaine played a role that has similar dynamics in
    “John Goldfarb, Please Come Home!” (1965)
    From IMDbpro:
    “The Crown Prince of Fawzia gets dropped from the football team at Notre Dame; and his father, King Fawz (Peter Ustinov), demands that the US ambassador get Notre Dame to play an exhibition game in Fawzia. Meanwhile, a daring investigative reporter (Shirley McClaine) goes undercover in King Fawz’s harem. To make matters worse, U2 pilot and former Notre Dame player, John Goldfarb (Richard Crenna), has crash landed in Fawzia. In return for covering up the blunder, Goldfarb has to coach the Fawzia University (FU) football team, and the CIA has to guarantee that Notre Dame loses the upcoming game. I think you get the picture. Wilfred Hyde-White puts in a great performance as the King’s principal advisor.” CIA guarantees games? No wayyyy! Alabama #99 kicks hail mary to Auburn #11 in the last second of the game as Tom Cruise promised in “Oblivion” trailer #1. I’m dyslexic, so look at the number on the back of the drone… turn it upside down and the Iron Bowl 2013 end is reveal in a number. Wife of Auburn Coach belittles her hubby and makes fun of Lou Holtz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjR3qWRTEms#t=02m02s (yep, Notre Dame, that Lou) in her controlled hypnotic meltdown at a CHRISTIAN WOMEN’s CONFERENCE. Nice touch in this 1965 movie with the team initials: F-U … That relates to the message coming from (now) Jenny Erikson and and the (then) Jenny Ericson. But, you’re correct, no one would fund narratives that are composites of the influence designed to affect Christian women… that’s too much money, too much work, too many outsource writers, too many folks buying photos of people over time so the ‘person’ can seem real. The Mark Minter narrative should meet the scriptwriters of fictitious person Jenny Erikson. Her children on this ‘online sitcom’ need Mom to meet a great man.

  257. Ras Al Ghul says:

    While Jenny may not try to reconcile with her husband or “go back” a lot of them do if and when they realize that things aren’t going to plan, or can’t get another man to commit. And make no mistake, they all think they have that option if they need it because they are the center of the world.

    Every divorced woman with cats that “doesn’t need a man” tried to reconcile and the ex told them no and they won’t admit it because of the damage to their ego and status, but as Dalrock has pointed out “the precious” is important as a status marker.

    Just as they lie about n count, they will lie about being rejected.

  258. Anonymous Reader says:

    SSM
    Hey, any of the single guys here want to take Miss Jenny on a date? Your treat, of course. Feminist Hater, I hear she’s single…and you’re single… and neither of you is getting any younger, you know.

    I’m thinking that Earl should take her out, provided the evening is discretely videoed – for entertainment purposes only.

  259. an observer says:

    If my wife frivorced me, slept with 1 (or more) men, and then came crawling back to me on her knees saying she wanted to reconcile…

    No. Even with repentance, there would be no going back from that point. It would be like marrying the same woman twice, for which there is an OT admonition against,..

  260. TFH says:

    Bucho,

    Well, we can’t blame them too much if all she got was the tingles just by shaking hands. She should have had more self control.

    Agreed. It is not their fault that merely a handshake was enough to set off a crackling light show of tingles for her. As far as they know, she is just one of 500 volunteer chicks they used.

    And remember, when five minutes of alpha > 10 years of Beta, all 500 of those women get their five minutes from Paul Ryan alone, . It is very asymmetrical.

    Now, it IS the fault of Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan for not taking up Men’s Rights as a cause, what with the GOP talk of personal responsibility, family values, and that wealth redistribution is bad……no, wait, it is not their fault. A politician has no reason to take up a cause that no one is demanding. If MRAs don’t actually do any activism, what reason is there for a politician to care?

  261. an observer says:

    I would have thought Ton would be a better match….

  262. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/04 | Free Northerner

  263. an observer says:

    Deti and Escoffier say that Leif should NOT take her back, forgive only.

    +1

    He is eligible to take a second wife if he’s ok with polygamy. She is not, hunky millionaire gardeners not withstanding. Let her tend cats, though i feel sorry for the children.

  264. TFH says:

    an observer,

    I would have thought Ton would be a better match….

    Why? Because she is gaining weight, and his name happens to be ‘Ton’?

    Note that for our British readers, that would be ‘Tonne’.

  265. LiveFearless says:

    @The Private Man I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Jenny might be an alpha widow. Great point! You’re correct. “An Alpha Widow knows all too well the languishing associated with pining for the Alpha that got away – particularly when she’s paired off long-term with the dutiful, Beta provider after her sexual market value (SMV) declines.” Author Rollo Tomassi, from his master work “The Rational Male”

    @SSM Chuckle. I like… I like… I like Next.

  266. LiveFearless says:

    @innocentbystanderboston Katy Perry is not a ’10′ although in person, she has that presence. It’s difficult, however, to state this to ‘Christians’ that are unable to understand transactions that involve literally selling ones soul to the devil. It has been difficult to realize that ‘Christians’ talk a good game about angels and demons etc, but when it comes to believing they affect everything – when it comes to believing the amount of power they have – ‘Christians’ have, in general, been so brainwashed by 501c3 churches and the industry here… that they simply will not ‘get’ the simple truth. Further, they refuse to seek out the truth since they want to focus only on the deceptive sappy happy nonsense.

    You wrote, There are some women that look better, not MUCH better, no. There is a reason why she was voted the most beautiful woman in the world at either Roling Stone or whatever publication that was. Physically, she is a 10. She does not get 350,000,000 youtube views for her videos because of her voice or the lyrics. Please, PLEASE stop this nonsense. Her soul plus other stuff that happens assures Billions of youtube views and fame as long as she follows the rules exactly. The moment she tries to do her own thing is the moment it all changes. She is a brand that choreographs nothing, she doesn’t choose her wardrobe or the lyrics or — and like most others that have her fame level, her relationship(s) with men were not what’s been fed to all popular media. I know the truth, but even I were foolish enough to reveal, you (and your significant other that watches Chelsea Lately each evening) would choose to assume that the engine of fame is caused by the audience. No. The audience is amazed what has taken over her soul.

    It’s much easier to be naive. Christians should go back to the cubicle and work your ‘secure, stable career’ where you won’t be affected by truth that changes the whole world.

  267. Tam the Bam says:

    While we’re ringing the eugenecist bell;
    “People want to breed SMART children.”
    from many years of inadvertent field observations.
    Booksmart man+ physically fit but not overly academic woman=smart kids, prosperous family
    Bluecollar hunky guy+bluestocking woman=cranky, badly-behaved kids (do badly @skool) and, eventually, cranky, badly-behaved ex-wife.
    Booksmart man+booksmart woman=a double dose of whatever masquerades as intelligence in advanced industrial societies (do they still bang on about all that Pearson’s statto stuff?).
    Kids end up on drugs, drink, or even the short bus. Dyspraxic, sickly, trip-over-their-own-laces types
    Actually as often as not it =nokidswhatsoever. Just a lot of gin, and hillwalking.

    The idea is to have “smart” kids, not autistic ones.

  268. Ton says:

    How many women claim to be Christain and want out of a marriage? 100% of them. The ones who stay lack options or haven’t found a better option

  269. Tam the Bam says:

    And while we’re at it, never mind all this womantic “take the cow back”/”shoulda got paternal or fraternal guidance” stuff.
    I find myself speculating “What would Jesus the original Leif Eiriksson do?”
    Or, heaven forfend, his dad?

  270. Pingback: Trapped! | Truth and contradictions | Scoop.it

  271. Ton says:

    I do not believe women are capable of true repentance. If jenny attempts to return to Leif it’s because she failed to secure another/ better mule. Whatever level of disrespect/disdain jenny showed toward Leif during their marriage will be there waiting for him once she feels comfortable again. She will pull the same stunt if she once again believes she can do better. Maybe after she con’s Leif into a boon job or some such nonsense.

  272. Tam the Bam says:

    “Note that for our British readers, that would be ‘Tonne’.”
    Nay, man, fret not. We still spell it thataways.
    Just bought another half-ton of coal, in old raggy hundredweight coalman’s sacks. Same as I ever did, off the back of his old, old lorry, a twenty-foot seven-and-a-half-tonner. Drove miles to get here, too.
    It’s just that the gubmint keeps trying to force us to call the cwt. sacks “50-kilo”, and they have 110lbs in ‘em, not 112. So everything that has to be written down for accounting&tax requirements says “tons” not “tonnes”, but “kg” and all that French rubbish. And it’s shy of a real ton by forty pound. Not a couple of cwt. and more, like you lot.
    But everybody knows what we really mean when we ask for a stone of spuds or a couple of ounces of ready-rubbed to go with our pint (not “demi-litre”, yet….).
    And these are proper long tons, not like the short measure you secessionaries seem to get in most commodities solid & liquid.
    Handy tip for Northamerican visitors. We may appear to speak a common language, you and I. But what say and do among ourselves is a very different matter. We’ve lived with overweening, dictatorial, inquisitive, avaricious rulers for a long old time …

  273. Ton says:

    If Romney generated tingles he be the POTUS.

    If Leif takes her back, he will indeed teach his daughters to pull the same bull$hit or teach a son to accept such bull$hit. This bull$hit continues because you ball-less wonders keep playing captain save a ho.

  274. Ton says:

    LOL…. What did I do to you my freind to warrant which a hideous fate? Or Earl….

    I couldn’t hit that with a stolen d!ck and someone else pushing

  275. earl says:

    “I’m thinking that Earl should take her out, provided the evening is discretely videoed – for entertainment purposes only.”

    Sure, I’d sign up for that…if I can hop in a time machine and set it back to 13 years ago.

  276. Sure SSM, I’d tap that… perhaps when I’m over 100 years old and pushing up daisies for a living..

    NEXT!

  277. Ashley lakes says:

    The stalking thing plays right back into dont judge me (because I am judging you)

    How do you call yourself a Christian?
    If you are a Christian you have no right asking that. Hypocrite. —Jenny

    Then how do you have a right to say you have no right to say that? Or call someone a hypocrite? You need to realize that you are not God.

    In short when she is doing the judging it is okay but when someone else judges it is against Christ.

    She can’t have people judge her because she doesn’t have the metal to do the right thing. Example: making cake and chocolate fried sandwiches the Saturday after thanksgiving when she should have been eating Turkey and veg salad.

    Dear Jenny–

    I am a sinner. And when I look at you I see me without a core of dicipline and the bible. This is who you become if you follow your baser urges.

    Yes it feels good to relax in your mess and the first mile you run will feel like murder, but after a few months you will regain yourself.

    In the same way accepting that you are not better than your husband and that he could find someone prettier might be a hard pill to swallow. Stop resenting him. Submit to his authority and your attraction will return.

  278. Pingback: Jenny Erikson is a Betrayer and a Whore

  279. Ashley lakes says:

    For what it is worth I think Leif should
    take her back–if and only if–she does a 180. Then if he hasn’t moved on he should consider it.

  280. earl says:

    I wouldn’t date her now. Why should I spend money and my precious time to listen to how much she loves herself…when I have her blog to tell me.

  281. Ashley lakes says:

    Earl lol I would say you could tell us what it was like but “new dating site brings back chivalry forcing men to open their wallets” “I like food I like chivalry” –that sums it up. So I guess their is no reason unless you are interested in futility

  282. hurting says:

    Under no circumstances should reconciliation involve a state-sanctioned marriage (or ‘re-marriage’).

  283. It’s about a dating site that sets up men who want to pay for dates with women who want a man to pay for their dinner. They are calling this “chivalry,” though I could probably come up with another word to describe it if I tried.

    Yeah, but that’s the old modern system, which existed when she was dating, but she’s already behind the times. Today’s system is “sugar babies”: college girls and other young girls who will agree to be a man’s girlfriend for a set monthly fee. For the kind of money that she’s expecting men to throw down for the pleasure of her company at dinner, they can get a 23-year-old, and dispense with the hassle of approaching and asking and trying to talk her into sex afterwards.

    That’s the extreme case, but the point is, she really has no idea what kind of competition she’s up against.

  284. Minesweeper says:

    TFH says:
    December 3, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    By knowing their ages, we can know how old they will be in 2020 (when the Misandry Bubble deflates),…..If you think things today are scary, things will be quite more extreme by 2020

    how can you be so sure of this ?

  285. Bucho says:

    @Ton
    “If Romney generated tingles he be the POTUS. ”

    Well it seems like the last few elections were nothing but tingle generating contests, but I’m sure that has been discussed on previous threads.

  286. Ashley lakes says:

    Cail
    Yeah I agree. Expecting a man to throw down cash so she can have a valuable return. “She needs more men” explains this well.

    What does the man get for a $100 plus receipt at Montana Teds? Thats right a downgrade in status. Maybe she can even bring her kids so that they can get a nutritious meal and block him from hitting on her (sidenote a cake and chocolate sandwhich is not a nutricious meal). Hamster: “he should accept this is a package deal and if he wants sex then he is not a nice guy after all.”

    The men have to protect their money and courting. It is valuable.

    She is being very crass. She shouldnt be dating at all.

  287. deti says:

    @ Cail:

    “But no, most guys don’t know that, and not in a “we really know it deep down but don’t admit it to ourselves” way, either. They really have no idea that it’s a lie.”

    Thanks for the kudos.

    This is really important too, because it goes to how boys and young men learn and process information. Men tend to take at face value things told to them by others. They especially ascribe worth and value to words said and written to them if those words come from authority figures: parents. Pastors. Teachers. Scoutmasters. These are people we are told we can trust. In fact, we MUST trust them. We have no choice in the matter. We also accept it because we know they are older and have more experience. We are told this is for our own good; that it is what God expects; and the penalties and consequences for disobedience and defiance will be swift, certain, and severe.

    So when mom and dad say “be yourself, be nice. The girls who are sexing up the dickbags and assholes are just stupid girls. Don’t worry about them; they’ll grow out of it. All you have to do is wait, and then you can be with girls who will love you for who you are”, we believe it.

    When a teacher says “you BE NICE to those girls because they expect it and if you aren’t NICE, you will NEVER EVER find a girl to love you”, we believe it.

    When a pastor says “You’ll never get that girl if you’re not nice to her and if you don’t buy her a dozen roses after your first date”, we believe it. When that pastor says “girls think Christian guys are sexy. Girls think men who do dishes and pray and who can preach a sermon are sexy”, we believe it.

  288. Mr. Roach says:

    I want to add to my brothers here, that the solution to the Western World’s problem is not game. Game helps you take advantage of a corrupt, screwed up situation. It can’t work for everyone, not everyone is equally adept at game, and, like an arms race, there will be a distribution in game abilities, but the same problem results: 10 or 20% of the alphas scooping up 80% of the women nearly all the time. The old system: one man, one woman, for life as an aspirational ideal worked. It created incentives for everyone to get real and grow up and settle as best they could early. We need RULES and we need OSTRACISM and we need better divorce laws to stop the perverse incentives of the current regime, i.e., stop all alimony, stop child support other than in cases of abandonment, etc.

    As I told Jenny at her blog, “Jenny, it’s pretty obvious that your central problem is just a microcosm of the Western World’s central problem: You have no respect for any authority above yourself, whether Church, clear biblical texts, or your husband, whom you promised to obey. You want to be a law unto yourself, the literal meaning of “autonomous.” And, as a consequence, you have frivolously divorced your husband, whom you said you had 8,000+ reasons to divorce, which is another way of saying you had no reason at all. You won’t be happy in the long run, because happiness comes from virtue, virtue comes from living in accordance with the truth and binding yourself to the same, and these things require not following your every impulse.”

    Laws and social rules need to encourage virtue and discourage vice and encourage healthy family formation, not the dysgenic alpha cads, beta/government dads regime we have now.

    I fear the whole thing must blow up first for this to happen. It’s all very tragic. But I think the idea that a bunch of guys learning game (or thinking they learn game from the internet) and screwing a bunch of degenerate sluts is some kind of solution to anything other than one’s own will to pleasure, is a myth of the manosphere. I do think wtihin marriage game matters and helps, but it doesnt’ help as much as the “no exit” regime of the past.

  289. Bucho says:

    So, according to her recent post “The Number 1 Sign You’re Truly Healing After a Divorce” he was using hurtful words to her. Now, maybe he was, but it sounds like she was dishing it out on her own too. She probably was the one that instigated it. Sounds like she has a history of physical violence towards him, with punching him when he went in for his first kiss.

    Maybe at the end of the day he was a real jerk. But she is having a hard time making a logical case through all the snark and inconsistency….

    BTW, I noticed on her BFF’s Twitter profile it says “Snark available at no additional charge.” How do they expect guys to be chivalrous when all that is offered in return is attitude?

  290. Bucho,

    @Ton
    “If Romney generated tingles he be the POTUS. ”

    Well it seems like the last few elections were nothing but tingle generating contests, but I’m sure that has been discussed on previous threads.

    Looking at the voting demographics of 2012….

    Romney got most of the married ladies. They tingled for him.

    Obama got pretty much ALL of the single ladies. They tingled for him.

    Basically the woman’s marrital status predicated who she voted for, married you wanted the great looking grand-father alpha male and super breeder Romney. Single you wanted the great looking swagger alpha male and super organizer, Obama.

  291. deti says:

    We are also told that women are sugar and spice and everything nice. Women never, ever lie about anything important, and certainly they never, ever lie about sex.

    If a girl is not a virgin before she got married, an asshole guy tricked her into sex. Or she was “sick and lost”. Or she “didn’t know the truth”. Or she “thought the guy was going to marry her”. Girls don’t really like sex all that much; they give it up so they can get a man.

    So men are carefully taught over decades that when a girl says something is true, men are supposed to accept it. Because it MUST be true. Because girls never lie. And they never lie about sex.

    So when a girl says “I just want a nice guy who will treat me right”, we believe it.

    When she says “You’re special. I just want to do it the right way this time”, we believe it.

    When she says “I love you”, we believe it.

    When she says “I had sex with only one other guy and he was an asshole who wasn’t nice to me”, we believe it.

    Because we’re told we should believe it. We’re trained, carefully, assiduously, endlessly, to believe it. Because she said it. And if she said it, it must be true. Because girls don’t lie. Ever, and especially not about sex and love.

  292. MR,

    Laws and social rules need to encourage virtue and discourage vice and encourage healthy family formation, not the dysgenic alpha cads, beta/government dads regime we have now.

    I fear the whole thing must blow up first for this to happen. It’s all very tragic.

    This very painful lesson (these very words) are being learned in the city of Detroit as of right now.

  293. Tam the Bam says:

    So what would your druthers be, Mr R.?
    “It can’t work for everyone, not everyone is equally adept at game, and, like an arms race, there will be a distribution in game abilities, but the same problem results: 10 or 20% of the alphas scooping up 80% of the women “
    This situation is the result of changes in the law and pharmacomedical innovation.
    The legislative changes were made in response to the democratic demands of women, allegedly.
    Are you having doubts, Winston Roach? Are you er, reconsidering this turn of events??

    At least this way the current cohort of guys (my sons, to be frank) won’t be cuckolded, bankrupted and terrorized by a berserk state seeking rents and slaves. And they don’t have to constantly put their hands in their wallets just for the dubious but irresistible privilege of associating with women. No value judgements necessary, turns out that fundamentally they’re interchangeable, short of visible chromosome damage, result:- abundance, not holding out for a star pony.

  294. deti says:

    @ arid:

    “ Regardless of your opinion of it, the reality is that women continue to marry later and well. But more importantly, the sad fact for a number of women is that plenty do want to be married and are not. Many of them are Christian women who have been waiting precisely because they are not in the world, riding the carousel and expect to marry God-fearing men. If feminist carousel-riders are unmarriable to good men, so are PUAs and otherwise worldly men to good women.

    “The irony of these discussions is often that, not only are people preaching to the choir, but they are aiming arrows at the choir as well.”

    Arid, yes, many women are continuing to marry later. Most of these 30+ women are still finding SOMEONE willing to wife them up. I strongly disagree that these women are marrying “well”. For a woman, marrying “well” means marrying a man she is strongly sexually attracted to , and who can and will lead her.

    I would venture an educated guess here that a lot of these women waiting until 30 and up to get married are not marrying men they are really attracted to; nor marrying men of sufficiently stern stuff that can stand firm against their shit test barrages. I will bet most of the men these women are getting are the SMP leftovers and damaged goods.

    -Men who the divorce meat grinder already chewed up once, and who just have to get remarried so they can lock down the regular sex partner

    -Gamma and omega men

    -Socially clueless men, lonely hearts; men who can’t keep and hold the interest of any minimally attractive woman

    -Men on the cusp of their SMP rise, around 26 or 27, who are just coming into their own in the SMP and haven’t realized their full value yet, who have lived in the sexual desert for a decade and simply can’t take it anymore

    These men are roped in with easy sex and sweet talk of how hot she thinks they are. Half of these men will probably be on the receiving end of a frivorce that they won’t see coming. Why? Because she just needed to lock in a husband; she just wanted to get married and claim the title of “wife”.

  295. Maybe at the end of the day he was a real jerk. But she is having a hard time making a logical case through all the snark and inconsistency….

    She’s just not very smart. Most women get their rationalizations ready before they even file the divorce papers. She acts like she thought she could publicly declare that the husband of ten years whom she was praising a few months prior had suddenly become so unbearable to live with that God sent her a personal get-out-of-jail-free card, and no one was going to ask WHY.

  296. deti says:

    @ Mr. Roach:

    “I want to add to my brothers here, that the solution to the Western World’s problem is not game. ***The old system: one man, one woman, for life as an aspirational ideal worked. It created incentives for everyone to get real and grow up and settle as best they could early. We need RULES and we need OSTRACISM and we need better divorce laws to stop the perverse incentives of the current regime, i.e., stop all alimony, stop child support other than in cases of abandonment, etc.”

    You are absolutely 100% correct.

    Having said that, men need to live in the world they find themselves in now. They need to cope and deal with the here and now. They can’t spend their lives pining away for a world that used to be, or for legal or cultural reforms that are at least two generations away. More importantly, boys and young men must, MUST be trained not for an SMP that last existed around 1975; but for the no-holds-barred, Wild West SMP that exists NOW. Rules, ostracism and better divorce laws are not going to happen in our lifetimes or our children’s lifetimes. The days of Marriage 1.0 are gone, and they’re not coming back.

    Game is an imperfect solution. But it’s the best we’ve got for the situation we find ourselves in now.

  297. earl says:

    @ Mr. Roach…

    Jesus told his disciples to be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves. Game is how to be shrewd with social situations in this day and age.

  298. Anonymous age 71 says:

    feeriker says:
    December 3, 2013 at 10:53 am

    >>Anon 71 @Hawkandrock >>I just don’t like this world much anymore…. and I think it’s pretty much done with me too.<>I’d give Hawkandrock the benefit of the doubt. Maybe by “this world” he was referring to is just the western, English-speaking world. If that’s true, then I share fully his feelings. I’m long past done with it too.

    That was indeed my point. But, do remember I did suicide counseling for divorced men for ten years. So, I responded to the possibility that he is thinking of whacking himself. Life outside the Anglosphere can be wonderful. During suicide counseling, I always mentioned the great life one can have elsewhere.

    feeriker says:
    December 3, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    >>, and was determined to make her some other man’s burden at the first available opportunity (“get yo ass down that aisle to that altar, beeeyotch!”).

    This is one thing I have warned men about, when writing about obtaining a foreign wife and bringing her back to the States. (Generally a very bad idea.) If her family is extremely warm and loving and supportive, there is a chance they are looking forward with glee to her absence. Her parents should be sad at the thought of her leaving if she is as desirable as you hope she is.

    Boxer says:
    December 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    >>Do you laugh in the face of a cheating whore who wants to reconcile, knowing that your kids are young and you will miss them?

    Just a reminder that the problem with kids being in maternal custody is not that you miss them, though that is certainly a major problem, and relates to the high suicide levels of divorced men. The biggest problem is that maternal custody is the worst thing that WILL happen to most kids. (Worse things CAN happen to kids, but in most cases does not.) If you care for your kids, and most men do, you will walk across hot coals to keep your kids from maternal custody, even if it means certain insignificant Neandertales talk about “the horn,” etc.

    For millions of kids in maternal custody their lives are over before they begin.

    However, you must use some common sense. Years ago when I was counseling divorced fathers, two men called me with virtually the same tale. They came home from work one day and there was a note in the kitchen. “I am leaving you for my true love. Get the kids from the babysitter’s house.”

    They did not call me for advice. They took over and worked hard to care for those kids. Superdad.

    They did not apply for an emergency custody order, nor file for divorce.

    Months later, they got a call from slutto. ” I made a terrible mistake, and I want to come back to you and be your wife again.” Translated, he finally understands me and tossed my worthless butt into the street, and I am hungry and cold. Please send me the money to come home. They did not call for advice.

    She same home, and Mr. Betahood was elated. His true love was home again.

    A year passed, and she filed for divorce and custody and alimony and the house and the car and child support, AND GOT IT! The judge ruled that taking her back meant he had forgiven her so her status was as a normal married woman, not a vile, evil fiend who had abandoned her husband and children.

    Then, they called me for advice, and there was no way to help them. Once a ruling is entered you can’t open it up just because you don’t like the result. I assumed he then told people, “That Father’s Rights Guy wasn’t able to do anything for me.”

    We had a name for this clever maneuver. We called it, “Stopping By Home To Pick Up a Few Things.” If these two men had called, I would have told them to apply for emergency custody, and not let her back without meeting certain conditions. Which would include no bus ticket; earn her own way back, get a job and support herself while paying child support to him, then no dating for one year with supervised visitation on weekends. Then, and only then might she come back into the house, but do not cancel the custody papers.

    Jenny will not come back because he has nothing more that she wants. If he gets a lot more money, the judge will simply raise his alimony and child support payments.

  299. 8to12 says:

    @ Mr. Roach,

    I used the following as an analogy for why modern men Christian men need to learn game.

    A grown man knows the world he lives in, and for the present, the world is Rome.

    In the film Ben-Hur, Pontius Pilate gives this advice to an angry Judah Ben-Hur who, after climbing from slavery to the top of the Roman social order, has decided to turn his back on everything that is Rome. He returns a signet ring to Pilate (signifying his giving up his Roman citizenship), and declares his disgust for Rome and anything associated with it. It’s a powerful scene. Pilate comes across as little more than an amoral pragmatist; Judah Ben-Hur seems courageous and principled.

    In 70 AD the Romans burned Jerusalem to the ground. Judah Ben-Hur (had he been a real person) along with his wife, sister, children, and grandchildren would have been killed or enslaved. Of course, had he retained his Roman citizenship he could have used it to appeal to the Roman authorities (as Paul did in Acts) and saved himself and his family.

    We live in a culture that is falling apart, and things are clearly getting worse. We should not make the mistake Judah Ben-Hur made of willfully refusing to avail ourselves of the help we so desperately need.

    A grown man knows the world he lives in, and for the present, the world is American culture, and it is explained by game.

    http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/08/game-is-not-four-letter-word-for.html

  300. Ton says:

    It’s about money when women vote for the gop, it’s in hopes they get more of their husband’s money if the govt gets less

    Tingles are tingles. There is not a tingle generator for married women and a separate one for single women

  301. feeriker says:

    “Jenny, it’s pretty obvious that your central problem is just a microcosm of the Western World’s central problem: You have no respect for any authority above yourself, whether Church, clear biblical texts, or your husband, whom you promised to obey. You want to be a law unto yourself, the literal meaning of “autonomous.”

    Well, that’s not quite correct. If the authority figure she encountered was a reich-wing, law-and-order, warmongering Republican man with a fat bank account and lots of political power, then Jenny’s ‘gina would burn to sopping wet, her heart would race at 200 MPH, and she’d drop to her knees in a dead swoon of supplication and surrender so fast and so hard that it would cause a 6.0-on-the-Richter-scale earthquake.

    Otherwise, yeah, she has pretty much flipped the bird to everyone and everything else that presents itself as having more authority than she does, including The Almighty.

  302. Bee says:

    @Bucho,

    “So, according to her recent post “The Number 1 Sign You’re Truly Healing After a Divorce” he was using hurtful words to her.”

    Most likely that Leif was giving her some constructive criticism and she would not receive it. She is not “teachable” or humble.

  303. Dalrock says:

    @hurting

    Under no circumstances should reconciliation involve a state-sanctioned marriage (or ‘re-marriage’).

    I see no reason to. They are still married in God’s eyes, she just abused the secular law to get cash and prizes in an act of rebellion, on her intended path to adultery. If she or anyone else challenged this I would politely explain that marrying her once was enough, she won’t get any more weddings from me. Additionally, if she is truly repentant she will want to not only demonstrate this but remove the source of temptation to repeat the sin (as much as possible). Legally you would have to work this all through a competent divorce lawyer, but it might be possible to take at least part of the cash and prizes motivation away. She might be able to legally petition to have him granted full custody of the daughters, and (re)negotiate alimony to a minimal lump sum ($1?). I’m not saying how this would work legally, but there might be some ways to remove at least some of the temptation which snared her in the first place. Note how profoundly different repentance looks from “Gee, I’m sorry. Let’s try getting back together and see if we can work it out.”

  304. Age 71,

    Jenny will not come back because he has nothing more that she wants.

    Truer words have never been spoken.

  305. feeriker says:

    @hurting

    Under no circumstances should reconciliation involve a state-sanctioned marriage (or ‘re-marriage’).

    Dalrock: I see no reason to. They are still married in God’s eyes, she just abused the secular law to get cash and prizes in an act of rebellion, on her intended path to adultery.

    Spot on. As I said upthread (12/3 @ 6:46PM), most women, even those who pretend to be Christians, demonstrate, when the rubber hits the road, that they truly DO NOT fear or respect God or his laws. God doesn’t put a gun in a man’s belly to make him open up his wallet to reward sinful behavior; the State does. God doesn’t give out cash and prizes that are the fruits of theft; the State does. These are the only things that she cares about (high time preference and immediate gratification, by other names).

  306. earl says:

    Ah, God and the State.

    Where your heart is…that’s where your treasure will be. And I imagine most women have their heart with the state.

  307. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Legally you would have to work this all through a competent divorce lawyer, but it might be possible to take at least part of the cash and prizes motivation away. She might be able to legally petition to have him granted full custody of the daughters, and (re)negotiate alimony to a minimal lump sum ($1?)

    That’s a pretty good idea.

  308. Opus says:

    I am sure everyone has read it now but I think it worth analysing in a little depth Jenny’s article of 11th July 2011, the ninth anniversary of her marriage to the hapless Leif, and nearly two years before she abandoned her marriage. I am not sure how it would read to her female fans but to me it just shouts I regret marrying Leif.

    Firstly the article is entitled MY wedding day – not Our.

    She says that her Father DRAGGED her down the aisle, Leif waiting at the other end of course – surely as overt an indication of her unwillingness to marry as one could have.

    She is concerned that Leif will faint or vomit – is this not projection?

    There was she says ‘a chapel full of people waiting to watch HER walk down the aisle’ – as if it is all about her and nothing or no one else.

    She describes her beauty treatment for the day but never reflects (as a good xtian) on what marriage might mean to her – merely that she had purchased the dress cheaply – is that yet another indication of lack of real commitment?

    She twice describes him as her best friend and also says ‘we were just friends’, – as if he is and always had been in LJBF zone. Whether she is being honest in this or not she is surely distancing herself entirely from Leif.

    She refers back to the time when he was her shoulder to cry on when she went on bad dates. Now I don’t think we are supposed to understand by bad date an occasion where she was left to pick up the tab or where some guy came on to her? She is saying about as loud as she can that she pumped guys out of her league who did not call again and on any number of occasions.

    Leif is always there to remind her that there is always someone further down the food chain than herself, but she is seriously overrating both her MMV and her SMV. If anything Leif with his geeky knowledge and earning capacity is the catch. So one day they watch a movie after which he leans over and attempts to snog her. So disgusted by this brazenness by Beta Orbiter Leif is she that she hits him – and then promptly asks him to snog her again. Confused or what? At least she knows Leif won’t dump her in fact he asks her to marry him which offer she promptly accepts.

    She then claims that she loved him more than life itself but qualifies that by adding but only in a platonic way. Again as with the snogging she is giving off mixed messages. You do not love Beta Orbiters more than life itself – at least no novelist or dramatist I can think of has yet had the temerity to use that in a plot device.

    She then goes on to describe herself at the altar looking down at Leif – I thought Grooms stood waiting – so is this a way of referring to how she really feels about him; and then she says that her thought was to rush out and drive away (and was anxious as to where her car keys might be). Again does this not reflect her real desire to distance herself form Leif.

    The first thing she says to Leif after the nuptials is that her feet hurt – nothing to do with the marriage but just her personal wants – and in true beta mode Leif massages her feet . She says the marriage was a blur yet nine years later is able to recall irrelevances such as that a violin and piano were playing Pachelbel. This is surely inconsistent with the idea of a blur and is part of her reconstruction of events.

    Underneath the photo of her and Leif at the altar she writes that she can remember none of this. She should make up her mind which is true: the amnesia or the detailed synopsis of the day.

  309. Joe Blow says:

    “While Leif would be quite content to stay married forever, I am not, for reasons I do not feel the need to discuss at this time.”

    There you have it. I am woman, hear me roar, you have no right to question my roaring, you worthless asshole.

    I could say a lot more but it’d be a waste of perfectly good electrons to keep commenting on this idiot.

  310. earl says:

    Women never want explain the reasoning behind their evil acts…so I will.

    It’s called free will…and you wanted to do it. Hamster away all you want…but that is the truth.

    And that is the same reason men do evil acts too. In this arena…we are equal. Although some men have less shame about their acts and would proudly boast about them.

  311. hurting says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    December 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Yes, there would probably be some legal wrangling involved if he wanted to roll back the custody arrangement, but from a practical standpoint, he can protect at least a portion of his financial exposure by making sure that the child support and/or alimony are ‘first dollar’ resources used in the household budget and that his money stays his money, so to speak.

    I will use this occasion to repeat my view that the civil aspects of marriage (even in the first place) confer no benefits upon the sacramental whatsoever (indeed civil marriage and its attendant incentives for the destruction of same actively harm the sacramental) and that therefore Christian churches should provide some means of sacramental marriage that is not in any way associated with the state. The battle is long lost.

  312. deti says:

    “ It’s called free will…and you wanted to do it. Hamster away all you want…but that is the truth.”

    Yes. There are no mistakes. There are only decisions.

    That woman’s decision to run train on a football team wasn’t a “mistake” or a “youthful indiscretion”. It was a decision.

    A woman’s decision to get drunk and have sex with a man not her husband isn’t a “mistake”. It was a decision.

  313. Maeve says:

    @Amanda,
    I don’t really think it matters what age the kids are when the parents separate – it’s devastating.
    I watch the damage unfolding every day in front of my eyes and that this woman can dismiss so casually the consequences of her actions on her children is beyond the pale. Her children would be better off with their father. He should sue for sole custody. She just doesn’t seem to care.

  314. TFH says:

    hurting,

    (indeed civil marriage and its attendant incentives for the destruction of same actively harm the sacramental) and that therefore Christian churches should provide some means of sacramental marriage that is not in any way associated with the state. The battle is long lost.

    Not only long lost, but present-day ‘conservative Christians’ are in pathological denial that there is any difference between the two.

    Nevermind that the marriage is done in one institution (the church), while the divorce is in an entirely unrelated institution (the courts), with none of the authority figures present in the former having anything to do with the latter.

    Also, Republicans are such cowards that they use ‘gay marriage’ as a phony way to pretend they are pro-marriage 1.0. As if whether gays are allowed to marry or not affects the decision of straight men to marry. The number of men who base a decision to marry on whether gays are allowed to or not, is zero. The number of men who base the decision on the laws and cultural climate, is somewhat higher than that.

    This is why I can no longer vote for the GOP. All talk of ‘traditions’ is bogus, because there is no society that has ever existed, that survived for any length of time, with a level of lopsided power to women that the GOP considers to be normal. It is not ‘traditional’ if it never worked.

    It is almost as if the Dems trained the clueless GOP to become left-wing, so that the entire political debate is merely between two types of leftism…….ensuring that no matter what, leftism prevails.

  315. feeriker says:

    Firstly the article is entitled MY wedding day – not Our.

    That’s how almost ALL women view their “Big Day.” It’s all about her, not “them.” If this wasn’t true, the wedding planning racket wouldn’t exist as a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry.

  316. Bucho says:

    My, how things have changed in 3 years. (I know, slow day at work….)

    http://glenlasbury.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/twitter-personality-of-the-week-5-10-questions-for-jenny-erikson-jennyerikson/

    10. Name three goals that would be on your “Bucket List.”

    1- Watch my children grow up to be happy with whatever they decide to do with their lives.
    2- Be close to my eventual grandchildren and spoil them rotten.
    3- Dance with my husband on our 75th wedding anniversary – July 13, 2077.

    And earlier in the the post….

    I got married to my best friend at 19 because we didn’t want to live in sin while we spent countless years being engaged.

    I really gotta hand it to Leif, though. If what I’ve been able to find out about him is correct, I’d say he was more than 5 years older than her when they married. At least he was going after the younger ones….

  317. Cranberry says:

    @Maeve, Amanda,

    Her kids are in an even worse position than Jenny or anyone else realizes.

    Jenny will use her children as bait for her new man. She will tentatively mention them, hoping he won’t mind, then get him and the girls gradually accustomed to each other, to the point where the girls think of New Guy with fondness, and perhaps even prefer him (in certain situations) to their own father. Then, when the time comes to spring the trap on a ring, they will be the bait: don’t you love the girls? What will I tell them about you not coming around anymore?

    And then she’ll send him pics of the girls doing cute things. They might even send him their own “how ya doing?” texts, just to be friendly. And all the while they’ll be in complete confusion as to why this guy they liked and thought liked them, like their mom, is just Not That Into Them.

    And the poor guy, he’ll be demonized too, even though he likely recognized a bad situation when he saw it and got out with as little pain as he could hopefully feel or inflict.

    This happened to my husband. He was dating a divorcee who was seven years his senior, actually her divorce was not yet finalized and her youngest (of 4) kids was about 13 months old when he met her. She recognized that he was fading away and used the kids to keep him around: hey, could you babysit while I go get my hair done? Hey, it’s the middle one’s birthday, please come to the party so she won’t be disappointed, I wouldn’t know what to tell people…the use of the kids to manipulate emotions knows no bounds.

  318. Bee says:

    @TFH,

    “All talk of ‘traditions’ is bogus, because there is no society that has ever existed, that survived for any length of time, with a level of lopsided power to women that the GOP considers to be normal.”

    This makes perfect sense. For backing up our arguments, can you provide a book or paper that spells this out?

    Thank you.

  319. Cane Caldo says:

    @Hurting

    I will use this occasion to repeat my view that the civil aspects of marriage (even in the first place) confer no benefits upon the sacramental whatsoever (indeed civil marriage and its attendant incentives for the destruction of same actively harm the sacramental) and that therefore Christian churches should provide some means of sacramental marriage that is not in any way associated with the state. The battle is long lost.

    My perspective is that we chose–and also have been delivered into–state bondage because we would not honor our vows ourselves, and because we would not uphold the vows of those around us. It’s not a matter of what Cane, Hurting, or anybody else wants: We have been delivered into this for our correction, and that’s why state interference is unavoidable.

  320. Cranberry says:

    She reminds me a little bit of this woman. Always some reason why she’s a victim, but totally not one!

  321. Maeve says:

    @Cranberry, it sounds as though your husband had a close call with that woman! And yet, I can’t help but feel for her children; her behavior is just unconscionable.

  322. deti,

    Yes. There are no mistakes. There are only decisions.

    Correct.

    It is never should I or shouldn’t I. It is merely can I or can’t I. This is reducing all choices from immoral mistakes down to amoral decisions. This is what you get when you don’t have moral agency.

  323. WHS says:

    Leif should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances take her back. She has no respect for him and would have even less if he took her back, regardless of anything she agrees to.

  324. TFH says:

    Bee,

    This blog is probably the best resource anywhere on exposing how ‘conservative Christians’ are just feminists of a slightly different flavor than lefto-feminists, and how the worldview that these ‘traditional Christians’ consider ideal, never actually existed in any functioning society for any length of time, as any place where power and accountability are so separated, that too in favor of women, would simply deteriorate extremely fast.

    What ‘Social Conservatives’ want to uphold, is pure fiction. Their philosophy can be summarized as : “We want to create a society like what existed in the first half of the 20th century, BUT, since those days had a lot of restrictions on women, we want to attempt to create these outcomes by coercing and restricting MEN instead. Let’s see if that can work.”. That, in fact, is what SoCons/Churchians want. It is not ‘traditional’, but rather is a radical experiment…

  325. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    It is never should I or shouldn’t I. It is merely can I or can’t I. This is reducing all choices from immoral mistakes down to amoral decisions. This is what you get when you don’t have moral agency.

    Then perhaps you should stop saying they don’t have any, and remove their excuse.

  326. hurting says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    December 4, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Cane,

    I’m not sure I understand your view that state interference in unavoidable except perhaps as it relates to children. Except in states that still recognize common law marriage (and there are rather few currently), why could a man and woman not be sacramentally married without benefit of state licensing?

  327. TFH says:

    AnonAge71 said :

    Jenny will not come back because he has nothing more that she wants. If he gets a lot more money, the judge will simply raise his alimony and child support payments.

    Yes. That means that many men in America today (10-30%) are effectively under a 75% tax rate…

    This cannot be good for the economy. For those who believe that a high tax rate is bad for incentives, how can they not see this as a problem? Think of how many companies are not started, and how many inventions are not worked on, because the MAN working on them would be under a 75% tax rate on whatever he earned…..

    I dare say that humanity will NOT rise to the next level without a radical ripout of ‘feminism’…..

  328. Cane,

    Then perhaps you should stop saying they don’t have any, and remove their excuse.

    They don’t have any which is why we must remove no-fault-divorce. Don’t GIVE them the option.

    How was Adam supposed to stop Eve from eating the Apple? Got to keep an eye on them 24-7 apparently or else they listen to a snake and jump on that hamster wheel. Ask SSM if you don’t believe me.

  329. feeriker says:

    TFH said This blog is probably the best resource anywhere on exposing how ‘conservative Christians’ are just feminists of a slightly different flavor than lefto-feminists, and how the worldview that these ‘traditional Christians’ consider ideal, never actually existed in any functioning society for any length of time, as any place where power and accountability are so separated, that too in favor of women, would simply deteriorate extremely fast.

    Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the vast majority of America’s “conservative Christians” are really just ultra-nationalists who paint their political philosophy (and its attendant social and cultural norms) with a thin veneer of Christianity in order to lend it an air of moral legitimacy. In any situation in which political goals conflict with Scripture, politics and pragmatism will win hands down, no exceptions.

    These people began co-opting evangelical Protestant denominations three and a half decades ago, a process that is now largely complete and that has rendered these bodies unrecognizable as New Testament churches. The more “traditional” established denominations (e.g., Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran) denominations succumbed many decades earlier to the ideological opposite (i.e., liberalism), and are now effectively moribund as a result. The same thing will happen to the evangelical churches, much sooner than anyone thinks; it’s just taking a little longer because the conservatives got a later start than did the liberals.

  330. Solomon says:

    I wonder if Leif is the genetic father of those children.

  331. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    My perspective is that we chose–and also have been delivered into–state bondage because we would not honor our vows ourselves, and because we would not uphold the vows of those around us.

    No. It is because women were given the right to vote. Women want very specific things from government and are far more focused on enacting them, vs. men are in resisting them (and many men are manginas who actually help them). Only 5-6 countries are 90+ years into female suffrage and another 10-15 countries are 60-90 years into female suffrage, so the full effects of this disaster are only now becoming evident…… People have forgotten that this is still a relatively new experiment, which only a few countries are several decades into.

    Remember that all major religions, including Christianity, were invented in a time where women did not have the right to vote, and 99% of people were struggling even to meet basic needs. Their paradigms did not anticipate societies where women can vote, and where the prosperity level is such that basic necessities are not a persistent worry….

  332. feeriker,

    Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the vast majority of America’s “conservative Christians” are really just ultra-nationalists who paint their political philosophy (and its attendant social and cultural norms) with a thin veneer of Christianity in order to lend it an air of moral legitimacy. In any situation in which political goals conflict with Scripture, politics and pragmatism will win hands down, no exceptions.

    The GOP currently gets about 10-15% of the single women’s vote and (maybe) 55-60% of the married women’s vote. And even with these ghastly low demographic percentages (and they are going lower), they just barely win enough elections in the house to have the slightest of majorities that could evaporate instantly. They can’t win the Presidency or the Senate.

    Tell me feeriker, what GOP candidate would win an election if HE said in HIS speech as part of HIS platform.. “Women, submit to your husbands. Obey them in all things.”

    He just lost the election because women are NOT moral agents AND we let them vote. These women do NOT want to vote for a man that tells them that they have to listen to their husbands. They already think they know more than their husbands.

    I admire what you are saying but you make the assumption that most women are honest about their own gender the way SSM, Jen, and Elspeth are. In fact, most women think the way Jenny Erikson does. We still need people who are NOT moral agents in order to win elections (sadly we need Jenny voting GOP in a Constitutional Republic.) The Democrats do NOT need her as they are about EMPOWERING and REWARDING those who lack all moral agency (an ever growing percentage of our population.)

    Get it? How well do you think Christianity mixes with the local politics of Detroit right now?

  333. TFH,

    No. It is because women were given the right to vote. Women want very specific things from government and are far more focused on enacting them, vs. men are in resisting them (and many men are manginas who actually help them).

    TFH is correct. This is the problem. As far as I’m concerned, only property owners should be allowed to vote. I’ll never get my way.

  334. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    How was Adam supposed to stop Eve from eating the Apple? Got to keep an eye on them 24-7 apparently or else they listen to a snake and jump on that hamster wheel. Ask SSM if you don’t believe me.

    You are very incoherent. First you say it is impossible to stop them. Then you recommend that mean watch them 24-7 to stop them. Then you suggest that *I* go ask SSM–who is to learn from her husband in her home and then teach younger women–for instruction on what the Bible teaches. With no offense meant to SSM, but yo ass must be crazy.

    Eve sinned on her own, and God disciplined her for it. Every time you make the case that women have no moral agency you are:

    1) Excusing women
    2) Heaping recrimination on Adam
    3) Accusing God of being unjust to Eve

    Cut it out. What Adam should have done was rebuke Eve. It would have been better for Adam to kill her than to eat the fruit. What Christ did was rebuke (thereby standing in/fulfilling Adam’s place) and then took Eve’s punishment (thereby standing in/fulfilling Eve’s place). That’s (one of the reasons) why we proclaim Christ as the Alpha and Omega; that His work is full and complete. When you attempt to remove Eve’s moral agency, you’re rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  335. Ton says:

    The usa does not have anything close to a nationalist party, let alone an ultra nationalist

  336. earl says:

    ” As far as I’m concerned, only property owners should be allowed to vote.”

    Only the government gets a vote?

    Because if you pay property taxes…you don’t techincally own your property.

  337. earl says:

    The story of Adam and Eve…and countless others in the Old Testiment are to prove this point time and time again to men.

    If you listen and follow God’s will…you will live in paradise. If you follow a woman’s will…you will go to hell.

  338. Cane,

    Eve sinned on her own, and God disciplined her for it. Every time you make the case that women have no moral agency you are:

    1) Excusing women
    2) Heaping recrimination on Adam
    3) Accusing God of being unjust to Eve

    I’m sorry, why are women commaned to OBEY their husbands? Why is that THEIR marrital vow and not the man’s vow? Why is it that so many feminist women REFUSE to say that vow, simply WILL NOT DO IT and would rather NOT MARRY THAT MAN if he insisted that she must?

    Why must the wife OBEY the husband in all things if she were a moral agent? She wouldn’t have to now would she? She would know what to do.

    Genesis is critical to the understaning of human nature, not just from a Christian perspective but for ALL FAITHS, not just ours because it is the one true one. Eve (by listening to Satan) is not operating in a vaccum Cane. She is (by her actions) a perfect example of the ultimate difference between men and women. Man’s law says they are treated the same, are equally responsible. God’s law, they aren’t. Our genders are very different. And at a subconcious level, we all understand this which is why we often hold our sons and daughters (and how they relate to the opposite sex) to different levels of accountability.

    Cut it out. What Adam should have done was rebuke Eve. It would have been better for Adam to kill her than to eat the fruit.

    It would have been better had Adam killed Eve rather than her eating of the tree of knowledge? I don’t even know where to begin. Yes I do. Please tell me that you do NOT teach Sunday School. And if you do, you need to “cut it out.”

    What Christ did was rebuke (thereby standing in/fulfilling Adam’s place) and then took Eve’s punishment (thereby standing in/fulfilling Eve’s place). That’s (one of the reasons) why we proclaim Christ as the Alpha and Omega; that His work is full and complete. When you attempt to remove Eve’s moral agency, you’re rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    That’s nice rhetoric but not the way I learned it. Christ is the Alpha and Omega; that His work is full and complete that only through Him do we have eternal life, through Him do we have salvation. He is our Savior sir, saved us ALL from ALL our sins (not just Eve’s.) ALL.

  339. Cane,

    The story of Adam and Eve…and countless others in the Old Testiment are to prove this point time and time again to men.

    If you listen and follow God’s will…you will live in paradise. If you follow a woman’s will…you will go to hell.

    On this ONE THING for sure, Earl is correct.

  340. John Galt says:

    @Cail Corashev: “He let her cry on his shoulder about Bad Boys, and one day all that devotion and unconditional love paid off when there was a spark and she realized he was what she’d been looking for all along.”

    I think that is exactly right. In addition to what Leif heard from the wider society, he heard many of the schmaltzy “Jesus is my Magical Boyfriend” hymns sung at many contemporary churches. I think Christian churches overdo the “Meek and Mild” part and ignore the Christ driving the money changers from the temple, or standing in front of Pilate and having the balls to talk to Pilate like an equal.

    Haley’s Halo below…why I rarely attend church.

    http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/good-news-jesus-has-oneitis-for-you/

  341. feeriker says:

    IBB said Get it? How well do you think Christianity mixes with the local politics of Detroit right now?

    You really don’t get it, do you (most TradCons/SoCons don’t, so don’t color me surprised)?

    If you had actually read what I wrote upthread, my point would have been clear to you, that point being politics and Christianity DO NOT MIX AT ALL. PERIOD. The attempts by both tradcons and liberals to synthesize the two over the last half century or more (each side absolutely certain that God is on their side) is what has all but completely destroyed the American church. I’ve waded through the Gospels in a vain search for Jesus’s exhortation to his followers to concern themselves obsessively with Caesar’s temporal affairs. So far, I’ve come up empty. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I’ve overlooked?

    To put it in terms more relevant to the American tradcon audience that is most obsessed by the issue, Jesus, by all indications in the Scriptures, couldn’t care less whether Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or Bozo the Clown is elected president of the United States (although he’d probably reluctantly endorse Bozo if absolutely pressed). None of them serve any purpose whatsoever to other than advancing Satan’s worldly agenda, so it hardly seems fitting for Christ’s followers to get behind any candidate or issue. On that note…

    … while I shouldn’t even dignify this with an answer, just to humor you I’ll answer the following question you posed:

    Tell me feeriker, what GOP candidate would win an election if HE said in HIS speech as part of HIS platform.. “Women, submit to your husbands. Obey them in all things.”

    The answer is who cares, and what difference would it make? These politicians, all of them (and that most certainly includes your beloved Republicans) are connivers, frauds, and liars, creatures I wouldn’t want hauling away my trash, let alone having life-or-death power over me. To give you a more personal extension to my answer, I would hope that not only a GOP candidate, but a candidate from any other political party would lose whatever election for whatever office he ran for. H.L. Mencken said everything that needs to be said on the subject of politicians and elections in far more convincing prose than I ever could come up with, so just refer to his collection of wit and wisdom for further edification on the subject.

  342. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    I’m sorry,

    Yes, well I am sorry I forgot you refuse to learn, too. Consider this my penance.

    why are women commaned to OBEY their husbands?

    Because women were created, from Adam, to be Adam’s helpmeet, and God gave her to Adam, under Adam’s dominion. It did not change with the Fall.

    Why is that THEIR marrital vow and not the man’s vow?

    Again: Because women were created, from Adam, to be Adam’s helpmeet, and God gave her to Adam, under Adam’s dominion. It, again, did not change after the Fall.

    Why is it that so many feminist women REFUSE to say that vow, simply WILL NOT DO IT and would rather NOT MARRY THAT MAN if he insisted that she must?

    Because they are making the moral choice to be in rebellion because they do not want to be under a husband’s dominion.

    Why must the wife OBEY the husband in all things if she were a moral agent?

    Well, she is to obey God in all things, too. And Man is supposed to obey God in all things, also. By your logic, men are not moral agents because they are to OBEY God. Since you have stated that men ARE moral agents, then you are only demonstrating, again, that you are incoherent, and that you don’t know what “moral agency” means.

    She wouldn’t have to now would she?

    Of course she would. That’s what she was made to do.

    She would know what to do.

    She does know what to do. She’s abusing her moral agency to choose not to; just as men abuse their moral agency to choose not to be obedient to God.

    Our genders are very different. And at a subconcious level, we all understand this which is why we often hold our sons and daughters (and how they relate to the opposite sex) to different levels of accountability.

    Yes, I’ve said they were different, had different roles, and (generally) commit their sins differently. You’re just repeating these things here because you have a madness; a thoughtlessness about how to put these things together. Numbers 30 is a good place for you to start on the differences in accountability.

    It would have been better had Adam killed Eve rather than her eating of the tree of knowledge?

    I did not stutter: Yes, it would have been better. That’s why Christ had to die; because the wages of sin is death, and someone must pay those wages. This isn’t new thinking. This is what the Old Testament tells us over and over again, and blessing of Christ’s substitution is what the New Testament tells us over and over again.

    Please tell me that you do NOT teach Sunday School.

    About three times a year, I get asked to teach Sunday School, or lead a Bible study, but rest your mind: I have refused them all. Sunday School is a bad thing that infects the Church. It’s responsible for churning out Christian idiots who don’t know the Gospel or the Bible…people like yourself. I don’t do commit to teaching Bible study because I do not have a regular schedule.

    That’s nice rhetoric but not the way I learned it.

    That’s probably because you learned some bogus garbage in Sunday School, or learned it from someone who themselves was taught in Sunday School. It has become the case that even those who go to seminary are products of this know-nothing Sunday School culture. You appear to be a victim of it.

    Christ is the Alpha and Omega; that His work is full and complete that only through Him do we have eternal life, through Him do we have salvation. He is our Savior sir, saved us ALL from ALL our sins (not just Eve’s.) ALL.

    Yes, exactly. We are saved from our sins–Adam’s sin of abdication (blaming Eve and God) and Eve’s sin of rebellion and temptation)–by Christ’s sacrifice. Sins are the things we do when we use our moral agency to choose to disobey our moral obligations. The Law is the response to sin–was brought about because of sin–but sin came from disobedience . Adam and Eve both were moral agents from their creation. In fact sin existed before the Fall, but our sins were not counted against us without a Law to inform us of them; to pronounce our guilt. (Romans 5:13) It was choosing to disobey the one specific rule that brought about death from which we had to be saved by Christ. It was abuse of moral agency by Adam AND Eve; by men AND women.

  343. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    My perspective is that we chose–and also have been delivered into–state bondage because we would not honor our vows ourselves, and because we would not uphold the vows of those around us. It’s not a matter of what Cane, Hurting, or anybody else wants: We have been delivered into this for our correction, and that’s why state interference is unavoidable.

    I disagree. I don’t see the current legal structure as a punishment for us, but instead as something we collectively created because we wanted to “improve” marriage. While the desire for a do over is part of that “improvement”, I think the much stronger desire is to reverse the headship/submission roles between husbands and wives. This is especially true when we are talking about modern Christians, conservatives, etc. We discussed above how Leif might respond to Jenny truly repenting, and that it would make sense for him not to reload the detonator which tempted her with cash and prizes in the first place. I don’t think I know any conservatives/Christians outside of the manosphere who wouldn’t be horrified at the thought of not reloading the detonator, precisely because the idea of a wife submitting to her husband makes them queasy.

  344. TFH says:

    While the desire for a do over is part of that “improvement”, I think the much stronger desire is to reverse the headship/submission roles between husbands and wives.

    Indeed. That is why what they insist is ‘traditional’ and ‘conservative’ is anything but. It is rather a radical experiment, which has no precedent of ever working in any society anywhere before. It does, however, have examples of failure (Ancient Rome, India in the 8th to 14th centuries, pre-Bolshevik Russia, etc.).

    How dare they call it ‘traditional’. It is an experiment as radical as when leftists say that ‘gender is a social construct’. It is really no less a departure from a) biology, and b) the foundation of any successful nation-state of the past, than what leftists are attempting to pull.

  345. TFH says:

    So what is described as ‘traditional/conservative’ churchianity is a radical experiment in gender-swapping, role-reversing, wealth-redistributing leftism.

    That is what it is. They became radical, ‘gender is a social construct’, ‘socialism is good as long as men pay and women receive’ leftists, even if they think they are not.

    Now we also know why gay politics is on the airwaves so much – it is a tool via which these two nearly identical types of gender-erasing, wealth-redistributing leftisms can appear different. Outside of Dems appearing to be pro-gay, and the GOP appearing to be anti-gay, there are very few differences between the two. Gay politics is just a distraction for cosmetic purposes…..

    It is sad that the freeest, most prosperous, and most inclusive society ever created, decided to bet the farm on this ill-conceived, certain-to-fail experiment.

  346. Tam the Bam says:

    Marcus, I love the way they even picked the right shade of crayon to color in the Hamster.

    A few years back they even showed how It manages women’s weight for Its own optimal sustenance.
    “Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory shows that men, but not women, are able to control their brain’s response to their own favorite foods.”
    And so on ..
    ” The male brains for example, has six and a half times more gray matter than women do. The gray matter is the one responsible for information processing ..”

    As those unregenerate frankfurters the Au Pairs used to chant, “You’re equal, but different – it’s obviousss ..

    They even got a snap of the Tingles or something very like it (on the right ahem hem).

  347. feeriker,

    If you had actually read what I wrote upthread, my point would have been clear to you, that point being politics and Christianity DO NOT MIX AT ALL. PERIOD.

    Of course they do. They MUST.

    Our government has a certain set of laws. Where do those come from? Well most came from England. We took many of their laws, excluding the stuff regarding the royal family. Okay so where did England get their laws?

    Christianity. And all in England were answerable to Christianity. That’s the main reason why King George the Sixth became King in 1936, because his brother David had to abdicate the thrown when he was going to openly violate Luke 16:18 of the KING JAMES BIBLE! Laws. And where did Christ get the laws that He came to fulfill? Judaism. Where did the Jews get those laws? God.

    You see when you get right down to it, until God Almighty told Moses that man was not to supposed to murder each other, murder was tolerated. God instructed the Jews as to what the laws were and “nation states” (like ours) started taking these laws from God. Now, we didn’t take all of them (I can still work for pay on the Sabbath day in the United States) and Usury is a huge part of economy (although I wish it weren’t.) But that’s where our laws come from, Christianity.

    When you start to break away from Christianity (something we can all do because God gave us Free Will) you start to get into trouble, do you not? Where else does the trouble start were it not for abortion, no fault divorce, men marrying men, and women disrespecting their husbands?

    feeriker, we delude ourselves into thinking that we are so sophisticated as a people that we can afford to luxury of the seperation of church and state. But that is not the world of reality, nor is it the world of morality. And rest assured, our politics are about morals which stem from laws which stem from God.

    For those who are not religious, their lives have an emptiness. Bill Maher may very well be a good citizen following most of our nation’s laws (except the ones on drugs) but he is far from a moral one. That is why politics are so important to him, he is getting older and he fears death. He is trying maximize the enjoyment out of his remaining years on this planet before (as far as he’s concerned) the entire universe comes crashing to an end when his heart stops beating. The best way he can accomplish this is by changing man’s law to accomidate what he thinks he needs for the maximum enjoyment for what is left of his life. These are his concerns because (for him) politics and Christianity do not mix. He is afforded the luxury of worrying only about himself because so many of those who have come before (and those who live among him) live their lives in a moral way, thus allowing those like Bill to live large.

  348. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I disagree. I don’t see the current legal structure as a punishment for us, but instead as something we collectively created because we wanted to “improve” marriage.

    I think we’re saying the same thing. That’s what I meant when I wrote that we chose it, and we’re delivered to it. Similarly, getting kicked out of the Garden was both fulfillment of our request to do our own thing, and our discipline. Later, the Jews ask for a set of rules because they wanted a religion like everyone else had; instead of God communicating through dreams, leaders, and prophecy, and we got books of brutal law. Later again, the Jews ask for a king, instead of being led by prophets and judges with God as their king. He tells them that kings will take their sons, daughters, and wages–and then he gives them a king as discipline and fulfillment of their choices. Later, the Jews want to make alliance with the Assyrians for protection, instead of counting on God for protection. God fulfills their desire, and Assyria provides protection to the Jews by occupying them.

    It’s this same theme, over and over again.

    I don’t disagree with your estimation that most Christians would demand reloading the detonator. Female Christian headship is what we asked for, and now God is using the state’s power to fulfill our desires, and teach us how wrong we are to desire female headship.

    These things don’t go away. The Jews, as a people, never came back to God. They still seek worldly power and authority, and they went into exile and occupation many times. This battle over female headship is not new either. It’s just at a crest right now.

  349. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Let me add that this is my perspective on why our culture and marriages are the way they are. I am not saying the Bible says this, and certainly not that God told me directly. It just strikes me as very parallel to the recordings we have about the way God has worked with His people.

  350. Tam the Bam says:

    Now then, Bee
    ” For backing up our arguments, can you provide a book or paper that spells this out?”
    Ay. That would be just about every decent archeology textbook ever written, for starters. Forget anything Marija Gimbutas did, except for the recherche illustrations. She was an obsessive and a fantasist. Lots of disingenuous selectivity (bad even by archeology’s shoddy half-arsed standards, that is).
    Ain’t being lazy, it’s just there’s shedloads of it, too long even to list. And then there’s so-called history, as well … where to start?
    T’be honest, easier if peeps just stood up candidate examples, and if I don’t fall victim to festive spirit too much, I can say what’s up with it, narrows down the references.

  351. MarcusD says:

    I love the way they even picked the right shade of crayon to color in the Hamster.

    I didn’t notice that at first – quite hilarious. Right proportions, too. I wonder if that was intentional.

    Maybe, just maybe.

  352. Tam the Bam says:

    Innocent
    You are Geoffrey Boycott, and I claim my five pounds.

  353. feeriker says:

    IBB @ 12/4/13 @4:03PM:

    To further respond to yor last post in detail would be to threadjack, which I want sincerely to avoid doing. However, I think that your points more than merit a considered response. I’ll post this response elsewhere and invite you and everyone else interested to view them.

  354. Cane,

    I’m sorry, why are women commaned to OBEY their husbands?

    Because women were created, from Adam, to be Adam’s helpmeet, and God gave her to Adam, under Adam’s dominion. It did not change with the Fall.

    I’m pretty much going to have to disregard your comments from here on out because it most CERTAINLY changed with The Fall.

    Genesis 2:16, she was helpmeet.

    THE FALL!

    Genesis 3:16

    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    He shall rule over you. So what does God say women are supposed to do? Listen to their husbands whom they MUST desire. The end.

    Make no mistake Cain, that is NOT a moral agent. In Chapter 2, Adam and his “helpmeet” are both supposed to listen to God. Starting from Chapter 3, verse 16, the wife must OBEY her Husband. And that law goes for women….. all the way to Revelation.

    He OBEYS God and she OBEYS her husband.

    Well, she is to obey God in all things, too. And Man is supposed to obey God in all things, also. By your logic, men are not moral agents because they are to OBEY God.

    Men are moral agents because God gave us THE LAW. So we KNOW exactly what we are supposed to do. We OBEY God. Our Wives OBEY us. That is God’s LAW.

    The LAWS that God gives man to follow in The Bible are focused on morality. And what is the root of morality? That a woman can be ruined. That is the root of morality. That is why you and I as fathers go apeshit if we hear that our 13 year old daughter was sexed by her junior high school math teacher and we send that guy to jail for 20 years (if we can’t get our gun and shoot him.) BUT if our 13 year old son is sexed by a female teacher, she gets probation and we (as fathers) hold her less accountable. Morality Cain. The genders are different as one can be RUINED and the other, not so much. So man must follow God’s LAW which are Morals and are there to protect women (the same way the Patriarchy protects women.)

    Satan did not tempt Adam. Satan would have failed. Remember, Adam was told (when he was alone) not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Satan had some amount of time to get to Adam. He didn’t even try. He went after Eve and with good reason. It is because Satan understood that what God understands (something apparently that YOU do not understand) that men and women were different. That was as true then (6000+ years ago) as it is today. Eve did not operate in vacuum. Eve proved that women (by the nature of their gender) are incapable of OBEYING God. SSM refers to this Jenny Erikisonizing as “hamsterization.” Eve was given the most simplest of instructions, don’t eat from this tree. She failed. But she did worse, she failed and then she led Adam to fail. Jenny was given the most simpliest of instructions, “obey your husband and have desire for him.” She failed.

    You Cain, are part of the cult of Churchianity. You seem to think that what Eve did, she did on her own….

    Eve sinned on her own

    …while technically true, it would also have been true if Adam ate of the tree before or after Eve came into the picture due to Satan’s coaxing. He did not.

    I don’t think I have much more to say to you. You are I are SO FAR APART here on the most basic aspects of The Bible, there can’t be any common ground.

  355. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I can’t find it again, but I think someone commented that previous civilizations did not grant women the right to vote.

    I am told by a dedicated history student that indeed almost all “great” civilizations did indeed eventually grant women the right to vote. Why do you think those civilizations no longer exist?

  356. Cane Caldo says:

    @IBB

    I don’t think I have much more to say to you. You are I are SO FAR APART here on the most basic aspects of The Bible, there can’t be any common ground.

    Then I will consider my penance complete, and I leave you to go on in your ignorance.

  357. ’71,

    I can’t find it again, but I think someone commented that previous civilizations did not grant women the right to vote.

    I am told by a dedicated history student that indeed almost all “great” civilizations did indeed eventually grant women the right to vote. Why do you think those civilizations no longer exist?

    Men vote Patriaricly. They vote in what is in the best interest of their wives and their family.

    Women vote emotionally. They vote in what is in the best interest of their emotions and that sometimes ties into women’s political issues. You will note, there is no man’s political issue.

    Again… moral agency.

  358. jsr says:

    @Cane Caldo
    “Sunday School is a bad thing that infects the Church. It’s responsible for churning out Christian idiots who don’t know the Gospel or the Bible.”

    I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on this assertion, perhaps even highlighting supporting scriptures. I have had a bias against sunday school for 15 years or so now, and some additional depth on the topic may be enlightening.

  359. Monica says:

    I am not religious but I know some things from the Bible. I believe one goes like Don’t judge others for you’re being judged yourself. Or how about only God can judge you?

  360. feeriker says:

    @jsr

    One thing I can point to in support of Cane’s assertion that Sunday School has become an exercise in spiritual toxicity is the prevalence of “Bible study” that centers around books about the Bible rather than the Bible itself. The prevailing attitude, occasionally given voice, is that these books “make the Bible easier for ordinary people to understand.” This is of course merely churchian hamsterization of laziness and lack spiritual discipline.

    This trend would be mildly amusing were it not so destructive. The misinformation spewed forth in the pseudo-spiritual rantings of the latest best-selling churchian authors, the pap that is substituted for actual Bible study, is at the root of the feminist infection of the church today.

  361. panelvan says:

    Not sure if anyone else has linked this yet:

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165037/i_was_wrong_about_marriage

    New self indulgent solipsism fresh off the press.

  362. Pingback: Trapped! | Culture Creation Industry - Spares N...

  363. John Galt says:

    The thing about Jenny with the ChivalryDate website is that she’s setting herself up for more beta (and worse). The Alphas wouldn’t think of getting on the site.

    Truth is, I would believe that Jenny is a fictitious character (like Athol Kay started making up fake “Relationship 911stories on his forum) if I didn’t actually know people who know Jenny personally. She really exists…how much of her writing is fake, I don’t know. It is possible she isn’t actually divorcing Leif, though that would be a lot of work for the sake of a writing career.

  364. Cane Caldo says:

    @JSR 7 Feeriker

    One thing I can point to in support of Cane’s assertion that Sunday School has become an exercise in spiritual toxicity is the prevalence of “Bible study” that centers around books about the Bible rather than the Bible itself. The prevailing attitude, occasionally given voice, is that these books “make the Bible easier for ordinary people to understand.” This is of course merely churchian hamsterization of laziness and lack spiritual discipline.

    What choice do the modern teachers have when they don’t know the Bible either? It’s a sickness.

    I’ll do a short post on it.

  365. TFH says:

    She refers to her kids as ‘Thing 1′ and ‘Thing 2′.

    I suppose it would be too patriarchal and too funny, and also interfere with her custody and childimony designs, to call them ‘Leiflets’.

    “I picked up both Leiflets from school today”…

  366. imnobody00 says:

    @feeriker (and off-topic)

    Anon 71 @Hawkandrock >>I just don’t like this world much anymore…. and I think it’s pretty much done with me too.<<
    And, what do you know about the world? As far as I can tell, you only know a small part of the North American part of the world.

    I’d give Hawkandrock the benefit of the doubt. Maybe by “this world” he was referring to is just the western, English-speaking world. If that’s true, then I share fully his feelings. I’m long past done with it too.

    As I have said, I live in Central America. If you want to come, come as quickly as possible because things are rapidly deteriorating here. When I got here 15 years ago, it was easy to find traditional women. But people here tend to imitate American attitudes. Now it’s a cesspool of Cafeteria feminist types. International organizations (such as the United Nations) promote feminism under the cover of helping women and reproductive health.

    As an example, the Central American girl I had the first date with yesterday night. 35 y.o., extreme baby rabies, wanting to marry and have a family (that is, wanting to get their beta provider after a life of parties and Sex and the city lifestyle), estimated N: high. (I know this because some friends) SMV: about a 4-5 (6 if you like black women). She was not a landwhale, though.

    I dated her and, during the first date, she told me in no uncertain terms (but with more diplomatic words):

    - She is a control freak. Things have to be done the way she wants.
    - She has a strong character (read “she often gets angry”).
    - She wants to change his man until he is the way she wants.
    - (I told her: “But you don’t want a man that says: “Whatever you wants, honey. I love you, honey.”). She told me: “Of course not. I want him to have spine”.
    - She creates drama from time to time (or so says she).
    - She wants a man who gets up and start working hard because she wants a luxurious lifestyle. Previous boyfriends were rejected because they were lazy for her (they had good jobs. One of them was the director of a magazine). I didn’t tell her I had an amazing job with lot of money and I am a workoholic (I work a second job).
    - She wants this man to cook and help with household chores during the weekend (after having working hard the whole week).
    - She repeats once and again that she is a strong, independent woman but she still lives with her parents and she is the princess of her father (I left home at the age of 17 so I was not impressed).
    - She majored in Communications (here it is a really easy major. Its students are known because they are sluts). She is thinking about studying a master. She is very proud of that (Only to put her in her place, I told her that I have two masters, one PhD and four languages).
    - She has a really trivial job in a publicity agency which she is very proud of.

    After 20 minutes of hearing all this, I changed my attitude and stopped treating like a date and I started treating her like a woman I didn’t have the least interest in. She noticed my change. After a while, I said goodbye and didn’t say anything about meeting again.

    This is an example. The number of Central American women who divorced because a) they married an alpha and he left them so now they are looking for a beta provider or b) they married a beta and they discovered that they didn’t want him IS HUGE.

    So don’t come here expecting a clean source of good traditional women. This time has passed. As Roosh says, it is always temporary :-(

  367. John Galt says:

    @Cane: “It was choosing to disobey the one specific rule that brought about death from which we had to be saved by Christ. It was abuse of moral agency by Adam AND Eve; by men AND women.”

    I think that is a brilliant insight.

    You could argue that the way Adam and Eve responded to the law made things worse: Eve refused to submit to what Adam told her to do; and Adam, when questioned by God (6:11) promptly tried to throw Eve under the bus instead of taking Eve’s punishment in her stead even though he was innocent, the same way Christ did centuries later. Eve failed to obey Adam, Adam failed to obey Eve.

  368. TFH says:

    Ton,

    Apologies in advance, but this is just too funny to pass up. No offense intended.
    ____________________________________

    Ton and Jenny ‘the Chin’ Erikson visited Britain together. In London, they saw a double decker bus. Jenny was enthralled (having little knowledge of the world outside the US) and wanted to ride the double decker. So they went in, intending to ride in the upper level..

    The conductor forbade their entry to the upper level, and insisted that at least Jenny remain in the lower level.

    Jenny asked, “Why?”
    The Conductor : “Because the upper stall cannot support a Ton and a tonne”.
    Ton : “Why didn’t you just say two tons?”
    The Conductor : “Because you don’t weigh a tonne. Only your name is Ton.”

    Hence, Jenny was made to sit in the bottom decker, while Ton was allowed to go to the top. In the upper level, was a grizzled old man who was clearly a war veteran. An old-fashioned expert in one-liners, he merely said :

    “Wogs and pretty girls both begin in Calais”.

    Ton : “But Jenny is American”. Ton proceeded to tell the Veteran Jenny’s background
    Veteran : “They why did she insist on renaming her ex-husband Leif Erikson? The man who discovered the new world, but didn’t (and got no credit for it)?”
    Ton : “It was her way of making her super-beta husband appear like an alpha Viking in her eyes. At least until the 10-year mark, at which time she can convert him into a pension”.
    Veteran : “A pension? For doing what, exactly?”
    Ton : “At least in Britain, Islamic Sharia courts are allowed to operate. Leif could have gotten a much better deal there”.
    Veteran : “This is what we Veterans were dying for?”
    Ton : “Pretty much”
    Veteran : “Bloody hell”.

  369. Ashley lakes says:

    As far as Sunday school goes it depends on the church and Sunday school. I have moved around a lot for my husbands career. At one church in the morning we did “bad girls of the Bible”. After the night service, people gathered in Sunday school to talk about their problems and support each other, which was incredably inspiring.

    At my current church the associate pastor writes the scripture on the board and leads a discussion about it.

    We have also done “Christmas is not your birthday” :not great

    And “financial peace university” :life changing

  370. imnobody00 says:

    I forgot:

    When she asked me what I want in a woman. I said: “Only one thing. I don’t want her to fuck my life up”. After she had explained she is a pain in the ass for half an hour, this was funny.

  371. JDG says:

    You Cain, are part of the cult of Churchianity. You seem to think that what Eve did, she did on her own….

    To claim that Cane is part of churchianity is uninformed and idiotic.

    Are you trying to defend the position that because Eve was deceived (and other nefarious things that woman have done) woman do not have moral agency?

    If so, I have some more questions:

    How do YOU define moral agency?
    If Eve didn’t act on her own, who or what acted with her, and why isn’t it stated so in the Bible?
    Why did God curse Eve along with Adam?
    Why did God command that women be punished for sins they committed?
    Are women in need of a savior or just men?

    Thank you.

  372. JDG says:

    I forgot one: How can a woman be expected to obey her husband if she doesn’t have moral agency?

  373. Christians 4 Christ! says:

    “Under no circumstances should reconciliation involve a state-sanctioned marriage (or ‘re-marriage’).”

    Legal marriage is phasing out for heterosexuals and phasing in for homosexuals. By 2025 they will even out and only about 5% of the population will bother with it at all. Around 10% of the population will carry on with religious ceremonies or their own choreographed commitment ceremonies, the rest 85% won’t even bother with that.

    Mark my word.

  374. Cane Caldo says:

    @John Galt

    You’ve pretty much got it.

    You could argue that the way Adam and Eve responded to the law made things worse: Eve refused to submit to what Adam told her to do; and Adam, when questioned by God (6:11) promptly tried to throw Eve under the bus

    It’s even worse that that. Ok, so keeping in mind that Christ is perfect, and He substituted Himself for the sake of saving us. Adam

    1) Not only does not do that (which is beyond the Law, and we should not necessarily expect Adam to do)

    2) He not only refuses to rebuke Eve, who was ordered beneath Adam

    3) He not only blames Eve for his own act of eating the fruit

    4) He also blames the One Person who had nothing to do with the whole affair, and Who gave the one rule about not eating the fruit. “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

    instead of taking Eve’s punishment in her stead even though he was innocent, the same way Christ did centuries later. Eve failed to obey Adam, Adam failed to obey Eve.

    I don’t understand this last part about Adam failing to obey Eve. Is that an editing error, or are you misunderstanding me, or am I misunderstanding you? Adam never should have obeyed her. She did not have dominion over him. Could he take counsel? Could he run things past her? Could he consider her opinions and concerns? Yes. Could he acquiesce to her desires? Yes.

    But obey? No, he should not have.

  375. cynthia says:

    This is just sad, and honestly, I don’t understand it. I’m in my late twenties. Due to a decade-long stint in the US military, I’m single, no boyfriend and no time spent playing around on the carousel. (no easier way to implode every last shred of moral authority you have as a female in uniform than sleep around; you’d be amazed how hopeless the average unmarried woman in the military is). I’ve been enduring the grind of sixty hour work weeks and an empty apartment for years. It’s lonely. It’s the worst thing imaginable. There’s no nobility in it.

    Why any woman would willingly go back to this shit after finally escaping it, after finding a good man and starting a family, is beyond me. Are the glory days of mid-twenties sluttitude really that powerful? Or are most women just that dumb?

  376. Pingback: Jenny and the Cocktail | Unmasking Feminism

  377. lgrobins says:

    I found what I think captures a good depiction of Jenny and posted it here
    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/jenny-and-the-cocktail/

  378. alamodicus says:

    @Monica

    I think there is a difference between pointing out incorrect behavior and “judging” someone’s ultimate destination.

  379. JDG,

    Oh these are easy.

    Are you trying to defend the position that because Eve was deceived (and other nefarious things that woman have done) woman do not have moral agency?

    No.

    My position is one predicated not on Eve’s deception but on free will. Satan said she would gain knowledge (which she did) by eating the forbidden fruit. She did not need that knowledge, neither did Adam. But she chose (of her own free will) to eat. She disobeyed God (disobeyed the ONE AND ONLY LAW she had to follow) by doing precisely what she was commanded NOT to do.

    This type of behavior is repeated time and again among far too many women. They do things that they KNOW they are NOT supposed to do, things that they were specifically told NOT to do, and then they expect men to step in and make them whole. And we hold women to a LOWER standard than we hold men because…. because they are women and we expect LESS of them. That is why it is imperative that women listen to their husbands and submit to them.

    Women want to submit to a man. They are GOING to submit to A man, that is feminine instinct brought about by Genesis 3:16. They just get themselves into trouble by marrying men whom they REFUSE to submit….

    …like Jenny marrying Leif.

    If so, I have some more questions:

    How do YOU define moral agency?

    You know the difference between right and wrong and you make choices in your life understanding what is right and what is wrong. We expect this of men. Of women? Not as much JDG. They make choices based on “can I” vs “can’t I.” Eve could eat the apple. She did. That was an immoral act, but Eve was an amoral person. Jenny could divorce her husband. She did. That was an immoral act, but Jenny is an amoral person. Jenny lacks moral agency. Her decisions are not predicated on right vs wrong.

    Certainly, not all men are moral agents. They choose to be immoral monsters and preditors, take advantage of the blessings given to them and use those for their own personal benefit no matter who that harms. And not all women lack moral agency. There are outstanding women who know right vs wrong and choose to make the correct choices (the women that post here at Dalrock’s blog for instance.) But the most important correct choice these women make which makes them happy is OBEYING their husbands.

    If Eve didn’t act on her own, who or what acted with her, and why isn’t it stated so in the Bible?

    She didn’t act on her own. Satan tempted her. It is stated so in The Bible. Right there Satan gave Eve a choice, the choice Satan did not give Adam. She chose to listen to Satan and not God because she could. She wanted knowledge and she didn’t care that she was commanded not to eat.

    Why did God curse Eve along with Adam?

    Because she didn’t listen to Him. So now, she has to listen to her husband. She is going to submit to someone. That someone SHOULD be her husband. That is one of the reasons why GAME (something that is also Biblical) is so important for husbands.

    Why did God command that women be punished for sins they committed?

    Because they don’t listen to their husbands.

    Are women in need of a savior or just men?

    We all are.

    I forgot one: How can a woman be expected to obey her husband if she doesn’t have moral agency?

    That is an excellent question. The answer is her family. THEY have to be in the son-in-law’s court and be his greatest ally in making sure their daughter continues to OBEY her husband. She OBEYS her father. Her father walks his daughter down the aisle. He gives his daughter to his son in law. And now she OBEYS her husband. That is the way it used to be. It no longer is. That is because of feminism.

    So NOW, its a craps shoot. You have to HOPE that you marry well, marry a wife who will obey or (if failing that) a wife that wont make your life a living hell because…. all of man’s laws are on her side to make her whole if she blows everything up!

  380. Monica says:

    The Bible says not to judge others. Good thing I’m an atheist, you’re a sexist asshole. If her husband filed for divorce you would not be speaking this way about him.

  381. bob says:

    .
    innocentbystanderboston said:

    set phasers to “shun.”

    Now that there is some brilliant stuff. Applicable to most women, in fact.

  382. Monica,

    If her husband filed for divorce you would not be speaking this way about him.

    Of course we would.

  383. Roland says:

    @cynthia

    This is probably not the best blog for advice (I know u are not asking) but since u opened the door about your personal life>>>

    It is not too late for you to snatch a good husband since u are still young (under 30). The only drawback is your military training and being around men so much that u probably picked up men behaviors and mannerisms, and military rigidness you often find among enlisted women. You will have to retrain yourself to not take charge and to be lead by ‘your (future) man’. If you are not scared by military life, and yet have retained some of your femininity, then there can still be hope for you to have a family of your own. If that proves difficult at times, just remember: it is better to be some woman’s man than none at all.

  384. Boxer says:

    I’m an atheist, you’re a sexist asshole.

    I’m an atheist. You’re a masochistic dolt.

    If her husband filed for divorce you would not be speaking this way about him.

    If her husband filed for divorce for no reason, got rewarded with a huge, state-lottery magnitude lifetime alimony entitlement, and then blogged about his trashiness, shiftlessness, drunkenness and idiocy, I’d be the first to scoff at him. I think parasites and human garbage are fine entertainment, and I enjoy them at least as much as all the losers who read about the latest “teen mom” television reviews at “The Stir”.

    If I believed in a god or gods, I’d be convinced that people like Mizz Erikson are his attempt at a sense of humor. As I don’t, I have to conclude that she must be some sort of dysgenic “regression to the mean” trend in homo sapiens. Either way, she’s a laugh riot. I just feel sorry for her poor kids.

    Regards, Boxer

  385. galloper6 says:

    Cynthia, young women have been told by the whole of modern culture, that they can stay young for as long as they want and there is a unlinited supply of high value men they can have for the asking. By the time they understand that Sarah jessica Parker is promoting lies, it is too late.

  386. Cane Caldo says:

    @Monica

    The Bible says not to judge others.

    No it doesn’t. You learned that in Sunday School, didn’t you?

    We are told to judge according to the standard that we want to be judged, and that we should expect to be so judged. We are told to judge those in the church (Christians) but not outside it (atheists, pagans, etc.). We are told that we will judge angels, and so we should judge among ourselves.

  387. galloper6 says:

    Cynthia the first thing for you to do to get a man is to grow your hair long. It will give you a real edge over the majority women who dont.

  388. MarcusD says:

    Relevant threads from CAF:

    Protestant husband insists on getting a vasectomy against my wishes- can I get a legal separation?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=842444

    Sexless Marriage Confused Lost and In Pain (male poster)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=842478

    (Bored – detonates marriage)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=842518

  389. MarcusD says:

    It’s amazing how threads like these pop up every day on CAF.

  390. MarcusD says:

    And he’s still re-tweeting her stuff: https://twitter.com/Tremorden

  391. JDG says:

    IBB thank you for responding in kind. Please bear (sorry fuzzy) with me a little further.

    IBB – My position is one predicated not on Eve’s deception but on free will.

    I don’t understand the above statement. How does free will connect to a women not having moral agency? Every example you gave about Eve has also been done in principle by men (who also have free will).

    IBB – This type of behavior is repeated time and again among far too many women. They do things that they KNOW they are NOT supposed to do, things that they were specifically told NOT to do, and then they expect men to step in and make them whole.

    But isn’t the above statement contradicted when you define moral agency:
    JDG – How do YOU define moral agency?
    IBB – You know the difference between right and wrong and you make choices in your life understanding what is right and what is wrong.

    IBB – There are outstanding women who know right vs wrong and choose to make the correct choices.

    Is your position then that some women have moral agency and some do not?

    Thank you.

  392. JDG says:

    Monica why are you an atheist and why is it wrong to be sexist?

  393. MarcusD says:

    It may be worthwhile defining “judge.”

  394. Cane Caldo says:

    @MarcusD

    It may be worthwhile defining “judge.”

    I doubt it. Really, the charge is not that we’re disobeying Scripture, but that we’re hypocritical sexist assholes. By her metric: That’s exactly the kind of folks who wrote the Bible.

    Now, if she wrote: “I thought the Bible said you aren’t suppose to judge others.”, then maybe I’d consider that she’s be interested in another 1,000 words. My response before was more for my fellow Christians who get beat over the head with nonsense, than for her.

  395. Chris Gale says:

    ynthia, there are a lot of women like you. And some find love. If you hang with some of thr ladysphere (alte was good at this) they would be happy to teach you and there are men out there looking for women like you.

    General vomment: Mr Eriksen should think about getting custody as in general solo Dads can undo the damage and don’t party around. Jenny will end up damaging the kids.

  396. Once you understand solipsism, you understand that it is its own reward if left unchecked.

    God told wives to submit to their husbands in all things; part of the genius of that command is because it protects women from their own solipsism by putting them under their husband’s natural logic and mental grasp of the 3D world.

    Women that think they know better than that? Will spend every single year after the wall with their cats in loneliness and misery; and deservedly so.

    This woman’s “empowerment” is nothing but a spectacle and learning tool for all that have ears to hear.

  397. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you

    The more correct translation (I am a Hebrew speaker) is:
    you will desire to control your husband, but he will dominate you

  398. Ton says:

    Being a sexist asshole is one of my better qualities. I only get more unreconstructed from there.

    After 24 years in the army, I have yet to meet the military chick who didn’t see a mile of cock before breakfast. Officer, enlisted, warrant, married or single

    If women had moral agency and could differentiate between right and wrong, feminism would be a success. All the words in the world mean nothing. The observable data/ the behavior of women, points to them having no sense of right or wrong. Hells bells, when my dog does something wrong when I am away she has the decency to act guilty when I get home. Which makes her more moral then any woman I know. Also as I read it, we are all punished for Adam’s sin but not for Eve’ s. Which points to the limited moral nature of women.

  399. Opus says:

    Who might have thought that this blog would contain a story about a red double-decker bus. Sadly only a few operate now (the number 15 between the Albert Hall and St Paul’s). There are double-decker buses, but there is no conductor or open back-door. As a child (aged 5) when returning from school I used to hang off the pole at the back with one foot in the air as the bus came into my stop. Incredibly dangerous – I once represented a widower at an inquest whose wife had fallen from that platform and been instantly killed (so be careful TFH!).

    I once saw a red double-decker bus in D.C. going south on Wisconsin Avenue. The first time I saw a double-decker train was in Chicago (I went down to Brookland zoo).

  400. Opus says:

    I should of course have referred to the double-decker bus as a Routemaster.

  401. Thomas de Bamford says:

    “I should of course have referred to the double-decker bus as a Routemaster.”
    I ‘ate you, Butler! [/blakey]
    As distinct from one of those monstrous vanHool intercity ones? Where’s me anorak got to? And the flask of weak lemon drink.

  402. Minesweeper says:

    “MarcusD says:
    December 5, 2013 at 12:51 am
    And he’s still re-tweeting her stuff: https://twitter.com/Tremorden

    very strange isnt it, I mean, even when they split in May (?) there isn’t a break at all in his or her tweeting.
    most guys on a split that was forced upon them (and Im speaking from my own experience) would be pretty broken up at the time to retweet her shit.

    very strange

  403. Minesweeper says:

    Ton says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:29 am
    Being a sexist asshole is one of my better qualities. I only get more unreconstructed from there.

    If women had moral agency and could differentiate between right and wrong, feminism would be a success. All the words in the world mean nothing. The observable data/ the behavior of women, points to them having no sense of right or wrong. Hells bells, when my dog does something wrong when I am away she has the decency to act guilty when I get home. Which makes her more moral then any woman I know. .

    this is so accurate..stunning..from creation of humanity till now, no change at all.

  404. Minesweeper says:

    Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:
    December 5, 2013 at 3:55 am
    >> Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you

    The more correct translation (I am a Hebrew speaker) is:
    you will desire to control your husband, but he will dominate you

    Are you sure ?
    H8669 in the original sense of stretching out after;
    a longing. to run after or over, i.e. overflow.

  405. Minesweeper says:

    @IBB
    I’m with you. I have no idea what cane is on about.

  406. earl says:

    “Also as I read it, we are all punished for Adam’s sin but not for Eve’ s. Which points to the limited moral nature of women.”

    The way I see it…both of them rebelled in their own way. That is why we are all punished.

    Men rebel from God…women rebel from men. So it is a bit more limited for women.

  407. Minesweeper says:

    “@earl The way I see it…both of them rebelled in their own way. That is why we are all punished.
    Men rebel from God…women rebel from men.”
    They did both rebel, note the enemy always tries the weakest route to attack which was the female, And is households is mostly the female.

    I think men rebel from God, but women rebel from both men and God. As obedience one will enforce obedience to the other.

  408. hurting says:

    MarcusD says:
    December 5, 2013 at 12:42 am

    CAF is a haven for modernist Catholics, specifically as it relates to marriage. There is no troubled marriage the posting populace there would not demand to see destroyed by way of the annulment mill.

  409. Ashley lakes says:

    Monica

    How do we have courts if we can’t judge? How is there right and wrong? Why do we have the 10 commandments? Can i judge myself? Why did Jeffery Dommer go to jail?

  410. earl says:

    @Minesweeper

    Yeah I would say women rebel from men and God. But given their nature as what they see is what they experience…men is the closest image of God they get on Earth.

    If you notice…in the bible OT times God speaks directly to men. I can’t think of a time God directly speaks to a woman (Jesus was a physical man when he spoke to them). Even Mary got her info from an angel.

  411. Minesweeper says:

    “@earl I can’t think of a time God directly speaks to a woman”
    Eve ?

  412. Dalrock says:

    @panelvan

    Not sure if anyone else has linked this yet:

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165037/i_was_wrong_about_marriage

    New self indulgent solipsism fresh off the press.

    Good find. For those who haven’t followed the link, she links to this post. It looks like Jenny has found her new niche, as the former supporter of marriage who now knows better. She is repentant, but to the religion of divorce empowerment. This is brilliant, and so long as she can hold it together personally will be great for her blogging career. The women in the comments are eating it up. They get to comfort her/protect her from the evil judging Christians while simultaneously hating her for being such a judgmental bitch. You have to see the comments to see what I mean.

  413. earl says:

    Yeah that’s right…Eve.

    Perhaps that was one of the punishments women got after the fall. God only speaks to them through men.

  414. deti says:

    @ Dalrock, Dec 5, 8:34 am

    I sense a hamsterlation in the very near future. Seriously. That article needs to be dissected for what she’s really saying.

    Maybe you should just post on it instead.

  415. Minesweeper says:

    @earl Acts 2:17
    17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
    I don’t you are right on this.

  416. Dalrock says:

    Fire away Deti. I don’t have time to write a new post now. If I did I’d move to another topic.

  417. Casey says:

    @ Monica
    Monica hamsterized: December 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    “I am not religious but I know some things from the Bible. I believe one goes like Don’t judge others for you’re being judged yourself. Or how about only God can judge you?”

    and hamsterized again on December 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    “The Bible says not to judge others. Good thing I’m an atheist, you’re a sexist asshole. If her husband filed for divorce you would not be speaking this way about him.”

    BEAUTIFUL HAMSTER MOMENT!!!! CLASSIC!!!

    1) Invoke God’s word while simultaneously both misquoting same AND declaring you could care less about his word.

    2) Throw previous admonishment about ‘judging others’ to the trashbin to enable yourself to act out previously stated ‘bad action’. – that being JUDGING OTHERS.

    At least you used the correct ‘you’re’ in the “You’re a sexist asshole” judgment.

  418. Casey says:

    @ Monica

    “If her husband filed for divorce you would not be speaking this way about him.”

    Seriously sister…..you think that CLAPTRAP is going to hold water on this blog?

    As kindly as I can state it: Throwing the MAN under a bus for failing to be true to his wedding vows is something WOMEN DO GLEEFULLY!!!

    24/7/365.

    All day, Every day.

    Men cannot turn on a TV without being exposed to some feminist claptrap shaming them for some measure of their behaviour.

    Go back to name-calling….it’s more within your wheelhouse.

  419. Lol, go Jenny, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt for all the blue pill suckers out there that every single one of you ‘Christian’ broads is nothing but a shallow and pathetic whore who says one thing and does the exact opposite. A blooming Jezebel wanking shyster whore cock sucking cranky bitch is above you when it comes to piety.

    Your husband is far better off without you. In a weird way you just proved how absolutely wrong Cane and Dalrock have been on the ‘take the broad back’ nonsense. Go stick a sock in it, you dyke!

  420. Ashley lakes says:

    Casey

    Good point the bible never says that. But she doesn’t care (unless she can use it to beat Christians down).

    Do these come from Sunday school? Maybe just the culture?

    It also never says “money is the root if all evil”

    Or

    “God helps those who help themselves”

    “God helps those who help themselves is from “Hercules and the wagoner”

    The others are slightly misquoted from the bible.

  421. Everyone,

    I would stop trying to reason with Monica. She’s a troll, a troll that really got her feelings hurt by what was said here and she is not going to listen to anyone that posts here anyway. She probably hasn’t even lurked since she hit us with that lovely, ladylike, parting shot of hers. But that parting shot of Monica’s paid the men on this board a great compliment. Basically, what she is saying is that there is so much truth to what has been said in this post that we have planted some “doubt” in her mind, the doubt that she (as a feminist) is forced to surgically remove from her body the way a Priest might excorsize a possessed body. Her rite of red-pill-excorcism is that nasty comment. The men here should be flattered that she cared enough to be angry. :)

    Ton,

    If women had moral agency and could differentiate between right and wrong, feminism would be a success. All the words in the world mean nothing. The observable data/ the behavior of women, points to them having no sense of right or wrong.

    Exactly. For the most part, that is entirely true. In almost every case, no moral agency. And because it is true for so many we can make that a rule for women, they aren’t moral agents. And we don’t have to say NAWALT because the women who post regularly on this board already understand that.

    Minesweeper,

    I’m with you. I have no idea what cane is on about.

    Thank you. Cane is alright, he’s just way messed up on the root aspects of morality and the story in Genesis. He got a little pissy with me because he is probably not used to people looking really critically at what he has to say about Scripture and he doesn’t like being corrected. He’ll come around…

  422. Bucho says:

    Perhaps the combination of wine, possible usage of adderall or some other meds, and the chocolate sandwiches have been clouding her thinking. Speaking of which, does she say that she receiving any counseling at all, other than the marriage counseling she and Leif attended?

  423. Lol, Jenny, here’s a new opening you can pin to your pathetic blog.

    Hi, I’m Jenny, recently divorced, cafe sexual, single mother, who says the right thing and conveniently change my mind when it comes time to bail. If you like to hear me whine – which includes drinking wine – about my supposed piety and completely fading looks, please read and follow and leave pathetically understanding and cliched comments down below.

  424. Boxer says:

    Pinging Sunshine Mary…

    hxxp://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/no-really-what-does-a-feminist-look-like/

    (non-religious blog which is probably not for the sensitive or easily offended)

    Just read this excellent article and thought of your own research into the absolute hypocrisy of feminist talking heads. Jenny Eriksen may now join the “rubes”. I’m sure her shrewd sisters thank her.

    Feminism is increasingly being seen as a scam, perpetrated by elite women. The feminist encourages other women not to get married, to divorce, and slut it up, all so that the feminist can score a much better man for their own marriages.

    Those who truly buy into feminism’s message are handicapping themselves unnecessarily. The leaders of the feminist movement don’t buy into it, as their own marriages prove.

  425. Ashley lakes says:

    Also in her new article aforementioned, “you guys–they said I was ugly.” And that is the part that made her angry and made her respond.

    She was beautiful, probably a 5-6 with some asymmetries in her face and out of shape, but nothing a gym membership would have solved.

    Presently, she resembles an ogre. But wants to be told she can do better than Leif. Wait you haven’t seen her in her magic LBD (the one she uses to pick up random dudes that proves that she is better than him. Right?).

    After all, she has been telling herself she married down for the last 10 years; reality can be a monster when you haven’t faced it in a decade.

  426. Dalrock says:

    @Ashley Lakes

    After all, she has been telling herself she married down for the last 10 years; reality can be a monster when you haven’t faced it in a decade.

    Hold my Grapefruit Cosmo Martini and watch this!

  427. Random Angeleno says:

    @Ashley Lakes

    After all, she has been telling herself she married down for the last 10 years; reality can be a monster when you haven’t faced it in a decade.

    Hold my Grapefruit Cosmo Martini and watch this!

    Make that a Chocolate Lemondrop Martini!

  428. Cane Caldo says:

    @Minesweeper

    I’m with you. I have no idea what cane is on about.

    The choice to obey or rebel against a legitimate authority is a moral choice–to obey is moral, to rebel is immoral. “Moral agency” is the ability to make a moral decision; a decision with moral implications. Even if we were to say that women’s only moral choice was to choose to obey their fathers and husbands, we would still have to say they are moral agents at least in that one area.

    IBB’s problem isn’t ancient Hebrew, but modern English.

    Furthermore: Throughout the Bible there are many women held to account for their own sins (judged as immoral) beyond the just the one sin of rebelling against their legitimate authorities, and there are women praised for doing right (judged as moral) even when their authorities told them to do wrong or gave them no instruction at all.

    There is no conflict between saying, “Women have moral agency”, and saying, “Women are to be given a moral covering by their husbands and fathers if they submit to it.”

  429. imnobody00 says:

    @Ashley Lakes

    You nailed it.

    After all, she has been telling herself she married down for the last 10 years;

    This is the problem in a nutshell. She is in for a rude awakening when her fantasies fail to materialize. Stay tuned.

  430. John Galt says:

    @cane: “I don’t understand this last part about Adam failing to obey Eve. Is that an editing error, or are you misunderstanding me, or am I misunderstanding you? Adam never should have obeyed her. She did not have dominion over him. Could he take counsel? Could he run things past her? Could he consider her opinions and concerns? Yes. Could he acquiesce to her desires? Yes. ”

    I screwed that last part up. Eve failed to OBEY Adam; Adam failed to LOVE Eve.

  431. John Galt says:

    @Cynthia: “This is just sad, and honestly, I don’t understand it. I’m in my late twenties. Due to a decade-long stint in the US military, I’m single, no boyfriend and no time spent playing around on the carousel. (no easier way to implode every last shred of moral authority you have as a female in uniform than sleep around; you’d be amazed how hopeless the average unmarried woman in the military is).”

    Thanks for giving me hope…I think I’d get along well with an ex-military girl…she is by definition smart, disciplined, and practical. I think I’d get along well with an ex-military gal as I attended a military school so we have a similar outlook, though the decision to major in shining shoes and minor in nuclear engineering coupled with the end of the Cold War made getting a commission impractical.

    My buds who married military girls or service brats have done well. The signal to noise ratio is better than the average woman’s.

  432. feeriker says:

    Speaking of which, does [Jenny] say that she receiving any counseling at all, other than the marriage counseling she and Leif attended?

    I haven’t bothered to look, but I’d wager that she’s had all the counseling she needs and isn’t interested in any more. Given that marriage counseling, especially of the churchian variety, is more than sufficient for feeding the divorce rationalization hamster of any woman, there would be no reason for her to go any farther with it. As for her other issues (e.g., her incipient drinking problem), those can just be denied/hamsterized away now that she’s a “free” and “empowered” woman.

  433. Random Angeleno says:

    There is no conflict between saying, “Women have moral agency”, and saying, “Women are to be given a moral covering by their husbands and fathers if they submit to it.”

    Nailed it.

    I’ve seen women in my own life who are obviously acting with moral agency of their own. Yes of course they were trained into it, that is a necessity. But there is no question the ones I’m thinking of have it. Left to their own devices or raised poorly, women will act more like IBB asserts is true of *all* women.

    Let’s look at it from the other side: if women have no moral agency at all, then I should think society would be a lot worse off than it is. The training would never stick to any of them. At all. As Dalrock says in his post about interviewing prospective wives, men have to find a woman with that moral agency between their ears. They are out there, maybe not as many as in previous generations, but definitely not zero either as IBB asserts. Taking IBB’s assertion to its logical extreme, it would be impossible to marry any woman…

  434. Cane Caldo says:

    @John Galt

    I screwed that last part up. Eve failed to OBEY Adam; Adam failed to LOVE Eve.

    That makes much more sense, and yes, I think that’s exactly right. Adam loved only himself. He didn’t love God (by keeping God’s command), and he didn’t love Eve (by rebuking her and standing in her place). It’s about the two great commandments. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and will all your might. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    Adam broke both, and he had the world in his hand (“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”) so the whole world fell (“cursed is the ground for thy sake”) not with Eve’s sin (she did not have dominion), but with Adam’s.

    Incidentally: I believe the root of IBB’s error is that he refuses to differentiate between agency and authority.

  435. deti says:

    Ashley:

    No. What made Jenny finally respond was her little blogging career was jeopardized by her own blatant hypocrisy and abrupt about-face on marriage and its importance to her, her family, society, and marriage’s role in the life of Christians.

    She is now acting in a manner that is 180 degrees from her prior writings. She has to explain it somehow. That’s the purpose of this latest post in which she deflects, dissembles and complains about all those meanies out there. She takes the direct way out and says “Hey, I was wrong about all that marriage is good and supposed to be for life stuff. My thinking has evolved on this, and it just so happens to coincide with my detonation of my marriage.”

    Too bad that by saying this, she’s essentially renouncing her Christian faith, renouncing God as Lord of her life, and replacing God with all manner of idols.

    Finally, it also occurs to me that Jenny Eriksen’s latest post has essentially removed her from consideration for remarriage. Her denigration of marriage as “hey, not all that important” should sober up even the deepest blue, blue pill men. She’s just made herself pump and dump fodder. At the very least, even the most clueless man wouldn’t- or shouldn’t – give this woman even the most fleeting consideration for marriage.

  436. Eidolon says:

    Man, that article is something. She linked to her “wake-up call” post wherein she expounds on how it turns out that now that she doesn’t want to be married, it’s not really all that important. In that post we get this fascinating section:

    “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.” [italics in original]

    This is pretty amazing to begin with. Apparently the fact that people keep telling her what she’s doing is wrong just makes her want to do it even more. That sure sounds like a healthy and Christian attitude! I remember all those moving passages in the Bible about how you should ignore advice from wise people in your family in the church, because to thine own self be true.

    “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.”

    Ah, the prophetess of special revelation speaks. It’s a good thing that when a person believes God has told them something they especially would want to hear, they are not told to test it and make sure it’s consistent with what God has written down in his Word. Because then it might seem like this revelation had a different source.

    “To be told that this beautiful, wonderful thing I have learned exists in my soul, this thing that gives me the strength to flip my life over when nothing else has worked, this thing that has made me braver than I thought possible, and made me rely on God more than I ever have in my entire life … to be told that this is a perversion of His plan for me?” [italics in original]

    Kidding aside, I’m honestly I’m getting a bit creeped out at this point. Between her belief that God spoke to her specifically to tell her what she wanted to hear, that she should totally go through with betraying her family, and her description of something growing in her soul that gives her the strength to do this evil thing, there’s a real whiff of sulfur in this.

    It honestly feels like Satan has been whispering in her ear, teaching her to follow the god within herself, i.e. him. And now, with snark and no humility, she preaches the gospel of betrayal and destruction. I hope we can teach better in the church in the future to avoid creating the opening for people to go astray like this.

  437. Escoffier says:

    Deti, there is another angle to what you wrote above (none of which I disagree with).

    And it is that she has provided no explanation for the divorce, nor can she, because there is no explanation. Beyond that she was not attracted to him, felt her SMV was higher than his, got off by being near some bigshots who outclassed her husband’s SMV, etc.

    He didn’t hit her, cheat, molest the children, drink excessively (and she would hardly have a just complaint there in any case) do drugs, or gamble away the family savings. If he had done any of that, or anything close, she would say so. Because that would instantly justify her and inspire an army of consoling comments. She at least has enough integrity (or fear of potential consequences) not to make up reasons and libel him.

    So, there is no reason, or no reason she is willing to admit, and possibly no reason that she even understands herself. She knows that doing this for no reason makes her look bad. So she has to deflect attention. She tried to play the “it’s private” card, but that’s hard to sell when she’s made a “career” out of blogging about her marriage. Now it’s, change the subject, muddy the waters, obfuscate, attack others, etc. It’s very important to keep the topic off the reason for the divorce.

    Sure, if she told the truth, she’d still get a lot of support from certain women. But much less than if she can keep people off that topic. Also, being honest would torpedo her future as a blogger.

  438. sunshinemary says:

    @ Boxer
    Yes, I read LNYC’s post yesterday and commented on it. It’s an excellent essay, and I’ll be addressing several points he made in future posts on my own blog.

    @ deti

    Her denigration of marriage as “hey, not all that important” should sober up even the deepest blue, blue pill men. She’s just made herself pump and dump fodder. At the very least, even the most clueless man wouldn’t- or shouldn’t – give this woman even the most fleeting consideration for marriage.

    Have you been following her on Twitter, though? I cannot believe how many men are riding to her defense. They just loooovvvve Jenny and are like, so totally mad at those mean men who are criticizing her! She has a virtual army of beta orbiters if her twitter feed is any indication…she’ll marry again when she wants, but she won’t like the guy much better than Leif.

  439. arid2385 says:

    I find the discussion about moral agency interesting in light of the fact that there are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%; so women do seem to have a better handle than men on how to obey legal authority at least. But legal authority is strongly asserted by the government. I’d argue that most men today do not actively assert any moral authority at all. Most churches today do not either. You can say that women aren’t obeying, but obeying whom? Where *are* their fathers? Male family members? Where are the pastors? Did their husbands ever stand up to say anything against them?

    I get the impression that men are doing the same thing Adam did (“It was Eve’s fault, not mine. I just followed behind her.”)

  440. feeriker says:

    Too bad that by saying this, she’s essentially renouncing her Christian faith, renouncing God as Lord of her life, and replacing God with all manner of idols.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume, based on the evidence that she has gleefully furnished in such abundance of late, that Jenny was probably never truly a Christian to begin with.

  441. Ashley lakes says:

    Deti

    That’s a good point and I am sure true, but trust me it stings.

    Eqivelent to a man: you could never lead because you are a incompetent loser and not a team player.

    Note: if someone said that to me I would just shrug. You are ugly I would probably go cry.

  442. deti says:

    @ Escoffier:

    The former Mrs. Eriksen hasn’t given a hard and fast reason for the divorce. But she’s alluded to it in other posts, saying things like (paraphrasing here) “Things between us have been very broken for a very long time” and “I can’t pinpoint the end; it was just a thousand little things, ‘death by a thousand cuts’.” And “how many times can I show him the problem and nothing happens and nothing changes?”

    I’ve seen this kind of thing before. My friend and his ex wife divorced after 17 years together. Marriage started out more or less the same way – he an emotional slut; she an HB 6 or 7, slutted around a little; came to Christ; met at church; he was a smitten beta orbiter; she married a Christian guy because that’s what you do”. She was never really attracted to him, which seems to be a huge problem nowadays (where have I heard this before? But I digress).

    She divorced him for unhappiness. She pointed out all the problems. Each by itself is insignificant and easily addressed; but when aggregated become a mountain. He didn’t lead her in prayer. He didn’t help her enough. He was a bit tubby and wouldn’t lose weight. He was a stick in the mud. He made her discipline the kids and followed her lead on it. He didn’t take them on vacations. He never made enough money; they were always struggling financially. He was a little depressed all the time and didn’t take care of himself (in truth, he’s just a laconic, melancholy, artsy-fartsy, soft spoken guy).

    What was the bottom line? All together now: She wasn’t attracted to him, and she had no respect for him as a man or as a Christian head or leader.

    I’d be willing to bet it was much the same with Jenny and Leif, from her descriptions. Just a lot of little things, built up over time, and she just decided to let her hamster take over. She just couldn’t take it anymore, and finally pushed the detonator bar to “down”.

  443. sunshinemary says:

    I tried to comment on Cafe Mom about her latest article, but I’m sure my comment will never make it out of moderation. Jenny writes:

    When I hear of one half of a couple throwing in the towel, my immediate reaction is, “What did the other person do to them that they felt like leaving was the only option?”

    Holy rationalization hamsters – it was apparently Leif’s fault that she had to leave him – there simply wasn’t any other option.

    I would like to think that just writing something like that would prevent any man from ever considering marrying her, but sadly, her twitter feed is full of a gazillion men posting “I stand with Jenny!” type comments.

  444. deti says:

    Another thing was that with my friend and his ex, it was an enormous surprise. The only thing anyone knew was that she was vaguely unhappy. Because she claimed devout Christianity, she gritted her teeth and held it together as long as she possibly could. She had a couple of what used to be called “nervous breakdowns” with time lost from work, but always smiling and good to go in public.

    For his part – the first time he knew there was anything wrong was when he gets an email from her saying she’s going to stay at her friends for an extended weekend because she just cannot take staying there; she’s stressed out all the time; and please don’t call me for a few days. She eventually returns after 4 days away (with some good indoctrination from her party girl friends), but by then it’s too late and the damage is done. She moved out again 6 months later, this time for good.

  445. RA,

    I’ve seen women in my own life who are obviously acting with moral agency of their own. Yes of course they were trained into it, that is a necessity.

    Well then that wasn’t really “of their own.”

    But there is no question the ones I’m thinking of have it. Left to their own devices or raised poorly, women will act more like IBB asserts is true of *all* women.

    Correct. If left to make decisions for themselves, those decisions will typically drop to can-I vs can’t-I where only man’s law (not God’s law which is morality) will be the only logical determining factor.

    Let’s look at it from the other side: if women have no moral agency at all, then I should think society would be a lot worse off than it is. The training would never stick to any of them. At all.

    Well, yes AR, it most certainly IS that bad in certain parts of our society. You have to localize that, not globalize it. We have parts of our society where there is NO HOPE (none what-so-ever) specifically because women have no headship.

    Take the city of Detroit. We all know what happned there earlier this week (something that has been building for decades.) Okay, so how did the city of almost 2,000,000 that in 1950 might have been the richest and most prosperous in the world, fall to such dire straights? Well, the marital rate in the city might very well be one of the lowest not only in the United States, but perhaps ALL of the Western world. There is virtually NO male headship in the majority of those homes, virtually none. And now we have a city that we simply do not know what to do with it. It looks worse than any bombed out German city looked in 1945. Absolute ruin. There is NO HOPE for Detroit, none. That is because there is virtually no marriage in Detroit. Instead, you have a city of 750,000 people where 100,000+ of them are making amoral decisions:

    How can I get EBT from Michigan? Don’t get married, just live with a man if I want to get laid.

    How can I get MORE EBT from Michigan? Breed more bastards.

    How can I get the most subsidy for my public housing? Dont’ get married and don’t get a job. Just do odds and ends for cash. Maybe be a prostiture or a drug dealer.

    How can I get the most free time away from my kids so I can go out and have fun? Vote for people who will give me Head Start daycare.

    These are perfectly logical choices being made in Detroit by more than 100,000 women who base all their decisions in their logic tree without the Biblical boundaries of morals. They don’t care that they are not only ruining their own life, but the lives of their children. Their daughters are ruined. Their sons roam the streets playing “Knock Out.” The women don’t care because they are not moral agents. What is right is whatever gives them the most apples from the tree.

    So yeah, we are there, things really ARE that bad. Its just that you don’t live in Detroit. And just think for the moment, if the rest of our country was like Detroit, we’d all be living in a post-Apocolyptic scene from the move The Road Warrior. Thank goodness it is not (yet.) Just North of 8-mile, the other Michigan residents in Oakland county are doing quite well (of course, most of them are married with proper headship.)

    As Dalrock says in his post about interviewing prospective wives, men have to find a woman with that moral agency between their ears. They are out there, maybe not as many as in previous generations, but definitely not zero either as IBB asserts. Taking IBB’s assertion to its logical extreme, it would be impossible to marry any woman…

    Well that is what feminism has wrought. Our society refuses to learn from its mistakes. It continues to put women who are not moral agents into positions of headship (be it a crying Governor of Louisiana in 2005, a insane Senator from California, a former Speaker of the House and current Congress woman from the Bay Area who had no problem saying that we accept what she was giving us without reading any of it) none of them moral agents, and they are not admitting that they have f-cked everything up for everyone else.

  446. Escoffier says:

    Right, but I would still say that all of that adds up to no reason, or no good reason.

    Now, supposing Jenny chose to spell all that out. Would she net gain or lose followers and esteem? Lose, definitely. Sure, there would be a fembot army of justifiers, but the detractors would multiply a lot too, and the white knight army would probably be smaller.

    So it’s in her interest to keep the reasons as vague as possible because, in the end, there were no reasons.

  447. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    … there are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%;

    Keep in mind, though, that women are not held to the same legal standard as men, and those that do find themselves in court tend to get lighter sentences.

  448. “… there are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%;”

    Keep in mind, though, that women are not held to the same legal standard as men, and those that do find themselves in court tend to get lighter sentences.

    Precisely.

    That absolute truth (the difference between men and women in a courtroom) ties into our subconcious that we KNOW that women are LESS accountable for their sin because they are not moral agents. We demand better behavior of men than we do women.

  449. earl says:

    I still say women have moral agency.

    They might not have it for themselves…but they sure know right from wrong when a man does something just as evil as they do.

  450. arid2385 says:

    @Cautiously Optimistic & @IBB

    The stat is for the percentage of men and women *in prison* (federal and state combined), not how long they are sentenced to remain there.

  451. Anonymous Reader says:

    arid
    I find the discussion about moral agency interesting in light of the fact that there are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%; so women do seem to have a better handle than men on how to obey legal authority at least.

    Hmmm…nope. The disparity is easily explained by two details of one fact:

    Fact: Men and women are not the same, are not identical, are not interchangeable.

    Detail #1: Men’s IQ has a higher variance than women’s IQ. That is, more women have an IQ clustered within one Standard Deviation of the mean. There are more low IQ men than women. (There are also more high IQ men than women, which accounts for STEM issues, but that’s not relevant).

    Detail #2: Men, as a group, are more prone to taking risks than women. Yes, NAWALT and so forth, but in the aggregate, more men go skydiving, more men go rock climbing, more men go sailing on the ocean in small boats, more men fly aircraft, and so forth.

    Take a man with a lower than average IQ, say around 80, who has plenty of testosterone and a very short time horizon, and tempt him with a cash register full of lettuce at the local convenience store, plus “friends” telling him how easy the risk would pay off. Presto, one armed robbery and not too long afterwards a term of 5 to 10 in the greybar hotel.

    That is why more men than women are in prison. Because more men have a lower IQ and are willing to take risks. Plus one more factor – women generally don’t engage in the sorts of crimes that lead to long prison terms. But it does not at all follow that women do not commit crimes. They just tend to not engage in armed robbery, to pick one example. Embezzlement is more suited to them – and I’m thinking of some bank tellers I know of who got suspended sentences predicated on restitution. So Joe sticks up a 7-11 one night for $500 and goes to prison, Jane skims $5,000 out of her drawer over half a year and gets probation…to concoct but one example.

    Julian O’Dea once commented, no doubt from experience, that women tend to commit their bad behavior in private. This is borne out clearly by any number of things, from embezzlement to child abuse and child murder, to other behaviors.

    women do seem to have a better handle than men on how to obey legal authority at least.

    No. Women commit different crimes than men do, and they clearly benefit in many ways from the “pussy pass”. In addition to my bank teller example above, ask yourself this question: how many cases of crib death, or SIDS as we now call it, are really murders? I don’t know, but for sure it’s not zero. How many women go to prison for killing their children each year? It’s a very, very low number.

    Don’t make the standard assumption that women are “more moral” or “more law abiding” or “more obedient” than men. Women’s bad behavior is often more subtle than that of men, but just as destructive.

  452. arid2385 says:

    Sorry, I meant to say the percentage of prisoners composed of men and women, not the percentage of men and women in prison.

  453. 8to12 says:

    @ deti said: Her denigration of marriage as “hey, not all that important”…

    …is step 1.

    Step 2: marriage may not be the only legitimate environment in which to have sex; a committed relationship is not that different than marriage.

    Step 3: Love is all that matters. If you love someone then it’s OK to have sex with them.

    Step 4: Love is fleeting. People can feel like they are in love with someone when they really aren’t, but since it’s hard to tell if love is real it’s OK to have sex with someone if you feel you love them at the moment.

    Step 5: People should be happy, and if sex makes them happy they should have it. Even if it is just two ships passing in the night (a one night stand).

    Step 6: Her daughters watching all of this follow their mother’s example. The rest is history.

  454. Wow, you chaps have a nightmare to fix. Thank God I’m not going to get married. Whew! Dodged that bullet!

  455. arid2385 says:

    @Anonymous reader

    How “law abiding” a person is is determined by one thing–how well they abide by the law. Period. According to statistical fact, women are more law abiding than men. Now, if you want to argue that the law primarily deters crimes that men are more likely to commit, that’s something else.

    Furthermore, the rise of women’s IQ relative to men is is a recent change. This was not always the case; however, men comprising the bulk of the prison population is not a recent development.

    Also, I said nothing about women being “more moral” than men. I spoke of the relationship between women and *authority* and the fact that the main authority asserted over women in our society today is the government, which women do show a willingness to obey in general. However, *moral authority* is rarely asserted today by men, even when they are in positions that call for it.

  456. Lol, how many babies have died from abortion due to women? When you make it legal for women to commit crimes, they do it on a monumental scale. Women just obey more than men, something about submitting I believe…

  457. Gosh Arid, you’re a laugh!

    However, *moral authority* is rarely asserted today by men, even when they are in positions that call for it.

    Take that quote and then this one.

    I find the discussion about moral agency interesting in light of the fact that there are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%; so women do seem to have a better handle than men on how to obey legal authority at least.

    And tell us why you think that men would assert ‘moral authority’ when clearly by doing so, they will land up in prison by decree of your wonderful ‘authority’ of the State?

  458. MarcusD says:

    @arid2385

    Wow, you actually cited WWNH in one of your posts. I recommend avoiding citation of mentally unstable bloggers.

    Can I take you seriously?

  459. No Marcus you can’t. She’s merely here to throw a work in the spanners.

  460. Ashley lakes says:

    I agree with Earl woman have at least some moral compass, whether it is socialized in or they ignore it, or they are acting out if known consequences, ir they justify thier actions away women still know right/wrong.

    At least I think I know right from wrong. Perhps men have more moral ability.

  461. arid2385 says:

    @feministhater

    Dunno, you’d have to ask a man, or ask the men who have been mostly responsible for running this country and crafting its laws since it’s inception.

    Another option would be to realize that a father asserting authority over his daughter by, say, not allowing her to dress immodestly, by not throwing up his hands when she goes on birth control, that he won’t end up in jail. That a pastor exercising church discipline (Like the Eriksons’ pastor) is not illegal.

    Or, you can just complain that it’s the woman who made you do it. ( paging Adam…)

  462. Opus says:

    Jenny has fallen prey to hubris. Asserting herself a Christian assured all, of her moral superiority; being Republican distanced herself from those morally dubious Democrats and leftist fellow travellers, but as I am often at pains to observe Christianity is more than patting oneself on ones back as to ones moral superiority and doubtless the same applies to her ‘back-to-basics’ political posturing. No one however would have cared or known of this save for the fact that she blogged for all to see and for all still to see about her superior UMC lifestyle. Now, finding that living up to her aspirations and assertions is not as easy as she assumed and that she is largely indistinguishable from the trailer trashy types she railed against, instead of admitting fault and seeking humble contrition she reveals her hamster – and it is a very large one – wherein, she seeks to re-write her professed religion and her chosen politics. They say that when in a hole one should stop digging: Jenny continues to dig.

    Is it any wonder that she is easy target practise for Hamster hunters. One can only conclude that either Jenny is nowhere near as smart as she likes to think or alternatively if she is smart then she is an unmitigated hypocrite.

  463. feeriker says:

    @deti @12/5/13 @12:09PM:

    The marriage and subsequent divorce of your friend and his wife could serve as a case study entitled “Churchian Marriage 2.0 in 21st Century Amerika.”

    I won’t even ask how their church reacted to the divorce.

  464. Dunno, you’d have to ask a man, or ask the men who have been mostly responsible for running this country and crafting its laws since it’s inception.

    True, but that is not where the problems started. Ultimately, the responsibiity lies with women.

    The instant only men are allowed to vote, abortion would be murder, single parents would no longer get social welfare benefits, and no-fault-divorce would be repealed. Marriage rates would instantly rocket up and people would be living and working much longer. Moreover, the instant only men are allowed to vote only women like Margret Thatcher would ever be elected to our Congress.

  465. feeriker says:

    SSM said She has a virtual army of beta orbiters if her twitter feed is any indication…she’ll marry again when she wants, but she won’t like the guy much better than Leif.

    One of the truly ugly sides of me hopes that one of these whiteknightgina morons eventually does perpetrate the ultimate in stupidity and marries Jenny – and that she soon does to him what she did to Leif. Nothing in human history will garner less sympathy than the wailing and gnashing of teeth sure to follow from this newly wounded cur.

  466. Nicole says:

    All of you who are bashing this woman are out of line, who are you to judge and say what is right what is wrong, you do not know her nor her circumstances, you call yourselves Christian’s ha what a joke. One day you will have to answer to your maker for your cruelty. Ignorance, cruelty and hypocrisy are the Devils way, which apparently is a path you have followed.
    To the lady this is about do not let these foolish people who obviously have no life and nothing better to do bring you down, hold your head up high and let it roll off you.

  467. Fathers do that all the time, pastors do that all the time. Doesn’t change a damn thing when a woman decides to break the moral code and run to government for help. Paging Eve… the woman who not even God was alpha enough for.

    There is no fixing this.

  468. Anonymous Reader says:

    arid
    How “law abiding” a person is is determined by one thing–how well they abide by the law. Period.

    Hmmm..yes, and no. How law abiding a person is when there are witnesses is not necessarily the same thing as how law abiding a person is where no one is looking. It is subtle, but real difference. And if all you are going by is prison populations, then your statistic is questionable for the obvious reason that not all lawbreakers who are convicted of a crime go to prison.

    According to statistical fact, women are more law abiding than men.

    You have not shown that to be true.

    Now, if you want to argue that the law primarily deters crimes that men are more likely to commit, that’s something else.

    That’s a cute strawman, but I’m not dancing with it. I have pointed out that the crimes of men tend to be punished more harshly than the crimes of women, among those who are caught.

    Furthermore, the rise of women’s IQ relative to men is is a recent change.

    For what definition of “recent”? To the best of my knowledge, IQ tests are less than 100 years old, and have always been normed to a value of 100, with men and women’s measure of central tendency (mean or median) essentially the same. If you have evidence to support your claim I would be interested in seeing it.

    This was not always the case; however, men comprising the bulk of the prison population is not a recent development.

    Testosterone plus VAR(g) explains the difference to a large extent, and the difference between men and women most of the rest.

    Also, I said nothing about women being “more moral” than men. I spoke of the relationship between women and *authority* and the fact that the main authority asserted over women in our society today is the government, which women do show a willingness to obey in general.

    This is a difference with no difference. You argue that women are more law abiding. To be law abiding is part of any common definition of morality. Therefore you are arguing that women are “more moral” than men, a claim that does not stand up very well among men who are wearing “the glasses” / red pill.

    However, *moral authority* is rarely asserted today by men, even when they are in positions that call for it.

    True, but not relevant to our little subdiscussion at this time.

  469. TFH says:

    Opus said :

    she reveals her hamster – and it is a very large one – wherein

    I haven’t brought up the Songhua River Mammoth in a while, but in Jenny’s case, it describes what her hamster has become.

  470. an observer says:

    Feeriker,

    marriage counseling, especially of the churchian variety, is more than sufficient for feeding the divorce rationalization hater

    A personal soapbox. I was a solid blue piller, working casually. Every counselling session circled back to the same question: when was i getting a real job?

    Men are valued only for their utility. Nothing changes.

  471. an observer says:

    he’ll marry again when she wants, but she won’t like the guy much better than Leif

    After the hunky gardener ges mia (funny thing that), the next beta boy will probably be a divorcee paying child support.

    Seen it happen.

    Very funny how indignant she becomes at another woman siphoning away her new mans resources.

  472. an observer says:

    Women just obey more than men, something about submitting I believe

    Women are treated differently by the justice system.

    They get to sleep with their students, kill their children (both before and after birth), and blow up marriages for fun and profit.

    Whereas guys getting busted for possession do time, earn a record and become unemployable.

  473. feeriker says:

    Very funny how indignant she becomes at another woman siphoning away her new mans resources.

    True story: My own daughter, a poster-child babymomma (it sickens me to say) once huffily declared that she’d NEVER seriously consider a man with kids as husband material [not that any man worthy of the name would EVER consider her "wife material"] because she “[did]n’t want to deal with a lot of ‘babymomma drama’.”

    She then got bewildered and then angry when I just stared at her with acid eyes for at least sixty seconds after that statement eructed out of her mouth.

    Seriously, you can’t make this shit up.

  474. an observer says:

    “To be told that this beautiful, wonderful thing I have learned exists in my soul, this thing that gives me the strength to flip my life over when nothing else has worked, this thing that has made me braver than I thought possible, and made me rely on God more than I ever have in my entire life … ”

    Reminds me of Amy Grant rationalising divorce from her first husband, Gary Chapman.

  475. an observer says:

    she “[did]n’t want to deal with a lot of ‘babymomma drama’.

    Her attribution bias is showing.

    I wish we WERE making this up.

  476. They get to sleep with their students, kill their children (both before and after birth), and blow up marriages for fun and profit.

    After the fiasco where Casey Anthony was found not-guilty and Amanda Knox was released from Italian prison (after helping to brutally murder her roommate Meridith Kircher so she and Solisito could score drugs from Rudy) I was pleasantly surprised that they got it right in Arizona with Jodi Arias. I thought for sure Jodi was going to walk. I am so glad I was wrong about that one.

    We have to keep reminding ourselves that this hamsterization to excuse women of ALL their immoral accountability exists in not only women, but also men. But when men start running on that hamster wheel to rationalize horrific behavior on the part of women, we cloak that crap in Bullsh-t chivalry. I mean lets be honest, is there any chance at all that if it were Andrea Yates’ husband that carried out her infernal actions instead of Andrea herself, would he still be drawing breath or would they have fried his @ss in Texas?

  477. Eidolon says:

    “To be told that this beautiful, wonderful thing I have learned exists in my soul, this thing that gives me the strength to flip my life over when nothing else has worked, this thing that has made me braver than I thought possible, and made me rely on God more than I ever have in my entire life … ”

    A “beautiful” thing in her soul that gives her the strength to do evil — does that sound literally diabolical to anyone else?

  478. Marissa says:

    IBB, you think Knox was guilty? I agree with you on the other two. I just remember watching the Knox stuff play out when I had to work somewhere that the Today Show was on every morning and they covered it quite a bit. One person they profiled was an FBI agent who supposedly came out of retirement to “uncover the truth”. Not that I’m convinced either way here, but that one seemed strange. What’s your take on it?

  479. Anonymous age 71 says:

    imnobody00 says:
    December 4, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    Good posting on life where you are. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing you live in a city of some sort. I do not.

    Just as in the 50′s in the USA, country girls are somewhat different from city girls.

    In a city, a dishonest businessman can stay in business for a long time, because there are many potential customers who do not know his reputation. In a small town, he is out of business very fast. Ditto for female sluts and hos. In the city, they have many potential men. In a small town, the word gets out almost instantly when a woman is a ‘b’ or slut. So, they do not act out as much.

    And, women in rural Mexico do not have a strong support group if they are nasty or frivorce. A friend told me that there are laws on DV and once in a great while a woman will get her face slapped. So she runs to the cops who obediently come and drag him off. About three days later, she realizes there is no more food, and runs to the cops begging them to let him go. Next, she runs home and hides under the bed, not that does her any good.

    And, other women do not say, “You go, grrrll!!” They get on a woman’s case who messes up.

    @Jennifer in her article: http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165037/i_was_wrong_about_marriage

    >>But please, go ahead and continue to call me horrible names and condemn me from behind anonymous computer screens. All it does is make you look like idiots.

    We look like idiots? Hee, hee.

    But, yes, we plan on continuing to call you names, but correct names, not horrible names. Those names are only horrible because you are horrible.

    arid2385 says:
    December 5, 2013 at 11:44 am

    >>are ridiculously fewer women in prison than men–7% vs. 93%; so women do seem to have a better handle than men on how to obey legal authority at least.

    Hee, hee. Good try. The reason for this is we decriminalize female crimes. Such as infanticide. Women murder over 1 million helpless babies each year, and they have impunity for the most horrid of crimes. If women who murdered their babies got prison the ratio would be more than reversed.

    Other female crimes are the same. When a woman hires a hit man to kill her husband, he gets 20 years, she gets probation or 42 days in an asylum, then gets custody of her kids again.

    As far as your comment about men leading, I can see you are caught up in the heresy which has destroyed the Christian church in the US. It says effective male leadership initiates female submission. The Bible actually says, effective female submission initiates effective male leadership. Good try. Well, not actually, Just heresy.

  480. Marissa says:

    71, in the U.S., last year’s murder victims numbered in the 14,000s. Abortion numbered in the 850,000s. Out of sight, out of mind, huh?

  481. Eidolon says:

    Off-topic:

    http://kotaku.com/gta-v-and-dead-island-called-out-for-depiction-of-women-1477510993

    These things are amazingly stupid. My favorite part is that the video shows Rihanna and Miley Cyrus doing sexual things as things that “aren’t moving forward fast enough” or what have you. This puts them in the amusing position of saying that if a man had said “no, we won’t broadcast that performance” to one of them, it would actually be progressive. I guess.

  482. Marissa,

    I saw that you tried to keep up the good fight over at Jenny’s latest post with your messages. I thank you for that. Unfortunately, your words did not penatrate the thick skulls that were over there, but I thank you for trying.

  483. Opus says:

    I am sorry that Arid3285′s attempts at snark logic are causing so much trouble. The way to look at the figures are as follows, and I will use the U.K. by way of example: There are approx. 60,000 people residing at Her Majesties Pleasure in Britain, about half are foreign nationals, and let us ignore the fact that some will be female. Thus out of a population of Sixty Million approx. 0.05% are in gaol, thus 99.95% of the male population retain their freedom at any given time.

    It gets worse however for Arid (and I now put on my defence attorney cap), of those incarcerated, most are blue collar and most are young. They have high testosterone, and theur crimes against society fall into one of two categories, violence against fellow males, or theft/robbery etc. The former category is to do with jockeying for position in the male dominance hierarchy for the purpose of attracting females, the latter to acquire the resources ditto.

    The people to consider when considering morality are not the small minority who are prisoners but the remainder of the population.

  484. greyghost says:

    Women do not and have not ever had moral agency. That is what fathers and husbands are for. It is not at all natural for women to behave morally. It is normal for the 80 percent crowd of men. (the beta chump masses.) You will never see a blog any where with women having this conversation ever. Yet here we are a diverse group of men from all over the world. This is normal for us we are men.
    Men don’t lead shit she is to submit to his authority. The laws of misandry are there so she can enjoy the benefits with out submission. IBB is starting to get hard with his take on Detroit and the reality of the “hood” Without a responsible host to feed from the matriarchy based socialism fails. It always does. No black community that follows the PC agenda defined as african american culture as GBFM showed in an embedded video early in the post survive with out a host. Wilmer-Hutchins independent school district failed the same way about 7 years ago in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area. I heard the usual bullshit from a black women talking trash about how “we don’t need some white man to come in and run our affairs.” It was embarrassing to me because they had ripped off and bankrupt the district and the state had to come in and clean up the mess. BTW African American culture is nothing more that government enforced feminine imperative for blacks. The results and effects are wrongly seen as racism. Nobody cares because the number one reason for it is blacks vote as a monolithic block for the democrats. So neither side gives a shit. I’m one of those uppity types that doesn’t fit the mold for some reason and I never have.
    Women have no moral agency and never had it. They don’t even have the capacity to love. It is not what women need to do it is what men and civilized society needs to do. Women will behave morally for amoral reasons and that is good enough and the best you are going to get.

  485. John Galt says:

    The Jenny Erikson thing….it is apalling, and stupid, and selfish. It looks like she’s divorced for no good reason and on a whim, and she still seems to be minimizing what can only be, after child abuse, the most devastating thing a child can endure. She has no idea over how may lifetimes her selfish act will reverberate. I just feel sick to my stomach about all four of them.

  486. Ashley lakes says:

    I am not sure about Amanda and Rafael either. The case has conflicting evidence.

  487. Eidolon says:

    I don’t think it’s that women don’t have moral agency. I think it’s that their emotions are so much stronger than ours relative to their reason that it makes it very difficult for them to choose the right path.

    I think it’s like a person with 20/20 vision trying to follow a path in the fog, and a person with poor vision trying to follow the same path in the fog. The person who sees more clearly will, with effort, be able to follow the path consistently most of the time. The person with poor vision will have to rely much more heavily on what they’ve been told about following the path than on what they see (the correct path should have light gravel on it, it should be greyish, when it forks take the right path, etc.). The easiest way for them to get where they want to go, then, would be to get as much advice about the path as possible, and follow someone who can see more clearly whom they trust to find the way.

    Women certainly do choose what benefits them personally the most in many cases. But it’s also very difficult for them, without a leader they trust, to differentiate between “this is good for me” and “this is good.” If a man’s emotions were 10 or 20 times stronger, he might struggle with this too (indeed, we still do sometimes even as it is). Their emotions lie to them, and it’s much harder for them to question their own motives as they tend to be much less logical and thus lack the tools.

    Their weakness doesn’t excuse them from moral responsibility, but I think it’s useful to identify why it is that they are so much more likely to do certain selfish things than men are.

  488. greyghost says:

    Eidolon looks like you have a good understanding. “Their weakness doesn’t excuse them from moral responsibility” This is what Fathers ,husbands and civilized societies are there for to ensure the responsibility is borne. The Christian church is supposed to guide women’s behavior to be moral.

  489. Boxer says:

    I don’t think it’s that women don’t have moral agency

    This whole debate has gone on far too long, for how ridiculous it truly is.

    Of course women have moral agency. All that means is that women have a sense of what’s “right” versus “wrong”, and the capability for intentionality (i.e. directed thinking). As I understand the term, it is a simple “if p then q” proposition.

    The people (well, one person, really) saying otherwise would like to categorize women as though they were flatworms or computer programs. All one needs to do is read Elspeth, Sunshine Mary, or any number of women on this site (religious or otherwise) who talk about making choices with reasoned forethought. Aristotle called this προμήθεια, after the mythological character.

    Do you know any women who are capable of approaching a dilemma and doing the right thing, as opposed to what is advantageous or expedient? Of course you do. Me too. Women are moral agents.

    The fact that many women don’t use their capability for moral action doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable for what they end up doing. These women are doing what we do, when we “take the easy road” or when we decide to rip off our neighbor instead of protecting him.

    Regards, Boxer

  490. GG,

    IBB is starting to get hard with his take on Detroit and the reality of the “hood.” Without a responsible host to feed from, the matriarchy based socialism fails. It always does.

    I’m just very angry right now that in order to be politically correct, we have to stick our heads in the sand and live in total denial of what is causing so many problems. All the data in Detroit points to the problem. You don’t have to watch an episode of Hardcore Pawn to know how completely f-cked Motown is. It’s been that way for a long time and our political leaders (who are more afraid of losing their jobs than they are telling the truth) refuse to make the legislative changes to fix the problem.

    That city need Christ more than any city ever did. I fear that if our Lord and Savior made an appearance there and started telling people what they had to do, they might play “Knock Out” on him and then have him recrucified right in front of the GM executive offices.

  491. Boxer,

    All one needs to do is read Elspeth, Sunshine Mary, or any number of women on this site (religious or otherwise) who talk about making choices with reasoned forethought.

    You are missing it.

    Our absolutely beautiful lady bloggers here listen to and submit to their husbands. Their husbands tell them what to do. And they do it. If the Human Hand Grenade told SSM never to post again, she wouldn’t.

  492. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    You are missing it.

    I’m not “missing it” at all. Still waiting for that citation about any member of the Frankfurt School saying he intended to “destroy the traditional family”, by the way. What was the title and page number where we find old Ted, Herbie or Max saying such a thing?

    Our absolutely beautiful lady bloggers here listen to and submit to their husbands. Their husbands tell them what to do. And they do it. If the Human Hand Grenade told SSM never to post again, she wouldn’t.

    Well, anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows *that* isn’t true.

    Any time one of these fine ladies of the ladysphere wanted, she could “pull a Jenny Erikson” with the full support of the state and church behind her, and there is nothing that her husband could do about it except sign over the house and his income, as he makes a new home in the ghetto.

    So why do the women of the ladysphere stay married and decline the tempting offer of slutting it up on their ex-husband’s dime? It’s because they’re moral agents. They use their skullstuffing and decide (probably on a daily basis) that they’re going to do the hard work necessary for raising up the next generation. To say women aren’t moral agents is to nullify these women and their intentionality in that regard, which is unsupported.

    By the same token, why doesn’t Dalrock decide that he’s going to quit his job, quit writing articles, and just hang out with his friends? We’re all moral agents, who often do the right thing, as opposed to the easy one.

    Regards, Boxer

  493. Boxer says:

    Minesweeper and others write, about Jenny’s husband Leif, speculating that he may not actually exist…

    very strange isnt it, I mean, even when they split in May (?) there isn’t a break at all in his or her tweeting. most guys on a split that was forced upon them (and Im speaking from my own experience) would be pretty broken up at the time to retweet her shit.

    I suspect that, despite everything, Mr. Erikson is actually *relieved* to be away from this cunt. Just skimming her blog made me feel like I needed to shower. I can’t imagine trying to share space with such a headcase for any length of time, much less being married to a fat, ugly drunk for ten freakin’ years.

    And yes, Jenny, you are a fuck’n ugly bitch. In some of your hotter photos you look moderately bangable, but we all know how those correlate to real life. Does anyone else notice the extreme angle of this nutcase’s selfies? Only fat and wrinkly broads take photos at 45 degrees. lol

    As for Leif: My guess is that the poor guy’s life has been a silent hell since shortly after the wedding day. I’ve seen marriages like this in older dudes I’ve known. The dude actually has a better relationship with his kids after the split, since he gets a bit of time with them, without the constant interference by princess. Leif probably got no good time with his girls while married, only the shit time, when he was yelled at or ordered to spank them by Jenny.

    By the same token, he loses most of his income, but she was surely running his ass into debt before the divorce anyway. For such men, divorce is a blessing and incredible kindness. As the old joke goes, why is divorce so expensive? Because it’s worth it!

    Regards, Boxer

  494. Anonymous Bob says:

    Nicole writes: All of you who are bashing this woman are out of line, who are you to judge and say what is right what is wrong, you do not know her nor her circumstances, you call yourselves Christian’s ha what a joke.

    This is important. Who am I/we? Nobody. What gives us the right? Nothing. So we don’t do the judging. We use the Bible (which is why we claim Christianity as a moral source). The Bible simply says no divorce but for adultery. There was none by Jenny’s admission, so we claim simply that the Bible indicates that Jenny is wrong.

    What Nicole WANTS to say is that we just don’t understand how unhappy Jenny had become and that there is a certain level of unhappiness that can somehow supersede the simple rule of the Bible. This is a position that you can’t actually take and still “call yourself Christian”.

  495. cynthia says:

    @Ton

    After 24 years in the army, I have yet to meet the military chick who didn’t see a mile of cock before breakfast. Officer, enlisted, warrant, married or single

    That works for the ugly girls. Only ugly girls get anywhere in the military. And only ugly girls can get away with fucking around like that; it’s the only way they’d ever get cock, and I’m pretty sure the guys more pity them than anything else. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior hurts the women who don’t do it, and there are plenty that don’t. Especially where I went to school, we punished the girls who slept with our guys harshly. It was the only way any of us got anywhere.

    I once spent an hour explaining to my Chief, my First Sergeant, my flight commander and my squadron commander that I hadn’t slept with a certain master sergeant in our unit. AN HOUR. Four 35+ men, one 23-year-old girl. You’ve never experienced humiliation like your first sergeant telling you to your face that you’re a slut, and having to basically scream at him that you’re a virgin to get him to back off. By the time I got out, I made damn sure I was never alone in a room with a man, because things like that happened constantly. My dad called it the “they’re angry you’re not blowing them” syndrome.

    But then, assumptions are wonderful things, aren’t they?

  496. cynthia says:

    @Galloper6

    the first thing for you to do to get a man is to grow your hair long. It will give you a real edge over the majority women who dont.

    Oh, I’ve got long hair. Just about the only thing they weren’t able to take away; most military girls will cling to at least one feminine thing like that. (what is it, btw, with guys and long hair?)

  497. galloper6 says:

    Cynthia, Paul called it a womans glory. It is such a powerfull sexual signal some cultures demand. women cover it up. Very long hair signals health and sexuality. Longer is more powerfull. Waist length is weapons grade powerfull.

  498. donalgraeme says:

    @ Cynthia

    If you have avoided the carousel, then you should be way ahead of your peers in marriage market value. Especially if that statement to your first sergeant wasn’t hyperbole. Also, it is a huge plus if you have taken care of yourself (when 2/3 of women are overweight, normal weight puts you ahead of the curve), which I figure is likely with your background. Of course, to capitalize on this you will need to find quality men interested in marriage. Unfortunately, the actions of your peers and previous generations has limited the pool of such men. The key is networking, finding such a man on your own will be terribly difficult.

    what is it, btw, with guys and long hair?

    Long, healthy hair is a sign of youth and virility in women. We are clued in to notice it, especially when you move your head so that it is shown off.

  499. galloper6 says:

    Cynthia, Outdoor sports have a very high male to female ratio in your favor.The men are more interesting than those who are only entertained by drinking and skirt chasing. Scuba, rafting canoes rock climbing hunting living history, caving, jet skis ect. welcome competant women. You can meet a lot of men without the presure of formal dates. You can have fun without getting drunk and evaluate men in challanging situations.

  500. JDG says:

    Their husbands tell them what to do. And they do it.

    Isn’t this an example of moral agency even if it is done for selfish / amoral reasons?

    Or does moral agency require that a moral choice be made for the right reasons?

  501. bluedog says:

    Got the kids back from their mother today, ran off some apptmts with them, dinner and bed now I’m up with the smartphone just finished reading >500 comments on dalrock, whew!

    I wonder if the ongoing moral agency wars havent become like a joke. I sincerely hope the “non”s are basically having locker room fun at this point. In spite of whats probably my better judgment I engage it because I think it hinders this group, and though I disagree about a great many things with many of you, I would rather see you unhindered. Your priorities are right. It’s too early to give up on the family.

    Moral agency does not mean that you make right moral choices.

    So … if ladyblogger i.e.:SSM went on bloging even though ordered not to by someone with a moral right to order her so, she still has moral agency because moral agency says nothing about whether she makes right moral choices or not.

    My children make right moral choices and wrong ones.

    It is that they make moral choices of any kind, right or wrong, that makes them moral agents.

    I labor to make right moral choices but sometimes fail, either way – succeed or fail, I am a moral agent because I make these choices.

    My cat makes choices. These are actions with intention … agency. My cat my kill a bird, rodent or scorpion but the affect of the actions is nonmoral … they have no moral effect because moral intention is impossible for my cat, it has no moral agency. Even if my cat struck out in anger at me or my kids or its sister cat, he would still be an agent, just not a moral one.

    A real estate ***AGENT*** is a person who by contract assumes “agency” on her client’s behalf. Gentlemen: your female real estate agent is someone to whom you have legally and bindingly transferred AGENCY such that she may take legal actions related to the purchase or sale of property or represent you theretofore in such a transaction …

    In other words, your real estate agent acts not only in her own agency, but in yours, and you may be legally bound to her actions.

    When you are on the clock you have two “agencies”: your personal agency and that of your employer. By you personal agency you can say and do and present publically any way you want. But while you have your employers hat on, you are an agent of your employer and your actions and words not only reflect on your employer, but they may legally bind your employer … you can get your company sued while in this agency through wrongdoing, or you could pull off a rainmaker for your employer … either way: paying court or receiving the rain is your employer … on account of you acting as an agent of your employer.

    Men do not stop being moral agents when they act immorally. It is the fact that they act with moral effect, i.e.: immorally in this case, that makes them moral agents.

    Jenny Erikson is a moral agent. It is the fact that she is a moral agent that creates the moral gravity that makes her case such a topic of interest to all of us. If Jenny was a cat …

    I make choices routinely that trust decisions to people. Integrity may matter to those choices and my entire life’s experience provides me with nothing that would make me think that women or men hold an exclusive provence on either integrity or untrustworthiness.

    I have found many men untrustworthy. Moral agents all of them. Being moral agents, when they failed my trust it stung … it hurt … it hurts like watching the Erikson fiasco … because they, and she, are moral agents.

    I have found many women trustworthy. If not moral agents, then what exactly?

    I partially involve myself in this and SSMs blog because you guys care about the family. My hope for the family has faced a lot of challenges, I hope my hope can hold.

    But I know this: as someone else said “character is destiny”. We need men and women of character. We don’t need slaves. We need agents, actors, with intention, who act with integrity. Men and women. It is hard enough to cultivate a child to be a moral adult. If you don’t even believe your daughters have moral agency … you: the hold outs for the family … what hope is there?

  502. JDG says:

    @Nichole
    All of you who are bashing this woman are out of line, who are you to judge and say what is right what is wrong, you do not know her nor her circumstances, you call yourselves Christian’s ha what a joke.

    I’ll grant you that some things said here are cruel, and you should also know that not everyone here claims to be Christian. Here is a short summary of what we know:

    a) We know that she was married and destroyed her marriage for no reason acceptable to a Christian.
    b) We know she has dishonored her husband and damaged her children with this horrible course of action.
    c) We know that she is unrepentant and defends her actions rather then regrets them.
    d) We know that Christians are to hold each other accountable (judge) as stated in 1Cor ch 5.
    e) We know that many people like you who should know better are enabling her terrible behavior.

    Ignorance, cruelty and hypocrisy are the Devils way

    Exactly! Hence the outrage over this woman’s actions which were ignorant, cruel and hypocritical.

    If no one claiming the name of Christ ever stands up to this kind of thing what will become of marriage in the churches across this once great nation? …Okay, too late for that one.

    What about the young people who have no idea what is right or wrong because people do what Mrs. Erikson has done, plaster it all over the media, and rather than being rebuked for wickedness these people are encouraged in their wicked behavior and defended by people like you?

    Shouldn’t someone stand up to this travesty? Granted Christians should rebuke with love as the motive, but please do not confuse actions with motive or love with kindness. Some times tough love is required.

    You shouldn’t claim that you know the motives for anything said by anyone here (that is something God will judge), as you yourself said: “who are you to judge and say what is right what is wrong”.

  503. bluedog says:

    Maeve writes: “Her children would be better off with their father. He should sue for sole custody. She just doesn’t seem to care.”

    I agree with Maeve and Chris Gale on the concept of custody as it relates to how well the kids will do. I tend to want to speak in generalities her because it really is a personal matter involving two strangers to me so my generality is that it would **appear** that much or most of the divorce trauma can be best rectified if Leif gets a favorable custody settlement. Trouble her is projection … we dont know what Leif wants or if he’s up to it.

    I will say a few things definitively:

    1) being divorced is better for me and my kids than if my ex and I were together
    2) my kids are thriving
    3) the hardest part was for my youngest who already had some compromised vulnerability issues and he underwent terrible separation anxiety from me
    4) another part which was not as acute was my oldest who is more quiet and circumspect … nothing was emotionally expressed but when it came up this one told me of wishing sometimes that we could all be back together at the old house … I will never be able to quantify my eldest’s suffering on this
    5) but I know they are both stable, happy and thriving … I have been of one single mind since the divorce which is to put them first and create a stable rocksolid family of three for them … Leif will need to be prepared for this … he should count the cost but I’ve done it and I can’t and I’m usually good at those things

    6) SSM … nothing but nothing could make me take her back, certainly nothing in her power. Taking her back would be an appalling violation of my integrity.

  504. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> Are you sure ?
    H8669 in the original sense of stretching out after;
    a longing. to run after or over, i.e. overflow.

    Eve committed two separate crimes; so in Bereshit 3:16, she received two separate punishments.
    1. She herself ate the forbidden fruit; for this she was condemned to pain in childbirth
    2. She led Adam astray; for this she was punished with a desire to control him but not being
    able to.

    To (instead) suppose that she was placed under his control AS A CONSEQUENCE OF her desire FOR his companionship…. that to me, seems more of a stretch. Not very much cause-and-effect.

    Well, just think of the difference in the DENOTATION of the word “gay”, and its CONNOTATION, in English 80 years ago, and now today

    Disclaimer: Hebrew is maybe 10 times older than English, so the changes in Hebrew from (say for example, the time of the Tabernacle in Shiloh [today a thriving city again], when this text probably first started becoming more written than oral-tradition-told-around-the-campfires…. to TelAviv today….. is likewise equally greater than the distance from Beowulf to Ebonics.

    So who today can really say, how Khavah perceived her punishment ?

  505. her twitter feed is full of a gazillion men posting “I stand with Jenny!”

    Late, but gotta say it……she is getting quite a workout then isnt she

  506. Pingback: The Saga of Jenny Ericson | Malcolm the Cynic

  507. Eidolon says:

    I hadn’t noticed this, but she posted the entirety of the letter in which she was excommunicated:

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

    Of course it’s crazy and disrespectful to post it, but the letter itself is quite good. For as rarely as such a thing is done these days it seems to me that they did it well.

    This woman is insufferable. She talks about pain but exhibits none, no remorse, no recrimination, no humility, no concern for the “love of her life” and “best friend.” She has me convinced that she has indeed succumbed to the “snare of the devil.” She actually has a running snarky commentary throughout the letter excommunicating her from Christ’s church.

    I picture someone going to the guillotine saying “that black hood makes you look like a dork, you know that? Your court is dumb and I don’t recognize your judgments, so this doesn’t mean anything to me. Hey, at least I’ll lose some weight, right?” etc.

  508. greyghost says:

    JDG
    Their husbands tell them what to do. And they do it.

    Isn’t this an example of moral agency even if it is done for selfish / amoral reasons?

    Or does moral agency require that a moral choice be made for the right reasons?

    The moral agency of women is like that of a child. They know right from wrong from what parenting teaches them but will live morally if it provides the most ( And that could be anything)
    That being said one of the things we are going to have to do is decide on how we come to a societal solution to the problems we face today. The greatest mistake (sin) of western culture was to assume moral agency capacity of women beyond that of a child. Starting with the 19th amendment and the adoption of feminism.
    take a look at these stats from the titanic http://blogtanic.wordpress.com/tag/titanic-survival-rates/
    women appear to have no moral qualms about a child dying in her place. Responsible leadership at a micro and macro level should understand that that is normal. Just a child with good parenting and environment can be seen as pure and good women can be the same. (It is called a civilized society)
    Take what we have here from Jenny (any frivorce) and see where it leads (Detroit) The black community due to political issues of race and the foundation of the culture tends to be isolated with the political assumption being the destruction caused by assumed female agency was racism. Check out this video and see where the frivorce empowerment culture is leading us as a society. Keep in mind this community is artificially supported so can fall much further than what should be actually possible (I Hope) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIZT0lU7yE

  509. Pingback: Top 10 Manosphere posts of the week (12/06/2013) | Kid Strangelove

  510. earl says:

    “he greatest mistake (sin) of western culture was to assume moral agency capacity of women beyond that of a child.”

    Equality at its worst…or assuming women having MORE morality than men.

    However…becoming red pill I no longer get furious at women who have that type of moral agency. Truth sets you free. It just shows me how they were raised and what values they do hold…and I should avoid directly giving them my resources as much as possible.

    A woman with a strong father figure in her life…now that is one I want to meet.

  511. Boxer says:

    Dear Bluedog:

    Moral agency does not mean that you make right moral choices.

    Thanks for that explanation. You covered it much more comprehensively than I could.

    Basically, for all you guys who are still with us, all agency means is the capacity to move in a predetermined direction. It’s the capability of being a “doer”.

    When some MRAs here claim that women do not have moral agency, they’re doing at least one of two things:

    1. Positing women as less than human. This happens as much with MRAs as it does with establishment types. Both groups of men want to blame some other group for the actions of women. For example: “It wasn’t her fault, it was the fault of the patriarchy!” or “It wasn’t her fault, it was the fault of her ex-husband!” or “It isn’t that women are choosing to slut it up rather than marry, they’re being influenced by the government and its media!” or “It isn’t that women are divorcing in record numbers to collect cash and prizes, it’s that they’re in cahoots with the Mormons, Freemasons, Jews, Communists and the Frankfurt School to destroy western civilization!”

    With this argument, woman and women are presented as an individual and collective piece of robotic machinery, which is simply operating as it has been programmed to do. In taking this position, the individual allies himself with feminists and with the establishment, in shielding women (collectively as well as individually) from criticism

    2. Presenting women as somehow incapable of making moral decisions. This would imply that women are some other species than men, since women would somehow be incapable of making decisions as men do, which is ridiculous on its face. Every day we see women presented with choices, and we see them make decisions.

    Yes, men and women think differently. Whatever created us (god or nature or the flying spaghetti monster) did so in a complementary fashion. Human beings are social animals. Men and women were meant to team up and survive as part of a group.

    I know this is a controversial and amazing piece of information, but consider that when a woman does something shitty, it is possible that she planned to do that shitty act, well in advance, and executed her plan accordingly. Women can be jerks too, and the fact that women are moral agents implies that women who do lousy stuff should be held accountable, as men are, for their jerky behavior.

    Regards, Boxer

  512. deti says:

    “So why do the women of the ladysphere stay married and decline the tempting offer of slutting it up on their ex-husband’s dime? It’s because they’re moral agents. They use their skullstuffing and decide (probably on a daily basis) that they’re going to do the hard work necessary for raising up the next generation.”

    Not only because they’re moral agents, but also there are other more pragmatic reasons that keep those ladies with their husbands.

    1. because they married as well as they could have and they know it.

    2. they know they can’t do any better than they already have on the open market.

    3. Their husbands are bull alphas who could pull multiple other women if they wanted to; and some of them have proven track records in this regard

    4. Most importantly, they started out their marriages being strongly sexually attracted to their husbands. These women are chewing-on-the-bedsheets, can-hardly-stand-it sexually attracted to their husbands.

    5. Most women do not feel this way about their own husbands. Most women followed the Jenny Eriksen route – can’t extract commitment from the men she really wants; so she snags some hapless beta orbiter, sighs, gulps, says “well, I guess he’ll haffta do”, and husbands him up.

  513. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer,Bluedog: “Moral agency does not mean that you make right moral choices.” Thanks for that explanation. You covered it much more comprehensively than I could. Basically, for all you guys who are still with us, all agency means is the capacity to move in a predetermined direction. It’s the capability of being a “doer”.

    I would think its much simpler that this, I think its clear that women do have a moral framework and agency but it shifts at times quickly and dramatically ala Jenny, Jenny doing a 180 degree shift in 5 seconds flat is normal behaviour for a female. She always needs to avoid feeling guilty so her moral framework moves when her feelings invalidate current model and say its bad. As her belief in her current model is based on her good feelings for it ala I xN feel good because Im better than you other divorced sluts etc…

    So bad feelings = my moral framework changes so I feel good, screwing a bad boy drug dealer = more tingles = my moral framework changes so I feel good.

    Men’s moral framework is fairly static but can be changed slowly over time and with good reason, women’s – a butterfly flapping their wings will do it. So from a male’s perspective females just don’t have the same moral framework\agency that we have, but from their perspective they are perfectly fine and normal its just us that are oppressive.

    On a side note, I’m finding it quite amazing nowadays just how many women are saying to me that they find almost all other women crazy !

  514. Minesweeper says:

    Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:
    December 6, 2013 at 12:16 am
    Eve committed two separate crimes; so in Bereshit 3:16, she received two separate punishments.

    It dosnt say that, and also she received more that 2 punishments.
    1. to the woman he said I am increasing (the) grief of you and the number of pregnancies
    2. in grief of you shall give birth
    3. and to man of you – you will be longing for
    4. He shall rule over you

  515. 8to12 says:

    @Eidolon,

    I thought the letter was well written. I don’t think she helped her case by posting it.

    She was kicked out for divorcing without biblical grounds. Thus we can assume there was no adultery on her husband’s part, as even the most conservative churches recognize adultery as grounds for divorce.

    Churches this conservative also take the “lover your wife the way Christ loved the church” pretty literally. Had the husband been abusing her (physically or verbally), a drunk, refusing to work, or any of a number of other things, it’s likely they would have pulled him aside and attempted to correct the situation (just as they did with her). This undermines her allegations that her husband abused her in some way (being difficult to live with and having a critical personality–the two things she seems to have actually alleged–are not grounds for divorce; otherwise every husband in America would have grounds for divorcing his wife).

    The only thing I would argue with is the use of the word excommunicate. I’m not sure this is makes sense as to protestant congregations (unlike the RCC, which claims to be THE church). It might have made more sense to say they were shunning her–expelling here from the congregation and refusing to have anything further to do with her. Of course, I’m probably picking at theological nits here.

    Overall, I’m glad to see her church stood up for its principles.

  516. Eidolon says:

    That’s a good point about excommunication. On the other hand, if the church didn’t feel that she was outside of Christ’s church in general they presumably wouldn’t act to expel her.

    Obviously she can probably find one of a thousand other churches that will accept her. But from that church’s perspective she’s like a tax collector, and they would advise any other church to treat her likewise.

    It is a bit of an issue with Protestantism that we can’t meaningfully excommunicate someone from the faith rather than the local congregation, though in this case the fault would be on the other church for accepting her rather than this one for pushing her out. But then Catholicism tends to be pretty hesitant to excommunicate even when it’s blatantly obvious that someone is sinning continuously for a long period of time, so the advantage seems slight in practice.

    She really seems not to see that the church was acting sensibly, with consideration and regret in doing what it did. All things (sense, consideration, regret) which she lacks.

    I haven’t really dealt with a woman of this kind in the real world, at least as far as I know. She’s not very convincing when she talks about all her pain and suffering and thought and prayer in coming to this decision (there is rarely snark and flippancy where there is real reflection and humility, in my experience). Are these professed feelings real at all with this type of woman, or do they only come after, when they actually have to deal with the mess they’ve made? Do they conflate the sadness and hardship they encounter after the divorce with their experiences beforehand? Is it really just a mild, creeping dissatisfaction that causes them to take such an extreme step?

  517. deti says:

    I was going to do a hamsterlation of Jenny Erikson’s latest “I was Wrong About Marriage and Learned the Hard Way”. But it deserves more serious treatment.

    Read the article carefully, then come back here.

    She uses just about every shaming and defense tactic in the book.

    She wants to be taken seriously as a writer and a Christian mommyblogger. She writes and writes and writes on how loving her husband is; how hard marriage is but you’re supposed to stick it out; and how much she and her husband love her kids. She builds up a “career” over a couple of years writing “I Love Marriage” articles for her own blog and for other outlets.

    But then when people actually do take her seriously and call her out on her apparent hypocrisy, she then goes on a whirlwind of defense maneuvers designed to build her up as a Serious, Evolving Thinker and to tear down her critics as judgmental vipers.

    FIRST DEFENSE: MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR CRITICISM AS UNFOUNDED ATTACK AND PEOPLE “JUST BEING MEAN” In her opening paragraphs she talks about the criticism she’s taken. She mischaracterizes them as attacks, and misstates the substance of the criticisms. Some of them are name-calling; but most of them are well-reasoned critical items like “um, you said you were all for marriage; talked about how awesome Leif was, and now you’ve turned around 180 degrees from that. What gives?”

    SECOND DEFENSE: “DON’T HIT ME, I’M A GIRL”: She touches on her bruised ego because some of her critics have talked about her physical appearance. This is designed to bring White Knights rushing to her aid; and it’s worked like a charm.

    THIRD DEFENSE: CALL YOUR CRITICS NAMES, ACCUSE THEM OF MENTAL INSTABILITY, AND QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES. One of the favorite tactics of tradcons and now Christian-in-name-only people like Erikson is to accuse their critics of “obsessing”. For example, tradcons who frequent the manosphere and places around it frequently accuse men of “obsessing” because there is so much talk about sex, within and without marriage. According to tradcons, men should not talk about sex, and if they do, they’re “obsessives”.

    Erikson does the same here. Her critics are “obsessives” merely for reading her body of work and her abrupt about-face on marriage. She doesn’t consider that people are writing about her a lot because she has written about marriage frequently, and there’s a sizable body of work to analyze. She also doesn’t consider that as a former marriage defender, there’s some interest in why she is no longer a marriage defender. She also doesn’t consider that she’s literally living, breathing proof of just about everything written about in the manosphere.

    FOURTH DEFENSE; “MY THINKING HAS EVOLVED AND CHANGED. I WAS WRONG BEFORE.” Faced with the undeniable change, she has to explain it. This defense waves away critics by just saying “well, I was wrong about marriage being important. When you get down to it, marriage really isn’t important or sacred, particularly when I just don’t want to be in it anymore. And I am right about this now, until the next time I change my mind, when I will be right then and wrong before. But if you point this out, then you’re just a hater and a hypocrite and a judgmental prick.”

    She then points the finger and says “what, you’ve never changed your mind about anything?” Irrelevant, because what Erikson thinks about Christian marriage doesn’t change its character one bit. Christian marriage is Christian marriage, whether Erikson believes it to be or not.

    FIFTH DEFENSE: BIBLICAL/RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION. This usually takes two forms: either (1) “My personal Jesus says that what I’m doing is OK” or (2) the don’t judge/don’t cast stones/mote-beam counterattack trifecta. Erikson opts for the second here, noting that no one can judge people who decide to divorce. She then reverts back to the old saw that when Christians divorce, it must be because the person seeking the divorce is so aggrieved, so injured, so put upon, that there’s no other option. Erikson then redefines marriage in her own eyes, pronouncing marriage as “not more important than the people in it”. This is a radical departure from what Christian marriage is supposed to be; and her fanboys and fangirls don’t see this at all.

    Erikson has no credibility at all anymore as a writer. She has no convictions when she can so easily dispense with what Christian marriage is, and redefine it as she wants it to be. She deploys the usual tradcon/liberal feminist tropes of deflect, dissemble, redefine, and distorted biblical justifications. No one should listen to her about anything anymore.

  518. Bucho says:

    I can’t give her a pass with the “what, you’ve never changed your mind about anything?” argument. I can see it if she raved about the local smoothie shop but then it switched management and went down hill. But there are many facets to Christian Marriage that you just can pull that type of come back. Kinda like the “I was for the war before I was against it” argument.

    And let’s assume that she was truly unhappy all this time in her marriage. Why did she blog all this time about marriage? Did she think that she was losing her current readership, so she decide to revise her personal brand?

  519. earl says:

    When I was a kid…my father was the one who instilled moral agency into me before I figured it out on my own.

    Rewarded for doing work and virtues…punished for being a deviant. This is patriarchy…winning on an overall spiritual level.

    In a matriarchal society this is reversed. Which is why deviants win in this dress rehearsal we call life…and women will follow winners. If her father was like mine…she will find a winner. If her father figure was her mother, cads, and society…she will turn into Jenny Erickson.

    It is still good for people to work and be virtuous…just don’t expect to be rewarded handsomely for it during your time on Earth anymore. Deviants don’t win the most important game that matters.

  520. Eidolon says:

    I was thinking about leaving a comment on her article that would involve a guy with an anonymous blog about Christian marriage and the importance of fidelity, let’s call him Johnny. His wife is giving him very rare and grudging sex, despite his clearly expressed need for more.

    One day Johnny can’t take it anymore and he cheats on his wife. Suddenly he’s getting the release that he wanted and he feels great. Once he’s got an affair going, he blogs about how great it is to have a mistress, how to pick one out, how to balance your mistress with your wife and kids, how not to get caught, etc. If anyone criticizes him he says “Look, after a lot of prayer and consideration, God gave me this outlet to help me. You can’t understand how unhappy I was before; I was going crazy. This way I can take care of my wife, my kids, and I can be taken care of myself. Besides, who are you to judge? You never changed your mind about whether something was good or bad after you tried it? And how can something that has such positive results be bad?”

    I suspect that she and her cohorts would find some flaws in Johnny’s behavior and his reasoning. But they don’t see that this is exactly what they’re saying and doing. If anything Johnny is being kinder than Jenny (though no more moral) because he may not end up destroying his family and messing up his kids.

    It would be great to use this story the way Jesus used his parable, where he gets the guy to walk right into judging himself. But I’m no feral hamster wrangler, and the parallels are probably too obvious.

  521. Bucho says:

    “Dr. Schadenfreude ‏@PoliticsOfFear 4 Dec

    To those attacking @JennyErikson, the Taliban called, they want their “talking points” back.
    Retweeted by Jenny Erikson ”

    Alright, you heard the man….

  522. Stand Watie says:

    The Taliban? They can have their “talking points” back when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

  523. feeriker says:

    I picture someone going to the guillotine saying “that black hood makes you look like a dork, you know that? Your court is dumb and I don’t recognize your judgments, so this doesn’t mean anything to me. Hey, at least I’ll lose some weight, right?” etc.

    While I’ve heard sermons from pastors who are adherents of eschatology that predict, based on their interpretations of Revelation, that Judgment Day will be an experience that will have even the most vicious and hardened human trembling and weeping in terror, I can almost imagine Jenny Erikson being sufficiently arrogant and full of hubris to deliver her usual stream of snark to God Himself in exactly the manner you describe here.

  524. earl says:

    This constant White Knighterty hurts my brain.

  525. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >> Still waiting for that citation about any member of the Frankfurt School saying he intended to “destroy the traditional family”,

    My son was talking about this recently. But, he quoted it as saying men and women must be put at odds to destroy the society. Of course, that also destroys the family, but for nit-pickers the two may be different?

    Anonymous Bob says:
    December 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    >>What Nicole WANTS to say is that we just don’t understand how unhappy Jenny had become and that there is a certain level of unhappiness that can somehow supersede the simple rule of the Bible.

    Is this ironic writing or is Bob serious? I hope not. Let me comment, in the unfortunate event he is serious.

    The quick and correct response is personal emotions never modify Biblical rules. For those such as Bob who don’t think much of the Bible, they may, but not for believers.

    The better response, also correct, is that Jenny was clearly not happy as a small child. She was not happy as an older girl. She was not happy as a teen. She was not happy as a young unmarried woman. She was not happy as a courting woman, while using Lief as an emotional tampon. (Her words translated, happy women do not need shoulders to cry on.)

    She was not happy as a married woman.

    So, when she met the other man or men, and suddenly realized she still had some SMV, she also suddenly realized her unhappiness could only be solved by taking her kids into maternal custody, the worst thing that happens to most kids. That is, now her unhappiness is caused by her husband’s failure to breath fire into her soul. Man fault. Dearies are such pure saints in every way, of course.

    In my 71 years, I have never met a woman who divorced because she was not h-h-happy, who had not been unhappy all her life. It is a personality feature of most women, not the fault of other people. People choose to be happy or unhappy.

    Making an unhappy woman, happy is like pushing a rope. Some people have compared it to putting toothpaste back in the tube, but for technical people that is a simple technical task. Making an unhappy woman, happy, requires divine powers. And, I have seen no sign that God views making unhappy women, happy, as an important task.

  526. 8to12 says:

    @Eidolon,

    You’d be wasting your time; they wouldn’t get it.

    The current story over at rational male illustrates this perfectly: http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/

    The wife has been holding out on her husband since the day they were married–limiting him to occasional, vanilla bland sex. He attributed it to her having a low sex drive and being something of a prude. Then he finds a video from her pre-marriage days where she is getting gang banged, performing every act in the book (with enthusiasm) and yelling how much she loves doing this. Turns out she wasn’t a prude at all, she was just holding out on him.

    And that’s what he is angry about. Not the fact that she had a high N count (that he didn’t know about) or that she did a lot of wild and kinky things before marriage. He’s angry that she’s has been holding out on him sexually all these years.

    The female commentators don’t get it at all. They can’t seem to fathom that the core reason he is upset is that his wife has been holding out on his sexually their entire marriage. They understand how he could be upset about the N count or the kinky sex (neither of which he actually is upset about), but they can’t (or won’t) grasp the idea that he’s upset about her holding out on him sexually.

    I don’t think a “parable” about a wife denying her husband sexually is going to resonate with women.

  527. feeriker,

    While I’ve heard sermons from pastors who are adherents of eschatology that predict, based on their interpretations of Revelation, that Judgment Day will be an experience that will have even the most vicious and hardened human trembling and weeping in terror…

    I’m not convinced we aren’t already IN that time.

    I don’t know who the Anti-Christ is, but it wouldn’t shock me if he is already here among us and setting things in motion as Revelation revealed.

  528. Thinkn'Man says:

    @Dalrock, earl, deti:
    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread quite like this. I suppose it’s what happens when the most thoughtful “mgtow blog” clashes head-on with the poster child (Jenny Erikson) for everything that’s wrong with the American female and Marriage 2.0.
    Anyhoo… keep up the truly great work, and the high standards.

  529. @Eidolon The simplicity of your “let’s call him Johnny” comment & blog idea: Brilliant.

    See Deti’s comment, quoted by Rollo Tomassi, at the beginning of his “Empathy” post http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/

    Eidolon, do that blog. Just be ready for the fame.

  530. Blake says:

    Leif is going to remain single for a long time unless he moves. There is no way any woman is going to want to deal with Leif’s ex-wife.

    Jenny isn’t about to admit that she also wants the ex-husband to suffer and be miserable, just as she is. Jenny wants to see the ex-husband pay for all the imagined slights and for all the current misery Jenny has to deal with, even though Jenny’s misery is self-inflicted. This comes under the “see what you made me do” clause.

  531. @innocentbystanderboston ‘RULE the AIR’

  532. Dalrock says:

    @Blake

    Leif is going to remain single for a long time unless he moves. There is no way any woman is going to want to deal with Leif’s ex-wife.

    Jenny isn’t about to admit that she also wants the ex-husband to suffer and be miserable, just as she is. Jenny wants to see the ex-husband pay for all the imagined slights and for all the current misery Jenny has to deal with, even though Jenny’s misery is self-inflicted. This comes under the “see what you made me do” clause.

    I don’t have a lot of data points to draw from, but two years of being absolutely crushed seems about standard before the ex husband recovers enough to be able to start attracting women. Either way, the power to torture lies as much in the hands of the new girlfriend as the ex wife, if not more. This is especially true if the new girlfriend (or worse wife) is younger and prettier than the ex wife. Women have a way of being extremely brutal with plausible deniability. In fact, most men can’t even tell when this is happening. So when the new girlfriend/wife starts asking Jenny for tips on whatever, since Jenny is older and wiser, Leif won’t have any idea that his new woman is twisting the knife. Also (purely hypothetical) imagine that Jenny’s life spirals into a public alcohol fueled chaotic failure of strip-mining for men, while Leif and his new girlfriend present the picture of dignified stability and calm happiness. There is no end to the torment the new woman can do to the ex wife in her discussions with the two girls, and all of it perfectly deniable in the way only women can do. All of this of course will be cloaked in faux kindness, entreating the daughters to behave for their mother and have patience with her instability and emotional outbursts:

    You need to be extra good for your mother. She is going through a really tough time right now. Finding a good man is extremely difficult, especially for a single mother. Once you reach a certain age, all the good men (like your dad) are already taken.

    Lastly, women love to steal another woman’s man. Jenny is famous in her own way, and women in Leif’s circle are going to see an opportunity to steal this very public woman’s man (and in a sense, the affections of her daughters).

  533. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon 71:

    My son was talking about this recently. But, he quoted it as saying men and women must be put at odds to destroy the society. Of course, that also destroys the family, but for nit-pickers the two may be different?

    Please provide a source for that quote. Thanks!

    Dear Blake:

    Leif is going to remain single for a long time unless he moves. There is no way any woman is going to want to deal with Leif’s ex-wife.

    I hope that Leif takes as much time as he needs for himself and his kids, and if it were me, I wouldn’t be in any hurry to be shacking up with a new Jenny. Wasn’t it Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul who said that being unmarried is preferable? I know in that book there’s also a verse (in proverbs I believe) that talks about it being better to live on the roof of a house than with a contentious wife.

    Boxer

  534. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>Please provide a source for that quote. Thanks!

    So, you haven’t actually read Marx or any of these men? I don’t do homework assignments.

  535. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Also, better to live in the desert than to be married to a contentious woman.
    And, another place says (though it is different in different translations) that he who can control a contentious woman can control the wind.

  536. Anonymous age 71 says:

    My son called last night. He had been to a church, denomination unknown, for Bible Study. The White Knight teaching the class read the verse in the Bible exhorting women to dress modestly. He then spent five minutes lecturing men how important it is that men dress modestly and somehow neglected to discuss modesty in feminine dress.

    So, has anyone here ever seen a man go to church, dressed immodestly? What would that involve? Hanging his fertilizing tool out in plain sight? Wearing a visible cod-piece?

    But. things got worse. He also lectured on male leadership, emphasizing how important it is for men to listen to their wives, “in case they might be wrong in their decision.” But, his tone was not an occasional error on the part of the man. His tone was that men must assume they will always be wrong if they have not first received approval from their wives.

    My son knows I was for years a Boy Scout leader, and have viewed, pre-gay Scouts as one of the best ways to teach boys to be leaders.

    I reminded him that leaders will always make mistakes. That is a part of being a leader. When you groom a future leader, you must permit, nay, even encourage him to take risks which will result in mistakes. A good leader is one who takes ownership of his mistakes, and fixes them!

    Before a person is promoted to an important leadership role, you must see how he handles mistakes.

    The message I am receiving from many who encourage and support people like Jenny is there is zero tolerance for husbands who make mistakes. When a husband makes a mistake, his wife no longer must submit to him. The church can denounce him and encourage her to take her kids into the worst thing that does happen to most kids, maternal custody.

    No! A thousand times no. Submission by a wife means allowing him to learn by making mistakes, then fixing them, WITH HER HELP AND SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT.

    So, God must be stupid not to know men will make mistakes, when he told wives to submit to their husbands?

    I told him to either stop going to Bible study in that church, or get up and leave the minute the teacher preaches male submission to wives.

  537. feeriker says:

    Anon 71 said:
    Making an unhappy woman, happy, requires divine powers. And, I have seen no sign that God views making unhappy women, happy, as an important task.

    Congratulations, my good man: you’ve just gained an entry into my “Quotable Quotes” collection (the Manosphere contributors are taking up a bigger and bigger chunk of it with each passing day).

    On this subject, and at the risk of repeating a blinding flash of the obvious: I’ve come to the conclusion, based on long-term direct personal observation, that what compounds modern western woman’s unhappiness (itself the fruits of rebellion against God’s rules of living for women) is the realization, however subconscious, that she will NEVER, EVER be happy by living in accordance with the contemporary culture. Biblical prescriptions for living are her ONLY chance at happiness, but so deep-seated and chronic is her spirit of rebellion that she can never willingly concede the error of her ways and repent. Imagine Jesus retelling the parable of the prodigal son as that of the prodigal daughter, except that instead of the errant son dropping to his knees, prostrate, broken, and humbling himself before his father in an act of heartfelt repentance, the errant daughter choosing instead to remain a prideful harlot facing nothing but inevitable degradation, loneliness, pain, and early death – because she’s too proud, self-centered, and full of hubris to admit the error of her ways and too fearful that repentance and submission to Godly authority will “take away her freedom” or “leave her disempowered.” THIS is why unhaaaaaaaappy women will ALWAYS remain so unless or until they are completely broken.

  538. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon 71:

    I had to read all of Marx’s collective works for my first degree, and I specifically studied the Frankfurt School. It’s probably the only thing I’m actually qualified to talk about.

    So, you haven’t actually read Marx or any of these men? I don’t do homework assignments.

    In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about, but decided to declare something on your own authority anyway. Just like IBB, in fact.

    I have all the major works of all the members of the Frankfurt School in my library. If you’d like to discuss their work seriously, I’m game. Otherwise, I’ll leave you to fabricating imaginary quotes with your pals.

    Regards, Boxer

  539. Bluedog says:

    @Boxer, re: December 6, 2013 at 6:51 am …

    I’m working so have to keep this quick but I agree completely with your assessment – MRAs can be unaware of the effects of their own rhetoric and what it suggests about their own theories of mind – which aren’t always self-flattering.

    I’d take it from there to observe that what we see in the Dalrock/SSM space and to some extension in the RM space is, IMO, a matter of three things:

    1) Correct priority – family
    2) Penetrating and rare insight as well as perspective that is largely censored elsewhere … as to the insight, this example article with Dalrocks earlier “8 steps” is a poignant case
    3) Broad application of mis-attribution fallacy … where nefarious intent is attributed without adequate evidence

    Generally I find that both the right and left consist of … people (surprise!) and that they primarily differ in the specific ways they go wrong … not so much in their basic deposits of virtue or in their propensity to go wrong. Both go wrong – they just go wrong differently.

    So – why would liberal-ol’ Bluedog find good company at Dalrock but not at Manboobz?

    Well … Manboobz/Futrelle’s train has left the station. It’s run off the cliff. It is so deep in its own snark it cannot be retrieved. Hopeless case. Add to that – it’s priorities are wrong. Women are equal. Women’s equality in the US is safe. No one here at Dalrock or anywhere on the manosphere threatens it. The family on the other hand …

    So at Dalrock I think we’re getting 1 and 2 right, haven’t gotten 3 wrong yet, but the risk exists of going off the cliff … here not by way of snark (Futrelle’s weakness) as much as mis-attribution error.

    I think this group’s priorities are right and its insights are critical … by tempering a tendency towards a certain kind of error it makes the group more likely to matter.

    Meanwhile – in terms of how this group has it right and how important the family is, this study is like a stake through the heart of the vampire: http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/24/cercor.bht310.abstract.

    Kids need dads, kids need dads, kids need dads. “Blue” states actually do this relatively well and blue state kids have the pre-frontal cortexes to show for it. I am less interested in uniformly condemning feminism as I am in getting feminists to drop the snark, stop framing and start taking about this. We aren’t ready to replace the family, we have no suitable alternative.

  540. Blake says:

    @dalrock, it seems to be that Leif will drop everything and come running to “help the mother of his children” and Jenny well knows it. I suspect dear Jenny will use any and every excuse she can find to disrupt Leif’s life. Leif will become the babysitter of convenience when Jenny decides to head out of town to get laid. Or, Jenny will dump the girls on Leif when she decides she needs a night on the town.

    Kids are often used as a weapon by the ex-wife and I doubt dear Jenny is any different.

    I’m speaking from my personal experience, so, it may not apply. And no, I didn’t let the wife use me as a babysitter of convenience, because I saw what she was up to from a mile away.

    Obviously, I’m skeptical that any female would be willing to put up with that kind of crap.

  541. Stand Watie says:

    “It is better to live in a corner of the roof
    Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.”
    (Proverbs 25:24)

    And that is the truth. A couple of months after my ex moved out, she left her old car in my driveway (she had bought a new one). When I came home from work and saw her car, I was afraid she’d actually decided to come back. Until I found out what had happened, I actually contemplated sleeping in my car that night to avoid her.

  542. earl says:

    “Wasn’t it Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul who said that being unmarried is preferable?”

    He did…but that was because he was having a grand old time being single and spreading Christianity like a wlidfire. He was being beaten up for a cause he believed so much in…so he had his passion. He wanted everybody to experience that “fun”.

    But he was also aware that some guys don’t get that reward…and they burn for the vagina. In those cases they should marry that way they aren’t a sinnin’.

  543. Allow me to traslate the following Boxerization…

    I had to read all of Marx’s collective works for my first degree, and I specifically studied the Frankfurt School. It’s probably the only thing I’m actually qualified to talk about.

    equals

    I am the authority because I have books. I am the authority because my degree equals a credentialization on this matter. I many not know anything else, but I know the Frankfurt School and all the people who were in it. And if anyone disagrees with me on this one thing, they are automatically wrong.

    Thanks Boxer.

  544. earl says:

    And looking at how Paul lived his life after conversion…I would prefer getting beaten up by dudes for something I believe in than living with a contentious woman who doesn’t believe in me. Physical scars heal and even my enemies would respect me.

  545. Eidolon says:

    @Bluedog

    I think the biggest problem with this is that it’s very unlikely to ever happen if we as a society continue to take “women’s issues” seriously in the way they are now. Women are just wired to complain and make demands, and as long as men give in they’ll go on demanding more and more. What’s needed is men, rational men who are not absurdly credulous, to evaluate the situation and decide what rules ought to be implemented. Once those rules are implemented we need to make it clear that this is how it’s going to be, and resume shaming/ostracizing those who reject the rules, as we once did.

    This is what nearly every society has understood and what’s anathema to feminism and most people’s inculcated way of thinking in modern Western society. To say “while women’s input will be solicited, men will need to make these decisions because women in the main are not logical enough to consider the consequences rationally” would be thought of as monstrously sexist. Women today would expect such a decision to lead to a brutally oppressive outcome, despite that being the opposite of what we see in various past civilizations. To return to patriarchy for the flimsy reasons that it works the best, creates the most pleasant and enjoyable conditions for women as well as men, and makes society healthier and more prosperous — these reasons can’t possibly stand up to but I WANT and “the problem with no name” among Western women.

    I don’t know what the solution is. If Christians could present themselves like the Mormons do currently, with voluntary, healthy and happy patriarchal relations between the sexes leading to successful families, perhaps we could either encourage the reasonable nonbelievers to emulate us or at least win some converts. But with the rot going so deep into Christianity itself I don’t really know what steps can be taken at this point. Some kind of society-wide deprogramming would have to happen, and anti-feminists wouldn’t have the will to perform the long march through the institutions like the feminists did, not generally being utopians (and not wanting to sacrifice their children’s future by pushing them into academia or the media).

  546. Ashley lakes says:

    Age 71

    I love financial peace university. We are on step 6.

    I have found it beyond helpful, however, in the “making a budget” cd he talks about how important it is that the wife approves the budget because what if the man chooses to buy green time (golf) but no food for his children. The crowd laughs at this.

    The Sunday school teacher who was a recently retired guy did say that the man has the authority/responsibility over the money.

  547. Earl,

    If I remember my scripture correctly and Paul’s recommendation to remain single, his recommendation was one of encumberance. I don’t think it had anything to do with not liking marriage per se, trying to get over buring for the vagina. I think it was more or less, if you want to spread the Gospel, the mesage of Christ that you TOO can be saved, that is best handled by people who don’t have to worry about supporting a wife or children.

    I think Paul’s right. Pastor Mark Gungor has done a couple youtubes on this saying that people (particularly young people) who aren’t married and who don’t have children, if you are a good Christian and you want to spread the Good News, financially sponsor these people. Enable them with money. Don’t give the missionary $50, give him $500. And if you could afford to give more, don’t give him $500, give him $5000. Whatever. Enable them with money because these single people, these unencumbered people, they have the freedom to easily do the things that you can’t. You have other responsibilities, other commitments. They don’t. That frees them up to work solely for Christ. That frees YOU UP to not have to worry about that, just give them whatever resources you can to help them do what they will do.

    The LDS (the Mormons) figured this out a long time ago which is why their male missionaries are allowed to go door-to-door at age 18 (was 19 just last year) and their sister missionaries can do the same at age 19 (was 21 last year.) These people do not need a whole lot of money/sponsorship to do what they do. They need very little, they are completely unencumbered.

  548. earl says:

    That is probably also why the Catholic church wants its priests to stay single and celibate.

  549. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    That’s a creative strawman you created. You’re right. I am an authority. I spent a couple of years of my life on this topic. It’s always humorous when you (or Anon71, or anyone else) tells me to “read Marx”, as this usually happens after whoever urges me to read him reveals that he has never read him.

    Your problem is broader than philosophy or history, however. I think it’s a general lack of context.

    In case you are still confused, you are in a space which operates according to masculine rules. Men generally speak cautiously, and men expect others to back up what they write with objective sources. You haven’t been able to do this, consistently, which is why I quit paying any attention to your nonsense.

    You are now free to continue talking about things you know nothing about, and resorting to personal attacks when questioned. Let me know when you have something to teach me.

    Boxer

  550. Eidolon,

    I don’t know what the solution is. If Christians could present themselves like the Mormons do currently, with voluntary, healthy and happy patriarchal relations between the sexes leading to successful families, perhaps we could either encourage the reasonable nonbelievers to emulate us or at least win some converts.

    LDS bishops aren’t paid. They have full time jobs outside of their 4 hour commitment on Sunday. They have no financial conflict of interest in saying to women, “…submit to your husbands. The men are Patriarchs.” If the feminist-Mormon women get offended by that, hurt by that to the point where they tell their husbands (under the THREATPOINT OF DIVORCE) that they must take their tithes and leave the church, the bishop does not sacrifice any of his personal earning power.

    Also the Mormons have it rigged such that if you don’t give 10%, you can’t get into the Temple. To them there are three heavens, you don’t get the highest one (the Celestial One) unless you are a Temple recommended Mormon.

    Since no one who leads that church makes any money from the church and they have great leverage in extorting a full 10% from those who Fundamentally believe in the BoM, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants, the church is LOADED. Big money in that church. HUGE!

  551. Boxer,

    In case you are still confused, you are in a space which operates according to masculine rules. Men generally speak cautiously, and men expect others to back up what they write with objective sources. You haven’t been able to do this, consistently, which is why I quit paying any attention to your nonsense.

    It is you who is confused not I. If you quit paying attention to me, you wouldn’t have read what I wrote, nor would you have responded.

  552. Earl,

    That is probably also why the Catholic church wants its priests to stay single and celibate.

    I am not Catholic. But I heard that there was a couple of reasons for this (Priests not marrying) but Paul’s teachings was not one of them.

    #1) In order to Consecrate the Eucharist, you have to be Virgin or
    #2) Some Pope in 1000-something-AD (somewhere along the way) was getting all pissed off that all the Cardinals where having sons and were making their sons future Cardinals (nepotism) and so he basically decreed that from now on, Priests can’t get married.

    It might be Paul’s teachings. But we both know that former Anglican Priests (who were married with children as Anglican) that convert to the RCC, they are given special dispensation from the RCC to remain Priests in the RCC. So they are RCC Priests AND married WITH kids. But I don’t know of any other dispensations.

  553. earl says:

    It’s a type of grandfather clause is what that is.

    You couldn’t do that if you are a cradle Catholic. It’s either single, marriage, or holy orders.

  554. Bee says:

    @A A 71

    “So, God must be stupid not to know men will make mistakes, when he told wives to submit to their husbands?”

    Good quote from Charles Dow (founded Dow Chemical);

    Never promote a man who has not made mistakes. A man who has not made mistake is a man who has not done anything, not tried anything new.

    That’s the gist of it, not an exact quote.

  555. I think Charles Dow is right.

  556. Opus says:

    This unseemly row needs to be ended and thus if this were my court I would halt proceedings and grant judgement in favour of Boxer with costs to be taxed as against IBB and anon71.

    If you want to find the source of the anti-family literature you are looking in the wrong place. Try William Godwin or Marquis de Condorcet. Long before anyone had ever linked the word Frankfurt to the word School there were various people in America at places like New Harmony trying to put into effect those very ideals (and with disastrous results). Robert Owen like Frances Wright were Scots, so blame Tan the Bam not me – or your open door to Anglos immigration policy. Interestingly both Wright and Godwin married despite their anti-marriage bias, a clear case of do what I say not what I do (as SSM was complaining the other day about Punkette Kathleen Hanna).

  557. Marissa says:

    Cynthia, you’ve certainly made a great case for why women should never be in the military. Stories from others I’ve listened to (mostly army infantry) are even worse. More than half of an auxiliary unit getting pregnant illegitimately to avoid deployment. Intentional pregnancies while deployed to be removed from theatre. Beautiful women with ridiculously high positions at very young ages. Nowhere near the amount of responsibility expected: a friend told me about being on base in Iraq. He and a woman were escorting two Iraqi prisoners and he left her with them to check something. She almost immediately ran around the corner crying, explaining that they had stolen her rifle and hid it. He caught so much flak from other men in his unit, asking why he left her alone, even though if it were a man he’d left alone that guy would have been punished for getting his rifle stolen. The base commander forbade women from even walking alone from then on. So many horror stories…one need only ask a handful of infantry who are “awake” or as people here say, red pill, and they’ll regale you.

  558. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    This unseemly row needs to be ended and thus if this were my court I would halt proceedings and grant judgement in favour of Boxer with costs to be taxed as against IBB and anon71.

    Seconded.

  559. arid2385 says:

    Sorry, I don’t have time to read through all the comments. I know someone responded to what I said with stats about murder vs. abortion. I need to explain further the point that has been misunderstood in my comments on moral agency and women.

    There’s confusion about the difference between being inclined to obey authority and being moral. Those are two distinct things. One is about a willingness to comply with what one is told to do or not do; the other is the inherently inclined to do what is good.

    Like I stated above, women do show a willingness to obey *authority*. They show a clear willingness to obey legal authority. Women will work to gain permission/justification for what they want to do. The stats on abortion are indicative of this. Abortion is a *moral wrong* according to certain religious traditions, namely Christianity. Yet it ceased to be a *legal* wrong years ago–the legal authorities have given their OK. The people who procure abortions (which include parents taking their daughters and the fathers taking mothers) are acting completely in compliance with legal authority. The *moral authorities* in the lives of those people may or may not assert that abortion is wrong. (many churches do not) What a woman is likely to do is come up with reasons to prove that she is acting within the bounds of authority, moral or otherwise. You see this in the Erikson situation in the rationalizations produced to prove that everything is kosher. This type of rationalization is easy to do in a society in which the authorities that are supposed to guide have left their position. Again, *the government remains the main asserter of authority in women’s lives.* Definitely not their fathers, definitely not their husbands, and definitely not their pastors. Most it seems have abdicated their authority.

    Let’s go back to Adam and Eve. Adam was supposed to be the authority in Eve’s life. He received the command directly from God. Eve was supposed to listen to him. Instead, she listened to the serpent. The serpent told her a lie and she went along with it, justifying her actions. Adam, however, did not believe a lie; rather, he chose to simply disregard God’s command. This is why the apostle Paul says that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam sinned through disregard of God’s command and Eve sinned through allowing herself to be deceived by not listening to the proper authority. But the question ends up being, “What would have happened had Adam told Eve she was wrong and refused to eat?”

    Society continues to play out the sin of Adam and Eve in that women have listened to the wrong authority (satan) and men have simply gone along with it–either passively or actively (i.e., PUAs)

  560. arid2385 says:

    Correction: Those are two distinct things. One is about a willingness to comply with what one is told to do or not do; the other is being inherently inclined to do what is good.

  561. Guys, we got it all wrong about Jenny, she didn’t betray the values she spent years promoting, she just changed her mind is all.
    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165037/i_was_wrong_about_marriage
    Glad we got that cleared up.

  562. feeriker says:

    Anon 71 said No! A thousand times no. Submission by a wife means allowing him to learn by making mistakes, then fixing them, WITH HER HELP AND SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT.

    This is asking wives to be supportive and to contribute something meaningful and helpful to their marriages. This is why most women, even (especially?) churchian women would rather risk eternity in hell than do the right thing (see my earlier comments upthread about how most women really do not fear God’s punishment at all, their verbal assertions to the contrary notwithstanding).

    I told him to either stop going to Bible study in that church, or get up and leave the minute the teacher preaches male submission to wives.

    Clearly he should do both, as in get as far away from this churchian franchise as possible – but not before very publicly and strongly correcting the CEO (a.k.a pastor) and/or Bible study (in this case very appropriately abbreviated as BS) teachers on their erroneous interpretations of Scripture while on his way out the door. It’s unlikely to do any lasting large-scale good, but it might at least plant some seeds of medicinal doubt in the minds of a few of the benighted congregants.

    IBB said LDS bishops aren’t paid. They have full time jobs outside of their 4 hour commitment on Sunday. They have no financial conflict of interest in saying to women, “…submit to your husbands. The men are Patriarchs.” If the feminist-Mormon women get offended by that, hurt by that to the point where they tell their husbands (under the THREATPOINT OF DIVORCE) that they must take their tithes and leave the church, the bishop does not sacrifice any of his personal earning power.

    Having a professional, salaried clergy is, IMO, the Achilles heel of institutional, established Christianity.

  563. Boxer says:

    Opus opines:

    Interestingly both Wright and Godwin married despite their anti-marriage bias, a clear case of do what I say not what I do (as SSM was complaining the other day about Punkette Kathleen Hanna).

    And on a somewhat related note, heartiste gives us some possible motivations of the male side o’ the equation, asking:

    what if it was beta males, rather than alpha males, who were the other prime movers of Boomer feminism? … Did beta males enjoin the feminist sabotage of civilization because they thought it would cramp the style of alpha males?

    Perhaps the origins of feminist degeneracy were spawned by an alliance of ugly but upwardly mobile women, who wanted to lower the quality of the dating/mating/marriage pool so as to make themselves more attractive to the top men, and unattractive and upwardly-mobile men, who thought that the same ends would give them a competitive edge. Either way, the behavior of the previous three or four generations represents a massive case of society wide delusional thinking, which we’re paying for today.

    hxxp://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/are-beta-males-responsible-for-feminism/

  564. Boxer says:

    urh, that second paragraph was supposed to be in blockquotes. citing sources is important for credibility’s sake. thanks to heartiste for the legwork.

  565. feeriker,

    Having a professional, salaried clergy is, IMO, the Achilles heel of institutional, established Christianity.

    We agree.

    I wont join a church unless the clergy isn’t paid.

  566. Boxer says:

    Dear Free Riker:

    LDS bishops aren’t paid. They have full time jobs outside of their 4 hour commitment on Sunday. They have no financial conflict of interest in saying to women, “…submit to your husbands. The men are Patriarchs.”

    My parents were both born Mormons. My mother divorced my father with the LDS church’s help. The LDS church helped her take me and my sister across an international border, and helped my mother divorce my father and marry a new SIMP. The SIMP, my stepfather, is a good man, but very beta. The SIMP, after marrying my mother, served in the bishopric and stake presidency of the Mormon area. I didn’t see my father for many years, thanks in part to the meddling of the LDS church.

    It is a mistake for Christians to look at Mormons as having patriarchy. We do not have anything of the sort. We have all the same problems you do. I’m completely secular now but still would not date a Mormon girl of any type, whether or not she is observant. Mormon girls are raised as “princesses” who can do no wrong, and are generally bad prospects for dating and marriage, as they’ve been told from birth that they are more spiritually evolved than men. Observant Mormon chicks have their own feminist groups (the religious wing is called “relief society”).

    Regards, Boxer

  567. feeriker says:

    It is a mistake for Christians to look at Mormons as having patriarchy. We do not have anything of the sort. We have all the same problems you do.

    That’s been my observation among LDS (i.e., “mainstream” Mormons) whom I’ve known. The fundamentalist/breakaway Mormon sects might be different, but I have no way of knowing if that’s true. Even if it is, I would have to imagine that there are more than enough other ugly problems inherent in those communities that more than overshadow any benefits that their patriarchal structures provide.

  568. My parents were both born Mormons. My mother divorced my father with the LDS church’s help. The LDS church helped her take me and my sister across an international border, and helped my mother divorce my father and marry a new SIMP. The SIMP, my stepfather, is a good man, but very beta. The SIMP, after marrying my mother, served in the bishopric and stake presidency of the Mormon area. I didn’t see my father for many years, thanks in part to the meddling of the LDS church.

    Boxer I’m real sorry that happened to you. That’s a terrible story, but not all that surprising.

    It is a mistake for Christians to look at Mormons as having patriarchy. We do not have anything of the sort.

    Well, truthfully, a woman could never be on the bishopric. Nor can an LDS woman bless the babies. Nor can she bless ANYONE, only men. LDS women can not baptize anyone, only men. Where as there are so many fallen Protestant churches that not only allow females to retain ranking positions in the Diaconatte, they even have female Pastors! (that are ordained for marriage and funeral cermonies.) You will never-ever see that in an LDS Ward. Would not happen, ever.

    So altough you are right about the President of the “relief society” that is more a woman’s group in the LDS church (baking food, watching the children, teaching them how to sing songs like I am Child of God, that other nonsense) never any actual teaching except over the kids.

  569. Mormon girls are raised as “princesses” who can do no wrong, and are generally bad prospects for dating and marriage, as they’ve been told from birth that they are more spiritually evolved than men.

    The first Sunday of every month, its always the LDS women running up to the front of the church first to give their crying “testamonies.” The tears start flowing and they always end “I know this church is TRUE!” they say it over and over. My feeling is, if they really believed that, they wouldn’t have to say it.

    That said Boxer I really am sorry about what happened with your dad. That does sound exactly like something the Mormons would do. Let me guess, he tried to get his wife and family away from the church? (That is usually what happens. The men discover its crap so the church steps in and helps with the divorce to save the wife and the kids.)

  570. Jeremy says:

    Ah, I clicked on this article again… still lol’ing at the hamster.

  571. feeriker says:

    Boxer said Mormon girls are raised as “princesses” who can do no wrong, and are generally bad prospects for dating and marriage, as they’ve been told from birth that they are more spiritually evolved than men.

    I know that it’s been said here many, many times, but it bears infinite repeating: this applies to Protestant evangelical girls as well, to the one hundredth power.

  572. Marissa says:

    Perhaps the origins of feminist degeneracy were spawned by an alliance of ugly but upwardly mobile women, who wanted to lower the quality of the dating/mating/marriage pool so as to make themselves more attractive to the top men, and unattractive and upwardly-mobile men, who thought that the same ends would give them a competitive edge.

    What’s interesting is how some of the top men support it, much like many of them did during the Progressive movement in the U.S. and U.K. and the rush to feudalism in the last century, give or take a few decades. To me these movements mostly have a similar structure: take for instance, temperance. There are the useful idiots/true believers (the women’s groups and Puritans). There are the opportunistic middlemen (rumrunners up to mafiosos). Then there are the “big picture” guys like John D. Rockefeller, who, while being a true believer, also profited from the fact that the Model T could run on gasoline and alcohol, and removing the cheap, homemade option in a country of agriculturists would make him a lot of money. You can see how your traditionalist, say, German families visiting biergartens after church on Sunday would have their community meeting/politicking/networking opportunities completely destroyed.

    And this isn’t even something aimed at destroying the family and community directly. You can see the equivalent play out in feminism, though I don’t think I need to lay out the structure as the people here already know it. You even see the same people victimized by the process. Though I do think Vox’s Greek alphabet might be more accurate when talking about this specific issue.

  573. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I did read Marx a long time ago, probably before many of you were born as a guess. I did not and do not feel a major urge to read it again.

    My comment on reading Marx was directed very obviously to a person who expects us to provide sources for anything we say though he does not. I no longer do homework.

    I have been talking a lot to my son by long distance. I read Marx et al long before he was born, and am not going to do it again. He is reading many of these names right now, correlating it with what Obama is trying to do to this nation. Since we have nit-pickers here wasting lots of time disputing everything anyone says and holding themselves up as basic resources, I will ask him — once — for the numerical details on what he has been telling me about. Which happens to agree in concept with what I read before most of you were born. Once.

    There were certain things that must be done to destroy a society. One of them is destroy the influence of the family, including all members, and put government in charge. This not only happened in Russia; it also happened in Germany under the Socialist party in charge.

    Some of you remind me of Bible Thumpers who agonize over the exact meaning of an obscure verse deep in the Old Testament, arguments that never end, because no one is really sure what it all means, yet assumes only his version is correct. Instead of simply presenting his side and letting the readers make up their own mind. And, in the overall scheme of things, much of it matters not at all. The rights of men 20 years from now is not dependent upon any commenter defeating the opinion of others. My generation accomplished nothing because everyone fought and bickered with each other, instead of our enemies, thus our enemies ran the ball up and down the field getting 7 points at each end. Just as your generation is doing with such finesse.

    And, I have no idea what Opus is talking about. This is a comment section on one of the most powerful blogs in the manosphere, and different men express different opinions, which is the way it is supposed to be. Leave it to an attorney to declare it to be a court, and thus debate should be stopped because his honor says so. That is a privilege restricted to Dalrock.

    Here is a quick hit, which is all I am going to look for now:

    Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.
    – The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. (My translation.)

    Okay, Boxer, tell us what it really means… Or, what you want it to really mean…

  574. Marissa that was an excellent post. I didn’t know that about Rockerfeller (profitting from the 18th Amendment to the Constitution by being in the oil business.) But I guess that makes perfect sense. Please post more.

  575. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon71:

    Thanks again for proving that you’re prone to lecturing on subjects which you are clueless about.

    Okay, Boxer, tell us what it really means… Or, what you want it to really mean…

    Since Anon71 isn’t interested in a serious discussion, I’ll point any bystanders to the word “bourgeois”. Here it is in the context of the family:

    Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    What uncle Karl was criticizing was not traditional monogamy, but playas like myself, who had a “system of wives in common”. In the old days, playas like me were usually married to a woman, though I think Marx would give me the beetle brows despite my bachelorhood. No doubt he’d have told me to start working in a factory, and criticized me for my bourgeois nature.

    Marx was married, by the way, and monogamous, having seven children by his wife Jenny.

    My translation

    LOLOLOL! Do you contribute to Marxists dot org? Here is “your translation” over at Andy Blunden’s site.

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

    You don’t even know the context, much less how to translate from the original.

    Now, “Anonymous”, I’ll apologize for ever taking you seriously, and put you in the ignore pile with all the other internet warriors and blowhards. I trust my point has been amply made.

    Regards, Boxer

  576. Eidolon says:

    @8to12

    The point of my story is not that a woman would sympathize with Johnny, it’s that a woman would viscerally despise Johnny by the end of it. She would probably not recognize the same pattern as Jenny’s, like the listener to Jesus’s parable didn’t recognize himself in it, but you might be able to get her to see it in retrospect. Once she has expressed her utter contempt for Johnny, we can go through the steps:

    1. Gets married
    2. Exhorts marriage and fidelity
    3. Doesn’t get what he wants/needs from his spouse (he asks for something, she doesn’t give it)
    4. Feels unhappy
    5. Convinces himself that God will let him off the hook for betraying his spouse because he’s unhappy
    6. Betrays his spouse
    7. Exhorts betrayal of spouses

    These are, of course, the exact same actions Jenny took, just with a masculine twist. A woman would not feel disgust for a woman deciding to betray her husband because she’s unhappy, but I think she would feel it strongly if she imagined a man choosing to betray his wife because he’s unhappy. She wouldn’t see it as unreasonable for a woman to choose to backstab her spouse because she wasn’t getting something from him that she wanted or needed to be happy, but I think she would definitely see it as contemptible for a man to do it. I don’t know if she could then be led to the conclusion that though we may instinctively feel differently about the two cases they are in fact morally equivalent, though.

  577. Boxer says:

    Dear Free Riker:

    I know that it’s been said here many, many times, but it bears infinite repeating: this applies to Protestant evangelical girls as well, to the one hundredth power.

    I’ve talked to Jews who say the same thing (i.e. don’t ever date a Jewish girl, they’re terrible, etc.) I think feminism is ruining all religions, and ruining atheism too (google atheism plus for some really insane feminist antics).

    I guess my point was that Mormons aren’t a fount of patriarchal masculinity. If we were, I’d probably start observing again, just to hang out with men who aren’t ashamed to be men. As it is, I’ve got the dalrock blog on the internet, and that’s about it.

    Regards, Boxer

  578. I think feminism is ruining all religions…

    Yup… in Western Civilization for sure.

  579. Ton says:

    The RCC had married priest but the church was losing out on cash when children inherited money instead of the church. That’s why priests are single.

  580. I posted a response to another commenter at Jenny’s that hasn’t gotten through moderation (although more recent posts have). I was hoping to put it her 1. for posterity and 2. so someone can let me know if perhaps my theology is all wrong or I misremembered anything.

    Here is the first commenter:

    I think it’s awesome when the literal freaks crawl out of the swamps & start claiming that Christianity is about adherence to literal Biblical “authority”. It’s a religion dreamed up by the Apostle Paul some 75 years after the crucifixion of Christ (whom he never even met) which just cloaks an ideal that the only way to Heaven is through Christ as your savior & authority. And if you want to follow Christ, it might not hurt to read the parts He actually contributed to. Jesus wasn’t an asshole & it’s never been a Biblical prerequisite of Christ followers to act like assholes either. And if you claim to live a life of service declaring your desire to be more like Jesus by calling yourself a Christian, it would be more “Biblically” adherent if you didn’t make snide, judgmental, dipshit-like posts on a stranger’s blog so that you could satisfy your need to feel superior to someone you don’t even know. You just like to tell other people what to do and how they’re wrong & use religion like a stick to bash people over the head. Which… Duh, is why a large part of the population abhors Christians, but still thinks Jesus was awesome.

    And my response:

    And if you want to follow Christ, it might not hurt to read the parts He actually contributed to. Jesus wasn’t an asshole & it’s never been a Biblical prerequisite of Christ followers to act like assholes either.

    Jesus calls a Canaanite woman a dog: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:21-28

    Jesus says you must hate your parents to follow him: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&version=NIV

    Jesus says you must suffer (“take up my cross”) for him: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A24-26&version=ESV

    I could go on.

    The point is not that Jesus is/was a jerk (indeed, contextually, these statements are still harsh, but not as outright insulting as they are in isolation). But he wasn’t the friendly, nice, love everybody hippy he’s made out to be, either. He was a man on a mission, and he didn’t mince words. Also, he stated that he came for the Jews, NOT the gentiles (see the Canaanite woman I first linked to). It was Paul and the apostles (in Acts) who received the vision that salvation was available to ALL, thanks to the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. So if you are going to act like Paul’s not worth listening to, when the apostles seemed to have readily welcomed him and his teachings, if you are going to suggest we read ONLY the teachings of Jesus, then we are still not saved.

    And if you claim to live a life of service declaring your desire to be more like Jesus by calling yourself a Christian, it would be more “Biblically” adherent if you didn’t make snide, judgmental, dipshit-like posts on a stranger’s blog so that you could satisfy your need to feel superior to someone you don’t even know.

    While there have admittedly been some nasty elements here, it is also worthwhile to note that sometimes the loving, Christ-like thing to do is to NOT be nice and pretend nothing is wrong. Even Jesus tells the adulteress “sin no more” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:53-8:11). If a child reaches to touch a hot burner, it is NOT loving to “be nice” and let the child do so. It is loving to stop the child, and scold them so they don’t make the mistake again, even if the child doesn’t like the scolding. Now, not all sins have immediate repercussions in the way touching a hot burner does, but this only makes them more insidious, as we don’t realize how far we’ve gone astray until it is too late. It is under these circumstances we MOST need for other Christians to be loving, not nice, and to point out our errors so we can correct them. Many (not all) of the manosphere commenters are taking this approach, just as Jenny’s church has clearly done. And many more commenters do not expect their words to have any effect on Jenny (and, indeed, have no love for Jenny individually) but are more concerned that others might see their words and not fall into the same mistakes and temptations that Jenny seems to be reveling in. This is more motivated in love, that other sisters in Christ may not suffer in the way Jenny undoubtedly will, whether or not she admits to it.

  581. MarcusD says:

    On the topic of moral disengagement:

    Bandura, Albert. “Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency.” Journal of moral education 31.2 (2002): 101-119.

    Read it here: http://www.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Resources/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf

  582. MarcusD says:

    The RCC had married priest but the church was losing out on cash when children inherited money instead of the church. That’s why priests are single.

    Not quite. That certainly is part of the reason, but consider this: how can a priest tend to a family and to his congregation with the same effort he could put forward if either were his single task?

    There is also a theological side to it, in that a priest is “married” to the Church. That said, priestly celibacy is an issue of discipline, not doctrine, so it could be changed tomorrow.

  583. Ton says:

    How can a priest help in family life if he has not been there and done that? Dudes who run churches are supposed to mature men, long marriages, with successful families. Whatever loops the RCC jumps through to get around that fact doesn’t make it correct.

  584. Boxer says:

    Dear Ton:

    How can a priest help in family life if he has not been there and done that? Dudes who run churches are supposed to mature men, long marriages, with successful families. Whatever loops the RCC jumps through to get around that fact doesn’t make it correct.

    I used to agree with you, until I met some real live RCC priests. (I studied at a jesuit university as a younger man.)

    You know what I think? The original western church fathers made their priests celibate as a signal to women, and as a symbol of fatherhood to emulate for men — and in those cases where you find an old school priest, it works!

    Sure, the average priest might have a dalliance once or twice, but to 99.9% of women, he has the position of “amused mastery” that roissy talks about, and nothing garners the respect of a woman more than a man who laughs at all her excuses, calls her out on her bad behavior, and mocks her attempt at offering him pussy in order to get a pardon for whatever crime she may have committed.

    The only man that most women have ever had that experience with (no sexual appeal and absolute accountability) is a biological father or grandfather, and that is not an accident.

    Regards, Boxer

  585. Ashley lakes says:

    Marissa

    You made a great case for why women should never join the military.

    Good point. Why are women in the military again?

  586. Pingback: The Stir’s Cafe moms: it’s about “forgiveness” | Lucius Somesuch

  587. margaret1910 says:

    Although, certainly Latin Rite priests are the majority, we also have Eastern Rite priests in the Catholic Church..Maronite, Syriac, Ukrainian, etc. Eastern Catholic priests are usually married. Not a problem for the Catholic Church. As they say, it is a discipline for the Western (Latin) Rite..not a doctrine.

  588. Bucho says:

    @Anonymous age 71

    “He then spent five minutes lecturing men how important it is that men dress modestly and somehow neglected to discuss modesty in feminine dress.”

    That’s apples to oranges. I’d be interested in what he used as examples.

    Does he mean not wearing muscle shirts and nut-buster jeans? You really have to be in shape to pull that look off and I don’t see to many men in everyday places dressed like that. But, I haven’t been checking out other men, so I could be wrong….

    Does he mean men shouldn’t wear a finely-tailored suit? Dressing sharp makes a statement to both males and females. If you are out making sales calls to high level executives, you need to dress to impress.

    Does he mean men shouldn’t were tacky t-shirts? OK, I maybe can see the argument there, although, I really doubt that the woman would get tingles after seeing some man wearing wearing a t-shirt that says, “A race without a buzz is a race that never was….”

    Maybe his wife had just bawled him out for his Walmart clearance rack collared shirts and rather than justifying his skin-flint wardrobe choices to his lady, he decided to create a sense of affirmation with a captive audience.

  589. eon says:

    This is why Boxer is full of shit: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/03/29/younger-women-turning-to-domesticity/#comment-141054

    And Boxer “has been responded to already”: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/03/29/younger-women-turning-to-domesticity/#comment-142559

    And then the rest of the readers on that thread shut down Boxer’s comments, and he scurried away. You were there, Opus, so what is your excuse here?

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to listen to Boxer repeat the same old shit over and over and over again.” Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás Lzlzzozlzo

  590. BradA says:

    @Cane,

    I believe the Scriptural evidence is that Adam was there with Eve and did nothing:

    [Gen 3:6 NKJV] 6 So when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

    Note that it says he was “with her”. I would be curious how you read this differently.

    Way too far behind to read all the comments, but I would note that divorce has a negative impact on children’s lives even after one of the parents has died. I deal with issues myself, on and off now, even though my father died over a decade ago. My mother even got mad at him for dieing so long ago when my sister died last year. Like he could have controlled prostate cancer at that point….

    Idiotic lady that is linked to here.

  591. BradA says:

    @peoplegrowing,

    My first attempt to post once there got eating because I had NoScript running. A second attempt went through, though I don’t expect to return.

    I despise the idea that divorce has “no long term impact on children.”

  592. Liz says:

    Holy crap. Just read through that blog for the first time and invested almost two hours I’ll never get back. The Keurig coffee maker drama, skydiving (that’s expensive, how the hell did she afford that when she says she’s strapped for cash?) et al.
    I’m so glad I’m not like this. Some women are seriously nutters. Nutter unfunx 1000. I feel for the kids, can’t imagine living with that.

  593. Liz says:

    Advice to Jenny Erikson: There are doubtless countless times, every single day, when you ask yourself if you’re crazy….at such times you deflect away, I’m sure…to someone or something else. It’s you, love. The tattoo, the skydiving, the marriage death by a thousand cuts which really means there’s no reason beyond your own self-inflicted daily dose of cray cray. Accept that you are crazy, the problem is you.

    The next time you pontificate inwardly over some imagined slight/outrage try to distance your mind from yourself, acknowledge that your hormones are out of whack and making you wacky, and dismiss those thoughts. Think of it as a personal exorcism. You might have to do this many many times a day but eventually it will be a reflexive response and you’ll be far less unstable. And then everyone around you will be so much better off.

  594. Art Deco says:

    1. This woman is repellant.
    2. The criticisms offered of her husband on this board are repellant.

  595. Art Deco says:

    The RCC had married priest but the church was losing out on cash when children inherited money instead of the church. That’s why priests are single.

    Um, no. Celibacy has been the default in the the Church from the beginning. The original apostles were commonly married men and the ordination of married men (not the marriage of the ordained) is still permissible in certain contingencies in the Western Church. The Eastern Churches allowed ordination of married men as a matter of routine from the 7th century, but bishops in the Eastern Churches are celibates and commonly drawn from monastic orders.

  596. Ton says:

    You are full of more shit then a Christmas turkey. A cursory reading of early European history talks about married priest and the like back when the Roman church was the only church

  597. earl says:

    “How can a priest help in family life if he has not been there and done that?”

    Ever try running a church? The priest I know has more “honey do” items on his list than the average married male.

    The church is his bride…and the congregation is his children.

  598. Bee says:

    @greyghost,

    “BTW African American culture is nothing more that government enforced feminine imperative for blacks.”

    Early feminist leaders were not blacks. Looking at communities; why are we seeing this first among ghetto blacks?

  599. Opus says:

    I was just reflecting that there is considerable dislike (to put it mildly) in England of Roman Catholics (they used to be banned here you know and their reinstatement led to five days of rioting in London where the rioters said they would rather fight French than Americans – this was 1779). We usually and conveniently conflate dislike of Roman Catholics with our equal dislike of The French. It is a few years since I was last to witness this and it is probably illegal now, but they burned effigies of The Pope on 5th November at the Bonfire Societies on the South Downs – and elsewhere for all I know.

    The only Catholics you will meet in England are those rare English Catholics whose family (like the Duke of Norfolk) remained loyal to Rome after the Reformation, or the far more numerous Irish, or Poles. The expression English Catholic is thus an Oxymoron. The going rate by the way for an Anglican Vicar is a mere £23,000 per annum but lodging is provided free. Gone are the days when all Anglican Vicars or Parsons were also graduates of Oxford or Cambridge Universities and were married to splendid tweed-wearing women.

  600. Ton says:

    Who do you want to teach you how to shoot a 1000 yard shot? Me or a guy who has read a book and watched a bunch of long distance shooting contests? Who do you want to help you work out your responsibilities as a husband/ father? A man with a 50 year marriage and a dozen grandkids or a guy who has watched others do it?

    I know your answer because you have drank the kool-aide.

    And that still side steps what the Bible says about the kind of men who should run churches.

  601. arid2385 says:

    It’s not as if priests were raised by wolves and know nothing of family life. But more importantly, the chief function of the priest is to celebrate Mass, not be the marriage counselor. There are plenty of Catholic family therapists and marriage prep programs in parishes run by laypersons. It’s much more a Protestant Evangelical tradition to make the pastor the centerpiece and end all and be all of the congregation (yes, been there).

  602. earl says:

    Oh the experience versus intelligence debate. Why choose?

    I’d listen to both…because they have different perspectives on the situation. Wisdom is the combination of both.

  603. Cane Caldo says:

    @Brad

    Note that it says he was “with her”. I would be curious how you read this differently.

    I don’t think I do read it differently. I don’t see how it makes a difference whether he was “with her” right at her side, “with her” in that part of the garden, or if it means “with her” as opposed to her being “with him”,i.e., he was in agreement with her.

  604. Minesweeper says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    December 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    feeriker, Having a professional, salaried clergy is, IMO, the Achilles heel of institutional, established Christianity.

    We agree.
    I wont join a church unless the clergy isn’t paid.

    Seconded!

  605. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ashley Lakes
    Why are women in the military again?

    Because under the blank-slate fallacy all people are inherently the same, and therefore any difference in the membership of any group must be due to discrimination. Blank-slatism of the form “men and women are exactly the same in all capabilities except women can have babies” is a fundamental premise of feminism. Therefore, any group such as the military, or doctors, or computer scientists, that is not exactly 50% female is obviously engaging in sexual discrimination, and must be put right, by appropriate means. For now that means legislation.

    So women are in the military nowadays because of feminism. And the push to put women into every unit, including line infantry, stems from the above blank-slate feminism.

  606. Opus says:

    America is a very strange place: you are all seriously religious, yet Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion. England however, where no one is interested, has a Head of State appointed by God himself and under his guidance has established all over the country in even the smallest village, Churches with stipendiary Vicars for the care of people’s souls. A sort of Windsor-care, free at point of entry too. Hobbes was of the view that the religion of the country should be decided by its Prince – a view to which I am fairly sympathetic.

    May I add that Anglicans regard themselves as catholic (the Roman variety being heretical in their eyes) and are thus not Protestant of either the Lutheran or Calvinistic variety.

  607. Greg C says:

    In reference to something talked about last night. I do believe we all have moral agency, male and female. The problem we are facing, in these days, is really simple, to me. We are in the midst of a spiritual war. I don’t know if it is just ironic or not. But Satan has chosen the woman again as the tool to deceive many, through the spirit of feminism/Jezebel. Satan has many weapons/spirits he uses against us, but I think that the spirit of feminism/Jezebel is his most prized weapon. And he uses it to steal, kill, and destroy as many as possible, to prevent us from having an eternal relationship with God. He uses the spirit of feminism/Jezebel to deceive the minds of women, and some manginas, and blind them to the truth that many once believed. Therefore taking away there ability to think morally. Case in point, my ex of 4 years now. When I married her 15 years ago, she was a Godly woman, and even spoke that divorce was not an option at all for a follower of Christ. In the big picture, things were relatively perfect until about year 10. Within 1 year it was all gone. After some financial hardships, a part-time job loss for her, the usual hardships of parenting two toddlers, some illness and physical hardships for her, and depression, Satan finally found that open door he had been waiting for to usher in the spirit of feminism/Jezebel. One of which was through her mother, Mother Jezebel.

  608. passerby says:

    America is a very strange place: you are all seriously religious, yet Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion. England however, where no one is interested, has a Head of State appointed by God himself

    Proof that the government can’t do anything right. Leave it to the private sector — it’s chaotic but far more productive.

  609. BradA says:

    @Cane,

    So you don’t believe the “with her” there means close proximity, but one of the other things you note. I still think close proximity makes more sense, but thanks for letting me see the other views. That was why I asked.

    @Art Deco,

    How do you validate the claim that celibacy was in the RCC from the beginning? I do not believe that fits with reality. All I have read indicates it was imposed in the Middle Ages because of the inheritance problem mentioned above.

  610. BradA says:

    Paul wrote that someone who focused on preaching the Gospel had the right to live by that. I disagree with the idea that it is only the ‘paid aspect” that is the problem. The issue is one of who is the true Lord, not who writes the checks.

    One who is believing man for their support is not believing their Lord for the support and may not even be a servant of that Lord. I would even question more the one who is relying on the works of their own hands for their support as that does not seem to be the Biblical principle. That may be necessary for a time, per Paul, but it is not the normal state of things, also per Paul. The early Apostles said they should be devoted to being prepared for ministry as well. You can’t do that if you have a normal job today.

    Many are hirelings, but that is independent of the source of the paycheck.

  611. MarcusD says:

    And: http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/

    See, the Bible can be twisted into anything (or made to appear so).

  612. Pingback: You have to pay even if you’ve only *promised* to marry her | RedPillPushers

  613. LiveFearless says:

    Well, to her credit, as far as we know, she did not do as the Married Christian Mother/Christian School Teacher in Cincinnati did. She was suspended for current nude self-pics appearing online. Married Mother, Christian Teacher – the local parents (and all popular media) are clear: “The woman is already a victim” http://wp.me/P3P5mL-9p

  614. Pingback: She's With You, But She's An Alpha Widow: Thinking of the One Alpha Male She Can't Let Go Of - LiveFearless

  615. Michael says:

    Has Jenny Erickson responded to any of the articles about her? I don’t see where she has responded. No doubt she is intently reading each word and I would venture it’s a shock to her (as it is to most women today) to read the truth that so many women seem to think men are oblivious too.

    You can thank the Internet for that dear.

    A few weeks ago I was surprised to overhear some young guys in the lobby talking openly about younger women sleeping around and thinking they are going to eat it later by marriage.

    Seems the younger generation might be catching on. Yet Still no mention of the manosphere in man stream news yet. Not even so much as a panel discussion between manosphere representatives and feminists.

  616. earl says:

    The last time the main stream news tried to put something about the manosphere on was 20/20…it got shut down before it was supposed to air and Elizabeth Vargas went into rehab.

  617. cynthia says:

    @ Anonymous Reader,

    Most military people – male and female – are little more than glorified office workers. There’s no real problem with women serving as acquisitions or public affairs or space officers driving satellites, or at least, there hasn’t been. Most are no worse and no better at all that stuff than the men are, and there’s no real justification for keeping them out. Contrary to what men in the manosphere seem to think, there are plenty of women who sign up out a genuine desire to serve their country, and plenty of men who sign up for the bennies. For most of us, it was never about being a good feminist and sticking it to the man; no real, rabid feminist could survive the military environment. (I knew a girl like that, she averaged about three meltdowns per month)

    However, if letting women be comm officers is leading to some deranged bureaucrats thinking women should be in the infantry, that’s quite a different. Personally, I’d rather see women barred from military service altogether than allow women into active combat roles, especially those of special forces. If we do let women into those, I’d like to see no ground given on any standard. That means male uniforms, male haircuts, male fitness standards, and forced sterilization.

    Real equality would put an end to all this nonsense, because it would create an unlivable situation. Military women know that. You think any of this is coming from girls in the service?

  618. Ton says:

    What the us constitution forbids is one national church for all 50 states. It doesn’t forbid State churches at the state level. Several States had State churches when they ratified the constitution and were not required to dissolve them.

    Over all discipline standard have dropped like rocks to accommodate women. It’s been a mistake at every level

  619. cynthia says:

    @Marissa

    A lot of women can’t handle it, it’s absolutely true, and I would absolutely not recommend the military to a vast majority of women. I came out of a service academy, and even at that, there were girls who couldn’t deal with the attitudes, the men, etc. There are a few (usually unattractive) women who thrive, quite a few who are professional and do decently, and a few who just implode under the stress. You can make the same distinctions with men, with a slightly larger percentage of them falling into the middle category and slightly fewer in the bottom.

    However, women face quite a few more logistical challenges than men do, in making a military career work in the long-term, and this is especially pronounced in the officer corps. It’s harder to find a good man, make a marriage function, balance career and children, etc, because of the lifestyle. A lot of women end up alone and childless. I got out because I didn’t want that to happen to me. I didn’t want to be the person I was going to have to turn into in order to survive.

    Plus, I’ve heard that something like 10% of all deployed women get sent back home early due to pregnancy. There’s always that one bitch who’s willing to get pregnant to get out of her service obligation. Personally, I think birth control should be mandatory in those environments (as in, you go into the clinic and get a shot every week, no exceptions) and women who get pregnant should be riffed out, but leadership would never do that. The top brass at the Pentagon is running scared right now, but that’s more a matter of national politics than gender dynamics.

  620. LiveFearless says:

    @Earl It wasn’t shut down. What happened was the plan. The culture creation industry has chosen a man to represent your ideas & your movement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij69NeNgdB8

  621. tacomaster2 says:

    Wow, Feminsthater, tell us how you really feel.

    But seriously, she is a horrible home wrecker who will destroy her children and ex-husbands’ lives, but at least she’ll be haaaaaappppyyyy.

  622. Ton says:

    Women are happy when they harm others

  623. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    I was just reflecting that there is considerable dislike (to put it mildly) in England of Roman Catholics

    Some of this sentiment remained in North America until recently, and I had always attributed it to Nordic immigration (thirty-years war and all that).

    Interesting to note that one of the most vociferous anti-Catholics in the 19th century, over here, was a dude named Lyman Beecher. He rode a circuit giving speeches, declaring that if the USA accepted any influx of catholic immigrants, it would be the end of the republic, and shortly thereafter we’d all be living in some sort of totalitarian catholic dictatorship, pledging allegiance to the pope, and other such stuff. In fact, a couple of generations later, the Catholic immigrants everyone was so afraid of had formed a uniquely American form of Catholicism. America exported this religious idea into places like Poland and Hungary during the cold war.

    I think old Beecher is interesting because he was the father of Harriet Beecher, who grew up to author a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin. A lot of conflict in the subtext there. Harriet is in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church of the United States (America’s Anglicans) and some of Lyman’s work (not the anti-Catholic stuff) gets read in Presbyterian seminaries.

    The only people who hate Catholics over here any more are nutters (the KKK, etc.) who aren’t taken seriously by the mainstream.

    Best, Boxer

  624. Boxer says:

    America is a very strange place: you are all seriously religious, yet Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

    That’s sort of a quaint vew of America. I gotta tellya, most of the Americans of my generation have never set foot in a church, unless it was to go pick up chicks. The closest the average Americano ever gets to an authentic religious experience is in the awe he feels toward his ipod, his Dodge Ram or his new Adidas.

    If I were living in the UK and hanging on Dalrock blog, I’d assume that the average American is a Protestant or Catholic intellectual, well educated, erudite, and highly interested in ethical idealism. I’m sure I’d be puzzled by the fare on the American television, with its teenagers “twerking” and its protagonists consisting of overweight little kids who think they are beauty queens, and scroungy pawnbrokers who rip people off.

    Boxer

  625. Christians 4 Christ! says:

    “America is a very strange place: you are all seriously religious, yet Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

    Separation of religion and state is to ensure that no particular religion or sect is state sponsored. I wouldn’t say most Americans are “seriously” religious, but the majority of us do believe in a Higher Power and many of us do identify with one religion or another. Buddhism is currently the fastest growing religion here and I’m impressed by how seriously they take their practices.