Stiff competition.

The competition for the title of the Christian Manosphere’s biggest cliché is heating up.  Watch out Jenny Erikson, the upcoming movie Christian Mingle will be hard to beat:

‘Christian Mingle’ is about a young, modern, single woman. She’s trying to achieve it all – a successful career, amazing friends and finding Mr. Right

She stumbles into the world of online dating looking for an instant ‘soul mate solution,’ but ultimately ends up taking a personal journey transforming her life.

As the article explains, our husband hunting Christian career gal is a “30-something marketing executive”.

You can’t make this stuff up.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Jenny Erikson. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Stiff competition.

  1. It this movie sponsored by the dating site, or do we have a trademark infringement dust-up to look forward to?

    [D: According to the article the movie is linked to the site.]

  2. Toddy Cat says:

    Just out of curiosity, unless you hang out with the Algonquin Round Table, Spider Man, Mother Teresa, or Seal Team Six, who describes their friends as “amazing”? Trustworthy, brave, kind, fun, understanding sure, but “amazing”? Who eve wants “amazing” friends?

  3. deti says:

    The dating site would have to be associated with the movie or there’d have to be a disclaimer; trademark usage and confusion would abound otherwise.

  4. deti says:

    Also from the article:

    “In the process of that journey, Gweneth [the intrepid 30-something marketing executive] finds that her lack of faith – not a man – is keeping her from happiness. She creates a relationship with God, and ultimately finds a “life-changing” love.”

    The more realistic ending would be that Gweneth finds God, a deep and lasting faith, and accepts her singleness, living out her life in repentance. God is her “life-changing love”. She continues in her high-flying job but spends her weekends as a Sunday School teacher. But we cannot have that ending because it won’t make anyone “feel good”.

    American audiences want happy endings. That means in this movie after she finds God, her first “life changing love”;, her “reward” will be that she finds will be the perfect man; the alpha with a touch of beta: The Christian George Clooney, simultaneously wealthy, kind, dashing, handsome, devout and spiritual. The “reformed” Alpha McGorgeous. He will instantly fall to his knees and propose marriage, whereupon they will honeymoon in Monte Carlo and live in White Plains.

    Thus women discover that God is not just a good God, but He is a “god of goodies”. Follow Me and you’ll get your earthly reward: Harley McBadboy with no tattoos, but with a house in White Plains and a Honda Odyssey in addition to his Harley.

  5. Boxer says:

    Thus women discover that God is not just a good God, but He is a “god of goodies”. Follow Me and you’ll get your earthly reward: Harley McBadboy with no tattoos, but with a house in White Plains and a Honda Odyssey in addition to his Harley.

    That’s about it. Women don’t tend to see religion as men do (i.e. as a discipline to be lived). For women, religion is all about adopting a label, having status, choosing an ingroup, etc. Jesus is not a character in the text to use as an example of an ethical life, but, like, my s00per accepting bff, who tells me that I’m like, right, no matter what! etc.

  6. jf12 says:

    Let me guess. Christian McGrey’s whip snaps in half midswing, and they both take it as a sign from God to give up their sinful lifestyle and get married so she can whip him instead.

  7. Opus says:

    Imagine…

    ‘Christian Grey is a movie about a young, forty-something, single-man. He is achieving it all: a successful career, plenty of money, his own place and a sports car, rich and successful friends but somehow cannot find Miss Right.

    He stumbles [how do you do that?] into the world of on-line dating looking for his Soul-Mate but ultimately takes a journey transforming his personal life and finds Jesus!’.

    Such a movie [it screams loser] will never be made but there is happily a very similar Christian Movie called ‘Two a Penny’ where Cliff Richard plays a bad-boy gangster who discovers God. So…

    ‘Christian Mingle is about a wall-banging marketing slut whose life and work are a major disaster area , never in a job for more than a year always falling out with her BFFs and going from one Alpha male to the next.

    In desperation she turns to Plenty of Fish looking for another casual hook-up whilst hoping against hope for Mr Right Now, when one day she finds God – and acquires a cute little Moggy.’

  8. brian says:

    Is it just me, or are all the women in the Christian Mingle commercials high-N carousel riders on the cusp of hitting the wall?

  9. Women don’t tend to see religion as men do (i.e. as a discipline to be lived). For women, religion is all about adopting a label, having status, choosing an ingroup, etc.

    Truer words have never been spoken.

  10. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Women don’t tend to see religion as men do (i.e. as a discipline to be lived). For women, religion is all about adopting a label, having status, choosing an ingroup, etc.

    This is because men, having rightly recognized the discipline, tend to reject it. Combined, this has a corrupting effect where the practice of religion becomes absent of manly discipline, and filled only with womanly sorts of community.

  11. Thinkn'Man says:

    @innocent:
    “Religion”, and that other famous fem-buzzword that women love to bandy about: “spiritual.”
    Ask the woman in question what “spiritual” means, and you get a rambling mish-mosh of some cross of Oprah, Echkhardt Tolle, Ellen, and a few select lines she remembers from various rom-coms about “soulmates”.
    Gaaack.

  12. Let me guess. Christian McGrey’s whip snaps in half midswing, and they both take it as a sign from God to give up their sinful lifestyle and get married so she can whip him instead.

    Winner.

    /comments

  13. I can hardly wait until this makes the rounds on:

    • The ‘christian feminist’ forums and blogs I lurk on occasionally. The indignation alone should make for some good copy. The vitriol is prewritten for them since it a.) has a woman as a lead character, b.) the plot presupposes she should need to find her life’s “fulfillment” by find the right man and c.) ‘teh patriarchal church’ luvs it.

    • All my churchy friends’ FaceBook feeds. Mainstream Churchians will gush about it for 3 months prior to its release; because it’s a ‘Christian Movie’ and those movies never get a fair shake with MSM publicity so they need ‘relevant’ churches to promote them in the church foyer with neat logo’d tables, posters and endorsement pamphlets from prominent christian social groups. But as it’s already Christian Kosher® and pre-approved (movie unseen) FaceBook christians will be all aflutter promoting it until its premiere.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    As the article explains, our husband hunting Christian career gal is a “30-something marketing executive”.

    Gee, I wonder if the movie will include any of the career gal’s backstory, explaining how she got to be a single 30-something marketing exec? Cynically, I doubt that will be included.

    So this movie, it’s going to be an extended dramatized informercial for the Christian Mingle service, it appears. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself – I know a woman who straightened up and got married via eHarmony, and she’s still married as of Christmas – but it does seem a wee bit over the top.

  15. Dalrock,

    I don’t have a problem with Christian Mingle. I tend to think that on-line dating is a pretty efficent way for people to meet (people who are approachable) to get married. If you set up a profile then the biggest hurdle men have about approaching women (if they are even available) is a hurdle they needn’t worry about, so that makes things easier. The annoying aspect of movies like this is that i portrays an unrealistic vision of what that life (on-line dataing) is really like. I think it would be far more interesting if Corbin Bernson directed a documentary movie where they spent far less money (a fraction of the money for Lacy Chabaret) and followed the real life of someone who used the site. I’d pay to watch that.

  16. Desiderius says:

    “This is because men, having rightly recognized the discipline, tend to reject it. Combined, this has a corrupting effect where the practice of religion becomes absent of manly discipline, and filled only with womanly sorts of community.”

    Once again, Cane gets things exactly backwards. Churchianity, in a futile attempt to bend to every last female shit test (i.e. by bending to them, actually failing time and again to pass any) has eliminated every last iota of discipline from their practice. Then they wonder where the men went.

    Please review how this is the fault of men, Cane, other than the cowards who frame things this way to curry favor with the womanly sorts, male and female. Why are you joining their number again? Have you learned nothing?

  17. Once again, Cane gets things exactly backwards. Churchianity, in a futile attempt to bend to every last female shit test (i.e. by bending to them, actually failing time and again to pass any) has eliminated every last iota of discipline from their practice. Then they wonder where the men went.

    They must.

    The women pick the church and the Pastor is paid by the church. His salary is directly dependant on the tithes and the members sitting in the pews. Preaching truth means no women which means no members which means no donations or tithes which means no salary for the Pastor.

  18. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desiderius

    Once again, Cane gets things exactly backwards.

    Do tell.

    Churchianity, in a futile attempt to bend to every last female shit test (i.e. by bending to them, actually failing time and again to pass any) has eliminated every last iota of discipline from their practice.

    One might say these men rejected the religion of Christianity.

    Then they wonder where the men went.

    One might further say that the men who abandoned Christianity to the women and those men who rejected the discipline (and therefore Christianity), had, you know, also rejected Christianity; just more fully.

    Please review how this is the fault of men, Cane,

    I think this should be clear now.

    other than the cowards who frame things this way to curry favor with the womanly sorts, male and female.

    That is quite a gerrymandering of the map of the rejection of Christianity you have there.

    Why are you joining their number again? Have you learned nothing?

    You lack clarity; as your considerable time defending and participating in Hooking Up Smart should have shown you.

  19. crowhill says:

    Does anybody else find this wording a little odd (from the article Dalrock linked) …

    “She creates a relationship with God ….”

  20. Cane and Desi,

    Wait…. you are both right….. and both wrong.

    Then they wonder where the men went.

    One might further say that the men who abandoned Christianity to the women and those men who rejected the discipline (and therefore Christianity), had, you know, also rejected Christianity; just more fully

    Good Christian men know that they have headship in their households. They get married. A couple years later conversation goes down like this….

    (her) “I don’t like that church you are taking me. That Pastor makes me uncomfortable. Lets go someplace else”

    (him) “No. He preaches the Gospel. We stay there. I want to raise our children theree.”

    (her) “Well…. I don’t like the parts of the Bible he quotes.”

    (him) “What parts?”

    (her) Sigh… “…the stupid parts, the outdated parts!”

    (him) “What are those?”

    (her) “The stuff about me obeying you!”

    (him) “Thats in the Bib..”

    (her) “I don’t give a FUCK!!!!!! I do NOT Obey you, we are EQUALS!”

    (him) “But that is not in the Bi…”

    (her) “I am not going back to that church. The Pastor makes me uncomfotable. We are picking another church, one where I am comfortable.”

    (him) “You don’t get to make that choice.”

    (her) Placing divorce papers on the table in front of him. “I knew you would say that so I drew this up. If you want to stay married, we are going to go to a church that I want. If not, I’ll divorce you, take the house, take our kid, and you’ll be giving me money. But I am done talking about this.”

    And so it goes.

    She has threatpoint. Threatpoint gives her power. That power enables her to choose a church that makes her more comfortable (not one that speaks the truth.) And if he tries to use headship, che can invoke threatpoint and nuke the family. In the end, her comfort on Sunday is more important than her family. Such is the case in so many marriages. And her husband bends to her wishes for the sake of his children. What choice does he have? None that I can see.

  21. Aquila says:

    They should make one from the male perspective. Perfectly normal guy makes profile (let’s put him on the handsome side to make it a little easier on him, gets a ton of messages from atrociously fat chicks. Goes through hundreds of profiles where women hardly say anything, but demand a custom, entertaining message tailored to them that PROOOVES you read their profile, or they “won’t reply.” Every women’s “first things men notice about me” says “my eyes.” He gets multiple return messages from fairly hot women, but he asks for their number too soon or too late, he didn’t read their minds to discover the magic number by which she “knows a guy enough” to give him her number. He gets a date with a girl, but she is offended all he wants to do is get a coffee and talk for 30 minutes rather than take her out and spend $270 when he never even met her just yet. He meets multiple girls who are at least 30 lbs heavier than they looked in their pictures. He meets some girls who look pretty, as they did in their pictures, but drop total deal killers, such as talking about how their “wild college days” are behind them, or they didn’t mention it in their profile because it’s “no one’s business” but they “have 2 kids.” One tells him about how she tried to kill herself twice, and that she will probably do it if she has her heart broken again by yet another man, and tells him on day one that she loves him and wrote him a poem (happened to me yo, as did just about all the rest of this stuff). Another talks about how she has a male best friend and they were “f buddies” but now she wants a relationship, but she still hangs out with him (and claims to be a Christian). Another shows up with a SHAVED HEAD and says it was done for kids with cancer (totally forgivable and even noble) but says they like it (seriously) and will probably keep doing it because it’s easier, especially as a runner (not forgivable – also happened to me not too long ago). One girl gets mad he won’t sleep with her on the 2nd date and acts like he’s got commitment issues or is a sissy (and she claims to be very Catholic).

  22. Entropy is my god says:

    Christian Mingle is a blasphemous pustule, a mental cist, a spiritual cancer. It should start thus:
    Our Mother, Hypergamy be thy name,
    Our selfish desires come,
    Our will be done,
    All our lives as it is in our 20’s…

    The truth of how we return to traditional sex roles is a return to traditional life. Screech, harpies and techno savants alike. Screech, unrepentant poolside loungers. Pray your blasphemous payers to your god of convenience. Your prayers ascend to your lecherous and evil deity like the steam from a bowel movement on a snowy day.

    Our society is jezebel, we are forced at gunpoint to worship female depravity, forced to pay for degenerate scum to worship Moloch with child sacrifices. The blood of government funded abortions stains the hand of everyone who does not hope and pray for the end of our wretched, tyrannically sick soul destroying government. We are forced to lose our children to state indoctrination at the hand of Pink hearted, blue shirted, jack boot wearing thugs. We are forced to send children into prison like mental retardation camps espousing transgender perversion, atheist nihilism, and a decidedly anti-white view of history.

    We are worse than Sodom and Gomorrah and none of us are righteous, not a single one (Rom 3:10). For those who will go on to screech about how they are different they are, all of your so called righteousness is a filthy rag (ISA 64:6).

    We are all like that. We are all responsible. We all deserve the ruination and damnation that is coming to us. Polish the brass and reorganize the deck chairs on the titanic of intersexual relations. There is no hope for our destitute and wretched society and we should be happy about that. The sooner it dies the better.

  23. @ IBB:

    (her) Placing divorce papers on the table in front of him. “I knew you would say that so I drew this up. If you want to stay married, we are going to go to a church that I want. If not, I’ll divorce you, take the house, take our kid, and you’ll be giving me money. But I am done talking about this.

    And so it goes.

    She has threatpoint. Threatpoint gives her power. That power enables her to choose a church that makes her more comfortable (not one that speaks the truth.) And if he tries to use headship, che can invoke threatpoint and nuke the family. In the end, her comfort on Sunday is more important than her family. Such is the case in so many marriages. And her husband bends to her wishes for the sake of his children. What choice does he have? None that I can see.

    That’s when a man must stand up and say:

    I’m not changing my decision. If you want to divorce me that’s your prerogative, but I won’t let you sin without fighting it.

    ~You won’t get the children without a fight.
    ~You won’t get the house without a fight.
    ~I will use all of our money to fight against the sinful divorce so that there will be none left.
    ~I will default on any child support and house payments because I won’t support the sinful divorce and any stipulations that goes along with it.
    ~I will be explaining the situation to all of our family and friends that you decided to end the marriage because you didn’t want to honor God’s commands.

    There will be nothing left except God’s grace at the end. That’s all I need.

    Then if she still nukes the marriage he must follow through.

  24. jf12 says:

    @Aquila, hey what were you doing, running around spying on all my dates? But you left out the 30 yr old woman whose first words on our only date were how many children she wanted and what their genders and birth spacings ought to be. I think she already had the nursery decorated by the time I finished introducing myself (it may have taken a few minutes, at that).

  25. Desiderius says:

    “One might further say that the men who abandoned Christianity to the women and those men who rejected the discipline (and therefore Christianity)”

    I ask one, simple question:

    What. Fucking. Discipline? Your churchinity offers none, then you have the gall to condemn us for rejecting your mess of pottage you currently offer.

    As if Loyola didn’t inspire generations of manly disciples. Men seek discipline. Your church offers none. Deal.

    We have not abandoned Christianity any more than Christ abandoned Yahweh in calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees who hypocritically claimed to speak in His name.

  26. jf12 says:

    @Entropy. Are you gonna eat your sandwich, or can I have it?

  27. Desiderius says:

    “You lack clarity; as your considerable time defending and participating in Hooking Up Smart should have shown you.”

    Dude, I’m clear as day. Check the plank in your eye if things look blurry.

  28. Aquila,

    First date should be for coffee.. Always. Costs him $3. Takes maybe an hour. Done. If she wont do that (gets offended) she has disqualified herself.

    You take the fat girl out for coffee. If she is fat, there is no date 2.

  29. Entropy is my god says:

    @Jf12

    Explain

  30. ballista74 says:

    @brian

    Is it just me, or are all the women in the Christian Mingle commercials high-N carousel riders on the cusp of hitting the wall?

    I don’t know about the commercials, but that’s all I saw when I had my adventure there: Older than me (think post-wall), high-N carousel riders, now divorced, one or more thug-spawn. Like I wrote there, most who follow this don’t need more than one guess to describe them exactly.

    @crowhill

    Does anybody else find this wording a little odd (from the article Dalrock linked) …

    “She creates a relationship with God ….

    Not really. It’s how the Personal Jesus works.

  31. Ton says:

    Hell must have frozen over because I finally agree with Boston

    Nothing will change a darn thing in marriage until the threat point, cash and prizes are removed

  32. Deep Strength,

    That’s when a man must stand up and say:

    I’m not changing my decision. If you want to divorce me that’s your prerogative…

    She just left the room. You are now talking to no one. She went to go get her phone to call the police because she is afraid of you. She is afraid. You are threatening her, harrassing her. You will now be removed from your own home because this is a domestic violence situation. The next call she makes is to Wells Fargo/Chase/Your Bank to clean out the joint accounts. The third call she makes is to her attorney to start divorce proceedings. There will be no sale of your house. You are removed from it. It is now hers. And you will be paying her money for the rest of your life.

    That is reality. That is what we are talking about here, not everything you mentioned. The law is on her side which is why she picks the church which is why we have Churchianity because Pastors want to be be paid and not have to work outside the church. If the Pastor was a lay Pastor and not paid by the church (the way Dalrock is here on his forum which is very church oriented, as far as I’m concerned) then what you would have is what you mostly have here, a group of men trying to obey the Bible and a few women who get it. We get the 1% of women that care about the Bible and follow it. The 99% that go to other churches, attend ones that only preach what they believe. Joeseph of Jackson is reality.

  33. Escoffier says:

    Holy cow, Turlock!! “Shot on location in Turlock” is a phrase I never thought I would see.

  34. jf12 says:

    @Entropy, as the Titanic is crashing, the flotsam and jetsam still intermingled, what every man must ask himself is “Should I eat this sandwich, or let it sink?”

  35. Aquila says:

    @Boston I agree 100%. It’s fool proof. I cannot believe how many women won’t accept, I think it’s a Midwest thing. I actually come from Boston and not many girls turned down a free Starbucks coffee. Out here the girls are half as rich and yet totally offended if you don’t take them out for a swanky FIRST MEETING FROM THE INTERNET.

    @jf12 I hear ya on that one. One time a girl, who seemed pretty normal, started a conversation on like the 3rd date with “when we get married…” and told me about how her parents are going to watch our kids so she can work full time still (she had a master’s degree in art, and answered phones for a living, so I don’t know how that was fulfilling) and pointed out where the kids bedrooms were going to be. Had names, had probabilities worked out to how they’d look. I actually gave her a shot even after that because at least is was crazy in a wifely direction, but after a while she stopped wearing make up and I wound up falling for a much hotter girl in Turkey where I went for a business trip. Alas, she is also a gazillion miles away. When I was stationed in Korea in the Army I also met a great girl. I should’ve simply shelled out the $$$ to stay with one of them, a quality wife and female friend is so rare it would’ve been worth it.

  36. @Boston I agree 100%. It’s fool proof. I cannot believe how many women won’t accept, I think it’s a Midwest thing. I actually come from Boston and not many girls turned down a free Starbucks coffee. Out here the girls are half as rich and yet totally offended if you don’t take them out for a swanky FIRST MEETING FROM THE INTERNET.

    That is why Christian Mingle works. If they refuse coffee for first date then…. they are not worthy of you. They just disqualified you, but you win. You win because it cost you nothing.

    You are looking for a wife. Any woman you want to be your wife, only women who would consent to coffee date-zero qualifies. If she is a gold-digger (or a dinner-digger) she is disqualified.

    You don’t need a phone number until coffee. You meet at Starbucks (without a phone number, pre determined time) she shows up and if she is fat, you are out $3. Who cares? Certainly not you. You could have 100 date-zeros over two years on Christian Mingle, disqualify them ALL because they are all fat, and you are out $300. Big whoop.

    If she meets for coffee and you like her you get her number. If she wont give a number, tell her she is disqualified. If she throws a pout explain to her that you have no idea if she is married or not. Getting a phone number makes it much harder for a married woman to carry on her shenanigans. If she can’t understand that she is disqualified, you win.

    If she meets for coffee and you likfe her and you get her number, you take it from there.

  37. Mark says:

    @IBB

    Women don’t tend to see religion as men do (i.e. as a discipline to be lived). For women, religion is all about adopting a label, having status, choosing an ingroup, etc.

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    Seconds that!

  38. DeNihilist says:

    CC – “One might further say that the men who abandoned Christianity to the women and those men who rejected the discipline (and therefore Christianity), had, you know, also rejected Christianity; just more fully.”

    Interesting observation. I find in the eastern philosophies, the Indian style Guru’s Ashrams tend to be about 80% women. They tend to follow the feminine path of love to awareness. Whereas in the Japanese Zen Monastaries, the ratio tends to be 90% men. These Masters tend to follow discipline and ill-logic – “neither this nor that” path to awareness.

    Older styling of Christian Churches still rely heavily on the “Fear of God” – high number of men.

    Modern styling of Christian Churches rely on the “Love of Christ” – high number of woman.

  39. Aquila says:

    I’d get her number before even meeting because I need something to call in case I can’t find her or I’m running late. Numerous times I have ran late or simply couldn’t find the girl until I texted her (although some girls excitedly run up and hug me. I always thought that was weird, I can’t get that excited over a stranger, but hugs are good).

  40. But you don’t need it. I wouldn’t demand the phone number. You demand AFTER date-zero.

    Do what you want, but meet at the nearby Starbucks 1 hr after church ends on Sunday. Be there 15 minutes early.

  41. craig says:

    Cane: “This is because men, having rightly recognized the discipline, tend to reject it. Combined, this has a corrupting effect where the practice of religion becomes absent of manly discipline, and filled only with womanly sorts of community.”

    Desiderius: “Once again, Cane gets things exactly backwards. Churchianity, in a futile attempt to bend to every last female shit test (i.e. by bending to them, actually failing time and again to pass any) has eliminated every last iota of discipline from their practice. Then they wonder where the men went.”

    Neither Cane nor Desiderius have it exactly. It’s something bigger and more intractable.

    D’s argument might hold water in congregational Protestantism, but it fails to explain why the Catholic Church followed exactly the same path at the same time. Catholic parishes don’t get to hire and set compensation for their pastors. The trend away from traditional teachings about marriage and family, as well as the decision to abandon traditional disciplines (e.g. meatless Fridays) and traditional ‘vertically-oriented’ worship came from bishops and theologians — trahison des clercs in its literal sense.

    If C’s argument is to be believed, men of a certain generation suddenly realized, as their fathers and grandfathers somehow did not, that Christianity is difficult and resolved to leave it untried (hat tip to G.K. Chesterton). This makes no sense either; in truth, people subscribed to the older disciplines more than to their softer replacements, and the Scriptures did not change. So what was it that made every Christian body simultaneously develop a fear of discipline and reorient itself toward effeminate, feelings-oriented religion? Was it the Great War? The Holocaust? The Bomb? The Pill??

  42. jf12 says:

    @Aquila “Had names, had probabilities worked out to how they’d look. I actually gave her a shot even after that because at least is was crazy in a wifely direction” Ha! I knew I wasn’t the only one! Man alive! (a nice-guy ejaculation) there were some crazies. Some women who did not know how to eat. Did. Not. Know how to get a morsel from a plate and down her throat without it getting stuck somewhere in between. Some women who could not talk. Could. Not. Form a sentence to save her soul.

    InstaMom had met me, blind date, at a nice restaurant. Upper level al fresco on a nice evening, so even though downtown I was going to run some Astronomy Game (talk about marginal returns …) on the brighter stars. She had looked unhappily down at her empty bread plate and full water glass for about the first ten (or so. Could have been less, maybe, not probably) minutes while I talked about … well anyway I believe it’s important to get them used to the sound of your voice, you know, like dogs, or sheep. Finally I urged her “Tell me something about yourself.” She instantly brightened. Evidently Instamom was all about having specific kids, although not specifically with me, I think.

  43. jf12 says:

    @craig it was the Pill. Giving women the charge of their bodies, instead of their husbands.

  44. I eagerly await the trailer.

    Also, expect a flood of people to join the site upon the infomercial – I mean, films release. If you’d like to snag one those God-fearing Christian career gals, ROK is here to help:
    http://www.returnofkings.com/25177/how-to-write-an-online-dating-profile-that-gets-you-laid

  45. hurting says:

    Deep Strength says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Is it even possible to go nuclear in such a fashion? It would be, for example, close to impossible to really burn down all of the assets as you describe. When she files for divorce, the court is going to impose a number of restraining orders preventing you from doing so. Never mind the fact that some retirement accounts are going to require her signature for you to liquidate.

    Unless you have pictures of your wife carrying the bloody axe she just used to kill the neighbors OR unless she doen’t want them, she’s getting the kids.

    You might be able to not pay the house note for a month or two, but unless you stop working (on the books) completely, you will not avoid paying CS and/or alimony.

    It is comforting to think that your friends, family and church members will hear your story of injustice and exile her from their lives, but even if they do, it will be cold comfort. The vast majority of people won’t care much, if at all. Those who have seen it up close will wisely steer away because divorce is poison to all who come into contact with it.

    Believe me, having been through the divorce ringer just recently myself, it is tempting to believe you can have your revenge thusly, but we need to be very careful in the information we communicate here as some will read it as advice applicable to their situations without fully understanding the implications.

  46. Entropy is my god says:

    @ Hurting

    Sometimes the only choice is to give up all of your fear. Quit playing defense.

    “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. ” MAT 10:28

    Why are you afraid of the courts and the jackbooted police. They can only kill your body. That family court judge is a tool of Satan, he is evil and proud of it. Those police are enforcers of feminism, goddess worship, why do you fear them?

  47. laughing mime says:

    funniest thing in the whole affair:

    30something woman called ‘young’

  48. deti says:

    hurting, IBB:

    OK, fine. You can’t clear out the bank accounts. you won’t get the kids.

    But you can fight.

    You can select a lawyer and fight tooth and nail for everything. Make it clear you will not give up without a fight.

    You’ll fight over the grounds and countersue her for divorce on the ground of her extreme mental cruelty.

    You’ll look for whatever evidence you can find and use it in the divorce.

    You’ll demand equal partition of all assets. That means if you cannot agree on who gets what, it will have to be sold, reduced to money, and the money divided equally. You will NOT agree that she gets the house. You will get the house. If not, it will be sold.

    You’ll have to declare total war. You’ll take everything to full blown evidentiary hearings – grounds, custody, property division, house division – everything. You will subpoena witnesses, put them under oath, and make them testify in depositions and in open court. You will take a very, very uncomfortable deposition of your STBX in which you and your lawyer will grill her about her maltreatment of you and get her under-oath testimony of your life together. You’ll videotape that deposition and send copies of it to your family members. You’ll also require the children (if old enough) to testify about what they saw and heard. Same with family members too. We’ll have hearings over who gets the stereo, the cutlery, the bedroom wastebasket. Nothing will be agreed upon, everything is up for contention.

    There’ll be no assets to divide because they will all be consumed in attorney fees and litigation expenses. Yes, you will probably lose. But if a divorce happens, you’ve lost anyway.

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    Holy cow, Turlock!! “Shot on location in Turlock” is a phrase I never thought I would see.

    You were expecting maybe Modesto?

  50. @ IBB

    If you’re married to a non-Christian sure. Any type of nominal Christian woman will not do that.

    And that’s why a man should control the finances, the deeds of the house should be in his name, etc so she can’t nuke and run with goodies.

    @ hurting

    You have to get to the point where you can you’d rather go to jail than pay child support or alimony.

    Jails are pretty plush now from what I hear anyway, and you get the starve the system.

  51. @ hurting

    The other alternative is bailing the country.

    The point I’m trying to make here is how far are you willing to go to avoid sin. God says He hates divorce, and I’d be willing to go to jail to uphold God’s law.

  52. Novaseeker says:

    unless you stop working (on the books) completely, you will not avoid paying CS and/or alimony.

    Also, if you don’t pay CS you will go to jail. It’s the only debt that lands you in jail, and that happens regardless of whether you have the money to pay it or not. So basically if you want a true scorched earth approach and don’t want to go to jail you have to become a fugitive in the US, or expat and never return to the US.

  53. jf12 says:

    Deep Strength is correct. A Christian man ought to arrange his life so that his wife would find it much more difficult to divorce than if he were “nicer”. For example all of his money should be in accounts that she cannot access without him giving permission each time. Go nuclear *prior* to her filing.

  54. Also, if you don’t pay CS you will go to jail. It’s the only debt that lands you in jail, and that happens regardless of whether you have the money to pay it or not.

    Or you can kill yourself ala Thomas Ball. Just don’t think you’ll martyr yourself because the records of what you did will be scrubbed from the interwebs.

  55. MarcusD says:

    It has been presumed that religiosity has an influence on mating behavior, but here we experimentally investigate the possibility that mating behavior might also influence religiosity. In Experiment 1, people reported higher religiosity after looking at mating pools consisting of attractive people of their own sex compared to attractive opposite sex targets. Experiment 2 replicated the effect with an added control group, and suggested that both men and women become more religious when seeing same sex competitors. We discuss several possible explanations for these effects. Most broadly, the findings contribute to an emerging literature on how cultural phenomena such as religiosity respond to ecological cues in potentially functional ways.

    Li, Yexin Jessica, et al. “Mating competitors increase religious beliefs.” Journal of experimental social psychology 46.2 (2010): 428-431.

    Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847293/

  56. DS,

    @ IBB

    If you’re married to a non-Christian sure.

    That is pretty much almost all wives. HHG has it good, so does Elspeth’s husband. Their situations are almost unique nowadays.

    For 99% of Christian women, feminist imperative trumps the King James Bible.

  57. Desiderius says:

    craig,

    “The trend away from traditional teachings about marriage and family, as well as the decision to abandon traditional disciplines (e.g. meatless Fridays) and traditional ‘vertically-oriented’ worship came from bishops and theologians — trahison des clercs in its literal sense.”

    Uh, that is my argument. As with the Protestants, and in a pathetic attempt to keep up with those Protestants to stay “relevant”, the mid-level church leadership (hence Churchianity) has abandoned discipline, the gospel, and the cure of souls for cheap grace and and the worst caricature of PC proggery*. Now both the Protestants and their poor Catholic imitators are about as relevant as a hospital that only accepts healthy patients.

    It is ironic that Cane brought up Susan as it was the very unmanly cowardice of that leadership that also led to the pedophilia scandals that shook Susan’s faith, and that of millions like her.

    * – the so-called conservatives well filling their Chestertonian role of preventing the mistakes made by past progs from being corrected.

  58. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD “people reported higher religiosity after looking at mating pools consisting of attractive people of their own sex compared to attractive opposite sex targets.”!!! My favorite quote of the week! “Many people report feeling significantly less religious, i.e. dirty, after viewing mating pools of attractive opposite-sex targets.”

  59. Uh, that is my argument. As with the Protestants, and in a pathetic attempt to keep up with those Protestants to stay “relevant”, the mid-level church leadership (hence Churchianity) has abandoned discipline, the gospel, and the cure of souls for cheap grace and and the worst caricature of PC proggery*. Now both the Protestants and their poor Catholic imitators are about as relevant as a hospital that only accepts healthy patients.

    This is what happens when Pastors are compensated directly by their church. There are two aspects of Protestantism that make it differ (so greatly) from Roman Catholicism:

    * Each church building and congregation is supposed to be complete, no heirarchy per se
    * It is required that everyone in a Protestant church be literate (100% literacy) since the King James Bible is the ultimate authority, not the Pastor

    These two distinctions are important as a Protestant church shouldn’t have to defer to some higher church for Dogma, so to speak. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the members of that Protestant church to know what is in the Bible by reading it themselves and understanding it. This literacy check is the sole reason why gramar school teachers were paid for by the state in the Western Hempisphere (the belief that literacy is required to save the souls of children so that they may avoid eternal damnation.)

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

    It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with love and false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.

    It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns.

    Where Protestant churches get themselves into trouble is money. If the Pastor derives all of his income from the church, then he is put into a conflict of interest. Now he has to preach to the people what he thinks they want to hear. He has to fill the pews to fill his pocket.

    Christ earned His living as a carpenter. I don’t think He made a penny in His ministry. If preaching was as it was for Christ (serving God, not serving oneself) then it wouldn’t matter if there were a feminist imperative. What, you don’t like what I am saying lady? It hurts you to hear that you must obey your husband in all things? Too bad. There’s the door, don’t let it hit you on the way out….

    ….that is the way it should be, but can’t be if Pastors are paid. So I will not be a member of any church where the Pastor is paid.

  60. On the scorched-earth response to frivorce threats: I think the main thing is to let her know you’re not going to make it easy. Many guys try to be gentlemanly about it, trying to be “amicable,” thinking they’ll be better off that way because their wife will respond in kind. Odds are she won’t. She may be on board with the “amicable” approach at the beginning, but her friends and her lawyer will change that. Then she’ll be in a position where she has visions of cash and prizes dancing in her head, and her soon-to-be-ex is playing ball and making it easy, so she has no reason to stop and think about what she’s doing.

    The purpose of declaring total war — even if it’s partly a bluff because the husband doesn’t have that much power — is to make her think about the reality of what she’s doing before she pulls the trigger — to try to get her to think about the downside, so she’s not just thinking about the fun she’s going to have going out with her single friends again. In short, it’s an attempt to change her mind. If the guy thinks that’s not possible, he’d be foolish to say anything to warn her.

  61. On the scorched-earth response to frivorce threats: I think the main thing is to let her know you’re not going to make it easy. Many guys try to be gentlemanly about it, trying to be “amicable,” thinking they’ll be better off that way because their wife will respond in kind.

    That is not why you are amicable. If she is frivorcing you then there is nothing kind about her. Her soul is poison and she is burning her soul in the Lake of Fire. (In her mind, there is no Lake of Fire.)

    You are trying to be amicable because you share kids and she is doing all that she can to destroy them. You be a gentleman because you want to protect your kids from as much of her destruction as you can prevent. You don’t want daughter ruined and her opinion of men destroyed forever and ever because you still need to be a father that she loves and honors. That is not going to happen if you scorch mom’s earth.

  62. Cail,

    The purpose of declaring total war — even if it’s partly a bluff because the husband doesn’t have that much power — is to make her think about the reality of what she’s doing before she pulls the trigger — to try to get her to think about the downside, so she’s not just thinking about the fun she’s going to have going out with her single friends again. In short, it’s an attempt to change her mind. If the guy thinks that’s not possible, he’d be foolish to say anything to warn her.

    Its not really possible and he shouldn’t warn her. If she wants out, she’s out, his warnings will mean nothing since she has already involved a third party that is bent on family destruction. She will know its a bluff because she will already know the law and the law is in her favor, not yours. The law is designed to make her whole at your expense, full stop. That’s the law of frivorce. She’s not thinking about the downside since (in her mind) there is no downside since you are not giving her (in this marriage) things that she feels she is entitled. So, she has no further use for you other than as a wallet that she will access anyway by virtue of frivorce law.

    You can’t take anything away from her that she wants from you, nothing. She is going to get it all no matter what you do.

  63. Fred Flange, Der Kommissar says:

    I have descanted before on total M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) in the divorce arena. It is do-able but you have to be ready to go through with it all the way. Which most good-hearted men can’t do. I don’t pretend I could ever be this hard myself. (Depends on how angry you make a Russian. We know how to hold grudges and we know how to wait). The key concept is: everything is already lost, so whatever you thought you had is no longer a burden for you to shoulder or try to keep any part of.

    You can always demand the house be partitioned and sold. No family court can refuse you here, it’s the one card men always have to play. Most divorce bombers don’t expect it. What you are doing is terminating a “joint tenancy” or in the marriage context, “tenancy by the entireties.” Each owns an undivided half. When the tenancy is broken it gets partitioned. You may not get half the proceeds or even close to it, but you can demand the sale happen. Which means everyone gets thrown out and it’s sold, time to go live in the happy happy housetrailer. Unless she buys you out because she and the kids want to stay where they are, which gives you leverage.

    If she grabs the bank accounts you run up cash advances on your credit cards, high as you can, maybe in part for the lawyer retainer. Then you don’t pay. Guaranteeing there will be a lien against you, and therefore on the property. It will gum up the works, which is the idea. Do this especially if you’re “removed” from the house – you will need the money to fight tooth and nail to avoid a final DV (domestic violence) decree.

    Otherwise, what deti said. Fight over the china, the furniture, the Velvet Elvis, the lawn jockey. Rack up those counsel fee bills. If the credit card bills don’t sink the ship, the attorneys will demand mortgages on the house to pay their invoices. Everyone loses. That’s the idea. That’s your trump card. If you can’t put it back together, then you can burn the whole marriage to the ground. They must learn you really mean to see it through, only then might you see a little sense return to save what’s left.

    Most heartless of all, and I know this is easy to say but hard to do: what about the children? Well what about them? If she’s already gone nuclear, by throwing you out she’s thrown them to the wolves. Any attempt by you to save them does nothing for them but gives her and her lawyer more power over you. Cruel though it is, your attitude must be: they’re dead to you for now. Maybe someday they’ll come find you, sometimes they stay poisoned, but eventually many of them figure out who did what to whom, and apportion blame to the one who blew the house up to begin with. Hooray for you if they do, and maybe some healing can happen. But otherwise you assume they’re gone forever and you mourn them, then carry on.

  64. feeriker says:

    Is it just me, or are all the women in the Christian Mingle commercials high-N carousel riders on the cusp of hitting the wall?

    Nope, it’s definitely not just you. I’ve noticed that over the last few months, the older/divorced and “single parent” crowd has been more and more frequently represented in their TV ads (apparently someone in their marketing department realizes that NO ONE who has been living in the real world over the last thirty years is gonna buy into the idea that young, virginal Christian men and women are significantly represented in the Christian singles scene). The young women, in particular, in the most recent ads say things, albeit obliquely, that essentially hamsterlate to “I’ve been a bed-hopping bad girl/slut for so long that I recently realized that no man in his right mind would get within ten feet of me without having an appointment at the STD clinic. That’s when I ‘saw the light’ and realized that I should market myself to a gullible Christian beta who’s at least halfway decent looking and who will buy my ‘repentance’ and ‘sincere committed Christian’ act. I can’t believe [insert name of Christian beta sucker here] actually bought it. How lucky a repentant little sinner I am!”

    Buy the way, will someone PLEASE urge this web site to change its name to the much more truthful-in-advertising CHURCHIAN Mingle?

  65. deti says:

    “She is going to get it all no matter what you do.”

    SO then you fight. If she is hell bent on destruction then you help her destroy it. You spend it all down and consume it in attorney fees and litigation expenses so that “it all” is a pittance. You take an attitude of “if I am going down financially, then so will you, STBX. If I will have to live in a one-room apartment, then so will you, STBX.”

  66. alcockell says:

    As an example of this on the mainstream media, I present Lydia from S8 of Real Housewives of Orange COunty – ITV2 have just finished airing it.
    She talks up being a Christian, and heads her housegroup (or “Life Group”), but do they actually do Bible study? No. It’s all “Bible’s out of date – we talk about other books etc”. No John MacArthur study? Example – she squeed over being given a Bible covered with diamonds.. I threw up a little in my mouth when watching it. (I work from home – trash TV is just noise and not too much of a distraction)

  67. feeriker says:

    Erin Bethea, who notably portrayed female lead Catherine Holt in the film “Fireproof,” has been named as a new addition to the cast.

    Gosh, who’d’a ever imagined THAT happening? /sarcasm

  68. hurting says:

    Deep Strength says:
    February 4, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    No-fault divorce (essentially that law of the land everywhere either de jure or de facto) is unilateral divorce. That means two things: 1. if one party wants out, it’s over – there is no fighting it. 2. There is no sin in defending one’s self from an unwanted civil divorce.

  69. feeriker says:

    Such a movie [it screams loser] will never be made but there is happily a very similar Christian Movie called ‘Two a Penny’ where Cliff Richard plays a bad-boy gangster who discovers God. So…

    Well, you have to give Cliff props for at least playing a role that’s actually autobiographical, in terms of his born-again experience (although long-time fans of Cliff’s music will note that, sadly, his output, in terms of both quantity and quality, has declined greatly in the decades since his spiritual rebirth [which is not to say that there is any real evidence that one has anything to do with the other]).

  70. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    February 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    You are right that being amicable gets you killed. She is miles ahead of you in adjusting to the ‘new normal’ and checked out long before filing. Your kindness will be taken for weakness.

    There is no way to communicate to her how bad it will be post-divorce – every one in her ear will be assuring her how good it will be and your scorched earth efforts just prove what a prick you are.

  71. no-fault-divorce changed the law so much that marriage is now the only civil contract in the United States that is done between two people where that contract can be broken at any time for any or no reason by only one of either party….

  72. So what was it that made every Christian body simultaneously develop a fear of discipline and reorient itself toward effeminate, feelings-oriented religion? Was it the Great War? The Holocaust? The Bomb? The Pill??

    Lack of persecution.

  73. feeriker says:

    Preaching truth means no women

    That might explain in large measure why most of the earliest followers of Jesus were men.

  74. deti says:

    “Christian Movie called ‘Two a Penny’ where Cliff Richard plays a bad-boy gangster who discovers God. So…

    Well, you have to give Cliff”

    You might be thinking of Little Richard. You know, not “Devil Woman” but “Good golly Miss Molly”.

  75. Thinkn'Man says:

    Press Release:
    To better position the film to draw women, the film is being re-branded as “Christian Tingle.”

  76. hurting,

    There is no way to communicate to her how bad it will be post-divorce – every one in her ear will be assuring her how good it will be and your scorched earth efforts just prove what a prick you are.

    I actually dumped a woman once the moment I found out the law that she practiced was family law. Of course I wanted the dumping to be cleaner than it was, but it wasn’t.

    (me) Phone rings. “Hello.”

    (her) “Hi it’s me.”

    (me) Thought about just hanging up the phone but… “Hi, what’s up?”

    (her) “Well I haven’t heard from you, you kind of just dropped off the earth…”

    (me) “Yeah, I don’t think we should see each other anymore.”

    (her) “Oh. That is fine. I just wish you would have told me that.”

    (me) “I’m telling you now.”

    (her) “Did I do something wrong?”

    (me) “Yes. You practice family law.”

    (her) “I’m sorry… what?”

    (me) “You make a living out of destroying families, destroying lives.”

    (her) “I told you I was a lawyer when we got started.”

    (me) “You didn’t tell me what type of law you practiced. That was the last thing you said to me. So I had to make a decision. I didn’t see that I had much of a choice, what you do disgusts me so you disgust me.”

    (her) “Well, I’m proud of what I do. So I guess that’s it?”

    (me) “Yup. Have a nice life.”

    And that was it. She wasn’t the only lawyer I was involved with but she was the only one that specialized in family law.

  77. hurting says:

    deti says:
    February 4, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    I can’t share of lot more of my particular details for fear of possibly revealing my identity, but please understand that, at least in an equitable distribution state, you can demand all you want an equal division of assets, but the judge can simply divide them as he/she sees fit.

    Our culture says that not only do people (read: women) have a civil right to divorce for no reason whatsoever but that they have a right to same at a minimum of inconvenience to them. As such, the scorched earth approach will be met with the full force of the law and can largely be stopped before it can ever really take hold. There are probably a couple things a man could do at the very outset of his marriage that might strengthen his position, but most of these can be undone at the whim of the courts.

    Don’t get me wrong, no man should just roll over and take it, but all men should understand that the system is far more arbitrary and capricious than a reasonable person could ever imagine.

  78. hurting says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    February 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Good for you.

  79. feeriker says:

    There will be no sale of your house. You are removed from it. It is now hers. And you will be paying her money for the rest of your life.

    Only if hubby doesn’t first do the following:

    Gets into his car (along with some camping gear and a survival bag that he hopefully had the foresight to prepare in advance) and drives off to points unknown (maybe a campground, but if not, a secluded spot in the woods will do), but not before calling his office to verbally resign from his job. Once that ball gets rolling, the mortgage and bills don’t get paid the next month, the house eventually gets foreclosed on, cars that are not paid for get repossessed, and wifey (and, unfortunately, the kids too, but that’s on wifey due to her rebelliousness) find themselves broke and homeless unless they can bunk with family or friends for a while. Sure, hubby/dad might get arrested and locked up for CofC, but hey, how much worse can jail be than life as a dispossessed frivorcee? Besides, he can’t earn a living while in jail, meaning that wifey is still SOL.

    This represents the first stage of what’s called “Dread Game.”

  80. jf12 says:

    The Dread, it works. It is not optional. Since a woman is *supposed* to fear her husband, then unless she’s rarer than the rare good woman who is already rarer than rubies, she will be so far from fear as to be in positive contempt of a nice husband. Maybe it was easier for women to dread their husbands in earlier centuries, but not if you listened to what the husbands were saying then.

  81. feeriker says:

    @deti

    Well, you have to give Cliff”

    You might be thinking of Little Richard. You know, not “Devil Woman” but “Good golly Miss Molly”.

    Nope, I’m thinking of Cliff:

    http://www.ask.com/wiki/Cliff_Richard#1964.E2.80.9375:_Changing_circumstances

    Although baptised as an Anglican, Richard did not appear to practise the faith in his early years. In 1964, he became an active Christian and his faith has become an important aspect of his life. Standing up publicly as a Christian affected his career in several ways. Initially, he believed that he should quit rock ‘n roll, feeling he could no longer be the rocker who had been called a “crude exhibitionist” and “too sexy for TV”. Richard intended at first to “reform his ways” and become a teacher, but Christian friends advised him not to abandon his career just because he had become an active Christian. Soon after, Richard re-emerged, performing with Christian groups and recording some Christian material. He still recorded secular songs with the Shadows, but devoted a lot of his time to Christian work, including appearances with the Billy Graham crusades. As time progressed, Richard balanced his faith and work, enabling him to remain one of the most popular singers in Britain as well as one of its best-known Christians.

  82. Jason says:

    I read the article you linked about it. I’ve got to say the most troubling line in the whole thing was.

    “She creates a relationship with God, and ultimately finds a “life-changing” love.”

    O.o

  83. Thinkn'Man says:

    ““She creates a relationship with God”…
    Is the the same way women “create life” in their womb?
    Must be hard work doing all the molecule creation and cell division. Yeah, takes a PhD I’m told.
    That and putting her heels in the air for random drug-dealers.
    Oh well.

  84. LiveFearless says:

    @feeriker devoted a lot of his time to Christian work, including appearances with the Billy Graham crusades

    Are ‘Billy Graham crusades’ ‘Christian work’? By what definition?

  85. @ hurting

    “No-fault divorce (essentially that law of the land everywhere either de jure or de facto) is unilateral divorce. That means two things: 1. if one party wants out, it’s over – there is no fighting it. 2. There is no sin in defending one’s self from an unwanted civil divorce.”

    1. Yes, she can divorce but you can contest everything. That’s the point.
    2. She’s sinning, so you’re defending yourself from sin by going scorched earth.

  86. Dimitri says:

    I actually had somewhat of a question for more of the married men on this forum, or perhaps someone with more knowledge of the law. I hear a lot of talk about threatpoints used by the wife, but out of curiosity, if she were to actually go ahead with that, could the husband sell the home to a trusted and loyal friend for a ridiculously low fee behind her back, then buy it back after divorce proceedings were finished?

    I appreciate it’s a ridiculous question, but these are ridiculous times so you have to be willing to go left field to combat them.

  87. AmStrat says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Sorry to ask… but what is your profile picture of? I can’t tell even after enlarging it.

    (unless it’s all part of the mystery)

  88. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desiderius

    I ask one, simple question:

    What. Fucking. Discipline? Your churchinity offers none, then you have the gall to condemn us for rejecting your mess of pottage you currently offer.

    Whatever religion you think you have that does not include visiting the fatherless and the widows in their affliction as a discipline, is not a true religion. By and large: Women do these things. As bad as some of the messages at some churches are: They still serve a purpose, and they are still disciplines. The Eucharist, confession, the gathering together for corporate worship, food drives, etc…all these things are still done by congregations of Christians.

    As if Loyola didn’t inspire generations of manly disciples. Men seek discipline. Your church offers none. Deal.

    Loyola did not inspire “generations” of manly disciples. That’s a twist of phrase to make it sound like most-if-not-all men were inspired. I’ve known men. That just ain’t true. Now, inspired some men across generations? I might buy that, but the pattern of men is upheld across all generations.

    Speaking of inspiring, your tough-guy routine is less than. It’s also getting in the way of you understanding that this isn’t a 20th Century problem. Female suffrage is a symptom. Courtly love’s infection of chivalry is a symptom. The problem, which I’ve mentioned repeatedly for over a year, is the acceptance of Eros as a legitimate concept in the Church; along with a lot of other garbage from Greco-Roman culture. That, in turn, is a symptom of people’s rejection of responsibility over their desires; especially men as men ARE the leaders. Eros, as a god and a concept, makes that rejection not only palatable, but divine. We express it as, “I can’t help what I’m attracted to”, but the great majority of the Judeo-Christian ethic is to first suss-out what is good, and then attune our desires to that. All the way back to Adam and Eve, it was never a matter of “should we like what we like”, but “We should do what we were told”.

    In this instance, you don’t like most people who describe themselves as Christians, and so you have developed a reason to stay away from them instead of taking the truth to them as they (often women) follow the discipline in James 1:27. Awww….poor baby. Welcome to the real world.

    We have not abandoned Christianity any more than Christ abandoned Yahweh in calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees who hypocritically claimed to speak in His name.

    I simply don’t believe you.

    @Craig

    If C’s argument is to be believed, men of a certain generation suddenly realized, as their fathers and grandfathers somehow did not, that Christianity is difficult and resolved to leave it untried (hat tip to G.K. Chesterton). This makes no sense either; in truth, people subscribed to the older disciplines more than to their softer replacements, and the Scriptures did not change.

    Understand: Who the Bible speaks of as Gentiles were blood relatives of Adam and certainly Noah. Those Gentiles were the firsts to walk away from what they knew. Also understand that among the Israelites VERY few were actually God-fearing. The handful of people recorded in the Bible are rare among the millions and millions of Israelites; most of whom were not even concerned with attempting righteousness.

    The way (habit) of men is to abandon responsibility. Chesterton was talking about a problem throughout the history of the world.

  89. Novaseeker says:

    if she were to actually go ahead with that, could the husband sell the home to a trusted and loyal friend for a ridiculously low fee behind her back, then buy it back after divorce proceedings were finished?

    The court can order whatever it wishes in this area. Generally family courts are “courts of equity”, meaning they can do what they want to get a result the judge considers “fair” under the circumstances. If the court learns that the husband sold the house for a song (and this is all public record anyhow, at least in the US it is), the court would almost certainly penalize the husband in other ways for having depleted the marital assets in that way, and assess it against him in the form of some economic payment to the wife. It would also likely “sniff out” that this was to a loyal friend and enjoin (i.e., prohibit) the husband from having any further transactions with respect to the house. The court could even try to unwind the transaction relating to the house as being a fraudulent transaction with no economic substance and try to set it aside entirely. In addition, if the court generally sees the husband (or whichever spouse has the $$$ and this is often the husband) monekying around with things like that, the hammer will be brought down with extreme fury in terms of all of the order, and it will be very punitive on everything — asset division, CS, alimony, and so on.

    In a place where the courts have the power of military style police to back up their orders, this is serious stuff. Think this is unrealistic? Look, courts have issued orders forbidding divorced men from writing about their ex-wives, their divorces, their former marriage *at all* on the internet or elsewhere in a way that is published. The justification? Harm to children and parental alienation.

    In reality the family courts in the United States have virtually unlimited authority over huge swathes of your everyday life in ways that would shock most people if they really understood the scope of this. The Constitution’s protections generally do not apply here because most higher courts, and the federal courts as well, so not generally apply them to family law matters other than in cases like discrimination (i.e., miscegenation, gay marriage). You have very, very barebone “rights” in a family court system, and they can control everything — your income, your children, where you live, your assets and so on. It’s a jacked system in every respect. Completely jacked.

    Disclaimer for readers — yes, I am a lawyer, no, I am not a family law practitioner, and no, this is not legal advice — any legal advice would need to be taken from a lawyer admitted to practice law in the jurisdiction where you need legal advice.

  90. Jason says:

    @Dimitri,

    IANAL and I really don’t know, it is a good question though.

    I’m guessing you can’t sell the house if it is both your names, and I believe (IIRC) that the wife can veto the sale of a house in some jurisdictions to prevent exactly this behavior. Once the divorce is initiated such shenanigans are probably going to be looked upon very dimly by a court. If he got out in front and initiated the divorce after such a threat though, he might have standing.

  91. Dimitri says:

    Thanks for taking the time to give me a well written response Nova. Really seems like MGTOW is the only realistic option, still feel bad for fellow men who are closer to God than I and marriage is the only realistic option. It hurts me that their beloved family members would only reinforce this notion when they are fully aware of the consequences.

  92. AmStrat says:

    Nevermind, I get a larger, better definition view by hovering over the image. I was WAY off.

  93. Dimitri says:

    Good call Jason. Yes I meant more in terms only if she’d used the threatpoint, not gone ahead with proceedings at that stage.

  94. Dimitri says:

    But really it seems like a bad idea to put the house in her name or have a joint bank account, especially if her contribution to the former is non existent.

  95. Jason says:

    @Dimitri,

    Having nearly ended up divorced from my wife, it never really occured to me before it all happened that having a common bank account would be a horrible idea. Not making that mistake anymore though.

  96. Dimitri says:

    @Jason, would you ever really consider marriage a second time around after the first go around? The tales of woe I’ve seen over the last year have put me off the prospect without even having been married the one time!

  97. Jason says:

    @Dimitri,

    We didn’t get divorced, we reconciled. Although i’ve learned a lot through the experience, including a willingness to burn everything to the ground if she tried that shit again.

    I think that is basically the conclusion any man getting married needs to come too. If she wants a divorce you can’t do much about it, but you can destroy everything and make doing so a profoundly painful experience to serve as a warning to other wives.

  98. Dimitri says:

    Ah my mistake, am glad to hear you were able to work it out. Hope it can stay that way for you!

  99. Desiderius says:

    “Speaking of inspiring, your tough-guy routine is less than.”

    No room for the Spirit in those ears yet.

    This is an exorcism.

    “Whatever religion you think you have that does not include visiting the fatherless and the widows in their affliction as a discipline, is not a true religion. By and large: Women do these things. As bad as some of the messages at some churches are: They still serve a purpose, and they are still disciplines. The Eucharist, confession, the gathering together for corporate worship, food drives, etc…all these things are still done by congregations of Christians.”

    Your assumptions are again groundless. I still practice those disciplines, along with a dwindling faithful remnant – men as well as women. I’ve noticed a marked falling off of such practice among our purported leaders and both the right-thinking PC crowd and the Osteen Churchians.

    Particularly confession sticks in the craw of the self-esteem boosters.

    Even that faithful remnant, while maintaining the disciplines you recognize, have not fulfilled our role as elders of the church.

    They’ve found excuses not to raise the young in the discipline in which they themselves were raised.

    They’ve sought to farm out those service ministries to the state and shame those who oppose them.

    They’ve hired pastors and supported church leaders who do not accept the gospel nor biblical teaching is any but the most metaphorical sense.

    I’ve spoken and acted against these in things, but not nearly enough, and not nearly as effectively as the times require. I have not acted with the constancy or courage I would have hoped for myself.

    We’re all falling short. Way short.

    “Loyola did not inspire “generations” of manly disciples.”

    A flat out falsehood. Tearing down the saints and heroes of the past will not make your present mediocrity any more palatable.

    Loyola not only inspired the best of men throughout the centuries (still does, in fact), he inspired those men to inspire countless others. The educational institutions they founded went on to shape the modern world.

    That’s how men work – we seek hierarchies of merit. Your womanly communities corrode all that.

    I’ve found in my work with youth that this generation, particularly boys and young men, absolutely do thirst for the discipline and rigor you in your grating self-righteousness deny them.

    “I simply don’t believe you.”

    What is it I was asking you to believe? You’d have me bend to the discipline of Sadducees who aren’t offering any and Pharisees who offer nothing but PC bullshit?

  100. Novaseeker says:

    But really it seems like a bad idea to put the house in her name or have a joint bank account, especially if her contribution to the former is non existent.

    Don’t put the house solely in her name, but really in most cases it will be in both names.

    The bank accounts issue — if it’s a joint account generally of course either person can drain it, with no repercussions (the court doesn’t generally care about that — they see it as an ATM withdrawal of funds either party has access to). So, yes, your wife will almost always sweep a joint account if you don’t do it first (I didn’t and so she swept it).

  101. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desiderius

    Throughout our exchange you have posed as if knocking down what I have said, and then you put up an exact replica….of what you had just supposed yourself to have knocked down. The cause of your madness seems to be that you don’t actually know what you think, and you can’t understand what others are saying. The result is anger, confusion, and confused anger. What unbending and misleading statement of Political Correctness have I made? None. Yet you see them everywhere; one after another.

    This lunacy of yours is also confusing to Craig, and others. Stop it.

    That’s how men work – we seek hierarchies of merit. Your womanly communities corrode all that.

    As Zippy is fond of saying: “It’s and/both, not either/or”. As I’m fond of saying: “These things work together.” Setting them at odds is a bad idea. You have figured out that women are motherly, and tend to inadvertently smother good things; like children and congregations. Congratulations.

    It’s also still true that it’s the responsibility of men to push back and establish boundaries. Inasmuch as they leave a vacuum that women haphazardly fill–according to their design (and particularly how that design is fallen)–men bear fault. Again, according to men’s design, and particularly how that design is fallen.

    What is it I was asking you to believe?

    Implied in every statement is the request that the listener be believed; that he is of sound mind, or at least has something meaningful to say. I don’t believe you.

  102. TooCoolToFool says:

    Vagimony. Behold the empathy, compassion and ruthlessness of women. Never be this woman’s vacation/retirement fund (aka – beeotch). Just like Julian O’Dea – they’re out there, sweet pea. They will pretend to be something that they are not – especially for cheap laughs (Julian knows).

  103. MarcusD says:

    How to Create the Perfect Online Dating Profile, in 25 Infographics
    http://www.wired.com/design/2014/02/how-to-create-good-online-dating-profile

    So apparently “yoga” makes women attractive, and cats and tattoos don’t.

    9 Mothers-In-Law from Hell (For those unsure if they want to marry?)
    http://www.oddee.com/item_98840.aspx

  104. MarcusD says:

    CAF Strikes Again:

    Husband a terrible leader (A sample: As a man and a husband, I don’t think it is up to me to be a leader. In today’s modern world, a family is partnership.)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=857346

    How is denying you spouce sex on a regular basis a confessable sin?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=857363

  105. MarcusD says:

    The Erikson Saga continues:

    And the kicker:

  106. MarcusD says:

    Last one was a retweet by Leif.

  107. Opus says:

    All women love Cliff. Men laugh, because he is so obviously G-A-Y. He presently lives with a former Roman Catholic Priest. Thus he was entirely cast against type in Two a Penny. The other odd thing about Cliff is that the older he becomes (not that it shows) the more Indian he looks (he was born there). Sadly, his one time fiancée whom he abandoned for fame died recently. He might have married that Sue Barker, but all they ever did together was play Tennis.

  108. One random note on Lawyer bills:

    Can you bankrupt on them? What’s the context of the ability to discharge? I honestly have no idea.

  109. jf12 says:

    @Looking Glass
    If there is no written agreement for you to pay a particular amount, then a bill from a lawyer is as toilet paper as you choose to see it. Obviously you should pay what the services were worth, but that is determined by you. Step by step after receiving a bill from anyone that you do not believe.
    1. Refuse to pay. Do not pay.
    2. Reply in writing that their bill is inapplicable and you will not pay.
    3. If they replicate their demand, your rejoinder should require a detailed cost listing of who did what when for how much per, and where and how the price was determined.
    4. Any attempt to bill for the “service” of billing you “But it cost my secretary two hours to type this up!” is fraud and negates the whole thing. They at least have to start over, and can be jailed.

  110. I don’t happen to need it, but it made me curious.

  111. Opus says:

    Subject to correction by Novaseeker I have bad news.

    1. All prudent lawyers (like Prostitutes) get payment up-front – or as they say, on account of costs.
    2. The preparation of a Bill is chargeable.
    3. Non-payment may well lead to Bankruptcy or other forms of recovery (e.g. Garnishee).

  112. jf12 says:

    Anyone can send anyone a bill for anything. Period.

  113. jf12 says:

    Australian national law statutorially prohibits billing for billing.
    “[The Legal Profession Act] requires lawyers to provide an itemised bill within 28 days of the request to provide the bill, to prepare the bill free of charge, and to include a written statement setting out the avenues open to the client to dispute the bill.”

    As unlikely as it is that our lawyer-heavy US Congress would ever do anything so explicitly anti-lawyer, it is too difficult for me to believe that any other English-speaking legal group would be so heavy-handedly pro-lawyer as to explicitly allow billing for billing. I would bet paper and ink may be allowed, but not the licking of the stamp.

  114. Novaseeker says:

    Lawyers working with non-corporate clients (i.e., individuals) generally require a retainer to be paid in advance — that is, no work until you pay the money. They hold that money in a trust account and use it to pay the fees. If it runs dry, then they will ask you to replenish this, and if you don’t, pencils down on your work. If there is extra in the account after the matter is finished, they will refund the balance to you, with any accrued interest. The exception to this is plaintiffs lawyers who sue companies for products liability, personal injury and so on, who tend to work on a contingency fee basis (i.e., they get paid from the court’s award if they win, otherwise they don’t get paid). But family lawyers pretty much all work on a retainer basis in my experience.

  115. jf12 says:

    I can’t tell if I first to come up with the “billing for the licking of the stamp” shorthand concept, or not.

  116. Desiderius says:

    Cane,

    “Throughout our exchange you have posed as if knocking down what I have said, and then you put up an exact replica…”

    Bullshit.

    Here is what you said:

    “‘Women don’t tend to see religion as men do (i.e. as a discipline to be lived). For women, religion is all about adopting a label, having status, choosing an ingroup, etc.’

    This is because men, having rightly recognized the discipline, tend to reject it. Combined, this has a corrupting effect where the practice of religion becomes absent of manly discipline, and filled only with womanly sorts of community.”

    My argument is that men have not rejected the discipline of religion, they have rejected a religion that offers none. The religion became absent of manly discipline because it was systematically purged by rebellious women and a cowardly leadership who has hamhandedly sought to appease them.

    Your core argument, that men tend to reject the discipline of religion is moot, as there is no such discipline on offer. I’ve been church shopping with my wife these past months and I’ll tell you – the quality of preaching is uniformly awful, especially in tradcon land.

    One judges the tree by its fruit. The humble courage of the martyrs produced adherence to religious discipline that spread like wildfire. The prideful cowardice of those like yourself who speak for religion today has produced empty pews as far as the eye can see. Men have found their discipline elsewhere than Churchianity.

    “The result is anger, confusion, and confused anger.”

    Does the above state of affairs not make you angry? What’s wrong with you?

    “As Zippy is fond of saying: “It’s and/both, not either/or”. As I’m fond of saying: “These things work together.” Setting them at odds is a bad idea.”

    Of course. That’s why the purge of the manly was such a grave sin. The wages of cheap grace are not so cheap. It is the purgers who argue, like yourself, that men tend to reject rightful discipline. You, and they, are dead wrong. Repent and fight them, stop defending them, making apologies for them, and shooting every messenger in sight.

    “Implied in every statement is the request that the listener be believed; that he is of sound mind, or at least has something meaningful to say. I don’t believe you.”

    Pride does impair belief.

    I request nothing of you. I command you to repent and search your soul. You and yours have destroyed and continue to destroy something I hold very dear. Give up your foolish pride and repent.

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12, cliff, I seriously doubt there are any notions a man might come up with in terms of trying to avoid certain bills that someone has not already tried before. Novaseekers’s comments above regarding the “court of equity” aspect of US anti-Family court might be something for some men to copy, paste, and print out. If for no other reason that to have some understanding of what that court-arena looks like. Fussing about “ought” vs. “is” often is rather useless, in this case it can even be harmful if men get false notions about what can and cannot be done by an anti-Family court judge.

  118. Opus says:

    @’jf12

    One has to distinguish between chargeable and non-chargeable time. The distinction is not as hard and fast as one might imagine. In England the fees of lawyers have been controlled (commonly known as the process of taxation of costs) since the reign of the first Elizabeth. The premise is that it prevents excessive fees but in my view it frequently achieves the very opposite. Preparation of a Bill of Costs is (I regret to inform, here) generally chargeable.

  119. Bucho says:

    I see Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson!) has been case in this movie. I wonder if he plays an online love interest, which would be ironic, since he played an online-met date in the movie, “Sneakers” back in the 1990s.

  120. tweell says:

    I would suggest to those married men thinking about getting frivorced that they get a passport. It can be handy as another identification, and just in case you take the family on a cruise or foreign vacation. The one time my wife went nuclear, she didn’t believe when I said goodbye to our children, she didn’t believe when I filled an old duffle bag with clothes. She believed when I put the passport in my pocket that I was going to ensure she never got another penny from me. Have a stash of cash she doesn’t know about (for emergencies), I kept mine in an engineering book.

  121. jf12 says:

    @Opus for opposing parties only? It’s hard to tell for UK from wiki. Legal principles I grok; legal procedures are obviously deliberately Byzantine. It cannot be a *principle* that lawyers can easily bill others for services rendered for the lawyers “I needed this sandwich to be able to properly represent you. Therefore I am billing you for the time it took me to make the sandwich and for me to chew it slowly so I could digest it better. Burp. And the time it took to burp. And this time it took for me to explain to you about my burping.” It cannot be a *principle* that lawyers treat their own clients as opponents for the sake of billing.

    It doesn’t work the way you say in Canada, either.
    http://lerners.ca/@download/doc.php?file=L0Bhc3NldHMvbGVybmVyc3BlcnNvbmFsaW5qdXJ5LmNhL3VwbG9hZHMvYXJ0aWNsZXMtNjgvYWR2b2NhY3lpbmJpbGxzb2Zjb3N0c2NvbWJpbmVkX3IucGRm&title=QWR2b2NhY3kgaW4gQmlsbHMgb2YgQ29zdHMgb24gTW90aW9ucyBhbmQgVHJpYWxz
    It’s called “Advocacy in bills of costs on motions and trials” in case link is malformed.

    The only case law I could find involved a lawyer who hired another lawyer as a billing specialist, and that specialist’s fees for Preparation of the Bill of Costs, higher than normal because he was recognized by the court as a specialist, were allowed. Even then it was too difficult for me to discern whether the Bill of Costs was supposed to be delivered on an opponent or not.

    Keep in mind that “selling a bill of goods” is, in America anyway, the ne plus ultra example of financial fraud. “Selling a bill of services” is the SAME.

  122. freebird says:

    In frivorce it is the man that continually spends time in jail.
    My cousin has done 5 six months stints in the county lockup for the non-payment of $600 child support on his son who was killed in an auto accident years earlier.
    The courts keeps assessing fines and interest far beyond what the law allows,the judge knows he is acting illegally,just hands it off to the feminist country clerk for enforcement.
    Note that friend of the court is not an actual legal authority,it is a private contractor of collections that has de-facto assumed the authority of the court.

    They will not even tell cousin what the total bill may be,they just say,”this is your new ‘starting balance.’
    He knows there will always be new fines assessed,and simply refuses to pay,he does jail time very year.
    It has gotten to where he does not bother to sit in the court area,he speaks from the public seating outside the court area,and they deal with him on those terms.

    Real dread game means leaving the country forever.
    If you cannot do this,you have no power whatsoever.
    The woman will never do a day of time,that is no discouraging her at all.

    All this talk of making it onerous on the woman is total BS.
    It is totally a one sided deal,anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or misleading.

    The only way to avoid the threatpoint is to never get married.
    Full.stop.

    It is up to women to restore civil society now,they have all the power,and they is why they will not.

    It is hard for even the MGTOW to avoid persecution from outside feminism,an offended for any reason female can create a moral panic based upon how she ‘feels,’ and enforcement steps up and jails the man assuming guilt.
    He had best always be recording or leave the country altogether as a pre-cautionary measure,yes it IS that bad out there.

    I am a firm believer in Christ’s teachings and redemption,but I will also say Christianity has been destroyed from within and without.
    In this vacuum perhaps the muslims have a chance,but I doubt that also,the new God is .gov.
    Obey or be destroyed.

  123. Opus says:

    @jf12

    This blog (and sadly given my limited time) is not the place to go into the intricacies of Legal Costs – and I do not claim to have any knowledge thereof outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. All I can say is that I did not learn such things from Wiki. You are not the first (and I fear will not be the last) person to come to the Manosphere with intriguing ideas as to how to circumvent the Legal System. So far (and I suspect I can speak for Novaseeker also on this) I have yet to be introduced to one single idea that I felt had even a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding. I wish you well however in your endeavours.

    Charging for sustenance? It must have happened.

  124. whatever says:

    Cano continues with his sassing:

    The way (habit) of men is to abandon responsibility. Chesterton was talking about a problem throughout the history of the world.

    To be more exact, “The way of men is to abandon responsibility without authority. Chesterton was talking about a problem throughout the history of the world.”

    Quite right. But I do fail to see the problem.

  125. Marissa says:

    Two questions, one for Novaseeker:

    Novaseeker, how would you go about changing family law? If you could pick one (type of) law to institute or strike down, what would that be? For instance, if one wanted to campaign for a change to one law when the legislature meets, what would the best one be? The easiest one? I realize this varies from state to state, but just a general answer is helpful.

    The second question, for anyone:

    How would you go about protecting assets once you are in the process of getting married and then buying assets once married? When buying a house, should it go solely in the man’s name? Should the bank account only be in his name and maybe have a separate small bank account for the wife’s disposal (like buying groceries, children’s necessities, various sundries for the household)?

  126. jf12 says:

    Re: “Should the bank account only be in his name and maybe have a separate small bank account for the wife’s disposal (like buying groceries, children’s necessities, various sundries for the household)?” some years ago after my last wife’s first big financial betrayal came to light, we did exactly that. She was allowed a small account, with the same bank, and had her name removed from the (still existing) large account. But not long afterwards, following some advice of her sister, she verbally argued to the bank manager and bank lawyer that wives have full access to husbands’ accounts anyway, and apparently she was right at the time (late 90s Texas). About a year ago I cut her off completely from her own, opening a new main account with her name explicitly blocked, and that has worked. She has to ask me for every penny explicitly. And she is better in every way.

  127. jf12 says:

    Better but lousy. And yes, AWALT. Long story unshortenable, fits better under headship but who cares. It was 35 °F and light drizzle and fog for 13 hrs last night, and the heat pump’s defroster couldn’t keep up with it, so I shut it off when I went to bed early. The wife disobeyed and turned it on since she was freezing at 66 °F and refused to put on another blanket and didn’t want to get physical to get hotter either. And although I personally installed a thermostat upgrade some years ago where we can turn on just the strip heat as an option, she refuses to use strip heat since it costs more. We also have a nice supplemental gas heater in the bedoom, ultra safe, that I personally installed that she refuses to run at night since the cats, which I don’t want in the bedroom but she does, like to rub up against it and she thinks they might get burned. Predictably the outside unit had frozen solid by midnight, and I was awakened and blamed, although I had personally verified with my gauges that we had plenty of Freon in December. I informed her I was not personally responsible for water freezing at 32 °F and there was nothing I could do at the moment about changing the laws of nature, but she didn’t believe me. She kept on trying to run the heat pump all night, and waking me, and predictably we had a cubic meter of solid ice in the morning. When I left early for work, I ordered her not to run the heat pump, but advised her if she really wanted to remove the ice then she could manually turn on just the air conditioner and put on a sweater and a coat inside. Predictably, she tried to run the heat pump this morning some more, then called a service technician behind my back and then told me he was “going to come right out there and put extra Freon in since he was sure that was the problem and he only had five or six more of the exact same calls today, funny enough, to complete before he got to us.” I ordered her to either manually defrost the outside unit by running the ac or go outside with a hose, but she refused since she didn’t want to get wet and muddy, and besides didn’t I know that adding water to ice just makes more ice and besides that’s what service technicians are for. So instead of lunch I went home and watered the heat pump for almost a half hour straight until it was all melted away. And made my own sandwich. And yes, AWALT. To the extent that some women sometimes manage to bite their tongues and stifle their own selves, they are to be congratulated as the rarest of rubies. To the extent that the vast majority of men refrain from strangling their wives, too bad.

  128. feeriker says:

    @jf12 @ 2/5/14 @1:58PM:

    The most maddening aspect of these perpetual shit tests by wives whose cranial densities are in inverse proportion to their ability to either listen or think critically is that they do not themselves generally bear the costs and penalties of their obstinacy; their husbands do. In the example you relate, your wife’s refusal to STFU and listen to someone who knew what they were talking about/what they were doing (i.e., you) cost you money (or nearly did – I didn’t read anything to indicate that you cancelled the HVAC tech’s visit that your wife scheduled without your OK) that would never have been spent had she deferred to your headship.

    I don’t know if your wife works or has her own money, but the last time my wife (who could write a “How To” book for rebellious wives on resistance to husbandly headship) did what your wife did, the first words out of my mouth were “go get your checkbook – no, NOT the one for the joint account, but the one for YOUR PERSONAL checking account. You created a problem that is costing us money, a problem that wouldn’t exist if you had listened to me and done what I told you to do. Since YOU created the problem, YOU are going to pay to get it fixed!” At that moment I then took the joint checkbook upstairs and locked it in my office desk drawer.

    It was the last time Mrs. feeriker ever pulled such a stunt. Because the results of her disobedience and rebellion cost HER something personally (she hasn’t held a steady job in the 23 years we’ve been married, thus “her own” money is hard to come by), she is less than eager to go through the experience again. This is of course certainly not to say that it won’t ever happen again, women’s memories, attention spans, and rebellious nature being what they are (AWALT).

  129. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    I am not an attorney but have been on the business end of the family courts of “equity”. I can attest to the lunacy firsthand, but my anecdotal evidence should only to serve to impel the interested reader to conduct his own research. Family court judges possess enormous power to drastically alter people’s lives and operate largely with impunity. Read up, people.

  130. hurting says:

    Subject to Nova’s imprimatur or correction…

    Having assets in your name exclusively only prevents their immediate filching. While this does offer some protection from them being expropriated in the near term, in the end, they will be discovered and shared as the court sees fit (read: you’ll get no more than half in all likelihood – all else being equal). In my jurisdiction both parties are required to submit an affidavit of all assets and liabilities and income and expenses within a specified period of time of the filing. If you leave something off the list, my guess is you’d risk a charge of contempt of court at minimum.

  131. Matamoros says:

    Marcus D Gender and Religiousness

    Thanks for this Marcus. The entire study is online for free at: http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/stark_gender.pdf

    Rodney Stark is definitely a burr under the liberal saddle. Everyone should take a look at his books, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, etc.

  132. Matamoros says:

    First strike, avoid the divorce courts: http://divorcefast.com/

    You should read the ebook, Screw the Bitch!: Divorce Tactics For Men, which goes into all this.

  133. Jason says:

    @Matamoros,

    The only problem with that advice is that if most mens experiences mirror my own in being asked for a divorce, things might be rocky but it comes out of the blue.

    Any woman dumb enough to try to bluff using it as a threat point you should probably divorce and take the upper hand but in most cases she has already decided to do it and has filed and the first you know is when you get served or told about it.

  134. LiveFearless says:

    Did Leif reach out to a Roosh Impersonator?

  135. SlargTarg says:

    @LiveFearless

    I must be missing something.

    What is the point of the video? Its just a screenshot that chops off every sentence making the whole thing completely unreadable.

  136. jf12 says:

    Re: back on topic. Ok, so what *should* we do with all the 30-something carousel riders and/or single moms, especially *before* they have a come-back-to-Jesus moment?

    Most children in the US are living with never-married or divorced parents. Almost half of first births are to unwed mothers (to say nothing of conceptions). As far as I can tell, although I criticize their behavior too, the huge number of semi-repentant-for-various-reasons women who slutted around during their ripest young years, and then crawled back into church, themselves think of themselves that they are sincere in trying to find a good man finally. If all the church has to give them is a cold pat on the back and ushering them to a roped-off bad-woman area, spraying down the pews with Lysol after they leave, what incentive do they have? Particularly for evangelical churches.

    “Get thee to a nunnery” is undoubtedly great advice to sincere women already in church, even for single moms, as great advice as for men to make themselves eunuchs. But while self-flagellation is probably good practice for many saints, it is not expedient for outreach to the heathen and backslidden. I think, maybe, demanding such women to give up their dream of family for the kingdom of heaven’s sake is morally equivalent to demanding men hand over their testicles at the vestibule.

    “You won’t get a lot of quantity, but think of the quality!” is a nonanswer. What *should* we do with all that quantity?

  137. jf12 says:

    Re: exemplars. It would be good to know of stories or movies or whatever that portray the beginning of the Eat Pray Love type of antibildungsroman in a negative light.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12, put aside the very charged issue of sex and babies. Look at it abstractly. A collection of people doing wrong things over and over again want to join your church, what should you do?

    What if the behavior in question was petty theft, or excessive drinking, or sponging off of other people? If a drunk wanted to keep his little flask of vodka with him during church service, would it be “hate” or “mean” to tell him he can’t do that? If a man with light fingers wanted to “borrow” a tenspot out of the collection plate as it went by, would it be “mean” to tell him he can’t do that? In both cases one solution would to on the one hand encourage the individual to spend time with people in the church, maybe some who have had a similar problem, but also to make sure a serious man sat next to them – to keep the booze away, to discourage the petty theft.

    One major problem in dealing with women who behave badly is this: what they need is to have a new “herd” of women around them, women who won’t put up with babymomma getting knocked up again or who won’t agree with Mrs. Unhaaaaapy talking about divorce as a good thing. But women like that are a scarce now. The baby boomers are now the “wise, grey heads”…need I say any more than that?

  139. jf12 says:

    Re: ” But women like that are a scarce now.” Yes, that is the problem. So, what is the solution?

  140. John South says:

    If it were me I’d take whatever I could and leave the country without answering.

    I’d make sure there was no money left one way or another except in my pockets.

    When you cooperate in the proceedings against you, you grant the court legitimacy. I will not pretend this is any form of justice but acknowledge that I am fleeing an armed criminal mob and act accordingly.

    Of course I’d never be dumb enough to get married in the first place but if I ever do and it goes that way it will be the last they see of me.

    The first rule of being a good criminal is not being in denial about it.

  141. ospurt says:

    I popped over the Jenny’s blog and right now she is winning the “Drama and Celebrity” game with her crowing about an appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee show. The movie will pull back into the lead when it gets featured on Fox News as the next big thing in “modern” traditional relationship movies.

  142. lady N says:

    Re: scarce good women

    They are being raised in the homeschool communities. There is no lacking of pretty, feminine young ladies in a Catholic parish near me. If there are no good women where you are, then you go to the good women. :-)

  143. MarcusD says:

    There is no lacking of pretty, feminine young ladies in a Catholic parish near me. If there are no good women where you are, then you go to the good women.

    It’s amazing (to me) that in my Catholic parish of 1500 families there are about five young women (and maybe one of them could be considered a “pretty, feminine young [lady]“).

    I won’t ask you where that parish is (though, you’re free to do so), but please tell those young ladies to sign up on traditional Catholic dating sites (e.g. avemariasingles.com), should the “local selection” not be to their liking.

  144. lady N says:

    Glad to, Marcus. I understand the cynicism, though. Where I live, the most feminine, conservative young ladies tend to be Muslims.

  145. MarcusD says:

    Glad to, Marcus.

    Thanks.

    Where I live, the most feminine, conservative young ladies tend to be Muslims.

    It’s the same where I live. A lot of them are quite attractive, too.

    That said, the increased persecution of the Christian minority in the Middle East is leading Christian women (of the same genetic stock as those Muslim women) to come to North America. An opportunity, perhaps.

  146. feeriker says:

    I popped over the Jenny’s blog and right now she is winning the “Drama and Celebrity” game with her crowing about an appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee show.

    Reason number 15,432 for me to despise Faux News and everyone ever associated with it (Judge Napolitano being the one and only exception).

  147. tacomaster2 says:

    @Deti–
    RE: “Thus women discover that God is not just a good God, but He is a “god of goodies”…

    what is that in Greek or Hebrew? I’m a big fan of santa god myself

  148. jf12 says:

    @tacomaster2 “Jehovah-jireh” comes closest to “God the santa”.

  149. Lion says:

    I don’t think it’s possible for a woman to reach an executive level in a corporation by being a good Christian. The corporate world is pretty cutthroat, and I think most women feel that they need to work harder at it to get there, so even more cutthroat.

  150. Luke says:

    Agreed, Lion. Christian women are explicitly forbidden by the Bible to hold authority over a man. By their deeds shall ye know them…

  151. JDG says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    February 6, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Spot on! I often find myself having to re-explain the obvious substituting vices that haven’t yet been compromised. And this to men who should already know better.

  152. JDG says:

    s/b ‘by substituting’

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12 replied to me:

    Re: ” But women like that are a scarce now.” Yes, that is the problem. So, what is the solution?

    Depends on the situation and the goal. Single man, married man without children, married man with children, which? The single man has the most mobility, the married man with children the least. Does denominational theology matter? If not, then that family has more mobility.

    If you are married with children and you insist on a certain denomination, then you may well be stuck with a particular church, and thus will have to get involved in day to day events in order to acquire enough in-group prestige to be able to affect the situation. On the other hand, if you are a single man with no denominational preference, then you can church shop all you want.

    At some point, a man has to look some opinion leader in the eye, and ask “Why” or “How do you justify this?”. One must pick such fights carefully…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s