Advanced divorce sales…

Valentines Day edition.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Hold my beer and watch this, selling divorce. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Advanced divorce sales…

  1. donalgraeme says:

    Good Lord, the Hamsterization involved in that article…

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,” said Martinez who began considering divorce.

    I don’t really know what to say to this. How delusional do you have to be to base your decisions on what you seen on television?

    About 67% of people searching for a divorce lawyer on the Internet in the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day are women, according to a new study by Avvo.com, which matches consumers with lawyers.

    This seems consistent with the stats that women initiate ~70% of all divorces.

    Avvo further found that Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Phoenix and Dallas lead the country in the number of people searching online for a divorce lawyer.

    Note to self: Never live in any of those cities.

  2. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    How delusional do you have to be to base your decisions on what you seen on television?

    Well, it’s not at all uncommon, so not very. Or not very, relative to the general population.

  3. I was first to comment on that essay. Lets see if my comment brings the screaming harpies out of the woodwork.

  4. Note to self: Don’t let spouse use TV as the standard for marital happiness…

  5. Someone over there gave me +1 karma. Yippee!

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Once again we see confirmation of the glasses / red pill facts:

    “He didn’t feel we needed to celebrate the holiday since we’d been married for seven years,” Martinez told MainStreet.

    I suppose he should consider himself fortunate to have taken 7 years to reach this point rather than 5? Wonder how old the youngest child is, maybe, 5 to 6 years old?

    About 67% of people searching for a divorce lawyer on the Internet in the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day are women, according to a new study by Avvo.com, which matches consumers with lawyers.

    Well, duh, given that 60% to 65% of divorces are initiated by women, no surprise here either.

    I’m somewhat surprised there is no tie to the V-monologues – if one is going to work to ruin Valentine’s day, why hold back and stop at only d-i-v-o-r-s-e?

  7. RL says:

    Overrated marriage and divorce cost a lot of money, money that I would rather invest to earn interest. I like accumulating money and not have money drain out of me like blood. Don’t get marred as you are more likely to just argue, get grumpy, get poor, and then get divorced anyway. The screaming kids around the sides at this time only adds to the stress and the bill. There is a growing disconnect between male and female, less marriages, less dating, less children, more older people, less younger people, greater economic systemic collapse in the developed western rich countries as old people outnumber younger people and no workers to pay for all the services and retirement pensions.

  8. sunshinemary says:

    Last year on my old blog, I wrote about a local law firm that was running a Valentine’s Day contest, offering a free divorce to the lucky winner. Over five hundred people entered the contest. Hilariously unfunny.

    Time is running out to get your free divorce for Valentine’s Day.

    On a related note, there is *ahem* an alternative holiday in March. Will men everywhere then say this?

    “Because [unmentionable March 14th holiday] forces us to assess our romantic relationships, many people realize that they are not happy in the situation they are in and there is no possibility of it improving,” Brandt told MainStreet. “Thus, they may turn toward divorce to get a fresh start.”

  9. jf12 says:

    “He didn’t buy me a red enough Valentine card to show how much he cared, so I’m going to file for divorce to show how much I cared.”

    Why, precisely, aren’t more men filing for divorce?

  10. Opus says:

    You are all missing the real story here. That story is about Attorney Jennifer Brandt – the last few lines give it away. Jennifer – before she read Law – acquired a degree in 1991 which by my reckoning makes her 44 years of age, and I can find no hint of a husband, so read desperate. She is said to be a stakeholder (what the hell is that?) in the firm where she works and is always going on conferences and speaking on the television – so she is obviously their poster-girl but does she do any billable work? ‘It is hard’ she says ‘to win an argument when dating a lawyer if you are not a lawyer.’ To me that translates as her admission that she is indeed the bitch from hell and that dating her would be like chewing barbed wire – which is doubtless why she is single and probably childless.

    Oddly, the article also quotes her as saying ‘Attorneys are trained at negotiation and often at litigation’. Which is a little as if she were to say Brain Surgeons are trained to have a bed side manner and often brain surgery.

    I always found the spike was immediately after Xmas but then America does not have two weeks of happy holidays in which to fall out.

  11. MarcusD says:

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,” said Martinez who began considering divorce.

    Sounds a bit like: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/12/montana-newlywed-jordan-linn-graham.html

  12. Elspeth says:

    @ Marcus D on the homewrecker post:

    A relative of mine carried on with a married man for about 15 years.

    She’s older than me by more than a decade. When I was very young she picked me up from work one night and we made a stop. She got out of the car, reached into the back seat and took out a delicious looking home cooked meal and went into a building that I had never been to before.

    When I inquired she said she was taking “Jack” some dinner. She went on about how terrible it was that he had worked that shift for years and his wife never brought him dinner. He either went hungry or had to grab some fast food until she started cooking him dinner. And then she said to me: “Never leave an opening for some other woman to provide for your husband what you should be giving him.”

    I had a couple of thoughts 1)she was a great disappointment since I had looked up to her, but 2) was sharing something profound with me that I shouldn’t forget.

    She loved that guy so much she turned down eligible men and to this day has never been married. When he and his wife finally reached the inevitable point of divorce, he didn’t marry her. He later married someone else.

    She was stupid, and there is never an excuse for adulterous affairs, but what she said that night rang true.

  13. jf12 says:

    Re: Marcus link 4:19 pm “it’s the collective feeling of every guy I know that their wives bait and switched them.” Yes.

  14. David J. says:

    “As such, it is hard to win an argument if you are not an attorney yourself when dating a lawyer.”

    Actually, it’s not hard to win an argument with an attorney, unless he/she is a jerk, in which case the more accurate statement is that it’s hard to win an argument with a jerk. If the attorney isn’t a jerk, it should actually be easier to win the argument (IF you’re right) because he/she has been trained (and presumably has the intelligence) to recognize a winning argument. What people, especially women (and including my ex-wife), really mean by such a statement is that an attorney is less likely to cave in the face of a bad argument by a woman who is used to “winning” on the basis of emotion, volume, as hominem attacks, etc. So then the final ad hominem attack is, “You’re just acting like a lawyer.”

  15. Valentines’ day has nothing on Spring Break:
    http://mathiasmikkelsen.com/2010/10/amazing-facts-about-facebook-and-breakups/

    It’s always funny to me when I have a guy ask me for advice about his suspicions that his GF is cheating, or something “just doesn’t feel right” or should he NEXT her, only to have some die-hard white knight give me the All-For-Love speech when I tell him he should. We don’t know for sure, talk it out with her, communicate better, be a good listeners, blah blah blah,..

    Oh wait, Spring Break is a week out? Yeah, NEXT

  16. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I remember being a selfish wife like that. The “poor me” pity parties when he wouldn’t behave like all the other good husbands behave. “Really, how could you forget, you listen to talk radio, how many commercials do you need to hear to realize that Valentine’s Day is coming up? You have had to have deliberately decided not to get me something. I mean really, any gas station you walk into has flowers…please.” *look of derision, rolled eyes, and that sound women make to announce their indignation* – Yep. That was me.

    I just apologized to him again.

    Interestingly, since I’ve chosen not to be a horrendous rebellious bitch these last few years, he surprises me with things more frequently…

  17. jf12 says:

    Re: Spring Break context. Man alive, it would be great to get some context. Are guys more likely to “file for” break up just prior to spring break because she gave an ultimatum? Is she more likely to file because she intends on random sex?

  18. Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    My dad was a lawyer, and if you were going to go head-to-head with him, you’d sure better have your facts straight. He had no patience at all with an emotional argument, and he didn’t mind making a stupid girl cry.

    But if you presented your thoughts honestly, you were in for a great conversation, and would probably even learn a thing or two. Plus he had an awesome sense of humor. He held court at the head of the kitchen table, well into the wee hours, any day of the week, on any subject you cared to discuss.

    I really miss him.

  19. Vagintines Day is far and away the most vulgar celebration of female entitlement in western culture.

  20. http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/13/v-day/

    In the U.S. businesses expect men to spend on average $186 for Valentine’s day – over three times the average a woman spends on a man. Explain to me why women own V-Day? If it’s a “celebration of romantic love” why should it be an annual shit test?

    Lets clarify a few things about Vagintines Day since it’s become probably the most irksome manifestation of westernized/commercialized romanticism. V-Day is far and away the most vulgar display of female entitlement. On no occasion – even a woman’s birhtday or her wedding anniversary – is this sense of entitlement more pronounced and our refined commercialization of this entitlement/expectation simply twists the knife in further for men to live up to this with ZERO expectation or entitlment to any reciprocation. He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.

    And exploit the media does. I can’t get away from it; Every radio station, every TV show, every newspaper and magazine article. Go to askmen.com right now, I guarantee there’s a “how not to fuck up this year’s V-Day for her” article there.

  21. jf12 says:

    Re: the very idea of men demanding anything is too ludicrous for anyone to take seriously.

  22. Cane Caldo says:

    From the article:

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,” said Martinez who began considering divorce.

    Turn off the television? Divorce?
    Turn off the television? Divorce.
    Turn off the television??? DIVORCE!!!

  23. jf12 says:

    “My husband wouldn’t let me watch tv” = emotional abuse = divorce

  24. Thinkn'Man says:

    “He asked me to marry him” = “creating the potential for an abusive environment” = DIVORCE

  25. David J. says:

    I take issue with this: “He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.” No, since it’s Valentine’s Day, he merely avoids going in the hole by making sufficient romantic offerings; he doesn’t earn any benefits. And, in her mind, it’s unfair and crass for him to expect sex in return for what he “ought” to have done anyway.

  26. Boxer says:

    What?! no expensive dinner on the Hallmark holiday!? That’s totally, like, the same thing as spousal abuse and rape. In fact, I heard that the Jesus character said that in the bible. “Wheresoever a man does not make expensive plans on Valentine’s Day, it is as though he raped and murdered his wife in spirit.” Yeah, it’s in there. and it’s a great reason to bust up your family. You go girl!

    Being serious: I’m so glad I’m not married in this decadent, bourgeois dungheap, where no one is expected to keep her promises nor honor her commitments, and where no one ever grows up. My condolences to all those hard-working men who have to put up with these spoilt princesses.

  27. Ras Al Ghul says:

    SD

    “Interestingly, since I’ve chosen not to be a horrendous rebellious bitch these last few years, he surprises me with things more frequently…”

    The better a husband treats a wife, most woman are likely to believe she can do better, so most women treat a man poorly thinking they respond the same way

    The better a wife treats a man, the more a man thinks he get lucky (especially when he looks at the way most wives treat his friends.

    Most men want to be a hero and if a woman he loves treats him like a hero, the more he will want to live up to that.

  28. feeriker says:

    -Note to self: Never live in any of those cities.

    It doesn’t matter. If you’re a man who lives anywhere in Amerika, you’re divorce rape fodder no matter where you call home.

  29. Pingback: the Revision Division

  30. Ceer says:

    “…like what I see on television…”

    Oh my gosh…I never knew I’ve been so deprived. And here I was thinking that my suburban life free of alien shooting, bar brawling, heist pulling, prison escaping, and vampire fighting was NORMAL. Thank you, Mrs. Martinez for opening my eyes that what I see on TV should guide my actions.

    On a side note, does anyone know someone with a used spaceship for sale? I’d like to fly out to meet Malcolm Reynolds.

  31. feeriker says:

    “Never leave an opening for some other woman to provide for your husband what you should be giving him.”

    As my BSC SIL’s fashion model-figured sister told her before she married my brother: “You had better keep him happy, because if you don’t, I will.”

  32. MarcusD says:

    @Elspeth

    “Never leave an opening for some other woman to provide for your husband what you should be giving him.”

    That certainly seems to be where a lot of marriages derail – one spouse starts looking elsewhere for a missing element.

  33. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/naked-mom-tirade-after-sex-denial-356712

    I wonder, if he did have sex with her, would he be a rapist? Of course he would….

  34. Lion says:

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,”

    I bet her husband feels the same. Imagine my surprise when I got married and discovered my wife had no intention of ever being Barbara Billingsly.

  35. Lion says:

    Rollo said, “Vagintines Day is far and away the most vulgar celebration of female entitlement in western culture.”

    This needs to be on a billboard in a major metropolitan city.

  36. ballista74 says:

    Tagline wisdom:

    Vagintines Day is far and away the most vulgar celebration of female entitlement in western culture.

    And why not, it’s the high unholy day of feminism.

    the very idea of men demanding anything is too ludicrous for anyone to take seriously.

    Such is feminism. Men have no rights. Of course, women have all the rights. Why should the uppity and petulant little slaves have any say in anything?

  37. Luke says:

    Ah, yes, Valentine’s Day — the holiday all men think should be moved to February 29th.
    Just think of all the avoided arguments/hurt feelings/disappointment/wasted money — win/win/win/win IMO…

  38. Casey says:

    From the article link….

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,” said Martinez who began considering divorce. “I was reminded of the dysfunction in my marriage by all of the red and pink decorations in the retail stores and the candy hearts my children brought home from school.”

    When Martinez confronted her husband about Valentine’s Day, she became convinced it was time to pull the plug.

    “He didn’t feel we needed to celebrate the holiday since we’d been married for seven years,” Martinez told MainStreet.

    CLASSIC!!!!

    Any guesses as to what SHE doesn’t do for him any more after 7 years of marriage?

    So the bar of success is that her life should look like television.
    BRUTAL!

  39. TFH says:

    “My relationship just didn’t look like what I see on television,”

    Time for a repeat :

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, intellectual, spiritual, parental, economic, civic, physical) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’.

    Traditional customs benefited women more than men, as they served to package even below-average women into something deceptively better than they really were, in order to fob them off onto men.

    Also :

    The divorce rate of a country depends on one thing, and one thing only :

    Will the living standard of the woman go down shortly after divorce?

    If yes, that country has a low divorce rate.
    If no due to rigged laws, that country has a high divorce rate.

    All the hamster chirping of ‘I was not haaaapy’ or ‘I saw something better on TV’ are merely justifications to hide the cold financial decision. If the cash and prizes were non-existent, she would not suddenly find herself ‘unhaaapy’.

    Countries where men can toss out the wife without cost, still happen to have a low divorce rate. Men tend to be respobsible adults that way. Men put the well-being of the children first, while women clearly do not (again, as ‘feminism’ has shown).

  40. Ollie says:

    I saw this and instantly thought of you:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2558645/The-Eat-Pray-Love-effect-Dreams-self-discovery-destroying-marriage-claims-psychologist.html

    Manosphere ideas filtering into the mainstream. How long will it be before “EPLing” someone gets into the lexicon?

    [D: Thanks!]

  41. Caspar Reyes says:

    That article could have been in the Onion, it’s so far out there.

  42. Opus says:

    I am surprised, but some here seem to think there really is a Mrs Martinez. If she exists she knows or works with the Journalist; if not she has been invented to attract the Latino women (Roman Catholics) into divorcing.

    Frankly, I though the Journalist was having some fun at the lady attorney’s expense towards the end of the article.

    Where I am, Family Law is regarded as the lowest of the low – which is why – these days – only women do it.

  43. Opus,

    Where I am, Family Law is regarded as the lowest of the low –

    I think in the US that for legal work, PIs (Personal Injury lawyers) still hold that title.

    which is why – these days – only women do it.

    I have dated a few attorneys. The most interesting one did bankruptcy law. The one I dumped instantly the minute I found out she practiced family law, she was also semi interesting. I just couldn’t get past her way to earn a living (that is, destroying what I regard as sacred.)

  44. David J. says:

    A (very) few “family law” attorneys are not in it for the money (which is not great, hence the lesser quality of that segment of the Bar overall) but solely to defend non-initiating parties from getting as badly raped. The attorney who defended me in my wife’s frivolous divorce, and who was my friend before he became my attorney, is one such. He might join the general criticism of family law attorneys, but I always point him out as the exception to the rule.

  45. Opus says:

    One of the reason that Family Law is unpopular with Lawyers, is that it does not involve real law – where everything revolves round the wishes of the wife – which we spell, in the best interests of the children. Keep repeating that mantra and you cannot go wrong. You just cannot imprison a recalcitrant wife for contempt without seeing in your mind’s eye tomorrows headlines in The Daily Mail about how you are the Misogynist Judge from hell – you see the problem. Most men (if they have sense) get into Banking law, or Planning law or Building Law – or perhaps Corporate Insolvency – as it is now grandly termed – what IBBs girlfriend did – of course it does not have any human interest (and is thus deathly dull – I should know I spent a year and a half doing nothing else) which I am afraid to say Family Law does – especially when you get to sleep with the ex-wife. The important thing is to avoid (so far as is possible) anything to do with Private clients. I have recently developed some expertise in the Law of Gavelkind.

    I have never dated a lawyer – and never had any desire to do so – don’t associate with them or they me. Obviously I am just intimidated by their strong and confident personalities and am embarrassed by my small penis. :)

    Lawyers like Ms Brandt are merely window-dressing – the legal equivalent of an auto-cutie – but she is too self-obsessed to notice that.

  46. I couldn’t read past the first paragraph of that article without laughing. Maybe I’ll finish the rest of it later.

  47. – of course it does not have any human interest (and is thus deathly dull – I should know I spent a year and a half doing nothing else) which I am afraid to say Family Law does – especially when you get to sleep with the ex-wife.

    I am reminded of Corbin Bernsen’s sleezy character Arnold Becker on LA Law…. and all the ex-wives he banged.

  48. Boxer says:

    IBB: Great reply over there, my man.

    That is all.

  49. Opus says:

    One must not think of it as banging ex-wives but merely helping them through this difficult and stressful time – going that one step beyond what is required professionally. I don’t just do it for the money they offer – (I am not that mercenary).

  50. jf12 says:

    Re: how to save marriage: Let’s have everyone be in white umc couples who have a grand total of one kid and spoil that one kid mercilessly. Sounds more like a recipe for cultural suicide.

  51. galloper6 says:

    The “Never leave an opening……” quote should be a post or even a blog by it self. Make it an iconic quote.

  52. galloper6 says:

    jf12, Cultural suicide is not a bug, it is a feature. It is THE objective.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    I wonder how long it will be before Rachel Held Evans is offered a position at “Focus on the Family”.

  54. MarcusD says:

    I think it’s about ~1.4 for the UC. Fertility rate certainly goes down with increased income. It’s the same for national GDPs. I mean, it’s fairly intuitive, if you spend more time working, you’re not going to have time (or feel you have time) to raise more children.

  55. Some Guy says:

    @aaronthejust –

    The Old Order Amish certainly lay down the Titus 2 treatment to the wives… while the men restrict themselves to manual labor (literally making “good things” with their hands.) Church members greet one another with a holy kiss before each church service, women are silent in church, and the only way to gain status is not only to be married but to have your grandchildren remain in the fellowship.

    They do not “lift holy hands” and would be alarmed by just about any of the practices common in “charismatic” circles, but they do pretty good on most of her points. Divorce is unthinkable among them… men are usually served first and children last at gatherings… and the young girls are noticeably afraid of being passed over by the young men. The spinsters make really good schoolteachers, though.

    (Some communities may vary.)

    Protestants would be horrified by their views on evangelism… and mortified to discover that many of them are unable to read their German bibles. It’s not that they are a perfect people, of course… but her satire isn’t exactly unthinkable.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD
    I think it’s about ~1.4 for the UC. Fertility rate certainly goes down with increased income. It’s the same for national GDPs.

    That would be interesting to study, the TFR as partitioned across income cohorts. At this time I would guess that there’s a definite drop at the $100,000 / year income level. This would leave out the really wealthy, of course, but they are a tiny percentage anyway.

  57. MarcusD says:

    @AR

    Here’s the data for Brazil: http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/rbepop/v29n2/a07grf02.jpg

    For the US: http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us.jpg

    I’ll add this to the list of things to extract from the GSS.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, thanks for the links, this is an interesting topic. I’ve always preferred fertility rates (ideally TFR) to birth rates for analysis, maybe it’s just a mental quirk. Brazil is clearly following the track of the industrialized nations, for what it’s worth.

  59. Boxer says:

    Obama Leaves Wife Behind to Go Golfing for Valentine’s Day

    I don’t blame him. She’s really quite rude to him in public. She must be hell to live with in the private sphere.

    I realize that most political marriages are more partnership than actual love affair (the Clintons and the Thatchers and the Kennedys and the Edwards, etc. etc.) but the Obamas are in their own class. His wife disrupts functions he is supposed to be at (remember Mandela’s funeral?) and is totally disrespectful to him in full view of the cameras. I feel sorry for him, but at the same time, I hate his beta ass for putting up with this shit. I’d love to see him tell her to STFU, and she totally deserves as much.

    Maybe someone should send the president a link to the Dalrock blog and a copy of Athol Kay’s book. I’m sure it couldn’t hurt. lol

  60. Fred Flange, OBE says:

    The Atlantic piece of course goes where you think it will. Unemployed men aren’t redundant, they just to want to be dads! Let’s send them to Room 101 and re-edumacate them to man up and marry that baby-mama!!

    Except wait a tick: the Promises We Keep book (and Obsidian at JFG) show pretty definitively that the baby-mamas DON’T WANT those redundant men. They want to travel and see the world and have a career and a reality TV show first! They’ll marry at 40! When the kids are out of the house!

    And as always, it’s the MEN we are supposed to re-edumacate. The women are Strong and independent so there’s no talking to them.

    So much for that idea. Whoopsie.

  61. MarcusD says:

    Okay, added a few more.

  62. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    Yes, I’ve heard/read the same. I suspect Putin knows.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer, I am at a loss for a reason to care.

    MarcusD, it is interesting that at a first glance no obvious pattern shows up by income per se, but in the divorced category if I am viewing correctly the highest income group stands out, and in the single group there is a clear pattern. Interesting work.

  64. jf12 says:

    Re: Titus 2. Sweat, esepcially brow sweat: check. Holy kiss: check. Hand raising: check. What was her point, again?

  65. jf12 says:

    Re: obvious pattern. Plot it as the wife’s income, only the wife’s income. I bet the man’s income doesn’t matter.

  66. jf12 says:

    It seems relevant that a not-insignificant number of people have now floated the idea of temporary marriages (whether the old 5 yr plan, or the “new” compromise 10 yr plan). Planned obsolescence.

  67. MarcusD says:

    Okay, added two charts. One is for married men, 40-60, total number of children, and broken down by income bracket for the respondent. The second one is the same, but for married women.

    There are slight differences. When female respondents get into higher income brackets, fertility drops. For men, not as much.

  68. Norm says:

    donalgraeme.”I don’t really know what to say to this. How delusional do you have to be to base your decisions on what you seen on television?”
    Like the song by A-ha from 1985. The sun always shines on TV. I often thought, why don’t divorce lawyers advertise in bridal sections of newspapers which seem to come out every spring?!?

  69. Norm says:

    Here is the official video of the song “The Sun Always Shines on TV”. Some adjectives and metaphors used in this video with the use of manicans.

  70. TFH says:

    Boxer,

    I don’t blame him. She’s really quite rude to him in public. She must be hell to live with in the private sphere.

    When you think about it…..

    1) Barry (who is only half-black) had almost no interactions with any black people in the first 18 years of his life.
    2) He must have been a beta, and felt a missing connection with his black side (Kenyan being very different from African-American, but why quibble?) who got duped by this aggressive woman who decided to take possession of him. She probably asked – nay, ordered – him out.
    3) He had no idea how much he was underselling himself.

    As a half-black/half-white man who was educated and articulate, he could have gotten either :
    a) A pretty white woman.
    b) A black woman much better looking than Michelle…

    Frankly, had Michelle not captured Barack, Michelle probably would have not managed to marry at all. Most black women who are like her don’t end up marrying.

    Hell, Condoleeza Rice could not find someone to marry, despite being better than Michelle in every way (better personality, more intelligent, better-looking, and not obsessed with seeing everything in terms of race or feminism). Kamala Harris (much better-looking than Michelle, and half-black/half-Indian = exotic) is also apparently not married.

    Lastly, people think that since Michelle is so unattractive and bossy, Barack would have an affair, given how often he sees Kamala Harris, Eva Longoria, etc. But no. I think an ugly wife kills a man’s libido, and makes adultery less likely. Note the descending order of infidelity in correlation to decreasingly attractive first ladies (the opposite of what one might expect) :

    JFK : Jacqueline.
    Bill Clinton : Hillary Clinton
    Barack Obama : Michelle ‘Giganta’ Obama

  71. MarcusD says:

    Facebook un-blurs identities with 50-plus new gender options:
    Girls who are boys who like boys to be girls who do boys like they’re girls …

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/14/facebook_offers_50plus_new_gender_options_for_users/

    The article mentions a critical comment, but the byline is probably the most critical thing I read.

  72. fathermarker says:

    And here is the ideal churchian marriage to go with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-AAcHlEJg

  73. TheGenXFuture says:

    For some reason this seems appropriate, emphasis added.

    “Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution.

    We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends.

    Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. … There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. … If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. … That is the world that we are preparing, Winston.”

    -George Orwell, 1984

  74. jf12 says:

    Re: why can’t my life be more like tv. Keep in mind like 99.9% of viewers like them, of soap operas, of relationship dramas, etc. are women. They evidently WANT their men to carry concealed weapons, to have multiple secret identities, hidden stashes of something-or-other, furtive encounters with strange women on the street, bizarre phone calls in the middle of the night from unknown callers, etc. And a hand-drawn valentine, delivered by a deformed dwarf on a bicycle at 10:30, who croaks “The boss, he say tell you “After Shigatse, cometh the night.”

  75. Marissa says:

    Hell, Condoleeza Rice could not find someone to marry

    You’re assuming she’s looking. She’s a career woman. Who knows if she actually wants a husband and children (beyond the typical yearning–has she done anything to work for it?).

  76. Mikediver says:

    Michelle had divorce papers drawn up at a time when Barry’s community organizer career seemed to have stalled. She made more money than he did, and we know what that means for a marriage. Then he got elected to the Illinois senate (IIRC) and all was well. She has been done with the marriage for a long time. She stays with him for the prestige of his elected position. We may be looking at the first post presidential divorce. It had to happen sooner or later and I can not think of a more deserving person to whom it should occur.

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD

    Okay, added two charts. One is for married men, 40-60, total number of children, and broken down by income bracket for the respondent. The second one is the same, but for married women.

    Thanks. Visualization of data is not always an easy thing to do, but it is useful.

    There are slight differences. When female respondents get into higher income brackets, fertility drops. For men, not as much.

    No surprise here. There is a regular contributor to the CNBC show “Fast Money” who is a money manager / trader and a married woman with multiple children. No idea what her husband does, but I’m sure they have hired people who help raise their children. More often than not when she’s on the show, she looks just plain tired…

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    Finerman. Karen Finerman, she is a hedge fund manager as well as “Fast Money” contributor / panelist. Definitely an exception, in terms of the data MarcusD is visualizing for us. Probably tired all the time, for the last decade, too.

  79. Marissa says:

    Hell, Condoleeza Rice could not find someone to marry, despite being better than Michelle in every way (better personality, more intelligent, better-looking, and not obsessed with seeing everything in terms of race or feminism). Kamala Harris (much better-looking than Michelle, and half-black/half-Indian = exotic) is also apparently not married.

    Never mind my previous post, what am I saying, they just haven’t been asked.

  80. Never mind my previous post, what am I saying, they just haven’t been asked.

    I would agree with this.

  81. jf12 says:

    Re: “they just haven’t been asked” by the Right One. There I fixed it. This ties in well with SSM’s 50Shades Of Keeping Your Legs Closed.

    It occurs to me that for hamster-slaying, a tinier sword would be more effective.

  82. Marissa says:

    jf12, I doubt they are asked much at all, especially Condi. If you’re ugly, you need to make up for that with other feminine qualities, not go full-blast masculine. I truly doubt Miss Rice wants to marry and have children. She reminds me very much of a woman trying to be a man/dog walking on its hind legs.

  83. Re: “they just haven’t been asked” by the Right One. There I fixed it. This ties in well with SSM’s 50Shades Of Keeping Your Legs Closed.

    It occurs to me that for hamster-slaying, a tinier sword would be more effective.

    Don’t any of you understand for one second what SSM is saying now (what I’ve been saying for months?) She is saying something that I have said repeatedly, women can’t keep their legs closed. Period. End of story.

    What part of the phrase …Women are not Moral Agents…. do you guys at Dalrock’s not understand? This is very simple. You are asking women to do something they are incapable of doing.

  84. Marissa,

    I truly doubt Miss Rice wants to marry and have children.

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

    It appears that Dr Rice did have an opportunity to marry.

    In the 1970s, Condoleezza Rice dated and was briefly engaged to American football player Rick Upchurch. She left him because, according to her biographer Marcus Mabry, “She knew the relationship wasn’t going to work.”[

    I don’t even know what that means but, whatever. I’m guessing she probably regrets not marrying Mr Upchurch. But that was in the 1970s when she was a liberal Democrat before Condi saw the light, so to speak….

  85. jf12 says:

    Miss Rice has always said that she has turned down multiple offers of marriage; it’s common public knowledge. Back when Harris had higher SMV she was dating her way up the alpha trophic level, and kept initiating breakups to move up.

  86. TFH says:

    We may be looking at the first post presidential divorce. It had to happen sooner or later and I can not think of a more deserving person to whom it should occur.

    Keep in mind that he is set to earn over $200M in speaking fees and other cronyism gigs post-office (as Bill Clinton and Al Gore both did). Michelle will want to divorce after that, as the big money for a Democrat is after leaving office (Republicans don’t make that much after office, as GOP Presidents aren’t seen as divine deities by their supporters, whereas for lefty Dems, politics is a religion substitute).

    Overall, 3 years after leaving office, Obama will in fact be richer than Mitt Romney (nevermind that Obama is making money *from* his former office, while Mitt made it beforehand in the private sector)….

  87. TFH,

    She hasn’t frivorced President Obama yet. Maybe she will, maybe she won’t. I doubt she will.

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    What part of the phrase …Women are not Moral Agents…. do you guys at Dalrock’s not understand?

    Of course this contradicts IBB’s previously stated support of the “blank slate”. If humans are truly blank slates, then the only reason women are not moral agents is due to improper training. Conversely, if women are not moral agents, then this trait must be inherent to women, invalidating the blank slate notion.

    Realtiy is not kind to IBB…that may account for some of the more emotion-laden rants.

  89. Micha Elyi says:

    Valentines Day edition.
    Dalrock

    Let’s all be evangelists by saying “Saint Valentine’s Day”.

    Today is a day of remembrance for a Christian martyr; not boxed chocolates and jewelry day–much to the disappointment of females and those who merchandise to females.

  90. Opus says:

    I had always understood that the purpose of V-day was to send a card, anonymously, to a woman who caught ones fancy. She might guess your identity; love might blossom.

    One year, a few weeks before V-day, I received an envelope in the post, neatly addressed to me. I did not recognise the hand. The franking-mark was Fulham, which is in London. I knew nobody in Fulham – and it is not the easiest place to get to either. The card contained a number of alternatives, which were then ticked – all in blue fountain-pen ink. The card was not signed other than by a ? or perhaps some xxxs.

    No one ever owned up to the card or the obvious going to of some considerable trouble, but the type of humour involved enabled me to reduce to but one person the possible sender of the card. Inevitably she denied all knowledge. I will thus never know for sure.

  91. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH:

    Please see inside text…

    As a half-black/half-white man who was educated and articulate, he could have gotten either :
    a) A pretty white woman.
    b) A black woman much better looking than Michelle…

    Frankly, had Michelle not captured Barack, Michelle probably would have not managed to marry at all. Most black women who are like her don’t end up marrying.

    While Michelle Obama was never a great beauty, she did have a *very* nice figure when she was in her early 20s. She was a gymnast. I’m guessing she had old Barry seeing stars when he popped the question.

    I also have to admit that she’s quite good looking now, comparatively. While there are 50 to 55-year old women who look as good, they’re very rare. She’s obviously kept herself very fit and worked hard to maintain a pleasant appearance as she’s aged, which is to her credit.

    My problem with her is her general attitude, tone and demeanor. Of course it’s her husband’s place to respond to this, but his lack of balls in this area ought to be an embarrassment to every American.

    Lastly, people think that since Michelle is so unattractive and bossy, Barack would have an affair, given how often he sees Kamala Harris, Eva Longoria, etc. But no. I think an ugly wife kills a man’s libido, and makes adultery less likely. Note the descending order of infidelity in correlation to decreasingly attractive first ladies (the opposite of what one might expect)

    That’s actually a very good point, and very interesting. I have never thought about that aspect before.

    I have always assumed that Obama is banging various women, just as all politicians (at least the contemporary variety) are having affairs. Henry Kissinger, who said “power is the most effective aphrodisiac”, conservative republican/christian senator Larry Craig, who got caught asking a man for sex in a public toilet, etc. etc. Our system seems to select for the sort of people who put their own carnal pleasures above even their own basic good sense. I imagine the minute they get off the plane in Washington, for their first day on the floor of the congress, most of these guys and gals are gaming everyone. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m never surprised when another one gets caught.

  92. Tam the Bam says:

    Over Here, in our Constitution-less, nondemocratic, misruled democratic constitutional monarchy,
    “Our system seems to select for the sort of people who put their own carnal pleasures above even their own basic good sense.”
    is the only reason for entering any form of public life, whether politics, social work or religion. It does have the merit of being comparatively reasonable, as any other motive is viewed with extreme suspicion as a prelude to coup d’etat or something.

    Anybody know how it went with that blonde Danish bird Barry was selfied with at some dreary conference? Get in!

  93. Karley says:

    Once all states implemented no-fault divorce law, suicide by wives plummeted by 8-15% (depending on the state/area). Women divorce for the same reasons men do: either domestic abuse, lack of respect by partner (e.g., one partner feeling entitled to make 100% of all the decisions under the rule of “headship” or in the case of women, simply being domineering of their partner). Women do not divorce because they are morally, spiritually, intellectionally, emotionally etc. etc. INFERIOR. They divorce for as many reasons as do men. Sometimes it’s selfish and sometimes it’s necessary. The blind hatred and gross disrespect for women that I read on these pages is about as biblical as Satan. You people blame women for EVERYTHING. Facts: Women have already proven that they can work at most of the same jobs/careers (doctor, accountant, lawyer etc) as men (sans those requiring physical strength) AND have families with men who are not intimidated by equality–thank God there are lots of them out there (not here). It happens every day all over the Western World. Accept it and maybe you’ll find a mature relationship that doesn’t depend on your wife following your every command. In other words, grow up little boys on this blog of HATE.

  94. Opus says:

    @Karley

    I had always assumed that Satan was entirely Biblical. He puts in an appearance as early as Chapter One of Genesis.

  95. Boxer says:

    You people blame women for EVERYTHING

    Who are you talking to?

    The reason I like this blog is because it’s not the knee-jerk, reactionary, Orwellian type of place where “men good/women bad” is the message. There are a lot of those places on the internet. I consider them to be spreading a form of feminism, albeit an inverted type.

    To be fair, there is a place for those blogs. Often times we get hurt (emotionally, financially, etc.) and we need a place to express irrational anger. After a while, a normal person puts things into context and moves on. Nobody wants to be pissed off at a large group of people all the time. It’s nicer to enjoy your own life.

    In any event, this isn’t one of those places. Both men and women are discussed honestly here, and a serious effort is made to deconstruct behavior patterns and find solutions to complex problems.

    Best, Boxer

  96. MarcusD says:

    Once all states implemented no-fault divorce law, suicide by wives plummeted by 8-15% (depending on the state/area).

    I’d be interested in seeing a source (as it seems you just grabbed that statistic from Wikipedia). (By the way: suicide rates by marital status are only available after 1977 – kind of hard to draw some of those conclusions like the above.) Also, male suicide rates went up with the introduction of no-fault divorce [1].

    Anyway, still on the topic:

    No-fault divorce reduces investment in all types of marriage-specific capital (except home-ownership) [2].

    No-fault divorce increases the incidence of divorce [3] (as well as the adult suicide rates for children of those divorces, amongst other serious consequences [4]).

    And, by the way, there are a few studies that find your above quote to be just a bit off [5].

    Women divorce for the same reasons men do

    But the distribution is different.

    The blind hatred and gross disrespect for women that I read on these pages is about as biblical as Satan.

    Example please (you are free to cite your own comments).

    Facts: Women have already proven that they can work at most of the same jobs/careers (doctor, accountant, lawyer etc) as men (sans those requiring physical strength) AND have families with men who are not intimidated by equality

    Have they?

    Accept it and maybe you’ll find a mature relationship that doesn’t depend on your wife following your every command.

    I think you’ve misread (a lot? most of?) what’s written here.

    [1] Halla, Martin. “The effect of joint custody on family outcomes.” Journal of the European Economic Association 11.2 (2013): 278-315.

    [2] Stevenson, Betsey. “The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage‐Specific Capital.” Journal of Labor Economics 25.1 (2007): 75-94.

    [3] Rasul, Imran. “The impact of divorce laws on marriage.” University of Chicago (2004).

    [4] Gruber, Jonathan. “Is making divorce easier bad for children? The long‐run implications of unilateral divorce.” Journal of Labor Economics 22.4 (2004): 799-833.

    [5] Wickelgren, Abraham L. “Why divorce laws matter: Incentives for noncontractible marital investments under unilateral and consent divorce.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 25.1 (2009): 80-106.

  97. MarcusD says:

    The blind hatred and gross disrespect for women that I read on these pages is about as biblical as Satan.

    See, I’m not sure if this is a failed insult or an attempt to agree with us.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @MarcusD

    Once all states implemented no-fault divorce law, suicide by wives plummeted by 8-15% (depending on the state/area).

    I’d be interested in seeing a source (as it seems you just grabbed that statistic from Wikipedia). (By the way: suicide rates by marital status are only available after 1977 – kind of hard to draw some of those conclusions like the above.) Also, male suicide rates went up with the introduction of no-fault divorce [1].

    Stevenson and Wolfers claim female suicide dropped 20% with the introduction of no fault divorce here, but I haven’t dug into that statistic. Still, when it comes to suicide men are far more at risk in general, and as you pionted out men’s rates of suicide jump dramatically with divorce. It is incredibly heartless for Karley to worry only about people who are like her, while ignoring people who aren’t like her and are 4-5 times more likely to commit suicide. It is like she can’t feel empathy for people who aren’t of the same sex as herself.

    I haven’t found the paper they are citing, but the Daily Mail states here that men’s suicide rates increase 39% with divorce. When you consider how much more often men commit suicide, that is an astounding number (unless you don’t care about people like that).

  99. Opus says:

    It is of course entirely possible that the lowering of female suicide rates although contemporaneous with no-fault divorce is nevertheless not correlated thereto. Even if that were not the case the small reduction in female suicide rates (8-15% as advised by the ever-helpful Karley) does suggest that few marriages are not particularly awful from the woman’s point of view such as to merit ending it all.

    Suicide is overwhelmingly a male misfortune: the pressures on males are just that much greater than on women. That is not misogynist; merely, empirical observation. I would also observe that whereas a woman might kill herself when in an abusive marriage, men tend to kill themselves when the marriage ends – like the young father of eight whose Inquest took place before The Coroner in my town a couple of weeks ago. Men do not have the support networks that women seem to have: a guy I knew by sight ended it on the railway track, when unemployed, a life without his mother (who had died) and no close friends made it seem pointless. Nevertheless in the spirit of equality I must recall that woman who committed suicide a couple of years ago at Xmas having warned that she was going to do so by advertising the same on Facebook – to her thousand plus ‘friends’!

  100. MarcusD says:

    Well, they don’t mention a few things (like LFPR), so I’m wondering if that was excluded. Suicide rates went up in the late 1950s to peak in 1975 or so (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf — there also appears to be a cohort effect for female). Male suicide rates are fairly steady.

    The suicide rate for females has gone up in the past 20 years, as well, such that it could return to 1975 levels in a decade.

    I also noticed a correlated between female suicide rates and a few other things. I’ll report back on it.

  101. Badpainter says:

    ” …Women are not Moral Agents….”

    If that’s the case then they can’t be trusted and must be controlled. Any attempt to equalize the sexes is thus a recipe for disaster as one half the population incapable of considering the abstract moral consequences of its actions.

    So women must be regarded with same respect and affection as that a cowboy has for his horse or I have for my dog. But never would a being without moral agency be worthy of the same consideration I have for my close male friends, because such a creature in inherently inferior, and at best a beast of burden.

  102. Women divorce for the same reasons men do:

    But at a rate of 4 to 1. ‘splain dat.

  103. JDG says:

    Women have already proven that they can work at most of the same jobs/careers (doctor, accountant, lawyer etc) as men (sans those requiring physical strength)

    Sure there are exceptions here and there, but for the most part no they haven’t, not by a long shot. Women have been given a leg up by Uncle Sam through Affirmative Action and politically ‘correct’ changes in the work place. From what I have seen, most women cost their employers more money because they don’t produce the same return as men over the long run.

    And even if what you claim where true, that does not mean that women should work at a job/career. A woman who works full time has less time to attend to the needs of her husband, children, and home. She occupies a position that a man could have had making it more difficult for men to be the bread winner. And as I said above, women often spend less time working at a given profession, so the return for investment is lower.

    No one here is intimidated by equality. Most folks here just know that it does not exist, at least not the way you understand it.

    Women trying to be men, what a way to run a society.

    I thought Karley was in the kitchen making sammiches.

  104. JDG says:

    Thank you MarcusD.

  105. Boxer says:

    Karley needs to “lean in” like a good feminist woman. Us men are now enjoying the fruits of equality. We can work less hours, get ourselves some food stamps, and let the empowered girls pick up the slack. There are taxes that need paying, Karley. It’s for the children. Get a second job and snap to.

  106. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    I always thought the “end of men” discussions were just a way to get men back to work [serving gynocentric feminism].

  107. hurting says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    February 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    I suspect most attorneys who practice family law would also hold themselves out as practitioners in personal injury and vice versa. A distinction without much of a difference so far as seemliness is concerned.

    Family law is practiced by and large by attorneys who are incapable of securing more prestigious and/or lucrative gigs. There is considerably less risk to a divorce attorney of not making any money once his client begins the process than a PI practitioner where he’s probably being compensated on a contingency basis.

    It doesn’t matter who the family law attorney represents (woman or man, plaintiff or defendant), becasue once ball gets rolling, the outcome (a divorce) is all but assured, and there is at least some money to be made in the process.

    Looked at another way, intellectual property attorneys can be family law attorneys, but most family law attorneys would not make good or even adequate intellectual property attorneys.

  108. hurting says:

    If the suicide rate for any demographic other than white males (who lead by a wide margin over all others) was as high as it is for the ‘oppressors’, it would be called an epdemic worthy of great concern and public policy machinations.

  109. baidpainter,

    ” …Women are not Moral Agents….”

    If that’s the case then they can’t be trusted and must be controlled.

    For the most part, yes. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

    I have some personal experience here. My first two fiancees could not be trusted.. Therefore, I did not marry them. I was not interested in controlling them (nor would the law allow me to do so such that I would be satisfied with the marriage) so I didn’t enter it for my own sanity. I am of the opinion that most men (who could marry, but choose not to) come to the same conclusion.

    Any attempt to equalize the sexes is thus a recipe for disaster as one half the population incapable of considering the abstract moral consequences of its actions.

    Pretty much. Its the main reason why we put ourselves into such mental anguish over what would be very simple decisions (such as extroditing a murderer like Amanda Knox when we all know she murdered Meridith but we don’t want to hold her responsible because she is a “pretty girl.”) We are torn as to what to do with her because of her gender.

    So women must be regarded with same respect and affection as that a cowboy has for his horse or I have for my dog. But never would a being without moral agency be worthy of the same consideration I have for my close male friends, because such a creature in inherently inferior, and at best a beast of burden.

    You expect certain behavior from your close male friends. You do NOT expect women to act in the same manner. You don’t hold them responsible because (deep down) you KNOW that since they are women, they are less likely to be be accountable for their actions. And that is the way our society looks at women. A more kinder, more gentlemanly way we excuse this lesser expectation we have for our women (while still putting all the onus on men) is called chivalry.

  110. Badpainter says:

    IBB,

    If women aren’t moral agents and cannot be trusted, not be expected to adhere to any consistent set of rules; then are men responsible for the moral treatment of women?

    Your position neatly justifies physical discipline, selling them into slavery, forced breeding and general dehumanization. Rather women then exist solely for the purposes of breeding, the physical pleasure of men, and menial tasks. Treating them well is only incidental because of the same fondness we men have for any of our other pets.

    In other words you can’t be serious.

  111. Baidpainter,

    If women aren’t moral agents and cannot be trusted, not be expected to adhere to any consistent set of rules; then are men responsible for the moral treatment of women?

    Well this is basically what we have right now. This is reality. Men are responsible. Your wife goes out and charges $5000 on leather boots simply because she had to have them. Because you are married you are responsible for her lack of accountability. You must pay if she can’t.

    Your position neatly justifies physical discipline, selling them into slavery, forced breeding and general dehumanization.

    Slavery has been outlawed in Western Civlization. We fought a civil war to end ours. Physical discipline has increasingly been outlawed. As far as I know, in the state of Massachusetts, if a child is spanked the parent that spanked the child can be incarcerated. In that state, there is no justification for corporal punishment of children, let alone wives.

    This are our laws. They are not God’s laws.

    Rather women then exist solely for the purposes of breeding, the physical pleasure of men, and menial tasks. Treating them well is only incidental because of the same fondness we men have for any of our other pets.

    In other words you can’t be serious.

    Now you are projecting. I never said women are pets.

    Wives are supposed to be property. A man’s wife is his property. Her body is his property. A father “gives” his daughter over to her husband. She ceases being the father’s property and becomes the husband’s property. Man and “wife.” She takes his name because she is his property. That is Biblical. That is the way God wants it because God knows that men have pride of ownership and men take extra special care of what they own. So if a man owns his wife (you can call her his slave if you want since she is supposed to OBEY him) then he is going to love her the way he loves God and care for her and protect her (almost, dare I say it, worship her.) He does that because her body is his property. He is going to care for it. He is going to treat her tenderly, treat her special.

    That is the way it works. That is the way it has always worked until feminism came along and ruined it for everyone….

    …seriously.

  112. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    If women are not moral agents, then they cannot be blamed for anything they do or say. To say they have no moral agency means that women cannot distinguish between Good and Evil. Thus, they cannot be punished for any action in any way that God, Man, or Society would call wrong or evil, nor even called out for correction in taking the action. Murder, rape, kidnapping, any form of theft cannot be held against them if they are not moral agents.

    As we know this NOT to be the case in Common Law, Public Law, Natural Law, and in Christian terms, since both Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and came to know Good and Evil, we know that IBB is … again … wrong about Moral Agency.

    IBB, why you want to give Women a free pass is beyond reason itself.

  113. Boxer says:

    I always thought the “end of men” discussions were just a way to get men back to work [serving gynocentric feminism].

    I can definitely see that, and think it’s much more likely than a celebration of obsolescence. “We don’t need you” translates to “You’d better earn me more money!”.

    The fatal flaw with that bit of feminist tactical doctrine is the inability to keep people from bugging out. Younger guys may well respond “OK, I’ll go someplace where I’m appreciated”, taking their bank account and their marketable skills along with them to Poland, China or Paraguay… Dread game is much less effective on men.

  114. jf12 says:

    Re: “Her body is his property.” And his body is hers. 1 Corinthians 7:4. Marriage is the mutual gifting of each other’s body; nothing more nothing less.

  115. Badpainter says:

    quothe IBB:
    “I never said women are pets.”

    But you haven’t explained why a being with no moral agency and nothing to offer but sexual gratification is anything but a pet. A least my dog is loyal, and understands the consequences of its actions; housebroken, doesn’t eat my shoes anymore. Women haven’t even got the loyalty thing going for them. Heck, even cats don’t bother you with never ending nonsensical chatter.

    Seriously though, the current situation sucks with teeth, I agree. But not because half the population lacks moral agency but because they’re not expected to act as if they have any. There is no incentive for them to behave responsibly, and no real disincentives if they don’t. I blame the parents, churchians, and baby boomers in particular.

  116. Edwin says:

    Women as a species aren’t lacking in moral agency, it’s just modern woman in culture-less, raised-on-TV America. Didn’t this ever occur to you guys?

    I promise you you take any “disenfranchised” woman of 60+ years ago and they had more sense of responsibility and duty, and more self control to exercise them, than most modern women, and no silly illusions in their beliefs

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