Doublethink

From the UK based The Marriage Foundation publication Divorce rates have halved for new brides. Why?:

Because it is almost entirely the reduction of wife-granted divorces concentrated into the early years of marriage that accounts for the overall 22% reduction in divorce rates since the 1993 peak, any explanation for this phenomenon has to account for wives being less prone to divorce. By far the most plausible explanation relates to wives perception of husbands.

In other words, husbands are doing better during the early years of marriage.

Why is this?  Because commitment matters.  He continues (emphasis mine):

The best current theory of commitment holds a plausible explanation for why this might be the case. Commitment theory proposes that men – but not women – who “decide” rather than “slide” through important relationship transitions are more dedicated and therefore have more stable relationships (Stanley et al, 2010).

The paper he cites to back up his assertion that men’s commitment matters in marriage and women’s doesn’t is Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment.  Strangely I can’t find such a claim being made in that paper.

Still, the original Marriage Foundation paper is worth a look for the charts.  The chart titled “Number of divorces (by party to whom granted)” on page 8 shows how initiation of divorce by men and women was roughly the same (with women initiating slightly more) until 1973.  At that point women’s initiation of divorce skyrocketed and men’s initiation leveled off.  Perhaps some of my readers from the UK can shed some light on what happened around 1973 to cause this change.

See also the chart titled “WIFE divorce rates, 2010 vs 1993″ on page 9.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Data, Denial, Divorce, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.

493 Responses to Doublethink

  1. Aquila says:

    The “patriarchy” existed for a reason, and it’s time to reassert it and put an titanium lid on the pandora’s box called feminism once and for all. No voting, no anything. Not one step in the wrong direction, not one compromise. That’s the only way society has worked for thousands of years, and it’s the only way to bring it all back together again. The abuses under the old system are bad, but, the new system, with skyrocketing single motherhood and thus massive crime rates, is far too much worse than any old system abuses to continue on the path we’re on.

  2. Pingback: Doublethink | Manosphere.com

  3. Acatisfinetoo says:

    What happened in 1973?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonial_Causes_Act_1973

    Court ordered child support it looks like. Payout time.

  4. By far the most plausible explanation relates to wives perception of husbands.

    It took me about two seconds to think of another plausible explanation: women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed. With economies worsening, their country being invaded by a hostile subculture, a general sense of uncertainty about the future, and regular stories about men losing interest in marriage, the natural threat-point has moved. Consciously or not, some women are sensing that life after divorce might not be a non-stop Sex and the City party after all, and that raises their estimation of their husbands’ value by comparison and their willingness to put up with imperfection.

    That’s much more likely than that husbands have suddenly gotten “better,” especially in the sense that this writer would probably mean the term.

  5. @Cail Corishev

    It brings to mind Rollo Tomassi’s writings about “Dread Game”…it’s plausible that economies are just as capable as men at causing dread in a woman and consequently, tingles.

  6. Steve H says:

    My experience meeting British men via work and particularly travel – the ‘white knight’ brand doesn’t fare so well across the pond. There’s a level of snark and cynicism in the median British chap that isn’t as accepted in the US. In the US, men are supposed to be noble ‘white knight’ feminists. In the UK, feminism seems to be strong, but without as many male enablers and male perpetuation of feminist blather. Just my take as an oft-traveling American.

  7. wesa1835 says:

    I think the study’s conclusion is backwards. Since 1993, it has become far more acceptable for women to co-habitate, remain single, and have children out of wedlock. Hence, no social pressure to get married in general (reducing marginal pairings), no social stigma for open unmarried sexual relationships, and no need to get married to have children. The result is the ‘shack-up’ culture where partners come and go will little or no formal commitment.

  8. TFH says:

    Cail Corishev,

    It took me about two seconds to think of another plausible explanation: women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed.

    Time for a repeat :

    The divorce rate of a society is determined by one thing, and one thing only :

    Will the woman’s anticipated/perceived standard of living go down after divorce, or not?

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

    That is all there is to it. All the retroactive rationalizations of “I was not haaaaapy” or “we grew apart” are just excuses for the cold financial decision.

    Societies where men can toss out the wife with little cost (few of these remain) have a very low divorce rate. Why? Because men put the well-being of children above their own, while women do not. Men tend to be responsible adults that way.

  9. WillBest says:

    “Court ordered child support it looks like. Payout time.”

    No it must have been that women’s OWN ability to generate income increased due to waning discrimination. And that because of their OWN ability they now were no longer slaves to abusive men.

  10. TFH says:

    Aquila,

    That’s the only way society has worked for thousands of years, and it’s the only way to bring it all back together again.

    Unfortunately, no. A third way will emerge. The reason we cannot go back to the old way is :

    i) Material prosperity is enough now that most people’s basic needs are easily met in first world countries (a good thing). Don’t underestimate how much poverty did to create the social structures of old.
    ii) Women now only use 10-20% of their lifetime reproductive potential, with many using zero.
    iii) The Internet and other mass-communication technologies make it easy for the government to inject the same thought into all women at once, making it impossible to repeal ‘feminism’ via direct confrontation.

    What will happen after 2020 (when the Misandry Bubble pops) :

    Men will divide into subgroups : manginas (who bear all the costs, as they should) and red-pillers (who either get laid a lot, or decide that VR sex is better).

    Many women will be single mothers, but a non-trivial number of men will hire surrogates and become single fathers. Poverty will be concentrated among single mothers and manginas (rightfully).

    The more attractive members of each sex will be the only people who have substantial interaction with each other, with the less attractive knowing hardly anyone of the opposite sex in romantic contexts.

    ‘Marriage’ will be little more than a taxation mechanism via which to strip blue-pill losers out of their money. Frankly, if a man hasn’t found the androsphere and the red-pill truths contained therein by 2020, it is more his fault that he got ground up, than anyone else’s.

  11. Cadders says:

    I’m in the UK and I chat with a lot of young men and for the vast majority marriage is a four letter word. Many will point blank state that they will never get married, most of the others are ambivalent and not trying; None are actively seeking marriage. As I have posted elsewhere with regard to the agents of change that the feminist / feminized culture is currently subject to my read is that the declining divorce rate is one of the first tangible signs that the ‘signal’ is in effect

    It is understood by both men and women that men, as a group, will do what ever it takes to get sex (e.g. in the past become husband material, nowadays become assholes and jerks) and ‘what ever it takes’ is policed by women, as a group. Women control other women to ensure they all enforce the current cultural sexual narrative.

    But women do not appear (to me) to ever be the ones defining the cultural sexual narrative. It appears to me that this is always defied by a group of men who are able, by whatever means, to push the new agenda on society. And they do this by influencing the women who submit to the new narrative to a much greater degree than men. Once the women have been ‘turned’ it is only a matter of time before the mass of men fall into line. Those that don’t risk losing access to sex.

    So what we typically have is a subset of men defining the narrative using women as ‘useful idiots’ to ensure the mass of men fall in line with the agenda.

    It tends to work because as long as the average man is fed, housed and sexed, then he is able to live a satisfying life, despite the burden he is forced to bear.

    The problems arise when the agenda forces men to behave in a fundamentally self destructive manner. This is what we have in place now. It is so obvious that the current social and legal framework is damaging to men, and as a consequence to children and women as well. And yet women, as a group, either refuse to see it, or if they do, take no action to remedy it. Indeed women, as a group, will work to shut down any discussion that threatens it.

    Is this the response of a group that has full agency? It doesn’t look like it to me. Women are taking no pro-active action because it is not in their nature to break from the herd. Quite simply they haven’t been ‘given permission’ yet to depart from the current narrative.

    When the signal comes, the women will turn to the new agenda with breath-taking speed whilst simultaneously denying that they ever believed in or were invested in the ‘old’ way of doing things. They are wired that way. It is no surprise women are those most interested in celebrity culture – it is indicative of their obsession with detecting the slightest changes in the cultural narrative to ensure they stay with the herd.

    The new signal is coming, as ever, from a subset of men. The ‘red-pill’ group, for want of a better classification. And their modus operandi is, as ever, to dis-engage. For all of the ‘power’ that women wield to enforce the cultural narrative, it is utterly dependent on men caring what women think. Male indifference is Kryptonite to every aspect of female power. For when men stop caring what women think the women are rendered impotent. They cease to be the ‘useful idiots’ of those controlling them and the mass of men start to question the agenda. The result – regime change.

    Change is in the air – women’s social antennae are already starting to twitch, they sense that feminism is the way of the past but most do not yet see what will replace it. Once it is clear the women will enforce it as they have always done – following the lead of those setting the agenda.

    The reduction in divorce rates is a direct result of mass male dis-engagement from women. Indifference is men’s nuclear option. It’s in play, and starting to take effect.

  12. zodak says:

    good find Acatisfinetoo! & i have to agree with TFH, it’s all about money. these girls refuse to learn from the mistakes of others. they each think they are snowflakes who will find an alpha to marry them post-wall.

  13. Johnycomelately says:

    Given the last UK census revealed several million British men ‘disappeared’ I’m guessing there aren’t enough millionaire handymen to go around.

    Also with the EU open borders I’m sure there are plenty of Eastern European women competing for male attention.

  14. Cane Caldo says:

    Great find! Lots of fodder here.

    Why is this? Because commitment matters. He continues (emphasis mine):

    The best current theory of commitment holds a plausible explanation for why this might be the case. Commitment theory proposes that men – but not women – who “decide” rather than “slide” through important relationship transitions are more dedicated and therefore have more stable relationships (Stanley et al, 2010).

    The paper he cites to back up his assertion that men’s commitment matters in marriage and women’s doesn’t is Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment. Strangely I can’t find such a claim being made in that paper.

    It’s not an irrational suggestion though. Women’s capability to profit from divorce hasn’t declined (sorry, MRAs), yet there’s still this downward trend. If decriminalized divorce theft was the main factor before, and decriminalized divorce theft is still widely available, then we should look at other factors. (That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also put theft back on the books as a crime.)

    Let’s ask it a different way: Are men the gatekeepers of commitment or not?

    And while I’m restating things, since this:

    The paper he cites to back up his assertion that men’s commitment matters in marriage and women’s doesn’t

    is somewhat counterintuitive (as it is women choosing to divorce; more before but less now) doesn’t it seem plausible if we instead say: “Men who are deliberate in their choices to marry for a wife suffer less divorce than men who are either looking for their one true love, or who just settled into a relationship.”

    Perhaps some of my readers from the UK can shed some light on what happened around 1973 to cause this change.

    I’m not from the UK, but I’d say: Zeitgeist. Not much of an answer, though. Acatisfinetoo’s suggestion of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 193 has to be an aggravator, but what caused the MCA’73? Why was is put forward to be voted upon?

  15. TFH, exactly. Which tells us that women are starting to perceive life without a husband as a more unpleasant prospect than they used to. Which is interesting in itself, because the media (the US media, anyway, so I suspect the UK media too) keeps insisting that things are good, we’re in a recovery, girl power is the way, etc. Women’s instinct for survival and provision may be wiser than what they think they know.

  16. Opus says:

    The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 changed the law with regard to marriage with a view to ending the misery of unhappy marriage – naturally it only succeeded in achieving greater misery. It also ended a nice little earner for Private Detectives spying on adulterous spouses – have a look at English Movies like ‘I’ll never forget what’s ‘is name’ from 1967 or ‘Follow Me’ from 1972 to get a flavour, and ended cross-examination in court of adulterous parties. It was reasoned that no one really knew what went on in a marriage and that as things were not always what at first sight might appear to be the case that it was wrong indeed impossible for Judges to arrive at the truth – a stance that has somewhat surprisingly not been applied to other types of legal case. There was at the time a lot of talk about it being a charter for Casanovas (for men to marry and remarry at will) – though Casanova’s do not, I observe, tend to marry before moving on, in fact generally it can be said that The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers and Anglican Bishops) who at first did not want to pass the Bill (after approval by The House of Commons) gave a Master Class in Blue Pill sentimentality and stupidity.

    The Act itself stipulates that there is only one ground for Divorce – the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – now what could be more reasonable than that!

    And how do you go about showing that a marriage has irretrievably broken down? Five possible grounds are given – yet not one of the grounds is of itself (if you think about it) proof that a marriage has broken down irretrievably or otherwise.

    Those five grounds – just for completeness are:

    A Adultery
    B (see below)
    C Desertion
    D Two years separation plus consent
    E Five years Separation

    This was my experience: By far the most frequently used was ground B which related to the unreasonable conduct of the Respondent. What could be fairer than that, yet in practice the unreasonable conduct is always of the most trivial, and anything that is alleged to be unreasonable is unreasonable because it is entirely subjective.

    There is (for reasons I won’t go into) no point even attempting to defend the Petition either by alleging that the facts are mistaken or if correct that there is nothing unreasonable (for as I said everything is entirely subjective) and the greatest and subtlest pressure is then placed on parties wishing to defend to desist form doing so – so the causes are never defended for long. The case is then placed in The Special Procedure List (what is still known by the press as a ‘Quickie Divorce’ – as if there is any other kind) and a District Judge will read out the surnames of the parties involved in Open Court, not that any one ever attends for the purpose of listening, (and by the way we pronounce the -v- between the surnames ‘and’ and ant ‘v'; though in criminal cases we say -v-, so it would be Kramer and Kramer). A Decree Nisi of Divorce is thus made and written notification sent to both parties (or their lawyers if represented). After a period of six weeks – unless there is some objection or irregularity the Decree can be made Absolute by one or other party (nearly always the Petitioner) applying in writing to the court office. The Decree Absolute thus ends the marriage and either party may remarry should he or she wish.

    And who issues these Unreasonable Behaviour Petitions for Divorce? I do not think I have ever seen one issued by a man. [That last sentence should have been in block capitals and deserves to be read twice] The only time men issue Petitions for Divorce is when their wife has run off with another man in which case ground A is used (I have never seen either ground C or E used) – and usually for the purpose of obtaining orders, ancillary to Divorce such as Custody of minor children.

    In practice it is Divorce on demand dressed up as something noble and caring. It has indeed, but for reasons not properly understood by the Noble Lords, spiritual and temporal, been a charter for Casanovas.

  17. Luke says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    May 23, 2014 at 1:15 pm
    By far the most plausible explanation relates to wives perception of husbands.

    “It took me about two seconds to think of another plausible explanation: women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed. With economies worsening, their country being invaded by a hostile subculture, a general sense of uncertainty about the future, and regular stories about men losing interest in marriage, the natural threat-point has moved. Consciously or not, some women are sensing that life after divorce might not be a non-stop Sex and the City party after all, and that raises their estimation of their husbands’ value by comparison and their willingness to put up with imperfection.

    That’s much more likely than that husbands have suddenly gotten “better,” especially in the sense that this writer would probably mean the term.”

    Plausible and no doubt at least partly explanatory. However, there is another explanation I would resort to, less promising and less dependent upon women changing their minds about frivorce. That is simply fewer people marrying in the first place. Cohabitating instead of marrying probably leads the way, but women refusing to marry OR cohabitate with men they perceive as too broke (most blacks, lower-class whites), relative to either gov’t welfare or the women’s relative pay (hypergamy gone mad) is surely up there as well.

  18. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lzlozozozlzoz

    http://blog.adw.org/2009/09/the-first-blow-to-marriage-no-fault-divorce/

    The First Blow to Marriage: No-Fault Divorce

    lzzozo zomzgzzlzollzoz

  19. Mark says:

    @Cadders

    “”The reduction in divorce rates is a direct result of mass male dis-engagement from women. Indifference is men’s nuclear option. It’s in play, and starting to take effect.””

    This is my take on this also.If marriage rates are down 50% wouldn’t it make sense that the divorce rates are also down 50%?

    http://takimag.com/article/feminist_fallout_a_roll_call_of_regrets_gavin_mcinnes/print#disqus_thread

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/04/13036/

    http://businessdayonline.com/2014/03/every-womans-desperate-zone/#.U1d5R1VdWgQ

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/02/its-no-surprise-that-young-men-are-getting-fed-up-with-women-faster-than-any-other-group-of-men/#comments

  20. Cane Caldo says:

    @Luke

    However, there is another explanation I would resort to, less promising and less dependent upon women changing their minds about frivorce. That is simply fewer people marrying in the first place.

    I’m crap at statistics, but not only are the overall percentages (27% decrease in wife-granted divorces) dropping, but the rate is dropping even faster (51%). I believe that means the decrease/postponement has been taken into account.

    @Dalrock

    From “Commitment:Functions…”

    Of course not all relationship sacrifices are created equal. Sacrifices that are perceived by the giver as harmful to the self are linked with elevated depressive symptomatology and poorer relationship quality (Whitton et al., 2007). Similarly, sacrifices that are motivated by efforts to avoid conflict or guilt are associated with lower emotional well-being and poorer relationship quality (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005). Based in part on evidence that higher commitment is associated with perceiving sacrifices to be less harmful to self-interest (Whitton et al., 2007), we believe that the presence of commitment is a crucial factor in not only determining whether an individual will work to strengthen their relationship by sacrificing, but also in how those sacrifices are perceived (e.g., as helpful rather than harmful to self-interest).

    Taken as a whole, such findings about the nature of sacrifice in romantic relationships provide further evidence of the transformation of motivation that is part of Thibaut and Kelley’s (1978) formulation of relationship development. In fact, sacrifice may be potent because it provides information about the presence or absence of that transformation, functioning as a strong behavioral signal of commitment and security between partners (Wieselquist et al., 1999). The potency of sacrifice may be rooted in the salience of negatives, which are believed to be particularly impactful in marriage (Markman & Floyd, 1980). We suspect that sacrifice may function as a salient but positive signal that counters the salience of negative behavior in relationships; the salience is rooted in the way that acts not based in self-interest are more likely to stand out from the day-to-day stream of exchanged behaviors to which partners become habituated. For this and likely numerous other reasons, sacrifice is therefore an important part of the maintenance of high quality, long-term romantic relationships.

    Wow! Submission and resistance to it, fitness tests, focus on the spouse rather than self…it’s all in there.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    It took me about two seconds to think of another plausible explanation: women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed. With economies worsening, their country being invaded by a hostile subculture, a general sense of uncertainty about the future, and regular stories about men losing interest in marriage, the natural threat-point has moved. Consciously or not, some women are sensing that life after divorce might not be a non-stop Sex and the City party after all, and that raises their estimation of their husbands’ value by comparison and their willingness to put up with imperfection.

    That’s much more likely than that husbands have suddenly gotten “better,” especially in the sense that this writer would probably mean the term.

    The reason which immediately came to my mind is 1) Women are marrying later in the UK (as I referenced here). 2) Older women divorce at much lower rates than younger women. The basic thesis is the same though, that perceived remarriage opportunities are lower. EPL isn’t about a one time family detonation, but about trading up.

  22. RetailCrunch says:

    My wild guess from the Midwest is that perhaps the rising age of first marriages is reducing women’s perception of the options after divorce. It could also be that marriages are now more common among the higher echelons of society which are less prone to divorce.

  23. Longtorso says:

    I don’t know if the numbers are BS or not:

    Dad’s Day in Court
    …Men’s rights activists complain that despite the legal changes, mother preference still lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody still prevailed. But more recently judges have been catching up to the law. According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support….

  24. Draggin says:

    Isn’t the simple answer that men are finally vetting women better? This ties into Steve H’s and Cadder’s observation of cynicism on mens’ part. It also ties into the reduction in marriages overall.

    At least part of the reduction in marriages is caused by men not finding anyone suitable to marry. No proposal to unfit women = no marriage = no divorce. As pointed out previously, the greatest effect of change is at the margins. The women that were more prone to divorce were marginal marriage prospects. In the past, that meant they still got married. Now they have been shifted into the unfit category, leaving a higher percentage of ‘fit for marriage’ in the married cohort.

  25. Han Solo says:

    @Cadders

    Your hierararchy of influence is basically the same as what I stated in a comment today over at JFG, that apex males send out the fundamental signals and create the rules, then the female herd hypergamously looks to them to know how to attract the best men they can and then the average and lower males follow what the female herd demands to get get sex and company:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/the-tool-maker-exposing-the-myth-of-the-alpha-male-guest-post-by-ferrum/#comment-40354

    Overall, the extreme success of the tool makers has led to their own irrelevancy, since tools and cheap energy perform the work once done by beta men and allow women the luxury of not needing a man at the personal level for survival. The great labor and inventions of the beta men have ironically empowered the apex males (who are the real puppet masters) and the female herd so that the social hierarchy now is (using broad groupings):

    apex males
    top females
    non-apex but high-value males
    the bulk of the female herd
    herd-following males

    But I do think that the non-apex males do need to band together much more and start to apply pressure to both the female herd and the apex leaders to reverse many of the disastrous and self-serving policies they are pursuing, along with pealing away some of the female herd to follow what would actually be more in their own self interest and not in the apex males’ and the feminist and rauch queen alpha mares’ interests.

  26. Han Solo says:

    Here’s a longer post I wrote on the hierarchy of the herd and how the top males are sought after by the alpha mares who comply to their wishes and in turn narrate to the rest of the female herd what kind of behavior is appropriate. And the non-top males (even some who are attractive) follow what the female herd demands as the terms and conditions of sex. Lower “alphas” are still following what the female herd demands, they’re just much better at paying the price than the “betas.”

    http://www.justfourguys.com/hierarchy-of-the-herd/

  27. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    It’s not an irrational suggestion though. Women’s capability to profit from divorce hasn’t declined (sorry, MRAs), yet there’s still this downward trend. If decriminalized divorce theft was the main factor before, and decriminalized divorce theft is still widely available, then we should look at other factors. (That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also put theft back on the books as a crime.)

    But as I’ve shown women’s rate of divorce is highly correlated to their age. Cash and prizes absolutely matter, but they aren’t the only part of the story. The perceived ability to remarry is an important factor.

    doesn’t it seem plausible if we instead say: “Men who are deliberate in their choices to marry for a wife suffer less divorce than men who are either looking for their one true love, or who just settled into a relationship.”

    I think it is plausible that men are (on the margins) declining to marry women with higher divorce risks. We can see this in the falling black marriage rates, as well as a reduction in marriage rates for women with less than a college degree (this second point seems widely accepted, but I haven’t found clear data to point to). We also see this in the declining remarriage rates. But this isn’t what he was getting at at all. He was saying men were better at stopping their wives from becoming unhaaapy, because they were trying harder.

    But what I found so noteworthy about the part I quoted was after he shared some astounding statistics showing that new wives were becoming far better at honoring their commitments in the UK, this was then immediately reprocessed as proof that new husbands must have suddenly had greater commitment to their marriages. This kind of doublethink is truly impressive. There isn’t even a hint of cognitive dissonance.

  28. Boxer says:

    Dear Peeps:

    EPL isn’t about a one time family detonation, but about trading up.

    I had a very interesting experience a couple of days ago, when I was minding my own business, getting some work done, while a gaggle of gossipy hens started squawking. It rapidly became clear that they all thought their group was entirely alone (I was in the office with my door ajar), and so they started talking in the free and easy manner that wimminz are wont to do, when there are no men around.

    After the usual sex-talk dried up, they started chatting about one of their fellow wimminz, who was not in the group on that particular day. Jane, who is ordinarily their nearest and dearest friend, was derided in the most scathing terms. Apparently Jane had been f*cked and chucked by the 769th playa she had met this year, a few nights previous. This was used against her in a rather brutal way, and she was described as a “poor girl” a “loser” and “just someone who can’t keep a man”.

    Now, the wimminz who were laughing at Janie’s misfortune are themselves *ALL* divorced, and for all I know, one or more may have been multiply divorced. It was really quite the red-pill experience to listen to all this nonsense, said by wimminz who had all (I assume) been in poor Janie’s position in the past, with one or more probably in that position recently.

    Wimminz are not supposed to swim, as the saying goes, they merely hop from raft to raft, and woe to her who misses the mark. She’ll get no sympathy from her fellow wimminz.

  29. EPL isn’t about a one time family detonation, but about trading up.

    True. Even the woman who isn’t actively looking for a new husband during the divorce, who spends a year or two after the divorce sampling all the cock she missed out on, assumes that she’ll be able to get a new-and-improved model when/if she wants to marry again. If she fears she won’t be able to do that, it’ll make her much less willing to pull that divorce trigger, even if she thinks she’s done with marriage.

  30. after he shared some astounding statistics showing that new wives were becoming far better at honoring their commitments in the UK, this was then immediately reprocessed as proof that new husbands must have suddenly had greater commitment to their marriages.

    Right, because he believes with every fiber of his being that a woman, being more spiritual and moral and marriage-oriented than a man, will never leave a marriage unless her husband sucks so much that she’s forced to. So it follows that if women are staying in their marriages, it has to be because their husbands improved — started better meeting their wives’ standards.

    Next should be a celebratory article about how men are finally starting to man-up, with a cautious note that we can’t let up the pressure on them now, because they still have a long way to go to get to women’s level of virtue.

  31. Opus says:

    TFH’s is entirely correct about financial incentives. Most female divorcees are married and with small children) that the system of Legal Aid (that is to say the free legal assistance) was altered (at the time of the 1973 change in the Law relating to the simplifying of Divorce) such that the State were then happy to fund these ‘Quickie Divorces’ (Legal Aid had been much more restricted for Divorce before the change, which is doubtless why the Divorce rate was then much lower – and much more middle class); women now had everything to gain from divorce in addition to Gina Tingles with new hunky guys: Firstly they could thus fund legal services until the government ran out of money (whereas their employed and working husbands had to fund legal advice out of their own pockets – men simply could not compete). Secondly most families rented. The 1919 Rent Acts had had the effect of removing private rental accommodation (because there was no legal way to oust one’s tenant) – which led to the emergence of people like Mandy Rice Davies’ boyfriend Peter Rackman [unexpected plug for the new Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical] – and the building of a vast number of houses by the State from the 1930s onward such that for most people the State was their Landlord. The offspring of Middle Class people (the owner-occupier minority) thus had to either live at home with their parents or buy if they could, because State housed accommodation was only available, in practise, to women who had or were with child which usually meant married couples as cohabiting was not common. The State-owned house – the Council House, as it was called – would be transferred to her on the wife obtaining Custody of the children. In about 1972 the state introduced Right to Buy legislation (a Tory bribe of working-class voters – though not as is often assumed, one of Mrs Thatcher’s innovations – her predecessor’s idea in fact) whereby they sold off their housing stock at a massive discount. Thirdly, the new owner would then be able to sell it on (after a five year wait) at market value and thus considerable profit. Some, in London (take my word) have sold for nearly One Million Pounds!

    Of course the Legal Aid Bill went through the roof and the Government keep trying to cut back but always the State end up paying more in a truly Malthusan style.

  32. Boxer says:

    Next should be a celebratory article about how men are finally starting to man-up, with a cautious note that we can’t let up the pressure on them now, because they still have a long way to go to get to women’s level of virtue.

    The people who regurgitate this sort of crap have *no* idea who they’re trying to peddle it to. This week one of the most popular topics among the teenage/early 20s crowd was the massive divorce settlements in the news. White kids from the middle class openly talk about how they “don’t love these hoes” and will openly mock men for being stupid enough to marry.

    Old tradcons talking about marriage, to these kids coming up today, are much like the buggywhip manufacturers of old, trying to convince the automobile generation that they still need to shell out for their product. It ain’t happening without a cultural reset that plows up the superhighways.

  33. Bob Wallace says:

    “The great labor and inventions of the beta men”

    You apparently don’t have the slightest idea of who invented what, do you?

  34. Luke says:

    Mark says:
    May 23, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    @Cadders

    “”The reduction in divorce rates is a direct result of mass male dis-engagement from women. Indifference is men’s nuclear option. It’s in play, and starting to take effect.””

    This is my take on this also.If marriage rates are down 50% wouldn’t it make sense that the divorce rates are also down 50%?

    http://businessdayonline.com/2014/03/every-womans-desperate-zone/#.U1d5R1VdWgQ

    I made two comments there. They may not pass moderation, so here they are:
    ============================================================

    “I have learnt not to tell a desperate 37 or 40 year old searching for a husband that I know how she feels. It just does not work.

    What further compounds the troubles of the 40-year old desperate sister…”

    Problem here with premises for those 37 or 40 year old women wanting to marry (20+ years after they became legally and biologically ready for it). Men married historically for sex, status, money, children of their own, and religious faith. All of these are much less the case now, reducing or removing the motivation for men to marry. One by one:

    1) Sex? It’s at least as available outside of marriage for men. (Men who can’t find a woman willing to marry them are the ones likely to find no woman wants to have premarital sex with them, either. Anyway, sex frequency in marriage usually declines to a level few men would put up with from a girlfriend, but given the divorce court extreme bias towards women, traps husbands into putting up with near-sexless marriages (defined here as under 1/4 the highest frequency they had either before the wedding, or in the first months after it). Men are starting to find out that marriage often means not just no sex, but being forced to support a woman who’s not giving them sex, and they’re prevented from finding a woman who will have sex with them — akin to continuing having to work for an employer, but the paychecks have stopped coming. (Let’s not even get into the massively increased obesity rate, rates of tattoos, loud/obnoxious demeanor, etc., among American women over the past 40 years, making them much less attractive to men, who often just resort to porn or other interests
    when the prospects get lousy enough.)

    2) Men once needed marriage for social status, particularly if ambitious. Aside from senior politicians and perhaps military generals, there’s hardly any man in the U.S. who truly NEEDS a wife to get or keep a job.

    3) Money? More women are now more likely to come to marriage with major debt (student loan, credit card, medical) than major financial assets. And, most women prefer to cut back to part-time or no paid work once children come (laudably).

    4) Children? Non-lower socioeconomic class women on average have very few children in the U.S. now, not even at replacement level of 2.15 (three children, rounding up). Many educated women in Western countries now have no children at all during their lives, even if they marry. Plus, after divorce (very predominantly filed for by women and almost never after proving traditional, or “real” grounds for it), the relationship between fathers and their children is routinely either very much weakened permanently or completely ended. And, if a man is cuckolded, he’s likely to still end up on the hook to endlessly pay massive child support for a kid that’s not even his. All too common is a man paying half his income for child support for children he hasn’t seen in 5 or 10 years, basically just a doubling of his income tax rate for zero gain from his perspective.

    5) Religious faith? Severely damaged in this country by female-controlled K-12 public school systems, mass-media that kowtows to feminist women, and women-controlled (to the point their practices nauseate men) liberal churches, to the point that most men now find themselves effectively estranged from any kind of public actions of faith (getting and staying faithfully married is one).

    So, why should it be any surprise that men are now avoiding marriage by the tens of millions? It’d be surprising if they didn’t.

    =================================================================

    Oh, and by 37 or 40, a woman is typically just about infertile due to advancing age. (How is a woman of that age possibly going to have 3 or more children, with a year or two spaced between them, and have her family-making be done by her early thirties, as she needs to have?) A man who wants a family of his own will literally find such a woman unmarriageable. (A man who wishes to become a father resorting to using an egg donor and gestational surrogate doesn’t even require a wife.)

    U.S. women, even the most educated, commonly have about 15 fewer years in which to realistically have children than they think they do. Read Sylvia Anne Hewlett’s excellent book “Creating A Life” about this if in doubt about this.

  35. Cadders says:

    @ Han

    I agree that the abundance of the modern world has raised the baseline that the beta has to rise above in order to register in a women’s field of view. However, I do not see this as a one-way, irreversible dynamic.

    Every technological advance comes with it’s own sets of checks and balances. For whilst almost every advance is made by beta men it is always then maintained by men.

    Men need to be motivated to invent. Men need to be motivated to maintain. Without sufficient motivation men tend to loose interest – this last part is a (willful?) blind spot of feminism.

    Sex / sexual relationships with women are men’s primary motivation. When it becomes clear that this is either unlikely, too risky or too costly, men will find better things to do with their time than follow the social narrative that expects them to invent, maintain and produce more than they themselves need. I’m not talking about bumming around – I’m talking about working just enough to meet their own needs and freeing the most important resource – their time – for themselves. I think this is the signal that women are detecting – men who are single, under-achieving, and, if not exactly happy, content enough not to bother to try any harder.

    Of course this lifestyle is what the MGTOW crowd so loudly espouses – but I talk to many young men who are leading this life almost instinctively, without even knowing it has a name.

    Where I differ from you is in your hope that non-apex men will bond together to force change. This may happen eventually, but when it happens, it will need to happen organically – not be forced by a central authority. Right now men are doing what men have always done – survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. And increasingly if they can’t find the type of women they want, they are going elsewhere, or going without. Each man is making the decision for himself. The individual character of the dynamic IS men’s strength. There is no figurehead for feminism to challenge, no institutions to subvert, no meaningful group to shame.

    As I have said before, feminism had women join together to form one army of millions to force change by taking action. Men’s response is the polar opposite, a million armies of one forcing change by inaction.

  36. Han Solo says:

    @Bob

    So it was all the alphas who made all the great inventions and performed the large amount of labor to build civilization and the betas did nothing? Good one.

    It was the apex kings and rulers that invented everything?

    Sounds like you need to study history a little more yourself.

  37. Han Solo says:

    @Cadders

    I agree with you that men need to be motivated in order to give fully of their efforts. I have a cousin who just married, rather late in life, but his wife was still young enough to have a baby and now he says that for the first time in his life he feels really motivated to work harder and make more money, not because of a nagging wife but out of genuine affection and concern for her and his new baby.

    Men need to be needed.

    I also agree that men don’t necessarily need to band together in a formal way but they need to stop giving when nothing is given in return, stop accepting the feminist slights that men are privileged tyrants seeking to oppress at every corner. There are still far too many white knights and male feminists that think men are the enemy. By correcting these attitudes, even absent some coordinated movement to force change, things will start to improve for men. They will stop taking shit as much and stop voting for shit shovelers. They can start to have some influence as well on the men they interact with and a few of the women.

    Your suggestion of a million armies of one is the immediate one. But no doubt there will come some more ambitious types that see those unfocused efforts and start to put forth a message that speaks to them sufficiently to possibly unite them in a somewhat common cause.

  38. Cadders says:

    @Mark

    I found that ‘publicdiscourse.com’ link intriguing. I almost got a sense of ‘what are we to do with all these single women’ hand wringing. It’s not something I had considered before – what effect will ever increasing numbers of mostly single women have on society? I’m not sure it’s ever been seen on this scale before.

  39. Cadders says:

    @Han

    I agree. I think possibly we are coming from different perspectives. I have a (thoroughly red pill) son just entering his twenties and we spend a lot of time talking. I interact with his friends and my work also brings me into contact with numbers of similarly aged men and women.

    I see how the young men talk about the women when the women aren’t around. I see how they treat them when they are. The women simply don’t have the sexual leverage on them that women had on me and my peers when we were at that age. The women sense that they simply can’t play the ‘special snowflake’ card. Those that do get called out pretty quickly.

    Feminism has laid bear the true nature of women and most young men in my orbit simply do not see any reason to consider women worthy of any special treatment. The dynamics I have mentioned are baked in and growing. I agree that white knights and manginas need to be called out where-ever they are found. But I think there are far fewer of them in the generation of men coming of age now.

  40. TFH says:

    Cadders,

    Feminism has laid bear the true nature of women

    Time for a Repeat :

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

    Traditional customs benefited women the most, as they prevented women from being tested in the ways men are tested. This enabled women to be packaged into something that could be fobbed off onto heavily deceived men.

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    But what I found so noteworthy about the part I quoted was after he shared some astounding statistics showing that new wives were becoming far better at honoring their commitments in the UK, this was then immediately reprocessed as proof that new husbands must have suddenly had greater commitment to their marriages. This kind of doublethink is truly impressive. There isn’t even a hint of cognitive dissonance.

    That’s one possibility. Another possibility is that male-led commitment works, and this is evidence.

    To be clear: I’m not saying that you have read this wrong, and perhaps I’m missing something. You might be absolutely right that the authors of the paper are stealing credit from women and retro-actively assigning debits to men. But I’m less sold on the case that cash-n-prizes or simple EPL trading-up explains the trends in the past; that it explains what moved no-fault divorce from a concept into law, and from law into trend.

    EPL isn’t about a one time family detonation, but about trading up.

    Is EPL really the main thing going in wife-granted divorce or no-fault divorce; so that if we see a reversal in trend we should assume that it’s the EPL sex who is leading the change? I don’t think the Jenny Erikson’s of the world are changing. More commonly, the trading up seems to be driven not just by pure desire for more-more-more, but a serious discounting and resentment of the husbands.

    Example:* A woman happily marries what is in her mind a 7 overall. After a few years of criticizing and disagreeing with him–not to mention the round-the-clock pummeling he catches in the media and arts–he’s a 3. Maybe he even follows her lead and starting sinking himself somewhat. She’s going to feel duped even though it’s her own fault. So, she divorces and seeks out a 5 (in her mind.).

    In the era of empowerment and self-actualization it’s obviously not acceptable to say, “I screwed up our marriage, and so I’m throwing it away.” It’s much better to say, “I’m going for my best self ever, and I deserve the best!”; to sell themselves and everyone else. That’s where the veneer of EPL comes in, obviously. But I believe they are lying. I believe they are choosing to lie. I believe that they don’t feel like they’re trading up; that they feel like they are cutting their losses; that they’re dumping excess baggage more than they’re accumulating better “things”.

    If I’m correct, then there’s a lot of room for an earnest man to work; to set the tone and course of the marriage. Even if he stupidly buys too many flowers (insert most-hated supplicating behavior here), if he is serious that will come through and instruct her. Part of the seriousness must include provoking and prodding her to stick by his side; not just merely enjoying the feeling of her there, or hoping one day she catches up, but setting and keeping expectations.

    And that makes sense to me, because I take it as a matter of faith and fact that men are the leaders.

    *Nota bene: I don’t think women actually rate by numbers in their head. I’m arbitrarily translating a women’s abstract satisfaction to a concrete system to better enable conversation.

  42. Han Solo says:

    @Cadders

    Good to hear that the white knights are declining in number among the young men you see. I still see far too many in their 20’s who are at least willing to act as such and try to curry favor with their princesses. But I do think there is a shift among the young men to not pedestalize women as much.

    Among the more religious that I sometimes interact with, I still see too much white knightery where men are assumed to be jackasses and women smart and good.

  43. Opus says:

    Cane Caldo asks what motivated the introduction of the bill which became the MCA ’73.

    I don’t know, but it came just at the end of the swinging sixties. The Contraceptive Pill was becoming available freeing women to have sex the way all men do and without complications. Homosexuality had been decriminalised (much to the regret of the Police) in 1968 and the previous year Abortion had been legalised. As with the MCA it was not abortion on demand but some nonsense about the viability of a foetus and two registered medical practitioner’s both certifying that to continue with the pregnancy would risk the mental or physical health of the woman. I think we can safely say that in practice no woman has ever been refused an abortion and indeed recently one of the proposers of the Bill has said that he has been dismayed as to the way the act has in fact been implemented. Abortion is not an election issue in Britain.

    Rather like the Fall of the Roman Empire a hundred reasons can be advanced to explain the changes but no one can say exactly when or why, but (if I can put a date to it) it is somewhere between Lady Chatterley and the Beatles second L.P. that times began to change – a viewing of a number of British movies either side of that date will I think make it clear – certainly not before the trial of Stephen Ward [Christine Keeler’s boyfriend] in August 1963 – the absolutely critical event to my mind. Swinging London begins almost immediately afterwards in Spring 1964; the twist is out, the new Government is in. A Hard Day’s Night is being filmed, Carnaby Street and the King’s Road. Hendrix is soon to live in Brook Street. To my mind Antonioni’s Blow Up captures the feeling of the times better than anything else, (much as I love Smashing Time). By the mid seventies women were marrying and then promptly divorcing in droves and men were struggling to catch up. By the mid-eighties I (and my buddies) had all turned our back on British females in favour of better looking and less demanding as well as genuinely nicer Europeans; the sort of women you could speak to without being made to feel as if you were probably a rapist or suffered from some reportable disease. The viciousness of Feminism and other forms of political correctness were not yet even imaginable.

  44. BC says:

    Great couple of early comments by TFH above, and spot on.

    Follow the money.

    Although women have one or more alpha-chasing phases (see Rollo’s timelines), they are largely resource oriented. Easy access to resources = fewer restrictions on hypergamy. Also remember Briffault’s Law. Always Briffault’s Law.

    Follow the money.

  45. desiderian says:

    “But this isn’t what he was getting at at all. He was saying men were better at stopping their wives from becoming unhaaapy, because they were trying harder.

    But what I found so noteworthy about the part I quoted was after he shared some astounding statistics showing that new wives were becoming far better at honoring their commitments”

    Men are becoming more masculine, women more feminine. As Strauss and Howe predicted would happen (now) in 1992.

    Cane’s right.

    “Follow the money.”

    Yes, also economic crash led k-selected to be more optimal.

  46. Bob Wallace says:

    HA HA! I suggest the unenlightened look up some of the men in the past, say Erasmus Darwin (and his sex life) and the Darwin–Wedgwood family. This is what comes of people believing in nonsense such as Alpha/Beta/Whatever and trying to shove reality into their silly little boxes.

    You might want to look up the life of Richard Burton…and I don’t mean the actor.

  47. Luke says:

    FYI to “Bob Wallace”:

    1) Just because YOU have difficulty grasping the utility at describing reality that models such as the alpha/beta/gamma/omega breakdown of men with respect to their immediate attractiveness to women doesn’t mean that other men (e.g., the readers of this site) are as limited.

    2) “Unenlightened” means here to still be “blue-pill” about the reality of modern male-female relationships as you obviously are. If you saw the movie “The Matrix”, you should understand the reference.

  48. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    That was a great response.

    @Desi and Dalrock

    Men are becoming more masculine, women more feminine.

    A hopeful percentage of them, anyways; yes I think so.

    Cane’s right.

    In my circle of friends, I’m considered the guy who discovers new music and introduces it to others before it’s “in”. But…that ain’t the whole truth. I heard that song on a web-only commercial; one while on hold with Barnes and Nobles; another in the lounge at the W Hotel. So while I appreciate their appreciation, I keep in mind that if I’ve discovered a trend, then it was a trend a good while before I heard of it. With few exceptions: Chances are that whatever I’m right about has long been in the cards, and is usually already on a path to correction by the time I noticed something was wrong.

    If I understand Dalrock’s comments accurately, our small disagreement could be summarized this way:

    Dalrock: The predominant sin is greed; the desire for more. Some women in the UK are correcting this.

    Cane: The predominant sin is envy; dissatisfaction with what you have. Some men in the UK are leading some women in the UK away from this.

  49. Crank says:

    @Cane Caldo
    “It’s not an irrational suggestion though. Women’s capability to profit from divorce hasn’t declined (sorry, MRAs), yet there’s still this downward trend. If decriminalized divorce theft was the main factor before, and decriminalized divorce theft is still widely available, then we should look at other factors.”

    Well, I’m not in the UK, but my impression is that young men are not fairing too well there economically relative to young women. Even worse than in the US. If that’s the case, then far fewer of those early stage marriages will be situations where the Husband is the bread winner while the Wife stays at home (with or without kids) or pursues a career more for “fulfillment” than for money. If so, the availability of cash and prizes probably goes way down, whether he is not working at all or whether he is working but not substantially out earning her. She might feel like she is rid of a burden (if he isn’t working at all), but she won’t see the promise of a free income stream, and she might even have to give him support, albeit not as much as he would have had to give her.

  50. Cane: The predominant sin is envy; dissatisfaction with what you have. Some men in the UK are leading some women in the UK away from this.

    Possible, but what would be causing men to change that way? It’s easy to see how the incentives could be changing for married women, making their post-divorce prospects more chancy and encouraging them to stick it out longer. Poorer financial prospects and poorer remarriage prospects both bear directly on that choice, whether a woman admits she’s weighing them or not.

    But what would be causing married men to become more masculine and dominant these days? (We’re talking married men here, not PUAs or MGTOW.) What would be causing men to be less supplicating and boring after a few years of marriage than the previous generation was? I’m having a harder time spotting the diving forces that would be causing that kind of change.

  51. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    Possible, but what would be causing men to change that way? […] But what would be causing married men to become more masculine and dominant these days?

    Short and incomplete answer: Growing up with a mom, but no dad; an aunt, but no uncle; a den mother, but no den leader… And surely not all of them. But a for a good chunk of men could just be saying, “I want to be married, and I’m not going to put up with what the culture is selling.” We’re not talking about a full-fledged reversal in marriage. It’s a significant and hopeful improvement, but it’s not like everyone is better now.

    This is not to say that the answer is as simple as for men to improve. No one can–nor should be expected to–keep another from sinning. I choose the hopeful view (and I have good reasons to prefer it) where we can help, and where gratefulness for that help is given in return.

  52. Lyn87 says:

    @ Bob Wallace,

    You are correct that the alpha / beta dichotomy falls far short of reality, although it can be useful in the same sense that a sundial can be useful: if the conditions are right it can give you a rough approximation.

    I prefer this model (http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html), which gives more granularity, although it too is an imperfect tool. If the “alpha – beta” paradigm is like a sundial’s ability to give the correct time, then Alpha Game’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is like a slide rule’s ability to give a correct answer to a geometry problem. It is important to realize that a man may occupy several different categories during different phases of his life, and even simultaneously under different circumstances.

    As for the topic at hand – there may be several interlocking reasons for the noted phenomenon: many if which have already been noted. TFH’s deterministic outlook has the virtue of being predictive, so that’s a big point in his favor. Other likely factors include greater selectivity by those who are marriage-minded, given that marginal couples just shack up whereas in the past their elders and the culture would have pushed them to legally marry. If we included these quasi-marriages and the high rate at which they come unglued, I suspect the break-up numbers would climb to represent a very substantial majority of “committed” couples. In fact, I would expect that – if we count these couples who are married in all but name – the “divorce” rate has gone up, not down… and is probably upwards of 80%. Others have mentioned the economic / education system that privileges women to the point that their hypergamy works against many of them – men who have been hobbled throughout school and in the job market in favor of women can’t very well signal provider status to entice women of prime marriage age (around 18-22) down the aisle before they hop on the carousel and ruin their ability to pair bond. But since they don’t get married they also don’t get divorced.

  53. Mark says:

    @Cadders

    “”I found that ‘publicdiscourse.com’ link intriguing. I almost got a sense of ‘what are we to do with all these single women’ hand wringing. It’s not something I had considered before””

    I never considered it either…..until I started to seriously read Manosphere Blogs and crunch some hard statistics….much thanks to Dalrock for those stats. From my POV I see MANY MANY single women living alone.In fact,an apartment complex(108 units) that my family owns is under complete renovation here in Toronto.This is going to be a “test model” for what I predict will be the future for many single women. Affectionately known within the family as “Spinster Towers”.My motto…”You’re Used Up Ass Has a Place at Spinster Towers”

  54. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Here is a good article for Mr.’D’ from the National Review in March of this year.Some good Stats
    here thought you might like it as it pertains to your most recent post.

    “”Millennials are underemployed, unhitched, and unchurched at record rates””

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372978/what-could-go-wrong-w-bradford-wilcox

    @MarcusD

    Here is a link from Cosmopolitan(Jan.2014) which my brother sent me.I loved it.Was almost rolling an the floor laughing at some of the comments.Priceless!

    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/exclusive/why-every-woman-should-get-a-prenup#comments

  55. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    @Cail

    Possible, but what would be causing men to change that way? […] But what would be causing married men to become more masculine and dominant these days?

    Short and incomplete answer: Growing up with a mom, but no dad; an aunt, but no uncle; a den mother, but no den leader… And surely not all of them. But a for a good chunk of men could just be saying, “I want to be married, and I’m not going to put up with what the culture is selling.” We’re not talking about a full-fledged reversal in marriage. It’s a significant and hopeful improvement, but it’s not like everyone is better now.

    I don’t disagree that men could make a difference, but you aren’t offering any evidence that the men in question are better at understanding headship, nor are you offering a plausible scenario for this. You are arguing that men who grew up without fathers will be naturally better husbands, and you are arguing this without any data to corroborate your theory.

    This is not to say that the answer is as simple as for men to improve. No one can–nor should be expected to–keep another from sinning.

    Agreed.

  56. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Vox’s scale still has the problem of being linear. I fit different parts of the spectrum in different areas of my life, so it cannot fully explain me, unless you take the approach that each individual is the “worse” on that scale as any trait they have. I would be an omega in some ways if that were true, but I doubt it. I can lead and draw others into following, though I mostly prefer to do my own thing and have from an early age.

    I suspect reality is more like a 2-D graph, or even more dimensions. It doesn’t fit a nice scale here any more than it does in politics.

  57. Boxer says:

    Dear BradA:

    Vox’s scale still has the problem of being linear. I fit different parts of the spectrum in different areas of my life, so it cannot fully explain me, unless you take the approach that each individual is the “worse” on that scale as any trait they have. I would be an omega in some ways if that were true, but I doubt it. I can lead and draw others into following, though I mostly prefer to do my own thing and have from an early age.

    Yeah. The generalizations are a nice tool to teach a brand new dude how to be more masculine, but they rapidly break down in specific situations.

    Like you, I’m sure I’m an alpha in some respects/situations, a beta in others, and an omega in others still. When I point out the fact that I’m perfectly comfortable being led by a capable man, and that I’m not comfortable “negging” (i.e. insulting women) or AMOGing (insulting men), and that I often like to be alone — yet I can still get sex when I want it, they’ll come up with all sorts of excuses. “You’re a natural alpha” or “you’re a lesser alpha” or “you’re a zeta male, and that’s the coolest thing to be” or whatever.

    These labels, I admit, are kinda nice in an ego-stroking way, but as a realist I don’t find them very useful. Ultimately, I’m just Boxer, an average dude who does the best he can, as I expect all the PUA gurus are too.

    Best, Boxer

  58. Lyn87 says:

    Brad A,

    Agreed, which is why I stipulated that, “It is important to realize that a man may occupy several different categories during different phases of his life, and even simultaneously under different circumstances.

    Almost all generalizations break down at some point, but the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy model takes us farther than the Alpha / Beta Dichotomy, especially if one is careful not to use it beyond its limitations. It’s a hatchet, not a scalpel… while the A/B Dichotomy is a 36″ chain saw.

    Your point is well-taken: I have occupied perhaps every category at one point or another, and my love life has not always synchronized with my work life or my social life. In general I’m probably more of a Sigma than anything else, but that varies by context. Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for her boyfriend at the time), I was in full-blown Sigma territory at the time I met the Apex female who would become my wife. We were engaged six weeks after we met – that was 26 years ago.

  59. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    you aren’t offering any evidence that the men in question are better at understanding headship, nor are you offering a plausible scenario for this.

    No, I haven’t offered any evidence. What I said was this:

    “It’s not an irrational suggestion though. Women’s capability to profit from divorce hasn’t declined (sorry, MRAs), yet there’s still this downward trend. If decriminalized divorce theft was the main factor before, and decriminalized divorce theft is still widely available, then we should look at other factors.

    In other words: I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that women are improving, so I suggested that some men are getting better at picking wives who won’t divorce.

    You are arguing that men who grew up without fathers will be naturally better husbands

    1. I treated Cail’s restatement in his question too casually. I said it was possible some UK men were getting better at picking wives who won’t divorce them. He tweaked that in his question to say UK men were becoming more dominant and masculine, and I replied without redirecting it back to what I actually said. That’s why I said, “We’re not talking about a full-fledged reversal in marriage.”

    2. I’m not sure what you mean by “naturally better”.

    2a. It is very reasonable to expect that some men, having suffered under an independence-minded mother, could make the decision to avoid those women who remind them of their mothers in matters of submission or respect. If you want to count such eliminations as a subcategory of “naturally better husband”, then: Yes, I am making that argument and I think it’s perfectly reasonable.

    I wouldn’t put it under that category, but rather just common sense reasoning. Some people are drawn to repetition of their parents’ sin, but some aren’t. I posited about those that aren’t. Again, as a rational suggestion; not the final answer.

    2b.Are you suggesting that children can’t make better choices than their parents unless someone intervenes in a particular way with specific insight and information; that it’s unlikely they could ever reason out basic causes and effects when it comes to human interactions? Respect, trust, reliability, integrity, character…those are all common to every person and relationship. Each of us has thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of examples of human interaction to learn from.

    and you are arguing this without any data to corroborate your theory.

    Except of course for the fact that the Bible says the law is written on our hearts, and even the unbelievers have consciences that are a law unto them. That is at least a point of data, and I am absolutely sure male headship in marriage and the knowledge that marriage should be indissoluble are part of that law. The lies obscure what we know; they do not erase.

    Another point of data from the Bible is that we know women are more easily deceived (their minds more easily clouded) by lies, and so if I’m going to place my bet on which half of a random married couple has a better chance at seeing clearly (and therefore making good decisions): I’m going to pick the man. We’d all better pick the man.

    Now, getting those researchers to admit that their own consciences–the spiritual law unto them–informed their conclusions…that’s another matter. They don’t want to account for spirit.

  60. desiderian says:

    “If I understand Dalrock’s comments accurately, our small disagreement could be summarized this way”

    I don’t see any disagreement. Your explanation isn’t mutually exclusive with Dalrock’s.

    Perhaps this would be less emotionally loaded if instead of talking about “improving” we just noted that men are getting more masculine, and women more feminine. I definitely am seeing this, especially among the rising generation.

    Heck, even the bull-dykes are losing serious weight and wearing makeup these days. Had one actually flirt with me tonight (maybe the attractive, devoted women on both our arms was a turn-on for her – who knows?). A different vibe is in the air.

    There are multiple factors, but the work of folks like Dalrock should not be underestimated. A writer of Cail’s quality can influence influencers, who knows how many more are out there doing likewise?

  61. desiderian says:

    “Are you suggesting that children can’t make better choices than their parents”

    Again, “better’ isn’t necessary, just different. Strauss and Howe’s analysis is based on a cycle they identified in parenting styles, where children who grew up in families they perceived as too lenient were stricter parents, and vice versa. The sex-role differentiation is similar.

  62. greyghost says:

    I’m a little late on this one and have been beaten to the punch. Women are marrying later (older) and old women know they can’t remarry up. The mangina author with the modern men must be better at keeping their wives happy today was sickening as it was funny. Any man today not actively avoiding marriage and not using surrogacy for his own kids deserves what he gets. The tipping point is coming where men that get taken by women are to be laughed at.

  63. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost

    “The tipping point is coming where men that get taken by women are to be laughed at”

    What humour is there to be found in seeing another man’s hopes and dreams being trampled on?

  64. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    Thanks for the link. The article was pretty amusing on its own. It’s always interesting to see women complain about alimony (and yet, not got general condemnation from society for complaining – remember “men as beasts of burden”).

    How did this happen? Because California divorce laws are antiquated and ridiculous and favor the less successful spouse.

    I guess this’ll be the way the laws get changed? (But honestly, I’m still chuckling at this.)

    So brides-to-be, I implore you—whether or not you have a penny to your name right now—make that man sign a prenup that spells out a fair division of the assets based on percentage of income earned and, most important, eliminates spousal support…for both of you. If he’s protected too, he can’t complain. Because some day, all of you fun, fearless women will invent something or write something or build something or sing something or paint something or design something or act in something or start a company that makes you a lot of money, and there is no reason on this earth why you should be penalized for your success by having to continue to support an ex-husband.

    Now, if only the feminists could switch the genders around (and maybe the chronology). I would imagine that many of the crypto-feminists on CAF would support the above, but oppose it for men.

  65. MarcusD says:

    I botched the tags. Last part should be:

    So brides-to-be, I implore you—whether or not you have a penny to your name right now—make that man sign a prenup that spells out a fair division of the assets based on percentage of income earned and, most important, eliminates spousal support…for both of you. If he’s protected too, he can’t complain. Because some day, all of you fun, fearless women will invent something or write something or build something or sing something or paint something or design something or act in something or start a company that makes you a lot of money, and there is no reason on this earth why you should be penalized for your success by having to continue to support an ex-husband.

    Now, if only the feminists could switch the genders around (and maybe the chronology). I would imagine that many of the crypto-feminists on CAF would support the above, but oppose it for men.

  66. Pingback: Doublethink | Truth and contradictions | Scoop...

  67. Opus says:

    One bit, that I originally typed but which did not make the final cut – as it were – concerned the age of marriage for women in England in 1973 – Greyghost above encourages me to add it – Director’s Cut so to speak:

    At that time the average age of marriage for a woman was not quite twenty-one. In those circumstances, divorcing soon after marriage – and even before one had hit ones peak SMV which was still a year or two off – made perfectly rational economic sense.

    From a woman’s point of view (provided she was still childless) she got to have copious sex with a man without the tag of being a slut, having persuaded some man to put a wedding band on her third finger left hand, and was able to bask in sympathy for being an unhaaaapy woman (that man must have been a ravenous sex beast and probably given the proximity of the divorce to the wedding) – what was not to like from her point of view as she once again embarked on tasting all the Baskins-Robbins flavours of men.

    This was happening a lot and I mean with middle-class women. I cannot forget one particular wedding I attended. The young woman – exceptionally petite and attractive – and probably a virgin from what my girlfriend had told me, had met an up-market guy in insurance, aged about twenty four I would guess. Part of his speech at the reception has always remained with me perhaps because it is slightly pretentious. He arose and said ‘six months ago I attended the wedding of a friend; little could I have guessed that six months later I too would be “starring” in my own wedding’. Of course it is not he who starred but the bride. Six months later it was over. I saw this pattern or young marriage and instant divorce repeated on seemingly endless occasions.

  68. Perhaps this would be less emotionally loaded if instead of talking about “improving” we just noted that men are getting more masculine, and women more feminine. I definitely am seeing this, especially among the rising generation.

    I’ve thought lately that I’m seeing more long hair on girls, as well as more skirts and dresses. I hate to call it a general trend, though, because it could just be my small town or my limited social circles, or my own wishful thinking. It’s hard to say whether the changes one sees locally are part of a wider trend. I hope it is, but I don’t know.

    The tricky part about this subject is that it’s bound to be circular. If women sense that the single life is becoming less amenable, and thus turn to marriage earlier and with more commitment, men will respond by working harder to prepare to support a family and by proposing and marrying. If men become more masculine and dominant — perhaps responding unconsciously to the same shift in power, perhaps learning about the red pill or picking it up from other men — then women will respond by being more feminine and wanting to belong to them. One change is bound to drive the other, so once one starts, it’s going to be hard to tell which it was.

    However, one clue is to look at the way things went downhill. The wheels came off marriage when child support and other changes made divorce directly more desirable to women. There’s no reason to think that changes in the laws directly emasculated men or made them worse husbands, driving their wives away. The direct effect was to change women’s options. If those changes emasculated men (and I’d say they did), that was as a result of their wives using their new-found power, first to dominate their marriages and then to blow them up. So in that case, it seems clear to me that women primarily led the way and men responded.

    Men marry in order to lock down exclusive sexual access to a woman. That’s what “men are the gatekeepers of commitment; women are the gatekeepers of sex” means. It’s where old sayings like “he won’t buy the cow if he can get the milk for free” come from. As TFH (I think) has pointed out, when divorce favors men, there is little divorce. Most couples get married when the woman starts pressuring the man for a proposal, and they stay married unless the woman decides to leave. When it comes to marriage, women mostly lead the way into it — and out of it, when it comes to that.

    Cane seems to have a visceral dislike for the idea of women leading men in anything, so he prefers to reframe it to make men the leaders, so that what looks like leading by women is actually a reaction to some change in men that we just haven’t identified yet. I think that’s fine, since he doesn’t go to IBB’s extreme of saying that women are animals or robots who make no moral decisions of their own. It seems like an intellectual exercise to me, but there’s nothing wrong with that. If he’s right, we should be able to discover examples of this subtle leadership by men and work out a better practical understanding of what’s going on.

  69. 2a. It is very reasonable to expect that some men, having suffered under an independence-minded mother, could make the decision to avoid those women who remind them of their mothers in matters of submission or respect. If you want to count such eliminations as a subcategory of “naturally better husband”, then: Yes, I am making that argument and I think it’s perfectly reasonable.

    Maybe, maybe not. What we know about the sons of single mothers is that they’re over-represented among men in prison and homosexuals. As a group, they’re less successful in life in pretty much every way: less income, less health, less happiness, etc. I’m sure I’ve seen statistics showing that children of divorce are much more likely to end up divorced themselves. It’s possible that some subset of these men are defying the odds and becoming exemplary husbands of the sort that women just can’t do without, but to have the effect we’re seeing on the overall divorce numbers, they’d have to outnumber all the men whose single moms and lack of male role models did the opposite.

    It’s a nice idea, and hopeful, since it would be a lot easier to fix things by changing men than by changing women, but it’d be nice to have more evidence than, “It seems like it could work that way.”

  70. To be fair: Cane said “independence-minded mother” and I talked about “single mothers,” which aren’t exactly the same group. But there’s a lot of data on the children of divorce and single mothers, and I think it’s fair to say that single mothers tend to be the most “independence-minded.” Also, I’m pretty sure that polls of men in prison and homosexuals found that most of them had dominant mothers and either no father or a submissive father. So I don’t think there’s any indication that the sons of dominant married moms and weak fathers are much different from the sons of single mothers. Different in degree, maybe, but not in kind.

  71. Opus says:

    I have had a look at the web-site for The Marriage Foundation and have noted its various and many Sponsors Founders and Supporters (who is funding all this?). How priceless to observe that so many of these pro-marriage enthusiasts are female: the very sex that has led the Divorce Epidemic of the last forty years. They appear – despite the soft-focus lens, to be wall-banging women – so perhaps that is why they are keen to ponder that their matrimonial tide is out, or perhaps in the alternative it is to look down on women less fortunate than their well-healed selves.

    These women are also all Lawyers, the very people who have been at the coal-face of Divorce and yet who appear to be so clueless as to the reasons for the same and as with any paid-up Feminist keen to shift the blame for female-instituted divorce to men. As ever I indulge in my contempt for females of that Profession. I fear that Sir Paul Coleridge – whose baby this is and who has, of course, recently been sacked from the Judiciary for his pro-marriage (ie. Heterosexual) remarks is a well-meaning Mangina. Long may he enjoy his retirement.

  72. Lyn87 says:

    Wondering out loud here… so to say:

    Are there data on whether the demographic group of young couples (whose marriages are coming apart at a lower rate) is disproportionately comprised of people whose parents stayed married themselves?

    The reason I ask is this: while it is clear that something has changed – we can hardly declare it to be the result of a sweeping improvement in culture. And since the law hasn’t changed appreciably, it can’t be that either… as Cain pointed out up-thread. We know that the children of divorce are more likely to divorce themselves – is this trend the result of the children of divorce getting married at a lower rate in the first place, which would disproportionately leave the field to people whose parents remained married? If so, the group that comprises “People who are getting married” would be disproportionately comprised of the same people who would have been more likely to stay married anyway, while the group most likely to have gotten divorced is disproportionately eschewing the institution in favor of other arrangements. If they don’t get married in the first place than they never get divorced, either.

    That group may be opting for “sub-marriage” arrangements such as “shacking up” or casual sex, which has a VERY high turn-over rate. Whereas before those couples would have gotten married before they broke up, now they don’t stay together long enough to get married in the first place, so they never show up in the marriage or divorce statistics.

    It seems that – if that is the case – it answers the question without having to rely on improvements in the law or the culture that are not in evidence.

  73. Cane

    Another point of data from the Bible is that we know women are more easily deceived (their minds more easily clouded) by lies, and so if I’m going to place my bet on which half of a random married couple has a better chance at seeing clearly (and therefore making good decisions): I’m going to pick the man. We’d all better pick the man.

    This (and the attributed supporting comments you’ve made throughout this conversation) do not lead to a conclusion that men ARE choosing women who will not be like mom, be rebellious, be prone to blow up marriage, etc. One reason that it offers little evidence is that it is just a choice, a possibility in a list of possibilities, like brainstorming. But the other more meaningful objection is that it carries a premise that has to be accepted in order for it to be the case.

    The premise is that men can select to avoid. That there are women to select that would largely preclude her then jettisoning him. Here I reject the premise. It has another premise that I think you and Dalrock agree on and I more disagree, that being that the man can lead or learn to lead and that also tamps down the EPL urge. I don’t buy that fully either. I wrote about an article on Patheos , Elspeth shared it with me, where it talks about how women perceive themselves. They said :

    The preeminence of family was most overt for Christian women when it came to naming the highest priority in their lives. More than half (53%) say their highest priority in life is family. By contrast, only one third as many women (16%) rate faith as their top priority, which is less than the cumulative total of women who say their health (9%), career performance (5%) or comfortable lifestyle (5%) are top on their list of life objectives.

    Finding the problems in that statement vs reality is not hard. Further they say:

    Christian women are more than willing to admit they are influenced by their faith—particularly through reading the Bible and listening to sermons, with 75% of those surveyed saying the Bible has influenced them “a lot,” and 51% saying the same about sermons. Most women also readily admit their husbands have an impact on their actions and decisions, with 63% of married women saying their husbands influence them a lot.

    However, after those top three influencers, women are much more reticent to admit they are swayed by outside voices—particularly when it comes to friends and media. Only 10% of Christian women say their friends have a lot of impact on their decision-making (though 51% say their friends do have “some” influence on them). An even lower number of women will allow that the media has any influence on them, with only 5% admitting the media influences them a lot, 25% saying the media influences them some and a striking 70% claiming the media has “little” influence over their decision making.

    Despite the characterization of women as intricately connected to their peers, only 3% of Christian women say their friends are their top priority,

    but according to th

    These statements would seem to support your claim Cane, that picking the right women is not only possible but even likely (better than 50/50), but reading the whole survey with any sense of reality one would reverse the numbers at the very least if trying to make this picture and reality congruent. The authors note:

    “In many ways, women’s self-perception revealed in this study seems to be aspirational. Women want to be influenced by the Bible, but they reject the idea of being heavily affected by the media. So these aspirations may be reflected in the numbers. Still, the way women describe themselves reveals something: they seem to know how they want to be perceived by others. Other findings in the survey reflect this pattern: women seem to be laying claim to a life they want, even if it’s not always current reality.”

    Men may well be getting better at leading, or a growing number of men doing so, but the choice of a wife and her receptiveness and response to leadership is still wholly a matter of her choices.

  74. Lyn87 I think you are more on to whats happening than any explanation that has male improvement or selection of wife as its hook. If data exists Im sure Dalrock has it and has parsed it before, but it seems that a few generations of divorce and the social pathologies resulting have finally reached a point that it is affecting the numbers based on hard wired beliefs in those born after say 1980. They likely have 2 to 3 layers of divorce in their family tree.

    The men thus affected take action, even if its passive, meaning they don’t marry, or they are uber careful selecting a wife (somewhat but not completely contradicting my point about choice not being an efficacious fix). The contradiction is mitigated by the fact that selection of a wife less prone to divorce while perhaps possible in rare instances, is also limited to an extremely low % of women. I think I can sort women that way pretty well if I meet them, and I would maybe bat .500 on it. There are a few women who are so comfortable and yes confident (not in the careerist faux way) that they exude low maintenance and comfort in own skin. These women are less likely to divorce but they are also just easier to get along with in general. as coworkers, friends, whatever. So the marriages of men spooked by generations of EPL divorces are small in number, most not marrying at all, and those that do find these gems, yes, it makes a difference in the numbers

  75. The premise is that men can select to avoid. That there are women to select that would largely preclude her then jettisoning him. Here I reject the premise.

    I tend to agree. It may be possible to train boys so that they’ll do a better job of selecting good wives, but if so, we’re just starting to see that training now, so it doesn’t seem that it would be affecting current marriages yet. I could more easily believe that married men are discovering Game and learning to stand up to their wives, since that doesn’t need a generation or more to show up.

    It has another premise that I think you and Dalrock agree on and I more disagree, that being that the man can lead or learn to lead and that also tamps down the EPL urge.

    I think this can help in some cases, where the woman isn’t too far gone and the man doesn’t have too far to go to raise his SMV back above hers (or more accurately, what she perceives as what she could replace him with). I don’t think anyone would claim that Game (or leading, or whatever we want to call it) can save every marriage, but when we’re talking about overall trends, even 5% of men saying, “Shut up your nagging and make me a sandwich and get naked,” could change the numbers.

    I assume there are several different factors here, which I’d guess at in this order of importance:

    1) Women perceiving their post-divorce prospects (financial and re-marriage) as lower than before, making divorce less attractive on the margins. This encompasses the fact that a higher number of men are just saying no-thanks or raising their standards, taking them off the market for the average frivorcee.

    2) The type of people most likely to divorce not marrying in the first place.

    3) A generational impulse to be contrary to your parents’ generation. This is similar to Cane’s theory, but more general: Millennials pretty much hate the Boomers for frittering away their inheritance, and that applies to things like morals as much as to cash. That’s not to say Millennials are more moral — they’re still shacking up at high rates, after all — but they like to think they’re different from Boomers (hipster, not hippie), and one of the defining features of Boomers is frivolous divorce. For some it might be as simple as, “I’m not gonna be like them, because they suck.”

    4) The pendulum swinging back from androgyny and sexual confusion, toward more overt masculinity and femininity. That could be partly a reaction to all the gay/transsexual stuff going on. Even though the younger generation approves of that stuff, that doesn’t mean they want to be identified with it in their own romantic lives.

  76. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>Another possibility is that male-led commitment works, and this is evidence.

    Here we go again! Man fault!

    And, of course, if men will lead women will submit. Right?

    And, >>And that makes sense to me, because I take it as a matter of faith and fact that men are the leaders.

    Sho’ nuff. What does the Bible know?

    Men are only leaders if women let them be. Not only does the Bible say so, but so does even a microdot of common sense.

    No matter how deeply we bury that man fault hoax, and no matter how much concrete we pour over it, the next morning it has forced its way back to the surface. Sigh.

  77. feeriker says:

    The reason we cannot go back to the old way is:

    I) Material prosperity is enough now that most people’s basic needs are easily met in first world countries (a good thing). Don’t underestimate how much poverty did to create the social structures of old.

    That has certainly been true for most of human history, with the last three quarters of a century in the western world (particularly in America) being the new and anomolous exception to the longstanding rule.

    However, we in the western world in general –and in the Anglosphere in particular– are obviously now in a state of precitious socioeconomic decline that at any moment could accelerate into free-fall. At that point, when past again becomes present, the assumption stated above and the quandom realities that created them will of course no longer apply.

    The question at this point will become: what will happen to intersexual relations when “girlllllpower” becomes eviscerated by socioeconomic reality and the artificial, state-imposed “safety net” that has enabled spoiled, entitled, man-hating princesses to exist in their current state evaporates, will the men they’ve despised succumb to their innate white knight and come to their rescue? Or will they let women sleep in the bed they’ve made for themselves over the last half century and let the chips fall whwre they may (i.e., each person for themself)?

  78. Lyn87 says:

    Empath,

    I’m struggling with putting all this into a coherent paradigm and then into words. I think I’m onto something, but I’m not certain that others haven’t said as much… I’m just looking for a Unifying Theory.

    It seems intuitive that markets respond to incentives, and the divorce market is no exception. For every steady state of the legal incentives for or against divorce there will be a “natural” divorce rate. As TFH notes, since women are the primary initiators of divorce, when wives perceive that divorce benefits them in the short term they do it more often, thus the “natural” divorce rate goes up. The same is not true of men – also as TFH notes – even when men can easily ditch their aging wives they usually stay with them.

    Prior to the paradigm shift in family law and culture (I’m extrapolating from Dalrock now) most women would lose economic and/or cultural status through divorce, so the “natural” divorce rate was relatively low. The corollary was that many wives who married before the shift would have initiated divorce if the underlying paradigm had been more favorable at the time. When the law and culture changed rapidly, they essentially had their marriage contracts retroactively re-written for their benefit. The predictable result happened – there was a spike in divorce as many marginally content wives who were married under the former legal-cultural paradigm suddenly were able to jettison their vows for a perceived improvement in their life when those margins moved. But it was a spike – and spikes are higher than the curve on both sides. Divorce rates eventually dropped, but not to the extend that they had risen. That was also predictable – the new paradigm that favors wives who divorce set the “natural” divorce rate higher, so the spike receded to its current plateau as the wives who represented the lagging indicator divorced themselves out of the year-by-year tally – but the plateau is now set at a much higher level than before.

    The phenomenon noted in the article is thus a second-order indicator. Since divorce breeds divorce, and the same cultural changes that incentivise divorce also incentivise fornication, both sexes are unconsciously creating the conditions were marriage is culturally “walled off” – and the people who bother to climb that wall are the ones most likely to take it seriously. So we see an extraordinarily high rate of turn-over in sexual relationships (which would have been tallied as divorces in earlier times – especially at the time of the spike) for those “outside the wall,” and a lower rate of divorces for couples who are now going “inside the wall” in the legal sense, now that the spike has receded.

    It’s still something of a crap-shoot, but the pendulum has swung about as far as it can in the direction of women – there is simply no room for another paradigm shift in the same direction as the last one. Wives already have every incentive to pull the rip-cord that it is possible to give them, and reality dictates that any major changes in the future will be disincentives rather than incentives. We see that in the fact that women are now starting to feel to bad side of equality – work like rented mules (in other words, like husbands) their entire adult lives at some soul-sucking job… with no guarantee that they’re not going to be jettisoned by their (now) lower-paying spouses… that’s if they can find husbands at all, and even then as older brides they’re likely to feel that they had to “settle.”

  79. Cicero says:

    @ Anonymous age 72

    “Men are only leaders if women let them be. Not only does the Bible say so, but so does even a microdot of common sense.”

    Does Christ lead His bride or does His bride lead Him?

  80. Lyn87 says:

    Cicero,

    A72’s point is that wives have free will, and can choose to not follow the leadership of their husbands, just as we all have free will to follow or reject the leadership of Christ. But since the people who make up the Bride of Christ are those who – by definition – follow Him, the bride (a corporate entity that follows Christ by definition), you are making a false equivalence. The proper equivalence would be “Does a husband lead a rebellious wife or does a sinner follow Christ?” No and no, obviously.

  81. greyghost says:

    Cicero
    What humour is there to be found in seeing another man’s hopes and dreams being trampled on?

    That is a good question. A few weeks ago we had this from Briton http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/the-great-douchebag-mystery/ an article about the douche bag being the path to sex.
    It looks like a huge influence is the PUA player on this (doing the lords work) Women are women and always have been. A woman seen as virtuous is no different in hypergamous selfish motivation than some slut cashing out with the kids and house so she can ride the carousel. The laws of misandry are in place (she votes ) to remove the consequences of feral choices ( she is liberated) For 20 to 30 or years those laws consumed the beta male. But the thing about beta males is that they are practical and realistic they have adapted and are in the process of adapting. (the manosphere is beta males taking care of western civilization)
    A woman staying with here husband is pure wicked selfishness on her part no doubt. The douche bag is running this combined with all of the things commented on by all here. It is in her selfish interest to stay with her husband.
    Now to answer the question men are learning the young ones especially. As Caddy commented earlier women have nothing to offer but a pussy hole to put a penis in. Ask any women and when all is said and done that is all they have. men understanding that is a great achievement for western civilization. Now she has to work for commitment. It is not about romance it is about getting the job done. (pua doing the lords work) The church failed because it applied virtue when it didn’t exist trying to be nice (lied) They are still lying. The man-up is to know and speak the truth on this subject. With the growth of the mens movement and the ideas that come from the red pill a man is an irresponsible for applying assumed virtue the choice of words may have not been correct the idea I know is sound. When the lie was the foundation you are a victim The early mens movement was about showing women how this victimized men, families and children. Her reaction was fuck you and more laws of misandry. MGTOW and the booty call douches are taking over with the peter pans and churchians at the other end. believing and living up to a lie is shifting from victimhood to “you had it coming to you” The divorce trends say so.
    Check out this guy here http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/its-lonely-out-in-space/ This story is repeated over and over again. When it stops being something she did and foolish projection of virtue on his part. As long as this is about her and not about him being stupid it will continue. That is the nature of women. And the “bad ” men have figured it out when Christian men have the ability to see and speak about it The change will be so fast it will be like this never happened.

  82. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Your comment here was pot on. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/doublethink/#comment-123599 It is what’s in it for her.

  83. Cicero says:

    @ Lyn87

    “A72′s point is that wives have free will, and can choose to not follow the leadership of their husbands, just as we all have free will to follow or reject the leadership of Christ.”

    And where did I make any claim questioning the effects of free will?

    “But since the people who make up the Bride of Christ are those who – by definition – follow Him, the bride (a corporate entity that follows Christ by definition), you are making a false equivalence.”

    Christ is the head and we are to submit and follow. God placed husbands as the head of the family and wives are to submit and follow. Wives rebelling against husbands and try to lead the relationship is like the Church today trying to lead Christ by changing what he taught for their own gain. So where is the false equivalence? Does the bride of Christ do everything always exactly as Christ commands? Or does Christ just give up on those who rebel against him at some point in time in their lives? You see Christ does the dictating no matter how many times His bride tries to change that. Are husbands not to do the same?

    “The proper equivalence would be “Does a husband lead a rebellious wife or does a sinner follow Christ?”

    Well does responsibility of the husband for his rebellious wife fall away just because she will not submit?

  84. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    it seems that a few generations of divorce and the social pathologies resulting have finally reached a point that it is affecting the numbers based on hard wired beliefs in those born after say 1980. They likely have 2 to 3 layers of divorce in their family tree.

    The men thus affected take action, even if its passive, meaning they don’t marry, or they are uber careful selecting a wife (somewhat but not completely contradicting my point about choice not being an efficacious fix). The contradiction is mitigated by the fact that selection of a wife less prone to divorce while perhaps possible in rare instances, is also limited to an extremely low % of women. I think I can sort women that way pretty well if I meet them, and I would maybe bat .500 on it. There are a few women who are so comfortable and yes confident (not in the careerist faux way) that they exude low maintenance and comfort in own skin. These women are less likely to divorce but they are also just easier to get along with in general. as coworkers, friends, whatever. So the marriages of men spooked by generations of EPL divorces are small in number, most not marrying at all, and those that do find these gems, yes, it makes a difference in the numbers

    Pretty much what I’m saying. I think some of you are bringing a whole bunch of other assumptions into what I said. Some examples will follow.

    @Cail

    I’ve thought lately that I’m seeing more long hair on girls, as well as more skirts and dresses. I hate to call it a general trend, though, because it could just be my small town or my limited social circles, or my own wishful thinking. It’s hard to say whether the changes one sees locally are part of a wider trend. I hope it is, but I don’t know.

    As well, take a look at the political movements across Western Civilization; from the American phenomenon of Birthers and 911 conspiracy buffs, to Greece’s Golden Dawn and everything in between like UKIP: There’s a shift taking place. The taboos around politically correct topics are falling down one after another as people get fed up with lies.

    Men marry in order to lock down exclusive sexual access to a woman. That’s what “men are the gatekeepers of commitment; women are the gatekeepers of sex” means. It’s where old sayings like “he won’t buy the cow if he can get the milk for free” come from.

    Well, I think that’s wrong. Men are the gatekeepers of both. Generally, women coax sex out of the men that those women want to marry. Generally, women are satisfied with their sex life and individual sexual episodes if their partners are satisfied. Women can be impregnated even if they don’t want to have sex. Men can’t impregnate without being first aroused to it.

    As TFH (I think) has pointed out, when divorce favors men, there is little divorce.

    That’s a dubious claim. It seems to me that when divorce favors (horrible choice of word, but I think I know what you mean) anyone, we will see a lot of it. A society with laws that have a serious reduction or elimination in alimony and child-support and renders the children to the parent better able to provide for them (most times this would be the father) doesn’t strike me as favoring men.

    Most couples get married when the woman starts pressuring the man for a proposal, and they stay married unless the woman decides to leave. When it comes to marriage, women mostly lead the way into it — and out of it, when it comes to that.

    Yes. Women use sex to lure men into a relationship, and women tend to decide when it’s time to get married, and men tend to follow along.

    So, again: Who is in control of what, and what have we seen happen to marriage under these circumstances?

    Cane seems to have a visceral dislike for the idea of women leading men in anything, so he prefers to reframe it to make men the leaders,

    Are you sure this is what you want to imply; that we all merely frame and reframe perceptions as we like, and that we aren’t making real claims about truth? For both our sakes, I’d rather you just say I am wrong.

    so that what looks like leading by women is actually a reaction to some change in men that we just haven’t identified yet.

    Say, like men setting out to get married to a wife instead of merely loping along for a happy-chance at a soulmate; while women prowl and pressure them into marriage?

    Maybe, maybe not. What we know about the sons of single mothers is that they’re over-represented among men in prison and homosexuals. As a group, they’re less successful in life in pretty much every way: [etc.]

    I think there is a end to this; something like diminishing returns on society’s “investment” in divorce. And, you bring up a good possibility about some of non-trivial number of men being removed from the pool of marrying men; either through incarceration (we lock up a lot of men) or choosing a homosexual lifestyle. I am against those things, but they would have an affect that might make the marriage stats look better.

    @Empath

    The premise is that men can select to avoid. That there are women to select that would largely preclude her then jettisoning him. Here I reject the premise.

    Then why shouldn’t pastors encourage men to marry the single mothers? Should stop avoiding marriage with women with tattoos, or that smoke? Why take long hair on a woman as a good sign? If men can’t even imperfectly select to avoid, and it’s always nothing more than a roll of the dice from the man’s perspective, then a man should just pick what he finds attractive and proximate at this very moment and marry her. Is that what you mean to endorse?

    Or do you mean something a bit more nuanced? Because I did, too. I meant that men can have an affect with their choices.

    Stats about divorce in the UK are what we’re looking at. We’re not looking at stats about submission or rebellion within marriages. We’re not looking at how successful or thriving those marriages are except in the barest way (not to discount this “barest way” of simply choosing to divorce less). They could be full of spite and adultery and cold nights on the couch, but not divorcing out of sheer stubbornness to not be like their parents. We’re not seeing stats for a full-blown revival of Christian marriage practices, or anything like that. It’s just that divorce is dropping-off, and that only somewhat.

    Let me reiterate that I put this forward as “a reasonable conclusion”; not the reasonable conclusion, or the only possible conclusion.

  85. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Cicero says:

    “What humour is there to be found in seeing another man’s hopes and dreams being trampled on?”

    There is a certain amount for those men that makes things worse for other men, manginas in particular. Some preachers discussed here come to mind.
    ———————————
    What Dalrock calls the “margins” is significant in women’s choices.

    The divorce process is two fold (Rollo describes it quite well): The woman divorces, has a period of alpha chasing again, gets married the second time.

    But it is the “margins” that impacting it. The remarriage rate for divorced men has gone from 100 per 1000 divorced men a year to 30 per thousand in 40 years.

    Almost all men remarried eventually. Now about 2/3rds don’t. A woman that gets divorced in her 30s have either men that have never married (and most men that haven’t gotten married in their mid 30s either won’t or are unattractive) or have been divorced.

    Women are not pushing the button because they are noticing more fallout for them, simple as that.

    Nothing else has changed for them or their behavior, most men will suffer in their marriage till the end of days.
    ———————
    TFH

    While I hope you are right in a lot of ways, I think you underestimate the power of biology in a lot of ways and the natural inclination to funnel resources to women is going to be very difficult to overcome.

    Your scenario only works if there is a certain base level of prosperty that exists.

    Considering that through out history there have been various technological backslides that occur after periods of prosperity, it is more likely there will be a technological backslide. I would argue that we are already in a technological backslide. We cannot perform the feats we did 40 years ago, like going to the moon.

    Our food supply depends upon our current level of technology and it being maintained.

    The more likely scenario is there will be at some point in the not so distance future massive starvation, with many of the rabbits and single moms and their children being the victims. It will lead to the burning of welfare cities like detroit.

    A return to “you work or you starve” and there will be a lot of straving.

    ———-

    Boxer,

    yes the younger men get it instinctively. They’ve had the blue pill shoved down their throats and they have either given up or realized the truth. You can see it in their behavior and hear it in their words.

    You get told you’re a monster long enough you either withdraw into yourself or you embrace it and the boys, especially the white ones get it drummed into their heads that they are monsters

  86. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    Here we go again! Man fault!

    And, of course, if men will lead women will submit. Right?

    And, >>And that makes sense to me, because I take it as a matter of faith and fact that men are the leaders.

    Sho’ nuff. What does the Bible know?

    Men are only leaders if women let them be. Not only does the Bible say so, but so does even a microdot of common sense.

    Do priests cease to be priests if their congregations don’t attend, or prophets cease to be prophets if their prophecies aren’t obeyed, or kings cease to be kings if their people desert? Does a child’s rejection of the father remove his parentage? No. You seem to have a problem with choosing to recognize reality. I will say this is of a piece with your insistence that we not call crimes as crimes.

    You’re obsessed with parsing out “man fault” and “woman fault” to a debilitating degree (as conversation goes) and you’ve demonstrated on multiple occasion that your understanding of the Bible is woefully deficient and heavily skewed towards what AA72 wants it to say.

  87. Opus says:

    Lyn 87 has what certainly feels like a plausible hypothesis. Going back to The Great Douchebag Mystery, one can see that with young persons the rate of marriage has halved since 1993. That does not mean however that people are not shacking up (or going Incel) and I would propose that if one counted cohabitees as married the rate of Divorce/Separation will show no drop – but of course there are no figures to test this.

    The other possibility (following TFH) is that times have got harder for youngsters (specifically women) since 1993. Well have they? I looked at the Unemployment figures for the period from 1993 (all ages and both sexes of course) and in that year the rate of Unemployment was over 11%. By 2008 it was down to just over 6%. It has risen slightly since then. It is difficult to know what to make of this, if for no other reason than that the Unemployment figure is hopelessly massaged for political purposes and thus highly fictional. I would estimate that the true unemployment figure for the U.K. rather than the present 2,500,00 is between 5,000,000 and 8,000,000.

    Greater male commitment to marriage seems to be wishful-thinking as an explanation for lowered Divorces amongst the young, and frankly fairly insulting to those men who since the Seventies have suddenly seen their lives uprooted at whim. Greater commitment to women indeed usually seems to have the opposite effect – or perhaps newly married men have learned how to Game their wives into Monogamy and away from notions of equality of the sexes?

  88. Does Christ lead His bride or does His bride lead Him?

    When Christ told the people what they would have to do to be saved, and most of them walked away, did He fail or did they?

  89. Cicero says:

    @ Cail Corishev

    “When Christ told the people what they would have to do to be saved, and most of them walked away, did He fail or did they?”

    Were those who walked away His bride or the ones that stayed and followed Him?

  90. greyghost says:

    Well does responsibility of the husband for his rebellious wife fall away just because she will not submit?

    It was never his to start with. Ever notice how men that treat women like that seem to get the most gina tingle and sex.

  91. Does Christ lead His bride or does His bride lead Him?

    Not germane. The bride is not “the people”, it is the people who choose to follow. Your question is like asking “does the man whose wife submits to him lead that wife?”

  92. jf12 says:

    Cail calls it. “women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed”

  93. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    When Christ told the people what they would have to do to be saved, and most of them walked away, did He fail or did they?

    They did, of course. Well, let’s just look at the text:

    “Fed up with disobedience, Jesus abandoned His mission, moved to an neighboring country and kept up a modest trade in carpentry. He lived happily ever after. The End.” (excerpted from: “History of Male Grievances in the Bible, Vol. III”, p. 104, by Anonymous Age 72.)

  94. greyghost says:

    Right you are jf12. the conversation is where is the dread coming from. It is everywhere and wicked selfishness wins again.

  95. Cane

    Decrying pastors saying marry the single moms is not really apt here. I could take the absurdity further as ask if one should therefore discourage a man marrying a hooker who he is in liaison with. It doesnt matter. Of course there is SOME level of selection that makes sense and is helpful. Its a wild outlier who needs to know that he should select against those things.

    Take a man in Driscol’s church though and offer him a single mom vs a singles ministry gal and his odds of frivorce are not materially different. There are obvious NO’s and a very few obvious YES’s in the pool of possible brides. The other 90+% are a risk.

    Moving to the question does a priest stop being a priest when no one attends, etc., again, not really illustrative in a helpful way. OK, agreed, the man IS the leader. It would be a permanent form of the verb to-be, therefore. He IS leader. Like he IS human…..sort of like that.

    But we are not talking about whether is IS the leader, whether he IS doing leader-y things, whether he is steadfast, all great things, we are talking about whether he is leading anyone/someone. That involves the other person. I get that you’d say men have no excuse to not be leaders, in the to-be manner of speaking, but there is not necessarily a thread or tether connecting his to-be leader with him actually lead-ING.

    This falls under the “we are called to” flavor of exegesis and its discussion. Its always great to be reminded what we are called to do, including lead. And to some extent there is a response to doing that and therefore it does move the numbers on marriage and divorce. But we must be careful when saying it. You may say the same to me in the opposite way. “Be careful suggesting that a woman may not follow because you may tacitly approve of a man slacking”. Id revert, be careful how the to-be leader is explained because it feeds into the present and demonstrable narrative that indeed excuses women from their choosing the right response.

  96. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost

    “It was never his to start with. Ever notice how men that treat women like that seem to get the most gina tingle and sex.”

    Really? So a Christian man directed by God to lead and who asks a woman for her hand in marriage does not intend to take responsibility, as directed by God, for her as well?

    @ empathologism

    “Not germane. The bride is not “the people”, it is the people who choose to follow. Your question is like asking “does the man whose wife submits to him lead that wife?”

    Does a Christian wife who accepts the mans proposal for marriage not intend to follow and submit to him as a Christian (aka bride of Christ) intends to submit to Christ proposal to follow Him?
    And how many “people” does it take to make a bride?

  97. “Fed up with disobedience, Jesus abandoned His mission, moved to an neighboring country and kept up a modest trade in carpentry. He lived happily ever after. The End.” (excerpted from: “History of Male Grievances in the Bible, Vol. III”, p. 104, by Anonymous Age 72.)
    ————————————————————————-

    Cane-cane-cane
    You are setting up the easy false dichotomy. Why are you doing that. I see no evidence of anything that would garner the response Ive pasted above

  98. Does a Christian wife who accepts the mans proposal for marriage not intend to follow and submit to him as a Christian (aka bride of Christ) intends to submit to Christ proposal to follow Him?

    No

  99. Are you sure this is what you want to imply; that we all merely frame and reframe perceptions as we like, and that we aren’t making real claims about truth? For both our sakes, I’d rather you just say I am wrong.

    I would if I were sure you were wrong, but I’m not. I think the effect you’re looking at may be real, just not as big a part of the picture as you’re hoping. When I say you’re trying to frame it that way, I don’t mean you’re being shifty; I just mean you’re trying to put it in the best light for how you think it could be solved. As I said earlier, I think these things work in a vicious circle, with men and women both responding to each other and to incentives, either pulling them up or dragging them down. You seem to prefer to focus on the behaviors on the men’s side because you believe (as I do) that men are the primary doers and fixers of things.

    While I think a man becoming more masculine may improve his marriage and reduce his chances of frivorce (though not to zero), and therefore that could be reflected in the numbers we’re seeing here, I don’t think that’s likely to improve the general situation, for reasons we’ve talked about here many times (a small number of alphas willing to service the herd, cash and prizes in divorce, media and social media inflating women’s expectations, etc.). I think a more general return to marriage 1.0 will have to be driven by women closing their legs and demanding it.

    That will only happen if something drastically changes their incentives. Men could do that, taking away the cash and prizes and the make-work jobs, making divorce a much scarier prospect again; but to do that we’d have to be united, and our natural leaders are the men most invested and profiting from the current situation. So that’s not gonna happen. The other possibility is that circumstances — a major economic crash, a natural disaster that wipes out our infrastructure — will make life hard enough that women need husbands for more than sperm again. That’s bleak, but it’s the only way I see a full move back to marriage 1.0.

    But maybe we can get some improvement, at least within some communities, by men and women both having a general sense of dissatisfaction with the zeitgeist and a sense of uncertainty about the future, and both looking to do better and feeding off each other. They’d have to reject the divorce culture and all that goes with that, but it can be done. I’ve seen it happen in individual marriages, and I’m seeing signs of it in wider social circles like my church. Maybe that can spread, and we’ll just be arguing about how far it can spread before the mainstream culture fights back.

  100. Cicero

    That Christian wife does nothing of the sort.
    According to an acquaintance of mine, a fixture for decades in the town Ive lived in for only 8 years( he is “ordained” Presbyterian minister who has a local church, w/ his PhD in Psychology and the oldest Christian psych practice around)

    According to him, he stopped even getting involved trying to council marriages, stopped even doing weddings, and had lost any interested clientele anyway, expressly because in his observation there was a scarcity of women meeting the description you made. In fact the women he was working with fit a different description, one he’d put lots of thought and analysis into summarizing. he’d say (and i agree just based on 51 years of life) men see the wedding day as an event, wonderful, celebrate, a permanent and glorious change as he melds with the women. Women see the day as the beginning of a new phase, that being when she actually has been TASKED with fixing the guy. Like getting permission from a professor to finally begin the thesis topic she wants, resources available and years to complete it, her project is the man being changed as she feels he needs to be.

    If what you described was anything more than words on a page, likely this site would not exist and none of us would even have strident views on the failures accruing because there would be so few of them.

  101. greyghost says:

    It is not his responsibility it is her sin to rebel. A woman’s duty to submit to her HUSBAND is the only worldly thing a woman has agency for. For a man to take that responsibility and call it headship is sinful I think due to his lack of faith. You don’t cover your bets with God. Kinda looks like confidence where the gina tingles come from. All of the rest is just bullshit window dressing.

  102. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Of course there is SOME level of selection that makes sense and is helpful.

    BUT WHERE’S YOUR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT? IT’S NOT IN THE STUDY! HOW CAN WE KNOW THIS IS TRUE IF THERE’S NOT A GRAPH TO DEPICT IT? WE’RE DOOMED, I TELL YOU! DOOOOOOMED!

    This falls under the “we are called to” flavor of exegesis and its discussion. Its always great to be reminded what we are called to do, including lead. And to some extent there is a response to doing that and therefore it does move the numbers on marriage and divorce.

    Sigh.

    People are fallible. God is faithful. Listening to and obeying His call is all there is, Empath. Husbands who lead their wives do not save their marriages. Husbands who lead their wives glorify God, and He can save marriages; though that is not guaranteed and His will trumps our wants.

  103. Cicero says:

    @ empathologism

    “No”

    Hmmm …. interesting. Well then I guess that settles it. Christ specifically refers to us as his bride and if a bride has no intention to submit and follow her husband then that means that a Christian (being the bride) also has no intent to submit and follow Christ.

  104. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Cane-cane-cane
    You are setting up the easy false dichotomy. Why are you doing that. I see no evidence of anything that would garner the response Ive pasted above

    Exactly right; though you did not mean it. It was a response to a question from which the most relevant details had been purposefully excised.

    I’m out. Peace, Empath.

  105. greyghost says:

    Cail

    “That will only happen if something drastically changes their incentives. Men could do that, taking away the cash and prizes and the make-work jobs, making divorce a much scarier prospect again; but to do that we’d have to be united, and our natural leaders are the men most invested and profiting from the current situation. So that’s not gonna happen. The other possibility is that circumstances — a major economic crash, a natural disaster that wipes out our infrastructure — will make life hard enough that women need husbands for more than sperm again. That’s bleak, but it’s the only way I see a full move back to marriage 1.0.”

    That is what is actually happening right now in the west. The system is losing it’s ability to lie.

  106. And how many “people” does it take to make a bride?

    Missed my point I think. Call “the bride” 1 person then. If that person is already a follower of Christ, then Christ is the leader and the bride is the follower. Thats obvious.

    As an analogy to marriage though, the bride MAY be one who agreed and self regulates to submit, or she may not be, hence my comment that the bride is not the people, meaning we are talking about , well, people…..not people already pre-sorted into ones that WILL follow.

  107. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost

    “It is not his responsibility it is her sin to rebel. A woman’s duty to submit to her HUSBAND is the only worldly thing a woman has agency for. For a man to take that responsibility and call it headship is sinful I think due to his lack of faith. You don’t cover your bets with God. Kinda looks like confidence where the gina tingles come from. All of the rest is just bullshit window dressing.”

    So are you then of the view that responsibility for the family and leadership of the family are two different things for a husband?

  108. Cicero says:

    @ empathologism

    “Missed my point I think. Call “the bride” 1 person then. If that person is already a follower of Christ, then Christ is the leader and the bride is the follower. Thats obvious”

    No I got your point. I think you perhaps missed my context.

  109. greyghost says:

    Nope a man is responsible for his family not for his wife’s rebellion. Carrying out his responsibilities is leadership. Manginas ( or a good man blue pill living up to a lie) focus on pleasing their wives. he gets frivorced. (she is miserable and so is he) A man focuses on pleasing god. he gets the gina tingles. (she is happy and so is he) Takes so red pill backed up with faith. (Truth founded in reality and God, imagine that) to pull it off (gee that looks masculine) Man-up!

  110. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost
    “Nope a man is responsible for his family not for his wife’s rebellion. Carrying out his responsibilities is leadership. Manginas ( or a good man blue pill living up to a lie) focus on pleasing their wives. he gets frivorced. (she is miserable and so is he) A man focuses on pleasing god. he gets the gina tingles. (she is happy and so is he) Takes so red pill backed up with faith. (Truth founded in reality and God, imagine that) to pull it off (gee that looks masculine) Man-up!”

    So he isn’t responsible if his children rebellion either ?

  111. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost
    My apologies for the bad grammar on that one.
    So he is he responsible for his children if they rebel ?

  112. Cicero says:

    LOL

    I give up

  113. greyghost says:

    So we have come to the conclusion now the women have the agency of children. That has been said before. Nice to see with a little talk involving the bible an headship we come to that mean ole manosphere misogyny. You can answer that one yourself.

  114. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost

    “So we have come to the conclusion now the women have the agency of children. That has been said before. Nice to see with a little talk involving the bible an headship we come to that mean ole manosphere misogyny. You can answer that one yourself.”

    Have we now?

    Seems that I missed a logical step somewhere. Starting from your view that husbands are not responsible for their wives behaviour to the female agency being that of a child. I asked (using bad grammar) if a husband was responsible for his children if they started to rebel.

  115. greyghost says:

    if a husband was responsible for his children if they started to rebel.
    Cicero
    Look at what you are typing up here That is a defection and is a little game women play and is a very big motivator for women to have children. They make a very good shield an insulator from personal responsibility. As being shown here they can easily be attached to a wife to insulated her from her duty to submit to her husband.
    Also you have associated female agency with children shame on you. (that is a chick thing to do) You brought it up. Women and children are separate issues one is a child.

  116. Cicero says:

    @ greyghost

    Look at what you are typing up here That is a defection and is a little game women play and is a very big motivator for women to have children. They make a very good shield an insulator from personal responsibility. As being shown here they can easily be attached to a wife to insulated her from her duty to submit to her husband.
    Also you have associated female agency with children shame on you. (that is a chick thing to do) You brought it up. Women and children are separate issues one is a child.

    Shame on me? You accuse me of having an associated female agency with children yet you use a female and immature shaming technique like a feminist to ridicule a question which you seem to have a hard time answering. And making general accusations about my character like a feminist because I asked questions in order to better understand *your* view on where leadership and responsibility for a husband starts and ends.

  117. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    May 24, 2014 at 10:45 am

    >>You’re obsessed with parsing out “man fault” and “woman fault” to a debilitating degree (as conversation goes) and you’ve demonstrated on multiple occasion that your understanding of the Bible is woefully deficient and heavily skewed towards what AA72 wants it to say.

    I am calling you down on this. Stop making things up.

    Let me say this again. I started a 10 year period of counseling divorced men, in 1984. A few months later, a Christian man called me. He had caught his wife in adultery, and went to his pastor for support and advice. That pastor screamed at him, telling him it was his fault. I was stunned. I had been reading the Bible long before most of you (please don’t waste our time again with a sample of one, I plainly said most) were born. And, I never saw the part that any human was ever responsible for the sin of another human. If it was in there, I wanted to know.

    So. I took a paper back bible and read through it line by line, page by page. I did not want to trust my choice of words in a Concordance. When I encountered any verse which had any reference to men; women; marriage; divorce; sex; or even anything close, I noted it in the back pages.

    It took quite a while. That was 30 years ago, but it seems like it took me weeks of spare time. BUT I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT REALLY SAID, NOT WHAT SOME HERETIC SAID IT SAYS NOR WANTS IT TO SAY.

    After the list was complete, I went back and studied each and every reference, in great detail.

    If it seemed to be an important reference, I compared other translations. Heretics are great at saying, “Well, you have the wrong translation,” as just another cop-out.

    Here is what I found, not just what I wanted it to say. I suspect you are engaged in projection.

    In the Garden, God, not Adam, was Eve’s spiritual leader and teacher. When Eve sinned she sinned in rebellion against God, not Adam. According to the logic (not) of the heretics, God was a failed leader and teacher, but that is not what the Bible says. So, Eve was able to rebel against God Himself, but you heretics expect more from a mortal husband than God was able to accomplish? Hee, hee. How droll.

    There are three ‘contentious’ verses in the Bible which take down the heresy rather quickly and efficiently. It is better to live on a rooftop than to live with a contentious wife. It is better to live in the desert than to live with a contentious wife. And, he who can control a contentious wife can control the winds. I am not bothering to mine the verses directly, nor to give chapter and verse. Heretics don’t change their minds anyway. And, those who want can find them very quickly.

    Those three verses, for those who know what the Bible actually says, make it clear no man can lead or control a rebellious (non-submissive) wife. Period.

    Any attempt to twist things around and come up to a different conclusion is pure heresy.

    IMO, and I have no verses to prove this, heresy comes from Satan.

    There is a lot more, of course, all consistent with the reality that male leadership cannot exist outside of female submission.

    For example, the Bible plainly charges wives with submitting to their husbands. No conditions are stated.

    No where are husbands charged directly with leading their wives. If you heretics actually understood men at all, you would know that when a wife truly submits, few men can fail to lead. It is wired in their systems, just as most women turn into a Mom when they hold their own baby in their arms (unless taught differently by feminists). You don’t know this because you either have never married, or were not married to a submissive wife, and never knew a submissive wife. (There aren’t many today with the heretics teaching them how to (NOT) be wives.)

    The Bible in several places does describe what effective male leadership should be like, but it does not say a man can lead a contentious wife.

    You guys who have never actually read the entire Bible in light of this topic are relying on the short list of verses given to you by your local heresy support group. it is easy for them and Satan to lead you astray. My SIL, the highly obese Baptist deacon from Amarillo, has spent a lot of time, red in the face, screaming at me as loudly as he can, out of Ephesians, in obedience to the Baptist deacon version of RESPECT YOUR ELDERS. The really funny part of this is his wife, my eldest daughter, is one of the most contentious women I have ever known. Until they walk into the church on Sunday. “Oh, isn’t God’s morning wonderful? And, aren’t we Christian dearies just so submissive?”

    She is a previously divorced woman. Her church will not let a man be a deacon whose wife abandoned him 40 years ago, and has lived a Christian life for those 40 years, but let my daughter work with babies in the nursery.

    Heretics are a hard core group. In the last 30 years, knowing exactly what the Bible actually said, I have heard just about every imaginative thing out of them.

    Samples, include, well, if a man will just man up his wife will WANT to submit. Or, will find it easier to submit. On, and on, and on. Pure hogwash. A wife either submits or she doesn’t. And, almost all today DON’T!

    Cane, before you dish out insults about what I want the Bible to say, you should pull it on someone who does not actually know what the Bible says. And, it wouldn’t hurt you much to get a paper back and read through it line by line, noting every reference to the topic at hand. You might learn a lot.

  118. Anonymous age 72 says:

    As far as the deflection of what to do if kids rebel, I am going again to urge you to obtain, ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a Baptist minister’s wife. She wrote the book for women, with her husband’s permission. (Seriously.) At one time, it was out of print, but last time I checked it wasa available again.

    She gives the bible references in great detail, and tells what happens when wives submit. In my favorite story, she tells of a woman who announced she could not submit to her husband (a common cop-out among contentious wives) because he was committing adultery, and the kids were on drugs.

    Etc. Mrs. Handford told her, Submit!

    She did and in one year, not only was the husband repentant for his sins, but functioning as spiritual leader of the family, AND the kids were straight again and doing well in school and in church.

    She has plenty of more stories. This is the best book and source on submission, why it doesn’t happen, and what happens when wives do submit, I have ever seen.

    I gave it to my Real Daughter, and she is a submissive wife. They have been married 17 years, and have never had even one quarrel yet. Also, they paid off a big house in a golf course community within their planned time, I forget if it was 5 or ten years, but they did it with him as accepted leader.

  119. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic (to this particular post, at least) but… The hypergamous Heidi Klum’s downward spiral to being alone raising multiple cats continues– has dumped the bodyguard she broke-up her marriage and family with Seal to be with, now with 27-year-old toy boy for last three months:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2585326/Sealed-bisou-Heidi-Klum-40-spotted-kissing-toy-boy-Vito-Schnabel-27-romantic-getaway-Paris.html

  120. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    I’ve read you saying those same things with the same wrong understanding for a couple years now. My issue isn’t that I lack clarity on what you think. If I did, well, I can just wait a month and you’ll repost them all again; as if the monthly subscription to Your Same Old Crap didn’t arrive quite regularly. My issue is that you’re wrong, and that you’re so convinced that no one ever listens or understands you that when someone disagrees you roll out the same wrong talking points again and again.

    You’ve misunderstood what transpired in the Garden.

    You’ve misunderstood what the author of Proverbs means by “better”.

    You’ve misunderstood what leadership and submission–the chain of command–are.

    You’ve misunderstood why the authors of the Bible were directed to speak to either the whole group, or very often men in particular. Women get few direct instructions, rebukes, or even coverage.

    You’ve misunderstood the difference between responsibility and fault.

    You’ve misunderstood how a failure of responsibility can become sharing in fault; even among equals: (Leviticus 19:17 “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”)

    The list of your misunderstandings goes on and on.

    No one should be surprised at your findings because that’s what happens when you read the Bible by yourself. It’s not self-help book. It’s not instruction manual. If you read it by yourself, and on your own understanding, then you’re doing it wrong.

    You did it wrong.

  121. MarcusD says:

    I don’t usually post links to this subreddit (a lot of it is rather obvious hypocrisy/double standards), but it’s probably worth mentioning so people know about it:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/26d7p9/guy_uses_terper_rhetoric_in_the_video_prelude_to/

  122. jf12 says:

    Spare the rod and spoil the child works in child-rearing, and particularly corporal punishment works wonders at removing rebellion. God used it a lot.

  123. Legion says:

    Cicero says: May 24, 2014 at 9:31 am
    “Does Christ lead His bride or does His bride lead Him?”

    God could not lead Eve away from the fruit of the apple tree. Do you have a higher authority to counter that?

  124. desiderian says:

    72er,

    When either sex fulfills their rightful role, it makes it easier/more likely for the partner to do likewise. Male and female. Since the male role is headship, it is felicitous if he takes the lead, so to speak, but it is sin for either not to fulfill their role, regardless of what the other is doing.

    The man is not rebuked for her sin, but for failing in his role by not rebuking her himself. To rebuke her directly would be to cuckold his own authority.

    To celebrate her sin, ignore its consequences, or to fail to rebuke those advocating such sin is also incorrect.

  125. desiderian says:

    Cane,

    “If you read it by yourself, and on your own understanding, then you’re doing it wrong.”

    If he is in communion with other Christians, he is not by himself.

  126. Anonymous age 72 says:

    When he says I misunderstand, what he means is I do not agree with him. Heresy is a formidable thing.

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desi

    If he is in communion with other Christians, he is not by himself.

    He’s on record as being against “organized religion”, churches, pastors, etc. His comments were among those that inspired my post on churches being real things.

  128. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I know an intellectual who became interested the same issues. He also read the entire Bible looking for the husband/wife issues, and he came to the same conclusion.

    The Bible plainly says no man can control a non-submissive woman. No matter how firmly the narcissistic heretics insist they can.

    He lived two years in a Muslim nation, and also studied the Koran. Whereas the Bible makes it perfectly clear no man can control a non-submissive woman, the Koran (according to him) does say a man can and MUST control his wife.

    But, not inside the house. The Koran gives the women dominion over the house, when they are in there.

    But, outside the house, the men must control their women. And, since this is not possible, that is why you get so-called honor killings and decapitations of men desperately trying to do the impossible, which is to control rebellious women.
    .

  129. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Cane, I intend to keep repeating what the Bible actually says, subject only to being banned by Dalrock. The Bible is strange that way.

    Yes, I am aware the heresy involves a lot of, “This is what that really means.” So, I am stubborn and simply read what the Bible says, not the translation of a heretic.

    For example heretics will often say Adam was cursed with death for eating the apple when Eve told him to. What the Bible actually says it is because he listened to his wife, period.

    That original sin, listening to his wife, is pretty much formalized in the modern Christian Church, aka known as Churchianity.

  130. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>If you read it by yourself, and on your own understanding, then you’re doing it wrong.

    >>You did it wrong.

    I almost missed that. The true word of God is not meant to be understood by humans. Check. Check. And, double check. We need Cane to explain it to us. Got it. I’ll get right on that. Not.

    Gosh, Cane, are you wrapped up in yourself.

  131. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    When he says I misunderstand, what he means is I do not agree with him. Heresy is a formidable thing.

    Quite a mess you have there; on moment shoveling discord of the “every man for his own interpretation”variety, and then within the same sentence speaking of heresy. The second thing cannot exist if the first is true.

    But, again: This fits with your dismissal of the existence of the crime of cuckoldry; your dismissal of the reality of things in general.

  132. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    The Bible plainly says no man can control a non-submissive woman. No matter how firmly the narcissistic heretics insist they can.

    Find where I said a man could, or rebuked you for saying that a man could not. You might want to grab a snack, because it’s going to take you awhile, Anon Quixote.

    Cane, I intend to keep repeating what the Bible actually says

    You repeat what the Bible says in the same way a hostile interviewer reports the “facts” by excising the surrounding words. Satan quotes scripture to Jesus in the same way; it’s out of context; separated from the whole. Much like how you represent Christianity: Every man for himself. That’s antithetical to God.

    Yes, I am aware the heresy involves a lot of, “This is what that really means.” So, I am stubborn and simply read what the Bible says, not the translation of a heretic.

    Haha!

  133. DeNihilist says:

    J12 says – “Cail calls it. “women’s perception of their post-divorce prospects has changed””

    Yup, I know a t least three couples who have separated, took on new partners, but are not divorced. Costs too much money and hassle. With society now accepting any form of relationship, why give the lawyers and the government all your money?

    The 2 wives who had kids kept the house, but both pay the mortgage, and the third wife, childless, moved in with her lover, but still owns half the house with the ex. This may be part of the margins also.

  134. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I am glad Cane finally showed his true colors. Or, maybe he did long ago and I missed it?

    As a wild guess, I wonder if he isn’t pushing Catholic dogma, that only a priest can possibly understand the Bible. Ho ho ho ha ha ha hee hee hee.

    Believe it or not, I was raised Catholic, so I suppose actually reading the old Bible my parents had,when I was still in primary school. was a sin. Even until in my early 30’s, when I had my fill of their nonsense, the priests told people, “Do not read the Bible. We will tell you everything you need to know. Reading the Bible for yourself will only confuse you.” Ho ho ho ha ha ha hee hee hee.

    Alas, I observed. And, what I observed was, PRIESTS DISAGREED!

    One priest would tell you something, and if you repeated it, another priest would laugh at you for being so stupid as to believe that.

    I quickly understood anyone who chose to only believe what a priest told him, and not read the Bible for himself, was a d****d fool.

    Note that was before the public found out about the child molestations. And, we were still told a priest held the keys to the gates of Heaven, no matter how stupid he was; no matter how immoral. We poor sinners had to win his approval before we could be saved.

  135. Anonymous age 72 says:

    http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

    From the United States of Catholic Bishops, an article which says the Church has encouraged Catholics to read and understand the Bible.

    So, if your nonsense comes from Catholic Teachings, Cane, you better call home.

  136. noActor says:

    I know of an early/mid fifties woman, married over 20 years, out of work…
    I’m helping her with job prospects, because she is an old colleague and friend of my husband.
    Last email she sent me saying “thanks for the job-lead” also said, “As soon as I find a job I am filing for a divorce! Do you know of any single men? I feel that only old old men will date a 50-something in Southern California.”
    —Woman is married over 20 years, with a son and a mortgage, and she is primarily worried about the next “catch.”
    Besides shaking my head, the next action I did was take her off my email list…
    No need to help a woman like THAT…

  137. Martian Bachelor says:

    OMG – that publicdiscourse.com piece…

    Who says she’s ever been “marriageable” for one second?

    We do! We do!

    Isn’t denial the first stage of grief?

    The Great American Man Shortage (Novak, 1983) turned thirty last year, once again showing how conservatardians are always about a generation or more late to the pop-feminist paradigm.

  138. What is the real issue in this latest disagreement? Cane vs Anon 71/2/3/4/5

  139. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cicero
    Bride refers to the church as a whole. Individually we are called “sons of god”.

  140. enrique432 says:

    This thread (as most others) has been highly educational.

    As a veteran of the family law wars (and observer of other fellow soldiers), I think the number one driver of divorce is NOT alimony, but for most regular woman, Child Support (which has built in alimony).

    about 10 years ago, on DadsDivorce.com I predicted that lesbian marriage would be the best thing in the world for fathers…following the Alabama chain gang analogy. I think, particularly with alimony, first, then followed by CS, this will be proven very soon (quicker than from men simply more often getting custody, or alimony as in the story above). Although all the parts work together to improve things.

    Bottom line: Once women become “part” of your “victim” class, so to speak, your victim status raises, whether it be social perception, or legal conclusion. Smartly, father’s rights orgs have increasingly appealed to all parents, even changing their names (like Fathers and Families did a couple years ago). Getting and keeping women in your victim area, only can help in some cases. Think of the story above…irate women bitch to their legislatures (including white knights and fellow feminist travelers), who then change alimony laws, which hopefully benefits men.

    That’s why I always use the chain gang analogy, because it was a legal given that it would be terminated (after having been brought back), once it was challenged under gender equity.

  141. Oscar says:

    @Cane

    “Men who are deliberate in their choices to marry for a wife suffer less divorce than men who are either looking for their one true love, or who just settled into a relationship.”

    Careful. That statement carries implications that are very unpopular with many commenters here. For example:

    1. Women who are good wife material really do exist.

    2. A man really can use wisdom to identify a woman who is good wife material.

    3. Men who claim that women who are good wife material no longer exist do so merely to excuse their own bad choice(s), just like women who claim good men don’t exist also do so to excuse their own bad choice(s).

    As for the statement that men can only lead if women will let them:

    I wonder what my battalion commander would’ve said if I’d told him, “but sir, these Soldiers won’t let me lead them. I can’t be an effective company commander when my Soldiers won’t let me lead!”

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    From “Benson 2012 Marriage…”:

    This gender-specific finding strongly suggests men are doing better in the early years of marriage.

    It seems that what they mean by “doing better” is “getting their way” in the relationship; whether that is a choice to stay or to leave. To wit:

    The rate at which wives have been granted divorce has fallen 27% during the first ten years of marriage compared to a rise of 1% for husbands. The most striking reduction is a 51% fall in the rate at which divorces are granted to wives during the first three years.

    First off: Basically everyone who wants a divorce gets one. So, presumably, everyone who wants to stay married doesn’t file because they already have what they want, and everyone who does file gets the divorce they want, but the other spouse who did not file does not. Those spouses on the receiving end of divorce are not “doing better”, but “doing badly”, i.e., not “getting their way”.

    Second, husbands are choosing to leave their wives in about the same percentages as they have for the last several decades; even going up 1%. (The husbands who file maintain “getting their way”, and the husbands who are not filed upon also “get their way”.) Yet wives are choosing to leave their husbands at slightly less than half the rate they they previously were. This suggests that wives are happy to continue in marriage as their path of “getting their way”; whereas before twice as many wives were filing to “get their way”. Since neither the laws and demographics have not changed, and since everyone who wants a divorce can have one: The authors of Benson 2012 Marriage Foundation have concluded that since women are happier with their husbands, (and not much else has changed) then some husbands have changed how they go about the marriage. Hence: “Doing better”.

    In the early years of a relationship, constraints can be added either by deliberate intent – “deciding” – or by happenstance – “sliding”. But whether deliberate or not, every important relationship transition – such as sleeping together, moving in together, having a baby, getting married – adds an extra constraint, crucially making it marginally harder to leave and easier to stay even if things are not going well. This short term pressure to stay in a less than ideal situation is usually called “inertia” (Stanley et al, 2006) but can also be thought of as “premature entanglement” (Glenn, 2002).

    […]

    Amongst couples who had been married for five years, men who cohabit before getting engaged (some “sliders”, some “deciders”) tend to have consistently lower levels of dedication compared both to men who get engaged before cohabiting (“deciders” only) and also to women in both categories. The order of events — moving in and getting engaged — thus appears to matter in some way a lot more to men than to women (Rhoades et al, 2009). The researchers concluded that some men were “sliding” into a relationship, getting stuck because of the “inertia” of cohabitation, and thus not fully “deciding” even when they got married. In other words, men’s commitment is specifically dependent on “deciding” whereas women’s commitment is relatively independent of “sliding” or “deciding”.

    But, where did Benson 2012 Marriage Foundations get that it was specifically men’s “deciding” for commitment (as opposed to “sliding” into commitment )that was driving this change; instead of women’s sliding or deciding commitment?

    From “Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment” (by Rhoades et al):

    The tendency of individuals to sacrifice, or forego immediate self-interest for the good of the partner or relationship, is strongly dependent on the presence of commitment. Not only does commitment predict the number of sacrifices performed for partners (Van Lange et al., 1997), it also is associated with both the degree to which individuals feel satisfied with sacrificing for their partner’s benefit (Stanley & Markman, 1992) and their willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Whitton, Stanley, and Markman (2007) showed that commitment to the relationship’s future is strongly related to whether or not day-to-day relationship sacrifices are perceived as harmful to the self—especially for men

    .

    In other words: Does the man feel he is making sacrifices for a person and relationship he has deliberately chosen and is purposefully building; or is he making sacrifices for a relationship that he has found himself in by external forces; love, pregnancy, fear of being alone, etc.? If it’s the former, then his commitment for the long haul is strengthened. If it is the latter, then that sacrifice is a drain on his commitment; even if if marginally increases short-term inertia to stay in the relationship.

    This is explained further in this section from “Commitment: Functions, etc.”

    Stanley and colleagues (2004) assessed dedication commitment in a random national (U.S.) sample to compare married respondents who did or did not cohabit premaritally. We found that married men who lived with their wives prior to marriage reported significantly less dedication to their wives than those who did not cohabit before marriage. This finding led to speculation that the well-replicated risks associated with premarital cohabitation may, in part, be due to a subset of couples in which the men were always less committed to their partners but were nevertheless propelled by the greater constraints of cohabitation into marriage. We call this phenomenon inertia, which is the property in physics representing the amount of energy it would take to move an object from its present trajectory or position to another. We suggest that living together, especially when sharing a single address, makes it relatively more difficult than dating without cohabiting for a couple to veer from a path toward a future together, even into marriage (see Stanley, Rhoades et al., 2006).Glenn (2002) referred to a similar risk to mate selection, called premature entanglement, which interferes with the search for a good fit between partners.

    Now, we don’t see the number data here because those are tucked away in a boatload of other studies these two papers (“Benson 2012 Marriage etc.” and “Commitment: Functions, etc.”) reference, but if we believe they are reading those tucked-away numbers correctly, then they’ve got a pretty good argument (not definitive, but pretty good) for how male leadership itself at the various phases of relationship transition (engagement, cohabitation, pregnancy, etc.–and all the sacrifices that go with them) is its own incentive for the wife to stay; to choose continuing the marriage as her path to “getting her way”. They’re seeing that this “leadership incentive” the husband provides can outweigh those other incentives that push women to choose “getting their way” via divorce; which persist even now just as forcefully as they have over the last several decades as neither laws nor demographics have changed remarkably enough to account for a 27% drop in wife-granted divorce.

    Hence: “Men are doing better”; most specifically at “deciding commitment” leading to continued marriage.

  143. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    It looks like I have an extra blockquote tag just before: “Amongst couples who had been married for five years”.

    I am horrible about keeping up with my blockquote tags when I have to shuffle the quotes around. My apologies.

    And I didn’t finish this thought:

    In other words: Does the man feel he is making sacrifices for a person and relationship he has deliberately chosen and is purposefully building; or is he making sacrifices for a relationship that he has found himself in by external forces; love, pregnancy, fear of being alone, etc.? If it’s the former, then his commitment for the long haul is strengthened. If it is the latter, then that sacrifice is a drain on his commitment; even if if marginally increases short-term inertia to stay in the relationship. Wives who feel this lack of commitment and the resentful sacrifice are more likely to choose divorce as the path to “getting their way”.

    @Oscar

    Careful. That statement carries implications that are very unpopular with many commenters here.

    Ha! I watched your arguments here the other day, and I was rooting for you.

  144. Legion says:

    Oscar says: May 25, 2014 at 12:37 am
    “I wonder what my battalion commander would’ve said if I’d told him, “but sir, these Soldiers won’t let me lead them. I can’t be an effective company commander when my Soldiers won’t let me lead!””

    The stupid is strong in this one.

    Can a husband execute a wife for failure to follow orders in the face of the family enemy? Can the husband imprison a wife for failure to follow orders?

    What punishments are husbands allowed to give out to wives in this society? Simple, society allows thus: He loses at least half his wealth and might even have to support her the rest of her life. In some states jailed for raising his voice to her. If they had kids he is more severely screwed.

    Can you as, a company commander, be jailed for raising your voice to your troops?

  145. Pingback: Recoiling from Resounding Resentment | Things that We have Heard and Known

  146. Cadders says:

    Chris Rock famously said that a man is basically as faithful as his options.

    For women it’s slightly different; absent any meaningful restraint on their behavior, a women is as faithful as the quality of her options.

    This is what has changed – men are no longer automatically living their lives according to what women want. Increasingly they (especially the younger men) are making assessments based on how they see women behave and making decisions about their lives based on reality rather than the pretty lies the MSM would have us believe.

    This does not prevent men from using strategies to filter for women who would make a better marriage risk. It does not prevent men marrying and raising a family, if that is what they want.

    What is does do is force these young men to understand reality. The reality of women’s true nature, the way in which society has been restructured to remove all constraints from it whilst simultaneously restricting individual men’s ability to control it. In short – the relentless effort he will have to put in (for ever) to keep his women on the ‘straight and narrow’ is laid bare.

    For increasing numbers it is too high a price to bear. Up to now this cost has had to be learned form experience – hence the collapse in the number of men re-marrying after divorce. But now, men are learning this before making a commitment. The real sea change is in the quality of men doing so. Before, the men dis-engaging could have been dismissed as ‘losers’ – the ones women never wanted anyway. But now, more and more higher value men are starting to make no or very little investment in women.

    This is what the women are starting to realize. The options; cashing out of marriage at a profit, keeping custody of the kids, all the advantages that feminism has ‘won’ for women are still in place. But all are rendered pointless if there is no new decent quality man on the other side of the divorce.

    This is happening at the margins. Only a small subset of men are actively dis-engaging. But the size of this group is not as important as the quality. When women (as a group) see men that they would consider as husband material eschewing marriage and commitment it plants the seed of doubt in their mind. It is this, more than anything, that can act as a break on their hypergamy – they feel it not as a rational assessment of their changes of getting a high quality man, but more of an instinctive fear of being alone. And, women being herd creatures, this feeling is highly contagious.

    This is the dynamic driving the decline of divorce amongst younger women (amongst other things) – at it’s root, the passive dread created by male dis-engagement.

  147. desiderian says:

    Cane,

    “He’s on record as being against “organized religion”, churches, pastors, etc. His comments were among those that inspired my post on churches being real things.”

    As is our Lord and Savior. He was teaching the pastors at 12, and upsetting them so much by adulthood that they had him killed. Teaching authority derives from fruitfulness and faithfulness, not from office. Like Luther, I’ve seen too much of organized religion from the inside to follow you down that road.

  148. MarcusD says:

    I’m quite surprised he was allowed to publish this (in the Financial Post, no less): http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/22/feminism-income-inequality/

    One of the lines: One route to greater income equality would be to restrict education for women and arrange marriages for them

    Now, I’m fairly certain he’s being facetious, but still…

  149. Cadders says:

    Pondering further on the disproportionate influence that quality men have on the female herd, I am struck by a related trend I have seen in the five years or so I have been immersed in the ‘sphere. The rise of intelligent, articulate and constructive voices within the commentariat.

    Sure, there are plenty of angry men. There always will be. But there are growing numbers of men who clearly have, or are in the process, of accepting the truths of the red pill. It seems to me that the types of individuals willing to accept this world-view (which for many means traveling through the five stages of grief – a costly and unpleasant process) are more pre-disposed to be adaptable, in general. And consequently more likely to become higher value. So not only do the opinions of higher value men disproportionately affect the herd, a disproportionate number of high quality men are able to accept and apply the red pill. It’s a force multiplier.

    Again, it’s on the margins, but the rise in the number of red pill comments I see in misandrist MSN articles speaks to me of the change in the zeitgeist. And the zeitgeist is where the herd lives.

    In fact this commonality of worldview amongst red pill men could well be the nascent manifestation of the ‘beta’ co-operative response to threats to their interests that Han spoke about above. The male response is likely to be tribal initially as men with common goals and interests organise within their communities (virtual as well are geographic) to create power structures independent of the traditional institutions that have been subverted by feminism.

    Interesting times ahead, I think.

  150. mr. anon says:

    Not from the UK myself but I do know that the 1973 oil crisis hit the UK economy harder than the 1929 Wall Street crash. Not sure how this might be related but it is something significant that was going on at the time.

  151. 3. Men who claim that women who are good wife material no longer exist do so merely to excuse their own bad choice(s), just like women who claim good men don’t exist also do so to excuse their own bad choice(s).

    Straw man, Haven’t seen anyone being absolute as in NO GOOD WOMAN EXISTS. It also works as an appeal to emotion, much like this next one

    As for the statement that men can only lead if women will let them:

    I wonder what my battalion commander would’ve said if I’d told him, “but sir, these Soldiers won’t let me lead them. I can’t be an effective company commander when my Soldiers won’t let me lead!”

    . If those soldiers didn’t choose to follow you you damn sure would have had a problem. Perhaps one or two would be disciplined, or you would be disciplined. Then I guess the “following” would begin.
    This is not an argument that speaks to the issue of women choosing to follow verses men be able to lead them regardless. Its an appeal to emotion. It will get some men lathered and fist pumping though

  152. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    You are correct that more than a trivial number of men do, indeed, believe, that there are NO marriageable women in the United States. Protestations to the contrary, I could scroll back through the comments on this very site for the past month or two and find several examples. So far, so good. But…

    Like you, I was a military officer, so I can verify what others have said: your “Company Commander” analogy breaks down immediately. Holding husbands accountable for their wives is more like sacking the S-3 because the subordinate commanders didn’t follow the OPORD he wrote and then failed in their missions.

    Whenever I was in command of something I was held to account for the actions or inactions of my subordinates. But command denotes a certain level of authority to impose real punishments on rebellious subordinates. On the other hand, when I was in charge but not in command I was generally only held to account for my own actions or inactions. For example – when I was a Course Director I could expel students from my course if they failed to meet the standard, but that’s it… I couldn’t give them NJP or send them to the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth if they didn’t do the homework I assigned. My authority ended at expulsion – the equivalent of divorce for purposes of this analogy.

    Husbands are in charge of their households, but they are not in command of them. The law simply does not allow that – there is no UCMJ for married couples. Quite the contrary: “Family Law” imposes nothing but obligations on husbands and nothing but rights on wives. Unlike a military subordinate, a wife may simply choose to rebel against her husband’s authority, and there’s almost nothing he can do about it. He cannot punish her in any way – and even passively withdrawing his continued support is considered to be abusive. But he can divorce her – in the same sense that I could expel my students – but even that analogy breaks down right away. When I expelled a student (and I did it many times), the student got a black mark on his record, and lost whatever benefit he would have gained by graduating. Divorce is unlike that – the courts ensure that the woman gets to keep all the advantages of marriage, and “no-fault” ensures that HE will be seen as the one who failed, rather than HER.

    I’ve had commanders who wanted to impose responsibility on me for situations in which I did not have command authority, and I’ve told them to pound sand (maybe that has something to do with my not making O-6). I simply refuse to accept responsibility without a matching level of authority – or to feel guilty about it. Husbands have no authority over the actions of rebellious wives – thus they have no responsibility for those actions.

  153. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    From another military officer, you are dead on here. SSM and others have discussed the idea of “voluntary submission” elsewhere to tease it out further. My wife is submissive, and does her best to be so as a ministry to other women on her facebook page, at church, on our own website. But in the end, if my rules seem too harsh or unacceptable to her in any way, the law is on her side.

    All those friends of ours look at sideways all the time, and work very hard on her to recognize that the kind of marriage we are trying to have is technically illegal in this country.

  154. greyghost says:

    Cadders
    Your comments are where the warriors are. Those ideas and men are the ones restoring politeness to our western civilization. Traditional man-up types ( current good deeds churchians) are blue pill saps following a “nice” churchian script written by men better than them for living in a polite society built by men of bold faith and character. Todays men are in a position to change world history. We have been drafted into a war we didn’t start and all traditional values and ideas have been turned into mush. It is now about thinking and reality. (Red Pill)
    One thing the traditional older man types that think they have the good wife need to remember. Your happy marriage you brag and debate about with the “not my wife” need to understand a large part of your security wit little princess comes from seeing the 40 year old childless woman, the women murdered by her thug gina tingling boyfriend, and comments from men in many avenues reminding women that they are only good for sex. Etc etc. That has more to do with stable marriage than 50 years of churchian appeasement. (doing the lords work, it is about faith not deeds)
    Lyn87’s comment to Oscar has done more to tell men marriage is a sucker deal than any angry ” I hate bitches rant” It was the truth. Oscar is a traditional married man that believes in it because he has no trauma and it works for him. he is an exception to the rule that .that as part of the essence of who he is believes his exception is the rule. It is not and is the corner stone of the blue pill It fits in so well with the civil society, equality, fairness and the church but a lie it is.
    My thing is involuntary childless spinsterhood for as many women as possible. Backed up and enabled with red pill truth, PUA game, MGTOW, surrogacy, adoption and the male birth control pill.

  155. Anonymous age 72 says:

    empathologism says:
    May 24, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    >>What is the real issue in this latest disagreement? Cane vs Anon 71/2/3/4/5

    The main point between us is the same as a main point of this blog. Man Fault!

    There is a heresy which has destroyed the Christian church in the US, that if men will lead, women will submit. So, if a woman is rebellious it is the fault of her husband.

    The Bible itself clearly says men cannot control non-submissive women, period. Cane says I don’t understand the Bible, nor can I understand the Bible, because the Bible was not intended to be understood by any individual. You need a teacher.

    Which means it is no longer the word of God, but the word of the teacher. Note that Cane implies that, however, HE DOES UNDERSTAND IT. As Markymark says, you can’t make up stuff like this.

    Oscar says:
    May 25, 2014 at 12:37 am

    >>I wonder what my battalion commander would’ve said if I’d told him, “but sir, these Soldiers won’t let me lead them. I can’t be an effective company commander when my Soldiers won’t let me lead!”

    I was going to answer this, but

    Legion says:
    May 25, 2014 at 1:54 am Did it very well. Married men cannot call the M.P.’s to take mutineers away.

  156. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I did some thinking last night. My father moved to Arkansas in 1952, when I was 10. I had attended a small country school house, with 9 grades, maybe 15 or 20 students from K to 8. The teacher had to teach all courses at all levels. So, she united students of different ages whenever possible.

    I had been in 4th grade, and read over 400 words a minute, about college age reading speed. I was in a class with a fifth grade girl, and an 8th grade boy. I was the best reader and speller in that combined class. So, the 8th grade boy used to kick me around for making him look stupid. Of course, I didn’t make him look stupid. He actually was stupid, heh, heh.

    We moved back north in 1956. It was during that time I started reading the Bible. My dad had a big old Catholic Bible, which was so big it looked more like a foot stool. The paper was acid, so pages would break when you moved them. I used to put it on the floor beside the wood stove and read it.

    My guess is it was around 1954, which means I have been reading the Bible for 60 years.

    I am not going to deny it is a lot of work to read and understand the Bible. In fact, one problem is your culture. There are four gospels because one was written for each major culture in those days. So, when you are in a man-hating culture, it is really easy to be led astray by your cultural environment and re-write the items on wifely submission.

    The good news is the places where it is made plain that no man can control a contentious woman are very simple and very plain. It takes a deliberate effort to misunderstand those verses. As we have seen, there are many men who will make that deliberate effort.

    The problem is most heretics don’t read them anyway. They are taught in their churchianity classes the important “man fault verses”, and simply don’t look further. And, if someone does point out the contentious verses, they are trained to attack instead of actually reading them.

    Also, the male ego is well understood by Satan. So, he encourages men to assume, “If these divorced men were real men like THE GREAT AND WONDERFUL ME, this would never happen. MAN FAULT!!!!”

  157. greyghost says:

    Eve told god to go fuck himself when she went to get the fruit. What makes some man think he is going to keep her in check. She was in the Garden of Eden. That is the end of the line in logic based hypergamy and that was not good enough. So you are a billionaire.

  158. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I am trying to understand Cane’s viewpoint. Does anyone have any idea where he might have come up with the idea that the Bible was not meant to be understood by an individual?

    I am well aware that individual understanding of the Bible is an inherent part of evangelical Christianity. So, he didn’t get it from them.

    And, I am also aware that the Catholic church back in the 70’s started telling Catholics they should try to read and understand the Bible. And, I posted the link above where US Catholic Bishops said the same thing. So, he didn’t get it from the Catholics.

    My intellectual contact suggested, with a laugh, maybe its the rabbis.

    Any ideas?

  159. “maybe its the rabbis”

    That was funny! My guess is his Catholic heritage. Although I find much of what Cane says as correct and helpful. But I earnestly agree that we as individuals must read our bibles, and then hopefully have others to discuss the content of the bible with.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    Lyn87′s comment to Oscar has done more to tell men marriage is a sucker deal than any angry ” I hate bitches rant”

    Thanks. Actually, I like Oscar, and I hope we can all be civil. I have a lot in common with him (military officer, a little older than most guys here, long-term stable Christian marriage to a submissive wife…). Many times it has struck me that my decades in the military have given me a perspective on Christianity and Christian relationships that I would not otherwise have. I’m reminded that Jesus spent 33 years among God’s Chosen People – interacting with the disciples and the religious leaders of the day – yet He declared that the greatest example of faith He had ever seen was by a Roman military officer who understood Jesus’ command authority in the spiritual realm because he had experienced such command in the Roman Army (Matt 8: 5-10 and Luke 7: 1-9).

    (That’s not to say that military men have some unique insight – just that God uses many ways to lead us to His truth, and military authority is how He has taught many men through the ages to understand Divine authority.)

    … Crap… plane to catch… more later.

  161. desiderian says:

    72er,

    “I am trying to understand Cane’s viewpoint. Does anyone have any idea where he might have come up with the idea that the Bible was not meant to be understood by an individual?”

    Please. If you’re that ignorant of history, willfully or otherwise, I agree with Cane in your case.

  162. desiderian says:

    Lyn87,

    “That’s not to say that military men have some unique insight – just that God uses many ways to lead us to His truth, and military authority is how He has taught many men through the ages to understand Divine authority.”

    Well said.

    “…no nation which doth not directly profess arms may look to have greatness fall into their mouths; and, on the other side, it is a most certain oracle of time, that those states that continue long in that profession, do wonders; and those that have professed arms but for an age have, notwithstanding, commonly attained that greatness in that age which maintained them long after, when their profession and exercise of arms ad grown to decay.”

    Bacon, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates

  163. desiderian says:

    Vas,

    “But I earnestly agree that we as individuals must read our bibles, and then hopefully have others to discuss the content of the bible with.”

    Hope is not a plan. Your have the order backwards. It is the Holy Spirit that illumines scripture for the understanding of the faithful – faith both in God and brother in Christ. When two or three gather (Mat 18:20), not one alone.

  164. greyghost says:

    To be honest desiderian I really thought it was strange what canes was speaking about. A72 is not lone rangering it he is sharing what he has with as many as possible.

  165. @ desiderian:

    You are correct in that it is the Holy Spirit that we first must seek for understanding.

    Regarding issues with church, I agree with much of what A72er says.

  166. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    First of all: I apologize for my sarcasm above.

    You continually attribute to me things I did not say. There are, I think, buzzwords that you hear and because you associate them with things other people have said you jump to gross conclusions. For example, if I begin to say:

    Cane: “Men are leaders–”

    You autofill the rest in your head like this.

    AA72: “–then men can control women.”

    Which is something I never said, or implied.

    Here’s another

    Cane: “An individual reading the Bible alone is not sufficient–”

    AA72: “–because regular folks are not wise enough like the officials.”

    Which, also, is something I have neither said nor implied. I notice that the one constant in your assumptions is an absolutist individualism; whether we are speaking of how to understand our faith and scriptures, or the roles and relations between husband and wife. That would make some sense of why you jump to absolutist assumptions in my speech; if I say lead, I must mean control; if I say merely you transcribe it as always. Look, man: That’s your problem.

    I am trying to understand Cane’s viewpoint. Does anyone have any idea where he might have come up with the idea that the Bible was not meant to be understood by an individual?

    You’re asking questions about a caricature built on your assumptions of me, instead of from what I actually say. It is not a logical conclusion to hear this: One cannot merely read the Bible in solitude and get the fullness of the Christian faith; and then jump to: No individual should read the Bible because an individual will understand nothing.

    I have many comments and posts encouraging people to read their Bibles for themselves. Like the good Protestant that I am, I prefer and encourage plain readings of It, also. But it is the Holy Spirit which reveals truth to us, and calls us to the Father’s purposes. The Holy Spirit resides in the body of believers, not in a collection of writings; not even sacred and infallible ones.

    @Lyn87, Scott, Empath & whomever else disagreed with Oscar

    Husbands are in charge of their households, but they are not in command of them. The law simply does not allow that – there is no UCMJ for married couples.

    This is the faithlessness I remarked on above. There most certainly IS a code of conduct for married couples. The fact that our Lord tarries longer than you would like does not mean that judgment is not coming, or that discipline does not happen. Your complaint is (at best) that it’s not happening fast enough for your tastes or in a manner you would prefer. We should keep the faith that Jesus will return, an accounting will be made, and the sentence of “Depart from me, I never knew you” will be adequate.

    When the Bible decries “stiff-necked people”, this is what is meant. People groan for justice, and God says to fear not, that He will repay. People reply with more groaning: It’s not good enough! We need something concrete; things we can do, and that can be written down and put into action. So He gives us Scripture and specific instructions, and specific warnings. He says, “the husband is the head of every woman as Christ is the head of the Church” He says, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her.” He says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.”

    Now–codified and written down; testified to by the prophets, great miracles, and most of all the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that we might all all faith that God keeps His promises better and deals with His people with more justice than the UCMJ even dares to approach–the people groan: But that’s not fair for God to expect me to be responsible. I’m only in charge! Being the leader isn’t really relevant to discussions about what I can do to help my wife live in submission; nor are discussions about pie-in-the-sky things like eternal life and unending death.

    What are the chances Cane Caldo can get through?

  167. greyghost says:

    very interesting Cane. We do have the law with real guns and bullets to our heads in this world as live men. Lyn28 was the most truthful on real marriage as I have seen any Christian man post. God is working the divorce rate is lower. It’s fun being a live man isn’t it?

  168. @Lyn87, Scott, Empath & whomever else disagreed with Oscar

    Husbands are in charge of their households, but they are not in command of them. The law simply does not allow that – there is no UCMJ for married couples.

    This is the faithlessness I remarked on above. There most certainly IS a code of conduct for married couples.

    I havent read up thread to know about the others, but for me, you are doing exactly what you are accusing 72 of doing. You are responding to something I never said, implied, nor do I believe that there is no call to leadership, to lead, to lead regardless her response, to longsuffer in leadership. One can assert that leadership is not linked, absolutely, to the response of the wife and not be saying a wit about whether it (leadership) is good, futile, should not be done, doesn’t honor God, any of that.

    Its also unfair to respond to his metaphorical statement that there is no UCMJ for married couples with “there is a code of conduct”. he was not suggesting a lack of a code of conduct. he wasn’t even suggesting anything that precludes Gods judgement and justice. he was simply and aptly saying that there exists no man made body from which comes such a code and which can mete out justice (enforcement).

    All of these things you are taking issues with can and do coexist quite well with the truths you express as your arguments against them. Why are you doing that? Its a sincere question.

  169. aaronthejust says:

    Could we please get a refutation of this?

    http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/May/Divorce-Shocker-Most-Marriages-Do-Make-It/

    The usual old chestnuts are here: men don’t need to fear marriage because divorce actually isn’t that likely, divorce stats are overblown (they aren’t), churchgoers get divorced a lot less (ignoring a correlation between being divorced leading to quitting church attendance).

  170. Boxer says:

    Dear Aaron:

    Humorous article. I guess a lifetime of experience doesn’t mean anything after all. My father didn’t get taken to the cleaners by my mother. All my uncles and most of my aunties aren’t actually divorced. Those friends who “did the right thing” and are now going through divorces aren’t actually divorcing, and everything is just fine and dandy.

    Now I can man up, and marry me a slut (™ dalrock) without worrying. Why think for myself, and make decisions based upon my own rational self-interest, when I can just follow the orders handed down by Christian internet pundits? All the number crunching on sites like this is a waste of time as well.

    Boxer

  171. Lyn87 says:

    Empath, thanks for manning the ramparts while my flight was in the air. I, too, marveled at the caricature of my position that Cane made while criticizing A72 for caricurizing his own. My disagreement with Oscar is that I understood him to imply that husbands were responsible for the temporalrebellion of their wives, and likened it to a military commander’s responsibility to lead the troops under his command. I wrote nothing about Divinely-enforced codes of conduct, but merely pointed out that while commanders (and, of course, God) may enforce decisions by force, husbands have no such authority. Without authority there can be no responsibility.

  172. Im just glad to see them embracing numbers, period. the woman in the video, not the main woman, she says something like “we are sooooooo influenced by numbers”. Really? Ever had a discussion about statistics with a group of Christian women? Er, no….they are NOT moved by numbers. They are moved by numbers that give them good feelings. If the numbers do not cause good feelings they start with the “stats don’t tell the story, stats are made up, people are individuals not numbers” nonsense.

    Lets assume for the moment they are moved by numbers. KWIK!!!!! someone send them the sdtats on female initiated divorce and see if they will chase that down to the degree Feldman did these divorce rate numbers. See if Shaunty is moved to get the word out that the divorce rate is X (whatever it is) but 70% of those are initiated by women, and of that 70% about 6% have biblical grounds. No, she’d say, divorces are complex like individuals and we cant be pigeon holing divorces and causes like that now can we.

  173. Norm says:

    May have been mentioned, but a few years ago I read that marriages are the lowest since 1897. This is not percentage, but the number of marriages in the UK.

  174. Spawny Get says:

    Also from the UK
    Peter Hitchens on ‘Truth about Abortion in England UK’
    he also talks about marriage, men’s unwillingness to marry and why. Women’s unhappiness in marriage, DV etc

  175. Lyn87, I have a very strident belief set around this issue in all its forms. From the claim that women are just CRAVING to be led by a strong Christian man (oft claimed by SSM, and echoed by our gracious host here, and I think refuted by Cane in that particular case) to this very confusing message that assumes some (you,me) are saying the choices are lead but quit if she doesn’t respond. Unless I am misunderstanding Cane, and Ive done that several times, it looks that way to me.

    I referred to it as the “called to” syndrome because I’ve been lectured that way on several things in my 19 years as a Christian. Whenever Ive made an observation with my eyes and expressed it with my lips that was similarly about how others respond to our actions, Ive encountered a reluctance from some Christians to even acknowledge that its true that others don’t respond as they should. Digging I then discover that they equate any discussion of the others response as some kind of expression that what i should do is therefore futile and I will stop. Ive heard “yes but we are called to __________________”. Maddeningly in many instances I had prefaced my comment with that almost verbatim, simplistically like this…I say, “we are called to X, some people just dont respond to X”. They respond “yes but we are called to X” I am not suggesting that is the model for Cane’s response, in fact I unequivocally am sure it is not. He almost always has good reason for what he says and how he says it. I am not an anti-Cane Caldo. I like Cane Caldo.

  176. aaronthejust says:

    @Boxer,

    Feldhahn said that couples who avoid marriage do so based on wrong assumptions.

    “Like, ‘if I’m just going to get divorced and I’m not going to be happy, why bother getting married, right?’ And it’s based on a lie,” she said. “That feeling is based on a lie.”

    First off an alleged Christian is claiming the reason to get married is to be happy.

    Secondly this person claims fear of divorce is irrational. I’m seeing a few ladies who are divorced themselves or their parents were. You can bet both of us have a healthy fear of repeating past mistakes, or she’s afraid of repeating her mother’s mistakes.

  177. Lyn87 says:

    Agreed – I was supporting Cane up-thread, that’s one reason I was surprised to see his mis-characterization of my argument. I’m typing on my phone in an airport and it’s hard keeping all the responses straight: my autocorrect is misspelling some of my words – I’m inclined to let the tempest-in-a-teapot continue without me for now… I have another plane to catch anyway.

  178. That Hitchens piece is excellent. That he did not have the time to dissect some of the harpies and the northern sounding white knight who just luvz the sexual revolution is one of the downfalls of the format.

  179. Oscar says:

    @Legion

    “Can a husband execute a wife for failure to follow orders in the face of the family enemy? Can the husband imprison a wife for failure to follow orders?”

    I knew somebody would make this point, but I decided to not preempt it because I wanted to see if the person that made it would also make the OBVIOUS link between the first part of my statement and the second.

    OBVIOUSLY, you missed it. so here it is. I didn’t choose my Soldiers. I DID choose my wife.

    Any good leader knows that good planning and preparation play a major role in good leadership. That is just as true when leading a family as it is in any other form of leadership. As such, a man’s role as the leader of his family begins long before he says “I do”, and it definitely includes the process by which he chooses his second in command – the mother of his children – his wife.

    When a man chooses his wife foolishly, he’s already failed as the leader of his family. It’s possible to recover from that failure (by God’s grace), but it’s extremely difficult. Many men will then compound their foolishness by refusing to admit their foolishness and instead blame their foolishness on women, which leads to even more foolishness.

    By the way, it’s hilarious that some civilians think we still execute Soldiers for cowardice. We haven’t even executed Nidal Hasan or Asan Akbar yet.

    “Can you as, a company commander, be jailed for raising your voice to your troops?”

    You don’t know much about the modern American military, do you?

  180. desiderian says:

    “To be honest desiderian I really thought it was strange what canes was speaking about. A72 is not lone rangering it he is sharing what he has with as many as possible.”

    The debate about who has the authority to interpret scripture is as old as scripture itself. Whether he was feigning ignorance or that debate or truly ignorant, that ignorance costs him any authority he wished to claim.

    I believe in the Communion of Saints. By his question, A72 demonstrated that he does not.

  181. Opus says:

    I have just skipped through the Hitchens clip (twice) and I have got to say (for someone ought to) that in my view he is talking almost non-stop nonsense throughout. I am not sure who is dafter him or his late brother.

  182. Lyn87 says:

    Checked in one last time as I sit on the tarmac…

    Yes, Oscar, you can pick the woman you marry. Sadly, you cannot pick the woman she becomes. My wife and yours are not prone to perfidy – although nobody is IMMUNE to the temptation, but plenty of guys well and ended badly. I’m responsible to God to lead my wife well, and she’s responsible to God to see me as her head, but the law says that’s not – ever – responsible to ME.

  183. JDG says:

    Hope is not a plan. Your have the order backwards. It is the Holy Spirit that illumines scripture for the understanding of the faithful – faith both in God and brother in Christ. When two or three gather (Mat 18:20), not one alone.

    Thank you. I was hoping someone would remember and point this out.

  184. desiderian says:

    Lyn87,

    “I’m responsible to God to lead my wife well, and she’s responsible to God to see me as her head, but the law says that’s not – ever – responsible to ME.”

    You’re stuck in the culture’s frame of blame->dehumanize->disqualify. If its your fault, then its not her’s.

    That’s not the frame of the gospel. Human nature is inherently fallen; sin doesn’t make you less human, nor does yours absolve her’s or vice versa. The tree is known by it’s fruit. If she rebels, your marriage is falling short, and given the widespread emasculation of men, a likely source of fruitful repentance will be calling the man to headship, and the woman to submission.

    The purpose of identifying sin is the cure of souls, not the destruction of them.

  185. Opus, do tell. Its not your style to bomb from such an altitude. Please, get down where the whites of the eye can be seen and offer an example of his daftness. Just one statement or phrase that was that mendacious.

  186. This is not related to Opus and the video…..

    One thing you can count on here is that if you were to post a single word post, someone would comment that they thought the post was OK except for the first word.

  187. JDG says:

    Ever had a discussion about statistics with a group of Christian women? Er, no….they are NOT moved by numbers.

    I am under the impression that, for the most part, all women are not interested in statistics unless your talking to a hard core feminazi who is quoting the standard 1 out of 4 women have been raped type of BS. If you give them the real numbers they usually attempt to deny, discredit, redirect, or re-frame. Any combination of these is also possible.

  188. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    That’s a dubious claim. It seems to me that when divorce favors (horrible choice of word, but I think I know what you mean) anyone, we will see a lot of it.

    er…..we already have tons of examples of societies where women do not hold all the cards (e.g. USA pre-1930), and even those where men have the option of tossing out the wife without cost (many Islamic countries). We see low divorces in those societies, and 90%+ of children grow up with both biological parents over the first 18 years of their lives.

    In fact, divorce has always been uncommon outside of Western societies in the last 45 years (i.e. societies into the 3rd/4th generation of female suffrage).

    You seem to be someone who is desperate to ignore evidence, no matter how extensive, that men might be more responsible adults than women are.

    Ras al-Ghul,

    We cannot perform the feats we did 40 years ago, like going to the moon.

    Completely wrong. In fact, it takes effort to be this wrong.

    You are conflating lack of social will with technology. The public (women being 54% of voters) does not value Moon landings over things like Obamacare. That means that democracy eventually stifles progress. That does not mean that we have forgotten how to do that, as you seem to be claiming. In fact, the cost of sending a man to the moon is much, much lower now than in 1969 (all the computing power used in the entire Apollo project is now contained within a $500 PC). Also, landing people in space only has symbolic value. If the goal is to gather knowledge, unmanned missions win. The Kepler, Cassini, and New Horizons missions of late are very advanced, and have gathered tons of new knowledge.

    Furthermore, the US is not the only country in the world. The bizarre cult of people who think that since the US has chosen not to put men on the Moon after 1973, that is evidence that all human technological progress ended in 1973, is weird.

    What you call ‘technological backslides’ are in fact cultural resets. No technology ever goes away.

    I suspect you also believe that since the world’s tallest skyscrapers are no longer in America, that America is in decline (another popular belief held by those who think the Moon landing was something that is beyond our ability today).

  189. Opus says:

    @Empathologism

    With Dalrock’s permission I will explain why I am less than impressed with Peter Hitchens (thanks for giving me the opportunity).

    Before doing so I should explain to Americans (as I don’t think you have this) that on BBC Radio 4 (The Home Service) there are each week programmes where a panel is asked questions by an audience – usually hand-picked to keep them on message one has to say – which gives the panel a chance to complain about the moral state of the country – this moral outrage has been going on for at least fifty years who can forget moral campaigner and scourge of the BBC Mrs Mary Whitehouse who always seemed to have managed to tune in to ‘The most disgusting programmes’. When I was younger one could always rely on the late Malcolm Muggeridge in his inimitable way to make a devastating comment and with great wit about the state of morals – and that was when he was an atheist! – before he went Roman Catholic and became St Mugg. What one needed was a deep baritone voice with a cut-glass accent to ensure that whatever was said had the appropriate gravitas. Morgan Freeman as God or Charlton Heston as Moses was what to aim at. Muggeridge was a fake (because he was a working-class or perhaps lower-middle class boy from Croydon – and acquired his otherwise unknown accent at Oxford) but the Hitchens brothers are the real deal – Public School bullies and thus impress me not at all.

    Hitchens presents himself as the moralist and anti-feminist but he is nothing of the sort. Firstly he incorrectly places the sexual revolution in the 1920s – but see my above comment at 5.04 a.m. on the 23rd – the one that Cane Caldo kindly approved – the last paragraph. The sexual revolution began as F. Roger Devlin rightly says in the 1960s and for technological reasons (The Pill, Computers, Abortion, the Washing Machine). It was this that which enabled women to take over male jobs, delay marriage, delay children and ride the Carousel with impunity, yet Hitchens says he is entirely in favour of female emancipation. He cannot have it both ways, if he wants that then he must take the inevitable consequences.

    He says he does not approve of Pornography – which really he should call Erotica – but as studies have shown Erotica has the effect of reducing male sex-drives such that sexual assaults and rapes are reduced, and doubtless the demand on unwilling wives. Erotica is only images and to see erotica as intrinsically evil is nothing less than an attack on normal men and frankly an insult to well-formed women. I didn’t hear him complaining about the Fifty Shades of Rape-lite literature women love so much! He has similar things to say about Prostitution, yet again he is merely attacking men (you can be sure he was not thinking about Gigolos or EPL women) and in my experience most prostitutes – frequently middle-class – not only enjoy their work but are by any standards highly paid, which is a large part of why they do it. One may decry prostitution but (where I am) they serve a social function. Again it is merely an attack on male sexual-desire, dressed up as moral righteousness.

    He approves of marriage and observes that even the government treat marriage as if it is close to slavery and oppression and easier to get out of than a car-rental agreement. He then blames men for the lowering marriage rate. We don’t know what is causing that but from my own experience and from observing my acquaintances – many of whom remain and have always been single – I would suggest that the principle cause of that is female reluctance to marry – yet again he blames men. We have discussed this many times here so I won’t go into that again. He proposes a change to the marriage laws (which he incorrectly dates to 1969 rather than 1973) by proposing that there should be different rules as to divorce dependant upon whether the couple have children. That would surely create a two-tier marriage system. I sympathise with his views on abortion but to attack abortion will be seen as an attack on women and may well create more of the abandoned feral children he talked about in response to one of the questions.

    Finally he mentions the recent convictions in Oxford of (I believe) Muslim men for prostituting adolescent white girls – I don’t know much about that as I have not been following these type of cases – but I must say my sympathy is with the Muslims. They see slutty easy young women and offer them incentives to have sex (what is called grooming). Where is that essentially different form PUAs gaming females? These women are not children as they are not pre-pubescent – the age of consent (for prostitution) being – I forget – seventeen or eighteen. Old enough to marry but not old enough to sell their services strikes me merely yet another attack on men as much as it seems to me that this is Islamophobia dressed in the garb of moral righteousness. In short Hitchens is as much a white-knight trad-con as our good friend Innocent Bystander Santa-Barbara (IBsB).

  190. Opus says:

    Oh and I forgot – he also said that he did not always see marriage as a bed of roses and thus castigated men for Domestic Violence against women. As I have observed here before not only is D.V. more likely to be male on female (see Moxon) but (in my personal and professional experience) every case of D.V. I have ever come across has been faked. Even if there are some genuine case Erin Pizzey is on record as noting when she ran a women’s shelter that these were women who deliberately sought out and doubtless wound-up violent men (again see Moxon). Hitchens is just white-knighting and shaming males and is in fact pulling his facts and moral outrage out of his %”*^.

    That level of misandry and incompetence has no right to be on a supposedly serious Station like R4 funded by the licence payer – not that I ever listen to it or pay the licence-fee.

  191. Opus

    I listened to the thing in one go. And I didnt hear the daftness. Maybe because:

    Hitchens presents himself as the moralist and anti-feminist but he is nothing of the sort. Firstly he incorrectly places the sexual revolution in the 1920s – but see my above comment at 5.04 a.m. on the 23rd – the one that Cane Caldo kindly approved – the last paragraph. The sexual revolution began as F. Roger Devlin rightly says in the 1960s and for technological reasons (The Pill, Computers, Abortion, the Washing Machine). It was this that which enabled women to take over male jobs, delay marriage, delay children and ride the Carousel with impunity,

    OK, he supposedly got a historical fact wrong, but you as a barrister surely see that defining the beginnings of a soft social revolution is subjective and therefore to call one who disagrees daft is a bit forensically strained. It is an argument that cannot be unequivocally won. Besides, I dont care since the points I was referring to, and those germane to the subject matter had no dependence on the year or decade in which said revolution began. Its a very weak point on which to discredit the rest.

    It was this that which enabled women to take over male jobs, delay marriage, delay children and ride the Carousel with impunity, yet Hitchens says he is entirely in favour of female emancipation. He cannot have it both ways, if he wants that then he must take the inevitable consequences.

    He did no such thing in this recording. If he did elsewhere, and Ive read nothing he has written nor have I listened to interviews, I only know who he is and not much more, but in this forum he made co such suggestion that he’d be trying to have it both ways. he clearly responded to one
    woman’s challenge that he was trying to have it both ways. She charged that he was saying women could do, what did they call it, “the professions”? something like that, and be mothers. She said not possible. He clarified that he agrees with her, therefore its a sacrifice to eschew the job and choose to raise the child, he celebrated mothering as important. He did not complain, in this forum, about women taking men’s jobs. Had he, you’d certainly have him in that. But he did not.

    He then blames men for the lowering marriage rate.

    He most clearly did no such thing. I’m surprised you’d say this if you listened at all carefully. he said the opposite, something to the effect “who can blame them” when he referred to men seeing the dangers of marriage as unacceptable. He blamed family law if anything. To state that men choosing not to marry because they get a raw deal lowers the marriage rate is clearly not blaming men.

    We have discussed this many times here so I won’t go into that again.

    We have, exactly as Hitchens framed it. MGTOW etc. Are MGTOW and their principle reason for it blaming men?

    Ive nothing to say about the Muslim pimps. No opinion, no information. How did I miss that in this recording? Was it there? Or is it context you know from elsewhere?

    On the issue of pornography, you may disagree, but calling his opinion daft and then stating weak social theory about how it has hidden virtues is again not doing much to magnify his poor reasoning. That, combined with citing how less abortions leads to more abandoned children (though you mention sympathizing with him) sort of suggests you have a disagreement with his morality, and in particularly the basis for it. Ive no interest in debating abortion with you but. well, more urban internecine murders cleans the streets too. So does the death penalty.

    I didn’t get the daftness. I don’t care when the revolution began, I think he may want to use the right year for family law changes if you are correct and i assume you are, that is a mistake. I didn’t see the double think on women’s emancipation, and I did not hear him blame men one iota, neither on not marrying nor, frankly, on porn use. In fact he made no refrence to any form of pornography, he therefore didn’t exclude erotica, literotica, or use any gender pointing terms in his discussion of porn. i listened carefully for that. there were objections he could have made to the women who laid out that women were being exploited by porn, i wish he had, but he neither validated nor challenged the way she framed it.

    I’m thinking your reaction is based on more than what was there in that recording, including some views you may have that are more libertine than his. I’m not challenging your views on those things except as they cause the reaction to specifically that recording.

  192. Oh and I forgot – he also said that he did not always see marriage as a bed of roses and thus castigated men for Domestic Violence against women.

    Did we listen to the same recording? He did no such thing. he said that UNmarri3ed women are 32 times more likely than married women to experience violence! Did we link to different programmes?

  193. Scott says:

    As to the authority/responsibility issue, I guess I may not be sophisticated enough to understand your point, Cane. I understand that there is a universal justice that we will all one day be held accountable to. It is why I still try to lead my family, in spite of the fact that I could be ground to dust by the DV machine.

    I think my point is still, however, that I really have no authority under US family law to actually compel anyone in my house to obey anything I tell them to do. This makes the temporal responsibility to account for what happens under my roof silly.

    I have asked my wife several times “is this just a role play for you?” In the context of larger-scope issues of our friends “turning me in” for being “controlling,” and the very real threat of police showing up at my house (don’t forget—I actually worked as part of the DV machinery for several years. I have sent men to jail with one swill of my pen for merely SAYING the things I now say to my wife).

    She unequivocally responds that she understands the stakes involved in arranging our marital hierarchy according to the scripture. All I can do is trust that she is serious about that.

  194. my blocks are a mess in that long reply. i hope it is evident where i am quoting and where i am writing my words.

  195. @Opus
    The fact that you must pay fees for radio broadcasts in the UK is still amazing to me, even if voluntary accountability. I was shocked when I was told that by my colleagues there as i dialed the radio in their offices.

    Id think the ones paying the fees would have the operative opinions on what the station broadcasts.

    So, Opus, I suppose Hitches is a tradcon then, and therefore lumped with tradcons comprehensively?

    @Dalrock
    This is why i get testy about the too-easy fall into tradcon bashing when it starts. I would hold to pretty much all the opinions Hitchens shared in that piece even though Id have said them differently and would have liked that he took down some of the questioners more effectively. if that means I am all about misandry that leaves little room for people to maneuver in the arena of men’s rights and traditional Christian marriage among the more libertine.

  196. Spawny Get says:

    Empath,
    Radio is free these days (your info is out of date), however, I’m still steamed that I need to pay 130 quid for owning a tv…even if I pinky promise never to watch the BBC.
    Right now though, as I watch the establishment parties get a kicking in the EU elections, I’m fairly mellow. Ukip is in first place, ahead of the two remaining parties (the third has been almost wiped out). Ukip is something like the Tea party as far as I can tell. Good times

  197. Spawny

    My info is a few years old to be sure, and I may have misunderstood what was said to me even then. I left with the impression that folks were ‘encouraged” to volunteer that they listened to station X, and send in some fee for same, for the privileged of sucking in whats floating round in the air. was that the case at one time? Mine is info from 2009/10ish

  198. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    Agreed – I was supporting Cane up-thread, that’s one reason I was surprised to see his mis-characterization of my argument.

    I have more to say below.

    @ Empath & others

    All of these things you are taking issues with can and do coexist quite well with the truths you express as your arguments against them.

    No, they can’t. At the very center of the Gospel is the Word become flesh; that the Lord of the Spirit is now–right Now–exercising His dominion over the material. The complaint that there is no government enforced code of conduct for Christian husbands and wives is way, way, way beside the point.

    15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

    You’ve set up this false dichotomy that some problems are temporal problems that require temporal solutions, and then there are eternal solutions for eternal problems. (This is probably the result of the confusion that surrounds salvation in general; mortal sins, venial sins, “once saved alway saved; praying the Jesus get into my heart protection spell sinner’s prayer, etc.) But it’s not true. Temporal problems are eternal problems. Christians don’t need the law of the land because the law of the land is no help for the problem; which is wickedness in the heart and unrepentance.

    Being a slave in Christ means freedom from the world. That’s one of the reasons why the Christian should never divorce; even if he’s been wronged and even if the one being divorced is not a Christian. Let them be the one to leave. For a Christian to do so is to render to powers of the world what belongs to God. That’s sacrilege. Similarly, we are not supposed to sue each other. We are to settle these in the church. (You’ll actually need a local church body to make this happen.) Women are quite sensitive to expulsion from their church, family, and friends.[1]

    Who’s face is on our wives? Why should we ever lament that we can’t render them to the law of the land for punishment? Why bring it up at all? Remember that post Dalrock did on a Christian website who was giving wives divorce advice? This is why that website was so wrong. It was advice on how to profane what is God’s in the most lucrative and punitive manner.

    @Desi, Lyn87, Empath, etc.

    You’re (Lyn87) stuck in the culture’s frame of blame->dehumanize->disqualify. If its your fault, then its not her’s.

    Exactly. This ties into what I said above. The main thing I’ve found–as a husband and a father–is to keep the Gospel central to everything, and bring it up at any opportunity. The eternal is always at stake. It is here. Now it is always Now. There are no more merely temporal problems. This is why it’s difficult for me to advise non-Christians about anything important.

    [1] There is a problem with this, and that’s church-shopping. It’s not insurmountable, though. In the age of the Internet, Christian leaders could keep a registry of those who are sent out from communion for the destruction of their flesh. That’s one example. Mainly, though, this pressure needs to come from friends and family. That, too, would be a lot easier if our friends and family went to the same churches, but if we are ecumenical in other things such as Bible studies then we can pass the word on

  199. You’ve set up this false dichotomy that some problems are temporal problems that require temporal solutions,

    No, I did not. .Its not a hill I’m gonna defend past this comment.

    And yes, what I said (since its not what you are suggesting it is) CAN coexist with those truths. You are imputing me with positions I did not take. I haven’t used the word nor considered the concept of temporal things (vs eternal things). Never entered my mind. I’m have a very simple position, very narrowly defined. My position is ONLY whats contained in these words:

    A woman may or may not follow a man no matter how he leads. Period, That’s it that’s all. You’ve said same. To assign me the further opinion of “therefore he should/should not____________________”, whatever “_____________” is is to impute that upon me.

  200. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    As to the authority/responsibility issue, I guess I may not be sophisticated enough to understand your point, Cane. I understand that there is a universal justice that we will all one day be held accountable to. It is why I still try to lead my family, in spite of the fact that I could be ground to dust by the DV machine.

    Good!

    I think my point is still, however, that I really have no authority under US family law to actually compel anyone in my house to obey anything I tell them to do.

    Who cares? Seriously: is God restrained by US family law?

    This makes the temporal responsibility to account for what happens under my roof silly.

    No. What makes worrying about temporal responsibility silly is that end–the consummation of the world–is coming any moment now.

    I have asked my wife several times “is this just a role play for you?”

    I wouldn’t do that.

    In the context of larger-scope issues of our friends “turning me in” for being “controlling,” and the very real threat of police showing up at my house (don’t forget—I actually worked as part of the DV machinery for several years. I have sent men to jail with one swill of my pen for merely SAYING the things I now say to my wife).

    “He who lives by the sword…” Hopefully, you’ve sought their forgiveness. That’s all any of us sinner can do.

    She unequivocally responds that she understands the stakes involved in arranging our marital hierarchy according to the scripture. All I can do is trust that she is serious about that.

    Yes, and you don’t even have to trust her much. Mrs. Caldo is (usually) excellent, but my faith is in God to straighten her out. All I can do is send her a reminder.

    “You’d better watch your mouth, woman. That’s a hateful heart I hear.”
    “Why do you worry? Do you trust God or not?”
    “You are flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. Now get my flesh and bones over there and move that laundry!”

    Things like that.

  201. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH / Ras Al Guhl:

    My pet theory is that the entire world’s space program is a big game of collective AMOG. Khrushchev gave Eisenhower a little miniature Sputnik on his 1959 American tour, and boasted that “the world sleeps beneath a Soviet moon”. He wasn’t boasting about peaceful technology, as much as hinting at the accuracy of his rocket forces.

    When the USA landed Neil Armstrong a few years later, it was tit-for-tat. “We can put someone on the lunar surface, so it’d be a cinch to land a few warheads in Moscow” was the message, and I’m sure it was received, loud and clear.

    The people going into space now (China, India, and to a lesser extent, North Korea) are societies that have a similar mindset at this point in history. These are peaceful displays, but they’re also showcases of newfound military capabilities. The USA and Russia don’t go to the moon, because they now have huge militaries and are already “proven” so to speak.

    Furthermore, the US is not the only country in the world. The bizarre cult of people who think that since the US has chosen not to put men on the Moon after 1973, that is evidence that all human technological progress ended in 1973, is weird.

    America is a huge country, surrounded at its widest by the world’s largest moat. and most Americans have never needed to get outside of it (save for maybe a weekend in Tijuana). It’s annoying in some respects to see how small their minds are, but in context it’s understandable.

    Regards, Boxer

  202. Lyn87 says:

    Cane,

    I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing – but after traveling all day I’m exhausted and I’m just going to drop it either way.

    To all who may or may not have missed my point: Yes, husbands are called to lead. Yes, wives are called to submit. Yes, we are all accountable to God to follow his commands no matter what anyone else is doing. Yes, my correct actions may help others be correct themselves, and the converse is true for incorrect actions (those others include my wife). No, I am not ultimately responsible (to God) for the choices made by anyone but myself, although things I do or fail to do that hinder the walk of another (including my wife) are my responsibility, because we are all called to edify and not tear down. Yes, although God is not constrained by human law, I am (including my complete lack of authority to command the obedience of any woman). Yes, I must abide by human law as long as it does not command me to sin by commission or omission. Finally: no, a just God does not hold us accountable for things beyond our control.

    That’s as clear as I can make my position. Frankly, I have no idea why any of that would be in the least bit controversial, but if anyone cares to provide an unambiguous scriptural reference that negates any of those points… I’m all ears. Otherwise, can we get back to the topic at hand?

  203. desiderian says:

    Lyn87,

    “Yes, although God is not constrained by human law, I am (including my complete lack of authority to command the obedience of any woman)”

    Fuck you. God gave you that authority. Don’t blaspheme his power.

  204. TFH says:

    Boxer,

    My pet theory is that the entire world’s space program is a big game of collective AMOG.

    That is true of manned space missions, but manned space missions are always just for show, and have little to no scientific value.

    The most valuable mission of the last several years has been the Kepler Space Observatory, which has found thousands of exoplanets, and is thus a dman good use of $600 Million relative to government spending on ‘feminism’. It is also a technological marvel that would not have been possible in the 20th century. Most average people don’t even think about these things, and then default to the Ras Al Ghul mode of “but we don’t put men on the Moon anymore, so human progress is stalled”.

  205. Lyn87 says:

    I wrote:

    …if anyone cares to provide an unambiguous scriptural reference that negates any of those points… I’m all ears.

    To which Desiderian replied:

    Fuck you. God gave you that authority. Don’t blaspheme his power.

    You forgot the scripture reference for that and I can’t find it: I need chapter and verse, please. My concordance doesn’t list the f-bomb anywhere in scripture. Of course I was looking in the King James Version – which translation are you using?

  206. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    May 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    @AA72

    >>First of all: I apologize for my sarcasm above.

    So, stop the sarcasm. You contribute nothing to any conversation when you dump out sarcasm to the degree you do, unless you identify it as sarcasm. You well know I disagree with those who by hook or by crook are attempting to blame men for refusal of women to submit, then blame men for the result. Unlabeled sarcasm is like tossing gasoline on a fire.

    You listed over and over all the things I did not understand, but did not show that you actually understood them yourself.

    You make clearly ambiguous statements and when someone objects, you whine they simply did not correctly quote you. So, stop the ambiguity.

    How hard is it to understand plain language in the Bible? Only we few select can truly understand the Bible because we got the Holy Spirit helping us, and you don’t?

    In my lifetime, many times I encountered people who claimed to have the Holy Spirit on their side, when someone stood up to them. People who have the Holy Spirit in their hearts NEVER are a’holes. The quickest way to spot religious charlatans is their claim of having invoked the Holy Spirit.

    I did not intend to do it, but when I get time I am going to quote the verses involved. And, then you can tell me from your alleged vast knowledge where I actually misunderstand them. It will take time and it may not be done on this thread.

    I will add here that it is very dangerous for those who invoke the Holy Spirit in their debate on the Bible. (talking to other posters.) A common view here is that the Bible is a very complex thing, and only with the power of The Holy Spirit can any mere mortal understand it. I find that very self-serving and convenient for those who mostly like to argue.

    The Bible was written for mere mortals. There are problems for those in certain sick, anti-biblical cultures, such as the US, but there are ways to work past that. (I haven’t written them up here because it would be swamped in yellow, malodorous liquid.) God did not make an abstruse book that can only be understood by a few special individuals in unusual circumstances. If you believe that, you are free to do so, but that does not make it so.

    Let me say that in 1954 when I started reading the Bible, I didn’t get much out of it, except an orientation to the layout of the Bible itself.

    I have taken Bible Study Sunday School classes, but in careful readings, most of the teachers really didn’t know the Bible, but were “firing for effect” (a term from my short stay in 6/32 Arty) based on their own opinions. Just a couple samples:

    Ditto for radio shows. I remember many years ago leaving work and hearing Dr. Tony Evans on his radio show saying that there will be husbands and wives in heaven and what it will be like.

    In a Fundamentalist church, we watched a video by Chuck Swindoll in which he stated the US was God’s chosen people. Worse than that, when the video was over and I commented on it, no one else had noticed that nonsense.

    My current personal Bible in English is a 1978 Ryrie NAS study Bible from Moody. In Spanish we use Reina Valera, but I forget which edition, 190? or 196? The paper back might have been NIV, I can’t remember right now where it is.

    I also have Bible Time on my Linux based computer. It supplies a lot of Bibles, except the new copyrighted ones, which you can often find on-line. The most interesting is the section from I think around 1300, in ancient English.

    It also supplies daily study materials, which need not be current, of course, since the Bible really hasn’t changed that much.

    HOWEVER, that project in which I went through an entire Bible, line by line, page by page, looking for all references to marriage, etcetera. who was going to go through it with me, at my reading speed, for weeks? No one. So, according to your logic, I was not allowed to find out what the Bible said? Satan, get thee behind me!

    And, I do want to say it is obvious that this Churchian attack on men comes from Satan, as does all heresy, including the obfuscation of the Bible verses which make it plain that men cannot control non-submissive wives.

    So, why the attack on Anglo men? In the 70’s when I started on the first microprocessor based unit in our company, I worked with a deacon for a non-denominational church. One day he told me there was a battle between Jesus and Satan over the Hebrew People, with Satan trying to destroy them. I haven’t been able to verify this but it makes sense.

    With more thought, I realized that Hitler had a good start on wiping them out. And, the white male stopped him. So, right after WWII was over, feminism went into high gear. I cannot prove it, but my theory was Satan is trying to destroy those who stopped him, and he is getting close to winning. If you disagree, I don’t care, it is my own belief and I do not claim Biblical support for that belief.

  207. feeriker says:

    Yes, Oscar, you can pick the woman you marry. Sadly, you cannot pick the woman she becomes.

    Ah, very wise words indeed, Lyn. I could expand on this further in order to explain why certain commenters here apparently were endowed by God with a certain clairvoyance that ensured that they married the perfectly submissive and obedient Christian wives they did (pre-programmed as “rebellion free”), but unfortunately I’m out of the necessary “sarcasm” tags that would put the explanation in its proper context.

  208. jf12 says:

    @Cane, re: “Women are quite sensitive to expulsion from their church, family, and friends.”

    Provided we throw out all the examples of Eat Pray Love, Jenny Erikson, at least half of divorces, etc.

  209. jf12 says:

    Throw me in the camp with feeriker, Lyn87, Scott, empathologism, and, of course, Anonymous age 72 on this surprisingly divisive issue. “Yes, Oscar, you can pick the woman you marry. Sadly, you cannot pick the woman she becomes.” Indeed. You’ll have exactly as much luck, and exactly as much responsibility, praying for her to never get sick as praying for her to always be under your headship.

  210. Legion says:

    Oscar says: May 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    @Legion

    There has been a great discussion of women qualified to be wives in the manosphere. If men only married women who were qualified to be wives, our abysmal marriage rate would drop by over half. Women are not qualified, but eliminated, as marriage material by focusing on career and ‘testing’ a variety of men to determine who they should be married to.

    How to discern the difference between marriageable women and unmarriageable women is the critical thing. You do not provide a clue. I am glad your marriage is working out so far. Hope nothing happens out of the blue to you as happens to most divorced husbands.

    Your thought of a clever trap just shows how clueless you are.

    You caught me on one question. How clever. You failed to even address two questions, coward.

    Again, will you go to jail if you raise your voice to your troops? You cowardly ducked that one too.

  211. embracing reality says:

    Wisdom from Oscar;
    “When a man chooses his wife foolishly, he’s already failed as the leader of his family.”

    Wisdom from Paul (the Apostle)
    “1 Cor 7:28, 7:38 …….But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this……. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but **he who does not marry her does better.**”

    Considering the low quality of most of the available Christian (read; churchian) women a man really doesn’t have much to chose from. Regardless, is Oscar unaware that people change and often for the worse? Further people of impeccable character still fail and sometimes horribly. King David wrote the Psalms, was he honorable? He also fathered an illegitimate child and arranged the death of the husband of the adulterous woman. The notion that young people, teenagers even, should reliably be able to choose spouses wisely in the 6 months or year before they marry is quite a stretch. Laws and accountability to the point of brutal execution held marriages in place since the Exodus from Egypt.

    Why did marriage, as a legally/morally binding contract, ever exist in the first place? Clearly choosing wisely has never been enough.

  212. embracing reality says:

    Oscar wisdom;

    “1. Women who are good wife material really do exist.” { Are most of these women by any chance significantly overweight, obese, or likely to be? If so I’m out }

    “2. A man really can use wisdom to identify a woman who is good wife material.” { LOL, based on what they say when they’re lying about their past or telling the truth about how many dudes they slept with in college? }

    “3. Men who claim that women who are good wife material no longer exist do so merely to excuse their own bad choice(s), just like women who claim good men don’t exist also do so to excuse their own bad choice(s).” { The laws are too risky to take a chance on the tiny minority of never married Christian women who claim they aren’t sluts. “Bad choices”? I’m single never married, early 40’s and financially in a position to retire. I’ve never had so many opportunities with younger, attractive women as I do now yet marriage it not tempting. I’m surrounded by men who have been nailed to the barn door in divorce or are trapped in crappy marriages.

    Hmmmm, “Bad choices”? I gotta say Bro, I’m feeling pretty damn good about myself.

  213. Boxer says:

    “1. Women who are good wife material really do exist.” { Are most of these women by any chance significantly overweight, obese, or likely to be? If so I’m out }

    Even the most hardened PUA will admit that even if he knows of no women who are perfect wife material, he knows some who are less slutty than others. There are women in the world who are serious about life, looking to get married and have a family, and many of these women have low/zero notch counts.

    “2. A man really can use wisdom to identify a woman who is good wife material.” { LOL, based on what they say when they’re lying about their past or telling the truth about how many dudes they slept with in college? }

    That’s really it. Women are simply better than men at deception. By better, I mean to the same magnitude that men are better than women at doing pullups. The disparity is that large. Women often deride men for their stupidity, and they are right to do so. From their perspective, we are all total chumps, to the very last one of us.

    This is not a new phenomenon. Of course, in the past, a woman’s father and mother would serve as character references, and back their daughter with a substantial sum of family money, which served as an insurance policy against female misbehavior. Her deception was therefore mediated by pressure from society and her own kin.

    Today, all that is out the door. Women today usually come with no father in the picture, and a slut of a mother who has no morals herself, so that ends the family support option.

    Even if the woman in question is the “good wife material” type, there is no guarantee that twenty years from the date of the wedding, she won’t suddenly divorce you, taking most of your wealth and any minor children, leaving you destitute for the rest of your life. For many men that gamble is likely worth it. I salute you if that’s you.

    Boxer

  214. MarcusD says:

    They say, statistically speaking, that women do tend to be attracted more to confident men, for whatever reason.

    From:
    Is a lack of dating experience by 25 a turn off to women? (Post #2)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=885065

  215. greyghost says:

    Oscar has got to be the most stuck up guy in the house. His shit don’t stink.

    Lyn87 I still think you have nailed it. There is no wife by law of misandry. The MGTOW, and the PUA and the men that just never made themselves desirable are the glue that is holding “Christian” marriages together as insane as that sounds. Dread game keeps a wife happy

  216. MarcusD says:

    Women today usually come with no father in the picture, and a slut of a mother who has no morals herself, so that ends the family support option.

    Well, some data on hand:

    From the GSS (2000-2012): 33% of women aged 18-40 had no father present in the household at age 16.

    For the question: “How often do you see or visit your father?”

    3% – I don’t know where father lives
    18.9% – My father is no longer alive
    6.7% – Never
    11.5% – Less often [than a year]

    (for women aged 18-40 in 2002)

    For the question: “And how often do you have any other contact with your father besides visiting, either by telephone, letter, fax or e-mail?”

    13.4% – Never
    8.9% – Less often [than several times a year]
    6.9% – Several times a year

    (for women aged 18-40 in 2002)

  217. greyghost says:

    boxer
    That’s really it. Women are simply better than men at deception. By better, I mean to the same magnitude that men are better than women at doing pullups. The disparity is that large. Women often deride men for their stupidity, and they are right to do so. From their perspective, we are all total chumps, to the very last one of us.
    This comes from romance and not from practical observation and another reason why all Christian men need game and not the blue pill feminine imperative lie as a foundation.

  218. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD @1:12 am A woman advises him “Get yourself to student counseling and ask for some pointers.”

    Yeah, I can just imagine Student Counseling reacting to a man who comes in and says he has no luck with women and wants to know how to handle it. They will call the SWAT team.

    Are women that stupid, or that mean, to pretend to think that counselors would give advice on how to be beter with girls?

  219. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    “Yes, Oscar, you can pick the woman you marry. Sadly, you cannot pick the woman she becomes. My wife and yours are not prone to perfidy – although nobody is IMMUNE to the temptation, but plenty of guys well and ended badly. I’m responsible to God to lead my wife well, and she’s responsible to God to see me as her head, but the law says that’s not – ever – responsible to ME.”

    Cane already addressed this point far more eloquently than I could, so I’ll only add a couple more points that coincide with Cane’s response.

    1) The 1st Century Christians to whom the New Testament was written did not have family law on their side either. Divorce was exceptionally common in their day, probably more than in ours. At no time did any of the New Testament authors absolve anyone of their Christian duties because of the outright hostility of Roman law toward Christians.

    2) As a general rule, a man doesn’t just wake up one morning and decide to be a dirt bag. Neither does a woman. In both cases, there are almost always red flags that someone ignored. There may be exceptions to that rule, but they’re so rare that I’ve never actually met one.

  220. Spawny Get says:

    @JF12
    “Are women that stupid, or that mean, to pretend to think that counselors would give advice on how to be beter with girls?”

    They just don’t care about men, or certainly men that aren’t good with women ( => losers (eeugh)). Such men should be neither seen nor heard. They belong doing the dangerous, yucky jobs and paying taxes in order that Daddy Sugar can fund the Princesses.

    They have no empathy for men, how they ever sold the fantasy that they are the empathic sex…is just bewildering.

  221. Spawny Get says:

    @Des
    ““Yes, although God is not constrained by human law, I am (including my complete lack of authority to command the obedience of any woman)”

    Fuck you. God gave you that authority. Don’t blaspheme his power.”

    wow, colour me shocked. Firstly for the language (no, not claiming to be discombobulated by naughty words), but also (perhaps more importantly) a man recognising that he could spend his life in gaol on the false word of a woman isn’t wise, he is in fact a blasphemer?

    u mad bro?

  222. Oscar says:

    @greyghost

    “Oscar has got to be the most stuck up guy in the house. His shit don’t stink.”

    On the contrary, there’s nothing special about me. But that fact only serves to prove my point. Despite being completely ordinary, I was able to find a Proverbs 31 woman. Not only that, I know multiple ordinary men like me who did the same.

    Personal experience and observation lead me to believe that if I and multiple ordinary men I know are capable of finding Proverbs 31 women, then other ordinary men are capable of doing so also.

    Does that mean any of us have perfect marriages? Of course not! Marriage, in every case, is two sinners joining together. Of course that causes problems! But we do what the Bible tells us to do: we love, forgive and stay together.

    The reality is that – just as most women don’t want a good man – most men don’t want a Proverbs 31 woman. That’s one reason why the Book of Proverbs spends three chapters telling young men to avoid immoral women BEFORE devoting only one chapter (the very last one) to describing the ideal wife and mother.

  223. jf12 says:

    Oscar lies to make the origin of his point clear. “The reality is that – just as most women don’t want a good man – most men don’t want a Proverbs 31 woman.”

  224. @ Oscar

    I read some at your blog. Though I’m not a power lifting enthusiast, the other posts were right in my sweet spot. I like guns and gun rights, I am anti-union, and I loath snobbery borne of a liberal arts education. The woman placing such a high value on contemporary philosophical discourse in men was absurd and your take down regarding formations from which energy is extracted was good. I’m a nerd Ch.E. myself. And steeped in the whole lighter fuels and light feeds sea change in the petrochemical and thermoplastic industries and the unintended consequences. Love those topics.

    But I have to call out number 2 above. You are appealing to an extreme. No one suggests that someone becomes a dirtbag, at least as I would define dirtbag. But men and women change in age and life brackets as we deal with differing circumstances. My wife didn’t know how I, and I didn’t know how she would deal with 4 kids (me raised as an only child of a mostly single mother).
    Its not predictable. There are no operative red flags. She, raised with a bit of an inconsistent provider father, solid Christian man and all around good guy but flighty and impulsive in terms of how he earned a living, when her and i hit a financial meltdown with a failed small business and filed bankruptcy several years back, I had no way to predict how she would react after 15 years of steady safe provision.

    People change. the needn’t become dirtbags. Sure, I would call a frivorcing mother a dirtbag in an emotional tantrum, but that’s not what “dirtbag” usually means. Middle class suburban woman with 2 teens, an accountant husband, dogs, vacations, church, then she gets restless and unhappy and wants to find herself and dumps him out of the blue. This is not uncommon, and no one would refer to her as a dirtbag, and there would be no red flags whatsoever for that. That you have never seen this happen is truly remarkable, and it is you who are the outlier statistically, not the existence of these women who caused no klaxons or flags to pop.

    Lest you presto chango the frame again, i am not suggesting that great care and prayer and counsel of others not be present as a man seeks a wife. Im not suggesting that men not marry because they may get a woman who frivorces. Im not saying that men need to change anything drastically and I agree they ought be careful in choosing. But one of the most important peices of rare information men can get from blogs like this, if they have ears to hear, is that they must be adroit in everything, not just the selection. To be Godly and upright will not assure them anything, yet that they should be.

    The problem with your position is it is actually the conventional wisdom position and when a man receives divorce papers out of the blue and he has absorbed what you are saying, no exceptions, he will feel as if he’s gone mad. When he seeks friends or help from the church it will not be there save to tell him to man up and learn from his mistakes. he is not validated when he suggests, “hey, look here, this is a horribly wrong thing happening”.
    Yawn, glazed looks, “another dude messed up, poor schlub”…

    There seems to be a vein of thinking that says that even discussing these things is somehow whining and unmanly. One writer called it nihilism. That is plain incorrect, and easily proven so by offering example after example of similar analogous things discussed that would not draw ire and be assigned the moniker nihilism. If it is nihilism then nearly every article on every blog that is not outright glowing with positivism is nihilism. Complaining about the women who do not appreciate technical knowledge is nihilism. Like that.

    Catharsis for men who have experienced the hopelessness of being jettisoned against their will is what it is. fair warning for those who are unaware of the reality of that, and those who have yet to marry is what it is.

  225. most men don’t want a Proverbs 31 woman. That’s one reason why the Book of Proverbs spends three chapters telling young men to avoid immoral women BEFORE devoting only one chapter (the very last one) to describing the ideal wife and mother

    False choice, immoral vs Proverbs 31. There are lots of things that can be wrong that have nothing to do with being immoral in that sense. You seem to be suggesting the chief complaint is that men wake up and find they married a slut. Not at all. Sure that happens, but that’s too easy a target, that man who does that. Poor be-sodded man married a slut. OK, he coulda done better.

    Now, what about the rest….the majority….who find themselves jettisoned by a woman who IS a proverbs 31 woman. yes, thats right, a Proverbs 31 woman, especially now that that is an evangelical feminist mantra, is perhaps more likely to frivorce than another. But even the woman who embodies all the character traits of the Proverbs 31 woman can turn and file a divorce on a perfectly decent husband.

    You seem to base your opinions on much personal anecdote….all the guys you know….your life’s experience…..etc. That’s solipsism incarnate. Either you are correct, and the million folks who read and write here in a year are just not seeing the real world, or you are not seeing reality, or, and I think this may be the case, the criteria you are using to categorize, and the either/or scenarios you use in doing so are too simple.

  226. misanthropciz says:

    My ex is so fucking selfish. Getting her to agree to me getting just one more day for Father’s Day required a debate. I know she has turned my son against me. I have no recourse or anybody to talk to about any of this. The fucking churches don’t give a shit about men either. This world is so fucked up!

  227. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD, I suppose I’m still naive, because I’m still surprised that all women’s advice to a man’s problems in getting girls to date him all boil down to “Just ask some girls on dates, and some will say yes.”

    Why can’t all women see that all women suffer from the apex fallacy?

  228. misanthropciz says:

    Greyghost,
    You stated, “Women are simply better than men at deception. By better, I mean to the same magnitude that men are better than women at doing pullups. The disparity is that large. Women often deride men for their stupidity, and they are right to do so. From their perspective, we are all total chumps, to the very last one of us.”

    You are right on with this assertion. There is no way I could keep up with my ex when it comes to oral communication. I am honest about the past and present and she is a total liar, and others believe her most every time.

  229. Spawny Get says:

    “Why can’t all women see that all women suffer from the apex fallacy?”

    a) They don’t care about yucky men that don’t give them tingles.
    b) There’s nothing in it for them

    women can be brutal in their self-interest

  230. JDG says:

    To the best of my knowledge 1st century Christians (or anyone else) didn’t have to deal with family law of any sort for the most part. As I recall, returning a dowry was the only reason the government might get involved with a divorce. Under Roman law the couple just declared their intent in front of seven witnesses and they were divorced. Under Jewish law, the man wrote his wife a certificate of divorce. I believe child custody was paternal.

  231. MarcusD says:

    @JF12

    Yeah, I can just imagine Student Counseling reacting to a man who comes in and says he has no luck with women and wants to know how to handle it. They will call the SWAT team.

    Yes, the reply is a bit off, to say the least. At certain points the place starts to resemble an asylum (I know, I know… understatement of the year).

    @MarcusD, I suppose I’m still naive, because I’m still surprised that all women’s advice to a man’s problems in getting girls to date him all boil down to “Just ask some girls on dates, and some will say yes.”

    Well, it’s true that such an action must be taken, but it ignores a large part of reality (e.g. why would they say ‘yes’? or what would make them say ‘yes’?). I think the ignorance of what fosters attraction (and simply what men and women find attractive in each other) is a large cause of the inanity of the responses.

  232. TFH says:

    “Why can’t all women see that all women suffer from the apex fallacy?”

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

    Also, I notice that if we list out the core foundations of a prosperous civilization :

    i) Adherence to a constitution that applies basic human right equally to all humans
    ii) The fair and equal enforcement of contracts.
    iii) Free markets, low taxation, and small government
    iv) High priority placed on technology-driven productivity gains.
    v) Compensation is closely tied to productive output generated

    Women, when given the most minimal amount of power, immediately start to attack all 5 of the above. This means that insufficient restrictions on women is in direct opposition to civilization.

  233. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Lyn87, I have a very strident belief set around this issue in all its forms. From the claim that women are just CRAVING to be led by a strong Christian man (oft claimed by SSM, and echoed by our gracious host here, and I think refuted by Cane in that particular case) to this very confusing message that assumes some (you,me) are saying the choices are lead but quit if she doesn’t respond. Unless I am misunderstanding Cane, and Ive done that several times, it looks that way to me.

    I think you are overstating my position. What I’m not claiming is that wives will make it easy for their husband to lead. The vast majority of wives will challenge their husband for the position of leader, and of course husbands are taught to cede this if they love their wives. What I’m saying is that especially after a number of years in the driver’s seat, nearly all wives can viscerally feel that something is missing, and a surprisingly large number will agree that what they are thirsting for is a leading husband if you explain it to them.

  234. Dalrock says:

    @aaronthejust

    Could we please get a refutation of this?

    http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/May/Divorce-Shocker-Most-Marriages-Do-Make-It/

    The usual old chestnuts are here: men don’t need to fear marriage because divorce actually isn’t that likely, divorce stats are overblown (they aren’t), churchgoers get divorced a lot less (ignoring a correlation between being divorced leading to quitting church attendance).

    I saw this the other day, and have been doing some digging with the thought of doing a post on it. I’m not sure if/when I’ll get the post out, so here is my rough take on it.

    1) She mixes unlike numbers in such a way as to make me seriously question that she has a grasp on the issue she is discussing.
    2) There are some reasons to suspect that divorce rates are going down. Divorce rates for younger couples are lower (per 1,000 married) than they were 20 years ago. However, she is going against the people who model lifetime divorce rates for a living and from what she is sharing isn’t making the sale.
    3) More important than the actual numbers, is the attitude she and those responding to her book have on display. She claims this is giving them renewed faith in biblical marriage, but what it is giving them faith in is the Book of Oprah. This is the part which would be very easy to miss. The data she presents is intended to reassure churchians that the gutting of biblical marriage is working just fine. No need to go back to the old model, this one is working just fine. See Also Glenn Stanton’s giddy articles about the most devout Christians having a 38% divorce rate.
    4) After years of torture, they finally got the Barna data to confess! I don’t doubt that regular church goers have a measurably lower divorce rate, but she is drawing the causal arrow in a very dubious way. They asked currently divorced people if they had gone to church in the last week. When the divorced people answered “no”, they assume this must mean lack of church attendance contributed to the divorce. But given the order of events the opposite causation is at least as plausible. They could have gone through a divorce and then stopped going to church. All of this again obscures the real point though, which is bullet three above.

  235. Scott says:

    “What I’m saying is that especially after a number of years in the driver’s seat, nearly all wives can viscerally feel that something is missing, and a surprisingly large number will agree that what they are thirsting for is a leading husband if you explain it to them.”

    N=1 in our case, for what it’s worth.

    And, as you point out, I still have to regularly re-assert to resistance in the form of crying, shit-testing, etc.

  236. Dalrock says:

    One more:

    5) She is arguing that fear of divorce is what is driving divorce rates, and that if people knew the truth there would be more marriage and less divorce. There could be some truth to both claims, but it overlooks a great deal. People fear divorce because divorce has been extremely high. It isn’t like everything was great until there were rumors of a high divorce rate which touched off a divorce revolution. The revolution came first, then the fear. But she is invested in this new model of marriage (see bullet 3), so she overlooks that. Also, if divorce rates are in fact declining much of the reason is likely due to people in higher risk for divorce no longer marrying. Those with college degrees are still marrying, and they have a much lower divorce rate than those who don’t have a degree. Her solution to the problem is to convince those who (rightly) feared divorce to go ahead and marry, which if successful would drive any reduction right back up.

  237. Lyn87 says:

    Dalrock wrote, “Also, if divorce rates are in fact declining much of the reason is likely due to people in higher risk for divorce no longer marrying. Those with college degrees are still marrying, and they have a much lower divorce rate than those who don’t have a degree. Her solution to the problem is to convince those who (rightly) feared divorce to go ahead and marry, which if successful would drive any reduction right back up.

    That is essentially what I wrote yesterday – the problem with the thesis from the original article is that the reduction in the divorce rate is caused by a factor that is nowhere in evidence. It’s like the writer noticed something, and although there is no evidence to back it up, declared his hypothesis to be correct (not unlike the theory of evolution, for that matter… how did life spring, fully-formed, from a non-living Universe, by the way?). But I digress…

    The reduction in the divorce rate after the initial spike – to its current plateau – is easily explained by factors nibbling at the margins (much like the so-called gender-pay-gap is easily explained by numerous small differences in how men and women work).

    Now I’m going to take another bite at the apple of male headship: Nobody has said that husbands don’t have a Divine mandate to lead well regardless of what their wives do. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT – can we all please stop pretending that anyone is defending that position? However, I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate that husbands have the ability to override the free will of their wives if they choose to rebel against that authority – make no mistake: that is the issue here. I can encourage right conduct, but even God Himself does not override our free will. To accept responsibility for something is to declare that one has the power to do it oneself – otherwise “responsibility” has no meaning. I will not blaspheme by saying that a husband has a power that God does not.

    As for Oscar’s point about choosing well – I agree to a degree. A lot of guys DO ignore red flags. My brother did that, and ended up with living with our parents after his divorce, which is better than the jail cell his whore-of-an-ex-wife tried to get him thrown into. He even got the kids in a contested case, so he fared far better than most guys who ignore as many red flags as he did. But she was one of those “born-again virgin” types that guys like Marc Driscoll want guys to MAN UP! [TM] and marry. My wife had no real red flags, and after 26 years of marriage I’m not concerned about her frivorcing me in the slightest. She would be more likely to saw off her own foot with a rusty steak knife. But it could have gone differently, and for too many guys, it does. Choosing well increases the odds – maybe a lot – but there really are no guarantees as long as we all have free will. The temptation to sin can be incredibly strong – take this verse for example: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (Matt 24-24). That is some powerful deception… let us not overestimate our ability to withstand temptation. “There but by the grace of God” go any of us.

    Likewise, the temptation to frivorce is powerful – like all sins, not everyone is equally tempted – and many “good Christian women” leap into the vortex – often with the encouragement of Chrurchians.

  238. gdgm+ says:

    aaronthejust @ May 25, 2014 at 1:38 pm:
    The CBN article you link to, I find to be quite annoying personally, because I’ve recently *seen* some of those “unexpected divorces” up close. I also agree with Dalrock that Ms. Feldhahn is VERY attached to her assertions, when she says (from your link):

    Feldhahn said that couples who avoid marriage do so based on wrong assumptions.

    “Like, ‘if I’m just going to get divorced and I’m not going to be happy, why bother getting married, right?’ And it’s based on a lie,” she said. “That feeling is based on a lie.”

    However, from a data standpoint, this recent commentary and study may be more on the mark:
    Divorce: It’s Way Bigger Than We Thought

    Alas, the actual paper cited/reviewed, is behind a paywall. However, its abstract reads:

    This article critically evaluates the available data on trends in divorce in the United States. We find that both vital statistics and retrospective survey data on divorce after 1990 underestimate recent marital instability. These flawed data have led some analysts to conclude that divorce has been stable or declining for the past three decades. Using new data from the American Community Survey and controlling for changes in the age composition of the married population, we conclude that there was actually a substantial increase in age-standardized divorce rates between 1990 and 2008. Divorce rates have doubled over the past two decades among persons over age 35. Among the youngest couples, however, divorce rates are stable or declining. If current trends continue, overall age-standardized divorce rates could level off or even decline over the next few decades. We argue that the leveling of divorce among persons born since 1980 probably reflects the increasing selectivity of marriage.

  239. Exfernal says:

    @Lyn87
    The last time I checked, abiogenesis and evolution are not the same. Artificial creation of the simplest organism capable of reproducing itself independent of the presence of any other type of organism might give you some idea, I guess. Who knows, perhaps we will live long enough to be a witness…

  240. Lyn87 says:

    Exfernal,

    Who knows, perhaps we will live long enough to be a witness…

    We won’t: impossible things don’t become inevitable with more time. I used that example of fallacious thinking (I could have used others: future scientists will look at macro-evolution like current scientists look at medieval alchemy), because macro-evolution is just a way to try to attempt to explain biodiversity without a supernatural cause. Without a supernatural first cause, abiogenesis is necessary. It also flies in the face of everything we know – and can observe and demonstrate – about how things work.

  241. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    We have examples of both the husband and the wife paying a dowry of sorts. I am not sure what impact that has on your point, but it is worth considering. It doesn’t always go one way.

    I recall that the Bible focuses on the husband paying her father, but I may have missed a counter example.

  242. BradA says:

    I don’t completely agree with Cane, especially on the implication that you can only learn the Scriptures as a group, but I do agree that Anon72 is full of himself and throws around accusations very quickly to all who don’t toe his line. It is fully possible to do exactly what he had done and come to different conclusions. He is not God’s gift to man in the marital area.

    Just a comment on the part I am slogging through now.

  243. I think you are overstating my position.

    Dalrock, that is possible. Because it is, after all, your position.

    Overstated or not, let me put it this way, whatever the position is, based on all Ive read of it, I still disagree.

    Its easy to fall into over-magnifying the position of others in order to refute it…..I offer recent topical threads as evidence.

  244. Lyn you can take Hawking’s position about the need for a supernatural cause:

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

    Paraphrased as analogy:

    “because there is a refrigerator, frozen pork loin can and will recreate itself, spontaneous creation is why there is something to eat rather than nothing to eat”

    sheesh

  245. Boxer says:

    Dear empathologism:

    Paraphrased as analogy…

    I was talking to a Muslim guy about a year ago, and suddenly he brought up the fact that Christians don’t seem smart enough to understand evolution. (The Muslim guy in question is a Physicist, like Stephen Hawking). He made a remark toward the end of our conversation, about how “the god of the Christians must be incredibly weak and pathetic, if such a god couldn’t figure out how to create the universe within the context of the laws he wrote down”. I thought that was interesting, and quite sensible take on the matter.

    Boxer

  246. greyghost says:

    Lyn87

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/doublethink/#comment-123861

    You are on fire. There is free will there and it needs to be that way. A man takes care of his business and she submits to him if she chooses him as a husband. man follows biblical principles and has faith she will tend to follow for it is most likely to bring gina tingle and emotional security and joy. The real sin was and is pleasing your wife. When men as a society started to please women by making rebellion pleasant that is when things went bad and will go bad. She is made unhappy and her sexual desire goes to the thug and psychopath. Game taps into this as if the foundation of game came from scripture. Game is not about pleasing her.

  247. JDG says:

    empathologism says:
    May 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Maybe it’s because I’m still half asleep, but to me it sounds like you and Lyn87 are in agreement.

  248. Marcus

    Cool pseudo fallacy that. I assume its in response to Lyns reference to alchemy. I don’t think, however, that he saw that as an essential point in what he wrote. I say this completely independent of where Icome down on the matter at issue.

    JDG

    I am in agreement. If he seemed to conflate evolution and creation/origin I think it was just loose usage. Otherwise yes, I agree.

  249. JDG says:

    I like the refrigerator / pork loin analogy.

  250. Martian Bachelor says:

    I’d heard of “refrigerator religion” before — the mayo goes there, and the milk is always on that shelf, etc… kinda like dishwasher religion.

    But I’d never heard of refrigerator cosmology before, until now. Thx empath!

    Hawking’s universe doesn’t translate very well from the mathematics into the common language. Mistranslations can be funny.

  251. Ras Al ghul says:

    Dalrock:

    “Those with college degrees are still marrying, and they have a much lower divorce rate than those who don’t have a degree.”

    I wonder how much that will hold up in the next ten years, 40 years ago the percent of people with college degrees or more was 8% of the total population, and the majority being men, that in itself a status boost. Now it is considerably higher, closer to 30% of the population, most of those degrees are worthless with an excess of debt, and the majority held by women (making them less likely to marry or negating the male status boost.

    It would be nice to lump the single moms as being without degrees and those with in the other camp, but a large number of divorced or single moms fund their lives for four years or more on student loans for their online college while they get their psych degree.

  252. Ras Al ghul says:

    “When the divorced people answered “no”, they assume this must mean lack of church attendance contributed to the divorce. But given the order of events the opposite causation is at least as plausible. They could have gone through a divorce and then stopped going to church. All of this again obscures the real point though, which is bullet three above.”

    When a man goes through a divorce sees how the church treats him versus her, this causes a lot of them to withdraw from the structure.

    Not to be cynical, but a large number of men attend church because it is important to their wife, but get nothing from the experience considering how the churchians regard men this shouldn’t be surprising

  253. Scott says:

    “When a man goes through a divorce sees how the church treats him versus her, this causes a lot of them to withdraw from the structure.”

    Been there, done that. Gave me flashbacks from 14 years ago.

  254. Martian,

    I’m able to read and write in both languages. Of course I’m not anything like a Hawking or even a shadow of a shadow of a Hawking, but the nature of his statement, if it was bring real math and not LaPlace’s demon put into words, would read differently.

    I’m such a nerd I can still rattle off the multiples of our sun’s mass that collapse to white dwarfs, become red giants, or, at 3.2 times suns mass, become a black hole.

    His comment is vacuous. So are most secular cosmologists who, when they run into an equal sign between two different numbers do what? Invent a constant….name it after themselves. Or the best one was the inclusion of the effect of “dark matter”. Its like someone insisting they know how to get somewhere, they drive and miss it by miles. They then say something like, “that road used to go there, they must have rerouted it”

  255. Lyn87 says:

    Yes, loose usage. I know the difference between the theories of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. But as a practical matter they rely on each other – and nobody with any sense advocates one without the other. If God does not exist, then both are required. If God does exist, then neither is required. It’s one of several tactics that I use to make atheists contradict themselves: they assume that because I’m a Christian that I’m a bumpkin about science, until I speak to them in their own language (except with better knowledge) and demand the same level of proof for abiogenesis that they demand for the existence of God (no evidence for abiogenesis exists, of course, but that gives me the chance to start talking about the Law of the Excluded Middle and the evidence in favor of Christian truth-claims). That’s usually when they call me names and quit. I had one atheist call me a c*ck-s*ck*ng m*oth*r-f*ck*r at that point once – we didn’t speak for a year and a half after that.

    Anyway, I wasn’t trying to sidetrack the thread onto this topic. And now, back to your regularly-scheduled topic.

  256. “When a man goes through a divorce sees how the church treats him versus her, this causes a lot of them to withdraw from the structure.”

    This is why it is in my opinion not good to come down on men who are stating something about the fact that a wife will not necessarily follow regardless how he leads. The opposing (opposing what I am unsure of) view then repeats to men things they already know. that’s precisely what the church does when a man is in a frivorce crisis. Its jump-off-building-maddness to hear someone sit and review your “called to” items, the implication being that had you done them you’d not be sitting there in a puddle of your own mucus.

    When i read stuff like that it is reinforced that nothing sheers the scales off the eyes like personally experiencing that crap.

  257. MarcusD says:

    Cool pseudo fallacy that. I assume its in response to Lyns reference to alchemy.

    I haven’t been following along with that thread of conversation, so I don’t know how it fits in exactly. (I just saw the parenthetical reference to macro-evolution and alchemy and thought I’d link a related idea.)

    “Those with college degrees are still marrying, and they have a much lower divorce rate than those who don’t have a degree.”

    I wonder how much that will hold up in the next ten years, 40 years ago the percent of people with college degrees or more was 8% of the total population, and the majority being men, that in itself a status boost. Now it is considerably higher, closer to 30% of the population, most of those degrees are worthless with an excess of debt, and the majority held by women (making them less likely to marry or negating the male status boost.

    Well, the kinds of people who go to university are (often) the kinds of people who divorce less (self-control being one of the common factors). The debt that women accrue due to college is often a turn off for dating (I think the Match.com survey found that $5000 of debt was more than enough to keep a large number of people away).

  258. Lyn87 says:

    Marcus,

    As a guy who got married before the internet, I’ve never been to Match.com. If I understand you correctly, debt above $5000 is enough to make guys pass. I can’t imagine that a person’s Match profile lists debt… does it? Or was that just a survey question?

    In either case, that seems low to me, since $5000 is a drop in the bucket as far as college debt. How many guys would pass up an otherwise good match – especially if she was hot – because she had a relatively-small amount of student debt?

  259. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Here are several verses relating to quarrelsome, contentious, argumentative, non-submissive women. Perhaps you are unaware that no where in the Bible does it tell a man how to deal with such a woman. But, I am aware of it, because I did a 100% search looking for such things.

    To have so many references certainly indicates it was an important topic. One would think the Bible would give guidance to husbands on how to deal with them. It does not. If all that were necessary were for men to use game; or man-up; or simply lead her with manly firmness, it would say so. It does not. I have concluded this is strong evidence to support my belief that effective male leadership is initiated by effective female submission.

    Proverbs 19:13; 21:9 and 19; 25:24; 27:15-16, here are several of those verses below.

    Proverbs 25:24

    New American Standard Bible
    It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
    Find other translations at: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/25-24.htm

    Proverbs 21:19

    New American Standard Bible
    It is better to live in a desert land Than with a contentious and vexing woman.

    Find other translations at: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/21-19.htm

    Proverbs 27:16

    (A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike;)

    New American Standard Bible
    He who would restrain her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand.

    Find other translations at: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/27-16.htm

    Now, let the yellow, malodorous liquids flow as the man-fault support crew desperately tries to explain these away. [/sarcasm]

  260. Martian Bachelor says:

    Empath, I was thinking along somewhat similar lines… I saw an article by academics (social scientists/anthropologists) ‘proving’ that there’s no such thing as race. It’s been entirely deconstructed out of existence so far as they’re concerned.

    The same thing has been done to the universe. When Hubble wrote The Realm of the Nebulae 80 years ago, the universe was a known place: it consisted of galaxies in scattered groups and clusters in expanding spacetime. Yes, there were a few loose ends, and the calibration of the distance scale was known to be off (the age of the universe worked out to be less than the age of the earth determined by geologists), but there were no major hurdles to that being all fixed shortly with further work.

    Now, as I understand it, ~85% of the universe is “missing”, and the matter/energy with which we’re familiar constitutes only ~5% of the universe. The rest we’re completely clueless about, where it is, what it is, etc. But they’re all convinced it’s there nonetheless.

    If astronomers don’t stop building bigger better and more costly telescopes soon, at the rate they’re going, they will have concluded the universe doesn’t exist in about another decade or two (extrapolating widely)! The same thing they’ve done to race.

    This is a little different than what Hawking, who is usually pretty opaque in his writing style, was getting at, but I don’t know how to convey the meaning any better than with an ambiguous catchphrase like “nothingness is impossible, so something has to exist”.

    Hey, if you ever want a good but very eclectic read in this area, try to find a copy of Fritz Zwicky’s book Morphological Astronomy (1957). He was the guy who first turned up dark matter (anomalous velocities of galaxies in rich clusters) in the 1930’s, same time as Hubble was writing, and he was evidently quite a unique character besides, bordering on being as bizarre as someone like a Tesla was often reputed to be.

    Back to your regularly scheduled thread…

  261. Ras Al ghul says:

    TFH

    “Most average people don’t even think about these things, and then default to the Ras Al Ghul mode of “but we don’t put men on the Moon anymore, so human progress is stalled”.

    TFH, I don’t care what the cause is whether its a cultural reset, or democracy stifling progress, or people lack the will, or directing the money elsewhere, the impact is essentially the same.

    If you don’t spend the money on technology and the infrastructure, you end up in the same place.

    And technology can be forgotten, just as the science can become so riddled with fakery, status mongering and lies that it becomes useless. The impact of certain foods on scurvy was forgotten for a time.

    Not that I disagree with your opinion that there is no going back to marriage 2.0, I do agree, I just disagree that the “misandry bubble will pop” it just takes a different form

    Civilization has always been misandrist, by its very nature, it has always served the interests of women, there interests may change, but it is their interests that have been served.

    I have heard for decades that vr sex is just around the corner, that the singularity is coming.

    I just don’t see the vr sex making that much difference with all the porn already out there.

    It will suffer from the same problems porn does. Its a substitute and a man, being a thinking creature, will feel the same basic feelings on inadequacy and self revulsion that the puas describe in telling men to avoid the porn and masturbation.

    And if VR sex is the actual game changer you think it will be, I expect it to be shut done hard, just as the feminists have fought the male pill

    The solution to the problem men face is that of status, a system that does not elevate the man’s status by a point or two by default is going to stagnate or collapse. This was done by men being the ones that work, but that’s gone, it was done by giving them authority in marriage, but that is gone, it has been done with having less men than women around (through wars)

    This may be India or China’s moment in the sun, I just don’t believe it

    Nor do I believe that a world where 20% of the men live in polygamous relationships, while the other 80% go home each night and plug themselves into a machine is going to be in any way optimal, stable or maintainable.

    We shall see though, you predict it will be in six years, and that’s a definitive statement and we’ll hopefully be around to see it

  262. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA says:
    May 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    Brad says I am full of myself, etc. Maybe, but also full of 10,000 hours counseling divorced men and activism, including visiting our state’s governor in his office, and picketing the court house. In those days, it was very hard for men to get custody. I can’t say I helped very large numbers of men get custody, but I can say there were several successes, and I sometimes stop to think those kids are now long ago adults, having been raised in paternal custody.

    I am also full of going through the whole Bible line by line, to see what it actually says about men leading and then have other men doing everything in their power to blame men for the misconduct of women and paying no attention to what the Bible actually says.

    So, now it’s your turn to do the same and look at the entire Bible. But, it could take you guys quite a while if you are incapable of doing it by yourself, and have to wait for body guards and the Holy Spirit.

    And, of course, it is also your turn to write 90 op-eds to your local newspapers, and hundreds more to other media. Letters to legislators. Arranged demonstrations. And, all the while people much like many of those here are shouting at you, “You are doing it wrong.. You are doing it wrong.” Then you will understand how men who have actually done something weil lose patience with man-faulters.

    If I am full of myself, at least I earned it. So, tell me again what you have actually done. Somehow I forget. Or, maybe you neglected to mention it.

  263. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Lyn87 says:
    May 26, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    >>Nobody has said that husbands don’t have a Divine mandate to lead well regardless of what their wives do. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT – can we all please stop pretending that anyone is defending that position? However, I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate that husbands have the ability to override the free will of their wives if they choose to rebel against that authority – make no mistake: that is the issue here.

    Can you show me that divine mandate in the Bible? Or, does that statement develop from things which really don’t say it, but people assume it means that?

    The only relevant divine mandate for men that I know of is to love their wives. The divine mandate for wives is to submit to their husbands.

    Mrs. Handford makes it clear that when women submit, men will normally lead as a basic hard wired function. There may well be exceptions, but they are rare.

    If I missed it, Lyn, I would like to know.

    I absolutely support your last sentence in the quote. That is the issue of total importance to marriage, whether Christian or not. That is absolutely what I have been saying. And, it also is what I quoted just above in the contentious verses.

    Churchianity stubbornly insists Real Men[tm] will become leaders by their manly firmness, aka as man-up.

  264. Martian….cool nerd recommendations. I confess to not reading anything that old. I remember “Quasar Quasar Burning Bright”, “Black Holes, Neutron Stars, and The Universe”, “White Dwarfs and Red Giants”, and, I confess, some Astrophysics titled textbook that I could not really follow because I was in high school.

    I also confess to life getting in the way of continuing my fascination with those things, which is odd after an engineering curriculum it would have made that much more sense.

    Of course I read Hawking’s books, but despite his being who he is, he actually does translate to understandable language quite well, making the books accessible to average folk like me.

  265. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Dalrock, that is possible. Because it is, after all, your position.

    Overstated or not, let me put it this way, whatever the position is, based on all Ive read of it, I still disagree.

    No worries. We are bound to disagree on something.

  266. Ras Al ghul says:

    A72:

    You are correct, women wouldnt be told to submit, if it was something that occurred automatically. The curse of eve is that she will try, always try, to dominate her husband. Anyone that thinks being a dominate man is a guarantee for marriage is a fool.

    Getting married is an automatic drop in status for the man regarding his wife by 2 points, you have implied that you can’t do better than her (or you wouldn’t have married her) that’s how women think.

    She will constantly test you. Few men over time can maintain that, or want to. You couple that with the modern lie that she will have your back and be your partner and you’re in trouble.

    Just as the PUA talk about women want to be ravaged by their man, you are biologically impaired there. Sex with the same woman becomes stale over time ( I am sure plenty of men will come out and say otherwise, but I don’t give any credence to it) the urge to procreate with many women is coupled with a decline in desire for the woman you are with.

    And finally, love makes a man weak. He will ignore a woman’s lies and deceptions while in love, the more in love he is with her, the more difficult it is for him.

    Children make him weak too. (being married lowers your testosterone, being around children, lowers your testosterone, lack of sleep from crying babies, lowers your testosterone, I could go on)

    Marcus:

    “Well, the kinds of people who go to university are (often) the kinds of people who divorce less (self-control being one of the common factors). The debt that women accrue due to college is often a turn off for dating (I think the Match.com survey found that $5000 of debt was more than enough to keep a large number of people away).”

    The first part used to be the case, one of the red flags for a women being crazy (and a bad marriage bet) is if she has a degree in psychology or social work. I don’t think a college degree is going to be that predictive in the future. Being less likely to marry is probably true now.

  267. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Another thought. I have known a number of activists who have actually done things in the real world. And, they make me look like Casper Milquetoast. As a group, they do not suffer P. Contests very well.

    People like Richard Doyle and Dick Woods and Bob Sides, and plenty more, working hard in some cases for nearly 50 years.

    Losing patience with those who quarrel incessantly and do virtually nothing outside of anonymous Web quarreling is an occupational hazard among real activists.

    I do not want to totally belittle the effect that comes from bringing the Red PIll word to more men. And, MGTOW is actually the most profitable thing as far as inducing social change. The reduced marriage rate alone is a real testicle twister for those who desire to enslave men.

    And, Dalrock’s blog, sans comments, is by far the best MRA blog I have ever seen. He has only one problem, and he knows what I have said several times on that. Time itself will set him straight. In the overall picture, it is actually a minor thing, I suppose.

    Having said that, it is obvious to me that Dalrock is not a long-term project. Not to belittle him, because he deserves all our respect and thanks for what he is doing, but extremely active people like him tend to burn out in short order, when dealing with constant quarreling. This is one of those cases, of course, where I hope with all my heart I am wrong.

    I can already see the signs, having seen other good men go through the burn-out process. I encourage him to shut off comments whenever he feels stress, and even to shut them off permanently.

    Another suggestion would be if he gets burned out, have someone start an echo URL, linked on his blog, and comments would go over there, and be the total responsibility of the other person. All he would have to do is produce his excellent graphs and analyses.

  268. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Ras Al ghul says:
    May 26, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Great posting. Thanks.

  269. Dalrock says:

    @Anonymous age 72

    Nobody has said that husbands don’t have a Divine mandate to lead well regardless of what their wives do…

    Can you show me that divine mandate in the Bible? Or, does that statement develop from things which really don’t say it, but people assume it means that?

    The only relevant divine mandate for men that I know of is to love their wives. The divine mandate for wives is to submit to their husbands.

    I’m not aware of a “command to lead”. However, the command to wash your wife in the water of the word could be argued as such a command. Moreover, while the Bible doesn’t give husbands an injunction to lead, it declares husbands as the leader. The obligation comes with the title. This doesn’t mean the husband has an obligation to make her follow, because he can’t.

    Mrs. Handford makes it clear that when women submit, men will normally lead as a basic hard wired function. There may well be exceptions, but they are rare.

    This is probably generally true, but it doesn’t mean men don’t have an obligation to lead. We have others who will make the same err going the other direction explaining that when men are “sufficiently dominant”, wives generally find themselves wanting to submit. This idea that one party isn’t obligated to uphold their marital role until the other side goes first is wrong either way. The Bible doesn’t say “Lead her once she submits”, and it also doesn’t say “Submit to him once he makes you tingle”. Instead, it tells wives what they need to do and husbands what they need to do. If you sign up for the job description, you have your marching orders.

  270. Dalrock

    Coupla guys on a blog once, they were agreein’ so much some smart ass (no dearth here) said “get a room”.
    Damn straight ….a good solid unbridgeable disagreement! Bout them Bears?

    Ras

    the urge to procreate with many women is coupled with a decline in desire for the woman you are with

    Eh….I cannot throw in with this notion at all. For sure I once could have agreed. maybe its cyclical, maybe it comes with hitting 50, maybe it comes with having a wife that stays fit and attractive and can allure, but there is no evermore inverse relationship between desire and time spent, in my opinion

  271. Oscar says:

    @empathologism

    “I read some at your blog. Though I’m not a power lifting enthusiast, the other posts were right in my sweet spot.”

    Thanks; I appreciate that. I don’t write as much as I’d like, though.

    “Sure, I would call a frivorcing mother a dirtbag in an emotional tantrum, but that’s not what “dirtbag” usually means. Middle class suburban woman with 2 teens, an accountant husband, dogs, vacations, church, then she gets restless and unhappy and wants to find herself and dumps him out of the blue. This is not uncommon, and no one would refer to her as a dirtbag, and there would be no red flags whatsoever for that. That you have never seen this happen is truly remarkable, and it is you who are the outlier statistically, not the existence of these women who caused no klaxons or flags to pop.”

    I’d call her a dirtbag. So would my wife (hint, hint). Maybe I shouldn’t have used that term, but it’s a commonly used term in the Army, and I tend to speak in my profession’s jargon, even though I try (and often fail) not to in mixed company. I’m not committed to the term, so if you have a better suggestion, I’m open to it.

    As for the red flags, I’m aware of frivolous divorce, and I’ve observed them, and every time I’ve observed them there was always at least one red flag, if not more, that I could see. As I wrote, there very well may be exceptions of which I’m unaware (I’m far from omniscient), but personal experience and observation lead me to believe they are much rarer than some commenters here like to admit.

    Yes, I realize that I’m basing my beliefs on personal experience and observation (don’t we all?) and not data, but I’m not aware of any data stating how often there are red flags before a frivolous divorce. If you can point me to some data, I’ll consider it.

    “i am not suggesting that great care and prayer and counsel of others not be present as a man seeks a wife. Im not suggesting that men not marry because they may get a woman who frivorces. Im not saying that men need to change anything drastically and I agree they ought be careful in choosing. But one of the most important peices of rare information men can get from blogs like this, if they have ears to hear, is that they must be adroit in everything, not just the selection. To be Godly and upright will not assure them anything, yet that they should be.”

    Then we agree on more than we disagree. I do not claim that I have some fool-proof formula for finding the perfect wife. I wish I did, so I could give it to my sons. However, we seem to agree that with much prayer, the Word, wisdom and the council of older, more experienced, Godly men (and mothers and grandmothers), a young man can greatly reduce his risk of ending up a divorce statistic. Am I right? As for being Godly and upright, that’ll ensure them favor with God, if not necessarily with women. Or men.

    “The problem with your position is it is actually the conventional wisdom position and when a man receives divorce papers out of the blue and he has absorbed what you are saying, no exceptions, he will feel as if he’s gone mad. When he seeks friends or help from the church it will not be there save to tell him to man up and learn from his mistakes. he is not validated when he suggests, “hey, look here, this is a horribly wrong thing happening”.”

    Actually, I left room for exceptions. I just stated they are rare. Furthermore, at no point did I state that the church (collectively and individually) should not respond with grace. You’re attributing beliefs to me I do not hold. What I do believe is that the church should ALWAYS respond with grace. That’s the church’s job. Even when the church must respond with correction, that correction should ALWAYS be coupled with grace.

    “Catharsis for men who have experienced the hopelessness of being jettisoned against their will is what it is. fair warning for those who are unaware of the reality of that, and those who have yet to marry is what it is.”

    Again, we agree. I never stated it wasn’t. What I did state is that – contrary to some of the bitter commenters here – it IS possible to choose wisely and greatly reduce ones probability of ending up like them. Am I wrong? I further presented myself and my friends as examples of ordinary men who accomplished that feat. Is there some reason I shouldn’t?

    “False choice, immoral vs Proverbs 31. There are lots of things that can be wrong that have nothing to do with being immoral in that sense. You seem to be suggesting the chief complaint is that men wake up and find they married a slut.”

    I did not mean to suggest that “immoral” refers exclusively to sluts, though I can see how I could have worded my writing better. I also did not suggest that the chief complaint is that men wake up and find they married a slut.

    “Now, what about the rest….the majority….who find themselves jettisoned by a woman who IS a proverbs 31 woman. yes, thats right, a Proverbs 31 woman, especially now that that is an evangelical feminist mantra, is perhaps more likely to frivorce than another. But even the woman who embodies all the character traits of the Proverbs 31 woman can turn and file a divorce on a perfectly decent husband.”

    Any woman who divorces her husband frivolously falls so far short of the one described in Proverbs 31 that they don’t even inhabit the same kingdom, much less the same body.

  272. Lyn87 says:

    A72 asks,

    “Can you show me that divine mandate in the Bible? Or, does that statement develop from things which really don’t say it, but people assume it means that?”

    Fair question, and I see that Dalrock answered while I was away from my computer. I cannot improve on this, “Moreover, while the Bible doesn’t give husbands an injunction to lead, it declares husbands as the leader. The obligation comes with the title. This doesn’t mean the husband has an obligation to make her follow, because he can’t.”…

    … but I can add to it. The qualifications for deacons and elders found in I Timothy are examples of how Godly men ought to live – they represent what Christian husbands should strive for in their lives and their families. I Timothy 3: 4-5 reads as follows with regard to elders (emphasis added):

    One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

    And verses 11-12 of the same chapter address the qualifications for deacons, which include:

    Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    Before anyone jumps in and points out that these only pertain to elders and deacons, let me say that these are the prerequisites for ecclesiastical hierarchy – all married men ought to aspire to them, but only those who succeed may hold those offices. And yes, the family of such a man may torpedo his ministry and render him unqualified… I’ve seen it happen. When a man cannot both rule his house and take care of the house of God, he is to step down from his office and turn his efforts to ruling his house. Unless and until he does so, he remains in the pews.

  273. Boxer says:

    I’m not aware of a “command to lead”. However, the command to wash your wife in the water of the word could be argued as such a command. Moreover, while the Bible doesn’t give husbands an injunction to lead, it declares husbands as the leader. The obligation comes with the title. This doesn’t mean the husband has an obligation to make her follow, because he can’t.

    The very word husband is a title implying that the holder is the leader. Think of it in the context of “animal husbandry” or “husbandman”. The word confers the authority itself, and the holder of the title is the person who directs, leads and *cultivates* his household as he sees fit. The notion is not only implied in the bible, but also in the language we use. The structure is that deep.

    It’s anathema on a blog like this, I’m sure; but if your wife won’t submit, consider using those convenient feminist laws to throw her out of the house you’re in charge of. If you’re religious Catholic who feels sex after marriage is sinful, then just don’t date after the divorce (I’m guessing that many will be getting the same amount of sex as they did during marriage to their naggy wife — zero). Life as a poor man in peace is better than life in a nice house with a troublemaker wife (and the bible is quite clear on that point!)

  274. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    It seems that we are all edging toward that most rare of things on the internet: consensus (or at least a rough approximation of one).

    The only thing I would add to your most recent post is that red flags often appear more prominent in retrospect than in foresight. It’s easier to figure out what went wrong during the AAR than what may go wrong during the MDMP.

    But you are certainly correct that good, prayerful consideration and “an abundance of (wise) counselors” increases the likelihood of success.

  275. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    “Before anyone jumps in and points out that these only pertain to elders and deacons”

    They do pertain to elders and deacons, but the reason is that elders and deacons are supposed to be an example for other men in the church to emulate. Because of that, they pertain to all of us.

  276. there was always at least one red flag, if not more,

    Perhaps they are easier to see after the fact?

    There is data that is suggestive, not indicative, of whether there is a red flag. There is a tendency men have that buttresses that data’s suggestion. the data is simply the massive number of men that are frivorced, the % of the total divorces that it represents. Sure, you can argue that men are caught in gonadal bliss and marry, indeed some are, and some even are twice, thrice, But the generation that led the divorce spike is my generation, baby boomers, and we are not just defined by the 60’s. Courtship and marriage still had some semblance of normalcy for most of us. We did not jump permanently on the first hot thing.

    If you admit that its difficult to find these gems, these women of low divorce risk, exceedingly difficult, what then do you say to a man? It seems that rather than hold women to account, you’d tell men to just keep looking and do without a wife until they find the gem. It SEEMS to be a sub-chapter of the same book the church has peddled for decades now. To blame a man for his frivorce, because he chose poorly, is like blaming a woman for abuse because she chose poorly. It makes some intellectual sense, but it is not a Christian attitude. Correction, the part blaming men indeed IS a Christian attitude based on the last few decades, even to the point of blaming men if their wife has an affair. (see Joel and Kathy Davisson)

    If these spaces exist to do the same thing the church and secular society do, then I have made a huge mistake in participating. If however they exist with extra grace for men in mind, because of the deficit of same from any other source, then it precludes the notion of saying “I coulda told ya she’d do that”

  277. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    “The only thing I would add to your most recent post is that red flags often appear more prominent in retrospect than in foresight. It’s easier to figure out what went wrong during the AAR than what may go wrong during the MDMP.”

    Oh, crap! Somebody’s been dusting off the FMs! Yes, it’s definitely easier in retrospect.

    By the way, the reason you gave for not making O-6 is probably spot on!

  278. MarcusD says:

    @Lyn87

    If I understand you correctly, debt above $5000 is enough to make guys pass. I can’t imagine that a person’s Match profile lists debt… does it? Or was that just a survey question?

    It’s just a survey question.

    Here is a USA Today article that covers some of the more interesting points: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/04/singles-dating-attraction-facebook/1878265/

    From the article:

    And according to a broad national survey of almost 5,500 unattached adults 21 and older, those qualities, attitudes and expectations illustrate cultural shifts in how singles approach relationships.

    Among the findings:

    — 38% would cancel a date because of something they found while doing Internet research on their date.

    — 42% would not date a virgin. [Ed.: 33% of men, 51% of women]

    — 65% would not date someone with credit card debt greater than $5,000; 54% would not date someone with substantial student loan debt.

    — 49% would consider getting into a committed relationship with someone who lived at home with parents.

  279. MarcusD says:

    I – against better judgment and good advice – wandered over to http://www.christianforums.com.

    I’m pretty much speechless. Is that forum actually supposed to be Christian? If it weren’t for the URL and site title, I would have had no idea that it was supposed to be Christian (although it does have a noticeable ‘Churchian’ stench to it). It’s actually worse than CAF. I stopped reading after some woman called a man a ‘misogynist’ for thinking that virgin women didn’t have affairs (incidentally, it reminds of me Orwell’s treatment of the word ‘fascist’ in “Politics and the English Language” – http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm).

  280. Lyn87 says:

    Oh, crap! Somebody’s been dusting off the FMs! Yes, it’s definitely easier in retrospect.

    Mine never got the chance to get dusty in the first place – my post-retirement job keeps me in them even more than when I wore the green. BTW, have you seen the new FM 6-0 that came out about a week ago? It’s going to take some time to unscramble that ball of yarn.

  281. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Dalrock, I agree with much of what you said My only problem is to be expected to do the impossible just doesn’t seem to make sense. And, that seems to be what you, and others, are saying.

    To try to lead a contentious woman, as the Bible makes very clear, is sort of like being expected to keep looking for work month after month; year after year, with no success.

    Perhaps someone can tell us how leading a contentious woman would work? The Bible certainly does not tell us. And, I don’t expect any useful wisdom from men whose wives are not contentious. Nor, equally from the men whose wives are contentious, since Proverbs makes it clear they are also unable to lead.

    I don’t normally talk about my own marriage because of the expected P. contests. But, I will tell you that my wife before marriage was very sweet, of course. After marriage, she is no more capable of being submissive than elephants are capable of flying. I put her at 10 on the Richter scale of contentiousness. And, I have known a lot of contentious women. The good news is she is not violent, so for 38 years, with the mandate “love your wives”, I have managed to make things happen by the ole’ work around scheme.

    Got the kids through school and married. Doubled our net assets since retiring in 1997, while only receiving a modest pension and Social Security. I am living in my personal paradise here in a Third World mountain village. Life is good. But, there is no headship, nor would any of you make it happen, no matter how you believe you have the key..

    From my experience, I can tell you how to SURVIVE a contentious wife. But, I cannot tell you how to do headship with a contentious woman. The very thought of it with a truly contentious wife is a SICK JOKE.And, the Bible agrees.

    In my experience, which is not small, almost all man-faulters I have known have been filled with arrogance. (I do not mean that as a special insult; arrogance is pretty much normal manhood. I may write of my own arrogance in a separate posting.) Those who are not divorced in almost every case assume their marriage works because of something they have personally done, and they will miss no opportunity to boast to other men what they should be doing.

    My smart-aleck brother, and my extremely obese SIL Baptist deacon are perfect examples. They will tell you in great length just how you should treat your wife, In the former case, his wife is actually at least moderately submissive. In the latter case, she is almost as contentious as my wife is. You can hear her screams of anger half a block away, but he presumes to preach on male responsibilities to other men to lead their wives.

    There are some real idiots out there. (I use the word idiot when I’d prefer damned fools, because the Bible says something about not calling your brother a fool.. Though man-faulters are not my brothers.)

    I once encountered a man whose wife was freaking out and hitting and hitting and hitting their little five year old girl. When he would try to stop her in a manner which did not result in him going to jail, she would keep on pounding and scream at him if he interefered with her, she would get a divorce and he would never see those kids again. And, we all know she very well could do just that. And, of course, the White Knight judge would sure teach that vicious SOB a lesson if he tried to report her violent abuse and ask for custody.

    I brought this issue up to my Sunday School class. They piously informed me that a man was NEVER TO INTERFERE IN HIS WIFE’S DISCIPLINE IN FRONT OF THE KIDS NO MATTER WHAT. They repeated, NO MATTTER WHAT. Yes, indeedy it seems these man-faulters actually stated you are are supposed to wait and TALK to her about it when the kids are not present., while your sweet little daughter is getting her *** pounded into the floor.

    They assumed the woman in question was pretty much like their own submissive wife, and any difference had to be the man’s fault.

    That is also what most man-faulters are about.

    If someone has any real solutions based on the real world, and real contentious women, it would be a great public service. I figure when the Bible gives no clue, there is no clue to be had. I hope I am wrong.

  282. Ray Manta says:

    Ras al Ghul wrote:
    If you don’t spend the money on technology and the infrastructure, you end up in the same place.

    Sending manned missions out into space is absurd when far more can be done with robotic probes at a fraction of the price. Advances in technology have only made this more true than ever.

    And technology can be forgotten, just as the science can become so riddled with fakery, status mongering and lies that it becomes useless.

    It hasn’t been – technology would not be forgotten within as brief a period as 50 years. Especially not with the exponentially greater information-processing capability that we have in the 21st century.

    Not that I disagree with your opinion that there is no going back to marriage 2.0, I do agree, I just disagree that the “misandry bubble will pop” it just takes a different form

    We live in an era unlike any other in human history, which doesn’t help convince me about your predictions. No culture has enjoyed anywhere near the current level of scientific knowledge and technological capability. Not sure why you’re so convinced that we’re doomed.

    Civilization has always been misandrist, by its very nature, it has always served the interests of women, there interests may change, but it is their interests that have been served.

    The ‘misandrist’ societies of yore generally were delivered on the promise of greater male investment translating into greater reproductive capacity. In the current era, greater male investment translates into larger numbers of women being able to purchase more expensive Gucci handbags. This means a market correction is in order, not the end of civilization as we know it. Hence the prediction of the misandry bubble.

    And if VR sex is the actual game changer you think it will be, I expect it to be shut done hard, just as the feminists have fought the male pill

    My expectation is that it won’t, because the equipment needed will be too easily available through a wide variety of channels, and too easy to assemble. Therefore prohibition will be ineffective.

    On top of that, the education bubble will cut off a major source of power for the feminists. Not a whole lot of people are going to be around to be indoctrinated if all the gender studies professors have been laid off and there’s the shared cultural understanding that a college education means a lifetime paying off student loans.

    The solution to the problem men face is that of status, a system that does not elevate the man’s status by a point or two by default is going to stagnate or collapse.

    I predict this will re-emerge, first in a few countries; and then others will follow suit.

  283. Marcus,
    Why did you burn your eyes there? I assume you looked at the “marriage” section. I am a refugee from there, banned in a ball of fire for deigning attract the attention of a cad like Dalrock. With his first post linking to them I was handled at elbow and ushered outside. The official chaplain, a very decent fellow, tried to counsel me about my inability to comport with the ladies therein.
    The gaggle of gigglers I was reacting to were also banned and took up at another site, which I cannot recall the name. There was an infamous ring leader called TexasLynn, an attorney I think, or some such name who drew them into the new place.
    It is orders of magnitude worse than CAF based on my limited scanning of CAF.
    It is useful for an important thing though. Its a virtual controlled experiment on evangelical feminism. For those men who have never encountered the pat argumentation (Oscar, having a screen name there would be a massive red flag) of evangelical feminism it is terabytes of proof text.

  284. jf12 says:

    I’m going to let empathologism’s words be mine here. “To blame a man for his frivorce, because he chose poorly, is like blaming a woman for abuse because she chose poorly. It makes some intellectual sense, but it is not a Christian attitude.”

  285. Anonymous age 72 says:

    My Arrogance:

    As I have reported, men who actually do anything in the MRA/FRA world, outside the anonymity of the Web, are under constant attack by other men. And, mostly by men who never did anything; and have no intention of doing anything. Except attack; attack; attack.

    Thus, activists begin to notice the trends. And, the main thing I learned about men in general is that most of us are very arrogant. Note the plural first person.

    I would try to convince the men I counseled for free, to get involved and fight for justice for all men. Some would say, “I am not going to help other men. Other men all deserved to be divorced. I did not. All other men should be helping me, because I do not deserve this.”

    After while, you tend to develop a negative attitude toward the men you are fighting for. In my case, I stuck it out for 10 years, then concluded it was an act of self-destruction to try to help such men.

    I studied the issue, just as I studied all issues I was involved with. And, it became apparent that most men are arrogant. Those who aren’t are really suffering from total lack of self-esteem.

    Satan uses that male arrogance to get His way in destroying out society. Men can’t form support or activists groups, because all the arrogant men will come on the attack, and any board of blog is rapidly knocked down by constant P.Contests.

    White Knights are perfect examples of extreme arrogance. If a man asks for help, for example, with an adulterous wife, the arrogance has them convinced, “It is his fault. If he were a real man[tm] like me, it would never have happened. I know this because she hasn’t divorced me yet.’ And they run to the rescue of the poor, poor, damsel who is being mistreated by that loser.

    Ditto for judges; lawyers; legislators; and child support goons. Mustn’t forget most posters on MRA boards.

    The way I described this is most men assume they are special and different from all other men. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT.

    But, and this is embarrassing, I felt I was special and different because of my 20 hours a week counseling divorced men and activism. Blush.

    One day, it came over me if we wrote up a short bio- on every man in my section and crossed out no more than one or two lines, we couldn’t tell them apart.

    AND THAT INCLUDED ME. Cross out militant, pissed-off men’s rights activist, who has read millions of words on the topics at hand, and you wouldn’t know who I was.

    I felt stupid. But, that makes sense, because it was stupid. The embarrassed humility was probably good for me.

  286. Oscar says:

    @empathologism

    “Sure, you can argue that men are caught in gonadal bliss and marry”

    Surely, some are. Others saw the red flags and ignored them for one reason or another, but sinful human nature is always to absolve ones self of responsibility. Is it not?

    “If you admit that its difficult to find these gems, these women of low divorce risk…”

    I don’t just admit it. As I’ve already stated, Proverbs 31 has been telling us for thousands of years that a Proverbs 31 woman is a gem that is difficult to find.

    10 [b]A wife of noble character who can find?
    She is worth far more than rubies.
    11 Her husband has full confidence in her
    and lacks nothing of value.
    12 She brings him good, not harm,
    all the days of her life.

    Difficult, however, is not impossible. That’s been my point all along. To support my point, I used myself and other ordinary men who’ve married Proverbs 31 women as examples. Why? Because if ordinary men such as ourselves can accomplish the feat, then it stands to reason that others can as well.

    “…what then do you say to a man?”

    I’ve given this a lot of thought, because I have three sons, and I presume they’ll want wives some day. Among the many things I’ll them them is; “Look at your mom. That’s the quality of woman you need to look for, and if your father can marry one, so can you, so don’t settle for a lesser woman.”

    “It seems that rather than hold women to account…”

    Again, you ascribe beliefs to me that I do not hold. ALL adult humans (male AND female) are responsible for the consequences of their choices. Am I wrong in that? I also believe the Church should exercise its Biblical authority to discipline its members, both male AND female, and does so far too rarely. Am I wrong in that?

    “…you’d tell men to just keep looking and do without a wife until they find the gem.”

    What’s the alternative? Marry a non-Proverbs-31-woman and set themselves – and their children – up for failure?

    “To blame a man for his frivorce, because he chose poorly, is like blaming a woman for abuse because she chose poorly.”

    You seem to be making a common mistake – confusing “blame” for “responsibility”.

    Let me ask you a few questions. If a woman chooses a bad husband (bad for any reason), did she choose wisely or foolishly? Is it the church’s responsibility (at least in part) to teach young women how to choose Godly mates? Do those principles also apply to men, or only to women?

  287. mustardnine says:

    True anecdote of the day:

    I was talking to a young Christian guy (age 23), who attends a local megachurch. He gets around, texting and snap-chatting.

    He told me of a (single) “christian” girl, same congregation, same age, who calls herself (and presumably thinks she will be) a “Proverbs 31 woman.” Her words. Among other things, she is widely known, among her peers, to have gang-banged 6 guys in one evening. Among other things.

    Proverbs 31 woman. Gangbangs six guys. Proverbs 31 woman. I suspect this qualifies as a form of “double-think.”

    I further suspect that the “pastoral team” at the church is clueless about this; hard to say about her parents — I’d just be guessing. How does a church function with this level of fantasy thinking.

    Maybe the “singles ministry” knows something. Or not. But apparently doing nothing. At least, nothing effective.

    Most of the girls he knows are “whores.” He has been in several “relationships” himself. I’d call them “sloppy seconds” (or thirds, etc).

    Welcome to the evangelical church of 2014. Any answers, anybody?

  288. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    “Mine never got the chance to get dusty in the first place – my post-retirement job keeps me in them even more than when I wore the green. BTW, have you seen the new FM 6-0 that came out about a week ago? It’s going to take some time to unscramble that ball of yarn.”

    I can’t say that I have. I’ve been working at DPW since I relinquished command, and haven’t needed to reference FMs. I plan to leave the Army soon, so hopefully I’ll never need to reference an FM again!

  289. Boxer says:

    This one is for MarcusD…

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7823799-30/#post65684340

    Let’s start that magic countdown until Brother Boxer gets run out of town on a rail for his subversive antifeminism.

  290. Dalrock says:

    @Anon 72

    Dalrock, I agree with much of what you said My only problem is to be expected to do the impossible just doesn’t seem to make sense. And, that seems to be what you, and others, are saying.

    There is some distinction between the point I’m making and what some others seem to be making. As I pointed out, the obligation is to lead, not to make her follow. I’m not in the camp blaming wifely rebellion on husbands.

    To try to lead a contentious woman, as the Bible makes very clear, is sort of like being expected to keep looking for work month after month; year after year, with no success.

    I believe the term is longsuffering. As I’ve written before there is a tendency to dismiss what wives are called to do via submission. This is typically done in an effort to twist all blame to the husband, but nonetheless it is dismissed. Look at what wives are called to do in 1 Pet 3, and keep in mind not only what you know about human nature but about the ancient world. I would argue that the vast majority of husbands truly want to make their wives happy, but there are some men who are cruel for one reason or another. Many of the women the Apostle Peter was instructing were married to very bad men (and the same is of course true today since the instruction is timeless), and Peter’s command to them is to persist in their submission, that he might one day be moved by her submission to seek out the Lord.

  291. Dalrock says:

    @Mustardnine

    Welcome to the evangelical church of 2014. Any answers, anybody?

    There is a great deal packed into this question, but I’ll keep it brief. My advice is to deal with reality as it is, but take great care not to become bitter.

  292. JDG says:

    @Boxer
    Yep! You will get the boot because dissenters are not tolerated. One of them has “stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal” as a descriptor.

  293. MarcusD says:

    @empathologism

    My curiosity got the better of me. From now on I know to avoid the place (unless I need examples for certain fallacies (or social pathologies)).

    @Boxer

    It’s going well so far (comparatively). You’ve got a few people opening up, too. That said, it’s clear where some of the others stand, as well.

  294. Exfernal says:

    @Martian Bachelor
    The existence of the Great Attractor, for example, represents a challenge that was not present at the time of writing of “Morphological Astronomy” by Zwicky. But enough derailing…

  295. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    > “I’m not in the camp blaming wifely rebellion on husbands.”

    I haven’t seen anyone doing that here. Perhaps I overlooked it though, did you have anyone specific in mind.

    Anon72,

    The problem is not in your positions, per se, but in your reaction to any who disagree with you. You are full of insults and it sure seems like you project what you accuse others of. That is what I am trying to note. I said it early (in this thread or another) that some of your points can be valid, but you act is if all are perfection (now). I and others clearly don’t agree and just insulting us does little to clear things up.

    I am using my real name here BTW, so I am not hiding behind any Internet anonymity. I realize it may bite me at some point, but I figure trying to do it anonymously could and I don’t want to deal with always looking over my shoulder. I state my opinions quite firmly since I believe in them, but I also realize that I am not the complete fountain of all knowledge at this point in my life.

    Leading a Rebellious Wife:

    – I would completely agree that no one can force a rebellious wife to submit and follow. That is especially true in this society, but I would argue it was true in the past as well. Going to the extreme would not force compliance, only end the rebellious life.

    – I would also strongly push that a man can play a much more productive role with a rebellious wife than is indicated in the discussion here. I have always been very strong willed and I was considered at least somewhat (your bad term here) when I married over 25 years ago. I saw certain things as right and expected my wife to follow. We have had plenty of arguments since, especially since she is more passive-aggressive while I am more confrontational.

    I have begun to apply more of these principles recently, after hitting a VERY passive state when I dealt with and processed all 4 of my adopted children leaving home, rejecting me and returning to their birth father & family as their “dad”. That led me to be in a state similar to the blue pill.

    I had also been raised by a single mother with a lot more feminism than she realized and it did take me a while to wash out some of the ideas I got from growing up, though walking through part of my dad’s shoes (and narrowly avoiding other parts) has a way of syncing reality.

    I have now reached the stage where I don’t care if divorce would be the sin I know it is, I will not put up with certain things. My wife is not radically different, but I do believe that making that very clear has produced some huge breakthroughs. I would not want to be divorced, but neither do I want to live in an active hell on this earth.

    Lots of adapting on my part too as I learn to walk all this out, but I think my attitude has controlled a lot of the things going on inside my wife. She could have chosen to not follow the right path in this, but I think she has. She will remain who she is, as I will too, but I believe my actions have changed the dynamic.

    Probably too much personal information to publish on the web, but I use it as an example of how leadership can change even tough women. I firmly believe God put my wife and I together, though I often ask Him what He was thinking! Though I would not pick anyone else at this point.

    ====

    Christian husband are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. I cannot see how that can be done (either of them) without leadership. The members of the Church may not always follow Jesus, but He is always the leader. Read the start of the Book of Revelation for information about how He talks to those He leads. Some nice words there, but some challenging ones as well, depending on what the specific church was doing. (Chapters 2 and 3)

    We must do the same if we are to be godly husbands, though we have to work harder at it since we are not perfect already as He is, always knowing the exact right words to say and actions to take. Though that is leadership and anything less is copping out.

  296. BradA says:

    I would note that I am not sure Dalrock will burn out of this as quickly as I get the impression that statistics is a kind of hobby for him and this is an outlet for that hobby. Things like that can run longer than might otherwise.

    I also notice he doesn’t comment a lot in the comments, though he does seem to be reading them a lot. The contention is a necessary part of any such environment. We would all drop off fairly quickly if we were all in complete agreement. You have to have some contention to keep an Internet discussion going.

  297. You seem to be making a common mistake – confusing “blame” for “responsibility”

    Oscar, the definition is

    blame
    verb \ˈblām\

    : to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened

    I usually dislike when folks paste dictionary definitions in comments but be assured Im not trying to be sarcastic or snarky with that

  298. sunshinemary says:

    Empath:

    From the claim that women are just CRAVING to be led by a strong Christian man (oft claimed by SSM, and echoed by our gracious host here

    I think you’re confusing me with someone else, empath. :) That I recall, we’ve had one conversation – months ago – in which I agreed with Dalrock that wives crave leadership from their husbands. We debated it back and forth for a few comments, but that’s the only time I recall discussing that, so it is definitely not something I’ve “oft claimed”. And I’ve definitely never, ever said that husbands are responsible for their wives choosing to submit/rebel; that’s literally the exact opposite of what I’ve claimed here and elsewhere numerous times. My take is the same now as it has always been: husbands have a duty to be the head of the home, whether the wives submit or not, and wives have a duty to submit, whether their husbands are good leaders or not.

  299. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Difficult, however, is not impossible. That’s been my point all along. To support my point, I used myself and other ordinary men who’ve married Proverbs 31 women as examples. Why? Because if ordinary men such as ourselves can accomplish the feat, then it stands to reason that others can as well.

    First you describe finding such a wife as extraordinary, then you explain that any ordinary man can do the same. The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives. I’m all for teaching younger men how to try to do the same, but it is important to remember that this only changes which young men find these rare gems. It doesn’t create more rare gems. The next best thing we can do is help the much larger group of men who would be better off avoiding marriage given the perverted state of the institution recognize this fact. This is nothing to celebrate, as it is a profound tragedy.

    One of the biggest problems we suffer from today is a snobbery of elitism when it comes to marriage. The UMC devastated marriage culturally and legally to suit their own tastes, and now sniff disapprovingly as the rest of society finds that marriage is no longer a properly functioning institution. To which the elite explain, it is simple, just be extraordinary, like me.

  300. Elspeth says:

    First you describe finding such a wife as extraordinary, then you explain that any ordinary man can do the same. The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives. I’m all for teaching younger men how to try to do the same, but it is important to remember that this only changes which young men find these rare gems. It doesn’t create more rare gems. The next best thing we can do is help the much larger group of men who would be better off avoiding marriage given the perverted state of the institution recognize this fact. This is nothing to celebrate, as it is a profound tragedy.

    One of the biggest problems we suffer from today is a snobbery of elitism when it comes to marriage. The UMC devastated marriage culturally and legally to suit their own tastes, and now sniff disapprovingly as the rest of society finds that marriage is no longer a properly functioning institution. To which the elite explain, it is simple, just be extraordinary, like me.

    Excellent. Every word, sir.

    And the truth is that even those of us who turn out to be marginally decent wives usually fall far short of being a rare gems.

    Extraordinary women (people, even) are by definition, rare. In this culture, a wife who is faithful until death is rare, which is bad enough. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into an excellent wife.

  301. BradA says:

    I would strongly question whether any specific woman completely fits the ideal noted in Proverbs 31. It seems more like a set of traits to strive for than something to be achieved in its entirety.

  302. Elspeth says:

    I would strongly question whether any specific woman completely fits the ideal noted in Proverbs 31. It seems more like a set of traits to strive for than something to be achieved in its entirety.

    Exactly. It’s something we should be striving for. Also be mindful of the fact that the Proverbs 31 woman is a snapshot of a life, not a moment. Young toddlers are not very likely to rise up and call their mother blessed and the husband of a young bride is probably not thinking much about the day her beauty will fade.

    I aspire to be a Proverbs 31 wife but I am not there yet, so back to work.

    Thanks for the food for thought, Brad and Dalrock.

  303. Boxer says:

    It’s going well so far (comparatively). You’ve got a few people opening up, too. That said, it’s clear where some of the others stand, as well.

    At some point during the night, a couple of people decided I was a wife-beater and a marital rapist. I guess it’s the only explanation for my unorthodox opinions. Never mind that I’ve made it clear that I don’t have a wife and am not married, and I’m posting on the singles board…. lol

  304. Pingback: Double thunk | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  305. greyghost says:

    Looks like you were making good conversation Boxer. The responses from some of the guys seem to be in agreement. Those guys were seemed reluctantly blue pill “because that is what a man does” A little bit of red pill truth and reality based logic and they readily have an ah ha moment. Then the lil petite cutie moderator noticed the male slaves were eyeing that hole in the barbed wire and she closed that shit off lickety split.

  306. Dalrock,

    First you describe finding such a wife as extraordinary, then you explain that any ordinary man can do the same. The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives. I’m all for teaching younger men how to try to do the same, but it is important to remember that this only changes which young men find these rare gems. It doesn’t create more rare gems. The next best thing we can do is help the much larger group of men who would be better off avoiding marriage given the perverted state of the institution recognize this fact. This is nothing to celebrate, as it is a profound tragedy.

    One of the biggest problems we suffer from today is a snobbery of elitism when it comes to marriage. The UMC devastated marriage culturally and legally to suit their own tastes, and now sniff disapprovingly as the rest of society finds that marriage is no longer a properly functioning institution. To which the elite explain, it is simple, just be extraordinary, like me.

    As Elspeth correctly said, excellent. Every word is perfect.

    Unfortunately, I feel this is a wasted effort. There is ZERO CHANCE that Oscar will get any of this. It is completely unreadable for someone such as him.

  307. embracing reality says:

    greyghost said; “Oscar has got to be the most stuck up guy in the house. His shit don’t stink.”

    In so many words, yes. I’ve met these guys, everything is about “manhood” with these guys the way they define it. In truth it’s arrogance, machismo all backed up by an unhealthy does of obliviousness.

    NO-FAULT divorce passed in the first state (CA) in 1970, signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan. In 15 years all other states had followed and wife initiated frivorce has been epidemic ever since. The notion that proper female morality deciphering is the solution to completely unfair and unbiblical laws concerning marriage is just absurd.

    In the US a wife, including Oscar’s can frivorce for any reason. The following almost automatically occurs.

    Ex-wife receives primary physical custody, father is legal reduced to a visitor in the lives of his own children (visitation)
    Ex-Husband is thrown out of his own house.
    Ex-husband loses larger half of his assets to former wife.
    Ex-husband is required to pay significant future income to Ex-wife, child support/alimony.

    *All by court order enforced if necessary at gunpoint, all of this may and frequently does happen to decent husbands even at the hands of adulterous wives.*

    The reliable solution to this greatest constitutional violation of a man’s rights in US history is proper wife selection and counting on the chance that a woman’s perceived integrity won’t ever change? That’s the solution? That’s what you’re telling us?

    I know Christian men like Oscar who were shocked literally to tears when their wives destroyed their lives in frivorce, most of us do. I find it more and more difficult to sympathize with them since their erroneous solutions only perpetuate the obvious problem, “hint,hint” no-fault divorce.

  308. Oscar,

    “…you’d tell men to just keep looking and do without a wife until they find the gem.”

    What’s the alternative? Marry a non-Proverbs-31-woman and set themselves – and their children – up for failure?

    There is a third option: never marry. This is what people (like you) should be encouraging men who are not as lucky as you. This is the only way the child-support/alimony/frivorce system will eventually change, if more and more men decide to opt out of marriage all together (and take all their resources with them) sharing NONE with the majority or women who are NOT Proverbs-31.

    This is why I said earlier you will not fit in here. Your thinking is entirely too binary. You assume the men here (who are failing or have failed) are all doing something wrong (if they just adjust their behavior in some way everything will work out for them or maybe if they hadn’t have married the wrong woman in the first place then they would have no complaints) and you are dead wrong sir. Go back and slowly and carefully read what Dalrock just wrote to you. Do NOT try and change his narrative. Instead, change your mind.

    [D: Oscar is welcome here, and he is welcome to make his own case.]

  309. MarcusD says:

    At some point during the night, a couple of people decided I was a wife-beater and a marital rapist. I guess it’s the only explanation for my unorthodox opinions. Never mind that I’ve made it clear that I don’t have a wife and am not married, and I’m posting on the singles board…. lol

    I saw that it was closed, but I didn’t see any of those comments. Were they deleted?

    Anyhow, the place does give me the same overall impression as CAF (e.g. thoughtcrime is a punishable thing).

  310. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives.”

    I’ve reiterated that point multiple times. But there’s another reality you seem to be ignoring. There is a fixed and small supply of Godly men, just as there is a fixed and small supply of Godly women.

  311. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    “The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives.”

    I’ve reiterated that point multiple times. But there’s another reality you seem to be ignoring. There is a fixed and small supply of Godly men, just as there is a fixed and small supply of Godly women.

    Again, your argument is ordinary men should just be extraordinary (like you), since marriage is only for the elite.

  312. Ray Manta,

    On top of that, the education bubble will cut off a major source of power for the feminists. Not a whole lot of people are going to be around to be indoctrinated if all the gender studies professors have been laid off and there’s the shared cultural understanding that a college education means a lifetime paying off student loans.

    Well this is already starting to happen in an indirect way. I’ll explain. I have already gone on the record here that at my last company, there were 3 young men (mid to late twenties) who worked in IT with me who admitted to me that yes they had girlfriends but they had absolutely no intention of marrying any of them because they all had too much student loan debt. So we have at least three young women here (who are not married) who are not going to BE married so long as they stick with these guys and they don’t at least pay off all their own debt.

    Anti-Dowry. When you get right down to it, any woman who majors in women’s studies and gets a degree (with $100K in student loans or whatever) she has willingly and intentionally made her self less marriage worthy as a result of her debt. That is the anti-dowry.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2013/05/25/student-debt-marriage-wedding-loans/2351405/

    We are still in the early phases here of how these horsesh-t degrees (and their corresponding debt) will impact marriage, but what will eventually happen (perhaps after a decade or two) is that the data will be in and women will be more aware of what they have done to themselves. And perhaps, they will adjust their thinking accordingly. That is unless they can’t find a way to have the state step in and be an even bigger part of their lives in making them whole (since they will fail at finding a husband to make them whole.)

  313. Oscar says:

    @BradA

    “I would strongly question whether any specific woman completely fits the ideal noted in Proverbs 31. It seems more like a set of traits to strive for than something to be achieved in its entirety.”

    You are correct, sir. It is also true that every Godly man strives to be a Proverbs 1-30 man, but none of us ever fully achieve that goal, because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The point is in the striving.

  314. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “Again, your argument is ordinary men should just be extraordinary (like you), since marriage is only for the elite.”

    Actually, I’ve already stated that I am ordinary. I’m addressing men who desire to be Godly and desire a Godly wife. If a man has no desire for either, then I have no advice for him concerning marriage, because, as Cane so eloquently stated, all things are at their core, spiritual, especially marriage.

  315. Oscar says:

    @empathologism

    “the definition is

    blame
    verb \ˈblām\

    : to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened

    I usually dislike when folks paste dictionary definitions in comments but be assured Im not trying to be sarcastic or snarky with that”

    I detected zero snark or sarcasm, and I’m not one to argue with Mr. Webster, so touche. But the question remains: is an adult human (male or female) responsible for the consequences of his/her choices, or not?

  316. Highwasp says:

    …I’ll just leave this right here:

    TIME: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?

    COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world–the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I’m interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

    DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable–but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

  317. greyghost says:

    IBB
    I think it is great to here and see these arguments against the truth and reality. How many people live in fear and lies based on these type of arguments. Think of a man blue pilling his life away loving his wife and children. To come home and find his wife sexing up another man. If you a true man of god/Christ what ever she wouldn’t have been fucking that guy. The church pulls this crap all of the time. I personally think it is good for all to see what it looks like for all to see and feel what it looks like in play.

  318. mustardnine says:

    Oscar says:
    “I would strongly question whether any specific woman completely fits the ideal noted in Proverbs 31. It seems more like a set of traits to strive for than something to be achieved in its entirety.”

    You are correct, sir. It is also true that every Godly man strives to be a Proverbs 1-30 man, but none of us ever fully achieve that goal, because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The point is in the striving.

    Mustard says:

    I agree: let us all strive toward fulfilling the Will of God.

    But if the point is in the striving, then, Houston, we’ve got a problem, at least in the Fem Churchian sphere. On Mothers Day, when we are passing out flowers and Proverbs 31 Woman Awards, we have at least the following situations of, shall we call it?, “cognitive dissonance” . . .

    1. The married women who had one or more abortions 5-20 years ago, before or after they “found Jesus,” and have no idea (or do not admit) how psychologically/emotionally damaged they are

    2. The married women who DIDNT have an abortion, feel exonerated/self-righteous, and this excuses them in their life-long bitchery to their husbands and children

    3. The college single girl who “is going to be a Proverbs 31 woman” despite the fact that she gang-banged 6 guys last year (among other things)

    4. The pastor, who thinks he is “proclaiming the Word of God,” by virtue of the fact that he can publicly read the scriptures with empathy and conviction.

    5. The men in the congregation who are trying to (or trying not to) square all this with their real experience.

  319. greyghost,

    I kind of feel sorry for him. Oscar really needs a red pill. But as Dalrock correctly stated to me, he is most certainly welcome here and is welcome to make his own case. Its not a compelling case, but whatever.

  320. Oscar says:

    @mustardnine

    “I agree: let us all strive toward fulfilling the Will of God.

    But if the point is in the striving, then, Houston, we’ve got a problem, at least in the Fem Churchian sphere.”

    Of course we do. What I don’t understand is why anyone is surprised by this fact. After all, Christ warned us that…

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

    and that…

    24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

    In other words, if we actually read our Bibles, we know that “many” (most?) professing Christians are counterfeits – always have been, always will be (until judgement).

    Why is this a surprise?

  321. Lyn87 says:

    Highwasp,

    Dawkins was talking out of his back-side. He is a textbook example of what happens when a relatively-clever person is educated beyond his capacity.

  322. Oscar says:

    @mustardnine

    By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that you were surprised. I’m just perplexed that anyone is surprised by a problem Christ warned us about over 2,000 years ago.

  323. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    It’s hilarious when those who deny the truth of the Bible unwittingly agree with it.

    1 Corinthians 2:9 (NIV)
    9 However, as it is written:

    “What no eye has seen,
    what no ear has heard,
    and what no human mind has conceived”—
    the things God has prepared for those who love him—

  324. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Again, your argument is ordinary men should just be extraordinary (like you), since marriage is only for the elite.

    Actually, I’ve already stated that I am ordinary.

    You truly can’t see your own elitism. Ordinary men don’t get extraordinary wives, and neither do they command a company of other men.

  325. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “You truly can’t see your own elitism. Ordinary men don’t get extraordinary wives, and neither do they command a company of other men.”

    You keep using the word “elite” where I use the word Godly. I don’t see how the two can – Biblically – be synonymous. In fact, I see the Bible stating the opposite.

    1 Corinthians 1:26-31 (NKJV)
    26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”[c]

    Everything I’ve achieved – academically, militarily, in marriage, etc. – is a result of trusting in God and leaning not on my own understanding. Every time I submitted to Him, He made my paths straight (Proverbs 3:5-6).

    Every time I did the opposite, I failed.

  326. Scott says:

    “You truly can’t see your own elitism. Ordinary men don’t get extraordinary wives, and neither do they command a company of other men.”

    This is true about every dimension that can be measured along the bell curve. Kind of sad, but once one realizes it, one can move on and act accordingly.

  327. greyghost says:

    Since you are using godly it makes it even more of an elite snob way. Knowing this is a blog of men discussing how to have Christian based families in a feral world of feminism. It is a turn off and has done much to create atheist. The righteous man for all of little dick losers to admire.

  328. greyghost,

    The righteous man for all of little dick losers to admire.

    Exactly.

    In his mind, Oscar is Godly. As a result, things have worked out for him. But for the losers at Dalrock’s, they couldn’t possibly be Godly because their experiences aren’t as wonderful as his were. In the end, it is always the man’s fault. And Oscar covers his bases this way by saying that ordinary men can have it as good, it is merely a matter of being Godly.

  329. JDG says:

    @Boxer
    You made some practical points in the 7.5 hours you had before the feminist speech control matron shut down the thread. Those guys had probably not even thought of some of those concepts before. Who knows how many others were reading.

  330. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG / MarcusD / et. al.:

    Yeah, some of the more, shall we say, “emotional” stuff has disappeared, though there are still some veiled accusations in other places.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7824314-3/

    This morning, I posted an excerpt from Jack Donovan’s book *The Way of Men*. The usual suspects are frothing about “rape culture and homophobia” now. lol

  331. Oscar says:

    @Scott

    “This is true about every dimension that can be measured along the bell curve. Kind of sad, but once one realizes it, one can move on and act accordingly.”

    I guess I missed the Scripture in which God decided to stop doing extraordinary things through ordinary people. Must be in Revelations 23.

  332. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    You keep using the word “elite” where I use the word Godly.

    Does the Army select the most godly men to command a company of men? Did your university select you because you were more godly than the men they rejected? It is true that we should trust in the Lord, but earthly success isn’t proof of righteousness.

  333. Boxer,

    LilLamb HAD to close the thread. You were doing the worst possible thing a man in the manosphere could do to feminism, you were calmly and rationally giving readers red pills and they were starting to think. That can NEVER-EVER happen!

    Feminists can deal with (welcome even) screaming raving lunatics of men whom (they feel) are being irrational in their perceived injustices. They can deal with that. They welcome it as they can turn around that man’s angry and make him look like a pathetic loser. But what YOU were doing, there was no way to combat you. You had common sense and reason on your side and you were taking the time to actually LISTEN to the other posters and RESPOND to exactly what they were writing. You weren’t just following a script. You were actually thinking.

    That is a non-starter for feminism. She had to shut down the board, simply had to. Nothing good (for feminism) was going to come of further conversation (not where you were taking the conversation, that’s for sure.)

  334. Oscar says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    “their experiences aren’t as wonderful as his were.”

    Yep, my life’s been a bed of roses so far. Have we met?

  335. JDG says:

    There is a fixed and small supply of Godly men, just as there is a fixed and small supply of Godly women.

    Whether or not this is true, the fact remains that if incentives for female initiated frivorce were removed, more marriages would stay intact, and fewer men and children would have their lives ruined by government sanctioned divorce.

    When and where men have the advantages in divorce / custodial matters (even ungodly men), the divorce rates were / are considerably lower.

    Dalrock and many others here are correct about marriage in the here and now, and men should be made aware of these facts before they marry. Especially godly men who could not only lose their children, but could have their ministries damaged or completely destroyed as well.

  336. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “Does the Army select the most godly men to command a company of men? Did your university select you because you were more godly than the men they rejected?”

    No and no. But God is not constrained by the Army or any university or any other human institution.

    “It is true that we should trust in the Lord, but earthly success isn’t proof of righteousness.”

    True. God also chooses to bless the unrighteous.

    Matthew 5:45
    New International Version (NIV)
    45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

  337. Lyn87 says:

    Re: Do good things always come from being godly?

    Hebrews 11 and the first chapters of Job seem to indicate otherwise.

    Don’t even get me started on the godly prophet Hosea: He was married to Gomer, who couldn’t seem to keep her legs together in the presence of other men…

    … I guess Hosea just didn’t have enough discernment to know Gomer was a bad bet for marriage. What a blue-pill loser. (/sarc)

  338. Oscar says:

    @JDG

    “the fact remains that if incentives for female initiated frivorce were removed, more marriages would stay intact, and fewer men and children would have their lives ruined by government sanctioned divorce.”

    I agree.

    “men should be made aware of these facts before they marry. Especially godly men who could not only lose their children, but could have their ministries damaged or completely destroyed as well.”

    I also agree with that statement. But I would add that Godly men need to be taught how to identify Godly women to marry, because that’ll help alleviate much of the above for their individual families. That’s my concern.

    Also, as I’ve already explained, for those who care to understand, Godliness is an ideal towards which we strive and never fully achieve in this life because “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”. The striving – the journey – is the point.

    Philippians 2:12-13

    12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

  339. Oscar says:

    @Lyn87

    “Re: Do good things always come from being godly?”

    Yes. Sometimes in this world, always in the next.

    “Don’t even get me started on the godly prophet Hosea: He was married to Gomer, who couldn’t seem to keep her legs together in the presence of other men…

    … I guess Hosea just didn’t have enough discernment to know Gomer was a bad bet for marriage.”

    Come on, man! Hosea was a singular case and you know it!

  340. JDG says:

    It is true that we should trust in the Lord, but earthly success isn’t proof of righteousness.

    This is exactly right. I think the “good things happen to me because I’m godly” thinking is part of the “blue pill” paradigm. Although it is accurate in the correct context and with the correct understanding of what is good, it is far from being true as a general principle.

  341. feeriker says:

    It is true that we should trust in the Lord, but earthly success isn’t proof of righteousness.

    The cult of churchianity, especially the “evangelical” Protestant type and its “prosperity gospel,” would beg to differ with you.

  342. Oscar says:

    Okay, you guys got me. You’re all right and the Bible is wrong!

    Proverbs 18
    22 He who finds a wife finds what is good
    and receives favor from the Lord.

    Proverbs 19
    14 Houses and wealth are inherited from parents,
    but a prudent wife is from the Lord.

    James 1:17
    17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

    You’re right. God didn’t bless me. I did everything on my own. Because I’m elite… and stuff.

  343. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    Granted: Hosea was a man with a unique mission, but the circumstances of his marriage are far too common. There are lots of Christian guys who have had Hosea-like experiences, and not only do churchians tell them to act like Hosea did toward Gomer (when that is an inappropriate response precisely because they do not share Hosea’s unique mission) – but they also declare the men to be at fault – as if a wife’s constant whoring around is the fault of a faithful, Godly husband. If Hosea wandered into the Mars Hill House of Heresy today, the senior pastor would scream at him for being the cause of Gomer’s infidelities.

    I know YOU understand that, but not everyone reading what you’ve written understands the nuances – guys are hurting through little or no fault of their own, and what they’re likely to hear from you is, “My marriage is good because I followed God’s path.” That’s not necessarily what you mean – but it’s awfully close to how it sounds.

  344. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    You’re right. God didn’t bless me. I did everything on my own. Because I’m elite… and stuff.

    This isn’t the point at all. Certainly God has blessed you, but He hasn’t blessed everyone the same way, and not for lack of righteousness. Your solution to the problem of divorce is to turn marriage into an institution for the elite. You deny the very existence of the concept, by changing the topic instead to godliness.

    Yet the fact remains that marriage in the western world has been gutted by the elites to suit their tastes, and when observing what a disaster this creates for the non elites the reaction is almost always to suggest that others should just be like them.

  345. JDG says:

    But I would add that Godly men need to be taught how to identify Godly women to marry, because that’ll help alleviate much of the above for their individual families. That’s my concern.

    I believe that is one of the purposes of this blog. Much of what Dalrock discloses exposes the mass deception being perpetrated in many ‘churches’ today. These ‘churches’ are misleading men and women about marriage and marriage roles to the extent that it is the norm and not the exception.

    The bad things that men do is well covered in nearly every other media outlet and especially in those aforementioned ‘churches’. Places like Dalrock is one of the rare locations where the faults of females can be discussed with out constant interference from indoctrinated feminists who insist on shutting down any factual discourse on the subject.

    Please understand that when I say feminist I’m not just talking about ‘left wing’ baby killers.

    Philippians 2:12-13

    12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

    Amen!

    And please allow me to include:

    Matthew 10:16
    “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

  346. Oscar,

    Yep, my life’s been a bed of roses so far. Have we met?

    I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I do. I believe that you are being sincere and that is good. You are not a troll. You are not trying to stir up trouble. And your words are valued.

    But this site is filled with men who are in pain. They are in pain because the secular world has destroyed that which God has commanded of us. And in turn, the secular world has turned a subset of men (tragically a growing subset) into nothing more than mules/wage-slaves whose whole mission in life is to make their ex-wives financially whole for her entirely feral behavior. The secular law on this planet empowers/champions her behavior. And that same secular society has laws and guns pointed at the heads of godly men to force him to adjust his behavior to accommodate her.

    Your words are just words sir. And talk is truly cheap. There are a number of men (more than you or I could count) who have in fact lived godly lives, and still life on this planet is almost unbearable for them. Its painful. Just waking up in the morning, they see nothing but a day of hard work and misery, pain. And at the end of the day, society takes everything that they have done for granted while others stand in judgment of them condemning their very existence. They are not appreciated. They are spit upon as they sacrifice 40% to 50% of their mortal existence to provide resources for others who take them entirely for granted.

    I’ve been fortunate that these disasters have not befallen me. But there by the Grace of God go I. Literally. It is only by God’s Grace that I have been spared some of their pain. I had pain in other ways that I’m not going to get into here, but rest assured, I was tested in some manners that were similar to Job.

    So to answer your question, have we met? That depends. If all you have known are either godly men who wake up in the morning and life is generally just and good vs ungodly men who may or may not look forward to tomorrow, then the answer is no. If however, you have known godly men whose lives do indeed suck (or DID suck for at least some duration of their godly life, one miserable day after the other), then yes we have met.

  347. desiderian says:

    JDG,

    “The bad things that men do is well covered even nearly every other media outlet and especially in those aforementioned ‘churches’. Places like Dalrock is one of the rare locations where the faults of females can be discussed with out constant interference from indoctrinated feminists who insist on shutting down any factual discourse on the subject.”

    This is true, but incomplete.

    it’s not about “bad things men do”, unless you’re already buying into the feminist frame.

    Suppose a man does his due diligence and marries a wife he believes to be a virgin. Once married, he begins to develop a burning sensation while urinating. He goes to the doctor, who tells him he’s developed a STD. Now this man knows he has had sex with no one but his wife.

    If he tells the doctor “It’s not my fault! Why are you blaming me?” the doctor will rightfully reply that that is beside the point, and prescribe some treatment that to the best of his knowledge will cure the disease. A good husband will make sure the wife undergoes similar treatment.

  348. desiderian says:

    “the secular world has destroyed that which God has commanded of us”

    Likely story. Are you prepared to tell that story on judgment day, when you yourself counseled your own daughter to avoid marriage to “guarantee” her well-being? Your lack of faith is no indictment of God’s power.

  349. desiderian says:

    “guys are hurting through little or no fault of their own”

    Bullshit. Churchianity is bursting at the seams with “guys” with their noses all the way up their wives asses, not men taking up the call to courageous headship.

  350. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “This isn’t the point at all. Certainly God has blessed you, but He hasn’t blessed everyone the same way, and not for lack of righteousness. Your solution to the problem of divorce is to turn marriage into an institution for the elite. You deny the very existence of the concept, by changing the topic instead to godliness.”

    I didn’t CHANGE the subject to one of Godliness. It’s been my point from the beginning. And no, I don’t want to turn marriage into an institution for the elite. There is an abundance of elites who are ungodly. In fact, based on scriptures I quoted above, they’re the majority.

    1 Corinthians 1:26-31 (NKJV)
    26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”[c]

    You’re right that these ungodly elites have – mostly – lasting marriages. Why? I don’t know. But they’re not my concern.

    What I care about is Godly young men and women who wish to marry. These Godly young men and women are “the foolish things of the world” God chose “to put to shame the wise”, “the weak things of the world” God chose “to put to shame the things which are mighty”, “and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen” – the NON-ELITES. I want them to learn how to identify each other and marry each other. Why? Mostly because I’m raising eight (hopefully Godly) young men and women.

    Advising people who have no interest in Godliness is so far beyond the scope of my abilities, that I’d rather not address the subject and leave that to people who are far better at it than I am.

    Apparently, you’re one of those people, because you hand out some great advice. But I’m not, so I’d rather stay out of it.

  351. feeriker says:

    Oscar syas at May 27, 2014 at 3:11PM

    Folks, I think Oscar has just shown us that having an intelligent,rational conversation with him is a futile exercise.

  352. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Apparently, you’re one of those people, because you hand out some great advice. But I’m not, so I’d rather stay out of it.

    No need to get pissy about it.

    I fully take your word for it that God has blessed you in your career and marriage (as He has blessed me too). If you have something to teach other men, I urge you to do so here or on your own blog. What I was challenging was your unrealistic statement that if you could find an extraordinary woman, any man should be able to. The math simply doesn’t work, as there are only so many extraordinary women to go around. Offering good advice however is different than looking for reasons to blame men who were frivorced by their wives. This kind of self righteousness is exactly why Christians put up with our child support and divorce revolution. If he didn’t make her happy, he must not have been a good enough man.

  353. greyghost says:

    This is what I was talking about. “the essence of who he is” That is a good man an outstanding man standing on a blue pill foundation. I think it is awesome.

  354. Oscar says:

    @JDG

    “I believe that is one of the purposes of this blog.”

    That’s why I’m here!

    “Much of what Dalrock discloses exposes the mass deception being perpetrated in many ‘churches’ today. These ‘churches’ are misleading men and women about marriage and marriage roles to the extent that it is the norm and not the exception.

    Please understand that when I say feminist I’m not just talking about ‘left wing’ baby killers.


    Amen!

    And please allow me to include:

    Matthew 10:16
    “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.””

    Dude, I’m right there with you! As I stated above, Christ warned us that…

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

    and that…

    24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

    Christ told us 2,000 years ago that “many” (most?) professing Christians were, are, and will be (until judgement) counterfeit! I get it, man! That’s why I keep saying that Godly young men and women need to learn to discernment and how to identify each other – by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20) – from among the counterfeits.

    But who will teach them? The Church has to. But the Church has failed, right? Right! Well, aren’t we part of the Church? Can’t we do – at least in our individual spheres of influence – what the Church as a whole is failing to do? Is there some reason why we shouldn’t?

    Telling Godly young men who want to marry that “marriage is for suckers” and that there are no Godly young women out there (they’re all churchian feminists, right?) only compounds the failure.

  355. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “No need to get pissy about it.”

    Pissy? Complementing you is pissy? I sincerely believe you do hand out great advice, otherwise I wouldn’t be here.

  356. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “If he didn’t make her happy, he must not have been a good enough man.”

    Can you point to one sentence in which I mentioned anyone’s happiness?

  357. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    You’re right that these ungodly elites have – mostly – lasting marriages. Why? I don’t know. But they’re not my concern.

    Why not? Do you not care about the suffering of children with ungodly parents?

  358. JDG says:

    I think Oscar was complementing Dalrock, not attacking him. I think he is just saying that he isn’t qualified or interesting in counseling the ungodly in marriage.

  359. JDG says:

    Oh never mind. A day late and a dollar short and all that.

  360. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “Why not? Do you not care about the suffering of children with ungodly parents?”

    I do. But I have my hands full with my eight kids and the few young men I know at church. Again, I’ll leave that work to people who have the talent for it, like you.

    And once again i reiterate: my statement about your advice was sincere, NOT “pissy”.

  361. Oscar says:

    @JDG

    “I think Oscar was complementing Dalrock, not attacking him. I think he is just saying that he isn’t qualified or interesting in counseling the ungodly in marriage.”

    Unqualified is correct.

  362. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    “If he didn’t make her happy, he must not have been a good enough man.”

    Can you point to one sentence in which I mentioned anyone’s happiness?

    No, I didn’t mean to imply that you made that statement. What I’m talking about is the general reaction to rampant divorce. The general reaction is to find reasons the man had it coming. This attitude is absolutely rampant, especially in Christian culture. What I did see you do upthread was declare that whenever you see a divorce, there were obvious red flags the man should have seen. It isn’t the same in specific, but the two are similar. Again, I’m all for looking for what we can teach other men. But what you offered was of a different kind. It was in my opinion smug.

  363. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    And once again i reiterate: my statement about your advice was sincere, NOT “pissy”.

    My apologies. I misunderstood.

  364. greyghost says:

    “Telling Godly young men who want to marry that “marriage is for suckers” and that there are no Godly young women out there (they’re all churchian feminists, right?) only compounds the failure.”

    Leave the gender warfare to us unrighteous sinners. We’ll make sure your godly women feel the dread needed to seek her godly husband for safety and comfort instead of the family court judge.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/the-great-douchebag-mystery/

  365. JDG says:

    Telling Godly young men who want to marry that “marriage is for suckers” and that there are no Godly young women out there (they’re all churchian feminists, right?) only compounds the failure.

    I disagree because the “marriage is for suckers” narrative at this site is put into a context to explains that “marriage as is currently employed and understood in this society is for suckers”.

    It serves as a source of information for those trying to navigate the current system and as a warning for men who are clueless about what they could potentially get themselves into.

  366. JDG says:

    Blast it! It should read: I disagree because the “marriage is for suckers” narrative at this site is put into a context to explain that…

  367. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “No, I didn’t mean to imply that you made that statement.”

    Thank you.

    “What I did see you do upthread was declare that whenever you see a divorce, there were obvious red flags the man should have seen.”

    I never stated that they were obvious. In fact, I agreed with Lyn that they’re far easier to see in retrospect. I also stated that there may be cases in which there were no red flags, but they’re rare enough that I haven’t seen one. Shouldn’t we learn from others’ mistakes?

  368. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Telling Godly young men who want to marry that “marriage is for suckers” and that there are no Godly young women out there (they’re all churchian feminists, right?) only compounds the failure.

    We are in full agreement here, and this has been something I’ve advocated since I started blogging four years ago. But we must be careful not to reply to the hyperbole on one side by doing the same thing the other direction. Very few women today, including those in the church, are interested in Christian marriage and have lived in a way to prepare themselves for it. Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage if they are using what I think you and I would argue are appropriate filters. This doesn’t mean it can’t be done. There are women worthy of marriage out there, and someone is going to find them. Hopefully we can give the men we come in contact with the best chance possible to be one of the ones who finds a worthy wife and starts a family.

  369. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “My apologies. I misunderstood.”

    No sweat. It happens. Even to you “elite” types (ha!).

  370. jf12 says:

    Ah, the magical land of unicorns and rainbows, where the soil is composed of infinite rubies. Just pick one of the rubies, guys! They’re all around you! You can’t hardly walk for stubbing your toes on all these giant rubies lying carelessly about!

  371. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “But we must be careful not to reply to the hyperbole on one side by doing the same thing the other direction.”

    Not my intention, so I apologize for giving that impression. But you know, we elite types have very forceful personalities, so…

    “Very few women today, including those in the church, are interested in Christian marriage and have lived in a way to prepare themselves for it.”

    Totally agree, thus my twin pursuits – training my daughters to be Godly women and training my sons to be Godly men (understanding that they have free will, of course).

    “Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage if they are using what I think you and I would argue are appropriate filters.”

    Here I disagree, but I know I can’t prove my position and I acknowledge that you may be right. So, let’s assume you are. How do I advise one of my sons if he happens to be one of those men?

    “This doesn’t mean it can’t be done. There are women worthy of marriage out there, and someone is going to find them. Hopefully we can give the men we come in contact with the best chance possible to be one of the ones who finds a worthy wife and starts a family.”

    Amen!

  372. jf12 says:

    The Bible says the church, not husbands, bears the responsibility for instructing wives to obey their husbands. More specifically, the Bible says that the failure of the church ladies group to teach young women how to behave as good wives will cause blasphemy. Other people will see the church’s young women being such lousy wives as living proof that the word of God means nothing.

  373. JDG says:

    jf12 one must exercise extreme caution when consorting with rubies. That goes double for lying ones, triple for giant ones, and quadruple for lying giant ones.

  374. Dalrock,

    Very few women today, including those in the church, are interested in Christian marriage and have lived in a way to prepare themselves for it. Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage if they are using what I think you and I would argue are appropriate filters.

    You see right there, that is great advice from Dalrock. But that type of comment is an absolute non starter in 100% of churchian society because….. churchian sluts would never find a Godly husband if that advice were common place and followed.

    Think about how different the United States economy/government/churches/feminism/secular-society would be if 100% of Godly single men went the marital way of the most ungodly of men, Bill Maher, and went full-on MGTOW? Assume this happened over just a 5 year period, a true going Galt from the most Godly of single men? What would happen to our economy? What would happen to our laws (at the state and federal level?) What would happen to our churches? What would happen… to women in general?

    I can think of some truly HORRIBLE dystopian responses on the part of the US government to dramatically reduce the overall damage to women and feminism, there would be pain spread to all men that is for damn sure. What I can’t think of (can’t even imagine actually) is a society that takes the time to give Godly single men some carrots, can’t see any laws changing to correct marriage 2.0 to make it stronger and divorce much harder (make things more 1.0). I just can’t see us going backwards so long as the 19th Amendment is law. Female feral behavior WILL be empowered to the death of us all…. just will have to happen.

  375. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Here I disagree, but I know I can’t prove my position and I acknowledge that you may be right. So, let’s assume you are. How do I advise one of my sons if he happens to be one of those men?

    My first advice would of course be how to try to not be in that category. Understanding what makes a man attractive to women will give him a big lead over other men, because our general culture is taken with foolishness in this regard. Also, because marriage is degrading as a cultural institution there are fewer men following the traditional provider strategy (I shared some stats on this here). I would advise a young man who wants to marry to stay on that path even while many of his peers drop out. If this isn’t enough, he might expand his net and look in other countries with more traditional cultures. This carries its own risk, so he would need to be very careful and fully research the issue. But if he still can’t find a worthy wife, his only moral choice is to forgo marriage and make the best of a life of celibacy. Fortunately not having children seems to be not as sharply painful for men as it is for women, but I think we would both agree that this is a blessing we would want him to have.

  376. Oscar,

    “Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage if they are using what I think you and I would argue are appropriate filters.”

    Here I disagree, but I know I can’t prove my position and I acknowledge that you may be right. So, let’s assume you are. How do I advise one of my sons if he happens to be one of those men?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201-16

    Corinthians 7: verses 26-35

    The Bible is perfect.

  377. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    You see right there, that is great advice from Dalrock. But that type of comment is an absolute non starter in 100% of churchian society because….. churchian sluts would never find a Godly husband if that advice were common place and followed.

    I’ve said before that I don’t see such a movement as likely. However, a similar result is already happening. The culture for young men is reacting to delayed marriage, and fewer men are preparing to be providers when the churchian sluts tire of the carousel. It isn’t (in my opinion) that young men have suddenly gotten wise to the risks of marrying a promiscuous woman, but that they don’t feel the incentive to prepare for something which seemed so far off and unattainable.

  378. Bradford says:

    Must say the discussion on this thread over the last twelve hours or so has been excellent. Hang in there Oscar. You are scoring some points with the peanut gallery. Yes, thoughtful discussion on all sides of the issue. My thanks.

    [D: Agreed.]

  379. jf12 says:

    What does the I-got-mine crowd have to say in response to Titus 2:4-5? That husbands should be old women?

  380. Dalrock,

    The culture for young men is reacting to delayed marriage, and fewer men are preparing to be providers when the churchian sluts tire of the carousel.

    I think that is more a product of a number of unrelated things that (when combined together) creates a society far more comforting for the non-producing male. Such as the following:

    #1) households are smaller: When you have eight kids there is enormous pressure on the sons to get on with their lives, find promising careers, and move-out of the house (sooner rather than later) because there isn’t as much room in the house. No spare money either. You have to work. If there are only one or two children, the pressure to grow up is not as great as there will always be plenty of room in the house. Might even be money (allowance) available for an entire life.

    #2) the world is flat: Globalization has flattened the world economically and for the sons with an IQ less than 90, there just aren’t many (maybe ANY???) opportunities for them to be an actual provider. At one time (say the 1950s), an ignorant man could support a family of 6 working in that steel mill (with all the overtime.) Today, that mill is gone to China as are all the well formed jobs requiring no thinking.

    #3) bliss of technology: Be it video games or on-line-porn, young men are finding it incredibly easy to fill all their waking hours staring at screens and either killing animated digitzed zombies or “rubbing one out” such that it is now an actual lifestyle. One need not date, they simply masturbate.

    #4) absence of shame: There truly is NO SHAME for young men to opt-out mostly because there are fewer and fewer opportunities for those with less personal blessings. We don’t shame people anymore (not like we used to) so this has carried over to young men living a prolonged childlike life of extreme immaturity.

    I think these 4 secular things (when combined together) create the unique experience that is a permanent lifestyle for men of little to no real earnings.

  381. JDG says:

    Boxer says:
    May 27, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I hate to see men so deluded. One guy made a snark comment that marriage laws have changed (since the time of our grandparents) so that husbands can’t hit their wives. In reality there have been laws on the books to protect wives since before the American Revolution.

  382. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    What does the I-got-mine crowd have to say in response to Titus 2:4-5? That husbands should be old women?

    That holism isn’t your strong suit.

  383. Boxer says:

    I hate to see men so deluded. One guy made a snark comment that marriage laws have changed (since the time of our grandparents) so that husbands can’t hit their wives. In reality there have been laws on the books to protect wives since before the American Revolution.

    At the moment, I’m just ignoring the obvious nutters in favor of trolling out some good discussions with the young bros there.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7824472/

    This should amuse you…

  384. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    The number one reason I have for the “all women are bitches” thing is to red pill as many men as possible to game and the nature of women and the laws of misandry. There will be a correction either an understood one by men aware of the truth or by men on the blue pill. The later is where riots and violence and low economic growth come from.. The “marriage strike” is men not caring to be marriageable. MGTOW is good because it is non violent and the men involved are aware. Civilization stays roughly intact. Delusional blue pill corrections are horrible with the elites directing the violence from their lofty perch.

  385. deti says:

    “Very few women today, including those in the church, are interested in Christian marriage and have lived in a way to prepare themselves for it”

    That’s the biggest problem. In my view it’s an even bigger problem than men not preparing for marriage. I think that if more women were getting ready specifically for early marriage, the issue of men not preparing would quickly true up to correspond to the women preparing.

    The bigger problem, though, is that most people don’t even see young women’s lack of interest in marriage and lack of preparation for marriage as problems that need to be remedied. They aren’t issues at all, as far as most women are concerned. The women don’t see it as a problem. Their parents aren’t troubled by it. And, it’s no surprise that the men they have sex with aren’t bothered by these women’s lack of marriage interest or preparation.

  386. Scott says:

    “What does the I-got-mine crowd have to say in response to Titus 2:4-5? That husbands should be old women?”

    Help me to understand this–and I am not being sarcastic because I think I get where it is coming from.

    I might be one of those who you call the “I-got-mine” crowd. Yes it is true, I have a more or less submissive wife, and our story is pretty out in the open. I had to drag her kicking and screaming to it, at great personal risk to myself. I got lucky and with the help of a lot of prayer (and SSM) I “got mine.”

    However, she (my wife) has started doing basically a female version of Joseph of Jackson by going to the mommy groups and hammering them hard. They still let her come, but she is unapologetic and makes the women uncomfortable. She uses her FB page as a ministry in this sense too. I have never told to do any of that, she was just convicted to do so.

  387. deti,

    The bigger problem, though, is that most people don’t even see young women’s lack of interest in marriage and lack of preparation for marriage as problems that need to be remedied. They aren’t issues at all, as far as most women are concerned. The women don’t see it as a problem.

    That is because society as a whole (be it secular or churchianity) does not see that women (in and of themselves) are the problem here. The blame lies almost exclusively with the male gender and what we expect of women (to be our wives.) Men have to change (something?) to fix the marriage problem, not women.

    Churchianity takes single women (today) for what they are and largely expects single men to do the same. If men don’t, they are instructed to man up. But they can’t be compelled (yet) to man up. I suppose it is only a matter of time before something like that has to happen if there is a gradual and sustained growth of MGTOW.

  388. JDG says:

    Boxer says:
    May 27, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Frustrating would be more accurate. Is this the mentality of the average male today? I sure hope not. My impression is that they hate all things masculine. They are regurgitating the same old feminist mantra that is repeated everywhere. What would these guys think of George Washington during the American Revolution? I mean, bullying, ostracism, and rape? Seriously? From that excerpt? Maybe they are really women posing as men.

  389. JDG says:

    I once new a girl who told me: “I got mine in 99″ when describing how she met her former husband and at the time thought he was the latest and greatest. This was just before telling me how she divorced him in the early 2000s and caused a church split over it. She said he was too controlling and wouldn’t let her go out with her girl friends or have her own career. If I may borrow a term from Anon72, “The poor deary”.

  390. greyghost says:

    Deti
    The main reason for the PUA,MGTOW is to prepare women for marriage. The pay off for not marrying is being removed. Dread and security. Music to my (ears) was the comment that guys will have college girl friends but have absolutely no intentions of marrying them with student loan debt. That will do more for Christian marriage than any churchian reading of righteousness from scripture.

  391. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “My first advice would of course be how to try to not be in that category… But if he still can’t find a worthy wife, his only moral choice is to forgo marriage and make the best of a life of celibacy.”

    See what I mean? Excellent advice. As I’ve stated before, I struggle more with advice to my daughters, because I’ve never been a young woman looking for a husband (duh!). But I did read the links you provided when I asked earlier, and bookmarked all of them.

    Keep up the good work, brother. You and Cane keep giving me (and many other men) all kinds of good info to ruminate over.

  392. Ray Manta says:

    innocentbystanderboston wrote (concerning the education bubble):

    Well this is already starting to happen in an indirect way. I’ll explain. I have already gone on the record here that at my last company, there were 3 young men (mid to late twenties) who worked in IT with me who admitted to me that yes they had girlfriends but they had absolutely no intention of marrying any of them because they all had too much student loan debt.

    Eric Raymond has gone into some detail about the fallout caused by the prevalence of female-majority colleges and universities: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934 , which is one of the effects of the education bubble. Specifically, a vast exaggeration of the dangers of on-campus rape. The hostile environment generated by this obsession will of course only serve to drive more young men away from traditional higher education.

  393. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Surprise, surprise… the moderator just locked down my Jack Donovan thread. Maybe if they let me I’ll start a Dalrock thread tomorrow. Should be fun.

    Frustrating would be more accurate. Is this the mentality of the average male today? I sure hope not. My impression is that they hate all things masculine. They are regurgitating the same old feminist mantra that is repeated everywhere. What would these guys think of George Washington during the American Revolution? I mean, bullying, ostracism, and rape? Seriously? From that excerpt? Maybe they are really women posing as men.

    I actually try not to insult these mangina types too much. Many of the most righteous men I talk to on sites like these started out that way. Their behavior is certainly contemptuous, but bashing them gratuitously doesn’t do anything but make them double down.

    At heart, men like these are incredibly insecure. I imagine a lot of them were raised by single moms and have a lot of resentment toward the primal father (I’m channeling both Sigmund Freud and Jack Donovan here). Anyway, I can’t be upset at them. I mostly feel sorry for them.

  394. JDG says:

    Anyway, I can’t be upset at them. I mostly feel sorry for them.

    Yes, you are right of course. I should be praying for these guys instead of shooting them down. It’s a soft spot for me I guess.

  395. greyghost says:

    I thought it was interesting Boxer. Those guys have made themselves into the men they think are acceptable. There were lurkers there that saw something to research.

  396. The bigger problem, though, is that most people don’t even see young women’s lack of interest in marriage and lack of preparation for marriage as problems that need to be remedied. They aren’t issues at all, as far as most women are concerned. The women don’t see it as a problem. Their parents aren’t troubled by it.

    In fact, virtually everyone sees this as a positive development. Anything that keeps girls from marrying “too soon” is welcomed. A 20-year-old girl who’s interested in marriage must be talked into putting that aside for a few years to pursue a career, to protect herself from the potential perfidy of her future husband, and to gain the experience that will make her a more fascinating catch.

  397. JoeS says:

    Cail, that’s because it’s a collusion of ex and current sluts (who will be non virgins at marriage) to keep virgins off the marriage market.

    If a man pursues a young virgin he’s a pervert for not wanting to have used goods. Not to beat a dead horse, but these middle aged “trad” frauds are displacing their guilt into delusions about their daughters and vicious antagonism towards honorable suitors.

  398. Luke says:

    Oscar says:
    May 27, 2014 at 11:50 am
    @Dalrock

    “The reality is there is a fixed and small supply of such wives.”

    “I’ve reiterated that point multiple times. But there’s another reality you seem to be ignoring. There is a fixed and small supply of Godly men, just as there is a fixed and small supply of Godly women.”

    [supply of Godly men] /= [supply of such (Godly) wives]

    [supply of Godly men] >> [supply of such (Godly) wives]

    [supply of Godly men] –> [supply of such (Godly) wives]

    Translations for those without good memory of math nomenclature:

    1) There is not an equal amount of A compared to B.
    2) There is much more of A than of B.
    3) The amount of A is changing to approach much more closely the amount there is of B.

    Just as feminism killed chivalry, frivorce is well along with killing the family man. Women typically don’t do as well in the nasty times of history as do men (those relatively clean wars in the past couple centuries in the West being atypical, undependable-for-repetition exceptions). Women aren’t going to “enjoy the decline”.

  399. greyghost says:

    The only thing hated more than a family man in a child molester. And that is in all areas of the west including the church.

  400. jf12 says:

    @Scott, “I had to drag her kicking and screaming to it, at great personal risk to myself.” which precludes you being one of the I-got-mine. Your ruby decided to ruby-up herself, because she got the message of Actual Consequences of her continuing to fail to be a ruby. This is what needs to happen to about 60 million other women currently married in the U.S.

  401. feeriker says:

    Anything that keeps girls from marrying “too soon” is welcomed. A 20-year-old girl who’s interested in marriage must be talked into putting that aside for a few years to pursue a career, to protect herself from the potential perfidy of her future husband, and to gain the experience that will make her a more fascinating catch.

    Typical rationalizations (paraphrased), in order of frequency cited, against girls marrying while young. These are popular in both the churchian and secular societies.

    1. “You’re too young, sweetie. Eighteen [or nineteen, or any age through about 25] is just too immature to take on the responsibility of marriage. You haven’t experienced life yet and if you marry him now, you’re going to regret it by the time you’re 30.”

    2. “He’s too immature, sweetie. He hasn’t sown his wild oats yet and if you let him marry you now, he’s going to regret it by the time he’s 40.”

    3. “He doesn’t make enough money to support you in the lifestyle to which you’re accustomed/in which I’ve/we’ve raised you.”

    4. “He’s too young for you.”

    5. “He’s too old for you.”

    6. “He’s a player/cad. He’s not interested in marrying you. You’re just a booty call to him.”

    7. “He’s such a dweeb/schlub. You’re just a status symbol and a potential booty call to him.”

    8. “Your father and I couldn’t make it last, so what on earth makes you think you can?”

    Interestingly enough, “you’re too young to have children” isn’t a very commonly used rationalization anymore. This is evidenced by the fact that there’s less stigma attached to a young girl having a child out of wedlock than there is to her marrying the baby’s father.

  402. feeriker says:

    The only thing hated more than a family man i[s] a child molester.

    Judging from the attitude and actions of the typical family court, the State considers them to be one and the same.

  403. MarcusD says:

    potential perfidy of her future husband

    Which is to say, “Schrodinger’s Cad.”

  404. BradA says:

    Hopefully this doesn’t rehash what has passed, but I would ask Oscar exactly what steps he claims a “godly man” should do to get the “godly wife” he speaks of. What are the certain signs she has before marriage?

    I met and married my wife in a reasonably radical church and both of us had a strong commitment to the Lord. She was still almost talked into leaving by our youngest errant daughter as my daughter’s parting gift. (We had gone through a bunch of crud at that time, with 4 children all turning their backs on us to return to their birth family, something that complicated the scene. I was also not the top of my game (pun intended) at the time, which I believe played a role.)

    I can see a few warning signs I could have noted ahead of time, but what about the individual in the same situation that had a potential wife who was “clean” prior to that? How would he know she could be led astray?

    That is the flaw I see in your argument that you seem to not account for. Nothing can tell what someone will do 20 years from now, including in a potential wife. The fact that society reinforces the “bail” result makes it even harder.

  405. jf12 says:

    Oh c’mon you guys, you know it already, so you can say it with me. Every syllable, now: Even Perfect leadership does not induce followership. C’mon, say it. I know you want to.

  406. BradA says:

    Dalrock, it was mentioned much earlier in the comments, but adding a firm note that divorce early in the marriage is only part of the picture. It could still come later, perhaps even enough to even up the curve.

    I do wonder if some reduction might not be due to the possibility that those most likely to divorce never got married in the first place. The study results would have little meaning if that was the case.

  407. You truly can’t see your own elitism. Ordinary men don’t get extraordinary wives, and neither do they command a company of other men.

    Its rare however that elitism is not combined with AMOGing. Oscar manages to pull that off. This is a backhanded compliment Oscar. That you mention your service, your command, etc.and do it without AMOGing is a virtue. The elitism charge could be sensitivity to having seen so much suffers wishful AMOGing coupled with elitism, or even equated to elitism.

    I contend that the more a man AMOGs about his control of his home the more likely he suffers wishful thinkin. You are not doing that.

    But you are carrying yourself high, and then stating how we all ought to be able to …..see the flags, teach the children, lead the men, etc.

    Sorry to pile in late.Been at Turner field watching the Red Sox spank the Braves. 9 innings for a non baseball fan, I need to watch the arts and crafts channel now for some excitement.

  408. desiderian says:

    “I actually try not to insult these mangina types too much. Many of the most righteous men I talk to on sites like these started out that way. Their behavior is certainly contemptuous, but bashing them gratuitously doesn’t do anything but make them double down.”

    It’s not gratuitous. It’s how men have traditionally been raised. It’s like breaking colts.

    Watch the movie Hoosiers for a good example.

  409. Boxer

    That you are still carpet bombing CF …. hat tip sir.

    Wont last, they have advanced to a DNA level ban, that’s worse than IP ban. A few years back I tried to log in with a sock from another laptop while I was in India and was blocked. These folks are serious, fingers in ears lalalalala doesnt touch the level of denial.

  410. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Question for Dalrock. I am not able to sit all day and answer, so at times there is a distance between a posting and an answer.

    Can you give us an idea what it looks like for a man to lead a wife who is incapable of following? That is a vague and ambiguous statement, maybe even fanciful. And, why doesn’t the true inspired word of God explain something so very important and common? It addresses every other important issue in great detail. What is one to do to lead a person who is not capable of being lead (such as referred to in the contentious verses, with no solution supplied anywhere.)

    And, why would God mandate doing something He knows can’t be done? That would hint God ain’t too smart, wouldn’t it? I think it is written somewhere that you are not tempted beyond your ability to resist temptation. Why would you be ordered to do something beyond your ability to do, and not even give you any clues how to do it?

    As I have said, unlike you, I have a wife who is 10 on the Richter scale of contentiousness. I have been looking for solutions for most of 38 years now. The church(es) I have attended are absolutely no help at all. Man fault. The Bible is no help at all (which is why I conclude there is no solution.). The men on this blog comment section also have so far been no help at all. Man fault.

    I do understand and perform to the best of my ability the one mandate actually mentioned in the Bible, for men to love their wives. I understand that one very well, and I think it was written for men with non-submissive wives.. I see to it the kids have always gotten what they needed, and when necessary they are protected from her anger. I take her to church, though I have never understood what a woman who refuses to live by the Bible gets from going to church. (Note I am saying she not only rebels against me, but also against Bible teachings, though I wonder if in her rebellion somehow she doesn’t understand what she reads.. Which is how we know it is not man-fault, any more than it is God fault that she reads the Bible every day but does not follow it.)

    And, I have known lots of men in the same boat. To just keep repeating you are supposed to lead anyway even a woman who cannot ever follow, is no help at all.

    I guess it’s obvious I don’t think it’s possible. But, if you think you understand the problem, and have a solution that connects with reality, instead of just more man-fault, you deserve to be listened to.

  411. feeriker says:

    …I have never understood what a woman who refuses to live by the Bible gets from going to church.

    1. Social contacts

    2. The approval and encouragement of the churchian hen chorus and their “male” enablers in continuing her rebellion against her husband’s headship.

  412. Dalrock says:

    @Anon 72

    Can you give us an idea what it looks like for a man to lead a wife who is incapable of following?

    I would say it looks a lot like this:

    I have been looking for solutions for most of 38 years now. The church(es) I have attended are absolutely no help at all. Man fault. The Bible is no help at all (which is why I conclude there is no solution.). The men on this blog comment section also have so far been no help at all. Man fault.

    I do understand and perform to the best of my ability the one mandate actually mentioned in the Bible, for men to love their wives. I understand that one very well, and I think it was written for men with non-submissive wives.. I see to it the kids have always gotten what they needed, and when necessary they are protected from her anger. I take her to church, though I have never understood what a woman who refuses to live by the Bible gets from going to church. (Note I am saying she not only rebels against me, but also against Bible teachings, though I wonder if in her rebellion somehow she doesn’t understand what she reads.. Which is how we know it is not man-fault, any more than it is God fault that she reads the Bible every day but does not follow it.)

    You haven’t given up. You continue to lead with Christian love, to wash her in the water of the word. But you can’t make her follow.

  413. TFH says:

    Anon Age 72,

    I have never understood what a woman who refuses to live by the Bible gets from going to church.

    Well, younger women get to participate in Sunday Morning Nightclub.

    The party experience for a young slut does not have to end when the nightclub closes at 2 AM on Sunday morning. After a few hours of sex with a PUA from the club, she can proceed to the Church (maybe after drinking a redbull or two and donning some perfume) to find new guys for more hot sex.

    The women get to slut it up non-stop from Sat Night until Sunday at noontime.
    The PUA gets to practice daygame in a church setting.
    The beta males are shielded from the predations of these sluts.

    Everybody wins!

  414. imnobody00 says:

    All these comments about marriage and nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room. Marriage has not existed in the West for decades. When the Bible speaks about marriage, it speaks about a very different thing that this state-sanctioned cohabitation that moderns call “marriage”.

    When getting married, even the most Christian man cannot be sure that he is going to be with his wife and children till death do them part, the way it has been for thousands of years for all men before the sexual revolution. Even if his wife is the most devoted Christian woman. Women change as Verdi said (“La donna é mobile”) and the impossibility of divorce was a safe way to protect the family against that. Now the Pandora’s box is open.

    Of course, the usual suspects will say that if the woman ended up divorced, it was not a good Christian woman when she married. A kind of retrospective “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

    Trying to impose the obligations of marriage as included in the Bible to this new beast of Marriage 2.0 is disingenuous and completely wrong.

  415. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    I contend that the more a man AMOGs about his control of his home the more likely he suffers wishful thinkin.

    (Not that you necessarily include me, but I have been accused of this several times.)

    My experience is that when I speak theoretically I get accused of having nothing real to offer; no solid advice. A few months back I spent several days defending myself against this charge of “nothing real to offer”. When I speak of my positive encounters (real offerings), then I’m accused of the crime of impersonating an AMOG, or (more frequently) the lesser charge of opining while Alpha in the midst of a Beta mindmeld that I couldn’t possibly understand. When I speak of my negative outcomes, then despair and cynicism consume the comments; which is not helpful to anyone.

    What then is permissible to advise?

    I just have to ignore it. Otherwise such admonitions become a trap where no one can talk except the misanthropes.

  416. MarcusD says:

  417. BradA says:

    Anon72,

    > “why would God mandate doing something He knows can’t be done?”

    [Mat 5:48 KJV] 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    That seems pretty impossible in the natural as well.

    I would add to what Dalrock said to ask what you do when your wife turns her own way? Do you run off? Verbally correct her? Something else? Note that this does not always have to be a “burn the barn down rebellion,” just not paying attention to what you are saying can be an issue that can sometimes be resolved with a joking comment.

    Sometimes leaving can be a good thing too though, for a season:

    [Pro 21:19 KJV] 19 [It is] better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    While the point here is how bad it is to live with an angry and contentious woman, I see the principle that leaving here to herself when she is disagreeable can bring her around, if you are someone she is attached to of course.

    You seem to be desiring that a man be able to manipulate a rebellious wife into compliance, but that is not the point of a man being a leader. A leader leads, whether anyone follows or not. A man who never leads has nothing to follow even if the woman does come around.

  418. Don Quixote says:

    imnobodyoo says:

    … “When the Bible speaks about marriage, it speaks about a very different thing that this state-sanctioned cohabitation that moderns call “marriage”.

    What the Bible calls marriage is always relevant because it is a standard that can be used as a reference. Consider Paul’s letters in the New Testament, they were written to various churches in places in [what is today called] Greece, Turkey and Italy that were a cosmopolitan / secular society. Those early churches forged a standard that lasted for nearly 2 millennia.

    imnobodyoo says:
    “Trying to impose the obligations of marriage as included in the Bible to this new beast of Marriage 2.0 is disingenuous and completely wrong.”

    I agree that marriage today is a beast compared to what it once was, however the word of God never changes and the standard is always the same. If you are interested please consider:
    Once Married Always Married… http://oncemarried.net

  419. mustardnine says:

    feeriker says:
    May 27, 2014 at 11:10 pm
    …I have never understood what a woman who refuses to live by the Bible gets from going to church.

    1. Social contacts

    2. The approval and encouragement of the churchian hen chorus and their “male” enablers in continuing her rebellion against her husband’s headship.

    Mustard says:

    Yes. Which suggests that Christian Men Going Their Own Way With Respect To Fem Church may be a partial solution. (And it has been quietly going on, sub rosa, for a long time — generations, in fact.)

  420. embracing reality says:

    Oscar said

    “Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage.”

    Unfortunately? Surely you’re aware of the sad condition the average marriage that’s surviving to the bitter end is in? Two people in the autumn of their lives that in many cases barely speak to each other. Strangers passing in the same house on their way to separate bedrooms. Her years of sexlessness, obesity combined with her sense of entitlement and never ending demands. His exhaustion from working his guts out for a lifetime to prop her up in comfort and convenience all of which was completely unappreciated by her and totally taken for granted. I don’t know of any personally but men with good marriages probably do exist. Yes, Large numbers of godly men will forgo marriage.

    Winning!

  421. embracing reality says:

    Or..
    “Large numbers of godly men will unfortunately have to forgo marriage.”

    Unfortunately? Surely you’re aware of the sad condition the average marriage that’s surviving to the bitter end is in? Two people in the autumn of their lives that in many cases barely speak to each other. Strangers passing in the same house on their way to separate bedrooms. Her years of sexlessness, obesity combined with her sense of entitlement and never ending demands. His exhaustion from working his guts out for a lifetime to prop her up in comfort and convenience all of which was completely unappreciated by her and totally taken for granted. I don’t know of any personally but men with good marriages probably do exist. Yes, Large numbers of godly men will forgo marriage.

    Winning!

  422. OrdinisNyx says:

    @imnobody00

    “All these comments about marriage and nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room. Marriage has not existed in the West for decades. When the Bible speaks about marriage, it speaks about a very different thing that this state-sanctioned cohabitation that moderns call “marriage”.”

    This X1000. Secular law makes the woman the head of the family, whether people want to believe it or not, and that biblical marriage only exists for as long as she allows it to. As soon as she decides to pull the divorce trigger, she’ll show you exactly how Christian the marriage was.

  423. greyghost says:

    By law there is no marriage. The only way Christian house playing will work is when the “bad” men destroy the society enough that the true husband of all women the government is too corrupt and weak to enforce the feminine imperative. The solid Christian men such as Dalrock and Oscar and such are cultural leaders after the collapse. They are also the way out for those that wish to see the light, but the real cultural change is going to come from the bad men the sinners.

  424. feeriker says:

    Secular law makes the woman the head of the family, whether people want to believe it or not, and that biblical marriage only exists for as long as she allows it to. As soon as she decides to pull the divorce trigger, she’ll show you exactly how Christian the marriage was.

    Thank you. This shouldn’t need to be repeated as often as it is, especially for the above average intelligence that characterizes most of the manosphere. Unfortunately, there is a(n understandable) tendency to perceive the biblical ideal as the norm, to consider oneself above the dangers, temptations, and snares of the temporal world that have corrupted the modern church and destroyed the foundational support upon which Christian marriage must function. Given the extent of the self-delusion (“my marriage is a godly marriage, my wife is a godly, submissive wife and thus it ever shall be”), reminders such as the above quote are, sadly, something of a necessary evil.

  425. imnobody00 says:

    I agree that marriage today is a beast compared to what it once was, however the word of God never changes and the standard is always the same. If you are interested please consider:

    The word of God never changes but it has to be read with its true meaning. When the Bible speaks of marriage, it does not refer to the abomination called “marriage” in the West (a female headed cohabitation that can be broken at any time), but to the institution that has existed in Jewish, pagan and Christian societies for thousands of years.

    If, in one thousand years down the line, English language evolves and the word “pig” ends up meaning “a very dirty person” and loses its original meaning, the Old Testament mandate to Israel about “Thou shalt not eat pig” should not be read as “Don’t eat a very dirty person”.

  426. Novaseeker says:

    The bigger problem, though, is that most people don’t even see young women’s lack of interest in marriage and lack of preparation for marriage as problems that need to be remedied. They aren’t issues at all, as far as most women are concerned. The women don’t see it as a problem. Their parents aren’t troubled by it.

    Well, because as far as almost everyone (parents, church, community, world-at-large), there *is* nothing bad about this at all – it’s all good. Actually, it’s all “great”. We gush at how well young women are doing to the point where young men are denigrated for not doing as well as this fantastic, amazing cohort of ambitious, energetic, gorgeous, accomplished young women. This directly leads to the “where have all the good men gone?” and underscores the “wait it out” approach to getting married because it’s assumed that the number of men who are worthy of these virtual goddesses is very small.

    Again, everyone considers what these young women are doing to be fantastic. Not “the best we can manage under the circumstances”, but rather just objectively fantastic. It’s fantastic that there are more educated women than men, that young women are outearning men in big cities, that women are perceived as being more successful (under 30-35, at least) than men – these are all considered great achievements, foundational pillars of what makes our society great. Almost universally it’s considered this way – whether liberal, conservative, religious or secular, apart from a few outlier reactionaries like the people who tend to read blogs like this one.

    This is why any concerns about marriage are very carefully approached so as to not address this structure at all – it’s considered sacrosanct because it is considered objectively fantastic. So, whatever needs to be done, if anything, about marriage in the society must not touch this life pattern whatsoever. As a result, the focus is on the men – men must change. What women are doing is objectively fantastic and wonderful, and should not be touched. Men need to change — to get with the program, to reconcile themselves to their new secondary/“supporter” role for their hard-charging, energized, ambitious wives/GFs, or feminize themselves to compete more effectively in a work environment that rewards so-called feminine skills, to just plain man-up and she will automagically change, and so on and so on and so on. The specific prescription for what men need to do differs based on politics and religion (or lack), but the commonality is that it is the men who must change, because we think that what young women are doing is just amazing and fantastic, and really can’t be touched.

    So, yes, pressure will continue to be placed on what men are doing. All kinds of different messages, again, depending on political and religious orientations, but the messaging will continue to issue forth. It’s not simply a question of a lack of will to change the current system, but a lack of desire to do so. Again, most everyone sees this cohort of women as the most amazing, fantastic cohort of women who have ever existed in human history, and, again, as one of the great achievements of our society to have produced it. What is wanted is change on the side of the men – either into female-dominated/male-supporter type marriages, or
    “super friends” type marriages between two highly-driven, ambitious, successful people. But not change on the part of the women – the women are considered to be the best we’ve ever had, by far.

  427. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Well, thanks for trying to answer my question. And, thanks to Dalrock for actually trying to give me some credit for surviving.

    However, in your answers, it seems that you are all hypothesizing, that you actually have no idea what it’s like to be married to a truly contentious woman, such that the Bible wold take a totally nihilistic view of it. I suspect the divorced men come closest to understanding it.

  428. Anonymous age 72 says:

    WHERE ARE THE EXPERTS?

    In most cases, when a person wants to do something important, he looks for the experts first, to pick their brains, to use their accumulated knowledge. He aggressively seeks out those who have or even might have expertise in the activity of interest.

    And, then each person adds his own accumulated knowledge to the previous knowledge, and humanity conquers something new.

    Even the pink apes in Borneo (?) taught each other to wash their food.

    For example, the polar expeditions were considered great advances in their day. Ships captains reported what little they could see and still return alive. Their reports were carefully examined. Those captains who had seen the Antarctic in the distance, didn’t know much, but they were relatively speaking, experts.

    Eventually, someone got close enough to the ice to step off the ship. Those reports were also widely distributed. Those who were going later read those reports, knowing if they survived, their reports would also be widely disseminated and read.

    As they actually left the ocean and worked their way towards the pole, it was all written down and other explorers enthusiastically devoured that accumulated information.

    When expeditions all died, the reports of the support groups who last saw them were also read with great interest. And, when the bodies were later found their diaries were printed for all to read.

    Because of this, in recent years, we have had disabled people make it to the poles.

    People who climb Mt. Everest clearly devour previous trip reports. Hilary and Tenzing Norgay had the advantage of Hilary’s participation in the 1952 attempt. The successful climb was actually the 9th British expedition, with each accumulating more information. Today, teen-age Sherpa girls have made it to the top. I think I read recently that perhaps 3,000 people have been up there.

    The same thing is true in almost every area of human activity. I started on microprocessors in 1974. I went from knowing not a thing, to being for five years our company’s Top Gun on diagnosing problems in the embedded systems. No one else knew anything either, except for one design engineer. Every day, other techs would walk up and ask what I learned that day. I happened to be the expert at that time. Five years later, we had a tremendous knowledge base on microprocessors. And, those who then were the top experts, knocking me off the throne as it were, got there from utilizing what I had learned as a starting point in their own work. That is how humans advanced from the caves to planning trips to Mars.

    At other times and other areas of technology, others were the experts of the moment. Our company was very high tech, because we had an environment of sharing what we had learned. (Here in Mexico, there is not a great amount of advanced wide spread knowledge of such things, because no one will teach anyone anything without being paid.)

    I was a willing teacher, but note that also other techs aggressively sought out what they well knew I was learning each day. I didn’t have to chase them down and face every imaginable insult for sharing with them what I knew.

    Let me make several points with using pre-existing expertise.

    1. There is no such thing as an infallible expert.

    2. Not every expert knows everything.

    When you use existing expertise, you need to look at all available sources, and compare their reports. You have to look for obvious errors. In the early days of an activity, expertise is somewhat rustic, so you need to proceed with caution. Take the good and note the bad, so you can solve missing or erroneous information in your own efforts.

    Yet, major gains virtually always build on past expertise, as rustic as it may have been.

    Now, the men’s movement. In the USA, though I am not going to take time to dig out the numbers, we have had well over 50 million men affected by no-fault divorce. Millions experienced false DV or sex abuse charges. Millions have seen their life’s work stolen away. Large numbers of men were driven to despondency, because of having their kids stolen away, and committed suicide. Millions of children grew up as virtually guaranteed failures due to not having a father in their lives when they needed one. So much so that our society is in its last days.

    While it is the nature of a few men out of thousands to work hard studying things they find important, with those millions of men affected over the last two generations, there is today not one expert on men’s issues that any of you can name, for you to build on. WHERE ARE THE EXPERTS?

    [/SARCASM]

  429. Casey says:

    @ Novaseeker

    I agree that “most everyone sees this cohort of women as the most amazing, fantastic cohort of women who have ever existed in human history.”

    The truth is very much different than this perception.

    It’s easy to boaste the accomplishments of this young generation of women whom:

    1) Are given preference to college/university spaces
    2) Are given preference by hiring practices in all but the smallest companies.
    3) Are given preference to promotions by H/R polices (you know….to right the wrongs of the past by discriminating against Men)
    4) Are given preference in judgments ruled in family court.

    I’d look like a gambling genious (& rich too) if I could shoot craps all day long with dice that only rolled ‘7’s; and no one to call me on it.

    OF COURSE THIS COHORT OF WOMEN ARE FANTASTIC!!!!! The Game has been rigged permanently in their favor.

    How can anyone possibly look around at what ails society and not conclude it is fundamentally caused by the destruction of the family?

    No one can raise well-adjusted children alone, it just does not (or rarely) happen. Both sexes bring important but different skills to raising children.

    1) Cut Mom out of the equation, the kids will suffer.
    2) Cut Dad out of the equation, the kids will suffer.

    While nearly everyone acknowledges the 1st statement as fundamentally true; hardly anyone will admit to the veracity of the 2nd statement.

    There truly is nothing any of us Men can do, except to not play the game on the terms handed to us. Dialogue is pointless, and the playground of women. Women have that one all sewn up.

    All we can do is to refuse marriage, children, & cohabitation. Each of these are the handcuffs women use to enslave men.

    Talk is pointless, action is more meaningful.

    A resolution would still be decades in the making.

  430. Casey says:

    @ Anonymous Age 72

    An expert (by definition) is given a platform from which to speak, and an audience who desires to listen.

    The reason there are no experts on Men’s Rights is because:

    1) They are being refused a platform from which to speak
    2) They are denied an audience who desires to listen
    3) In the current environment, it would have to be a woman advocating for Men’s rights

    The few women who talk about Men’s rights or that women are foolish to delay marrage, are treated shabbily by the media.

    Men would be treated far, far worse by the media; which is why I cannot quote the name of a respected male expert on Men’s rights.

    No, MRA’s are outright marginalized, berated, shamed, emasculated, and dismissed.

    That is also how you know you are in the right.

    1) First they ignore you
    2) Then they make fun of you
    3) Then they vehemently attack you
    4) Then you win.

  431. greyghost,

    Music to my (ears) was the comment that guys will have college girl friends but have absolutely no intentions of marrying them with student loan debt. That will do more for Christian marriage than any churchian reading of righteousness from scripture.

    I mentioned these guys to my father-in-law. He just frowned and said that they were weird. I asked him what he thought was so weird about not wanting to marry a woman with all that debt and he just looked at me, and I looked him right back in the eye. You could hear a pin drop, and he sauntered off saying he didn’t want to get into it.

    I think what might have happened at the moment is my father-in-law had a reality slap across the face about women and marriage. It took my scenario (and him thinking a bit more deeply about it) for him to realize that maybe his initial reaction might have been the wrong one (or worse, he thinks his first reaction is in fact the right reaction but an entirely indefensible one.) Either way, the red pill tasted real bitter in his mouth.

    Casey,

    I’d look like a gambling genius (& rich too) if I could shoot craps all day long with dice that only rolled ’7′s; and no one to call me on it.

    You’d be a whole lot richer (depending on how much odds the casino lets you put behind the line) with dice that only rolled ’10’s.

  432. Raul says:

    Anon 72, I’ve read the comments and you’re right. I do have one question; why do you keep living with a woman like that? I’d be gone in a heartbeat if my wife was like that. Life is way too short to live with a bitch.

  433. mustardnine says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    May 28, 2014 at 10:41 am

    asks, WHERE ARE THE EXPERTS? ( here )

    I think that his excellent comment contains a SUBTEXT.

    He notes that, (in the personal case of microprocessors that he uses), an expert is . . .
    1.a fellow (I choose that word intentionally) interested in studying and developing a specific subject,
    2. spends time studying and experimenting/experience its various aspects
    3. welcomes (indeed relies upon) the contributions of any preceding fellow- (there is that word again) explorers as companions in the common quest, and thereby greatly extends his own understanding and abilities (aka “expertise”)
    4. is willing to share this information (usually, without pay) with anyone else who expresses a similar interest in the common subject.

    Here comes the subtext.
    “We” (here in the sphere) have the experiences of about 50 million fellow-men on the subject of, say, no-fault divorce, its causes, processes, effects, and secondary consequences, if we are willing to welcome them.
    If “we” are really interested . . .

    THERE are the experts, if there are any.

    A72, did I get it about right? Correct me if I am wrong. I read that into your final word, “/SARCASM”

  434. feeriker says:

    However, in your answers, it seems that you are all hypothesizing, that you actually have no idea what it’s like to be married to a truly contentious woman, such that the Bible wold take a totally nihilistic view of it.

    No, my friend, I am walking in a pair of shoes identical to yours. If a committee were to be formed to search for the most ideally contentious and rebellious woman on earth for purposes of writing a “Contentious Wife’s Bible,” my wife would be amongst the top five candidates for the position.

    Let me echo Dalrock’s response to you upthread in stating that by loving your wife with all the heart and soul that God gave you and doing your best to lead her whenever possible, you’re doing all that any mere mortal man can ever do. As you yourself (and others) have already pointed out, the fact that 1) Eve gave God Himself the middle finger and 2) the Bible itself speaks on at least three separate occassions about the futility of successfully leading a contentious woman means that there is no, never has been, and NEVER CAN BE an “expert” on the subject.

  435. Novaseeker says:

    OF COURSE THIS COHORT OF WOMEN ARE FANTASTIC!!!!! The Game has been rigged permanently in their favor.
    How can anyone possibly look around at what ails society and not conclude it is fundamentally caused by the destruction of the family?

    I agree – it is rigged. But people are happy with the results of the rigging, generally speaking, even to the point of being proud of it as a great landmark cultural achievement. Anything that touches that is out of bounds. I’ve worked in corporate America for more than twenty years, and it’s obviously bullshit. There is constant rigging going on and everyone knows it. There are two kinds of reactions to it: true believerism in the diversity kool-aid, on the one hand, and people who are critical but silent. In the last twenty years I’ve observed a dramatic switch in favor of the true believers as compared to what it was 20 years ago. It’s consolidating, if nothing else.

    I do think that many people of all stripes do realize that the state of the family is the core of many of the social problems today but, again, any proposals as to how to address this will fall squarely on the guys – because the girls are perceived to be the most fantastic cohort of girls ever made. The thinking is this: these young women are the finest that has ever been made, so if there are problems with family formation and survival, it must be the fault of the guys – because it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the women – they’re fantastic! The guys are therefore the problem, per most people. They just can’t keep up with these marvelous young women. They’ve failed to adjust to their new, relegated role and accept and even revel in it. Or they spend too much time playing video games and being man-boys. Or they just aren’t focused enough in school. Or ambitious enough. Or in shape enough. Or anything enough – I mean how can they measure up with these literal walking goddesses on the face of the earth?

    Either that calls for a sex role reversal (like Hanna Rosin seems to want, in spite of the fact of other journalist women rather publicly dumping their “kitchen bitch” husbands to write about male gigolos and hot sex with their personal trainers and so on) based on the idea that the typical man can’t compete with the typical woman in this work world due to its emphasis on more so-called “feminine” skills (collaboration, communication, networking, teams, etc.). Or it calls for men to stop playing video games and perform up to their potential, despite the system bending over backwards to discriminate actively against them and in favor of girls and young women for diversity or other socio-politically motivated reasons. But what it does NOT call for is for the life script of these fabulous young women to be changed – no, that is a “permanent gain” which can’t be changed. So if the family needs to be fixed, men are the ones who need to be changed and molded into making the family work in the context of this female life script – and if that doesn’t happen, then we’ll figure out other ways of making something we will agree to socially define as “family” work  either polygamy, or encouraging lesbian relationships (based on a supposedly greater degree of female sexual fluidity than is the case among men), or encouraging “hybrid” models where several baby daddies support financially and share parenting for a polyandrous mommy, or contractual arrangements where people agree to raise children together without being involved with each other or what have you. But we’ll do anything and everything else we possibly can as a society before we will ever even think of touching the female life script.

    People are just deeply invested in this. It isn’t accurate to blame it all on feminism, either, although feminism is clearly a proximate cause for much of it. Many of the people who support this kind of young female empowerment agenda are not people who consider themselves to be feminist. Parents, pastors, priests – it cuts across the board. It’s “just how it is now”.

    What no-one wants to recognize is the reality on the ground, in sexual/relational terms. It’s true that women mature faster than men do. That’s obvious from looking at any mixed sex group of high schoolers, and is even observable at the college level. There is a catching up point in the mid 20s. Note this doesn’t mean that young women are always (or even generally) behaving in particularly mature ways, but what it means is that, in a situation where (i) young women are expected/pushed to pursue careers and (ii) there isn’t much perceived benefit sexually/socially for young men to strive to do so, because there isn’t any gratification at the end of the striving necessarily in terms of securing an attractive mate, young women will advance in the early 20s faster than young men will due to the difference in maturity levels.

    In the past, the maturity gap was addressed by supporting relationships with a 5-10 year age gap, while not really pushing women to advance professionally (there were still women who did so, with some difficulty socially because there weren’t that many who did, but it wasn’t pushed). This created “better matches” without having the girls wait for the peer-age boys to catch up to them in terms of maturing, and it also provided an incentive for the boys to work to improve themselves so that, when they reached their mid to later 20s, they would have a good chance at attracting a nice and attractive girl in her early 20s. That is now all seen as male predation. We now fully expect relationships to be among age peers +/- 2 years or so, and really scowl deeply socially at relationships that exceed the barely tolerable +/- 5 year gap (unless, of course, it’s inverted with a woman as the older partner, in which case it’s loudly celebrated as a triumph).

    Under the new regime, this means that, in light of the maturity gap (it isn’t very new that men under 25 were not considered the best marriage prospects, to be honest), marriage is to be avoided until the mid to later 20s, when peer-age relationships become less frightening (from the marriage point of view) due to the men having caught up and being better candidates for marriage. The theory depends, of course, on such men being available in significant numbers at that time – something which is changing because of the changed incentives (less attractive for a man to work to improve himself to marry at 30 to a peer-aged woman who has a substantial track record with other men than it was for a young man to do the same with the prospect of marrying a pretty 23 year old with little to no such track record when he was around 28). It still works for the very tippity top of the educational food chain, but there aren’t that many of these people to begin with (certainly not enough to base a social order around), and it is slowly changing there as well due to the lack of equivalent numbers of highly educated men – something which will continue to trend in the decade or so ahead based on what we have been seeing in terms of collegiate matriculation and graduation rates as sorted by sex. And when sufficient numbers of men are not showing up as they were expected to, well then the recrimination begins about man-boys and so on.

    This cycle can’t really be stopped very easily for several reasons.

    One is that no-one in the picture other than a handful of reactionary radicals really wants to change the life script on the female side of the equation. This is for risk management reasons more often than it is for feminist ones. That part of the puzzle is a non-negotiable “no go”. So parents and society in general default to the female life script, knowing full well that this means a large number of years of non-marital relations with men who are not being evaluated on that basis (after all, marriage is a no-go until the late 20s anyway) – the so-called sexy bad boys or, if not exactly them, other guys who are not suitable for marriage but turn the girls on for one reason or another. This then makes the women less suitable as long term partners later on – whether or not men will marry them eventually (to date, we see no evidence of huge numbers of men who are looking for marriage around that age refusing to marry women with these histories – what we do see is evidence of increasing numbers of men failing to show up such that they would be marriage candidates, and this is probably in part motivated by this), because of the strains this history puts on the subsequent marriage.

    On the other hand, the fact that relationships are not expected to “go marital” until the late 20s reinforces a kind of hedonistic approach among the young men as well — after all, there’s no reason to take any of this seriously until you’re in the late 20s/early 30s, so why not live in Guyland until then? No, these are not all incels – some are players, most are guys who get laid or have a GF every once in a while, but the key is that there is nothing forcing them to get their act together in order to present as good marital prospects, at the cost of social reprobation and/or sexual deprivation if they do not. Nothing at all. Most of them still get laid, even if not as often as they’d like, while basically living in Guyland. These guys are being trained to live in ways that will make them less suitable marriage candidates as well by the time they reach the “appointed acceptable age of first marriage” in the late 20s/early 30s. So it should not be surprising that so many of them fail to show up as good candidates at that time. The entire system, built as it is around the priority of achieving financial independence for women, serves to promote hedonistic behavior by both sexes for a large number of years, which tends itself to reduce the quality of candidates in the marriage pool – something which is reflected in both eventual divorce rates, and the declining marriage rate itself.

    The options to stop this cycle would be either (1) reinstitute marriages between young 20s women and older 20s men as the norm and the highest priority, higher than ensuring financial independence for most women (not going to happen), (2) force men to change due to social shaming of their behavior in the hopes that they will either (a) gleefully embrace a defined-from-the-outset supporting role to these naturally superior women in a feminine-defined era (notice that it isn’t discussed how few women are actually interested in marrying under those conditions, but that’s not surprising …) or (b) man up and show up as better candidates for marriage at the socially-acceptable time (these are both already being tried … not really working out very well because of the material disincentives for men to comply), or (3) redefine family as being whatever we want it to mean, and socially embrace as a practical matter a host of family types which largely exclude the average guy from the equation because he can’t be fit into a model which prioritizes female financial independence (also already being tried, yet still in the early days).

    We are going to see more doubling down on (2) and (3) in the years and decades ahead. (1) is a non-starter that is supported by only a tiny group of people in the culture. It’s anyone’s guess as to whether men will respond in the desired way to the shaming in approach (2), but unless they don’t have access to girls for sex, even sometimes, I’m not holding my breath (and I wouldn’t hold my breath on that genie going back in the bottle, either, due to intra-sexual competition among women). Eventually I think we will end up, exasperated at average men as a society, and embracing in a more full way approach (3).

  436. Casey says:

    @ Novaseeker
    (Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap)

    Agreed, there is no political will (or any type of will) to correct the current imbalances.

    This situation will continue down the current track until, inevitability, it meets up with ‘the immovable object’.

    I don’t know what the immovable object looks like….but it will be CIRCUMSTANCE and not COOPERATION that rights this ship.

  437. donalgraeme says:

    Novaseeker, where you planning on using that comment as a post? Because if you aren’t, I would love to use it as the foundation for one. Do I have your permission to do so?

  438. greyghost says:

    Violence is going to be the chosen answer Casey. That Eliot Rogers thing on a national scale. The Arab spring comes to mind.

  439. Novaseeker says:

    Donal — you can use it of you like. I have no plans to turn it into a post at my place.

  440. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    May 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    Positive development indeed. Just had a conversation with a cousin and her 21 year old daughter, the latter of whom is involved in a long distance (as in intercontinental) realtionship and who quite blithely assured me when I asked her about her future plans assured me that this dude knows he’ll just have to wait to get married (apparently he’s good to go right now, but I suspect it’s for the immigration benefits it would confer). She is confident that she can finsh undergrad, then grad school and start having kids around age 30. Fortunately I get the impression that the parents don’t give this thing much of a chance and are glad he’s half a world away.

  441. hurting says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    May 28, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Dalrock answered as I would have, and I have been through the grinder. You simply can’t make a woman hell-bent on rebellion follow you regardless of how well you do. Submission, as is love, is a choice. Your job is to love her unceasingly, which it sounds as though you’ve done. She’ll likely never come around, I’m guessing.

    Speaking for myself, the key in such a situation is not to let your frustrations get the better of you, which I sadly was not able to do. Notwithstanding my culpability in the whole mess, neither my sons nor myself deserved the punishment meted out for my alleged crimes. Do not fall into despair.

  442. deti says:

    I have only a few things to add to Nova’s excellent essay. A complete and total knockout.

    1. Much of society is in deep, deep denial about just how slutty the average woman is. Most parents cannot bring themselves to think about their dear Sally giving Johnny a BJ on the fan bus coming home from the big game. They can’t bring themselves to consider that if their daughters get sexually active before marriage, the odds are very, very high she’ll have at least one ONS with a “mistake”.

    2. Of course, it’s getting more and more difficult to remain in denial about female sluttiness when it’s literally everywhere, including at your local evangelical Prot church. It’s literally an open secret that there are no virgins to be found there – they’ve all turned in their V-cards to their high school boyfriends or to a “mistake”.

    3. There is also deep schizophrenia about female sexual behavior. It’s an open secret among everyone under 50 that just about every woman has had premarital sex. Most women can easily rack up a double digit N by the time they reach their first jobs at age 23 or 24. A couple of high school boyfriends; a couple or three college boyfriends; a few ONSs; a few “mistakes” with a cad or three, and a broken engagement. That’s 10 right there. Sex is the easiest thing in the world for a woman to get.

    4. But it’s one of the most difficult for the average man to get. Men want sex, and that’s not going to change either. One of the things continuing to drive the eventual marriage of low value women is that men want sex. Increasingly, the only way they can get it is by marrying ex carouselers. And if that’s what those average guys have to do to get regular sex, they’ll do it – and women know this. The average guy will do whatever he has to do to lock down regular sex.

  443. deti,

    Nova’s post was outstanding, simply outstanding. Agreed with every bit of it. I have only one quibble with your post.

    Most parents cannot bring themselves to think about their dear Sally giving Johnny a BJ on the fan bus coming home from the big game. They can’t bring themselves to consider that if their daughters get sexually active before marriage, the odds are very, very high she’ll have at least one ONS with a “mistake”.

    I’m going to have to disagree with this. I actually witnessed a conversation between a mom and her 22 year old daughter (a recent college graduate) where the mom (with a sarcastic smile on her face) said to her only daughter, “…you are going to have to wear BLACK to your wedding!” Then the daughter smiled and started laughing right along with her mother. They both thought that her incredibly high N-count was both amusing and (well) just a matter of fact, every girl samples all the penises that she can, not any kind of knock on her character. I think these types of conversations between mother and slut are not even remotely… unusual. So no I don’t think the parents are in denial at all.

    …and before you say this is a recent development, this conversation that I witnessed happened more than 20 years ago!

  444. Casey says:

    @ Greyghost

    Disagree with you there……violence will not be the answer.
    Not unless CIRCUMSTANCES intervene to topple the current political structure.

    In any event, once circumstances intervene and women are shown point-blank that they cannot survive without a man; then our stock may rise in their eyes again.

    Government Dad must die in order for flesh & blood Dad to thrive.
    I have no idea when something like that may occur.

    I don’t even know if I wish it to occur.

    If anarchy is the alternative to faux choice & equality, maybe I’d rather live out my years under faux choice & equality.

  445. donalgraeme says:

    Thanks Novaseeker.

  446. JDG says:

    Novaseeker says:
    May 28, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    If I understood you correctly, I agree with your assessment that nearly all of modern society is under the delusion that the condition of the western female is better than ever. Most people truly believe that, as a society, we have accomplished something grand ans so no reason to change anything. This is why I believe most people are indeed feminists regardless of the label they wear. Most of us are so emerged in fem-centric thinking that we do not even know it.

    I think where we may disagree is on the age of maturity issue. I don’t think women as a group mature to the extent that men do as a group do, at least not if we hold both groups to the same standards. My anecdotal experience has demonstrated to me that the majority of women stop maturing sometime during or just after adolescence, where as men tend to keep maturing even into old age. Of course I’m speaking generally, and I am defining maturity as behaving in mature ways vs artificially induced accomplishments.

  447. JDG says:

    should be: Most people truly believe that, as a society, we have accomplished something grand and see no reason to change anything.

  448. Don Quixote says:

    Imnobodyoo says:

    “The word of God never changes but it has to be read with its true meaning. When the Bible speaks of marriage, it does not refer to the abomination called “marriage” in the West (a female headed cohabitation that can be broken at any time), but to the institution that has existed in Jewish, pagan and Christian societies for thousands of years.”

    Agreed.
    And I also agree that history will view the current feminised pismire called “marriage” as an aberration.

  449. imnobody00 says:

    Women don’t mature before than boys.

    NO, NO AND NO. Their biological clock is shorter, that’s all. Society defines “being mature” as “fulfilling the feminine imperative” (Rollo? Are you there?), that is, being willing to build a family the exact time when a female wants to build a family. Therefore:

    A woman want to postpone marriage but her boyfriend wants to marry -> She is a mature, strong independent women who takes the reigns of her life. He is a caveman that wants her barefoot and pregnant.

    A man want to postpone marriage but his girlfriend wants to marry -> He is an immature man-boy. A Peter Pan. She is a mature person who wants to assume the responsibilities of an adult.

    Even more. Consider the following scenario.

    John is a guy who is starting his career. He is an IT engineer and he is studying a Master. He is climbing the corporate ladder. He supports himself and support his parents. In his free time, he works in a NGO to feed the poor. He has a girlfriend called Mary.

    Mary has not studied. She spends her time in her parent’s house watching soap operas and partying wild with the girls. She is eager to get married with John so he supports her and she can use his money to go to the gym, go to Starbucks with the friends and traveling (on John’s dime).

    Marry tells John to get married and John says that he prefers to wait. Society will tell that John is immature, a Peter Pan, and he has to man up and marry the girl.

    (Replace “marriage” with “having kids” and is the same)

    Women have a shorter time to build a family than men. So when women want to get married, men are not there yet. Both are fulfilling their biological instincts but women are called “mature” and men are called “Peter Pans”.

  450. jf12 says:

    @ Dalrock, “But you can’t make her follow.”

    This.

  451. On the other hand, the fact that relationships are not expected to “go marital” until the late 20s reinforces a kind of hedonistic approach among the young men as well — after all, there’s no reason to take any of this seriously until you’re in the late 20s/early 30s, so why not live in Guyland until then?

    Novaseeker, excellent analysis. The above is the point I keep making: men are basically reactive when it comes to marriage. A man wants exclusive access to a woman’s reproductive ability — he wants to have regular sex with her, and he wants to know that no one else is, at least while he is. If getting that requires, as it would in a Christian society, that he get a good job or two, work long hours to afford to support a family, and court a girl chastely for months and make a lifetime vow, that’s what he’ll do. If it requires, as it has in some societies, that he get a good club and some friends and go to the neighboring tribe and beat them up and drag back the woman of his choice, that’s what he’ll do. If it requires, as it does in our current society, that he date and sleep with as many women as possible until things click with one of them and she invites him to be exclusive and shack up in her place, that’s what he’ll do.

    Some people don’t like that because it seems to let men off the hook, or make women responsible for “leading” men to marriage, or whatever. Too bad, it’s the way it is. If we feel the need to blame men, we can blame men for the legal and institutional changes that caused this situation, because men were in charge and released this monster. But once we’re done with our all-male mutual flagellation session, we’re back to the situation you describe: men need incentives to prepare themselves for marriage, and men can’t create those incentives as long as women are free to choose otherwise.

  452. jf12 says:

    @Cail, “men can’t create those incentives as long as women are free to choose otherwise.”

    I firmly believe this. It is clear that women’s freedoms have caused our problems, because they choose wrong.

  453. Luke says:

    imnobody00 says:
    May 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    “Women have a shorter time to build a family than men. So when women want to get married, men are not there yet.”

    Close, but not exactly.

    That’s actually “when women want to get married, men” OF THEIR OWN AGE “are not there yet”, SO THE WOMEN OF COURSE NEED TO LOOK AT MEN OLDER THAN THEM (presuming the women are still fully fertile, defined as sub-30 at oldest, so they haven’t passed marriageable age, and are SOL).

    Why any man would marry when kids of his own aren’t in the prospect is beyond me. (It’s not for sex, given how THAT typically trails off post-wedding, commonly within months.)

  454. imnobody00 says:

    That’s actually “when women want to get married, men” OF THEIR OWN AGE “are not there yet”, SO THE WOMEN OF COURSE NEED TO LOOK AT MEN OLDER THAN THEM

    Of course, that’s what I meant.

    But this is interpreted as women mature before the men. That’s why they have to marry older men, because men their age are immature.

    It is nothing of that. It is about the biological realities. Nothing to do about being more mature

  455. Novaseeker says:

    That was my point, Luke — thanks for clarifyting it in that way.

    Basically while women historically married younger than they do now, it was to men who were a bit older. Marrying men the same exact or +/- 1-2 years was never common, especially when women married at younger ages. There were situations where similarly aged lovers absconded due to familial disapproval and so on, but the general practice was to have a bit of a gap. That handles the “being in the same place” issue.

    The current strategy is again revolving around the preservation of female independence as the main priority around which everything else gets arranged — so peer-age marriages are strongly socially enforced now so as to avoid situations where the woman feels dominated by an older (even 5 years at early ages makes a significant difference in life stage) man. This is also why it is not viewed as an issue when the sexes are reversed, by the way: a sex-inverted relationship doesn’t present the risk that the woman’s independence will be undermined by an older man, so it isn’t seen as involving the same issue (and is also cheered simply because it is a role reversal of what the historical trend was, and most people are oriented around hating flat out what the historical sex relations were). The trouble with the peer-age marriages once men hit their stride in the later 20s, though, is both that there is an undermined incentive for guys to really hit their stride then (especially if the “reward” involves marriage to a peer-age girl who either wouldn’t give him the time of day when she was 22, or is the same kind of girl he has been sleeping/living with before he was in his late 20s — both of those tend to undermine the incentive to marry. For not a few guys who really *do* hit their stride at 28-30, quite a few would prefer to marry a woman around 24, and not a woman around 28-30 herself. So the strategy doesn’t work that well outside of the upper middle class where it is pretty heavily enforced to marry a person who is very strictly assortative in every way — appearance, education, income, and age. Those are the people writing magazine articles and setting social norms, even though these can’t really apply in the broader spectrum (hence the decline of marriage in other social strata).

  456. Novaseeker says:

    But this is interpreted as women mature before the men. That’s why they have to marry older men, because men their age are immature.

    It is nothing of that. It is about the biological realities. Nothing to do about being more mature

    It has to do with what men have traditionally brought to a marriage — not primarily their good looks, bedroom prowess, charm and cock size. It required being established. That was pretty much never the case for a 22 year old. Men took a bit longer to get some traction in the world, because that was what they brought to the marriage. Generally historically a man had much more to offer at 28 than he did at 21, whereas for a woman it was reversed (for biological reasons, as you state).

    There is a maturity difference in the teens without question. Girls are swimming circles around most (not all but most) peer age boys in HS. It slowly begins to close over the next few years and then flattens out somepoint in the 20s depending on the individuals.

  457. Martian Bachelor says:

    @Empath

    > …my fascination with those things, which is odd after an engineering curriculum

    You might like Zwicky then: he was also involved in the design and building of the first jet engines — during WWII; he finished w/50 patents in all. His “morphological approach” is very generally applicable and should be better known throughout all of what we now call STEM-dom.

    I was never much of a Hawking fan myself (though of course his work on virtual particles near event horizons and the subsequent evaporating blackholes was great stuff), so that’s good you don’t find his writing somewhat opaque/tedious like I do.

  458. Martian Bachelor says:

    @Marcus

    Your mentioning Orwell (and the whole Doublethink topic in general) reminded me George wrote a tribute to an earlier British novelist, George Gissing. H.G. Wells was w/Gissing on his deathbed, so his influence at the time was substantial.

    Gissing’s The Odd Women was the first treatment of the then-new New Woman (this was late Victorian England c.1890) and almost all the topics raised in it will have a very familiar ring. Plus it’s a decent novel, and typically taken as one of his three or four best.

    There’s a biography of Gissing called The Born Exile (based on the name of one of his other novels), which is what I always thought MGTOWs really were, flipping it around and looking at it from the other direction.

  459. Tom C says:

    Girls may mature faster than boys in high school but many stop maturing soon after. Plenty of 30 and 40 year old women act like perpetual teenagers nowadays.

  460. BradA says:

    Anon72,

    > “that you actually have no idea what it’s like to be married to a truly contentious woman”

    You evidently didn’t read my post and you certainly don’t know my wife. Many people would automatically blame me for any problem since she is such a “sweet woman” in their eyes, but neither they nor you know her at all. She has her own pile of issues, enough that I have asked God why He added that on top of the challenges we have had with our children.

    I didn’t think about that before we got married, but my own experience has given me much more compassion on my father (who my mother divorced when I was 12). He never could be a solid father in many ways because an adult parent to adult child relationship was often beyond him, but he had a huge challenge to deal with in my mother. I have dealt with much of the same, even while going through the crud with our children.

    Working through things with her is an ongoing challenge, though I am learning things like walking away over forcing my will and it works to lead much more effectively.

    I don’t think you really want answers, so what I write is for anyone who is interested (perhaps no one). Though note that a passive aggressive wife may be even worse than one that is openly rebellious. You know the latter is opposing you, but the former requires a bit more discerning and likely different actions.

    I have been at this for almost 26 years now and it was bumpy before we started. We both are convinced God put us together, but that has not made it easy by any stretch of the imagination.

    (I also will put the note that I am sure I have a load of my own issues that she has to mature over, but I ultimately hold myself accountable for doing what I should. I can’t force things, but I can do my part in leading and let things fall where they may. No guarantees, but one of my favorite posters has the saying “You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” That is how we must live our lives.

  461. BradA says:

    A general question, especially for those who put all the blame for our current state on women: How is that not a form of pedestalizing them?

  462. BradA says:

    I am a bit confused though Anon72. You post about how wonderful it is living in Mexico now, yet you seem to be noting your marriage still sucks rocks. Is that just hyperbole? Or am I missing what you are saying on one end or another?

  463. MarcusD says:

    @Martian Bachelor

    Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll have to look into Gissing.

  464. Brad, it’s not pedestalization because it’s not. That’s overthinking it, like the “servant leader” stuff. Pedestalization isn’t recognizing that someone has power and responsibility. Putting someone on a pedestal means making her more important, more wonderful than she really is, and worshiping an idealized image of her that may bear no particular relationship to reality. Taking a real live human being with vices and quirks and looking up to her as Woman, with all the positive attributes of her sex but none of the flaws of the individual Sally, Joan, or Tiffany. Treating her as better than she is because she has a vagina and a pretty face, not because of anything special about who she is or what she’s done.

    Pedestalization ignores the facts about a woman/women in favor of this idealized version. It’s a fact that women have great power over men in our society. It’s a fact that many women are making bad choices with that power which harm themselves and others. Recognizing and addressing these facts isn’t pedestalizing them. However, it’s also not “putting all the blame for our current state on women.” No one here does that, so that’s a straw man that you can safely discard. We’ve talked a lot about how men and women created the current state; so while women may be making most of the bad choices now (frivorce, abortion, carouseling, etc.), we can’t and don’t blame them alone for getting us here.

  465. greyghost says:

    Brad A
    Know this. When married men find the manosphere it is most likely not because his relationship is so wonderful. I found this and my first contact was Glen Sacks Father’s and Families. I found him looking for how to divorce and keep my kids. That was about 7 years ago. If I had seen what I saw I would never have gotten married. I would have gone to a surrogate That is the truth. Married and happy men don’t find the manosphere. Now that I have found this and see what is going on I’m good to go.

  466. BradA says:

    @Cail,

    > “However, it’s also not “putting all the blame for our current state on women.” No one here does that, so that’s a straw man that you can safely discard.”

    I have seen that posted in essence or directly far too much to believe that it is a straw man Cail.

    @greyghost,

    I would expect that only having his father around would be bad for a child just like it is to only have a mother. A father cannot be a mother and key things will be missing from their life. I understand the real problem that would be driving that decision, but it seems just as selfish as the reverse when women do it. Going childless would be the more principled approach, though neither is good for society and thus is likely sustainable for the long run.

  467. JDG says:

    I would expect that only having his father around would be bad for a child just like it is to only have a mother.

    Not having a father around is exponentially worse than not having a mother around.

  468. Casey says:

    @ Greyghost & BradA

    What we need is coordinated effort.

    If ‘zero’ men got married, cohabited, or impregnated any women for 2 years…..the solution would present itself instantly.

    There would suddenly be a national forum on how to bring men back to the relationship table. ‘Men On Strike’ in a very real way. Unfortunately, not at all likely to happen….

    BUT at the margins men are walking away from the relationship table.

    If 20% of women cannot realize their ‘dream’ of marriage & babies, there will be a deafening outcry.

    You will know when it has occurred, as the tone will change from ‘man-shaming’ to ‘man-praising’.

  469. Casey says:

    @ JDG
    “Not having a father around is exponentially worse than not having a mother around.”

    Speaking as a single father, I agree with you.

    There are built in redundancies in society to provide a child with a mother figure.
    (Think grade school teachers, daycare, aunts, grandmothers)

    There are zero redundancies in society to provide a child with a father figure. There simply isn’t any incentive for men to fill that void; and if they tried, they would be playing 2nd fiddle to the birth mother.

  470. greyghost says:

    Brad A
    I see mothers with their children. I disagree. http://confessionsofababymama.com/statistics-of-possible-outcomes-for-children-of-single-parent-families/
    And besides that nothing tightens up female behavior better than indifference. Works better than even violence

  471. greyghost says:

    Casey you are right on the money.
    MGTOW productive men that minimize their exposure for fleecing.
    PUA men that fuck those sluts out of their fertile years.
    Gandarusa a “male pill” made and marketed in Indonesia to allow men to be men and control there fertility.
    Laws or misandry, and the red pill knowledge and the motivation for men to behave as men.
    The bible and Christian faith- a guide on how to set up a society and tradition to handle the day to day. A solid culture with tradition that makes sustainable lifestyle normal and not a conscience thought against the norm. This is where the beta masses need to be. and where the government and the church used to be.

  472. mikediver5 says:

    My second wife and the mother of my last two sons died very young. I adopted her two kids from her prior marriage and raised them and our two sons by myself. That is, with lots of help from family, as all single parents do. I have six sisters; almost all of which raised their kids in single mother headed households for a significant portion of their children’s minority. This is now the norm in the USSA. One sister did give up her children to the custody of her ex (and paid CS) because she knew he would make a better parent. This is what a truely loving mother would do. Now that my siblings and I are all through the child rearing phase of life, and can compare the results, my sisters all say they are amazed at how welll my kids have turned out (without saying in comparison to theirs.)

    AA72 is dead right on many things, but especially on the fact that maternal custody is the worst thing that happens to most children in the US. Fathers are much better parents than are mothers. This is why until the past 100 years or so the assumption was that the bulk of child rearing was done by the father, and also why the default custody went to the father in cases of divorce. The first crack in this foundation came with the “Tender Years” doctrine in the late 1800s. this morphed into the “best interests fo the child”, which by coincidence was to extend the tender years to all years. BTW best interests of the child is a bald faced lie when the statistics of the much higher incidence of harm to children in mother headed than in father headed households has been clear for decades. The courts know if they go against team woman they will be run out of town on a rail.

  473. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    That you are still carpet bombing CF …. hat tip sir. Wont last…

    They are *still* letting me post there. My thread (which refers people to the Dalrock blog) is still active, and it is actually getting some fair play from a few younger bros. (The mangina and socon white-knight brigade is gnashing their collective teeth, but they’re of no importance).

    I’m thinking I’ll post a heartiste excerpt this weekend. That oughta be fun.

    Boxer

  474. JDG says:

    Boxer I can’t find the link to it. Could you post it again? Thanks.

  475. Boxer says:

    hxxp://www.christianforums.com/t7824842/

    fix the url – i don’t want them to know where i’m coming from at this point. i’m having too much fun. lol

  476. JDG says:

    Thanks!

  477. MarcusD says:

    From CF:

    Marriage isn’t for the weak hearted or minded…in fact, today in America, its something that precious few should do because they are simply ill equipped to handle the stress and strain that marriage inherently is about.

    Well, I guess it’s one of those thinly-veiled “man up” calls. I’m laughing as I’m writing, so I can’t say much.

  478. MarcusD says:

    I’m thinking I’ll post a heartiste excerpt this weekend. That oughta be fun.

    That’s when the AA guns and interceptors get rolled out.

  479. BradA says:

    > Marriage isn’t for the weak hearted or minded

    That would be very accurate whoever gets married. It is almost guaranteed to be a rough ride and could be worse. That means the weak should run the other way. The strong have good reason to do so as well, but that is not the core point.

    I didn’t see much of value in that thread BTW, except that someone didn’t like this place.

  480. Boxer says:

    More red pill soup for the Christian sheeple…

    hxxp://www.christianforums.com/t7824199-10/#post65710151

  481. Boxer says:

    And some more Jack Donovan, since it was such a big hit a couple days ago…

    hxxp://www.christianforums.com/t7825003/

  482. Oscar says:

    @ Empath & BradA

    I’ve been off line for a couple days, so I didn’t see your comments. If you still want a reply, I’ll check back later today.

  483. BradA says:

    I am not that worried about it myself Oscar. I may not even check back in this thread very soon!

  484. Luke says:

    JDG says:
    May 29, 2014 at 10:33 am

    “I would expect that only having his father around would be bad for a child just like it is to only have a mother.”

    “Not having a father around is exponentially worse than not having a mother around.”

    The latter (JDG’s position) is clearly the correct one. Father custody children do nearly as well as children in intact married original-parent homes. Mother-only, and you’re talking 7 or higher times as likely to become felons, dropouts, etc. (The latter are even conservatively 40% more likely to be homosexual, for God’s sake.)

  485. greyghost says:

    I guess we can add can’t parent to the can’t cook and clean.

  486. ciceromarcus says:

    @Legion
    “God could not lead Eve away from the fruit of the apple tree. Do you have a higher authority to counter that?”
    Are you putting a limit God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? Or what other higher authority do you have to counter that?

    @infowarrior1
    “Bride refers to the church as a whole. Individually we are called “sons of god”.
    And how many Christians does it take to make a church?
    1 Corinthians 6:18-20
    18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that *your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you*, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

  487. Spike says:

    Amazing what women reveal in columns where they don’t think men would look:

    http://madamenoire.com/447140/things-we-pretend-to-do-for-men/6/

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