Fighting choice addiction.

To my future husband: I know you will be worth the wait!

— Wendy Griffith, Age 53*

Choice addiction is part intoxication with the process of judging suitors, and part fear of missing out on something better. The risk is that a woman can become caught in analysis paralysis while her best real options evaporate. Not all women fall into choice addiction, and for those who do most don’t wallow in this stage forever. Sooner or later, most realize (even if only intuitively) that the rare gem of a man they are so unhurriedly seeking is also being sought out by other women. And once he’s off the market, her next best chance is also being snapped up by another woman who is quicker on the draw. Put bluntly, it eventually dawns on her that:

That bitch is trying to steal my man!

The power in the emotion isn’t in the general shrinking size and quality of the pool of suitors, but the sense that another woman is taking what is rightfully hers. Her thoughts shift from a blissful daydream about the perfect man who is patiently waiting for her to discover him, to the woman on a mission to poach what is hers. Now instead of savoring the power of finding every flaw in an endless stream of suitors, the woman actually starts trying to find her best possible man and march him down the aisle before that other bitch does.

This same kind of analysis paralysis can occur when making other big decisions, like buying a home. Women especially can get stuck looking for a theoretical option that doesn’t exist, rejecting what in reality are their best case choices. Realtor.com has a brilliant marketing campaign tuned perfectly to demolishing real estate choice addiction:

*See the second footnote at the bottom of this post for the calculations behind my estimate of Griffith’s current age, as well as this.

Advertisements
Posted in Choice Addiction, Envy, Finding a Spouse, Wendy Griffith | 156 Comments

The gospel of child support.

Brother Jed preaches the gospel of child support:

Okay, time to “preach” a little…

…it’s not really “bad” *AT ALL* for a woman to assume financial aid for the provision and security of her bastard offspring if the no-good, dead-beat father doesn’t want to at least “man-up” and at least “take care of *HIS RESPONSIBILITY*” of “providing and guiding” his flesh and blood into adulthood.

So I really don’t put *NO BLAME* on women for expecting child support to the deadbeat men who shirk their responsibilities as *FATHERS* of their *OWN FLESH ‘N BLOOD*.

In fact women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children just for the sake of the welfare and development of their children; together or not. Whether the single mom women in check or selfishly “leeching” on the rightful financial support of the father(s) of her children is selfishly using the money for her own selfish purposes does NOT at all ever excuse the living *FATHER* of the children to not keep supporting the mother or “mothers” of his kids financial support: the “absenteeism” of fathers is the real issue causing these problems.

Women left to their own devices can only do so much to rear up children in a *FATHERLESS HOUSEHOLD*: don’t blame them, *BLAME THE MEN WHO HAD CHOICE TO DECIDE NOT TO SLEEP AROUND OR NOT TO MAKE THESE BABIES*!

Women have the “gift to grant sex” to a man, but it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

Sex is *NOT* for some “recreational activity” for men to just have with women: it’s *PURELY ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION*; the “pleasure” is merely the “byproduct”!

Men love the “pleasure” of sex only and *NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEX*!

That’s why I don’t take any “players”, pua, gamers any other lame, “irresponsible men-boys” who just want to “screw” around but don’t take “manhood” seriously: they’re pure jokes in the face of the true sacred Christian Faith that’s been overshadowed by the filth of this sinful world.

It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

The *MAN* can chose *NOT TO HAVE SEX* with a woman to not have kids to begin with.

It starts with *HIM*, “not here”

In preaching this evil gospel, for the destruction of marriage is evil, Brother Jed is ignoring the only truly innocent party to the process he loves: the children. Child support is designed to replace marriage, and it is wickedly effective at this. The point of the post Brother Jed was responding to was that child support creates a powerful incentive for women to deliberately become single mothers.

You can see part* of the runaway success of child support in Figure 1 from the 2014 NCHS data brief Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States:

db162_fig1

Over a million and a half children are now born out of wedlock each year in the US alone. Not all of this “progress” is due to the financial incentives Bro Jed loves so much. Part of the credit must go to the moral cover Bro Jed and other conservatives provide for single mothers.  Bro Jed deceives single mothers like the serpent deceived Eve:

So I really don’t put *NO BLAME* on women for expecting child support

…women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children .

…don’t blame [women], *BLAME THE MEN…

…it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

Related: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan

*Child support doesn’t just encourage women to have children out of wedlock, it also encourages women to kick married fathers out of the home.

Posted in Child Support, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 118 Comments

Incentives matter.

From the Daily Mail:  ‘Child support is 18 years of easy money’: Women reveal the REAL reasons why they’ve lied about being on the Pill – and many DON’T regret what they’ve done

  • Anonymous women confessed why they had lied about using birth control
  • A large number of women revealed they had hoped to secretly try for a baby
  • Others wanted to lock men into paying 18 years worth of child support to them

 

Posted in Child Support, Daily Mail, Turning a blind eye | 92 Comments

Headship makes all the difference.

Commenter James asks if there isn’t at least a kernel of truth to Stanton & Gilder’s view of men, women, and marriage, even if they have in the process mangled this kernel of truth:

Isn’t there some sense where the “woman civilizes the man” is true, or am I conflating two different ideas? In other words, the lament about the Peter Pan man-boys not desiring to achieve much in life, because there’s no reward for them in marriage, or the women are not choosing them, so therefore they don’t try too hard to better themselves, and this is understandable. In way then, this is saying that being able to get a nice female is a reason why young men would want to improve themselves or to become providers and have all the resources they need, instead of living at home with their parents and playing video games. Perhaps this “civilizing” is not done in the terms and conditions which Gilder says it is, but something like it is going on. Gilder’s terms for what he says is the woman’s role in civilizing men is horrendous, for sure.

James is right.  There is a kernel of truth there.  But while Stanton and Gilder have accurately noticed that marriage and civilization go together, they have incorrectly pointed the causal arrow.  Stanton and Gilder think that women naturally civilize men.  Starting with this catastrophic misunderstanding, Stanton and Gilder have created the conservative intellectual foundation for the destruction of marriage in general, and specifically the destruction of headship and fatherhood.  As Dr. Daniel Amnéus explains in Chapter 1 of The Garbage Generation, The Pathology of the Female-headed Family, the feminist model of the family that Stanton and Gilder are celebrating is not a path towards greater civilization, but retreat from civilization:

“Men and women,” rejoices feminist-anthropologist Helen Fisher, “are moving toward the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago….Human society is now discovering its ancient roots….The recent trend toward divorce and remarriage is another example of a throwback to earlier times….[T]he so-called new extended family [read: broken family] may actually have evolved millennia ago….At long last, society is moving in a direction that should be highly compatible with our ancient human spirit….The ‘traditional’ role of women is a recent invention.”

Biologically speaking, it is indeed a recent invention, scarcely older than the civilization which it made possible and which emerged coevally with it and created the wealth which reconciled women to accepting it. But women’s new economic independence is leading them to yearn for a return to the prehistoric mammalian arrangement. “[W]herever women are economically powerful,” says Fisher, “divorce rates are high. You see it in the Kung and you see it in the United States.” Let’s say, wherever women are economically powerful and there are no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families, divorce rates are high–such being the case among the Kung and the Americans. The Kung have no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families because the Kung never emerged from the Stone Age. The Americans have no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families because there exists an elementary confusion in the heads of policy makers, lawmakers and judges, who imagine that the obvious strength of the biological tie between the mother and the infant (the “biological fact” Margaret Mead refers to) means that it requires their assistance. A biological fact does not require the services of the legal system. What does require these services is the weakest biological link in the family, the role of the father. It was the creation of this role–only a few thousand years ago–which made patriarchal civilization possible. Prior to that, mankind had to muddle through the million years of the Stone Age with the female-headed reproductive arrangements of the ghetto, the barnyard and the rain forest.

Related: More ominous than a strike.

Posted in Attacking headship, Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. Daniel Amnéus, Feral Females, Focus on the Family, George Gilder, Glenn Stanton, Headship, Patriarchal Dividend, Serial Monogamy, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 39 Comments

Stanton’s dilemma

Glenn Stanton closes his article Manhood is not natural* with an odd question:

The question is, how can we recover manhood today? We must find the answer. For it is not only the fate of men that is at stake, but the fate of our women, children, and society as well.

The question is odd because Stanton has just explained how good men are made. According to Stanton and his philosophical father Gilder, good men are made by the magical civilizing power of women’s sexuality. According to this thesis, women naturally just know what is good, and use the power between their legs to create civilization by steering men. In a separate youtube video, Stanton explained that he was a sort of Peter Pan manboy until his wife took charge and made him into a man:

My situation, I grew up as a skateboarder in the panhandle of Florida. Surfer. I was a good kid, didn’t get involved in drugs, didn’t do bad things. But that was my life. School, I didn’t spend a whole lot of time in that. So I continued in that, after I got married and Jackie said, “you know what Glenn, here’s how it’s going to be” and what did I do? Okay, I guess I’m going to have to go to college. I was scared to death of college. Didn’t think I could survive there. Didn’t think I could compete there. But this woman was making me do something, this either or, so I went and did it and I became a better person.

Again, I would have never imagined that I get to do the things that I get to do today. Written a number of books, things like that. But I am who I am because Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it. And every man here knows that that’s true. So the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.

It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often…

Yet Stanton also is arguing that the reason women are choosing single motherhood (in any number of ways) is because the men they encounter are Peter Pan manboys, just like he was before his mommy-wife married him and took charge:

The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly. They don’t need to be talked into them and never really have. Ask women today their biggest obstacle to achieving this goal. It’s not a shortage of males, but of responsible adult males. Men. If they cannot find marriageable men, they often go with other choices. It’s no coincidence that the two fastest growing family formation trends are unmarried cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing among twenty- and thirty-something women.

Stanton has been making this case for years, including in his 2011 book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity:

If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.

Which is it? Do women naturally marry Peter Pan manboys and turn them into good men, like Stanton’s wife did? Or faced with men like Stanton to marry, do women instead naturally opt for a life of promiscuity?

This is the dilemma. Stanton wants to blame men for the fall of civilization while giving women credit for civilizing men. How do you put women in charge while claiming that men are responsible for every bad outcome?  One seemingly promising answer would be to blame fathers for not making Peter Pan manboys like they used to, and Stanton indeed makes this case:

Manhood Is Taught

The opposite is true of manhood. As George Gilder explains pointedly in Men and Marriage, “Unlike a woman, a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body.” The boy has no onboard GPS directing him toward his future. His transition into manhood can only come into being with significant, intentional work by other men. As a behavior, manhood must be learned, proven, and earned. As an identity, manhood must be bestowed by a boy’s father and the community’s larger fraternity of men. His mother can only affirm it. She cannot bequeath it.

But then Stanton directly contradicts this by arguing that fathers are (and should be) just the pawns of mothers, who do the mother’s bidding.

The woman is not only the stabilizing force of male sexuality; she is the authorizing factor in fatherhood. If a particular man desires to be involved in the life of his child, it is the child’s mother, and she alone, who determines whether and how he may do this.

If this is the case, blaming fathers is just a round about way of blaming mothers! And it doesn’t help to take it back another generation, or 50 generations.

The only way to get around this circular logic would be to posit that somehow, women’s vaginas have either lost their way and are no longer beacons that can be trusted to point to goodness, or they still point to goodness, but they have lost their power. I won’t speculate on which of these possibilities would be more horrifying to Stanton and the women he is pandering to, but it is clear that neither suits his goal of denying women’s responsibility for their own sins while crediting women as the source of civilization.

*H/T MikeJJ

Posted in Attacking headship, Disrespecting Respectability, Focus on the Family, George Gilder, Glenn Stanton, Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up | 105 Comments