As recent readers know, I’ve been poking at a massive sore spot for some of my female commenters lately with the themes of post marital spinsterhood and the remarriage strike. To be clear it is only a minority of my female commenters who are disturbed by this, as most seem to accept the truth in what I am saying and more importantly understand why I am addressing the issue.
Grerp’s spin-off post on the Hamster 500 addressed the charge of manosphere spinster schadenfreude, and she made a strong case for why such a feeling might be warranted. However, animosity towards spinsters isn’t my underlying motivation or point. Since the commenters most incensed by my posts were self proclaimed happily married women, I don’t think it was their true point of contention either. My fundamental point is that marriage is something women can’t expect to get multiple shots at, at least without risking either trading significantly down or losing the option to be married (or even be in an invested LTR).
I think my critics understand this all too well, and this is what has them thrashing in denial and rage. For far too many women the threat to leave their husband if he doesn’t do what they demand is their trump card. It is their nuclear option, and they reserve the right to threaten to press the red button whenever he displeases her.
What I’ve had the extreme bad taste to point out is that you can’t launch a nuclear war without suffering from the blow-back. Instead of a unilateral threat of annihilation, I’m pointing out that it really amounts to Mutually Assured Destruction. It isn’t just your husband and your children who will suffer if you press the red button, but you as well.
This of course isn’t nearly as much fun. When your go-to relationship tool is to be a bully and someone points out that it really won’t work as hoped, this will provoke a massive tantrum.