It’s a feature, not a bug.

Redditer simplecosine was kind enough to link to my post Threatpoint  where I stated:

..divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.

Redditer justaconservative read the post and pointed out my error:

This article is perfectly ludicrous. Prior to unilateral divorce, the legal situation favoured whichever party was able to make the marriage most unconscionable for the other party, without crossing the line into blatant illegality. The aggrieved party either had to suffer an unlivable situation, had to leave without a divorce and forfeit their right to re-marriage, or had to negotiate for a divorce on the terms of the aggressor.

While both genders are fully capable of being the aggressor, the realities of most families meant that men were overwhelmingly favoured by this arrangement; as their typically greater sizes and strengths meant a greater ability to make marriage unconscionable (through physical violence/control), and they generally controlled most of the income. A woman, or otherwise financially vulnerable party, who couldn’t remarry could be condemned to destitution by this system if they simply left, so they would be forced to negotiate a settlement far below what they needed or deserved. The economically independent party could also always threaten to leave, and have it be a real threat, preventing the other party from making the living arrangement truly unconscionable for them.

See his full comment for all of the conservative goodness, but note what his argument is in the two paragraphs I quoted.  His argument is that marriage as practiced from biblical times until 40 years ago was inherently unfair to women, and that he for one is glad that feminists fixed this.  He doesn’t deny the social engineering I’m describing, he merely is thankful for it.  I know Not All Trad Cons Are Like That, but honestly how many do you know who aren’t?

This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Feminine Imperative, Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to It’s a feature, not a bug.

  1. Eincrou says:

    Ah, so in justaconservative’s mind, any society with low divorce rates is actually just forcing people (but especially the eternally victimized class, of course) to stay in “unconscionable” marriages. How foolish of us to think marriage ever worked.

  2. ferret says:

    But NAWALT,until she changes her mind,then it’s her prerogative.

  3. Anonymous says:

    How the heck does there having to be grounds for a divorce and the person who did that stuff getting little/nothing in the divorce be inherently unfair to women generally? If I cheated, she should get the kids, cash and prizes. If she cheated, she shouldn’t. Sure, some cheating husband treating his wife like property could lord it over her and be abusive because she couldn’t get the hard evidence needed to divorce him in court, but using that exception to justify the I’m-not-haaapy frivilous divorce and Marriage 2.0 world we live in now as a general improvement is nuts. Neither party (to be non-sexist) should be allowed to take the house, the kids and half the other’s income because theyjust felt like it and wanted to trade-up.

  4. greyghost says:

    That is a guy talking to he source of income. That is a supplicating man that has prioritize pleasing pussy over the truth and reality. A supplicating man will do what he knows is wrong for supplication and to remove the anxiety convince himself that it is true and good. That is what a lost soul looks like and how to pave a well intentioned road to hell comeplete will goodness kindness and churchian tradition.

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    If the moral agency, frailties, and proclivities between men and women were equal, his argument would make sense.

    They’re not.

  6. imnobody says:

    Unbelievable. A man can have a hamster too. Why do they call it “conservative” when they mean “feminist”?

  7. Read the literature. It actually was this way.

    What surprises me is justaconservative‘s prescription – legislation. Any attempt to tinker with the most fundamental layer of human society – the family – at the level of courts and litigation is almost certainly doomed to failure. It’s like reading a dictionary definition of dog:

    a domesticated carnivorous mammal, Canis lupus familiaris, family Canidae (the dog family), typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports.

    There is a level of vocabulary that we acquire first as children. These words are basic to all others, and other, less primary words like “carnivorous” and “mammal” are usually defined in relation to the more primary words, rather than vice-versa. In the same way, the legal sphere of society needs to be defined in terms of the more basic level of society, the familial sphere, not vice-versa. In a sane society, issues that would provoke a divorce would be handled at that level of society. A woman’s male kinsfolk would be responsible for assuring her husband’s treatment of her.

    justaconservative is not. He’s at best a neo-con.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    In this case, “conservative” is “radical” with a 30+ year time lag.
    justaconservative is parroting feminist cant circa1975 or so. Maybe his mother made him watch Jill Clayburgh in “An Unmarried Woman” as a child one time too many on late night TV?

  9. Paul says:

    This notion that there should be a ‘marriage paradise’ if only the laws were just so, or society just so, etc., etc., strike me as a parallel to the notion of a ‘worker’s paradise’. The collectivist mindset, the interest of women vs. men vs. children is also omnipresent, showing just how much society generally, not just feminism in particular, has swallowed Marxist memes so completely that they seem to frame every debate, whether consciously or unconsciously. And whoever is setting the frame has already one the argument, so it’s really no surprise how all of this has gone.

    Yes, the collectivism and resultant gender war (among other such class wars) has definitely disadvantaged certain genders and classes, i.e. men. However by trying to counter this with a collectivist approach, we can maybe score a few ‘victories’ for our side, but ultimately we can’t win because we have ceded frame (or following their rules, giving them home field advantage, however you want to express it) right from the start. You can learn from your enemy, but you lose if you become them, even if you ‘win’.

    Which leaves me in a bit of a quandary, because I have no magic answer to what to do or where to go from here. Understand, I have seen many things proposed that would help make things better overall, and note that most of these changes go in the direction of getting government and other busybodies out of people’s marriages and family lives, not surprising because it’s the whole collectivist mind-set that’s responsible for so much and the cure is individual freedom and responsibility. The problem is how to get there; I don’t see any plausible way of accomplishing this.

    All I can say if that personally, I have been using my increased awareness and understanding to manoeuvre myself into a position of being able to make as many decisions that I can control as possible. Which is probably my way of saying MGTOW.

  10. Buck says:

    As always, RE the Mens’ rights movement (MRM); we have met the enemy and it is us!
    Women of yesteryear were aware of the total unfairness of the courts,, this acted as a check on their mate choices. But white knights, to keep the little butterflies from ever having to accept the consequences of their poor choices, gave us Marriage 2.0 where women cannot make a bad choice, no matter what they get cash and prizes.

  11. Miserman says:

    This kind of thinking can be incredibly stubborn once implanted. It is ingrained through the emotions of guilt toward men, sympathy toward women, and a manipulated sense of injustice, a powerful motivator. All together, these forces have, in my opinion, been the backbone of recruiting entire generations away from a biblical standard of life into a system of life that gives the illusion of freedom (the blue pill). The church would do well to rediscover the standard of objective, biblical truth (the red pill) and overcome the revolutionary passions indoctrinating young minds.

    Note: The Matrix analogies can get tiresome, but they are effective …

  12. Mike T says:

    This article is perfectly ludicrous. Prior to unilateral divorce, the legal situation favoured whichever party was able to make the marriage most unconscionable for the other party, without crossing the line into blatant illegality. The aggrieved party either had to suffer an unlivable situation, had to leave without a divorce and forfeit their right to re-marriage, or had to negotiate for a divorce on the terms of the aggressor.

    Justaconservative sounds like a liberal feminist who tried to make a strawman while on LSD; he/she clearly now perceives the world as a frightening place filled with demonic, drug-induced visions of strawmen everywhere. If the incidents of bad unto unconscionable marriages were anywhere near this level, there would be little controversy on this issue. I daresay that if it were, the state wouldn’t have even gone for no fault divorce, instead it would have favored the direct application of otherwise illegal levels of force against people that psychologically and physically aggressive.

  13. Justin gaged says:

    I’ve noticed that a lot of trad cons are actually white knights or straight up feminists that portray themselves as conservatve.

    The real reason why women didn’t leave their husbands at the current rate is because they could not suppliment the husband/father like they can and do via government welfare. Plus, back then people believed in the promise before God, family and friends, where the husband and wife promise to take care of each other; contrast that with today’s notion of “what can a future husband/wife do for meeeeeeeeee” and that my friends is why there are so many divorces.

    I’m so glad I found a girl in high school that still believes in abstinence, and that marriage for till death. 5 years so far, only 21 more months until we’re one.

  14. Cail Corishev says:

    He’s not wrong in his initial claim that men used to have an advantage due to greater strength and income-producing power. He just doesn’t understand that this was a good thing. It balanced the woman’s power to give the man children that he could not produce himself, and it gave him a way to tame her hypergamy. A “fair playing field,” if we could restore things even that far, won’t work. If marriage is to thrive as an institution, men need to have the upper hand in it.

  15. Toddy Cat says:

    As our feminist friends are fond of saying – Wow. Just Wow…

  16. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Sometimes I think many people imagine that marriage was always the nuclear family, living far from family members, and living alone. In fact, until well into the 20th Century, the US was an agricultural nation. Families lived on farms, and grandmas and grandpas lived in the farm house, which they usually owned until they died. Aunts and uncles and spinsters and bachelors also lived in that house. Women were not alone without witnesses to their insane behavior.

    If a husband and wife were angry, other family members would separate them and talk things through, or perhaps just keep them apart until they calmed down. A woman had her emotional needs met by other members of the family and so did men. Today, a husband and wife have only each other, 24/7/365, and that is a bit much to expect to work flawlessly.

    I see the same thing today here in Mexico, and the extended family is a whole different ball game from the nuclear family.

  17. Clarence says:

    Actually, I can’t believe you guys let him get away with stating that men used to be able to just punch the little wifey around to get their way with no consequences possible:

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Domestic%20Violence

    There were also laws on the books, and, at least even in the early 20th century (don’t remember about the 19th) physical cruelty was grounds for a divorce.

    This jerk is basically saying that married men today deserve anything they get because their fathers and grandfathers were all wife beaters, and if we didn’t make divorce available at the snapping of a finger tons of men would still be beating their wives today.

  18. namae nanka says:

    “His argument is that marriage as practiced from biblical times until 40 years ago was inherently unfair to women, and that he for one is glad that feminists fixed this. ”

    and so that explains mencken’s flailing around back in 1920

    NO MORE than a century ago, even by American law, the most sentimental in the world, the husband was the head of the family firm, lordly and autonomous. He had authority over the purse-strings, over the children, and even over his wife. He could enforce his mandates by appropriate punishment, including the corporal. His sovereignty and dignity were carefully guarded by legislation, the product of thousands of years of experience and ratiocination. He was safeguarded in his self-respect by the most elaborate and efficient devices, and they had the support of public opinion.

    Consider, now, the changes that a few short years have wrought. Today, by the laws of most American states – laws proposed, in most cases, by maudlin and often notoriously extravagant agitators, and passed by sentimental orgy – all of the old rights of the husband have been converted into obligations. He no longer has any control over his wife’s property; she may devote its income to the family or she may squander that income upon idle follies, and he can do nothing. She has equal authority in regulating and disposing of the children, and, in the case of infants, more than he. There is no law compelling her to do her share of the family labour: she may spend her whole time in cinema theatres or gadding about the shops as she will. She cannot be forced to perpetuate the family name if she does not want to. She cannot be attacked with masculine weapons, e.g. fists and firearms, when she makes an assault with feminine weapons, e.g. snuffling, invective and sabotage. Finally, no lawful penalty can be visited upon her if she fails absolutely, either deliberately or through mere incapacity, to keep the family habitat clean, the children in order, and the victuals eatable.

    Now view the situation of the husband. The instant he submits to marriage, his wife obtains a large and inalienable share in his property, including all he may acquire in future; in most American states the minimum is one-third, and, failing children, one-half. He cannot dispose of his real estate without her consent; he cannot even deprive her of it by will. She may bring up his children carelessly and idiotically, cursing them with abominable manners and poisoning their nascent minds against him, and he has no redress. She may neglect her home, gossip and lounge about all day, put impossible food upon his table, steal his small change, pry into his private papers, hand over his home to the Periplaneta americana, accuse him falsely of preposterous adulteries, affront his friends, and lie about him to the neighbours – and he can do nothing. She may compromise his honour by indecent dressing, write letters to moving-picture actors, and expose him to ridicule by going into politics – and he is helpless.

    Let him undertake the slightest rebellion, over and beyond mere rhetorical protest, and the whole force of the state comes down upon him. If he corrects her with the bastinado or locks her up, he is good for six months in jail. If he cuts off her revenues, he is incarcerated until he makes them good. And if he seeks surcease in flight, taking the children with him, he is pursued by the gendarmerie, brought back to his duties, and depicted in the public press as a scoundrelly kidnapper, fit only for the knout. In brief, she is under no legal necessity whatsoever to carry out her part of the compact at the altar of God, whereas he faces instant disgrace and punishment for the slightest failure to observe its last letter. For a few grave crimes of commission, true enough, she may be proceeded against. Open adultery is a recreation that is denied to her. She cannot poison her husband. She must not assault him with edged tools, or leave him altogether, or strip off her few remaining garments and go naked. But for the vastly more various and numerous crimes of omission – and in sum they are more exasperating and intolerable than even overt felony – she cannot be brought to book at all.

    http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mmarrlaw.html

    There was an article I read about ‘conservatives’ talking about the women suffrage, at first they opposed it, once it was granted they went about their business as if they were for it all along. The conservatives have always been supine no-backbone idiots who simply co-opt the older causes and then expend their energy fighting the newer ones only to lose again.
    A PUA would tell you that it’s like the Last-Minute Resistance, but since I cannot see liberals/progressives as masculine it would be like a man giving into whatever shameful behavior his wife demands of him.

  19. namae nanka says:

    Sorry for the long quote, but here it is:

    It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

    American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.

    No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

    ~~R. L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women”

  20. Is he a trad con?
    Why is that question the focus at the end of the post?
    Does that matter?
    I suggest it doesn’t, nearly as much as it gets made to seem.

    He is deceived, badly deceived. Many conservatives are likewise deceived. I am a staunch conservative and would have written similar supplicating bullshit just 10 years ago. It would not have come from a foundation of information at all, it would come from the same place his does. That is, his is the norm, conventional wisdom, which is the gender relations and marriage comfy chair. Do NOT tell a man to leave his comfy chair! (for women its more than just a comfy chair, thats a different topic)
    When a man begins to see the information you and others share they blanch and react. They have no reason to dig, its like telling them the world is flat, they scoff and move on. Even as they may see something that resonates, they are either painfully lazy, or they know that there would be consequences for taking on these beliefs.

    They are deceived and have incentive to stay deceived.

    But here’s the thing I do not get, especially coming from people who I will assume share ideology more with so called trad cons than with liberals. Maybe I’m wrong but emphasizing the category these deceived people may fit into as opposed to the deception itself could be the wrong approach. As is, they are not allies, and in fact they are more dangerous than most of not all others who are not allies because they have the Trojan horse of their ideology and the support of the women. BUT, when one of them changes, it makes some others around them at the very least pause and consider, and they can become compelling voices so to speak from the inside

  21. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    Is he a trad con?
    Why is that question the focus at the end of the post?
    Does that matter?
    I suggest it doesn’t, nearly as much as it gets made to seem.

    Yes, of course it matters. It isn’t unlike the old sheepdog and wile e coyote cartoon where they punched the timecard. The coyote’s job was to steal the sheep, and the sheepdog’s job was to stop him. In this case though the sheepdog thinks his job is to steal the sheep too. That is quite noteworthy, and we won’t be able to protect the sheep until we address it. Likewise this is why I don’t spend much energy noting that Roissy for example isn’t promoting biblical marriage, and instead point out that the man in charge of teaching Southern Baptist preachers is promoting wifely headship via denial of sex and claiming it is biblical.

    They are deceived and have incentive to stay deceived.

    But here’s the thing I do not get, especially coming from people who I will assume share ideology more with so called trad cons than with liberals. Maybe I’m wrong but emphasizing the category these deceived people may fit into as opposed to the deception itself could be the wrong approach. As is, they are not allies, and in fact they are more dangerous than most of not all others who are not allies because they have the Trojan horse of their ideology and the support of the women. BUT, when one of them changes, it makes some others around them at the very least pause and consider, and they can become compelling voices so to speak from the inside

    Are you suggesting we wait another 40 or 50 years and see if they snap out of it, for fear of hurting their feelings by pointing out that they aren’t really a sheepdog any more?

  22. AnonS says:

    I think age 70 identified the problem. Home life is supposed to be village life, a dysfunctional home life in the isolated suburbs will produce dysfunctional families.

    The ease of quality family life is tied to the environment the family is in. You can find problems in the legal environment quickly, but there are also problems in the spacial environment.

  23. MC says:

    His head is in the sand and his logic is plain wrong.

    “A marriage is a serious legal arrangement, but it’s nothing more.”

    That indeed is how it is viewed these days, but that is not right. And it’s a legal contract that can be broken at any time. So why even enter into one if it’s meaningless.

    “The change to unilateral divorce isn’t about subjugating men, it’s about curbing the abuses which stem from unequal power at the time of divorce.”

    So the change was to correct an unequal distribution of power so that there is now a new unequal distribution of power. I think we’ve already seen in previous posts that no-fault divorce shifts the balance of power to the one who benefits the most from divorce.

    “Think about when you’re negotiating your cellphone contract; you might hate something the company is doing to you, and you’re like “I’ll leave if you don’t change this!!”, but maybe your contract says “pay a zillion dollars to cancel”. The company doesn’t have to do a thing to help you, but you have to keep paying them. You have zero “exit threat”, because the difference in power between the two parties means acting to terminate will cost you more than just putting up with it. You aren’t forced to stay, but it would be damned uncomfortable to leave. Wouldn’t you love an amendment that said “cellphone companies can’t charge you to leave”? Then you could really negotiate, right? This is the same as that.”

    But that’s not what is happening. This analogy is wrong. First, the wife usually wasn’t paying the husband. Second, what is happening is someone cancelling their phone contract, and then making the company pay them a million bucks for the privilege of cancelling their contract.

    Under his analogy, neither the husband nor the wife can charge the other if they want to leave. And that would be good, but it’s not what’s happening. I assume that’s how divorce worked 70 or more years ago.

    “That women want divorce more under the current system is irrelevant, as the author in the OP cited an article which concludes with a prediction that as economic realities for the genders even out, the filing rates will also even out.”

    Well, it is relevant, since it relates directly to the bargaining power in the relationship. If wives file more, then they inherently have a greater bargaining position. People do what is in their self-interest. And this goes against his earlier thoughts, since if the imbalance of power has now been equalized, then why would women want to divorce more under the current system … unless it favors them?

    “As a practical legal explanation for the differences in filing; even with unilateral divorce, the economically dependent party HAS to file first, so that they can get an interlocutory order for living costs and legal expenses.”

    This is the wrong conclusion. That’s not the reason – it doesn’t get to why people choose to file, which causes the difference in filing rates. So it mistakes a symptom for a diagnosis of the problem, which the guy just can’t see.

  24. deti says:

    Marriage before about 1970 in current media portray many marriages as prisons and hells for women. The poor defenseless women are married to stereotypical asshole chauvinist pigs with beerguts and hair on their backs, who mercilessly and without remorse or consequence, pummel their wives daily. “The Burning Bed” and the marriages shown in “Last Exit to Brooklyn” are just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

    I’d like to see stats on how many women in the pre-SR period divorced for physical abuse. Certainly it was (and still is) a problem and is wrong. But the media portrayals make everyone think that ALL marriages before 1960 were populated with overbearing, hopelessly insecure, dickhead wife-beater husbands and sniveling, black-eyed, put-upon, saintly, miserably unhappy wives.

    I just don’t believe that half of all husbands were beating their wives before the glorious SR ushered in even more problems. I don’t believe it.

  25. van Rooinek says:

    I just don’t believe that half of all husbands were beating their wives before the glorious SR ushered in even more problems. I don’t believe it.

    I also don’t believe it. The feminist rebellion would have happened a long, long time ago if that were true. There’s no way pioneer-era American women, with easy access to firearms, would have tolerated that sort of abuse.

    On the other hand… I have heard that in certain other cultures (Russian, Mexican, etc), wife-beating is a lot more common, especially when combined with alcohol abuse But I’m sure that in Anglo-Puritan lands it was never the norm.

  26. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Deti, if you did not follow the above link to the truth about DV in olden times, do so now.

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.mx/search/label/Domestic%20Violence

  27. Even in Mexico, wives with numerous brothers, cousins, and vigilant fathers are seldom beaten.

  28. deti says:

    Justin gaged:

    Good on you. Sounds like you understand a bit of history and that will help you immensely.

    Know this as you go into marriage:

    1. Your idea of love and hers are very different.
    2. Your idea of how and why she should love you is very different from her idea of how and why you should love her.
    3. There is no such thing as unconditional love between a man and a woman.
    4. There is no such thing as a soulmate or The One.
    5. Frame is everything. Hypergamy is a close second.
    6. Be ready to walk away. Don’t say you are, Subtly show that you can do it if you have to.

  29. Twenty says:

    The economically independent party could also always threaten to leave, and have it be a real threat, preventing the other party from making the living arrangement truly unconscionable for them.

    Because abandonment was never grounds for divorce.

    Listen up, fembots, avowed and crypto:

    The villainy you teach me, I will execute,
    and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

  30. Jimbo says:

    Rich men still have the advantage. The rich has adjusted. The poor has no assets. The middle class is where the action remains.

  31. Twenty says:

    But that’s not what is happening. This analogy is wrong. First, the wife usually wasn’t paying the husband. Second, what is happening is someone cancelling their phone contract, and then making the company pay them a million bucks for the privilege of cancelling their contract.

    No, no, no. That’s hyperbole. What’s happening is that someone is canceling his cellphone contract, and then forcing the company (via the courts) to continue to provide him with cell-phone service because, after all, he’d become accustomed to it. Plus, it’s in the best interests of his cellphone. Which he keeps.

  32. Bob Wallace says:

    Not so far in the past it was hard to get a divorce, which meant: be very careful who you marry. There wasn’t any no-fault divorce. The children were almost always given to the father. There was so much social disapproval against single mothers they gave their babies to orphanages or else to be adopted by a married couple.

    Was it perfect? No. Was it a lot better than what we have today? Yes.

  33. Clarence says:

    I disagree, Bob Wallace, and quite frankly, if I had the power to snap my fingers and put the “old system” you are referring to back in place again, I would not do so.
    Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the modern example should show you.
    Divorce for grounds is fair and fine, and I’d say was working pretty well until the fembots messed it up. Men and women often conspired together to get a divorce (setting up a fake fault, or agreeing not to contest) and in so doing, both partner’s concerns were addressed. And of course the people whose spouses really did screw them over would often eventually be able to use the “fault” laws to get out and sometimes even extract some revenge in the form of custody or alimony.

    I’m for fault divorce, shared custody as a default (unless fault is shown) and some reforms of the domestic violence laws to make them less nuclear in application and to add more “due process” to the system.

  34. The Continental Op says:

    justaconservative is not. He’s at best a neo-con.

    Quite possibly he’s a Jew, hating the Christian church’s long tradition on divorce (recently overturned, with many Jew feminist’s help), and probably likes the Hillel school of easy divorce.

    [D: Could this be true for the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family and the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as well? Is Pastor Driscoll secretly a Jew?]

  35. Clarence says:

    I should clarify: “shared custody” as default unless certain types of fault are shown.

  36. Bob Wallace says:

    “I disagree, Bob Wallace, and quite frankly, if I had the power to snap my fingers and put the “old system” you are referring to back in place again, I would not do so.”

    The reason the children were given to the father and there was such enormous social pressure against unwed mothers is because…the word “bastard” means “a fatherless boy” and “a cruel heartless man.” That’s the experience of thousands of years of history.

    Single women with children cannot support themselves. They are overwhelmingly parasites on men and society.

    “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” – Samuel Johnson.

    Younger men today are too busy hallucinating about Alphas and Betas to pay any attention to history.

  37. Starviolet says:

    I agree with him that the previous divorce laws put more power in the husbands hands. I can understand why some of you think that this is a good thing, but I am not convinced that it was. I doubt that men were beating their wives all willy nilly but I do know that women were often forced to tolerate affair and other bad behavior that they can now divorce over. And yes adultery was grounds for divorce, but in practice women had to put up with a lot more than they do now.

    If the solution to women’s past vulnerability in marriage was an extended family’s involvement and picking your spouse carefully then there is nothing stopping men and women from living that way now.

  38. JoeS says:

    The reality is that most so-called trad cons will never support any changes in law that would roll back the static quo. Practically speaking, they are on-board with the way things are now, they are practically on-board with feminism and they’re never going to fight back seriously – and whatever happens they will say men brought it on by men not being better “leaders.” Usually there is no intellectual integrity to their positions on these issues. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the imaginary virtue of their “traditional” daughters and they also want social acceptance from the broader society and to be able to punish men they don’t like with every dirty trick in the book. This society is far far gone. Even the MOST conservative and traditional groups are in deep trouble with respect to this. There is no sanctuary anymore.

  39. van Rooinek says:

    I have heard that in certain other cultures (Russian, Mexican, etc), wife-beating is a lot more common, especially when combined with alcohol abuse

    Even in Mexico, wives with numerous brothers, cousins, and vigilant fathers are seldom beaten.

    I don’t doubt that this is true. It’s even true of white-American “rednecks”. I know a guy who drove several hundred miles to confront the husband who beat up his sister. Good thing he was a Christian and had several hundred miles to cool off, or that bro-in-law would have been in for a world of hurt. IIRC, there was a confrontation, and he never hit her again.

    As to Mexico, Russia, etc … the DV in those cultures may simply be an artifact of the high alcoholism rate. I’ve had Central American coworkers say they wouldn’t date Mexicans because of the DV issue. On the other hand, Evangelical Christianity seems to put DV to a quick end with Mexicans, Russians, etc. Apparently in those countries, people who become Christians, ACTUALLY REPENT. Likewise, Uganda put AIDS into decline by promoting Christian abstinence from the pulpit… to the shame of the stupid white liberals, whose condom programs utterly failed in most of Africa.

    Obeying the Lord. What a concept.

  40. Are you suggesting we wait another 40 or 50 years and see if they snap out of it, for fear of hurting their feelings by pointing out that they aren’t really a sheepdog any more?
    ————————————————————————————
    Nope, and I’m not sure the source of such an obvious false dichotomy. Im all for them being snapped out of it. I was snapped out of it.

    Let ask it this way…..from where will numbers of red pill men come? Numbers sufficient to actually do more than blog and yak like we do? I’m not suggesting all we do is blog and yak (before someone goes off on that).

    From feminist men?
    From liberal men?
    From men who are both?
    From the ignorant and foolish men who dont even know anything past their own life?

    Please tell me where the most likely additions to the rolls come from. We get them one by one as they are destroyed and marginalized via the things we discuss….we’d get those men by doing nothing.

    Where is the pool of the most likely (never mind HOW likely….just MOST) converts? And of the pools of men, which, if converted, are likely to be the most strident?

    My further response depends on the answers

  41. namae nanka says:

    “There was so much social disapproval against single mothers they gave their babies to orphanages”

    not exactly an orphanage, but still

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.in/2011/09/amelia-dyer-known-serial-killer-was.html

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.in/2011/09/forgotten-serial-killers-child-care.html

  42. Justin gaged: You are getting played.

    a 7 year courtship?

    Srsly, alarm bells should be going off in your head. Read this site REAL hard.

  43. @Starviolet

    If the solution to women’s past vulnerability in marriage was an extended family’s involvement and picking your spouse carefully then there is nothing stopping men and women from living that way now.

    Most of the “missing kids” bulletins you see at the entrance of Wal-Mart or on the milk cartons is a result of non-custodial dads’ families doing just that.

  44. Ollie says:

    Look through justaconservative’s reddit comment history. Unless there are more comments that were made and not saved, it appears we have a troll who was registered for less than six months and didn’t put any comments out until about 48 hours ago – the great majority of them sitting in the MensRights subreddit.

    Maybe Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh should register as justaliberal.

    [D: This could be, but in this case he would be a sock puppet saying the same things conservatives really do say. Even Empath above acknowledges that this is standard conservative fare.]

  45. “While both genders are fully capable of being the aggressor, the realities of most families meant that men were overwhelmingly favoured by this arrangement; as their typically greater sizes and strengths meant a greater ability to make marriage unconscionable (through physical violence/control)”

    What a ludicrous statement. The more domestic violence is studied, the more it’s seen that women commit domestic violence just as often as men, and in most violent relationships violence is committed by both partners. Here’s an example from the CDC (one could fill this page with more):

    http://www.eworldwire.com/pressrelease/17670

    And being bigger is no protection at all, since most men won’t hit a woman even if she attacks him, and women know it.

  46. The Continental Op says:

    [D: Could this be true for the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family and the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as well? Is Pastor Driscoll secretly a Jew?]

    Western Jews have a longstanding historical grievance against Christianity, and attack it every chance they get. Just because American evangelicals go along doesn’t make them Jews, it makes them useful idiots. After all, destroying stable family life is NOT a Christian thing to do, it’s anti-Christian.

  47. Even Empath above acknowledges that this is standard conservative fare.]
    ———————————————
    Yes I acknowledge it is. I abhor it too.
    I think you understand my contention, hope so anyway

  48. Pingback: This Time it’s Personal | Things that We have Heard and Known

  49. namae nanka says:

    BIAS OF TRIBUNALS. – The settled bias of the tribunals in favour of the woman complainant, actuating magistrates, judge and jury, operates in two ways. In the first place a woman has only to complain against a man, and the tribunal is already convinced of the justice of her claim. The tribunal is only impartial if the complaint is by one woman against another. In the next place, no adequate repression of crime or other injury by a woman against a man is even attempted.

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.in/2012/08/e-belfort-bax-major-anti-misandry.html

  50. @ Farm Boy

    I guess I’m not a man, since I don’t feel like marrying any of those sluts. No manning-up for me.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Yes I acknowledge it is. I abhor it too.
    I think you understand my contention, hope so anyway

    I think I do. I’ve been very busy and didn’t reply to your previous comment. Your initial question was why is it relevant. I think I made a strong case for why it is. Following that, I think you moved more to the question of how we can best engage the conservatives who are acting this way. How can we best persuade the ones who can be reached. I agree that this is an important question, and that I’m not always perfectly tuned there. I didn’t write this post with the hope of changing the mind of the conservative redditor in question, and very few who feel like him are already readers of the blog. I know some readers decide when a specific post is likely to speak to someone or some group online and point them to it. That is probably the best way to go. If this post isn’t helpful for that purpose I wouldn’t want you or others to try to use it that way. With all of this said, I think we are talking about something similar to an addiction. The level of denial is very strong and there is a self destructive element to it. Generally speaking what is needed is an intervention, and those aren’t always warm and fluffy.

  52. Cail Corishev says:

    “What’s happening is that someone is canceling his cellphone contract, and then forcing the company (via the courts) to continue to provide him with cell-phone service because, after all, he’d become accustomed to it. Plus, it’s in the best interests of his cellphone. Which he keeps.”

    Plus, he gets to go around telling everyone who will listen that his ex-cell-phone company sucks because if life were fair it’d be providing him with free texting too. And that it has a small dick.

  53. Dalrock, I had no illusion who was your audience and what was your intent, it is definitely not to go back at that guy and teach him.
    I only struggle with the utility of the drumbeat of lookee here another trad con with predictable screwed up views….even IF its exactly that, because what happens is people reading who may have an opportunity to convince or influence a similar person, if they are fairly new to this, will get jaded and simply see trad cons and almost reflexively set them aside, and see zero value in them even possible….where what Im saying is that we could say that about any defined demographic that is lost in that silliness. But we gotta go somewhere, talk to someone, and creating the sort of instant classification of a set of people creates a thing a little jingoistic in this ideological sense…analogously speaking.
    We can write everyone off if we want to. That means we are here and we are the smartest folks around….and we will be for the duration…..and no hope of reversing the tide. I say this as someone who DOES things, not just writing and commenting online and I hope others do too, even if its to “witness” to the “lost” in this realm. Despite the mental laziness of that guy and his like minded trad cons, given 100 randomly selected of them, vs other definable groups, i submit not only that the odds of finding people already en route to conversion is better, but finding people who are remotely possible to convert are a little higher. I can say this and not be defending anyone. that highlights a different problem that can be created by comments like that, that being that what im saying will then be dismissed as being white knight sympathetic because the rhetoric is ratcheted so high against the whole class…..even if its inadvertent on your part.

    Thats a lotta run on sentences from me!

  54. Jeremy says:

    Hah, was reading here today, and saw Bill Burr’s “You people are all the same” comedy special on netflix. I recommend it to anyone here. It gets particularly good towards the final 1/3rd but its great throughout.

  55. Anonymous says:

    A bit off-topic, but check this out on PJ Media:

    “The 10 Most Damaging Chick Flicks Ever Made,” by Cassy Fiano, 10 Sep 2012,
    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/09/10/the-10-most-damaging-chick-flicks-ever-made/

    E.g., “The Notebook is considered by many women to be one of the most beloved movies ever, a perfect example of what romance and long-lasting love is supposed to be. Too bad about half of the movie revolves around the main character cheating on her fiance. …”

  56. ybm says:

    Anonymous says:
    September 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    The poster of that article must be very young, and the films he picked are very recent.

    No mention of:

    “Sex and the Single Girl”
    “The First Wives Club”
    “Eat Pray Love”
    “An Unmarried Woman”

  57. whatever says:

    Crazy feminist link:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/but-some-woman-called-me-a-creep-once-wah/

    Apparently having to actually tell a guy “No” instead of him reading her mind like he should, ya’know, is now really mean! And it so stops you from picking up free drinks from the guy later!

    I suspect Miss Passive-Aggressive blew up on some guy she set up with “non-verbal no” and then guy started yelling back at her and then it wasn’t funny “ha, ha” any more.

    The article links back all the way to Rebecca Watson. You know, the woman who was politely propositioned in an elevator, said no, and then the guy left. So she made a youtube video and humiliated the guy nationally. Cause that is the sane response to a guy asking for a hook-up. And yeah, I’m sure at least their little social group knows the name of the guy. And with google, who knows how far it has run.

    So, sometimes they use nuclear rejection on guys, but the guys, like, so deserve it. But sometimes bad meanie men call them bad names and hurt their feelings! Which is very, very mean! And like totally different from them screaming at a guy! Like totally different.

    Asking them to actually say “No” has no become a very big deal. Wow. I mean just wow.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Okay, Cassy Fiano isn’t all that, but at least she isn’t all take-the-blue-and-wash-it-down-with-yummy-kool-aid,-deary.

  59. ybm says:

    Don’t bother linking to articles written by Amanda Marcotte. As hard as she tries to be a feminist writer the truth is she is a failed writer in professional circles. She and her readership are low quality females in and around 1-2 on the 10 point scale. She knows that her readership would not accept attacks on the apex males, as that would cement in their minds how undesirable they are and only come across as bitter.

    Instead she attacks the low lying fruit among men of incels, socially incompetent, and others who suffer the same effects of bad genetics and bad socialization that her readership does.

    What makes her attack these men is that for men, learning social skills and small amounts of personal life skills will easily put them in an area that they can live freely and independent, or successful enough that the numbers game of PUA will at least get them sex with a non-shut in feminist blogger, likely a very drunk girl who doesn’t even consider ‘rape culture’ ‘misogyny’ or ‘feminism’ in her day to day life.

    Amanda Marcotte and her readership are beyond creating anger and rage, they really are the Internets equivalent of the 0-1 quality man on the internet, yet they lack his self-awareness or introspective ability to recognize it. The problem does not lie with the ‘creepy ugly’ men who they really should just bite the bullet and have sex with.

    They fill me with pity, and more than a little sadness.

  60. ybm says:

    You will notice in life that society lets an awful lot of social incompetence slide when it comes to women. Notice that attractive women never give the so-called ‘nuclear’ rejection. Why is this? Because the attractive woman gains no status from having a man approach her, her status is secure, and the frequency of her social interactions has allowed her to appreciate a kind or nervous person.

    Compare this to the social incompetence of the below average Rebecca Watson. Appearance wise she is below average, personality wise she approaches but does not intersect zero, and she is demonstrably socially incompetent. Each man from her attractiveness level that approaches her (and I doubt many men do unless drunk and lacking options, shes not even bronze-medal level of pickup) is a reminder of her low status. “Beta” men on the internet serve the same purpose for Amanda Marcotte: A laughing smiling humiliating reminder that her status is so low that a high status male would not even fuck her unless he had no other options, and she has ZERO chance of a relationship/resource attainment/investment from said high quality man.

    Anglo-american women, because of this ‘feminine mystique’ of being moral arbiters for behaviour, are given a free pass for being socially incompetent because all responsibility for social skills is on the man and man ONLY when it comes to approaches. Compare this to Italy for example, when a woman in fact gives the initial invitation to a man with eye contact, followed by a smile, followed by orientating her body towards him in an open posture.

    Anglo women do none of the above. And in fact anglo women look upon men with vague suspicion: Creep, Loser, Pedophile, Player, Weirdo. This cultural peculiarity combined with social incompetence is in no way part of the MRA (dating advice has nothing to do with men’s rights), but it is a symptom of the misandry MRA seek to correct.

  61. krakonos says:

    @TFH
    I think there is only one country where 41% of children are born out of wedlock, the US. While I don’t know the number for UK/Canada/Australia, I know for sure that in France, Germany, Japan, etc. it is no more than 10-15% (i.e. the same as the US in 1965).
    You are wrong (not the first time) and should update your data. It took only 30 seconds to disprove your claims:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29

  62. Nathan S. says:

    “A woman, or otherwise financially vulnerable party, who couldn’t remarry could be condemned to destitution by this system if they simply left, so they would be forced to negotiate a settlement far below what they needed or deserved.”

    This argument doesn’t make any sense. If you, by virtue of your weakness–physical, financial, or otherwise–are in a poor bargaining position when it comes to marriage, then you’re in a poor bargaining position when it comes to marriage. Plainly, the question of need is not in play, as women and men have survived for millennia with their basic needs being met under a marital or a similar arrangement. And you don’t “deserve” any reshuffling of that contract any more than someone with 2 dollars in his pocket “deserves” another 3 dollars so he can afford the Big Mac meal. This fool is essentially arguing that people deserve to receive things from others because of some inherent characteristic or quality, regardless of the value they provide to the individuals with whom they contract.

    Someone needs to learn a little about the basics of economics.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Playing the devil’s advocate for a moment.

    Grant there were instances of “marriage unconscionable (through physical violence/control)” having existed. There are no practical means of dissolving said marriages without also providing the means to, basically debase the institution as a whole – which has been discussed here at length.

    An excellent comparison is that of welfare. The main justification has been the situation of individuals whom, through an extraordinary series of unfortunate events beyond their control, find themselves out of work and unable to support themselves [or their dependents].

    But the problem with welfare, is that there is no practical means of identifying and targeting only those aforementioned ‘unlucky’ individuals. There is no way to separate them from the naturally lazy, or those have adapted slothfully to the new incentives that welfare create.

    The same problem appears to exist with unilateral divorce. There is the same problem of a near impossibility of identifying and separating those committed spouses living a “marriage unconscionable”, from those individuals who simply [for a variety of frivolous reasons] did not try to make the marriage work. justaconservative briefly hints at this dilemma – “without crossing the line into blatant illegality.”

    Indeed it is not hard to cherry pick anecdotal evidence of a battered spouse who worked 18 hours a day and dutifully performed every imaginable obligation for an ungrateful, abusive spouse. Indeed it is not hard to cherry pick anecdotal evidence of a diligent labourer who worked 18 hours a day, 6-7 days a week and suddenly finds they are out of work, say due to an injury, a recession, a business failure or a technological advancement rendering their skills redundant.

    But again these instances are few and far between [relative to the rest of the population] and also extremely difficult to reliably identify. Not only that, but the most important point of all: incentives matter. Without welfare, people save more and spend less, they adopt more future oriented outlook out of necessity; they are more prepared for the uncertain future. The alternative to not adopting this behaviour is anti-survival. Likewise I would therefore suggest, without unilateral divorce, people work harder at making the marriage work; fidelity and commitment are forced upon the spouses by way of necessity. The alternative for not adopting this behaviour is anti-survival.

    Furthermore one last point: it’s about the collective interest of society, the very foundations of a stable, prosperous competitive civilisation. As I mentioned above unilateral divorce provides the mechanism of debasing the entire institution itself, even if the initial legislative acts [and corollary divorce creating laws discussed at length here] are tightly regulated and rarely granted, the corruption grows over time through the phenomenon described as the ‘ratchet effect’ [see Robert Higgs]. The situation is the same with welfare, as over 100 years can attest; compare its initial provisions to today’s extraordinary and unsustainable levels. Try even a classic example with the Roman Empire’s explosion of welfare over the centuries and the inability of Emperors to control in particular grain subsidies and handouts.

    So we’ve all seen the long-term effects of unilateral divorce; destruction of the family unit and disincentive of family formation, anemic fertility rates, the erosion of generational wealth accumulation, the creation of underclasses and breeding grounds for various social pathologies and criminals from broken homes. Also the effects of welfarism; the disincentive for individuals [particularly of low socio-economic background] to work, explosion of government debt, spending and taxation, the increased size and centralised power of government, the increase of government interference in the economy and social/private lives of citizens, the dependence of citizens upon the state displacing that which was once taken care of by community ties, local bonds, social and religious organisations as well as extended family.

    Basically it sounds harsh, but those minority individuals in “marriage unconscionable” and “series of unfortunate events beyond their control” were ignored for the wider, collective interest of civilisation.

  64. Johnycomelately says:

    Concerning the violence in marriage, one has to remember corporate punishment was legally sanctioned in the past and used by all and sundry, including husbands, mothers, the state, courts , schools and the military. It was a just tool of authority that applied to a different epoch.

    It was real and did happen but that was a different age and different rules applied, you cannot use previous standards to justify injustice today. The call to return to past rules of marriage is also an error, justice, plain and simple should be the aim.

  65. JoeS says:

    Corporal punishment was not necessarily unjust. The “chivalrous” concept of justice (it has nothing to do with chivalry and everything to do with frustrated men wishing to meddle in the affairs of others) means that women are untouchable sacred creatures who must never face punishment for their actions. It’s not a coincidence that the hysteria about “domestic violence” coincided with legalization of abortion. Sacred creatures must never be slapped without the long arm of the law dragging a man away, but the sacred ones must be protected from any possible penalty when they have their babies ripped out of their wombs.

  66. Lavazza says:

    TFH: One aspect that partly explains differences in levels of misandry in Europe is how many men died in the two world wars. Where few or no men died misandry is higher.

  67. Chris says:

    johnny said

    Concerning the violence in marriage, one has to remember corporate punishment was legally sanctioned in the past and used by all and sundry,

    1. The cane is still a judicial punishment. In Singapore, which is a city not without an educated and cosmopolitan populace. Talking about judicial punishment is moving off topic.
    2. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study shows that men are as likely, or if not more likely to be subject to domestic violence as women. This finding was replicated in the Christchurch study. Links to the reports are here

    The idea that women are somewhat saintly and are not as aggressive as men, or not as likely to be destructive, is arrant nonsense, and should be confronted as such.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anonymous

    Okay, Cassy Fiano isn’t all that, but at least she isn’t all take-the-blue-and-wash-it-down-with-yummy-kool-aid,-deary.

    I read 10 through 6. Having seen all but Dirty Dancing, I must say that she is a remarkably bad reviewer.

    To wit: McAdams character is having an affair with the lawyer; not the other way around.

  69. Binks Webelf says:

    Just saying, fellow Dalrockians– but the fact that the legal system is currently wildly unbalanced in favour of women means neither that (a) men are sinless in relationships, nor (b) that the sins and current feminist-based bullying of men & husbands justify whatever else we decide to say or do about the situation– however horrible. That is– Ta Da!– yet again the sin of Adam. “The woman you gave me.. she made me do it.”

    Likewise, speaking of women in terms of their sexual organs, sex-acts, or worse? If the primary principles behind this blog versus other manosphere blogs is Christianity, then all of us who are brothers and sisters in Christ– men and women, married or not– shall in That Day stand before Christ our Lord & judge, giving account for every act, word, thought, sin and idle word.

    If men are meant to be leaders, kings, Christ-bearers, living signs of death to self and sin, more than alive by the virtue of Christ’s resurrection– how then shall we live in such times? How do we put aside the disobedience, narcissism, cruelty, and anomie of these days?

    After all, we all have the same heart-piercing longing after God and eternity– St. Augustine said “Seek what you seek, but not where you seek it,” and “O god, Thou has made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless, till they find their rest in Thee.” An idolatry of pleasure, or selfish freedom, of gender-wars, of marriage itself? A symptom of restless hearts wreaking havoc. Even secular feminists– by scheming for a feministocracy heaven on earth– are seeking they know not what which cannot ever come to be, because they have rejected God and heaven, and worshipped themselves and their ideas.

    Thoughts?

  70. Cane Caldo says:

    Likewise, speaking of women in terms of their sexual organs, sex-acts, or worse?…Thoughts?

    I think your avatar, name, and facebook profile (double whammy: Facebook is for silly girls, and the profile you project is boyish in the worst way) are less than the sum of you, but they suggest you are unworthy of serious consideration.

    Same with chicks.

  71. Binks Webelf says:

    So your manly-man response to my extended comment is, essentially, “You’re a sissy buttface, and girls got cooties?” Okey dokey then, and thanks for showing up. Next.

  72. nobody says:

    @johnnycomelately
    “Concerning the violence in marriage, one has to remember corporate punishment was legally sanctioned in the past and used by all and sundry, including husbands, mothers, the state, courts , schools and the military. It was a just tool of authority that applied to a different epoch.”

    Wow,you are late to the party.
    Corporate punishment is alive and well.It’s certainly no joy to be sitting in a cell on a false DV allegation.
    What IS new is that the State has decided it wants a monopoly on that,and MORE.It want MORE everyday,and will never stop until there is NOTHING to extract.

  73. Dalrock says:

    On out of wedlock births in the US and elsewhere, here is a chart from the NCHS:

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    So your manly-man response to my extended comment

    I’ll stand-by while you smack yourself on the forehead as it dawns on you why I wrote what I wrote, in the way I wrote it.

    The image we project matters in how we are perceived.

    Same with chicks.

  75. Some Guy says:

    @Binks — That is– Ta Da!– yet again the sin of Adam. “The woman you gave me.. she made me do it.”

    Uh… no.

    First… look at the subset of men that in good faith… tried to do the right thing. No [or very little if that’s unthinkable] premarital sex, no adultery after marriage… they support their families… their wife has the option to stay at home… they do not abuse their wives. They try to be loving and follow the relationship advice of society, their church, and so forth– they really try to listen and be attentive to the needs of their wives.

    So these guys are doing their part… trying to do the right thing and then… like a plinko chip, they fall through a predictable cascade of events. Their wife loses sexual interest in them. Some sort of marital cold war ensues. Then in some cases, she divorces their husband for cash and prizes. In some cases, the guy ends up in prison because he can’t make the child support payments. Even if he isn’t ruined financially or jailed, he’s had his home destroyed and his children taken away from him… by force or threat of force. And then he sees his own children damaged and threatened by their new circumstances.

    This is a calamity. Even guys that don’t go the whole nine yards… they still have this looming over their heads like some sword of Damacles. Even guys that don’t get married have to face the fact that if they choose to tie the knot, there are no protections on his investment– his commitment to his wife and children means nothing. If anything goes wrong… he is assumed to be at fault. Even if he is not considered a hateful brute, he will at least be seen as a putz or something. This assessment has the full weight of our judiciary and police structures… and he is guilty in the sight of the law the moment she accuses him of any kind of abuse. Heck… she could attack him and the children could still be taken away from him.

    There is no passing the buck her. No pointing at Eve… no blaming God… not even a blaming of feminism. What is a man’s responsibility in facing all this…? Where do we possibly begin to rebuild in the midst of all of… this?

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Binks Webelf

    Just saying, fellow Dalrockians– but the fact that the legal system is currently wildly unbalanced in favour of women means neither that (a) men are sinless in relationships, nor (b) that the sins and current feminist-based bullying of men & husbands justify whatever else we decide to say or do about the situation– however horrible. That is– Ta Da!– yet again the sin of Adam. “The woman you gave me.. she made me do it.”

    Are you responding to this post? To another commenter? Someone you met at the bakery yesterday? Please quote what this is in response to.

    Likewise, speaking of women in terms of their sexual organs, sex-acts, or worse? If the primary principles behind this blog versus other manosphere blogs is Christianity, then all of us who are brothers and sisters in Christ– men and women, married or not– shall in That Day stand before Christ our Lord & judge, giving account for every act, word, thought, sin and idle word.

    Again, please quote who and what you are responding to.

  77. farm boy says:

    Another “men should be doing more” article in the NYT by ostensibly conservative David Brooks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/brooks-why-men-fail.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

  78. There is no passing the buck her. No pointing at Eve… no blaming God… not even a blaming of feminism. What is a man’s responsibility in facing all this…? Where do we possibly begin to rebuild in the midst of all of… this?
    —————————————-
    Exactly…..
    Jar Jar Binks, listen up, I give you credit for putting a tiny bit different spin on it than other’s of the infected, but, infected you are. There is no dichotomy. It isnt men eat it and take it vs men blame the woman. Thats false.
    She, as an individual person of agency didnt MAKE him, as an individual with agency do anything.
    Now….back to the topic at hand. If a group is running amok destroying families, what to do? May I assume you are all down with “defending the family” by opposing same sex marriage and abortion? Well, me too, but why would you not extend the exact same rational process when thinking about what women are doing? THERE is the cog. dis. you suffer while you kick back in the comfy chair afforded you while you pursue righteousness but not so close to home.
    For too long men have stood by and allowed all of this stuff to happen, and its past time to say stop. Setting aside what is actually the biggest threat to the church and the family is a bad idea

  79. Lavazza says:

    Dalrock: Unmarried mother does not mean that the child is not living with both parents.

    “The proportion of children living with both parents, following marked decline between 1970 and 1990, has fallen more slowly over the most recent two decades, dropping modestly from 69 percent in 2000, to 65 percent in 2011.”

    http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/231

    For Sweden that percentage is higher (74).

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lavazza, how long is the man allowed to be around the child in those situations? My own anecdotal observations lead me to speculate that cohabitations break up at a higher rate than marriages (over 50%), and fail sooner (less than 5 years). I have known, from a safe distance, babymommas who shacked up with their new man for 2 to 5 years, depending on how long it took to get her preggers. Because once the child is mobile to some degree – 2 years of age or more – then the new man became BO-ring and she was no longer haaaapy, and he had to be got rid of. On the one hand, there is no way to get cash and prizes out of the departing sperm donor, on the other hand it’s really easy to kick his butt out the door & make it stick.

    And so she gets cash and prizes from the state, as a poor, destitute woman who once again has been abandoned by a cruel, heartless, evil man. True, the cash and prizes are not what she could have gotten from Richy Richguy, but her first unmarried pregnancy ruled him out anyway. So she marries the state.

    That’s right, all you white knights out there, women who are babymommas are quite aware of the rules for what used to be called AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and so they are very careful never to marry their sperm donors, nor in common law states to ever hold themselves out as married, as that puts them into a different benefits category – they do not get paid as much for babies, in other words. The feminine imperative demands sperm and resources, for sure they do not have to come from the same source.

    Cohabitation means cash and prizes for babies, just as in marriage, there’s a different set of rules to hurdle over, that’s all.

  81. Lavazza says:

    AR: The Swedish stats are for married AND unmarried parents together. It starts at 1 YO at 90 % and falls to 60 % at 17 YO, averaging 74 %. (In Sweden it is VERY COMMON for people to marry AFTER having children.)

    For the States that would mean starting at 80 % and falling to 50 % at 17 YO, averaging 65 %.

  82. Jimbo says:

    @JoeS “The reality is that most so-called trad cons will never support any changes in law that would roll back the static quo.”

    The reality is there is always an out. Prenuptial agreements are largely upheld by the courts. If you desire to hold your a wife to an contractual agreement, this is the route to take. This certainly doesn’t change the law where it involves children, but you’ll be surprised at how many women do decide to give up custody right to their ex-husbands.

    However, the main point is to keep the marriage intact. There is not enough discussion here about how a man should choose a wife.

  83. Platinum missus says:

    I have noticed that the common denominator of these women filing for no fault divorce is unhaaapy-ness ,so I invite them to read an interesting article aptly titled “Marriage Was Not Designed To Make You Happy ”

    http://www.blackandmarriedwithkids.com/2011/02/marriage-was-not-designed-to-make-you-happy/

  84. Dalrock says:

    @Lavazza

    For Sweden that percentage is higher (74).

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx

    I just did a quick calculation based on the data here and that turns out to be the same exact percent I get for white children in the US. As Anon Reader mentioned, the telling stat is probably the percent who make it to adulthood with both parents in the home. I think you shared some stats before on this for Sweden and as I recall it was very high even though very few parents legally married.

  85. Lavazza says:

    Dalrock: The same factors give higher or lower figures in Sweden as well. Sorry for making a big quote.

    “When comparing with the child’s year of birth, the likelihood of
    separation increases during the following two years. After that, the
    likelihood of separation decreases although it is still significantly
    higher than during the child’s year of birth. The risk of separation is
    higher for couples where the woman is under 24 when the first child
    is born and if the couple start to cohabit in connection with the
    child’s birth. On the other hand, couples where the women is over
    30 when the first child is born and where the couple have lived
    together a while before the child’s birth are more stable. Cohabiting
    couples are more likely to separate compared to couples who get
    married either prior to or after the child’s birth. The risk of
    separation is also high among those couples who don’t have any
    more children and among couples where the woman is Swedishborn
    and the man is foreign-born.

    Lower-educated couples are more likely to separate and this
    likelihood decreases the higher the couple’s level of education.
    Another risk factor is if one of the partners is not in gainful
    employment compared to if both are gainfully employed. Couples
    living in rented dwellings are more likely to separate compared to
    those living in owner-occupied houses. This is true even when we
    control for the type of municipality the couple is domiciled in.

    A small number of those who had their first child in 2000 have not
    cohabited. About ten percent of the couples did not live together
    when the child was born, but most of them have lived together
    beforehand or afterwards. Just over three percent of all couples have
    never lived together and are assumed to have had the child outside
    a relationship. Those who have their child without having cohabited
    often have children earlier and have a lower level of education than
    those who have a child inside a relationship. When we followed up
    these 1 100 or so couples at the end of 2010, around half of them
    were single. The women are most often single with children, while it
    is most common among the men to be single without children.”

  86. Lavazza says:

    The stat for making it until adulthood with the family intact is 60 in Sweden (if adulthood is defined as 17 YO). The trend is negative, though, and it is not impossible that more children will have been through divorce than not in 10-30 years from now.

  87. Lavazza says:

    “Black children are significantly less likely than other children to be living with two married parents. In 2011, 33 percent of black children were living with two parents, compared with 85 percent of Asian children, 75 percent of white children, and 60 percent of Hispanic children.”

    33% should give something like 50 % at 1 YO and 10 % at 17 YO for black kids.

  88. Walkingdude says:

    @Lavazza

    out of wedlock means out of wedlock, not in cohabitation or out of cohabitation.

  89. Lavazza says:

    I guess the best bet group (10-20 % of the population) has the figure of 80 % max at 17 YO.

  90. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    Great link, thanks. Ties back to the lack of reality many men and women have about relationships, including the terrible specter that is divorce.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    lavazza
    AR: The Swedish stats are for married AND unmarried parents together. It starts at 1 YO at 90 % and falls to 60 % at 17 YO, averaging 74 %. (In Sweden it is VERY COMMON for people to marry AFTER having children.)

    Thanks for that comment and for the link. About 4 or 5 years back, Stan Kurtz was doing work on researching the marriage rates in Europe, especially the Nordic countries and northern Euro nations. His research suggested that marriage was sliding: in the 1970’s, cohabitiation led to marriage when the woman got pregnant, in the 80’s and 90’s it became more common to put off marriage until after the birth of the first child, and in the late 90’s to early 00’s many couples (statistically notable) were not marrying until after the birth of a second child. There were variations, of course; Denmark’s pattern of family formation was not quite the same as Sweden’s, and Nederland’s a bit different still, Norway more like Sweden, etc.

    But the point he made was that marriage was more of an option than anything necessary to have children. And he suggested the US was heading in the same direction.

  92. 8oxer says:

    I enjoy this blog but rarely comment, as I’m a godless atheist heathen type. Occasionally, though, I get trolled out… like now.

    Justin gaged writes:

    I’m so glad I found a girl in high school that still believes in abstinence, and that marriage for till death. 5 years so far, only 21 more months until we’re one.

    to which Samuel Solomon replies:

    a 7 year courtship? alarm bells should be going off in your head. Read this site REAL hard.

    Not wishing you ill Justin, but I echo Samuel’s assessment. It’s possible that we don’t know what we’re talking about, but your story sounds decidedly improbable to me also.

    How much do you really know about this sweet, innocent little thing? Don’t be afraid to do some discrete digging and find the backstory. It’ll be better to know the truth now, than to be sitting in the dock of the divorce court later, watching her do her “sweet and innocent” schtick with the judge.

    Prove us wrong before you tie the knot. You don’t owe it to us, but you do owe it to your future children.

    Regards, Boxer

    [D: Welcome Boxer.]

  93. “[Amanda Marcotte] attacks the low lying fruit among men of incels, socially incompetent, and others who suffer the same effects of bad genetics and bad socialization that her readership does.”

    She attacks people who are worse off than she is–she’s a bully, in other words.

  94. Martian Bachelor says:

    @farm boy: …in her fascinating new book, “The End of Men,” Hanna Rosin posits a different theory. It has to do with adaptability. Women, Rosin argues, are like immigrants who have moved to a new country. They see a new social context, and they flexibly adapt to new circumstances. Men are like immigrants who have physically moved to a new country but who have kept their minds in the old one. They speak the old language. They follow the old mores. Men are more likely to be rigid; women are more fluid. (Brooks)

    The yarns these social constructivists spin. It’s a sight to behold. Just like the sheer multi-tasking awesomely adaptable totally sassy awesomeness of today’s women is. The whole field gets tilted in their favor to near vertical, they rack up a 75-3 score, and they can’t figure out why men have left the field.

    A better analogy might be getting overrun by armed immigrants, and trying to stand up to the tide.

  95. ybm says:

    The Real Peterman says:
    September 11, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    There is a former commenter in the manosphere, ‘he who must not be named’ who made that same point not too long ago. To speak his name would invite a terror worse than anything Dalrock could conceive, but you probably know who I am referring to.

  96. ybm says:

    I would also question whether she is infact bullying people that are ‘worse off’ than she is when it comes to relationship success. I actually think she is attacking men who are right about equal with her attraction level, and that’s what makes her so vicious about it, because she KNOWS this.

    She is an aging radfem with a university education in basket weaving and a failed journalism career. She is average in looks.

    The men she attacks are university educated men with various careers but without the income stream to say they are successful and therefore desirable. They are average or below in looks.

    Compare the two: They are equal in status level. Because of woman’s inherent drive to marry-up she does not consider these men at her level, though they are. It is the frustration of her hypergamous drives that is a major source of her bullying.

    I mean for fucks sake: Read this gem:

    “I have been female my whole life. (I know! Crazy.) I’ve had lots of female friends. I’ve been hit on a lot and seen them hit on a lot. ”

    This is a woman who DESPERATELY wants male attention (why else would she say she’s been female her whole life if she wasn’t self-conscious that men don’t even notice she’s a woman!) Even the most radical man-hating feminist turns into a purring kitten when she finally just fucking RELAXES. I can’t say the same about Christian women, because they never, EVER allow themselves to relax in the presence of a morally inferior, fallen, sick perverse twisted man (which all men are according to her personal Jesus and Mark Driscoll).

  97. jg says:

    Anybody, trying to figure SV’s bona fides…here it is in a nutshell. She basically says women do not need men.
    This is from HUS’s recent article comment section:
    Starviolet September 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    I dont think that we need to return to prefeminsm either, but as long as women are able to provide for themselves they won’t really need men on an individual level. Men have become more of a want for many women as we can nurture children.

  98. ybm says:

    jg says:
    September 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Ya I wouldn’t worry about following commentors around on the internet, it was pretty obvious from the start that she was of the “‘fish-bicycle’ man-up and prove yourself” academy of women. Like Gabriella/Gabby is, she is likely a former commentor using a new name, while rehashing the same arguments.

  99. jg says:

    I was not following her but I saw her comment and decided to share it with y’all…my question is why is she here in the 1st place if she has opinions like this? What does she get out of all this?

  100. ybm says:

    jg says:
    September 11, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    I actually suspected starviolent WAS Sarah Walsh. You identifying that she comments on the blog is ironic to me.

  101. greyghost says:

    Looks like some femmy group is sending over agents to derail your blog Dalrock.

    [D: Starviolet is gone, but I see no evidence of a conspiracy.]

  102. ybm says:

    ybm says:
    September 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    The money-shot that shows you what women like Sarah walsh and starviolent want in life is this part of the quote: “but as long as women are able to provide for themselves they won’t really need men on an individual level. Men have become more of a want for many women as we can nurture children.”

    Individual men are not required to raise children, but on AGGREGATE they are required to man-up and work in order to support the social system. Until women can’t provide for themselves, then they require a man of sufficient means to appear from nowhere and man-up and marry them.

    Its pretty simple really:

    1. Women should be allowed to service the cocks of the most desirable men until they don’t want to with no social consequences.
    2. At this time the desirable men should immediately marry whoever they are with.
    3. For the rest of women the undesirable men should be slaving away at jobs to support the social welfare of single mothers who chose to conceive with the but could not ‘tie the dirty man slut down’
    4. Women at this point should be enabled to frivolously divorce the men they are married to and consume their resources.
    5. See 1.

    This is essentially the worldview of women and has been since the beginning. The only new thing under the sun is that they want 1-2 culturally enforced, while they want 3-4 legislatively enforced. Their ideal world is one where women can wantonly fuck the most desirable males while supported by the undesirable males through wealth transfer. When the desirable male is no longer desired they want women to be able to frivolously divorce said male, and wantonly fuck the most desirable males while supported by the undesirable males (including the ex-husband) through wealth transfer.

  103. greyghost says:

    Dalrock I was making reference to the bizarre post from a “Binks Webelf”

  104. koevoet says:

    One of the problems that we have in this country is that the pendulum swings hard both ways and never finds a happy medium. The things justaconservative brings up in his rebuttal *could*” have happened back then. I’m sure they did, hell I’ve seen similar things happen to a Catholic woman I know even in today’s climate, who *could* have remarried but did not due to Church teachings. I think this situation did need to be dealt with, but we as a society let things get too far where now every divorce becomes a Lifetime abuse-porn movie where the woman “just had to get out”.

    One poster mentioned that vigilant fathers, brothers, and cousins could deal with a lot of these problems. I think having much more community and family involvement would be a good thing. I am all for dowry and arranged marriages. I sometimes think that parents could do a much better job choosing a partner for their children than they could themselves. Women are ruled by tingles and many men, especially beta-men after a long sexual drought, will run to the first available snatch. Fathers and mothers will be much better at making this decision – especially where the daughter is concerned as the father will want to protect his investment from the bad boys and the mother won’t be tingling so she can pick a decent man.
    The man will have help in finding a wife instead of having to do all of it on his own and both will have some degree of protection. Since this is a marriage between families, if he is beating his wife her father and brothers are liable to give him a beating he won’t forget…and there are likely ties between his father and her’s so it will be in his best interest to deal with things before they get out of hand. For the man, if she runs off he gets to keep the dowry and has the comfort that she’s now unmarrigible as her father isn’t going to want to pay out a second time.

    Who would have thought…in 10,000+ years mankind might have though all this through before?

  105. ybm says:

    koevoet says:
    September 11, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Or, you could be an actual MRA and try to reform marriage and divorce laws or do like a lot of us and fund legal reform groups.

    You’ve identified the problem, now what are you doing about it?

  106. farm boy says:

    @Martian B

    The yarns these social constructivists spin

    In the end, I will place my bets on human nature, not their made up social constructs. I would advise other people to do so also.

  107. Johnycomelately says:

    My young cousin lives in Sweden and tells me they actually have a subject at school that teaches them how to deal with divorce and the processes involved.

    I wonder if they teach subjects on how to actually remain married? Feminism gone mad.

  108. Martian Bachelor says:

    Farm boy – after thinking about it, I realized Rosin’s thesis is just another retread from the 1980’s, like how they’re also so out of new ideas that they’re re-running The Peter Pan Syndrome on us from back then too.

    In Why Men Are The Way They Are (1987), Warren Farrell wrote about the “how far women had come and how men needed to hurry up and catch up” meme (or something like that) that was going around in pop feminism back then. This sounds just like it all over again.

    I also noted no actual men were spoken to during the making of that editorial opinion piece. Pffft!

  109. farm boy says:

    I also noted no actual men were spoken to during the making of that editorial opinion piece.

    This seems happen a good bit. For example, Hymawitz doesn’t seem to see the need to consult with men in a book about men.

  110. GKChesterton says:

    @Mule,

    Amazingly I’m a neo-con and I agree. In fact this deals with Fr. Neuhaus’ “mediating institutions” (another neo-con) of which family was one such institution and arguably the most important (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/002-mediating-institutions-17).

    Even in Mexico, wives with numerous brothers, cousins, and vigilant fathers are seldom beaten.

    Indeed. I just talked to a very machismo older alpha with a thirty something daughter who is married and some of the lectures he gave to the son-in-law. Old large clans are a law of their own.

    @Anonymous,
    In this case, “conservative” is “radical” with a 30+ year time lag.

    Exactly. The problem is when a conservative believes history started when he was born. If this was true then he is “conserving” the old true thing but it is not ture. See the current troubles in the Anglican communion as the conservative party is essentially the party of thirty years ago. However the Christian androsphere is guilty of this too when it claims the current troubles are the worst ever seen.

    @Clarence,

    There were also laws on the books, and, at least even in the early 20th century (don’t remember about the 19th) physical cruelty was grounds for a divorce.

    The laws on physical cruelty in many cultures are ancient. There are prohibitions on such behavior going back to at least the medieval period. What is generally confused is that there was a right of punishment. The ancient world separated punishment from abuse. The modern world confuses the two.

    @Dalrock,
    Are you suggesting we wait another 40 or 50 years and see if they snap out of it, for fear of hurting their feelings by pointing out that they aren’t really a sheepdog any more?

    I’ll propose that it is already happening. I think the tide shifted in the 80’s which is why the MRM could coalesce. I’d also propose that full scale attacks are less likely to get them to start acting like sheepdogs. That is, I’m not sure if it is a wise strategic approach. You want to win the war, not every battle. I’d rather not slow the train down.

    Instead they need to be reminded that…you know…you are a sheepdog. Shaming language that ultimate motivator of our sex, works and should be employed to bring them to heel.

    @Anonymous (Different?)
    There are no practical means of dissolving said marriages without also providing the means to, basically debase the institution as a whole – which has been discussed here at length.

    You are correct. I unilaterally oppose divorce and believe only indefinite separation should be allowed.

    @Boxer,
    Prove us wrong before you tie the knot. You don’t owe it to us, but you do owe it to your future children.

    Agreed. This sounds like they _may_ have met Freshman year HS and are now Freshman year college and are doing the stupid thing and waiting. Especially as a Christian this is stupid. Why on earth would you frustrate yourselves and God’s desire for marriage this way? Either you can avoid the lust and therefore should devote yourself fully to God or you can’t in which case you are setting yourself up for sin. You are adults. Act like it.

  111. whatever says:


    Fathers and mothers will be much better at making this decision – especially where the daughter is concerned as the father will want to protect his investment from the bad boys and the mother won’t be tingling so she can pick a decent man.


    Agreed. This sounds like they _may_ have met Freshman year HS and are now Freshman year college and are doing the stupid thing and waiting. Especially as a Christian this is stupid. Why on earth would you frustrate yourselves and God’s desire for marriage this way? Either you can avoid the lust and therefore should devote yourself fully to God or you can’t in which case you are setting yourself up for sin. You are adults. Act like it.

    I’m sure their parents have reasons that sound good for making them wait. For example, when you marry, you must immediately have five kids. It says so right in the bible. Somewhere. Or at least it is implied. Immediately have kids. This has strong biblical basis. I’ve just never seen it. But I am very, very sure it is there. So sure, I don’t even have to look.

  112. whatever says:

    I was quoting two different people. The second quote is to mock the first person talking the usual trash people who think to much of themselves say.

  113. namae nanka says:

    “In Why Men Are The Way They Are (1987), Warren Farrell wrote about the “how far women had come and how men needed to hurry up and catch up” meme (or something like that) that was going around in pop feminism back then.”

    Did he follow it himself?

    Haven’t seen this name in the manosphere:

    “Before John Gray and Robert Bly; before Warren Farrell, Robert Glover and Leonard Sax, there was Herb Goldberg whose classic work, “The Hazards of Being Male” was originally written as the male response to feminism s claim that oppression was for women-only.

    In fact, this book by Herb Goldberg first became popular among female readers, who would often give the book to their male partners. Betty Friedan, the ‘Mother of feminism,’ who shared the stage with Dr. Goldberg in a 1979 program entitled “Men and Women; The Stresses of Transition,” stated, “Every word Herb Goldberg says about the man-woman thing has been so on target that we have not had to waste any time on silly arguments.”

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Hazards-Being-Male-Surviving/dp/0965762874/ref=cm_rdp_product

    Here are some of his videos, including the above mentioned talk with Betty Friedan:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/famousstudio1/videos?sort=dd&flow=grid&view=0&page=2

  114. namae nanka says:

    for example here Warren Farrell speaks similarly(men needed to hurry up and catch up)

  115. imnobody says:

    Why Men Are The Way They Are (1987), Warren Farrell wrote about the “how far women had come and how men needed to hurry up and catch up” meme (or something like that) that was going around in pop feminism back then.

    Well, I have this book with me (it’s one of the few books I have bought it twice) and I have to say that it is an amazing book.

    While it gives some lip service to feminism, lacks of a grounding in evolutionary psychology, some chapters are weak and the examples are completely dated (you will read a lot about Flashdance), I think it is quite probably the best MRA book out there.

    This book touched me in so many ways and my copy is underlined heavily. A lot of information that I didn’t find anywhere was there. I reread it from time to time to remember some things.

  116. imnobody says:

    Lefty Feminism (collectivist) : Men must be slaves, their money gathered through taxes and given to women by the government.

    Republican Feminism (individualist) : Each woman must have a slave of her own and personally control the money transfer to her. It is more fun!!!

  117. imnobody, yes, Farrell influenced me too. It was just about the only book of its kind at the time. The guy was an ex-feminist, who had become disillusioned. I agree that he had blind spots. The insight he was missing, and which would have explained a lot that puzzled and frustrated him, was hypergamy and men’s corresponding desire for young, nubile women (not career women). Farrell was good on domestic violence perpetrated by women. He was an egalitarian, in the strict sense, and I think the sheer dishonesty and bias of his erstwhile feminist colleagues had made him look at the other side of the equation.

  118. Hanna Rosin has no case. Her sex invent practically nothing and cannot contribute to infrastructure and technology in a significant way. How can she be blind to this? Where does she think civilisation came from?

  119. Höllenhund says:

    One aspect that partly explains differences in levels of misandry in Europe is how many men died in the two world wars. Where few or no men died misandry is higher.

    Meh. According to this logic, Ukraine should have the lowest level of misandry in the entire continent. Considering the antics of Femen and other issues, this is hardly the case.

  120. greenlander says:

    Hollenhund, have you actually BEEN to Ukraine? Women behave totally differently there: they behave like actual women. (They’re still calculating hos like in the west, but they don’t have the wind of feminism giving them such an entitlement complex. ) Femen gets a lot of press but they’re really an exception in their culture. Feminism is sort of a joke there. Stand-up solid upper-beta guys pull fine tail there and don’t get raped in divorce.

  121. Lavazza says:

    Höllenhund: Of course security and wealth is the important part. Secure and wealthy countries can afford stupidity, like feminism and misandry. But the common denominator for the level of misandry in European countries that has had female voting for 60-100 years is their situation in WWII. The effects of the lack of men after WWII has stayed in the culture even after the situation changed. In countries like Sweden feminists are ruling. In Ukraine they are sent to jails for their antics.

  122. Höllenhund says:

    As soon as there are only 4 husbands available for 5 women seeking them, women start to behave well almost immediately. This would happen among black women in the US too, if not for massive govt. subsidies given to black women

    Perfect. So all we need to do to sort this mess out is to abolish government subsidies and exterminate 1/5th of all men.

  123. Höllenhund says:

    I haven’t been to Ukraine but I know a bunch of Ukrainians and Russians. Most of their women are indeed irritating, calculating sluts who complain about men, both domestic and foreign, all the time, and the only reason they cannot wreak havoc around themselves like their Western “sisters” do is that their backward, matriarchal culture lacks the potential for wealth creation necessary to build the feminist Matrix. The former Soviet republics are among the most misandrist places on Earth. Men’s lives are worth nothing there. Just look at their mortality rates, alcoholism rates, drug use rates and so on. Plus male-female relations are dismal.

  124. Lovekraft says:

    Bill Burr has an awesome special out “You People are all the Same” and touches on feminism. Excellent stuff.

    In it, he states that having a woman talking about men’s problems is like a man talking to women about what to expect during pregnancy. ” OK, around the third trimester, you’re going to experience some pressure in the stomach.”

    Ha.

  125. greyghost says:

    Perfect. So all we need to do to sort this mess out is to abolish government subsidies and exterminate 1/5th of all men.

    The3 men are already gone they are in prison. Just end the subsidies balance the budget and we have restored politeness. Too bad women have the vote will never happen.

  126. Dalrock says:

    @Höllenhund

    As soon as there are only 4 husbands available for 5 women seeking them, women start to behave well almost immediately. This would happen among black women in the US too, if not for massive govt. subsidies given to black women

    Perfect. So all we need to do to sort this mess out is to abolish government subsidies and exterminate 1/5th of all men.

    I expect the pressure will start to build without any specific action needed. In the US at least marriage is very much a status/class marker. I expect this to only increase. Feminism was able to temporarily convince middle class women that single motherhood was ok on an intellectual level, but this won’t stick. My wife has had conversations with a number of middle class college educated women our age about birth out of wedlock. When asked about the issue in general, they reflexively parrot the party line that women don’t need a husband to have a baby. When she follows up and asks them if they would have a child out of wedlock, they are horrified at the prospect. Of course not! Why would she ask such a thing? As divorce and marriage rates continue to stratify on class lines, this will only become a more important marker. Part of this is the undeniable disadvantage to children not having their father in the household represents. MC and UMC women are extremely competitive with other women on outcomes for their children. Feminists won’t be able to hold back the tide here. The acceptance was only superficial for MC women in the first place. Once they better understand that being married to the father of their children is something they can point to as making them higher status to those low class baby mamas (who either never married or did marry but “couldn’t keep a man”) it will be all over.

    As for only having 4 husbands for every 5 would be wives, this is also baked in. No marriage strike is needed, because between spreading knowledge of game and the missing signal there will be a shortage of the kind of men MC women see marrying as their birthright. This must be already happening on the margins, because there is already much gnashing of teeth about this in the media. Just wait until the crisis actually materializes and imagine the amount of carping we are in for.

  127. van Rooinek says:

    Lefty Feminism (collectivist) : Men must be slaves, their money gathered through taxes and given to women by the government.

    Republican Feminism (individualist) : Each woman must have a slave of her own and personally control the money transfer to her. It is more fun!!!

    At least in the Republican system, the average man has a hope of getting sex occasionally.

  128. van Rooinek says:

    Men are more likely to be rigid; women are more fluid.

    The double entendre was missed by nearly everyone… .

  129. Feminist Hater says:

    Just wait until the crisis actually materializes and imagine the amount of carping we are in for.

    I’ve already received such carping from women my age and older. It’s like hearing a pin drop inside their heads… and then it’s back to ‘Moxie Woman’.

    It’s the usual though, “Men don’t grow up! Men don’t commit! Men don’t love like we do! Men are lazy! Men are disgusting, rude and despicable! Men just want to sleep around! I don’t need a man!”

    They say this right in front of you and don’t seem to realise that it puts off a man quicker than kicking him in the balls would. Although, in fairness, even talking about the issues between men and women turns the opposite sex off. Such is life…

  130. van Rooinek says:

    As divorce and marriage rates continue to stratify on class lines

    I’m not so sure that we have the causal arrow in the right direction. Are MC and UMC more likely to marry and raise kids within marriage… OR… are those who marry and raise kids within marriage, more likely to BECOME and REMAIN MC/UMC?

    As for only having 4 husbands for every 5 would be wives, this is also baked in. No marriage strike is needed, because between spreading knowledge of game and the missing signal there will be a shortage of the kind of men MC women see marrying as their birthright.

    Watch for de-facto polygyny to return. Whether the law recognizes it or not, whether churches bless it or not, it’s going to happen. Mormons first, then perhaps fringe Evangelicals, and then it will hit the white MC mainstream. There’s a much stronger Biblical case for polygyny, than there is for homosexuality..

  131. Feminist Hater says:

    VR, women are definitely more fluid when it comes to the changing of social mores to provide for their gender. Women adapt better in the short-term. Men always tend to think longer it terms of outcomes and thus delay the quick reaction. It’s a built in feature, not a bug.

  132. van Rooinek says:

    Men don’t grow up! Men don’t commit! Men don’t love like we do! Men are lazy! Men are disgusting, rude and despicable! Men just want to sleep around! I don’t need a man!”

    Feminism gives men no reason to grow up, to commit, to work hard, to avoid being disgusting, rude, and despicable, and to refrain from sleeping around. When all cultural and social reinforcement for honorable behavior disappears, only socially resistant old-school patriachists and religous types will behave honorably. And of course those are the last men on earth Feminists would ever want to be with, even though those are the ONLY men who’d actually give them what they want.

    But women are wrong about one thing. Men DO love women with desperate passionate intensity, far exceeding any feelings women have for us. At least when we’re young, stupid old-fashioned romantics…. precisely the type of men women claim to crave, yet treat the worst.

  133. van Rooinek says:

    FH: VR, women are definitely more fluid

    Dude, my post was a sexual joke. 🙂

  134. Feminist Hater says:

    Hehe, you sick perv!

  135. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    As divorce and marriage rates continue to stratify on class lines

    I’m not so sure that we have the causal arrow in the right direction. Are MC and UMC more likely to marry and raise kids within marriage… OR… are those who marry and raise kids within marriage, more likely to BECOME and REMAIN MC/UMC?

    The beauty is it doesn’t matter. The result is the same. Getting and staying married to the father of the child(ren) will more and more become an important social/status marker. I think it would be difficult to overstate this.

    As for only having 4 husbands for every 5 would be wives, this is also baked in. No marriage strike is needed, because between spreading knowledge of game and the missing signal there will be a shortage of the kind of men MC women see marrying as their birthright.

    Watch for de-facto polygyny to return. Whether the law recognizes it or not, whether churches bless it or not, it’s going to happen. Mormons first, then perhaps fringe Evangelicals, and then it will hit the white MC mainstream. There’s a much stronger Biblical case for polygyny, than there is for homosexuality..

    I don’t see legalized polygamy as likely at all. Feminists will hate the idea. White knights won’t sign up to push it through like they normally do. And wealthy men won’t be eager to multiply their already ridiculous exposure to divorce theft.

    For de facto (as you mention) I don’t think it scratches the itch. If anything watching other women settle for being one of several baby mamas will only increase the status associated with being and staying married to the father. Even for de facto polygamy, the problem is men detest the child support system, especially the kind of men MC and UMC women are looking to father their children. I only see men moving to reduce their risk of falling into this kind of trap, not embracing it. Ultimately this might lead to a push to reform child support laws, but that would be glacial and only strengthen the stigma of unwed mothers (of either classic or never married route).

  136. samstarrett says:

    Dear Dalrock,

    This person’s view of marriage does not look anything like what I, as a traditional conservative/reactionary, believe. Nor does it look much like what, for instance, Laura Wood posts on The Thinking Housewife. Moreover, he does not identify himself anywhere in the comment as a “traditional” conservative. I’m curious, then, why you identify him as a Trad Con.

  137. Opus says:

    I have been thinking about the above since it was put up by Dalrock, and it is certainly possible for a spouse to make the life of the other spouse miserable, and doubtless happens sometimes; however, having read more Divorce Petitions (on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour) than is good for one, what always struck me was the sheer triviality of the alleged facts which really did come down, most of the time, to ‘he left the toothpaste cap off’ and ‘he forgot my mother’s birthday’ – and note it is always the woman who complains and never the man – indeed I doubt that I ever prepared a petition for a man on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour – men neverlike to complain. Thus: I conclude justaconsevative’s post at reddit is really a straw man.

    Later in the post justaconservative raises the spectre of the physically oppressive male; another straw man, I suggest, based purely on the inevitable fact that men are larger and stronger. Again from my experience of drawing Divorce Petitions, allegations of violence are very rare, and when are made the violence is always both trivial and deliberately provoked for ulterior purposes (i.e. to obtain an ouster injunction). Certainly my personal experience is that it is women who, intra-sex, are the more violent, and of course they have other valuable weapons in their emotional armoury which as Dr Johnson observed justified their not being granted equal rights with a man.

    It is true, of course, that the man was usually the breadwinner, but most men were poor and most women are spendthrifts – as my poor unfortunate married friends will attest; and of course they have no choice but to pick up the financial bill.

    Justaconservative has his head in the sand.

  138. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Deep-Fried Edition « Patriactionary

  139. greenlander says:

    @Höllenhund:

    I haven’t been to Ukraine but I know a bunch of Ukrainians and Russians. Most of their women are indeed irritating, calculating sluts who complain about men, both domestic and foreign, all the time, and the only reason they cannot wreak havoc around themselves like their Western “sisters” do is that their backward, matriarchal culture lacks the potential for wealth creation necessary to build the feminist Matrix. The former Soviet republics are among the most misandrist places on Earth. Men’s lives are worth nothing there. Just look at their mortality rates, alcoholism rates, drug use rates and so on. Plus male-female relations are dismal.

    Höllenhund, I left the western world this spring. I’m living in Russia now and I have no plans to return.

    I’d say that you’re about half right. The women are cold, calculating sluts: more so than their western sisters. Western girls can afford to be stupid. Life is harsher here, and the cost of being stupid is much more severe.

    You’re also right that the wealth to build the feminist Matrix doesn’t exist here. Taxes are much lower here, and people cheat anyways so even those lower taxes don’t get collected. When you remove the backstop of Free Government Cheese in the form of EBT, medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, child support apparatus, divorce court theft, yadda, yadda, yadda, feminism just falls apart.

    You’re also right that men die earlier, yet I think that the reason is that the men are just stoic about death. Alcohol use, drug use and smoking are CHOICES: and one is free to choose better and live longer.

    I wouldn’t say that “male-female relations are dismal.” The great thing about this place is that you can be a man and women expect that. I love that, and it’s different from the feminist-inspired ambiguity of sex roles in the west. I’m the man, and you’re the bitch, and you’ll step into my frame or I’ll just find another bitch! [“you” referring a hypothetical woman, of course not you Höllenhund!]

    I find it refreshing that I can just by my upper-beta self here. I call the girl, I ask her out, we meet, I lead, I hold her hand, I pay, I see her off. She’s happy to submit if I can prove that I’m capable. If I don’t like her I just go date another, it’s easy. It doesn’t end up in all this role-ambiguity that dating in the American urban centers entails.

    I admit that the life is harder for Russian guys here: it’s actually HARD to be an honest-beta here because the system is so corrupt. I get my income from the Western world, so I don’t have to deal with that part of it. And I admit that as a wealthy foreigner here I have a lot of intrinsic status, which makes a lot of things easier.

    Perhaps what you’re observing is women who have been transplanted in the west. Well, you might be right about that. I don’t plan to transplant ANY women into the west: if I marry one I’m staying right here with here in this second-world shithole. At least I don’t have to deal with the misandrist shit I have to deal with in the United States.

    Having been here and taken a bite of the real world without feminism, I’m never going back.

  140. Jon says:

    There was an interesting debate yesterday on divorce on Newsnight in the UK – Baroness Deech says the current divorce law is undermining women…. she was advocating a known formulaic approach to divorce with possibly less emphasis on women not working or not being autonomus agents able to provide for themselves – first time I’ve ever seen a women on UK TV argue that position so thought I’d mention.

  141. Opus says:

    @Jon

    I don’t have a telly so I missed Newsnight.

    The 1967 Divorce Reform Act had the effect of doing the very opposite of what was intended (as so often). The one and only ground for Divorce was made the Irretrievable Breakdown of the marriage, however the only way you can be certain of a marriage having irretrievably breaking down is to note that it is has in fact irretrivevably broken down – a tautology, of course, and as we know you cannot deduce a conclusion from a tautology, but that is exactly what they did by setting out five possible ways of proving Irretrievability of the Breakdown none of which do or can do the thing claimed.

    The fear was that it would be a Casanova’s Charter – as if Casanova’s were prone to marriage – the reality was that it played to all women’s worst impulses, led to misery for men, latchkeys for children and slutdom for women.

    If Baroness Deech [life peer] is now saying this is bad for women I dread to think, given the mess they managed in 1967 what she can be proposing. If there is no marriage strike yet, there soon will be – and of course children are the pawns in this as always!

  142. Jon says:

    I thought Baroness Deech’s comments were positive for men so I was quite surprised that a) she said it and b) the views were given airtime on the BBC. She wanted marriage to have a prescriptive easily calculatable end cost so couples wouldn’t waste money on lawyers fees and people could see the downside cost before signing up. Quite radical view for a women to put forward. She also thought celeb divorces like Heather Mills -McCartney were unfair on the men and reflected badly on women as a whole.

  143. Jon says:

    (Short duration marriage, no kids, big payout etc…)

  144. Opus says:

    I wouldn’t trust Deech further than I could throw her (and for reasons that do not concern this blog – she is a member of Britain’s privileged Elite, with ideas to match). Her views on McCartney-Mills strike me as thinly veiled Feminism and as for working out the divorce settlement in advance, it is simply unrealistic – she’s an academic lawyer and therefore like all academic lawyers has never done any real law in her life and (like all academic lawyers) demonstrates her stupidity and jealousy with the idea that her ideas will cut the practising lawyer out of it – but it is never going to happen.

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    Later in the post justaconservative raises the spectre of the physically oppressive male; another straw man, I suggest, based purely on the inevitable fact that men are larger and stronger. Again from my experience of drawing Divorce Petitions, allegations of violence are very rare, and when are made the violence is always both trivial and deliberately provoked for ulterior purposes (i.e. to obtain an ouster injunction).

    Opus being the civilized man that he is, makes his point clear but not in a brutal manner. I’ll clarify it. Earlier this year I had cause to get some minor physical therapy done for tendonitis in an arm that I’d let go on too long. The PT, a pleasant woman in her 20’s, worked the arm in question over. At one point she had to test strength of some muscles in the wrist and forearm, so we had a kind of sideways, genteel, arm wrestling match. She commented in passing “You’re stronger than I am!”. Well, yes, I am, and just about any man in good condition under the age of 70 probably is also. It’s normal.

    Back in the “Let’s you and him fight” thread of a year or two ago, I observed that the average 40 year old man has more strength than 20-something women who are in good condition. This was in the context of serious combat. It’s true in the home as well. And that leads to a conclusion with a dark aspect and a light one.

    The average man could, if he wanted to, kill his wife with bare hands very easily. That’s the dark aspect. But it hardly ever happens. Men have this capability for violent action, and we direct it towards the “outside of the cave”. I suggest this is another EvoBio issue; yes, I know, it’s a Just So story, but think: men whose temper led them to kill women in anger would be less likely to reproduce back in the stone age, because the supply of women wasn’t infinite. Men who could control themselves enough to direct rage outward, or inward, would allow their women and thus their progeny to survive. I suggest that the desire to protect women is likely inborn to some degree, and the prohibition on fighting with them is also inborn to some degree.

    Others have already posted links to resources that discuss the facts regarding “domestic violence”, I’m pointing out just how rare the extreme cases are. Most men take a long time to work up to being able to commit murder, and it cannot be totally learned behavior – nurture – at work. The self restraint men carry with them has to be inborn to some degree.

    And now a word about character: men have this ability, this power, and all but a tiny handful of us never use it. Women have been given the power to blow up a marriage, and far more of them make use of it every day. Of the two sexes, which is therefore more likely to abuse power, and which is more likely to use it with care?

    Since the divorcing wives far out number the murdered wives, and furthermore the dead-by-suicide husbands also outnumber the murdered wives, to ask the question is to answer it.

  146. Martian Bachelor says:

    > Haven’t seen this name in the manosphere: Herb Goldberg (namae nanka)

    I kinda trace the beginning of the MRM to “The Hazards of Being Male”. By 1976, someone in the gender equality, freedom-of-both-sexes-from-traditional-sex-roles movement had to stand up and say men deserved a turn. By then, though, feminism had already become what Farrell was later to call “the one-party system of sexual politics”, which it still is to this day.

    About a decade later, when Why Men Are The Way They Are came out, Goldberg was writing The Inner Male. It did have a chapter explaining “Why Women Still Won’t Ask You to Dance (or Out on a Date)”, but Goldberg somewhat curiously always denied being an MRA or having anything to do with the MRM. Maybe he was just so MGTOW that he disappeared within himself.

    > The insight he was missing, and which would have explained a lot that
    > puzzled and frustrated him, was hypergamy (David Collard)

    I’m not sure in the least how you can say that, as there’s a memorable and comical graphic in the book (and much discussion surrounding the topic) showing how at least part of the much vaunted man shortage women complain about has to do with women themselves training their binoculars on the upper 10-15% of men. He just didn’t use the technical jargon. Back then they called it “being picky”.

    I really never got the impression there was much which “puzzled and frustrated” Farrell.

    > [Why Men Are The Way They Are] lacks of a grounding in evolutionary psychology (imnobody)

    Ev-psych hadn’t been invented yet, or at least didn’t start to break out of the lab and into the wider scientific community until the late-80’s. Farrell was trained as a sociologist, and many of his observations relating to what he called “gender dynamics” constitute sound data in support of (later) ev-psych theories. Remember: observation and data before theory!

    I don’t know for sure, but I’ve often wondered if the “expendable male” thesis which Farrell developed in The Myth of Male Power was the result of him having perhaps read a 1983 pop-evo-bio book called The Redundant Male, which he then translated in social criticism.

  147. Martian Bachelor says:

    …into social criticism. (gah!)

  148. I’m curious, then, why you identify him as a Trad Con.
    ——————————————————————–
    samstarrett , If you read the whole thread, and have read here awhile, you will find that I have taken an issue about this as well, though not the same issue that you have taken. In fact, I know why Dalrock identified the guy as a Trad Con (mostly I know) and agree with the identification. Christian right trad cons tend to say these things, its that simple, because they are mightily deceived through a combination of perverse incentives to believe this way and laziness to challenge what they think is the norm.
    Being a trad con myself, it is very troublesome.

  149. samstarrett says:

    Empathologicalism,

    Are you here identifying “Trad Cons” with the “Christian Right”? Although I am Christian, and on the Right, I don’t consider myself to be part of the “Christian Right” as usually defined, which seems to me to be little more than a bunch of moderate liberals holding to some form of pseudo-conservative Evangelicalism or a bizarre mixture of traditional Roman Catholicism and American civic religion, and bound together politically by nothing more than a residual opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

    If “Trad Con” in Dalrock’s usage is interchangeable with “Christian Right,” I will have to rethink my previous comment.

  150. whatever says:


    I’m not so sure that we have the causal arrow in the right direction. Are MC and UMC more likely to marry and raise kids within marriage… OR… are those who marry and raise kids within marriage, more likely to BECOME and REMAIN MC/UMC?

    You know, I get tired of giving the same answer to white-knights who can’t stop pedestalizing them career-sluts. A UMC/rich men marrying any class of woman have a lower divorce rate than a poor man marrying any class of woman. Because they are harder to replace. Not that a middle class man is terribly easy to replace for a +30 mother of two, but even women can’t imagine that an upper-class man is easily replaced by a +30 mother of two no matter how many times they watch EPL. That’s it. A UMC man can marry a high school dropout that is 18 years old and probably do better than marrying a 25 year old college degree career slut. In fact, I’m almost certain his chance of divorce would be lower in the first case. Sure the woman has higher looks and for longer, but she also has less miles on her and doesn’t have a “career” to fall back on.

  151. Martian Bachelor

    Sociobiology was around then, which later got called evolutionary psychology. As you say, Farrell took a sociological view, and he seemed to think that his observations were due to social construction. He wanted young women to be valued for their attainments, not so much their appearance. He tells a memorable story about an advertisement in which the girl attracts the boy by falling down prettily while skiing, and the boy attracts the girl by being a Yaleman. He found this reprehensible, and felt it could and should be changed.

    If sociologists had been doing their job, there would be much less need for the Manosphere. The Manosphere is really “underground sociology”. I was just thinking this morning how great it would be to find a sociology textbook which was honest, didn’t assume social constructionism, and contained some of the newer findings from relevant work on evolutionary psychology.

  152. Binky says:

    Well, that was one kind of welcome. “Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other people, sinners, feminitwits, or this blue-pill delta-male loser here.” If I were a full-on blue-piller, that’s hardly gonna build the discussion, or attract people curious to learn more about the manosphere. (1) On a recent extended thread, one man said that his wife should fellate him, and be happy to or something to that effect; several others on that thread or recent previous spoke about how female commenters needed to get sexed up to correct their confusions and the like. (2) If anyone cares to Google “Binky Webelf”, you’ll find I’m a 18-year blogger for classical Christianity, free speech, articulate faith, and a death-threated anti-Islamofascism blogger. Unlike Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, or Geert Wilders, I cannot afford bodyguards, so use the simple device of a pseudonym.. not perfect, but free.

    I re-offer part of my previous commentary:

    “If men are meant to be leaders, kings, Christ-bearers, living signs of death to self and sin, more than alive by the virtue of Christ’s resurrection– how then shall we live in such times? How do we put aside the disobedience, narcissism, cruelty, and anomie of these days?

    After all, we all have the same heart-piercing longing after God and eternity– St. Augustine said “Seek what you seek, but not where you seek it,” and “O god, Thou has made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless, till they find their rest in Thee.” An idolatry of pleasure, or selfish freedom, of gender-wars, of marriage itself? A symptom of restless hearts wreaking havoc. Even secular feminists– by scheming for a feministocracy heaven on earth– are seeking they know not what which cannot ever come to be, because they have rejected God and heaven, and worshipped themselves and their ideas.

    Thoughts?”

  153. Some Guy says:

    Hey Binky,

    I tried to give you a thoughtful response above. (Search for “Some Guy” to track it down.) It does not appear that you have read it. Please respond to that.

  154. Legion says:

    Binky says:
    September 13, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Put your binky back in your mouth and leave.

  155. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Truncated Moving Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  156. It may interest the thoughtful readers of this blog to know that I have been having a bitter argument with a friend of mine who insists on having the anti-judgemental “white knight” attitude towards slutty women. We are both what y’all would call trad cons and Christian Right, but, the difference is I am conservative with libertarian principles, and he is “conservative” with no real principles but only a love of tradition. At least that is my opinion and the basis of my bitterness. His bitterness is he thinks I am a misogynist cad who hates women. Then he gets mad when I call him an idiot for thinking that. If we were in the same room a fistfight would have developed.
    In terms of philosophy and ideology, I would encourage conservatives to gain respect for libertarian principles and learn enough about them to integrate them into their conservative world view. And the same for libertarians, they need to learn about the importance of the moral laws and how liberty is impossible without the moral laws. We all have a lot to learn but the ignorance of the non-libertarian conservatives is our greatest obstacle, followed by the ignorance of the non-conservative libertarians. I maintain you can’t be one or the other and make sense; to make sense one must be the proper amount and kind of both. But if we coalesce around the moral laws we WILL be strong enough to destroy the communist liberalism that is destroying us.

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