No hiatus for solipsism during World War II.

640px-American_military_cemetery_2003

In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling.  Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:

…she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

The date of the program was July 19, 1944.  This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout.  World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there.  Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted).  Moreover, this was a story Sanger felt perfectly comfortable sharing on the radio at home to the wives and mothers of US servicemen, as those men continued to fight and die overseas.

American Cemetery at Normandy photo released as public domain by Bjarki Sigursveinsson.

This entry was posted in Envy, Margaret Sanger, Military, Solipsism, Ugly Feminists, Whispers. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to No hiatus for solipsism during World War II.

  1. LiveFearless says:

    Media programming was powerful then, too.

  2. Don says:

    What a post! Thank you so much It really hit a nerve for what I am going through! The woman that had these thoughts sounds a lot like my wife! Even women back then were self-centered and critical of their men even when they were dying on the battlefield!

  3. fakeemail says:

    @TFH:
    Camille Paglia: ” If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”

    Matriarchy is primitivism; it is total rule by the Big (sexy) Men of the tribe. All the little men are to be castrated peasants.

  4. Even women back then were self-centered and critical of their men even when they were dying on the battlefield!

    This is my big take away. I didnt think otherwise, but I hadnt gone looking for anecdotes or evidence in any form. here we have it.

    This is one reason why the tradcons Dalrock refers to as such take comfort in dismissively blaming feminism. Its cover for the nature of the beast

  5. joe says:

    I’m always more than a little amused at an ad I see running daily, one created for, I believe, Korean Airlines. Visualize several sophisticted and exotic stewardesses – uh, flight attendents – all attending the viewer’s every whim in vivid, spacious and immaculate – uh, clouds, up there in the sky, and a female voice singing “It’s all about you….”.

    Yeah. Some advertizer really, really knows his audience. Solipism has not decreased one whit since the days of Margaret Sanger.

  6. Philalethes says:

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war.” – Hillary Clinton

  7. Varenius says:

    …many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children.

    Sanger obviously never experienced the endless thrills & stimulating variation of actual office servitudeadventuring herself.

  8. Crank says:

    Providing that Hillary was right – the real victims of war are women, forced to stay in their boring safe homes stateside while the men get all the excitement and fun of charging head first into mortar and machine gun fire, hand to hand jungle combat to the death, forced marches through the desert and all that other cool stuff.

  9. Crank says:

    Dang, Phlaalethes beat me to it.

  10. Fred Astaire says:

    “Hillary Clinton should take her head out or her arse.” – Me

  11. Opus says:

    Of those relatives of mine by blood and marriage (all male) who were on the continent of Europe at some time during WW2 two thirds remain there.

  12. RichardP says:

    ” … while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.”

    Raising children into responsible adults is an exercise in “futility”?? Divorcing the husband will remove her need to create meals for the children, wash their dishes, and tend to them? Once the children are born, their is no escaping the need to care for them in this way. Is she advocating that mothers abandon their children? I can’t imagine very many women would have thought that a good idea. Were the women in 1944 so lacking in imagination that they thought leaving their husbands would make the children disappear? I really don’t get the point of her statement. Unless she was advocating for birth control and suggesting that women would be better off without children.

  13. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I just had a sick thought. Sick, I tell you, sick.

    The militia is down by the border trying to help stem the tide of illegals coming in.

    it entered my mind that we men should be down there with rowboats helping them in, thus speeding the collapse of the most misandrist nation in the history of the world.

    Note that this is not a serious proposal, but a cynical thought.

  14. margaret59 says:

    I am gobsmacked that any woman would be complaining about how “exciting” her husband’s wartime experiences were. I think Sanger made this up, actually. Not that there weren’t women who were like this, but during WWII, saying something like this in public would probably get you slapped by some wife or mother whose husband or son had been killed.

    [D: One would hope so. Still, it was deemed appropriate for radio.]

  15. greyghost says:

    It is the actual nature of women. It is who they are as people and it is normal not some bad women. remember it is normal. Responsible stewardship of a church or nation requires a truthful view of reality.

  16. greyghost says:

    PS that is why I have full faith in MGTOW/fatherhood she’ll still be there.

  17. patriarchal landmine says:

    reminds me of some of the stories I heard about the first women to watch SPR in theaters when it first ran.

    adventures in normandy indeed.

  18. Chris says:

    Sanger had to lie to make the women feel oppressed so that she could inform them of contraception. Of course, during the war the issue should have been moot: Good women waited for their man to return and did not find a homme du jour. (also known as a “Jody”).

    But oppression, in Sanger’s mind, covers all evil. Solopism? Probably not. Psychopathy more like it.

  19. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock,
    I don’t love your use of the word “solipsism” here, it’s a bit of a departure from the nuance I’m accustomed to with the term, but I like you, so I looked it up to think about it again. Google sends this back: “a theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known”.
    I think the young lady was selfish, and there are probably special word-forms of selfish that more specifically describe her that don’t come to me right now (I’m a bit burnt out), but I’m still not loving solipsistic even after reviewing the definition.
    Solipsism as I have been trained to understand it is a condition of the psyche and gets employed by psychologists and psychiatrists who are discussing people with real cognitive disorders. That isn’t to say it doesn’t find its way into the masses, i.e.: everyone has BPD traits, it just takes a special combination of most of the traits in high concentration to pass the BPD threshold. So – we can all be solipsistic – sometimes even by training if not by nature – but it doesn’t make us sociopathic or psychopathic which is important because sociopaths and psychopaths act without regard to others in large part because they have an unusually high level of solipsism – something like a lack of clarity that there are others in the world, and that they are different from them and they have real experiences, sometimes with great suffering, entirely separate of them.

    There’s two ways I like to use the term. The first is noting “solipsistic reasoning” which is reasoning where we draw conclusions based on the idea that other people will think and behave like we do, failing to understand, through empathy among other things, that other people have their own autonomy and feelings and motivations – sometimes deep, often quite shallow, but very often just entirely separate of the self doing the point of view work.
    The other way is when a person draws conclusions that would, or do, “act without regard”. To act without regard for others is to act as though one doesn’t believe others exist, that is solipsistic.

    It is almost nitpicking, I’m sorry. I take it on though because “solipsism” is a hot button topic in the manosphere so I’d rather move to clarity rather than to ambiguity and convenience. I’m not postmodern, I believe words matter, and here’s a “wink” emoticon,😉, my regards to Roosh who says not to use them.

  20. b g says:

    margaret59

    Have to agree…a wife or mother would have slapped her. Even if the serviceman wasn’t dead, the fear was very real.

  21. BC says:

    I am gobsmacked that any woman would be complaining about how “exciting” her husband’s wartime experiences were. I think Sanger made this up, actually. Not that there weren’t women who were like this, but during WWII, saying something like this in public would probably get you slapped by some wife or mother whose husband or son had been killed.

    You went full NAWALT.
    Never go full NAWALT.

  22. infowarrior1 says:

    ”she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

    I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.”

    Meanwhile:

  23. bradford says:

    Das Boot, one of my all time favorite movies (along with Zulu). One of the greatest war movies ever made.

  24. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary.

  25. Bluedog says:

    Now – separate of my statement about the use of the word solipsism – I want to put a few thoughts into this discussion but also should say – got a lot of kids I’m managing this evening and tomorrow looks busy so my get-back rate for comments will be low – but I will get back, I’d like to see what, if anything, you guys have to say.
    One way I used to look at this kind of thing was through the prism of class. I haven’t stopped, I still think class is explanatory, I just don’t think it’s sufficient. But class is at work when you have one spouse with a sense of class entitlement that is above his or her station.
    I’ve seen both cases of this. At least one marriage immediately comes to mind as a case where the man had an unbelievable sense of class entitlement. He really believed that status should be handed to him and he damnably refused to undergo the trials of – class – required to rise to the station he pretended to. Everyone – every last person watching – saw that divorce coming.

    Here in this example we have a young lady and she has a sense of what she’s entitled to – world travel, experiences. Now – it could also just be envy, or it could be both – and it can also even be ONLY because circumstances resulted in her husband getting a class experience above his station (payable through the risk of his life – not uncommon in the history of class advancement) … and she as much as experienced class envy.

    The trouble was: mixed classes. He was not of a class station that would normally permit what he was doing but he temporarily enjoyed the class boost, and she simply wasn’t going to get access to it – there was (and still is) no provision for primary caregivers on military campaigns.
    So that goes as far as it goes – surely far enough. I am not making excuses for her, I’m just putting another prism out there to help see how she was experiencing this. On a moral level anyone could and surely will say – he was risking his life and may even have lost it, so her envy was craven – although only craven insomuch as she understood that war is war – people were dying and otherwise being maimed and destroyed.
    I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that she really didn’t understand that. With internet, people don’t get it, 55 years pre-internet, safe between two oceans, she really may not have gotten it.
    But starting from that prism – here’s a whole different tact: what is mothering just isn’t what she wanted?
    What if mothering, and being a wife, just isn’t what a lot of women want?
    What if fathering, and not being a father, isn’t what a lot of men want?

    It’s one thing when people act this way, once married, but I think a whole aspect of the problem is that what marriage and parenting and family is, simply isn’t what a lot of people are signing up for – and there’s a lot to be said for the idea that they are actively set up to believe they are signing up for one thing, when they get a whole different thing.
    I think if everyone understood what they were signing up for – some would still get married, but a lot wouldn’t. I see this case and I don’t think “solipsism” or any particular issue generalizable to men. If the situation were reversed, I can easily see many men succumbing to the same vanity as this woman, so I don’t buy that it’s a gender thing. But if a lot of people don’t really want marriage, don’t really want family, at least as most of us here understand it, what is it other than pounding sand that they don’t want it? Why not just let them go?

  26. Bluedog says:

    so many typos in last post, but to correct the most important one, sentence in last paragraph should read: “I see this case and I don’t think “solipsism” or any particular issue specifically generalizable to women.”

  27. thule222 says:

    Can’t believe it. Africa, Italy, and training for Normandy and she’s still jealous. You know he’s lying in the letters to make her feel better. “Italy’s beautiful honey, everyone’s so friendly.”

  28. Women have an unlimited capacity to lie to themselves, especially when engaged as part of the herd. They have an inability to experience empathy toward a man (ht. Rollo). Therefore, those lucky guys on D-Day were playing on the beach… and she didn’t get to show off her new swimsuit…

  29. Casey says:

    A little nugget my life travels…..

    A female acquaintance is studying for her professional exams. She and her husband are going to counselling over some issues, including him helping with the kids while she studies.

    This bubbled over quite unexpectedly, as I had no idea they were having difficulties.
    Four children, 2 his (prior marriage), 1 hers (prior relationship), 1 together as a married couple.

    She stated quite clearly that she would leave him if she could be assured she can make it on her own.

    Read it again……..with bullshit filters in place. (FH…….have a field day with this one)

    If her lifestyle does NOT go down in a separation/divorce……she will pull the trigger.
    If her lifestyle does go down in a separation/divorce……she will stick it out.

    Clearly, the law should incentivize couples to do the latter, not the former. They currently do not.
    This couple made vows, brought children into this world, they have a duty to yourselves and their children to stick it out through a rough patch.

    What the hell is she thinking? What decent man is going to touch that situation POST-divorce. Two children of hers, two-different fathers, two step-children cast aside.

    A great catch of a man is going to sign up to be #3 ?

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bluedog – don’t over think the Female Imperative. That’s like trying to count the all the angles and sides in a fractal.

  31. Ras Al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “Instead, if they conducted a slick media campaign about gender roles, while keeping violence to a minimum, they would get a lot more traction in the West (among both men and women). ”

    You are correct. The sex slave thing alone tempts a man to convert . . .

    “And Christianity would also improve too, in the process…”

    And you’re wrong here. The Roman gods were patriarchal at first (perhaps even more than the Christian) and how did it fair once it had gone girly when faced with a more masculine Christianity? It double downed. It died. Which is exactly what modern Christianity would/will do. It would embrace female supremacy and their eschatology of being oppressed and this being the end times and into the drain of history it will go.

  32. feeriker says:

    …she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war!

    Taking Sanger’s anecdote at face value, we can rest assured that the only thing that would’ve upset this “dearie” more would have been if her husband had found the lethal end of a German bullet. But even then it wouldn’t have been grief, but anger at the idea that she was now stuck with “minding the baby” all by herself, without schlub to take up some of the slack, since schlub was selfish enough to go off and get himself killed with no mind for HER haaaaaaaappiness.

  33. JDG says:

    solipsism –

    There’s two ways I like to use the term. The first is noting “solipsistic reasoning” which is reasoning where we draw conclusions based on the idea that other people will think and behave like we do,

    How is this not a common western female / feminist trait?

    The other way is when a person draws conclusions that would, or do, “act without regard”. To act without regard for others is to act as though one doesn’t believe others exist,

    How about to act without regard as though one doesn’t care if others exist – also a common western female / feminist trait.

  34. Lyn87 says:

    The idea of war is very different than its actuality. Before my deployment to Afghanistan I was in a stateside staff position. As the situation continued it became clear that pretty much every one of us was going to either Iraq or Afghanistan. One of the female sergeants in my unit got the call. Keep in mind that all she was going to be doing was paperwork on a FOB, but she decided that she didn’t want to go. So… she deliberately got herself knocked up, which rendered her temporarily non-deployable. Not permanent, so she wouldn’t be medically discharged or endanger her retirement, but not going anywhere unpleasant, either. Everyone knew about it because she made no attempt to hide it. Even in the military during wartime a woman’s “right to exercise her reproductive choices” trumps everything. Some guy had to go in her place while she was having her medical bills covered, sleeping in her own bed, and hitting Starbucks on her coffee breaks. She figured that she was getting one over… the sad thing is that she was. When her number was in danger of coming up again later she let it be known that she would just get herself knocked-up again. To my knowledge they didn’t even bother trying to send her that time. That means that two men had to go to war so she could play soldier safely at home. My preference would have been to have her court-marshaled and dishonorably discharged, but it wasn’t my call to make.

    Then I think of a certain 24-year-old Lieutenant. Good kid – he was under me for about a year. He had graduated from the same school as me. He went to Iraq and came home in a box. One of the guys played “Amazing Grace” on the bagpipes at his funeral. Some adventure.

    Some f***ing adventure.

  35. Norm says:

    If most women back in the 40s were like women today, the factories wouldn’t be nowhere near as productive as they were back then. Feminist like to associate with “Rosie the riveter”, but most couldn’t or wouldn’t do her job as they may break a nail or miss their favourite tv show.

  36. Luke says:

    Ras Al Ghul says:
    September 19, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    “TFH:

    “Instead, if they conducted a slick media campaign about gender roles, while keeping violence to a minimum, they would get a lot more traction in the West (among both men and women). ”

    You are correct. The sex slave thing alone tempts a man to convert . . .

    “And Christianity would also improve too, in the process…”

    And you’re wrong here. The Roman gods were patriarchal at first (perhaps even more than the Christian) and how did it fair once it had gone girly when faced with a more masculine Christianity? It double downed. It died. Which is exactly what modern Christianity would/will do. It would embrace female supremacy and their eschatology of being oppressed and this being the end times and into the drain of history it will go.”
    ===================================================

    Uh, fact check here. Early Christianity, certainly that extant during Roman times, was hardly more masculine than the Roman pantheon. Gibbon himself credited Christianity’s softening with part of why the Roman Empire went under. Now, sure, by the times of Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the Crusades, etc., that had largely been reversed, but that was way later than the Fall of Rome, let alone its peak.

  37. margaret59 says:

    My own father, RIP, was actually in Africa in WWII. I miss him still, and he never talked about being an infantry soldier, PFC, as fun in any way, shape or form. Lost the use of an arm.

  38. Pingback: Dark Brightness | The tears of the Social Justice Warrioress [Post voting quotage].

  39. Don says:

    Women have become so self-centered! Why dont we let women fight in wars and let women get out and work 2 jobs to support a family! Women today have lost something and do they not understand what God will say to them when they go to meet him?

  40. Don says:

    MEN ALL STICK TOGETHER NO MAN VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON! NOW DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHY BILL HAD MONICA ON HER KNEES IN FRONT OF HIM? I HOPE HE BENT HER OVER TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

  41. emmatheemo says:

    I noticed she didn’t say she wanted him to have her job, and have his job herself. She said she wanted to have some “fun”.

  42. Pingback: No hiatus for solipsism during World War II. | ...

  43. Remo says:

    By all means miss Sanger… head to Eastern Prussia and experience the full range of excitement the Germans got to experience from the advancing Russian army. Men were mostly killed, starved, or tortured (especially if you were a wounded German soldier) but the women – oh they had just as much fun too!

    99.9% of the things these dingbats wish they could experience are not being experienced because the men wisely protect them FROM THEM. Idiots….

  44. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Luke:

    “Uh, fact check here. Early Christianity, certainly that extant during Roman times, was hardly more masculine than the Roman pantheon. Gibbon himself credited Christianity’s softening with part of why the Roman Empire went under. Now, sure, by the times of Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the Crusades, etc., that had largely been reversed, but that was way later than the Fall of Rome, let alone its peak.”

    To begin with while everyone seems to see Gibbon as a great source on the decline of Rome, the man was openly antagonistic to Christianity.

    So I distrust his writings and position on that in its entirety and I am skeptical of any of his assertions, especially on whether Christianity was “masculine” or too soft, or responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire.

    Just as the spread of Islam in the west is a symptom of far greater problems and is not the cause of our fall. A religion that is robustly masculine is able to withstand the contact of another religion.

    Second, early Roman did not wear make up, did not wear jewelry, the patriarch had rights that would make feminists complaints about patriarchy seem ludicrous. The sexual immorality that was rampant when Christianity began its spread was not the sexual morality of the early Roman times.

    You can see it in Paul’s writings, which are in reaction to the immorality of Roman society.

    A masculine society puts considerable restraints on a woman’s sexuality. A female primacy one lets it loose. So Christianity was considerably more masculine.

    Now, I grant that in terms of military attitudes Christianity was initially “soft” but it is quite clear that the desire to engage in war has nothing to do with how masculine or feminized a culture is, the female centric United States is engaging in more and more “police actions” and “democracy building” as the power of women is ascendant.

    Quite frankly, of the two genders, women are the more blood thirsty. Masculinity is objectively more “restrained”

  45. infowarrior1 says:

    @Ras Al Ghul
    ”Now, I grant that in terms of military attitudes Christianity was initially “soft””

    The nature of the warfare we fight is spiritual not physical. Just as Jesus fought the invisible powers of darkness in his ministry on earth(healings exorcisms):

    ”1. Holy War as a Conceptual Background to Christ’s Death and Resurrection

    John the Baptist and others apparently expected a Messiah who would come much like the Divine Warrior figure of the Consummation. In Luke 3:15ff John explains to the masses that one is coming after him with a winnowing fork in his hand. However, when Jesus does come and minister, he does not fit into John’s expectations. As a matter of fact, while in prison, John sends two of his disciples to question Jesus. “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Luke 7:20). John seemingly has his doubts about Jesus as he sits in jail. Jesus responds to their question by healing and exorcising. Thus Jesus’ first coming was not in the role of the Divine Warrior of the Consummation as John expected. However, Jesus does wage war during his earthly ministry-a war which culminates on the cross.

    Jesus’ Holy War is different from the Holy War of Israel. While the latter, at the Lord’s command, directed their warfare against earthly enemies, Jesus struggled with the forces, the powers and principalities, which stand behind sinful mankind (cf. his miracles and healings).

    On the prohibitive side, Jesus explicitly cuts off from the church Holy War activity similar to that of the Israelites. At the moment of crisis, when the soldiers arrested him, Peter according to John 18:11 drew his sword and struck the high priest’s servant. Christ’s response is “Put your sword away. Shall I not drink the cup the father has given me?”

    Thus on the basis of this and other passages as well, Jesus turns from the role of Divine Warrior directed toward the unbeliever. His command is not to slay but to convert (Matt 28:16ff).

    On the other side, Jesus, by drinking the cup, wages Holy War against the enemy, a war which he wins upon the cross. This is why his death and resurrection are frequently likened to military victory. Col 2:13ff: “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”

    Notice the military language here. He “disarms” the powers and principalities and indeed “triumphs” over them. This victory is associated by Paul with Christ’s death on the cross.

    His resurrection too proves him to be the conqueror of the powers, authorities and dominions-since by raising him God subjected all things to him (Eph 1:19bff). Notice the enthronement after the victory, fitting in with the ancient pattern found in the Psalms and ultimately Canaanite mythology. Furthermore, later in the book Paul quotes a well-known Divine Warrior psalm (68:18 ) in 4:7ff. His ascension is here seen as a military victory.

    Thus Jesus’ death resulted in the victory over and the capture of the powers behind the world. Yet there is an already/not yet quality about this victory. Jesus has won the victory on the cross, yet now everything is still not subject to him: “In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him” (Heb 2:8).

    Thus, indeed, Jesus won the victory on the cross, but the fulness of that victory will only come at the consummation, only at the time when he comes again on the white war horse, the Divine War chariot to purge the world of evil. Thus the argument connects here with what I have already mentioned concerning Jesus Christ the Divine Warrior in the book of Revelation.

    In summary, Jesus Christ is pictured in some verses as waging war with the powers and principalities. His healing and exorcising may be seen as previews of the battle with the demonic hordes. On the cross, Paul tells us that Christ won a victory over the satanic powers. Note the reversal-Christ the Divine Warrior wins the war by being killed, not by killing. Nevertheless, the victory has an already/not yet character to it. As Paul says in Rom 16:20, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” But the victory is assured. When Christ opens the seals in the book of Revelation, a new song, a victory shout, is able to be sung concerning Christ before the actual battle because the outcome is certain. And why is it certain? Rev 5:9: “Because you were slain, and with your blood, you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

    http://beginningwithmoses.org/bt-articles/229/the-divine-warrior-the-new-testament-use-of-an-old-testament-motif-

  46. Bee says:

    @Casey,

    “A female acquaintance is studying for her professional exams. She and her husband are going to counselling over some issues, including him helping with the kids while she studies.”

    Who is the helpmeet in this marriage?

    (I agree with you & TFH; the incentives for women to divorce are financially backwards in the West.)

  47. infowarrior1 says:

    @Ras Al Ghul

    Hence Christianity seems soft. But not due to its effeminate nature but the nature of the warfare it wages.

  48. Spike says:

    Thanks again Dalrock
    I found your website years ago after finding Angry Harry

    http://www.angryharry.com/Men-Are-Worthless.htm

    He has comprehensively studied women’s behaviour in war: The White Feather Campaign of the Suffragettes; the loose women of London in WW2, who made out with American soldiers with money while their own soldiers were dying on fronts everywhere; German prostitutes who would step over limbless ex-soldiers if they saw them on the footpath; soldiers who arrive back from Afghanistan only to find that their wives have moved the boyfriend in and locked them out. This latter one happened to an acquaintance.

    It is often said by ignorant feminists that “If women ruled the world, there would be no war”. This tired trope has to be put to death: Women are the world’s biggest consumers, from diamonds (what man gives a f*ck about them?) to SUVs and jet travel (oil wars, anyone? WOMEN don’t ride bikes to work!) to jewelry, cosmetics (The Phillipines’ economy was shifted from food production to coconut oil so that American women could wear cosmetics, causing poverty and hunger) to dyes for hair and acrylics for nails. This is before we factor in shoes, clothes, and fancy dining.

    Perhaps many writers before me are right: Men should withdraw wholesale from the Armed Forces, since “women are just as capable”, and then force governments to give them a better deal: “The Draft? F*ck You! Repeal No-Fault Divorce…”

  49. Solipsism perfectly describes this woman’s thinking. By.The. definition. To Bluedog, how can you not see that it is the primacy of her experience, her “existence” that affords her the more-than-wiggle-room to foist glamor on her husbands experiences?
    Her “existence” (experiences) says that her knowledge of the exotic (to her) locations mentioned, is that of glitter and glam, the international travel set when planes and tour ships were filled with formally suited men and well coiffed women. Its HER “existence” (experience) through which she rates everyone else’ “existence” (experience). Her husbands reality in the war is replaced with what? HER reality regarding the places he goes.

    I am 100% in agreement that we get too far from what words literally mean, hence a collection of words in sentence has become little more than a pat one word concept that triggers the wanted emotions at the moment. I like literal. its the language of the tangible, the language that communicates the engineering of the bridge that bears the cars and trucks and damn well better say what it means and mean what it says, literally. I struggle with utility in pretty much all other forms of communication between individuals. But you’ve jumped the shark early (see that, how i used an expression that literally means something different) on this one.

  50. A search for some of Ms. Sanger’s more prominent quotes about blacks should be all you need to know.

    The woman had ice in her veins.

  51. Thornstruck says:

    @ Casey
    “What the hell is she thinking? What decent man is going to touch that situation POST-divorce. Two children of hers, two-different fathers, two step-children cast aside.”

    From your post, there are two parties involved in the current situation, the wife and husband. You didn’t mention if they both attend a Christian church, so it’s difficult to assess “What they are thinking” when we don’t know the world view they follow. It could be a case of Judges 21:25, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.”. In the sense that the household is not Christ centric, so the husband is doing what he thinks is right and the wife is doing what she thinks is right.

  52. Virtue says:

    I tried to watch the reenactment of the Dog Green landing, but I quite unexpectedly started bawling my eyes out even before the first shot was fired. I turned it off halfway through. Just seeing the men in the landing craft set me off. I’m getting softer in age.

    God damn the Germans. God damn them. And God damn Margaret Sanger, too.

  53. JDG says:

    “A female acquaintance is studying for her professional exams. She and her husband are going to counselling over some issues, including him helping with the kids while she studies.”

    Who is the helpmeet in this marriage?

    I wonder what YiaYia would say?

  54. Don says:

    I would have loved to know where this woman ended up in life! I would guess to say in a string of unhappy relationships ending up living in a small apartment with a cat by herself while her husband remarried and had a wonderful wife with children and grandchildren!

  55. ” many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children.”

    LOL, because most jobs offer such a wide and interesting variety rather than the same meetings, breaks, and busywork.

  56. margaret59 says:

    Those women are, how to put it nicely, morons! They do not get a “get out of marriage free” card. They are adulterers, pure and simple.

  57. I am currently reading Rick Atkinson’s “Guns at Last Light”, the last of his trilogy about WWII. If that poor guy was anywhere near the front, he was likely just pepping things up so his lonely young wife wouldn’t worry. Conditions were brutal. I hope he got out alive.

  58. Dave says:

    Could it be that feminism is a natural corrective process for our Civilization? If the world has civilized to that stage where almost half the population are bored because things have become too easy, maybe it is time for a new civilization to be born? Our great grandmas, I bet, were too busy scrubbing floors, doing dishes, doing the laundry, drying clothes on the clotheslines, preserving pickles in small jars, and preparing meals from scratch every time a member of their household needed to eat that they had no time to get bored.
    Well, western women of today have it way too easy, as modern day machines do most of the jobs for them, and hired helps do the rest. Why won’t they get bored and begin to look for an excitement—like breaking up their families?
    Maybe we have civilized beyond our ability to manage ourselves, and an explosion in feminism as a corrective measure. At least, it is on record that feminism is virtually unknown in less developed countries where women still have to do most household chores by hand.

  59. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 3:58 pm:
    “Could it be that feminism is a natural corrective process for our Civilization?”

    Doubtful. Modern feminism is something being coerced upon us by a blatantly evil elite. There’s nothing corrective about the destruction of marriage and confusion of gender roles. Easy living leads to sloth, not the abandonment of human nature.

    My own theory is that modern feminism is God’s tool for destroying America. I can think of a few reasons he’d want to do that, for example stopping technological progress before it reaches extinction-level dangerous. The theory also explains how feminism was able to infect nearly every denomination at the same time. The whole point of Protestantism’s loose hierarchy was to prevent this sort of thing. The entire American and European Churches fallen to original sin in a single generation, with zero organized resistance? Occam’s razor says God wants this.

    The roots of feminism have always been present. Something changed on a global scale, maybe even a spiritual scale, to free it in the aftermath of WW2.

  60. donalgraeme says:

    …and now this post is Instalinked. Should be good for a few extra views, I would think. Oh, and well done with the last few posts Dalrock. There are a lot of folks out there who need to see what is under the rocks of our culture, and posts like this are a valuable tool to lift those rocks and expose the truth to the light.

  61. OldGuy says:

    The more I see of women, the more I realize that they are hopelessly self-centered. We give them way too much credit because they have a nurturing instinct, and, most of us had mothers who showed us a great deal of love and attention. Well, we are their DNA packets, and we are the wildcard in their reproductive schemes.

    One of our old friends (divorced, cheated on her husband, bastard kid) just visited her new granddaughter. Her daughter lives in Europe now, with an accomplished musician. She came back talking very enthusiastically about her granddaughter, her daughter, and the father’s mother. She never mentioned the father, who she has said in the past is a great guy. She also enthused over her other daughter and her two children a lot. Never mentioned her husband.

    A man has to marry with extreme care, since the law gives me zero protections against a bad wife.

  62. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Actually, Gunner, it didn’t happen in one generation. I talk sometimes to a man who has studied this in great detail. it started back in the 19th century, with the precursors of prohibition. The churches took the stand that all men were bad; all men were drunks; thus all were wife-beaters. And, thus women must take over society. Thus the WCTU and prohibition.

    The man is aware of what the Bible says. The original sin was indeed Adam’s, and it was putting his wife before God. And, as you imply, today the original sin is formally incorporated in churchianity. Men are supposed to listen to their wives, not to God not Godly men.

    So, it took well over a century to make the churches fall to original sin.

    I knew a Fundamentalis church elder who once told me that Satan is in a battle with Jesus over His chosen people, the Jews. And in WWII Satan had a good start on eliminating them completely.

    My view on this is it was the white male who stopped the complete extermination of the Jews. So, Satan took another approach and after WWII he started to destroy the white male. Think about it.

  63. Pingback: Margaret Sanger Being An Idiot During World War II | The American Catholic

  64. JAL says:

    My late sister-in-law was barely over a year old when her father was killed in France. He is buried at Epinal. He left his wife with 3 little girls.

    “How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.”

    I think those in Europe were experiencing true “imprisoned futility” which this good man sacrificed his life to end. Some in the village where he died still remember — and feted us with food and wine when we visited in recent years because they were so grateful..

    Sanger’s strange and dangerous anger is palpable in her stories.

  65. Frankly says:

    After I checked myself in to a hospital (via the emergency room) for a kidney stone, my NPD wife (now ex) came to see me and said “I wish I could get some time off”.

  66. My father had his mother and my mother convinced he was driving the chaplains around division rear. He was actually an Infantry platoon leader. His deception lasted until his third Purple Heart hit the local papers, along with his Silver Star cite. We have a bound set of his letters. They cnanged, once he found he was found out.

  67. bozo the clone says:

    Progressivism is an old beast, more than a century old. Sanger was one of its most unsavory practitioners.

  68. Pingback: Ed Driscoll » Margaret Sanger: The War Years

  69. openidname says:

    Hmmm. One dumb-ass woman says one dumb-ass thing 650 FREAKING YEARS ago.
    Get over it already.

  70. Ken Burns couldn’t read many of the Civil War letters that southern Democrat women wrote to their husbands, because if people heard the racist, self-centered, shallow frustrations, it would’ve ruined the series, and possibly several of the DNC’s platforms.

  71. Ann says:

    I cannot speak for all women. I have never been a feminist, especially Sanger style. I should be a feminist, as I was molested as a child, and had a sexually abusive husband who wasted decades in porn. However, the men who injured me were evil. Men, in general, are not evil. What happens is as follows. My meaning for “normal” is someone who does not abuse others or treat them as objects.
    1. One person, woman or man, gets injured by someone evil, woman or man.
    2. The injured party is no longer “normal”, due to the injury.
    3. The “normal” people shy away, sensing something is wrong.
    4. More evil people, usually similar to the original abuser, move in to cause damage.
    5. The damaged person starts to see all people superficially similar to their abusers as abusers.

    This is not true. Once you get in the vortex, you don’t see the good people because being injured tends to isolate you from “normal” people, even if you do not abuse others. The good people shy away, leaving you with more abusers.

    Groups do not abuse, individuals abuse. Sometimes, evil people, women like Sanger or men like Manson collect evil people and attract victims. Unfortunately, some are successful.

    When evil people, like Sanger, get individual men to paint in this case, “all women” as evil, they win. When you hate women because of Sanger and her followers, you feel OK hurting women (since they are all evil). You have then become the thing you hate. Sadly, you hurt women, who may then become more attracted to Sanger and her ilk.

    Sanger’s ideas are evil. Expose her ideas and ideology. Fight seeing people as helplessly part of groups they are born into. Something a person joins, like one of Sanger’s groups is a product of their choice. Promote the idea that each person is an individual, capable of (but not always willing to) being good and making good choices. Try to see each person as they really are, watching how they choose. It is harder, but definitely worth it.

    Good people group together and evil people, like group together with each other and their victims.

  72. apollohaan says:

    When I worked in emergency services my then girlfriend would worry about me. She would say things like “I don’t know what I would do without you.” It strikes me now that her concern wasn’t for my safety. But, for her own well being after my end of watch.
    I would never tell her of the horrible things we had to see and do, fearing it would only cause her distress. Because men in uniform protected her from not only having to experience that hardship, but from even having to hear about, I don’t think she will ever appreciate the sacrifice so many men have made and continue to make for her safety.
    When I started having night terrors and was diagnosed with PTSD she treated it as if I was making it up. And I cant blame her because to her, a world so horrible it causes you to wake up fighting an enemy that isnt there doesn’t exist. All that exist to her is what makes her happy and what doesn’t make her happy.

  73. unominous says:

    Considering it was Margaret Sanger, the thing that popped into my head was this:

    From the 1990 film The Krays, a monologue by the twins’ aunt Rose. Warning for language and graphic descriptions.

  74. askeptic says:

    How many of those grave markers in the Normandy Cemeteries mark a grave containing a woman?

  75. Don says:

    I think Obama and all his liberal and left leaning friends already beat you to that!

  76. Don says:

    In speaking to ANN I am sorry for all you had to put up with because of the men in your life. But being on here and reading your post has shown me and I am sure others that you have dealt with these issues! My wife whom I have always been faithful to in all of our 23+ years together got caught up in a scam and was sexting a 40 year old guy { she is 58} who is buffed as least she thought it was him but it turns out to her horror was a scammer who took her for a lot of money and when I found out I was so mad I almost left her! My first thoughts were how can I and I am in great shape as a 57 year old compete with a 40 year old? Well I thought I would leave her but then it dawned on me I REALLY LOVE MY WIFE VERY MUCH AND I WILL FORGIVE HER BECAUSE SHE MADE A MISTAKE AND EVERYONE OF US NO MATTER WHO WE ARE MAKES MISTAKES! COMMITMENT THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE NOBODY TRIES ANYMORE AND IT IS EASY TO LEAVE BUT HARDER TO TRY SO I WILL TRY WITH EVERYTHING I HAVE GOT AND I THINK IT WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE US STRONGER TOGETHER!

  77. Micha Elyi says:

    If most women back in the 40s were like women today, the factories wouldn’t be nowhere near as productive as they were back then.
    Norm

    Those factories weren’t so productive back then as you have been led to believe. Despite all the amenities, including on-site day care, few females stuck it out more than 3 months. Large numbers left in the first few weeks. Think about it. All that wartime Rosie the Riveter propaganda would have never been had females been lining up for their chance to do a man’s job.

  78. Dave says:

    The roots of feminism have always been present. Something changed on a global scale, maybe even a spiritual scale, to free it in the aftermath of WW2.

    ….Or to prepare it for the coming of the man of sin…..the man of lawlessness…the antichrist:

    2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
    Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day will not come until the rebellion [?feminism] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.…

    Daniel 11:36
    The king [i.e. antichrist] will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.

    Daniel 8:25
    He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

    Daniel 7:25
    He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

    1 Timothy 4:1
    The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

    Revelation 13:5
    The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.

  79. Bee says:

    OT:

    Trad Con leader commends mother for working full-time outside the home. He commends her even though she is an extremist Liberal:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/218227-rnc-defends-dnc-head-as-a-working-mother

  80. WTP says:

    What Ann said. That is a good explanation for the way things are. And I think the key to what has made Christianity successful over the centuries. Especially early on. Its orientation to breaking that cycle.

  81. Anecdotal, based on women Ive known in 51 years of living and women in countless blogs and discussion forums , seems 75% or more women were sexually abused as children.
    How are so many pedophiles and sexual abusers out there walking around and there not be a dystopian landscape where women are kept in captivity for sex, like the mujaheddin do in Sudan.

  82. The hummus ad is a keeper. On so many levels it is perfect. The mere existence of an ad for hummus portends ……. something. I can point to people and guess if they are hummus-and edamame-for-kids-snack enthusiasts. Just yesterday a hummus gal walked out of a Shell station, pale, thin-ish, but what gave her away was the environmentally sensitive shoes, a funny thing in and of itself because its the marketing and design coupled with the in group preference, nothing about the shoes themselves.

    Then as I followed her to the gas pumps where my car waited, she climbed in a………wait……..Prius……yay, score

  83. Casey says:

    @ Bee who said:
    September 20, 2014 at 8:03 am

    “Who is the helpmate in this marriage?”
    Clearly it is he that is the helpmate, or certainly that is the role she desires to carve out for him.

    “(I agree with you & TFH; the incentives for women to divorce are financially backwards in the West.)”
    I wholeheartedly agree. I fully expect she will issue her husband his walking papers once she gets through the gruels of her exams. Then she can extract child support out of 2 men.

    Interesting that she (and the useless marriage counsellor) can hold all these expectations of his role, yet men are not allowed to hold any expectations on woman’s role.

  84. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Don says:
    September 21, 2014 at 2:21 am

    >>…I WILL FORGIVE HER BECAUSE SHE MADE A MISTAKE AND EVERYONE OF US NO MATTER WHO WE ARE MAKES MISTAKES! …

    It takes a strong man to forgive something like that. For that, I admire you. I can see doing something like that myself.

    However, there are mistakes, and there are mistakes.

    A mistake is when you write a wrong number on a check. Or turn left when you should turn right.

    Or, even in a moment of confusion, making a flirty comment with a man on-line, one time for a minute or two.

    For a long-term married woman to be repeatedly sexting a younger man isn’t a mistake. It was an attitude. A sinful attitude.

    And, it went on for a long time. And, it was serious if she actually sent him money. She had every intention of committing adultery with him if she had the chance.

    I am not saying to not forgive her. It is very Biblical to do so.

    I am saying do not tell us we all NO MATTER WHO ‘make mistakes’ like that. I have not done so. And, I have been sorely tempted by gorgeous women over 40 years my junior here in Mexico. It is very hard (no pun intended) to walk away from something like that, but I do. (Well, maybe pun intended…)

    Most men on these comments have not done so.

    Have you done so?

    Your wife had an emotional affair with another man, and if she could have done so would have had a physical affair with him. My guess is she now realizes that what she did is a very bad thing and will almost certainly not repeat it. (Mostly because her plan failed, and she got caught. But, no matter; she probably won’t do it again.) So, yes, it is good you forgive her. May you have many more years of marital happiness.

    But, please don’t use the Jesus analogy to drag us into the mess by saying we all have done stuff like that. We all, or almost all, think it is very good of you to forgive her. You need not justify that action to most of us, by accusing all of us of having done things like that. Simply say you think she learned her lesson and it is not a reason to break up a marriage, and let it go. Good for you.

  85. Bee says:

    @Casey,

    Yes, this marriage has major cracks in it’s foundation.

    “I fully expect she will issue her husband his walking papers once she gets through the gruels of her exams.”

    Good point. I know three guys that were divorced as soon as their wives finished college. The guys worked full time and put their wives through school. The men were the helpmeets and the wives were secret prostitutes.

    Wendy Davis has done the same thing:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/01/19/wendy-davis-shows-how-you-climb-the-ladder-feminist-style/

  86. Elspeth says:

    seems 75% or more women were sexually abused as children.

    If I recall correctly, the actual number is closer to 30% (and for boys 20%, no small stat. For certain, same as with rape stories, one must take into account matters of degree, age, circumstances, and perception. Not to mention the intended purpose of the victim (real of perceived) in sharing her story.

    To topic, while my gut says Sanger could have made this up, there is no reason to believe that there weren’t many women who felt that way. From experience, I know that it requires a very conscious and sustained effort to look at things from my husband’s perspective rather than my own. But it is doable. It truly is.

    And since we’re already off topic on the sexual abuse issue and I don’t have the time to go back to the other thread, I’ll take my leave by saying that writing regular posts is far less time consuming that engaging in a sustained blog conversation, LOL.

  87. JDG says:

    Anecdotal, based on women Ive known in 51 years of living and women in countless blogs and discussion forums , seems 75% or more women were sexually abused as children.

    Well this does fit in with the feminist “1 in 4 women have been raped” narrative.

  88. JDG says:

    How are so many pedophiles and sexual abusers out there walking around and there not be a dystopian landscape where women are kept in captivity for sex, like the mujaheddin do in Sudan.

    That’s why they need to outlaw all things male and eventually resort to this:

    http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

    It’s for our own good you know.

  89. Pingback: The women rebel. | Dalrock

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    Anecdotal, based on women Ive known in 51 years of living and women in countless blogs and discussion forums , seems 75% or more women were sexually abused as children.

    JDG
    Well this does fit in with the feminist “1 in 4 women have been raped” narrative.

    How? 0.75 = 0.25 in what way?

    Looks like Empath was too subtle, again. I read him as stating that women are often tale tellers who will tell tales that (a) generate sympathy (b) enable them to shift blaim for their actions onto others. Maybe I’m reading too much into the statement.

  91. JDG says:

    JDG
    Well this does fit in with the feminist “1 in 4 women have been raped” narrative.

    How? 0.75 = 0.25 in what way?

    Aw come on, you know I suck at math. The point is that all men are monsters, just ask the wymins.

  92. Ann, your 1-5 progression is handy, seems correct because it fits the conventional wisdom bias, but it goes sideways at number 3.

    1. One person, woman or man, gets injured by someone evil, woman or man.
    2. The injured party is no longer “normal”, due to the injury.
    3. The “normal” people shy away, sensing something is wrong.
    4. More evil people, usually similar to the original abuser, move in to cause damage.
    5. The damaged person starts to see all people superficially similar to their abusers as abusers.

    The normal people do not shy away. That is too simple by half. Instead of writing a little 1,2,3,4,5….imagine it in real terms. So, a man who is not abusive, not addicted, not unfaithful….his wife decides he is emotionally unavailable and she leaves him, he becomes a visitor to his own kids. he is the injured. He has brothers and sisters, friends and extended family, a church group, neighbors….most of which are “the normal”. they shy away and other woman who have frivolously divorced their husbands move into his sphere and cause more damage? He is left with only dysfunctional folks around? reverse the genders, same questions…..its absurdity in a casserole.

    The injured party then sees all of the other gender is bad, for that reason?

    No.

    the injured party, if it is like the man I described, starts to see things for the first time. he never ever dreamed his wife could concoct the reasons she did to divorce him. he, like everyone else he knows would always wonder “what did HE do?” when he learned of a divorce occurring. Now, he realizes that if his wife can, any woman can, and he no longer immediately excludes women and being incapable of causing harm to a husband and to her kids unless the husband was a cad. With that knew awareness he looks around and starts asking questions when he learns of a divorce where he’d just assume man-bad before. he sees that almost all the divorces he hears of are like his. he digs into statistics on it and finds that TRULY the majority of divorces are like his, low to no conflict, no real grounds, but an unhappy wife. He further realizes that when he is around other men and women, they still assume as he once did that the men were at fault. he hears women stridently defend other women who jettison husbands and tear kids away from dads. he hears them rationalize that, yes, while divorce is bad for kids it wont be for HER kids because “God released her” from her marriage.

    This is the root of the (valid) generalization of women you see here. If you need to understand the precise meaning of a generalization, look it up. If YOU are not like this, then its not aimed at you, and if you dislike the behavior of other women who do this, then you should be rebuking them not saying the guys writing are woman haters.

  93. AR nailed my intent.While I have no idea about any one woman being sexually abused as a kid, I reject fully that as many as I have encountered claiming it are actual victims. Im not thinking numbers, really, just that a casual reference to having a touch of childhood sexual abuse is de rigueur , not unlike the completely unrelated but similarly motivated claims of having a child with Aspergers.

    Once I pressed an extended family member when she claimed sexual abuse. i did it subtly, a bit baiting with sympathy. Her horrific story was that an uncle carried her on his shoulders when she was little, sometimes when she had on a skirt. That’s it. I wonder if she had to review her life tapes to find something that would remotely allow her to claim to be in group.

    Elspeth I would not accept 30% and 20% women/men abuse stats either. Id be interested in the numbers based on contemporary allegations, at the time of the abuse, those prosecuted and not, but immediately accusation leveled. That’s a decent, not perfect, decent base to start from. No way that is 30%. If 30% of girls accused a male of sexually abusing them, when it occurred, we’d see the effects of that in life and it would be chilling. As it is now, even those who state they were abused and those who assert there is a huge number , they all take it less seriously than as if they were contemporary allegations. In fact contrast those you may know who did make contemporary accusations vs. those who , as adults, claim they had an issue when they were a kid. the gravity of those to groups being discussed is orders of magnitude different, as they even realize they are operating in claim-ville, not crime-ville

  94. AR, its a good thing you are around man, you help balance out my subtlety,

  95. Thornstruck says:

    @Casey

    Interesting that she (and the useless marriage counsellor) can hold all these expectations of his role, yet men are not allowed to hold any expectations on woman’s role.

    Are these Christians or non-Christians, what standard are you comparing them too? A Christian standard or a non-Christian standard? If they are non-Christian’s then there is no problem, since the expectations are entirely arbitrary. The complaint would then be that they are not Christian’s or have not heard they are sinners in need of salvation.

    If they are Christian’s then the complaint, based on your description of the situation, would be he is failing to lead in the marriage and she is failing to not follow him.

    Clearly, the law should incentivize couples to do the latter, not the former. They currently do not. This couple made vows, brought children into this world, they have a duty to yourselves and their children to stick it out through a rough patch.

    Vows only make sense within a Christian framework, outside of this vows are meaningless. The state sees the marriage system, and divorce, as a revenue and voting source absent divine institution.

  96. Ann says:

    All the things that happened to me sexually were misdemeanors or felonies. I did not desire or ask for any of this . All I was saying is that when you have been hurt by a person, whether you are a man dumped by a stupid, shallow wife, or a woman who was sexually abused as a young girl, it is easy to find others who have been injured by the same group to justify your belief that all in that group are bad.

    Even though I was sexually abused by men, I do not go around looking for bad men to show how all men are bad. Looking at how I can make all men “bad” does not make me a better woman, wife or mother. Because I was hurt by men, I am careful to not let my bad experience color my perceptions of men in general. I do try to see the patterns that differentiate people who abuse from people who do not. I guess I could go around getting incensed by women who I think do stupid, selfish things, but, the last time I checked, those kinds of women do not come to me for advice.

    I am especially careful to point out good examples of men to my daughter, who has not been sexually abused, because she has been surrounded by good adults, men and women who are kind, honest role models for integrity. She has seen abusive adults and has permission to keep her distance from them. She already shows a strong preference for boys who care about the truth over ones who show off or have money. She already values boys as friends, first. For all those who will snort, “I bet she doesn’t care about money!” She already makes her own. Any boy who cares about the truth, has self discipline and self control will have adequate resources and the ability succeed in the future.

    I was trying to point out that INDIVIDUALS are shallow, selfish or evil, rather than GROUPS. The woman described by Sanger was at least stupid and shallow and quite possibly evil. That does not mean all or even most women are evil. In almost every divorce I know of, one person was stupid or selfish. I do not, however, see any pattern of gender. I know one man who moved his family to a cheap divorce state, and filed six months to the day after the move. He divorced his wife, because she didn’t play tennis well enough. He seems to have no idea that his children were hurt by this. I tend to know more “bad man” stories, because I would not be friends with women who flippantly dump their spouses and traumatize their children. That does not mean there are not bad women,but they would not like being friends with me.

    Empathologism states ” he digs into statistics on it and finds that TRULY the majority of divorces are like his, low to no conflict, no real grounds, but an unhappy wife. ” How can you possible know this from statistics? I know 2 men who divorced their wives, not for adultery. On paper, they look identical. One man, his wife was shallow and evil, using him and emotionally abusing the children. The other divorced his wife because she didn’t play tennis well enough. Both would show “irreconcilable differences”. Would both men be classified as “bored and unhappy”?

    Someone who does something wrong, from divorce to tax evasion will justify their behavior and encourage others to follow them. “Unhappy” women will encourage other “unhappy” women to divorce. In the same way, why couldn’t men who want “out” can find other men who paint all women as selfish Sangers use that as justification to end their marriages to women who simply do not fulfill a selfish man’s fantasy?

    All I am saying is being born into a group does not MAKE you anything, evil or victim. Evil people manipulating laws is as old as Moses, literally. Laws needing to be changed is different than half the population being called selfish and evil.

  97. JDG says:

    he digs into statistics on it and finds that TRULY the majority of divorces are like his, low to no conflict, no real grounds, but an unhappy wife. ” How can you possible know this from statistics?

    “Researchers have identified the most common reasons people give for their
    divorces. A recent national survey found that the most common reason given for divorce
    was “lack of commitment”
    (73% said this was a major reason). Other significant reasons
    included too much arguing (56%), infidelity (55%), marrying too young (46%), unrealistic
    expectations (45%), lack of equality in the relationship (44%), lack of preparation for
    marriage (41%), and abuse (29%). (People often give more than one reason, so the
    percentages add up to more than 100%.)”

    http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

  98. JDG says:

    Also, Ann may want to read the link below for more “coincidences” regarding divorce.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/are-young-marriages-doomed-to-divorce/

  99. Don says:

    I win fool of the year my wife got caught up in a romance scam and lost 64 thousand dollars sexting a scammer thinking it was a 40 year old buffed guy! She then went to Arizona for 15 days to relieve her “STRESS” and when she got back I had a dozen red roses and a nice card for her! She was so concerned for her facebook friends instead of sitting down talking to me. When I asked her for 5 minutes tonight she told me she was tired of my drama! I asked her what drama? She replied my back my dad and I said my back going out on me? My dad dying? Unbelievable! Talk about cold narcissistic bitch of the year! I left her a note so I would not interrupt her sleep! FIX UP THE FRONT YARD SELL THE HOUSE IN SPRING AND GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS! TIRED OF WASTING MY TIME AND BESIDES MY EX-WIFE FROM 30 YEARS AGO WANTS TO TRY AGAIN!

  100. Kevin says:

    Ann makes some good points.

    I think of manosphere consensus about women as a corrective to the message most of us get for media, our churches, and community. If you tell a man or woman that a mutual female friend is leaving her marriage the majority of people will then ask some variation of, “What was HE doing wrong? Did he cheat, hit her, do porn? What was it?” The manosphere pushes back so we hopefully get closer to statistical reality (women initiate more than half of divorces – and yes that does not tell us the details – maybe he did cheat and she filed) and wonder “what did SHE do wrong?” Or “what went wrong?” It is important for all people, but especially men, to realize that women are capable of great cruelty, evil, and viciousness. And that the modern world can even reward them for it.

    Knowing that Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) is important for perspective. But if you see enough damage and the way society encourages legally and emotionally women to do that damage, you can begin to wonder, AWALT.

  101. JDG says:

    Ann makes some good points.

    I don’t agree. Her writings indicate that she makes a common mistake that feminists make in believing that men and women think alike and desire the same things. I’m getting a “though some women are evil, it’s still men’s fault” vibe from her posts.

  102. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Ann is a troll. An articulate troll to be sure but if it walks…She still has not denied the connection to the other banned troll.

  103. I know one man who moved his family to a cheap divorce state, and filed six months to the day after the move. He divorced his wife, because she didn’t play tennis well enough. He seems to have no idea that his children were hurt by this. I tend to know more “bad man” stories, because I would not be friends with women who flippantly dump their spouses and traumatize their children. That does not mean there are not bad women,but they would not like being friends with me.

    Was that equivocation about the word solipsism in the other thread?

  104. Dang, only instances of “I would” or “I _______” or “me” were to be bolded. All men are bad with html I tell ya, all of em, and i will not be friends with them.

    [D: Fixed.]

  105. Gunner Q says:

    Kevin @ 10:20 am:
    “Knowing that Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) is important for perspective.”

    All women really are like that. It’s a continuum, not a binary state, one influenced by both self-control and outside pressures. This is how women work, that is how they go wrong. Given how few restraints women have these days, finding one low on the continuum is very unlikely.

    I agree Ann is a troll. Actual victims of sexual abuse don’t introduce themselves to strangers as victims of sexual abuse. When a newcomer throws that out immediately, it’s usually a tactic to ward off criticism or establish sympathy. A well-reasoned argument would be able to stand on merit alone.

  106. Don says:

    The whole situation about Sanger is ” A DESPICABLE STATEMENT FROM A DESPICABLE WOMAN!” Not all women were or are like her but today 75% of divorces are initiated by women!

  107. Ann says:

    Its interesting what JDG got from my post. I actually believe the opposite. Men who are evil are violent, more than women, but if a woman is evil, I think it is deeper. I certainly don’t think women cannot be evil. I have also had dealings with them. I am just asking to make an effort, especially when you have had negative experiences to refrain from tainting others who cannot help being in the same group (nationality or gender) with the same brush.

    If you want to think I am a troll, so be it. I have an email that I use if I mention my past abuse. I was 10, 13, 16, and 18. I was not raped, but one of them was undressing me when I screamed for him to stop, which thankfully he did. He was 60, I was 16. There were 4 men ages 80 to 30. None knew each other. I had a scary father and abusive sister that set me up for other predators, not intentionally, but by their behavior. I have worked very hard to overcome a lot to NOT be like the women you talk about. Perhaps that why it matters to me. All the women I am close to have been committed to their marriages. If there was a divorce it was their spouse. None of them hate men or think all men are like that.

    Believe me, it is NOT a ploy for sympathy. It was supposed to be an example that having a bad experience, or 4, does not entitle you to paint a whole group of people a certain way, especially when they do not choose to be a part of a group. I am not talking about people who join a terrorist group, or a feminist group or any other voluntary group.

  108. Robin Munn says:

    Kevin @ 10:20 am:
    “Knowing that Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) is important for perspective.”

    GunnerQ @ 4:20 pm:
    “All women really are like that. It’s a continuum, not a binary state, one influenced by both self-control and outside pressures.”

    Perhaps we can square the circle with the following two assertions:

    1. All Women Are Like That by nature.

    2. Not All Woman Act Like That because some have learned / been taught to restrain their nature.

  109. greyghost says:

    Robin Munn you get it. AWALT the ones that are not are well behaved by conscious action on their part.

  110. infowarrior1 says:

    @Ann
    ”I actually believe the opposite. Men who are evil are violent, more than women, but if a woman is evil”

    I take exception to that:
    http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm

    Consider also that even if women seem less violent. Its due to their lesser physical capabilities than men. They go for more Machiavellian route: social manipulation and the tooling of men to commit violence on their behalf.

    For instance Queen Jezebel. And Bloody Mary.

  111. Robin Munn says:

    @greyghost –

    An illustration. A woman I know pretty well once told me that when her boyfriend* criticizes her about something, her internal reaction is generally something like this: “What? I don’t do that! … Do I? … Oh dear, maybe I do.”

    Note the two pauses for conscious thought and self-examination. Her first reaction is the natural defensive reaction: AWALT. But instead of letting her rationalization hamster run free, she actually examines her own behavior self-critically and realizes that her boyfriend was right, and she actively tries to suppress that bad habit in the future. Which is why she’s one of the good ones, and I’ve learned from their relationship that Not All Women Act Like That.

    * Who hasn’t yet asked her to marry him, but I fully expect him to ask her pretty soon. I’m pretty sure he knows what a good one he’s found.

  112. Eidolon says:

    Discussing things with my wife after reading about female solipsism was an interesting experience. I really begin to see that women have a hard time discussing anything in abstract terms. I tend to be an abstract thinker, so I frequently observe her taking some generalized principle or idea I’m talking about and bringing it down to herself or someone we know. I only perceived it as her getting sidetracked in the past, but now I see it as her personalizing everything, bringing everything into the sphere of things that affect her personally. It’s strange when you see the pattern play out right in front of you.

    Ann, people here are discussing things in general terms. Women in general have various negative qualities, but they resist the idea of applying those qualities to the category “women”. Men don’t do this (generally, there’s that word again). When someone says “all men are violent,” if they mean that all men struggle with violent impulses and the proper channeling and control of same, then men will not disagree with the statement. We recognize that men deal with that issue. If you were to say “all men struggle with lustful thoughts,” again, men would agree with you.

    Does that mean that no men are free from these issues? Of course not. But we don’t have to stop and discuss the outliers all the time. It’s understood that outliers exist for most categories. We say that the sky is blue. Sometimes it’s red or black, but everyone knows what you mean when you say “the sky is blue”. We say grass is green, though sometimes it’s brown.

    What happens, Ann, is that when you say negative things regarding men in general, they mostly accept the accurate assessments that fit with their experience, and women also accept these statements (and like to make them). When you say negative things about women in general, both men and women get defensive. Men because they perceive these statements as an attack on a weaker group, and women because they personalize every statement and make it about themselves and/or the people they personally know.

    When you say something like “gang violence by young males is a problem that needs to be dealt with,” men nod their heads. When you say “women frivolously divorcing their husbands is a problem that needs to be dealt with,” women say “I’m not like that! My sister isn’t like that! There’s Ann and Judy and…” That’s what you did above. You perceived a statement about women in general as an attack on yourself and the good women you know. If you’re going to learn from the manosphere and understand where the men here are coming from, you’ll have to get past this mental block where you take everything as if it was written referring to you personally. If you can’t then you really won’t be able to profit from these discussions.

    Anyone have the link to that comedy sketch about gold diggers? That was another good illustration.

  113. Eidolon says:

    You’re right not to generalize anything about men from a few people who sexually assaulted you. But not because it’s bad to generalize. It would be factually incorrect to generalize anything about men in general from those experiences because they are statistically extremely rare. Very, very few men commit sexual assault. So logically you can’t extrapolate anything about men in general from those experiences. At most they tell you something about men who commit sexual assault.

    On the other hand you have divorce statistics. Approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce nowadays and approximately 2/3 of those divorces are initiated by women. There’s no evidence that there’s an epidemic of women being forced to file for divorce by men, nor is there much reason to think it’s more common for women to be forced into filing for divorce than men. If we take those to cancel each other out we can probably keep the 2/3 number. Thus, ~33% of all women who walk down the aisle will file for divorce, whereas only ~16% of men will. This is a very large number of women, since most women get married sooner or later. So when people discuss personal observations of women in this group and the circumstances of these 33% of all marriages, we’re learning about a general trend and general traits of the people who make it up.

    It’s sort of like the difference between studying a case of flesh-eating virus vs. studying a case of tuberculosis. The former disease is so rare and crops up in such strange circumstances that, while the information about it may be interesting, it has very little generalizable value. It doesn’t tell us much about where the disease might show up next, or how exactly it will impact the average sufferer, since there isn’t really an average case. The latter case is much more useful, because it’s an example of a common problem that affects large numbers of people. In this case, the disease behaves similarly in the majority of cases, so learning from individual cases will tell us a lot about the disease in general. We can make predictions based on the information we’ve gleaned from cases we’ve studied up close.

    You can look into the case of Jenny Erickson, if you’re so inclined. Her situation fit the manosphere’s description of frivolous divorce almost perfectly, and her subsequent behavior also conformed very well to e.g. Dalrock’s predictions. Once a theory starts to be able to project future events with some accuracy, we can start to believe we may have a viable theory that works for general cases.

  114. infowarrior1 says:

    @Eidolon
    ”Discussing things with my wife after reading about female solipsism was an interesting experience. I really begin to see that women have a hard time discussing anything in abstract terms. I tend to be an abstract thinker, so I frequently observe her taking some generalized principle or idea I’m talking about and bringing it down to herself or someone we know. I only perceived it as her getting sidetracked in the past, but now I see it as her personalizing everything, bringing everything into the sphere of things that affect her personally. It’s strange when you see the pattern play out right in front of you.”

    Is that why God said in his word:

    12 I permit not a woman to teach, [n]neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    13 [o]For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    14 [p]And Adam was not [q]deceived, but the woman was deceived, and was in the transgression.

    15 [r]Notwithstanding, through bearing of children she shall be saved, if they continue in faith, and love, and holiness with modesty.
    1 Timothy 2:12-15 GNV

  115. John Nesteutes says:

    Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (Col. 3:5)

    @infowarrior1

    Good call on 1 Tim. 2. Of course, most Christians are busy twisting themselves into knots so that they can have lady ministers, like this one with a $250,000 salary at Riverside in NYC, which is apparently a good thing because there’s no wage gap between her and her male predecessor.

  116. Pingback: Why we don’t need Sanger: Give the rebellious wife what she demands or the baby gets it! | Dalrock

  117. Pingback: The ugly feminists of Christmas | Dalrock

  118. It’s not like men are leaving the house every morning for beer halls and theme parks. There’s a droll repetitiveness to their labor, too, with the added pressure that they need to outperform the next guy in line or they’ll get sacked.

  119. Pingback: Sandwich strike | Dalrock

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