The roots of marriage counseling.

Marcus D linked to a column by feminist and historian Rebecca Onion titled Lock up your wives! Advice columns from decades past provide a chilling glimpse into the horrors of marriage counselling before feminism.  While the title claims that marriage counselling predates feminism, the article describes how marriage counseling as we understand it today grew out of feminism in general, and specifically the rejection of the idea that marriage vows are permanent (emphasis mine):

Marriage counselling, once the informal job of clergy, parents and trusted elders, became its own profession in the 1920s. Following increased advocacy for women’s rights, divorce rates in the US rose 15-fold between 1870 and 1920. Meanwhile, psychology and social work found their footing as professions. Some marriage advocates, unable to stem the tide of divorces through legal strictures, turned to counselling as the answer.

In short, marriage counseling is a product of the divorce revolution.  The underlying premise here is not so much that divorce is beneficial because it ends unhappy marriages, but that it is beneficial because it gives wives leverage to force their husbands to do as the wife demands.  Once the husband does as the wife demands, goes the logic, the marriage will become happy (See also:  Fireproof).  While it is refreshing to see this spoken about honestly, it isn’t just feminists who celebrate this ostensible improvement on marriage.  Modern Christians have eagerly embraced this new view of marriage, a view I’ve dubbed the wake-up call model.  Although this modern Christian approach is drenched in denial, deception, and rationalization, it isn’t difficult to spot the modern Christian embrace of divorce if you look for it.

As just one example, traditional Catholics have expressed great concern with the explosion in annulments the RCC grants in the United States.  In response to these concerns, the Archdioceses of Boston has published a document defending the explosion in annulments.  The document explains that the explosion in US annulments is a positive development, a sign of justice and progress.  The problem is not that too many marriages in the US are being declared null by the RCC, the real problem is the rest of the world is behind the times and doesn’t grant enough annulments (emphasis mine):

In the last twenty years, the numbers of declarations are much higher in this country than they had been in the past. Yet this is due to the fact that the procedural laws governing marriage cases were expanded in the late 1960’s. Cases no longer had to go to Rome. They could be adjudicated locally. The appellate system was also somewhat streamlined. Furthermore, Roman jurisprudence was expanded in the light of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Cases could be heard on new grounds of jurisprudence.

Tribunals across the United States are operative so that individuals may vindicate their rights. The bishops of our country have invested personnel and resources to ensure the church’s jurisprudence and procedural law are fulfilled. Unfortunately, such an investment in justice is not as evident in other parts of the world. This is why the numbers in the United States appear high. In fact they are skewed.

The other thing I found interesting about Onion’s piece is her repeated reference to the eugenics movement’s involvement with the creation of modern marriage counseling.  I wasn’t aware of the connection here, but found a similar claim on wikipedia:

Marriage counseling originated in Germany in the 1920s as part of the eugenics movement.[1] The first institutes for marriage counseling in the USA began in the 1930s, partly in response to Germany’s medically directed, racial purification marriage counseling centres. It was promoted in the USA by both eugenicists such as Paul Popenoe and Robert Latou Dickinson and by birth control advocates such as Abraham and Hannah Stone who wrote ‘A Marriage Manual’ in 1935 and were involved with Planned Parenthood.[2] Other founders in USA include Lena Levine and Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger as you may recall is one of the founders of Planned Parenthood.  With a bit of searching I found an old radio broadcasts where she promotes marriage counseling.  From How to Avoid Post War Divorces:

The pity of unhappy, ruined marriages is that with a little scientific advice and the use of common sense so many of them could be saved.

She offers as an example a woman who resents her husband for traveling to exciting places around the world (as a soldier in WW II):

the wife.. who was realy just a girl.. was feeling trapped and rebellious. She loved her baby ↑of course↓ , and well she might, because he was a beautiful child, but 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!”

This was back in 1944, nearly 20 years before Friedan coined the term “the problem with no name”, yet all of the same tired feminist cliches about marriage we hear today were already fully formed and being sold to the general public.

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.

 

This entry was posted in Book of Oprah, Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Margaret Sanger, Marriage, Philosophy of Feminism, selling divorce, Threatpoint, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to The roots of marriage counseling.

  1. Pingback: The roots of marriage counseling. | Manosphere.com

  2. sonofdeathswriter says:

    I’m getting the feeling that women were jealous that they stayed home instead of going to war or dealing with the stress of an everyday job.

  3. okrahead says:

    I used to be opposed to women in combat. Now I think it might be a good idea to draft a bunch of them after all, and ship them off to the sandbox in their very own all women, grrrrrrl power brigades. Only feminists who demand perfect equality, mind you, and who chafe at the good times enjoyed by the men who hold the barbarians at bay.

  4. 1944 yes, it was going on… but it was really going on way before that in the 1800’s. It all comes down to a woman’s discontentment with her life, that has been the consistent beat of the drum for feminist thinking.

    http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2014/09/07/secrets-of-happy-mommies-and-the-importance-of-being-content/

  5. donalgraeme says:

    @ TFH

    Since ‘wife goggles’ cannot easily form if the woman waits until 35 to marry after 35 sex partners, isn’t this the biggest cost of all that women face under the misguided model of delaying marriage and calling it a ‘sacred path to marriage’? Isn’t this, by itself, a catastrophic cost to the average woman?

    A couple of things. First, the concept of wife goggles is one that most people, men and women alike, don’t know about. So nearly all women don’t know what they are missing. Second, You forget that women, for all the talk about how they fear their husbands divorcing them, mostly know how the game is really played. They know that on average divorce favors them. So they don’t mind not having wife goggles on their side, because after all, what is their man going to do if he doesn’t have them? Leave her? She can, in all likelihood, come out ahead if she gets primary physical custody in that scenario. And third, she doesn’t really care what her husband thinks of her in most situations. As long as he does what he is told to do, what does it matter?

  6. donalgraeme says:

    By the way, that piece by the Archdioceses of Boston is simply vile.

  7. Two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

    “Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

    “Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

    and;

    “Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

    These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

    Nor, did this behavior stop with the end of WWII, it was merely rationalized, codified, and approved by society, feminism and their Vichy males. Hypergamy was alive and well long before the sexual revolution.

    So much for the Greatest Generation.

  8. Opus says:

    Yesterday, by chance, my friend and I (whilst admiring the local talent) were discussing the Roman Catholic Church. It was our joint view that its opponents and in their wildest dreams could not have devised a more effective sabotaging of the church than the own-goal which was Vatican 2. Is it any wonder, I observed, that the fastest growing churches in America are Protestant though not Episcopalian. My friend has never been baptised, so here is the view of a baptised Roman Catholic – one Michel de Montaigne: “Women should definitely fear our over-mastery and entire possession. Their position is pretty perilous once they have totally thrown themselves on the mercy of our faith and constancy; those virtues are rare and exacting; as for the women, so soon as we have them they no longer have us”. Sixteenth century French women appear not to have heard of Annulment.

    Frankly, I would guess that were husbands to remain at home whilst their wives went out all day (Anzio, Arnhem, Alamein) the men would be pretty happy, invent the calculus, compose a Ninth Symphony or write three books of Essays from which the above quote comes.

  9. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH,

    No woman cares to be attractive to a man she is not attracted to. Most women get progressively less attracted to their husbands over time.

    Second, not all men get “wife goggles” and I would even posit that “most” do not. What you have is for some cognitive dissonance “I’m still with this hag, I must really love her to suffer this way, for others its desperation, they can’t do better, for many it is a slow horror show with the outside matching the inside as it were, and there are a lucky few that have the goggles.

    But it is also a lucky few that have happy marriages.

    Men that argue for the wife goggles are negotiating with women: “Stay with me, I see you in all your beauty, not like other men” its beta

  10. JDG says:

    I’m getting the feeling that women were jealous that they stayed home instead of going to war or dealing with the stress of an everyday job.

    And… had things been the other way around, these women would have been envious of men for getting to stay home.

  11. jsr says:

    “This wife needed to be convinced out of her own self-righteous understanding of the situation”

    The old school counseling had the right approach, despite the wrong origins.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Modern Christians have eagerly embraced this new view of marriage, a view I’ve dubbed the wake-up call model. Although this modern Christian approach is drenched in denial, deception, and rationalization, it isn’t difficult to spot the modern Christian embrace of divorce if you look for it.

    That’s one way to put it, but perhaps too kind. There is a much more to the point way of explaining this issue, in terms of the threatpoint. Conservative feminists do not like to be told of the concept of bargaining in the shadow of the law but their dislike of reality changes nothing. And since many churches are controlled by conservative feminists, speaking the truth “to their power” as it were, is a necessity.

    It is most interesting that marriage counselling is an outgrowth of the late 19th and 20th century cult of scientism; the notion that anything said or written by a sciencey person must be true and may not be contested. And of course it fits that the “science” in question is often largely bogus, handholding, feel-good claptrap. Because the purpose is to serve the Female Imperative, not to actually help construct and buttress real marriages by real people.

    There is a place for genetic counseling in some cases, I am aware of Orthodox Jewish services that grew up over the last 30 years or so in order to control for such genetic maladies as Tay-Sachs disease. The markers for that disease apparently are easy to reliably test for. Perhaps hemophelia and some others are similar. But that sort of marriage counselling would only fit within certain social structures, such as Orthodox Judaism, perhaps the Amish if they decided it was within their belief system, the Mennonites, etc. Most modern people would see no need for it, as twu wuv conquers all…

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    JDG
    And… had things been the other way around, these women would have been envious of men for getting to stay home.

    Well, sure. Women are never happier than when they are unhappy — and letting everyone know about it. (Obligatory NAWALT because of Elspeth and some of her readers).

  14. Zippy says:

    The Archdiocese of Boston document says:

    Since over eighty percent of divorced individuals remarry [and only 20% file for annulments], one can only assume most do so outside of the faith community. It is this reality which undermines the faith community, not the superficial notion that there are too many declarations of nullity.

    What a lame excuse, suitable for an eight year old: as if it were inconceivable that handing out annulments like Halloween candy could itself be a cause of divorced Catholics (not to mention everyone else) not taking Catholic marriage seriously. The important thing is for all of those divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church, by God, so grease up that annulment mill!

    Good grief.

  15. The Brass Cat says:

    @JDG

    And… had things been the other way around, these women would have been envious of men for getting to stay home.

    Exactly right. The grass is always greener on the other side, or so women think. It is apparent that jealousy and discontentment are their normal state. To overcome this takes conscious effort on their part.

    @okrahead

    I used to be opposed to women in combat. Now I think it might be a good idea to draft a bunch of them after all, and ship them off to the sandbox in their very own all women, grrrrrrl power brigades.

    This would require an additional brigade of men to rescue them.

    TFH

    None of this is particularly surprising to us, but it just reinforces the conclusion that full democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is replaced by a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult.

    What is a feasible and more durable alternative to democracy? More accurately we are a democratic republic which purportedly means rule by law rather than democratic mob rule, however over the last four decades the concept of rule by law has been assaulted by group-think mob rule. Is the answer to make voting rights more exclusive, such as tied to land ownership (like it was in the original colonies), or perhaps tied to marriage? Thinking about this is like an autopsy now; there’s no going back. The police state is already emerging. So the question becomes what proceeds the police state/goddess cult. A new dark age? An Islamic caliphate? Russia and China become the new First World axis?

  16. Boxer says:

    It’s interesting to see people using the same terms to describe widely different contexts (cue up Derrida’s lecture on Structure, Sign and Play…)

    Second, not all men get “wife goggles” and I would even posit that “most” do not. What you have is for some cognitive dissonance “I’m still with this hag, I must really love her to suffer this way, for others its desperation, they can’t do better, for many it is a slow horror show with the outside matching the inside as it were, and there are a lucky few that have the goggles.

    “Wife goggles” needn’t mean a hallucinatory state, and I think you’re right. All normal men will be aware of the aging process.

    The term also reflects a process of pair-bonding, accomplished over the course of years, whereby shared experiences cement the couple in such a way that a psychic foundation is created. These shared experiences have the potential to carry the couple through hardships.

    The shared experiences aren’t necessarily all rosy, either. Many of the old people in my family whose marriages seemed to be the strongest were people who weathered things like World War II and the Depressions in the mid 20th century. In Freudian terms, each member of the couple begins opening up an aperture in ego space, and the end result is that an image of the other actually lives in the subject’s head as part of himself/herself. Selfishness is thus mediated into an expression of the group interest of the couple, rather than “it’s all about me”. The introduction of children allows the psychological “ego” to eventually include lots of different, discrete individuals.

    This likely explains the difference between the mother or father who rushes back into the burning house, time and again, to save one kid after another, compared with the ones currently in the media, who beat the kid to death for crying too much or superglue his hands to the wall if he continually comes out of his room to interrupt the latest episode of “Orange Is The New Black”.

    Best, Boxer

  17. anonymous 20 Something says:

    Boundless, the site for fostering relationships among 20-somthing Christians, now has a column about being a 20-something divorced Christian.
    https://community.focusonthefamily.com/b/boundless/archive/2014/09/19/your-turn-lessons-from-a-20-something-divorcee.aspx
    The writer has valid advice about not ignoring red flags during engagement. But their blog is starting to be a disappointment, especially with the recent column that told readers to “stop worshiping virginity”.

  18. Longtorso says:

    The minister of a church I attended dumped his wife for a woman who came to him, with her now ex-husband, for marital counseling. The church covered it up saying he left “to concentrate on his marriage” or the like.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Churchanity in action.

  19. The divorce rates skyrocketed at around 1870?

    Isn’t that around the time that the state governments started issuing marriage licenses?

  20. bradford says:

    Interesting about the attitude of the WWII wife. Not too long ago I was home having a conversation with my mother who was in her late teens during WWII. She told me of all the exciting things she enjoyed about the war time. Her father was an officer stationed stateside in Charleston. She got to work in a factory packing “C” rations with a lot of her girlfriends. After work they evidently participated in an endless string of parties and dances held for the GIs who were passing through on their way overseas. “It was a wonderful time”‘ she said. I looked across the room at my Dad, who being a few years older got to participate in the Battle of the Bulge as a drafted infantryman, he looked at me with a kind of grimace, rolled his eyes and shook his head. Mom didn’t notice.

  21. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 12:58 pm:
    “Is it any wonder, I observed, that the fastest growing churches in America are Protestant though not Episcopalian.”

    “Fastest growing” is a relative term here; many established Protestant denominations are functionally dead. The RCC is culturally insular so when you’re out it can be an effort to return. By contrast, it’s easy for a Protestant to be a Christian gypsy. The better headcount might just be due to easy membership or the willingness of some churches to go worldly with live bands and coffee shops.

    The best-growing denominations appear to be the charismatics and Pentecostals. I attribute it to a combination of longing for God to show up, unwillingness to directly confront feminism and (in my cynical moments) female enthusiasm for the occult. The Holy Spirit is real but modern theology is a poor context for exploring the supernatural. “I was praying and then my wife spoke to me!”

    Ra’s al Ghul @ 12:59 pm:
    “Second, not all men get “wife goggles” and I would even posit that “most” do not. ”

    I’m certain most/all men do. It’s a part of masculine comfort with tradition and stasis.

    Wife: “Why do you keep this old, worn-out underwear?”

    Hubby: “Because I’m comfortable with them.”

    Wife: “Well, I’m going to throw them out. You’ll be happier with new underwear. And we need a new car. It’s old and worn out.”

    Hubby: “I like our current car. It’s paid off and runs well.”

    Wife: “Well, I’m going to trade it in. You’ll be happier with a new car.”

    Hubby: “Okay, but you’re old and worn-out too. I’ll be happier with a new woman exploring my new underwear in the backseat of my new car.”

    *Wife learns important lesson in male psychology.*

  22. The church covered it up saying he left “to concentrate on his marriage” or the like.

    On the plus side, if he left, then he was no longer ministering to the church after having disqualified himself from that ministry.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    What a lame excuse, suitable for an eight year old: as if it were inconceivable that handing out annulments like Halloween candy could itself be a cause of divorced Catholics (not to mention everyone else) not taking Catholic marriage seriously. The important thing is for all of those divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church, by God, so grease up that annulment mill!

    Good grief.

    Indeed. The nature of annulments further feeds into this, since the declaration is that the marriage was null from the beginning, before the divorce, and before an annulment was requested. It is an official certification of what the divorcing person will tell you they knew all along; the marriage wasn’t “real”. Obtaining an annulment is in this sense much like paying to have official AKC papers for your purebred puppy. The papers don’t change the puppy’s lineage, and for most people they are a mere formality. When annulments become more common the social need for the official certification becomes smaller, as it becomes commonly accepted that all marriages are suspect and the odds are good that if you went through the process it would only confirm what you already know.

  24. Longtorso says:

    @Feather Blade

    He went to another church. Since my church covered it up, they didn’t know what was about to hit them.

  25. Marriage counselling, once the informal job of clergy, parents and trusted elders, became its own profession in the 1920s.

    Today the absolute worst marriage counseling comes through the feminist infected church.

    “Servant Leadership” and “Mutual Submission” are feminist churchian doctrines that designed to empower the wife at the expense of the husband while he is told to double down on his efforts until she simply seethes with contempt for him. Once she has nothing but contempt for him the pin is pulled and it’s just a matter of finding out how long the fuze will burn.

  26. Lyn87 says:

    Re: wife goggles. I was trying to gather my thoughts after reading TFH’s excellent comment, but then ran into Boxer’s and realized he’d hit it over the fence. As I have recently noted elsewhere, I am in my fifth decade on this mortal coil, I have been married more than a quarter-century, and my wife is five years younger than I am. One can glean her approximate age from that. She was in the HB8.5 range when we met, and I still think she’s pretty now – and not just for a woman her age, but objectively so. As I type this I have a picture of her on my desk that was taken perhaps 20 years ago. She’s all dolled-up and is simply stunning in the picture. Some part of me understands that although neither of us looks exactly as we did then (we’ve both made an effort to stay in shape over the years) I still mostly see her as the pretty girl I married – a little worse for the wear, but so am I. She tells me that I actually look better than I did back then – more distinguished, I guess – and she insists that she literally means it when I insist that she’s only saying that to be nice. Personally, I think she’s nuts to think that, but I’m not going to complain about her “husband goggles.”

    Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? — Proverbs 5: 18-20

  27. DrTorch says:

    This isn’t a surprise to me at all. As I came across feminist writings (positively endorsed by Christian feminists) the connection became obvious. As did the absurdity of much of it.

    But it’s nice to have more concrete evidence.

  28. Bucho says:

    “She offers as an example a woman who resents her husband for traveling to exciting places around the world (as a soldier in WW II):”

    I wonder how much of this was perpetuated by groupthink, as the wives weren’t really that jealous until someone said that they should be.

    My father said that his parents married right before his father was shipped out to the Pacific during WWII. It turns out he was involved in the Battle of Iwo Jima. He said his father preferred not to talk about it, therefore I doubt he was painting a rosy picture for my grandmother while he was over there….

  29. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice post….and interesting topic!

    Nice to know how the “counselling industry’ started. We have a business in the office tower(3rd floor)where I work.They are also tenants.I know one of the women counselors…she is divorced! So I doubt that I would be going to her for relationship advice.If I did need a “marriage counselor” I would be going to see my Rabbi or my Pastor friend.In fact,most people that I know who did go to marriage counselling were worse off after they attended.My ex-BIL went,at the insistence of my idiot sister.He told me it was a total waste of money and a relationship destroyer.There is a sex counselor in the office also.She is HOT! I don’t know her but,I have thought of making a appointment with her to talk about sex.I would love to see where that leads! But,if there is “no hands on” counselling and demonstrations?…I’m out!…L*

  30. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Margaret Sanger……UGH!

    “”In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.””……..from Wiki.

    I think this is the book that I read about her,20 years ago.I distinctly recall that she was an advocate for the sterilization of the mentally retarded as well as Blacks and Jews.

  31. Dave says:

    Women are always Victims, even when it was the men who lost their lives:“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
    —Hillary Clinton

  32. Just Saying says:

    Most women get progressively less attracted to their husbands over time.

    That is why only a fool marries when divorce so favors women… Better to always have a woman you’re attracted to, and who craves your touch. And today – you can pretty much pick the age of the women you want and set things up so that you have an endless supply to choose from. Yes, it takes a bit of work, but it’s more than worth it…

  33. greyghost says:

    The Brass Cat
    @JDG
    And… had things been the other way around, these women would have been envious of men for getting to stay home.

    Exactly right. The grass is always greener on the other side, or so women think. It is apparent that jealousy and discontentment are their normal state. To overcome this takes conscious effort on their part.

    What you are discribing here is the toasted ice demand women make. It is something born of affluence and safety. A woman at home with the Luftwaffe flying overhead would most likely not feel the same way.

  34. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Over forty-five years ago,, I knew several Cubans. Cuban refugees were not supposed to serve in the war in VN, but they did.

    One such man had a worried mom. So, every few days he wrote a letter home, complaining about always being on K.P.; K.P; until he was more than sick of it.

    He was actually out in the bush on patrol. He was wounded, too, but his Mom didn’t know that until he got home and she could see the scars and the purple heart.

    His fiance said later when he got back, he taught her when he was asleep not to touch him at all, except to put her hand over his mouth, as they did on patrol. If she grabbed him and shook him as women usually do he’d come up frantically swinging.

    It was very noble and very chivalrous of those men to protect their moms and wives from the truth. But, look what it got us. A bunch of insane women who think they have it worse when their husbands are in combat.

  35. Gunner Q says:

    Just Saying @ 5:20 pm:
    “And today – you can pretty much pick the age of the women you want and set things up so that you have an endless supply to choose from. Yes, it takes a bit of work, but it’s more than worth it…”

    …until Almighty God condemns you for rebellion and sentences you to eternal Hell. Don’t delude yourself into thinking there exists a loophole to be exploited or that our current hardships are a valid excuse for disobedience.

  36. Lyn87 – Your post about your wife was so beautiful and romantic – thank you so much for sharing part of your life! I totally agree that women who don’t understand or want husbands with wife goggles are truly missing out on the deep, fulfilling relationship that comes from marrying early and staying together. A woman’s discontentment with motherhood and being a wife is so unbiblical… it really shows the selfishness of our nature – and when women give in to that kind of discontentment, everyone suffers (including them ultimately).

  37. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Gunner Q:

    “I’m certain most/all men do. It’s a part of masculine comfort with tradition and stasis.”

    I’m going to have to disagree with you on this, words may lie, but the body language and behavior of most married men do not. Most men are miserable in today’s society. Slump shouldered, hen pecked, miserable men and I almost pity them.

    If you are married to a woman that truly loves you then yes I believe wife goggle exist but most men it does not. You have half the people over 18 not married, this is the reality of things.

    “…until Almighty God condemns you for rebellion and sentences you to eternal Hell. Don’t delude yourself into thinking there exists a loophole to be exploited or that our current hardships are a valid excuse for disobedience.”

    All but perhaps the rarest of the rare of us deserve to be condemned to eternal Hell. God’s mercy is not a given for any of us, because if it was it would not be mercy. This is the fundamental error of the churchians, “I am Christian so I am saved regardless of what I do” You can not presume upon his mercy The “I am saved because I believe” is a fundamental error in Christian thought.
    “One can hope they are saved, one can never know until they are”

    And quite frankly, most (white) men under 40 have been called “evil” by society and the churches for so long that condemnation and damnation merely seem like same old same old. If I’m going to Hell anyway, I should at least enjoy myself. . . .

    Repenting and being contrite and ending up on the pyre anyway seems like getting screwed.

    What is “best” for us, does not necessarily mean we will be happy.

    Traditional marriage is best on the macro level because it is the foundation of civilization, it increases male productivity, it provides the best environment for children, it provides the best overall advantageous to a people as a group, but on the micro individual level it is not the best. If it was there would be no dissatisfaction, no divorce, no disruption.

    And it is a huge disservice to men to say otherwise or to feed the lies. Eve was cursed to try and control her husband and every single woman is a daughter of Eve. Marriage is contentious since the fall for the majority of people. Women are quarrelsome (and it is better to be in the wilderness than with a quarrelsome wife).

    I do not think marriage has ever been a great opportunity for a man, it is a burden. When it is the only reasonable way to get sex, the only way to move up in the world (and not long ago being married was necessary to rise through the ranks) speaks volumes about how bad it really is for men. All sorts of benefits have to be attached to it (or restrictions made to those who don’t) in order to get men to do it.

    And when those restrictions are lifted marriage falters. And I know Dalrock believes that men still want it, and it is the women driving the never married rates. We disagree on this. Rome didn’t try to force the women to marry, it tried to force the men.

    And yes yes, there are happily married men. The 1% are always crowing about how they “got theirs” whether it is wealth, fame or love.

  38. Pingback: The roots of marriage counseling. | Truth and c...

  39. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Lyn87:

    “Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? — Proverbs 5: 18-20”

    If wife goggles were real for most men, you wouldn’t have to admonish men to rejoice in the wife of their youth and to stay away from strange women.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, if you are married to a good woman, she is worth more than rubies as the bible says, but she is rare. You are in the 1% of men and you don’t understand marriage from the view point of 99% of men, you can grasp it to an extent intellectually, but you can’t understand it emotionally.

    You have wife goggles. You think all men have wife goggles. They don’t and don’t kid yourself that they do, not in this day and age, perhaps never as the Bible hints at.

    I play poker occasionally with a group of men that range from their twenties to their fifties. Of those that are married, only one man has ever stated that he is happily married. The rest never make that assertion ever. Almost all of them are overweight, almost all of them are tired looking, almost all of them have to get permission to live their lives.

    The single men are thinner, drink less, have more energy, look more rested, even the divorced ones.

    And yes I know the stats that divorced men live shorter lives (I wonder if you take out the suicides if that’s true though) but never marrieds live longer than married men.

    Most of the married men make jokes about how shitty marriage is. Anyone that Groks humor understands that the biggest source of humor is a person’s pain. It is what the comedians call “being real”

    Marriage lowers a man’s testosterone. I wonder who much of that is from lying next to a woman that does nothing for you physically?

    So again, I call bull on the marriage goggles. Most wives these days are quarrelsome. Something the bible recognizes as so bad it is better to be in the wilderness than with her.

    Men with quarrelsome wives do not have marriage goggles.

  40. lgrobins says:

    “The 1% are always crowing about how they “got theirs” whether it is wealth, fame or love.”
    Exactly.
    http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/applying-the-991-meme-to-marriage-and-attraction/

  41. “And yes I know the stats that divorced men live shorter lives (I wonder if you take out the suicides if that’s true though) but never marrieds live longer than married men.”

    To paraphrase Bill Maher, married men live longer for the same reasons indoor cats do. But they’re both furballs with broken spirits that can only peer out on a world they’ll never enjoy.

    “I’m getting the feeling that women were jealous that they stayed home instead of going to war or dealing with the stress of an everyday job.”

    Many people would be surprised to find out that the term “Penis Envy” is considered to be a valid psychological issue in such circles. We as men were given the drive by the Creator to create, propogate and annihilate, and many women want those same qualities.

  42. Lyn87 says:

    My internet service is down at the moment, so I’m typing on my phone. I’ll be brief – full response later.

    @ Ras Al Ghul,

    You quote scriptures, but only the ones you like. We ALL deserve damnation – our righteousness is as “filthy menstrual rags” – and wide is the road that leadeth to destruction – while “narrow is the gate” that leads to Heaven, “and few there that find it.”

    As for wife goggles, you have no idea what I think, how I feel, or what I know. Every single supposition you wrote about me is wrong.

    @ LGR,

    Please drop that silly “I am the 99% meme. It was absurd when the OWS kids made it up, and it hasn’t improved with age. It’s envy draped in hippy-dippy language. You usually do better than that.

  43. lgrobins says:

    Lyn, if your wife is so great as you claim why are you online so much and not spending time with her? Generally its the women parading their trophy men around, but plenty of men are just as guilty and one thing I notice with both is an inordinate amount of time spent commenting when they could be with their loved ones.

  44. Lyn87 says:

    Okay… internet back up (that didn’t take as ling as I thought it would):

    Ras Al Ghul writes – my responses in [Bold].

    If wife goggles were real for most men, you wouldn’t have to admonish men to rejoice in the wife of their youth and to stay away from strange women. [Unjustified speculation – you cannot say “most” – all you can say is “some.”]

    I have said it before and I will say it again, if you are married to a good woman, she is worth more than rubies as the bible says, but she is rare. [Depends on how one defines the word
    “rare.”]
    You are in the 1% of men and you don’t understand marriage from the view point of 99% of men, you can grasp it to an extent intellectually, but you can’t understand it emotionally. [You haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about here. Having a good wife does not put a man in the 1%. The whole 99% / 1% nonsense is just something a bunch of commie hippies in the Occupy Wall Street movement made up to stoke class envy. As for my ability to grasp it – I watched my brother go through the meat-grinder with his whore of an ex-wife, and I lived with the consequences of it every day for years (he and his kids lived in the same multi-family dwelling). Don’t presume to tell me what I know and what I don’t know.]

    You have wife goggles. You think all men have wife goggles. They don’t and don’t kid yourself that they do, not in this day and age, perhaps never as the Bible hints at. [Again, you are claiming to be able to read my mind and failing. I have NEVER claimed that all men have wife goggles, since I don’t believe it myself. Show me where I said otherwise or be enough of a man to withdraw your statement.]

    I play poker occasionally with a group of men that range from their twenties to their fifties… [So… a few guys were smoking-and-joking around a card table and you’re telling us that you can make sweeping statements because of that. Yeah… seems legit. Perhaps you’ve heard the expression, “The plural of anecdote is not data.”]

    Marriage lowers a man’s testosterone. I wonder who much of that is from lying next to a woman that does nothing for you physically? [That’s a feature, not a bug, and testosterone suppression is triggered by many things: being in an LTR and holding a baby, for example. Too much testosterone is bad for you, and having your T-level unnecessarily elevated is linked to shorter lifespans. Think of testosterone as performing a function somewhat analogous to adrenaline – when you need a lot of it it provides you with a “surge capability” – but having your body flooded with it all the time is detrimental.]

    So again, I call bull on the marriage goggles. [Call it anything you like, but they exist for a lot of men – and not for others. But if a man keeps it in his pants and marries a woman who has kept her leg together, and they take their marriage seriously, marriage goggles are far more likely to happen than if either or both of them slutted around.] Most wives these days are quarrelsome. Something the bible recognizes as so bad it is better to be in the wilderness than with her. [That’s probably always been true, since human nature hasn’t changed.]

    Men with quarrelsome wives do not have marriage goggles. [Usually true, but certainly not always. Some people find contentment despite their circumstances.]

  45. Lyn87 says:

    LGR asks,

    “Lyn, if your wife is so great as you claim why are you online so much and not spending time with her?”

    Seriously, Laura? You’re better than that. I spend time with my wife every day. We spend hours together most evenings. We go to church together. We hike together. We have long discussions about serious issues. We go on trips together. Do we spend every waking moment together? Of course not – we’re a married couple, not conjoined twins.

    Let’s play “flip-the-script. Since you’re a Christian,

    “LGR, if your God is so great as you claim why are you online so much and not spending time with Him?”

    Generally speaking, if you flip the script and it sounds stupid, it was probably stupid the first time.

  46. Lyn,

    If you witnessed such a horrible thing happening to your brother, then why do you still continue to paint marriage as a viable option for many? Anecdotes run both ways when it comes to their validity in making and drawing conclusions and generalizations of observations of nature and society.

  47. Lyn87 says:

    CV asks me,

    “…why do you still continue to paint marriage as a viable option for many?…”

    I don’t believe that I have done so. My very first guest column in the man-o-sphere (in 2011) was largely about the fact that the vast majority of modern women are not “marriage material,” and that a man who wished to marry had to apply very strict criteria to any perspective wife.

    But I’m not a nihilist like many guys are. I’m aware that a man who screens very thoroughly – and does not devalue himself by his own actions – increases his chances of having a reasonably good marriage. Note that I did not say “guarantees himself a good marriage:” but only that he significantly increases his chances of having an acceptable one. Having said that – having high standards also decreases his chances of finding anyone suitable at all, since there are far fewer suitable candidates out there… but a man is better off remaining unmarried than to get married to an unsuitable woman. For the life of me I cannot understand why that would be controversial.

  48. JDG says:

    Lyn, if your wife is so great as you claim why are you online so much and not spending time with her?

    This was just dumb.

  49. lgrobins says:

    Time spent online is not evidence of avoiding one’s loved ones. It could just as easily be evidence of good time management.”

    LOL, good one, I will save that.
    Why do we not say to feminists then who are trying to “have it all that “they aren’t neglecting their families by having a career, but rather they just have “good time management”?

  50. James K says:

    We tend to believe that feminism began in 1963 – because that is what (second-wave) feminists tell us. Granted, some things did change in the 1960s, but the hypergamy, solipsism, dissatisfaction, and other problems we know so well are eternal.

    George Orwell wrote scathingly in 1946 about American fashion magazines. Among his other observations:

    “On the front cover there is a colored photograph of the usual elegant female, standing on a chair while a gray-haired, spectacled, crushed-looking man in shirtsleeves kneels at her feet, doing something to the edge of her skirt. If one looks closely one finds that actually he is about to take a measurement with a yardstick. But to a casual glance he looks as though he were kissing the hem of the woman’s garment—not a bad symbolical picture of American civilization, or at least of one important side of it.”

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119494/george-orwell-lambasts-american-fashion-magazines

    Albert Einstein said in 1921 that American men, when they are not working, “are the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in a most unmeasurable, illimitable way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance.”

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/albert-einsteins-theory-of-relationships.html

    Thomas Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd” (1874) and Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina” (1873) explore the theme of women’s love for cads.

  51. Bill Price says:

    @Dalrock

    Annulments can be an act of mercy. For abandoned husbands, what other option is there when your wife runs off and obtains a civil divorce? I’m Catholic, and while I haven’t obtained an annulment, that’s largely because I stopped going to church after divorce. I felt that I was blamed, and told in so many words to suck it up and give in to every demand, which would have had terrible consequences for my kids. I felt betrayed and very bitter toward the institution, as I was provided no support despite the fact that my ex broke up not one, but two marriages while I kept my vows.

    Because divorces are overwhelmingly initiated by women, and men have no recourse, granting annulments is the only humane thing to do. Most divorces still occur early in life, and it would be a cruel injustice to sentence young men to bachelorhood simply because their wives became adulteresses.

    Thus the annulment expansion is really an adultery and abandonment problem. If the church won’t address those issues, and it won’t because it is terrified of female social and economic power, it has a moral obligation to grant annulments.

    I’m almost certain that the majority of annulments are requested by those who were the injured party in a divorce.

  52. JDG says:

    Why do we not say to feminists then who are trying to “have it all that “they aren’t neglecting their families by having a career, but rather they just have “good time management”?

    Because the results of their “time management” make it clear that they ARE neglecting their families and husbands.

    Is somebody impersonating LGR?

  53. Opus says:

    ‘Sex began in 1963
    Between Lady Chatterley
    And the Beatles first L.P.
    Alas that was too late for me’

    That was what Larkin wrote, but he failed to mention Feminism. He is of course referring to Profumo and Stephen Ward and the lovely Mandy Rice Davies (a woman who by her own admission ‘sank into respectability’ – well she would say that wouldn’t she) as well as Miss Keeler.

    Feminism began with The Blue Stockings Society in the 1750s – and predictably these oppressed women were also exceptionally wealthy. Colour me shocked.

  54. Gunner Q says:

    Ras Al Ghul @ September 19, 2014 at 10:58 pm:
    ‘The “I am saved because I believe” is a fundamental error in Christian thought.
    “One can hope they are saved, one can never know until they are”’

    This is the greatest distinction between Christianity and all other religions. Christian salvation is based on accepting Christ’s offer of forgiveness and rejecting our innate rebellion. Proper attitude is all it takes. Why no extra effort? Because God has zero need of our services or possessions. God Himself paid the price, a price none of us could hope to pay even in part… therefore, we are confident in our salvation. It’s prepaid.

    Frankly, the idea (present in all other religions) that God is willing to negotiate with us like equals is insulting.

  55. infowarrior1 says:

    @lgrobins
    I will have to agree with TFH on that one. You need something more substantial to prove your point.

  56. Bluepillprofessor says:

    That linked article is a hoot Dalrock. The author is horrified that women would be coached to take responsibility, to be submissive and have sex with their husband. That is just awful.

    —“activists were trying to pull the Journal into line with the evolving field of marriage counselling, which increasingly looked at individual happiness and personal fulfilment in making its prescriptions.”

    Translation: Easy Divorce with marriage counselors blessing. Eat Pray Live.

    —“the archive of recent ‘Can This Marriage Be Saved?’ columns on the Ladies’ Home Journal website is devoid of the woman-blaming that characterised the rubric’s early decades. Nor is it still acceptable to presume that poor housekeeping is solely a woman’s problem,”

    Translation: you go giiiiirrrrrl!!!!

    —“Of course, there are corners of US culture where being a so-called ‘surrendered wife’ is still a desirable goal.”

    Yes, like the vast majority of people despite your multi-decade social control equalitarian mythology feminization plan.

    And way to hijack a thread Lyn.

    Ras said: ”

    “Men with quarrelsome wives do not have marriage goggles.”

    This cannot be denied. Men with virtuous wives are the dudes with wife goggles.

  57. Boxer says:

    Why do we not say to feminists then who are trying to “have it all that “they aren’t neglecting their families by having a career, but rather they just have “good time management”?

    Healthy women have always worked. What do you think your very non-feminist grandmother did when she was on that farm she owned in her youth? (Hint: It wasn’t sitting around on the couch all day. She was out with grandpa, milking and mending fences and such)

    If Lyn needs some “marriage counseling” I’m sure he knows how to look up a modern day Margaret Sanger… He’s not really posting here very often, and I’d bet he’s doing so when his wife is busy working (ya know, what healthy people do) or doing chick stuff (craft shows, etc.) that he has no interest in. Personally, I like his articles, because they are a welcome break from the rest of us in the echo chamber, who sit around complaining that “bitches be crazy” on our off hours, or trading tips on how to evade the syphilis fairy, or the other usual manosphere stuff.

    It’s nice to know some men have actually made a go of marriage, and aren’t miserable.

    Regards, Boxer

  58. Micha Elyi says:

    …handing out annulments like Halloween candy…
    Norm

    That ain’t happening, Zippy. You’re exaggerating then treating your exaggerations as if they were fact. So I don’t trust you or anything you say unless you show the evidence and even then I’ll be doubtful until I evaluate it myself.

  59. retrophoebia says:

    Re Annulments, if you haven’t seen it already: Et tu, Pope Francis? http://news.yahoo.com/pope-orders-review-annulment-process-simplify-procedure-143800445.html

  60. James K says:

    The feminist narrative tells us that wives were the obedient slaves of men until Saint Betty liberated them.

    It was not so. The belief that it was is a trap: those who fall into the trap have a contempt for the past, and believe that the social changes of the last 50 years are essential to human freedom.

    The flipside is that, even if we could roll back those changes, women would still be the dissatisfied, hypergamous, and vain creatures that they always were.

  61. JDG says:

    The flipside is that, even if we could roll back those changes, women would still be the dissatisfied, hypergamous, and vain creatures that they always were.

    Sadder still is the fact that we would turn around and give them their ‘freedom’ again, thus indenturing men with out due benefits, destroying the homes of millions of kids, and setting in motion the death of millions of unborn children all over again. And folks would do this after seeing the improvements after the roll back and knowing what had occurred before the roll back. Now how sad is that?

  62. tz2026 says:

    It was about 150 years ago, but the papal encyclical “Arcanum” still applies.
    Milwaukee under Weakland used to be the worst diocese. I think I know the new one.

    Remember I’m a Roman Catholic.

    When I was growing up we had Cardinal Dearden who said the USCCB should be more like GM. His prayers were answered:
    GM is a corrupt bureaucracy.
    GM is negligent or unsafe (“at any speed”).
    GM hates it’s employees.
    GM hates it’s customers.
    GM hates it’s vendors.
    GM went bankrupt.
    GM needed a bailout.

  63. Pingback: the Revision Division

  64. JF says:

    This sordid history makes a helluva lot of sense from my perspective. I am in the strange position of having to divorce my ice-wife because she has, for far far too many years, absolutely refused to perform even the basic rudiments of spousal functions. She lured me into marriage by posing as the opposite, then, when the wedding was over, the Ice Age began. I have put up with it for years. I finally laid down the ultimatum: Become a spouse or i divorce you. But this only caused her ice to harden, especially since all her evangelical churchianity lady friends embolden and empower her.
    But we tried every kind of counselor. The “Christian” ones, and the 501c3 hireling shepherd “pastors” were the most wretched of them all. My wife could practically shoot me in the face with a gun, and then they might–MIGHT–take lukewarm notice at that. Getting them to admit that a wife refusing sex to her husband, and all manner of intimacy to her husband, and constantly criticizing her husband, getting them to connect that to any kind of sin was like pulling a tooth out of their feminized heads. But by God, if i was to fall into looking at porn in large part from my wife’s sex refusal, and if i move to divorce her rebellious frozen a##, then all of a sudden these hireling shepherds suddenly find their balls again and start throwing the word “sin” around. These church, inc., phony parasitical grafters would deny up and down that they have been feminized. They are so far lost they couldn’t find their own hind ends at high noon with a map.
    All counseling sessions were a NIGHTMARE for me. Just appalling. They all wanted to make me accountable for all the bad in our marriage, while granting me no damn authority to do or fix anything. It was and is MADDENING.

  65. JF says:

    Oh, i forgot to mention the other thing. The reason the counselors here are particularly damnable is because my ice-wife has shown in the past that, although she will make it a point to defy any wish or demand of MINE, she nevertheless has shown a marked tendency to be uber-responsive and afraid of authority figures, the few times any of them have ever said “Boo” to her. (It also goes without saying that the only authority figures to actually ever say “Boo” to her were civil authorities. “Christian authorities” today being of course an oxymoron in more than one way.)

  66. hurting says:

    Bill Price says:
    September 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Bill – first off, my sympathies for your situation – I am a fellow traveler.

    Unfortunately the ‘annulment as pastoralism’ approach you describe is precisely why we have so may annulments and therefore divorces in the first place. As both JPII and BXVI warned, there is no mercy without justice.

    And no, I’d bet that a good many if not the majority of petitioners for declarations of nullity are the initiating party in the divorce. The modern clergy of the US RCC and its handmaidens in the tribunals not only do not discourage divorce, they actively propagate it.

  67. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/09/24 | Free Northerner

  68. JF says:

    Thanks, Bill.
    But FYI: I don’t do Romanism, and for raw historicity (i read quite a lot of old, suppressed books) as well as theology, i would be one of the last guys on Earth to adhere to a pope, but i also have friends who are RC, so i am okay with to each his own.

  69. herecomestheLIGHT says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    I used to post over at amanhiswifethebible’s blog and remember seeing some of your posts there.

    Absolutely fascinating post on the roots of marriage counseling industry.

    You have a good head on your shoulders…

    Keep up the great work

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  70. Chris says:

    On the increased rate of annulment in the RCC….

    The infantilization of women and feminization of men over the last few (several?) decades has gone a long way towards rendering American men and women incapable of giving the full and knowledgeable consent required for sacramental marriage to exist…

    Hence the increased rate of annulment, (a declaration that a sacramental marriage never existed. )

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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