Why can’t I write without being written about?

Laura Lifshitz fails to honor my right to write without being written about in What It’s Like to Be an Evil Jewish Divorcee:

A group of supposed “Christian” men bantered back and forth under a blog written with the sole intention of saying that women divorce so they can profit off of it by writing about it and I Laura Lifshitz, am one of the most evil women profiting off her dissolved marriage. Oh and by the way, the article is categorized under “ugly feminists.”

As I suspect Lifshitz understands all too well, the ugly feminist tag refers not to outward appearance, but to the profound ugliness of the feminist mindset.

I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

If I have this right, The Writer writes about being written about while writing.  This is navel gazing taken to new heights.

Commenter Judy Higgins rationalizes that Lifshitz is doing her daughter a profound favor by continuing to profit from the pain Lifshitz is causing her:

Good for you to keep writing to show your daughter that there are people out in the world who are ignorant and not letting that stop you from sharing your voice.

Indeed.

Must a professional divorcée lack talent?

professionaldivorceevenn

Commenter silverpie asks on my post The Writer writes:

Question about the Venn diagram. What does one do if one pretended to commit for life, wants to be a writer, but fails to lack talent (i. e. does have it)?

In theory a writer with talent could become a professional divorcée.  However, if a writer has talent they won’t be forced to make airing their dirty laundry and their failure to honor their sacred vows the foundation of their writing career.

This entry was posted in "The Writer", Laura Lifshitz, Professional Divorcee, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to Why can’t I write without being written about?

  1. Joe Katzman says:

    This Washington Post article is very interesting. Of course, the comments section has zero understanding of the critical link in all of this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/26/why-so-many-empty-church-pews-heres-what-money-sex-divorce-and-tv-are-doing-to-american-religion/

  2. Pingback: Why can’t I write without being written about? | Manosphere.com

  3. Pingback: Why can’t I write without being written about? | Neoreactive

  4. Peter Blood says:

    The Jewess cries out in pain as she strikes you.

  5. “So, enough about me; what do you think about me?” That was supposed to be a punch line, but these women have turned it into a career.

  6. Uncle Silas says:

    Isn’t Miss Lifshitz, professional blogger, a Columbia alumna? Her writing style stinks. I expect the average University of Phoenix graduate can muster up more interesting prose. Miss Lifshitz provides further proof the Ivy League is overrated.

  7. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock, et.al:

    A minor point on the semantics of her rebuttal. This is not particularly important, but it is interesting…

    What It’s Like to Be an Evil Jewish Divorcee

    A group of supposed “Christian” men bantered back and forth

    Here our poor victim is falsely reframing the debate as one of men against women, and of Christians against Jews. This is convenient and thoroughly dishonest. I’m one of the people who “bantered back and forth” on this blog. I’ve never been either a Christian or a Jew, and have no plans to convert to anything in this life. The reality is that all decent people find the filing of frivolous divorce to be abhorrent, petulant, childish and pathetic. No one cares what religion the miscreant claims to follow.

    (As an aside, I get the feeling that our hero is about as Jewish as I am a Mormon: i.e. she was born into it and doesn’t take it seriously. Hardcore religious Hebrew women don’t get divorced for nonsense reasons.)

    When one has no legitimate justification for his bad behavior, he usually plays the bigotry card, in an attempt to make himself look a bit better in the eyes of the hoi polloi. The reality is that this bitch divorced her husband, made her little girl a bastard, and then had the nerve to write narcissistic articles about it. If she expects not to get any feedback, then she’s hopelessly naïve.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  8. Northy says:

    Yes Peter Blood.

    I am a lurker here and it seems that Dalrock avoids politics (although he may touch upon democrat vs. Republican things) which is his choice. But let’s make this crystal clear: Jews are subversive. This is nothing new and it can NOT be denied any longer.

    Those low-church Protestants who say things like “I stand with Israel” are just cucking themselves and their culture (which includes the institution of marriage).

    Everything that is discussed here is affected.

  9. infowarrior1 says:

    Oh but many feminists are physically ugly which mirrors the ugliness of their character.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    “I am special,
    I am special,
    Look at Me!
    Look at Me!
    No, not you creeper!
    No, not you creeper!
    Me, Me, Me!
    Me, Me, Me!”

  11. I don’t recall Dalrock dropping the “J” word in his previous post. I imagine the comments headed there (and admit my mind did upon reading the name) as it’s rather amusing to trace the uncanny overrepresentation between our kosher neighbors and the unfolding fronts of the new American war on normalcy (and their resounding underrepresentation in the forces trying to hold on to order and a tranquil society). On the topic of making her race/religion/culture (I’m confused as to which one it is this week for this purpose) a topic of discussion, I’d imagine it’s because it fulfilled a double genre feature in Jewish-feminist lit in the vein of Betty Friedman, Gloria Steinem, and Gertrude Stein, three major league whiners whom I hope I don’t flatter Mz Lifshitz too much by association. I believe it was Woody Allen who once said, “If it kvetches like a yenta…..”

    Ah well, when in doubt there’s always my motto: When Lifshitz on you, best mop yourself up before going on.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    If I have this right, The Writer writes about being written about while writing. This is naval gazing taken to new heights.

    Perhaps she can blog about herself while writing, and post an image of herself blogging while writing to Tumblr at the same time?

  13. desiderian says:

    “I will never understand”

    Is this bragging? a lament? a confession of weakness? a cry for help?

    “why women don’t have the right”

    Because that is not how rights work. Does Lifshitz imagine men have this imaginary right?

    “to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead”

    #3 is the same as #4, which are both implied by any of the rest, with divorce and write being the only ones in question. Does this woman have an editor?

    “a man feeling the need”

    It was more than a man, although he set a good example, and feelings have nothing to do with it. We’re not the needy ones.

    “to judge, lord and criticize”

    That’s what grown-ups do; our hope is to do it well. The reader can judge whether Lifshitz’s judgmental reply is up to the standards of the original post.

    “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    Lifshitz’s superfluous injection of her Jewry into the conversation is indeed that, but that pales in comparison to ugliness injected into the lives of millions of kids whose mommies bought the divorce porn the Times and friends have been selling.

  14. JDG says:

    I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    How dare you men question the actions of a strong independent woman. /sarc

    Does she not know that women are judging her too, and the women are doing it with disdain. Besides that, she is complaining that men DO have the right to “judge, lord and criticize” her (freedom of speech???). In other words, what she really wants is the “right” to publicly write anything she likes without being scrutinized, criticized, and held accountable (especially by men apparently) for her bad decisions and her bad advice.

    “Freedom for me but not for thee” shouts the feminist to men everywhere.

  15. Spike says:

    Evil is as evil does, Laura. It is you who has condemned your child to fatherlessness. Not us, not Dalrock.
    Likewise, ugly is as ugly does. Not (necessarily) your appearance, but your actions are as ugly as sin.
    Dalrock, one of your previous posts said, “Women fear the judgement of a righteous man. It is a weapon that is always available”.

    Sure enough.

  16. mrteebs says:

    Laura Lifshitz, March 20, 2015, 12:37 PM PDT commenting on Dalrock

    I am the Laura Lifshitz you write about.
    How amusing that someone has nothing better to do than slam me! That’s pretty sad but I won’t wish you ill will. Everyone has demons. I don’t know yours, but I will answer some of the ridiculousness on here and then will promptly exit as I have no time as a working parent to bother with this.

    Fast forward to Laura Lifshitz, March 25, 2015, 6:20 PM EDT. She now devotes 25 paragraphs in her Huffington Post article to “bother with this.”

    I think your arrow found its mark, Dalrock. She seems quite thoroughly bothered. But it was all for a good cause – to put food on the table as a working parent.

  17. rangelife says:

    … women who divorce so-they-can-profit-from-it are a very real phenomenon — by the way, check out this take on Elizabeth “Eat Pray Love” Gilbert (from the ex wife of Gilbert’s new hubby): http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/eat-pray-loves-elizabeth-gilbert-rebuked-by-exwife-turned-author-elizabeth-lowrie-20150327-1m7vt9.html

  18. mrteebs says:

    Like a clueless tourist in a land where she doesn’t speak the language, LL keeps saying the same thing over and over, just SLOWER AND LOUDER thinking that this time her narrative will make sense. This time we’ll see that she is a good-willed woman who wants what is best for her child. This time we’ll see that this was the act of two mature people who can get along amicably and remain quite devoted to one another (as ex-hubby proved during her recent illness by showing up bedside). This time we’ll see that because she feels bad about what happened, all should be forgiven. This time we’ll see that to suppress her naval gazingvoice would be a defeat for all woman-kind as she has a veritable duty to speak out so that others might learn at the font of such intense personal honesty and vulnerability.

  19. feeriker says:

    So do we really want to keep feeding this attention whore? I really can’t see how her shallow and sophmoric wallowings in the Great Lake of Self Pity justify it. While the theme of her output surely merits censure, there must be some other Divorce Drama Milk Maid whose Venn diagram excludes the “lacks talent” intersection, and who is thus actually worthy of the negative attention.

  20. earl says:

    ‘A group of supposed “Christian” men bantered back and forth under a blog written with the sole intention of saying that women divorce so they can profit off of it by writing about it’

    Oh I see we must have judged her wrong. She MUST doing these writtings out of the goodness of her heart. Her writtings a work of charity on her part. She must have received no money for putting the pen to paper to write about her divorce. HA!

    ‘(As an aside, I get the feeling that our hero is about as Jewish as I am a Mormon: i.e. she was born into it and doesn’t take it seriously. Hardcore religious Hebrew women don’t get divorced for nonsense reasons.)’

    Boxer is probably on the right track…the ‘J’ card is just another level of ‘oppression’ she can pull out without actually following their tenets.

  21. Pingback: Why can’t I write without being written a...

  22. Jimmy says:

    From the comments:

    “It never ceases to shock and amaze me how stupidly hateful can be over things that are honestly none of their business.”

    If it’s honestly none of our business then why is is she writing about it on a public blog?. I have only skimmed, but there appears to be little thinking going on in the comments, just dribbles of indignation and fuzzy-wuzzy feels.

  23. Don Quixote says:

    Here’s a quote from the article I found entertaining:
    “I am a damn good ex-wife” Laura Lifshitz.
    I’m wondering what virtues are required be a good ex-wife?
    Perhaps she is comparing herself to other ex-wives who she thinks are worse than herself?
    She said there was no money to fight over in the divorce, perhaps this makes her better most?

  24. Minesweeper says:

    Dalrock, you are hitting the bigtime. Seriously, you will go mainstream at some point – be prepared. Maybe you are Gods spearhead in all of this madness.

  25. lgrobins says:

    Wow, she can’t let it go. The guys here really got to her thus proving everything. She would really be peeved to know there are fellow sisters that are just as critical. But, the woman on woman response to that would be to write me off as just being jealous cause I am not a “professional” writer like her.

    “However, if a writer has talent they won’t be forced to make airing their dirty laundry and their failure to honor their sacred vows the foundation of their writing career.”

    Right, and they won’t be talking about me, me, me, my, my, my, I , I , I all the time.

  26. knepper says:

    [i] I am the Laura Lifshitz you write about.
    How amusing that someone has nothing better to do than slam me! That’s pretty sad but I won’t wish you ill will. Everyone has demons. I don’t know yours, but I will answer some of the ridiculousness on here and then will promptly exit as I have no time as a working parent to bother with this.[/i]
    Laura is busy Dalrock, you are not! Even though she is, she will condescend to take time out from being a ‘working parent’ (I’ll bet she wanted to write ‘single mom,’ but the irony was too much) to respond to your ridiculousness. Don’t you feel privileged that an important ‘writer’ like Laura would bother with a nobody such as yourself?

  27. lgrobins says:

    The quotes from here are applicable
    https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-feminization-of-rhetoric/

    “The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vulgar, silly. A man could attack another man verbally, and was expected to do so, but to attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble.”

    Once women entered college old-fashioned brutish rhetoric was done away with and replaced with composition so that the poor dears weren’t offended. Women own writing but what they are quickly finding that in blog format with commenting its a lot more old-school rhetoric based and it offends them.

    When she says
    “I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    it shows the mindset still prevails that to
    “….attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble.”

    Its just ignoble that anyone would dare criticize her!
    When you put anything personal out there you open yourself to attacks and criticism, so just don’t put personal stuff out there! But they can’t help it cause they don’t have the skills to talk about any thing other than their mundane (yet what they think is extraordinary) life.

  28. Luke says:

    Don Quixote says:
    March 28, 2015 at 5:51 am
    “Here’s a quote from the article I found entertaining:
    “I am a damn good ex-wife” Laura Lifshitz.
    I’m wondering what virtues are required be a good ex-wife?

    That’s easy to answer. In descending order of preference:

    1) She sincerely and permanently repents of her unGodly rebelliousness/willfulness against her husband and the Judeo-Christian marriage she entered into, and humbly approaches him and asks for forgiveness, hoping to reconcile. (He can of course legitimately reject both reconciliation or forgiveness, as he judges fit.)

    2) She gives back the children and property she stole from him, never asking him for anything again (i.e., money) save word on how the children are doing, and politely requesting occasional time to see them at a place and time of his choosing with him present.

    3) She DIES, the sooner the better (as long as the youngest child is weaned, and if not, then right after that), so that she can no longer either deprive the children of their father (they presumably would go back to him after she’s planted/cremated), nor ever again attack him and the family finances through the legal system.

  29. “I am a damn good ex-wife” Laura Lifshitz.

    This is an indication of how bad the average ex-wife is. If she doesn’t falsely accuse her ex-husband of abuse to get an advantage in court, doesn’t financially rape him as hard as she could, doesn’t interfere with his legal right to see his children occasionally, and says something nice about him once in a while, she considers herself a model ex-wife — because the standard she sees in other ex-wives is so much worse.

  30. earl says:

    Being single > Having a good ex wife.

  31. No such thing as a ‘good ex wife’. She’s delusional..

    More women like this need to show their colours, men need to see, listen and learn exactly what women are like. Do not be deceived. They don’t need you, they have daddy gubmit and the legal system now. And they have the alphas to have sex with. You are not required.

    Best to pack up your shit and go elsewhere.

    Game will not help. Women only need men for two things, sex and provision. If you make the ‘sex’ category, they only ‘love’ you for your looks. If you make the ‘provision’ category, the only ‘love’ you for your wallet. You, that’s your ‘being’ is not required, it is despised by women.

  32. Novaseeker says:

    LOL, like it isn’t the oldest trick in the book for women to characterize men who are critical of women as all being short, fat, bald, small-dicked losers who can’t get laid. Surely Laura has thought that about any number of her would-be orbiters, even if she has never said it. Such hypocrisy is amazing and yet also unsurprising. Solipsism is rank in our culture, among men and women alike, alas.

  33. earl says:

    ‘I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    I will never understand why people think rights come without responsibilities.

  34. Novaseeker says:

    As for “good ex-wife”, what that means is that he is still her orbiter. That’s pathetic for him, really.

    I mean, it isn’t at all uncommon for women to take the “I love my ex-husband, but I’m not in love with him” stance — that’s kind of the default setting, so LL shouldn’t be getting any kudos for that. It’s the default setting because it makes the woman look better — and too many men buy into this as well, because the public eye of highly educated peers disapproves of divorce generally, but will disapprove less if it is “an amicable divorce” than the will if it is not an amicable divorce, barring obvious evidence of physical abuse or addiction (adultery is treated differentially depending on who does it — a woman gets a pass if her H commits it, whereas a man doesn’t –> it’s assumed it’s his fault in both cases).

    I, too, have an “amicable” divorce in that we are not in constant litigation. But I am not my ex-wife’s orbiter, and I would never describe her as a “good ex-wife”. What the heck is that anyway? It’s a perversion of the culture that we need to come up with definitions of life states that really ought not exist to begin with.

  35. Novaseeker says:

    I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    Which is what feminists do for a living, when it comes to men. Look in the mirror from time to time.

  36. Emily says:

    It is so true that society is doing no one any favors by not calling women out on their sins. I’ve been guilty myself of a bit of navel gazing in the past and am very glad that it has been pointed out to me. Women are probably every bit as unhappy with the current status quo as men, but few are willing to point them to the real reason for their dissatisfaction in life which boils down to self-centeredness. As Dalrock says, it is not a kindness to play along with their self-deception. The cost of doing so is very high for everyone involved.

    I’m sure that some women who read her “writing” will visit this blog. If any of them take the time to
    read through Dalrock’s posts with a somewhat open mind and a willingness to try to see someone else’s viewpoint, then maybe they will begin to see what feminism has truly wrought. I know this blog has opened my own mind but then I have never been a fan of feminism. Still, I was steeped in it without even realizing it.

  37. earl says:

    ‘What the heck is that anyway?’

    It’s giving herself a pat on the back.

  38. earl says:

    ‘Women are probably every bit as unhappy with the current status quo as men, but few are willing to point them to the real reason for their dissatisfaction in life which boils down to self-centeredness.’

    If people would take that first step…it would eliminate 90% of their problems.

    It wasn’t until I started focusing more on what God had to say that my self-centeredness started to go down and I became happier and not as annoyed with things. It’s still a work in progress, but it was important to take that first step.

  39. technovelist says:

    D., I think you meant “navel” gazing. Or were you referring to the old notion of “watching the submarine races”?

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  40. lgrobins says:

    “When I started writing about my divorce, I did not realize how heated readers would be over my essays and I am writing about a pretty amicable divorce.”

    LOL at “essays”. Everything women ever write is an “essay”. Makes them feel even more important–“I am an essay writer”. It has a highfalutin sound to it.

    “….they decided to tear apart the one sole woman commenter in the thread telling her she was showing too much cleavage, a duck face, and had a hacky username.”

    LOL again, she doesn’t realize that I was also a woman on that thread–just not as vocal so I probably got assumed for a guy again.

  41. earl says:

    And God decided to tear apart Eve just because she ate a forbidden apple.

    This is the danger of women’s solipsism.

  42. Tam the Bam says:

    Pfft. Difference is, she’s doing it for money, and probably doesn’t “believe” even half of what she scribbles. Dalrock is the inverse of that.
    All these “The Writers” are content-hungry media whalesharks, they can’t stop moving ahead and filtering any solid matter down their ever-gaping gullets, nutrients or not. From Mommybloggers to the BBC, perpetually trawling Twitter, forums and blogs as well as the MSM for something, anything, to talk about and more importantly, spin into The Great Social Narrative.
    Interestingly the atheist crowd are also tying themselves in anguished liberal knots over the herds of mountebanks, grifters and straight-up psychos who have infiltrated and now utterly dominate and represent their public activities. Lulzaplenty. Seems like anything that smells like Money or Fame …

    “.. a good ex-wife ..”? Does she mean it as in “The only good wife is an ex-wife?”

  43. King Paul says:

    Well, she does make one good point. The term “ugly feminism’ is a tautology.

  44. Ang Aamer says:

    “methinks the lady doth protest too much”

    Dalrock I really like that you are taking this on. It is high time that the public debate begin to examine trend of feminine divorce navel gazing.

    I think it’s fair to comment on the ideas that are promoted by Divorce Pron industry.
    I think it’s fair to comment on the impact of divorce in a personal manner with a writer who BRINGS UP the subject by writing about it herself.

    I just don’t understand why these women don’t think that laying bare their dirty laundry of divorce is not something that can be discussed.

    Just in my lifetime we have gone from Divorce a husband due to severe issues (abuse, drinking, drugs etc).
    To now this “lady” who apparently thinks so highly of her ex SHE WANTS OTHER GALS TO DATE HIM!!!!

    Obviously she does not hold him in high enough regard to have him be the live-in Father figure her daughter really needs… but hey what’s consequences to a rationalizing author right?

  45. jg says:

    @Darlock
    The last sentence in your post is so brilliant and so true.

    @Joe Katzman
    I fiexed the 2nd to last sentence from that article for them:
    “Efforts to revive religious life in our nation’s most vulnerable communities must not only address the declining economic prospects of working-class and poor young MEN, but also seek ways to revive the relational climates in these communities.”

  46. lzozozoozozololzlo

    lzozoozozozozozozoz

  47. jg says:

    Feminist outside of Sweden are pushing for the Swedish model in prostitution, MRAs outside of Sweden need to start pushing for the Swedish model in divorce.

  48. The Jack Russell says:

    Laura pulls out the J card when it is convenient. She is one of the Jews Jesus speaks about. Saying that they are Jews but are not really Jews. The belong to the Synagogue of Satan. But you can find them voting for lefty politicians in the US and other countries.

    BTW readers. Eve did not tempt Adam with an apple. There is no mention of an apple in the bible. Adam ate of the fruit. Does not say what it was. More than likely it would have been more exotic than an apple. This idea probably from a middle ages painting of “Adam” holding an apple. The model was a far from perfect specimen which doubtfully Adam was.

  49. She wants to be paid to whine over her situation, whine about her ex-husband, whine about life, whine about the damage she caused; and then expects to do so without criticism… my, my what a peach she is..

  50. Luke says:

    jg says:
    March 28, 2015 at 10:08 am
    “Feminist outside of Sweden are pushing for the Swedish model in prostitution, MRAs outside of Sweden need to start pushing for the Swedish model in divorce.”

    Incorrect. MRAs everywhere need to start pushing for the pre-Tender Years model of divorce, where the marital property, the father’s post-marital income, and the children all normally went with the father.

  51. @Luke,

    With how perverted marriage has become perhaps we could actually successfully fight for a new family contract that is functionally identical to the pre tender years marriage. We could co-opt feminist insanity by arguing that women own their own bodies and are free to sign any contract they want with them. Including a family contract that mimics pre tender years marriage.

    But we all know that feminists will never allow women the freedom to sign such a contract. The hypocrisy is there, though. Perhaps it can be harnessed into a new family contract that can be used to save the family and bring an end to this child abuse.

  52. Boxer says:

    Incorrect. MRAs everywhere need to start pushing for the pre-Tender Years model of divorce, where the marital property, the father’s post-marital income, and the children all normally went with the father.

    1. That’s not a model of divorce that ever existed in North America. Read some history and get the picture.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1908/08/reply-feminists.htm

    Wharton’s novella “Ethan Frome” is a decent literary example of the sort of thing I’m talking about also.

    2. MRAs are merely the protestant movement within feminism. Their main gripe is that the establishment feminists aren’t sufficiently feminist. If they were, then no-fault divorce would be applied in a gender neutral way, giving equal time to the father and blah blah blah.

    I like the Dalrock blog because it exposes the lies on all sides. Civilization will only survive if the divorce courts are abolished, and if people are compelled to stay together until the children are grown. The only historical way to do this is to return to widespread monogamy and patriarchy.

    Best,

    Boxer

  53. earl says:

    ‘Adam ate of the fruit. Does not say what it was. More than likely it would have been more exotic than an apple.’

    Yes apple is probably the PG rated version of what it really was.

  54. Boxer says:

    I don’t recall Dalrock dropping the “J” word in his previous post. I imagine the comments headed there (and admit my mind did upon reading the name)

    I’m the culprit in that regard. A buddy in college was a Lipshitz variant. I hope he’s not related to this piece of work.

    I especially enjoyed the fact that her rebuttal was dedicated largely to me. She seems to think the portrait of uncle Herb, that I use as my avatar, is an actual likeness. Fuck’n lol.

    I’d make another Mr. Sardonicus joke, but it’d fly over her head, and I wouldn’t want the poor woman to think I actually care about her.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  55. jg says:

    @Luke, @Stringsofcoin, @Boxer

    I’m a realist. Why even bother try ice-skating uphill? The Swedish divorce model is a fair compromise given our times. And it is from the most rabid feminist country in the world, so that’s a great selling point. Sometimes small victories have to suffice.

  56. Luke says:

    No, jg. Much better than the Swedish model (they’re demographically collapsing as proof they’re a maladapted country, remember) of marriage & divorce for a man to pay for an egg donor and gestational surrogate, hiring a nanny and housekeeper. He can later date if he wishes, but must NEVER enage in cohabitation in common-law states, legal marriage (a religious ceremony-only deal in non-CL states is perhaps plausible at best), and above all NEVER allow a woman to legally adopt his children. Short of a man considering marriage and having children with said prospective wife in either a more traditional country (can’t bring her here, else the FI will ruin her in short order) or a man being legally able to premaritally ensure father custody, that’s the only sane way for a man inclined towards fatherhood to go.

  57. jg says:

    @Luke
    Sane, but unrealistic. Plus it denies the child a relationship with its mother. Co-parenting is better than your suggestion. Men are going to pay one way or another. All we can do is find the best deal, that doesn’t hurt our children too much (outside of a health happy traditional marriage, they will get hurt one way or another).

  58. Luke says:

    Jg: in the U.S., odds are that a child is going to be deprived of a parent either way. If the usual marriage-children-man’s “fault/woman-filed frivorce/impoverishment and expulsion of the father routine is followed, then it is the parent more important to the child’s upbringing that is lost. Better to ensure that the more essential parent will be able to be there all the way, and look for “mother figures” as possible.

  59. Dragonfly says:

    It does look bad when Christian men (supposedly) in the comments bash her for being Jewish, having wrinkles, and a lot of other “ugly” things that were said that had nothing to do with the fact that she was hurting her child and using it to further her career.

    Christian men commenting like assholes just turns people away… because its hypocrisy.

  60. jg says:

    @Luke
    Which is why I am suggesting not following the US model, but rather the Swedish model in cases of marriage. Outside of very traditional countries, I wouldn’t recommend marriage/co-habitation to any man anywhere. I also wouldn’t recommend surrogacy for the sake of the child. I think another fair compromise, given our times, is co-parenting

  61. Luke says:

    Jg, I looked into co-parenting. It’s just going straight to being divorced with child support, without ever 1) having gotten to have sex with the mother, and 2) without even a hope of a dice roll to make a marriage work, so he can be allowed to father a child fully (defined as father and children in the same home ~every night). Remember how cohabitators have even shorter/less-stable relationships than marrieds? CPing is going straight to being deadbedded in a cohab relationship; the breakup rate has to approach 90% for such.

    Then, expect the mother co-parent to eventually get bored with the male CP, move in with/move in a guy who tingles her, who then together effectively bar the male CP from the child’s life (but not his wallet). No, thanks.

  62. Peter Blood says:

    What a name, Lifshitz! You can’t talk about her by name in front of the children. It’s built-in subversion of European morality.

  63. jg says:

    @Like
    Yes, but there is no breakup because there is no romantic relationship, just friendship and a child that both care about. It would theoretically be difficult to bar the male CP because there isn’t the opportunity for the mother to make DV or abuse claims. Also the father will be an established and proven caregiver based on whatever original arrangement is agreed to.

    And
    Hope is for suckers.

  64. Luke says:

    Jg, plenty of women who don’t currently have sex with a man but have a child by him (what else is the epidemic marital deadbedding but this?) get tired/bored of him and pull out every stop to expel him from her and the child’s life. Not being married hardly would prevent her from saying she’s in “fear” of him (there goes the retraining order into effect), or lying that he’d “molested” the child (common to almost routine in divorces right now, he is SO gone from the child’s life, for many years or forever, excepting again the radical walletectomy).

    Nope. My original position still stands as the best one for any man who’s not Amish or the like, and who intends to ever again (postwedding/postbirth) reside in a Western country before their wife dies of natural causes.

  65. Boxer says:

    Then, expect the mother co-parent to eventually get bored with the male CP, move in with/move in a guy who tingles her, who then together effectively bar the male CP from the child’s life (but not his wallet). No, thanks.

    That’s pretty much exactly what I’ve seen in these cases, every single time.

  66. jg says:

    @Luke
    Hard to prove fear when you don’t even have to see each other. Molestation charge would require the child’s help, so I guess possible, but would guess unlikely.

    @Boxer
    Can provide actually documentation of this. There just isn’t that much info about CP out there, good or bad.

  67. Boxer says:

    Can provide actually documentation of this. There just isn’t that much info about CP out there, good or bad.

    It’s totally anecdotal. Just what I’ve noticed in every case where swpl fag decides to donate his sperm to some woman. Whether or not they were ever in any sort of relationship is irrelevant. Once the chick finds a hot guy or gets a better job offer thousands of miles away, off she goes with junior, all agreements be damned.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @meteebs

    Like a clueless tourist in a land where she doesn’t speak the language, LL keeps saying the same thing over and over, just SLOWER AND LOUDER

  69. Luke says:

    jg says:
    March 28, 2015 at 12:41 pm
    ” Molestation charge would require the child’s help, so I guess possible, but would guess unlikely.”

    Why would you think that gambit would be unlikely when it’s very frequently done in divorces involving minor children in the U.S., right now? Children can be coached/browbeaten into saying what the mother and her frivorce lawyer want, and anyway, depositions rather than actual testifying in court (where the kid could be cross-examined) are easily resorted to. That’s if the kid actually has to testify/be deposed at all; just the mother’s evidenceless accusation is likely to be taken as legally completely-satisfying. Lastly, if the honorless female coparent gets bored with sharing parenting (though not expenses) with the father early enough in the kid’s life, like in infancy or early toddlerhood, guaranteed noone from the legal system would be forcing the child to testify.

    So, my position on how a man who wishes to be a father (but wisely)remains:

    1) either expat to a more traditional country, marry a woman who’s a citizen of that country, and generally stay there until the last child hits majority, NEVER bringing her to the U.S. post-wedding,

    or

    2) without a wife/cohabitator/coparent/girlfriend, go egg donor & gestational surrogate for all his children, hring the domestic help he needs, then never legally marrying and never letting any woman adopt any of his children.

  70. jg says:

    @Luke
    Agree to disagree.

  71. imnobody00 says:

    OT. True story.

    Today a female acquaintance of mine posted in Facebook “My baby has died. He stopped suffering” followed by a long list of comments of Facebook friends telling “I’m so sorry”, “He is in a better place”. I worried and wondered: “I didn’t know she had a baby. I think she has no stable partner. Maybe she was pregnant and had a miscarriage. Maybe she adopted a baby. How sad. I am going to write to her to comfort her”.

    She is from my hometown (a city with 40,000 inhabitants in a Southern European country with a very specific language dialect so she seems like family to me) but lives in Chicago (as I have said, I live in Latin America). A pretty, non-fat woman who would have been sweet if she hadn’t emigrated to America and become very Americanized.

    She contacted me some years ago when I was in my hometown and I entertained the idea of trying something with her. She seemed willing. But her entitled American woman personality put me off. By the way, she told me that she didn’t like American men because “they are shallow and boring” (her words). But she is shallow and boring, not like the women in my hometown. For the last several years, I have been following her on Facebook without contacting her. She seems miserable and emotionally fragile. I guess she must be in her late thirties but she

    Anyway, I consulted her Facebook timeline to know what happened. It seems that the “baby” was a cat. It seems that she adopts cats from a shelter and this specific cat was ill and she did her best to save him but with no results. She is grieving a lot (too much for a cat). So much for manosphere clichés.

    In other age, she would have been a good wife and mother. She would have had kids to care about instead of adopting cats. This is the ugliness of feminism.

  72. Luke says:

    Well, imnobody00, that’s why my Romantic Unavailability Formula For Women is how it is:

    3 cats = 2 children = 1 husband.

    All of us, saving only the few unashamed extramarital players, can surely agree what having a husband means for a woman being unavailable for approach with an open romantic relationship in mind. The rest is just counting and simple Algebra.

    ==========================================
    jg says:
    March 28, 2015 at 1:21 pm
    “@Luke
    Agree to disagree.

    Well, jg, do you have reasons (besides the ones I have rebutted with IMO finality) you can enunciate for your position, or is it just feelings-based?

  73. Pingback: Punch harder | Neoreactive

  74. earl says:

    Brings a tear to my eye to see many people comforting the spinster after she loses a cat.

  75. jg says:

    @Luke
    Finality, hardly. Your rebuttal is based on what happens at the end of romantic relationships, you then assume it would extend to platonic relationships. Barely a rebuttal at all. Boxer is aware of anecdotal evidence to support your assumption, but that’s not hard evidence. My position on CP is also assumption. I assume different expectations in the begin stand a good chance of leading to different/better results. Until there is more facts/info about CP we will have to agree to disagree instead of arguing over assumptions.

  76. Luke says:

    jg says:
    March 28, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    “@Luke
    Finality, hardly. Your rebuttal is based on what happens at the end of romantic relationships, you then assume it would extend to platonic relationships.”

    From my post earlier:

    Jg, plenty of women who don’t currently have sex with a man but have a child by him (what else is the epidemic marital deadbedding but this?) get tired/bored of him and pull out every stop to expel him from her and the child’s life. Not being married hardly would prevent her from saying she’s in “fear” of him (there goes the retraining order into effect), or lying that he’d “molested” the child (common to almost routine in divorces right now, he is SO gone from the child’s life, for many years or forever, excepting again the radical walletectomy).

    It’s still men in a parenting relationship with women in the U.S. Further, many to most marriages in the U.S. involving children BECOME platonic well before separation/divorce. It’s the same kind of people in essentially the same situation. Put distilled water at a certain temperature and pressure, and it boils — reliably. People are more unpredictable as individuals, yes, but enough people (called “a statistically-significant sample size”) are VERY predictable.

    From insurance actuaries to epidemologists to economists to “Game” PUAs on the hunt for 1NSs to insurance fraud investigators at insurance companies to criminal investigation detectives, there are observable central tendencies based upon past behavior that are VERY predictive of the future. So it is with expecting women “co-parents” in the U.S. to end up as the same faithless bad choices as marrying one is more of the time than not. (Remember to add threatpoint and/or deadbedding and/or wife-decided childlessness to the divorce percentages when you figure out how it can be that MOST marriages now to American women were bad decisions on the part of their husbands.)

  77. jg says:

    @Luke

    from your earlier post:
    Jg, plenty of women who don’t CURRENTLY have sex with a man but have a child by him……

    That’s a lot of typing not to add anything new to the discussion.
    Again, different initial expectations, possibly different/better end results.

    Agree to disagree.

  78. Luke says:

    I don’t know how to put in an article for “Pingback” status, so I’ll just add this link here:

    https://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/the-pink-pill-rarely-taken/

  79. TDOM says:

    The answer to the question posed at the end of your article is that a talented writer tends to have the ability to empathize. Such writer can view the world through the eyes of another and identify with that experience. Then (S)he can write about it as though (S)he were that other person. Talented writers have the ability to write about themselves, but they also have the ability (and good sense) not to.

  80. Jake Seliger says:

    with the sole intention of saying that women divorce so they can profit off of it by writing about it and I Laura Lifshitz, am one of the most evil women profiting off her dissolved marriage

    Guys getting married should really read Greenspun et al.’s book “Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States.

  81. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The folks at Free Republic are attacking a Muslim cleric for saying that women are by nature selfish: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3273169/posts

    Interesting, that the reputedly “Christian conservatives” at FR are attacking a Muslim for saying what is widely accepted on the Christian manosphere. I wonder if it’s because the folks at FR are feminized Neocons, or because they’ll use any pretext to attack Muslims?

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, nothing new about that. It’s been done – in the 80’s, again in the 90’s, almost certainly in the 70’s and very likely in the 60’s. Gynocentrists just adore waving mestrual blood around in some way or other. The only diff with the latest example is the fact that Instagram is involved.

    It’s just another form of attention-whoring.

  83. Luke says:

    Interesting piece connecting the genocides of the Kulaks under Stalin and the Armenians under the Turks to what’s being done to heterosexual white males in America today:

    http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/01/kill-kulaks/

  84. greyghost says:

    Luke you have it down pat and that is what I tell all young men today. N count,is , is she Christian?, how long have her parents been together, etc. mean absolutely nothing. MGTOW, have a child with out a wife and hire a nanny cheaper more stable and safe for the up bringing of the child. For the a child needs a mother bunch. What woman married to some idiot with a threat point over the childs fathers head is a good mother. By law just as a woman cannot be a wife a modern woman cannot be a mother. Kid aint missing shit. A hired nanny working for 12 years is a much better model for a young female child than an empowered wife in rebellion (any woman by law and church) Remember Robin Williams had a loving walk out of the house he was hanging in and it was a house keeper actually checking on his well being that found him. Think about that “just have to find the right woman” crowd.

  85. greyghost says:

    Red pill latercomer
    They are feminized fairies.

  86. greyghost says:

    Dalrock, you are hitting the bigtime. Seriously, you will go mainstream at some point – be prepared. Maybe you are Gods spearhead in all of this madness.

    I told you so Dalrock. MGTOW and collapse is going to make you a source for reconstruction of civilized society. Make sure women don’t vote and men have birth control pills and red pill family law is required of all high school and middle school males. Keep reading the truth from the bible

  87. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice Post!……You have ruffled some feathers……..good for you…..l*

    My take on her? Nothing,I have not seen before.She knows how to pull the “Jew Card” very well and portrays herself as the victim….both as a ‘wo-man’ and a Jew.You ……”EVIL Christian Misogynists”….L*…….My take one her?…..We only have one side of the story.I think that she married a ‘well to do’ Jewish guy.Let’s say he was pulling in 300K/yr.(he is the financier for her “writing career”).She “blows up” the marriage because she wants to “WRITE”?????…….That is fine….”let me set you up an office in the ‘spare room’……..but,…”Why do you have to blow the marriage up”???????.This poor guy is f*****. If he was living here in Toronto…he would not be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment!…..after going through the Family Court meat grinder.She pretty much is the summation of all the comments that I have made on this blog,in previous threads,about,avoiding Jewish women. Also,the next time that you would like to meet a “nice” Jewish divorcee like this?…I will gladly loan you my eldest sister.You would LOVE her…..in fact,my biggest worry is that you might lose your sanity in having to listen and deal with her….Shalom!

    @Northy

    “”Jews are subversive.””………tsk…tsk..

    @Minesweeper

    “”Dalrock, you are hitting the bigtime. Seriously, you will go mainstream at some point – be prepared.””

    I told you on a prior post…….”get those shades out”

    @Boxer

    I believe it was you that she responded to in her “Shebrew” rant?….priceless!……l*…….I remember reading that post…..and I think I responded to it……awesome!

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    greyghost, it’s also risky having a child without a wife. How? A surrogate mother? From what I hear, surrogate mothers have the right to change and abort, or elect to keep the baby, until birth.

    So a surrogate mother can keep the child — and sue for child support.

    I guess if a man must have a child without a wife, adoption would be safer. But how likely are adoption agencies to consider single dads? I’d guess single dads are on the very bottom of the waiting list.

  89. JDG says:

    I wonder if it’s because the folks at FR are feminized Neocons, or because they’ll use any pretext to attack Muslims?

    A feminist is a feminist regardless of political affiliation. Almost everyone (left, right, or whatever) in the US has accepted feminist ideology as correct and therefore thinks like a feminist (even when they don’t identify as a feminist). Feminist dogma has even been accepted by people who self-identify as Christians (people who should know better).

    I’ve been hearing and reading feminist blather from both sides of the political facade for sometime now. They’re all feminists. The only thing that surprises me is that more people haven’t figured it out yet.

  90. Don's Johnson says:

    Once again Laura, I doubt Columbia wants you advertising that you are an alumnus. “Come to Columbia, we can make you a blogger!”
    Dragonfly,
    Not everyone here is a christian. Besides that, I don’t see how commenting on her appearance or ancestry is something hypocritical. I don’t know if you’ve read the bible, but I see nothing about calling a spade, a spade. Nor have I seen the men here whine when feminists come here and insult their penis size or sexual prowess. To throw in one more colloquialism, a hit dog will holler.
    Also, both you and her seem to put a qualifier on Christian, as if the very act of commenting on her life is enough to make you question their faith. You also set yourself up as arbiter of not only their words, but also their piety. Yet we are the hypocrites and judgmental? Go find a mirror.

  91. Luke says:

    Red Pill Latecomer, when you refer to a GS wanting to keep the infant, it’s what I call “Madonna Syndrome”. There are multiple ways to keep the odds of it low, FAR lower than the odds of frivorce even to the best-screened American woman.

    1) Above all, make certain that you only use a GS who has a husband. This is a man who almost certainly would MUCH rather get the remaining 15 grand (or whatever it is) in payment over having another man’s child unexpectedly at his kitchen table for the next 18 years.

    2) GSs now very rarely use their own ova for being surrogates. This is called a Traditional Surrogate, and is almost universally considered a seriously Bad Idea among anyone involved in any way in the fertility industry. There are far fewer protections for IPs if a TS is used,

    3) A GS is almost always only accepted by the fertility clinic or agency if she has already had one successful pregnancy carried to full term. This is done primarily to up the odds of success (clinics live and die by their stats), but has the side effect of making less likely the GS having the hormones make her brain go nuts and think she just gave birth to the Baby Jesus or other unique, invaluable (to everyone not just the IPs) baby.

    4) Surrogacy contracts normally do not pay out fully until what I call handover. Our had over half the $$ not paid til then. Likewise, if a GS aborts, she loses all future payments, and is legally due to pay back everything she has been paid to date.

    5) GSs who are not close relatives or VERY close family friends typically are not the best off financially. They (and their husbands) seriously want the rest of their compensation, typically having made specific plans for what they will do with the money even before embryo transfer. (Normally zero money is given to GSs before ET day, and wisely; we had two would-be surrogates get to the point of our taking them to the clinic 700 miles away, paying for them to be examined there, and start them on hormones before they bailed or didn’t work out for one reason or another.)

    6) GSs usually are plenty young enough (for lower miscarriage rates) so that they will feel they have plenty of time in which to have more children of their own if they wish. (Remember that American women commonly think they have even more time in which to have children than they really do, adding to the effect of GS’s youth on them normally feeling they have loads of time for that yet.) Our GS has already borne another baby since ours were born, and ours aren’t even 3 YO yet.

    Nothing in this world is foolproof but God’s forgiveness upon repentance, but American women GSs are way better bets than trying to marry an Amer Woman to have and keep children.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    JDG
    I’ve been hearing and reading feminist blather from both sides of the political facade for sometime now.

    Conservative feminists will bristle at the label and angrily announce that they are against abortion and so cannot be feminists, so there. This is tediously predictable, and it usually doesn’t take long to find which other feminist slogans they also endorse; maybe it’s “70 cents”, maybe it’s “rape culture”, maybe it’s “misogyny in STEM”, etc.

    As has been pointed out before, we all swim in feminism, feminist ideas are all around us, and either one is actively anti-feminist, or one is at least passively feminized.

    So I doubt the Freepers are all in the thrall of NOW, they just don’t have any other words or concepts to use, because feminist cant is in the air and water all around us.

  93. Luke says:

    Oh, and adoption? Between abortion and unmarried women typically now keeping their bastard infants over adopting them out, there are very, very few healthy white infants available for adoption in the U.S. anymore relative to the demand from married couples (and I think those mostly go to relatives). Now, an LD or mentally/physically-handicapped 7-YO with major behavior problems, sure, but hardly anyone wants those.

    For anyone considering it, being a foster parent is nuts now, since so many foster kids have learned that if they don’t like the discipline, leisure activities, or even the food at a foster family’s, all they have to do is accuse the FF of sexual abuse, and poof, they get a new FF. Never mind the permanent life wreckage left behind them…

  94. Mark Citadel says:

    Clearly Dalrock, you have rattled her. The feminist’s catty retorts are but badges of honor for the legionary man of Tradition. You hold up a mirror to show that inner ugliness, that perversion of order and denial of virtuous virility.

    Keep writing!

  95. Mark Citadel says:

    Oh, and if you go to her comment section, she practically feeds like a parasitic louse off of feminist solidarity essentially congratulating her on joining the divorcée club. “Just ignore the bigoted Christian Taliban. they are judgmental!”

    exactly the kind of crap I was referring to when I wrote http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-toxic-adherents-of-dont-judge-me.html

    These depraved women don’t want to be judged because they know they will be found guilty.

  96. Mmhmm says:

    She didn’t even link back here and send traffic this way. Just called you Jew-hater and a misogynist. I wonder if reading this blog made her rethink her actions or if she just dismissed it entirely.

  97. Luke says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    March 28, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    “Conservative feminists will bristle at the label and angrily announce that they are against abortion and so cannot be feminists, so there

    Three quick ways to smoke them out are to ask them what they think on if female clergy are Biblical, reducing sentencing disparities between men & women convicted of crimes, or ending affirmative action for women in colleges and workplaces (including special scholarships just for vaginas). It’s not even usually needed to bring up real equity ideas like ending women’s exclusion from Selective service, a Roe vs. Wade in turn for men, or presumptive father-custody after divorce.

  98. greyghost says:

    Artificial wombs maybe closer than we think. My guess it will be Japans way around the grass eaters and dry fish. They are going to need a military and tax payers for their aging society. With career women and carouselors dried out stink holes combined with MGTOW An artificial womb maybe developed or allowed for that also. We already have a new feminist fad of these you go girl skanks freezing their own eggs for some reason. Where in the hell are they going to put it. After that money talks. Industries start to take money where it comes. All it takes is for some city or country to use this for “women” and find out single men that use it are more productive and stable. At the same time these same men hire women off the street and the children of theses men tend to be less of a criminal, and social burden. Nobody can tell me single fathers will reproduce the hell on earth single mothers have brought the west. PS unproductive alphas won’t be using the technology it will get in the way of fucking the empowered college girls and future ex-wives.

  99. Thornstruck says:

    @GBFM

    Thank you for the video.

    It’s a primary factor in why I am not currently married or seeking marriage. The effect divorce has on children is as bad as child sex slavery and abortion. I experienced divorce first hand as a child and do not want the experience as an adult or to inflict that upon another child.

    Clearly there are a lot of invested interests in the continuation of this practice. People like Laura Lifshitz, and I ashamedly admit my own mother, have a cavalier attitude on the long lasting effects of divorce.

  100. S. Chan says:

    Great News! According to Lifshitz’s web site, she is “currently … finishing her first memoir”. Thus, anyone who is not yet sick of her solipsistic banality or her stories about how she willfully harmed her own child will be able to get a book with even more. Additionally, this will just be her “first”—suggesting further volumes to come!

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    She didn’t even link back here and send traffic this way. Just called you Jew-hater and a misogynist.

    Standard procedure in SJW-land. Same Stuff Different Day (SSDD).

    I wonder if reading this blog made her rethink her actions or if she just dismissed it entirely.

    Definitely the second option. Because I do not see any of that “think” stuff in LL’s scribblings. But it’s all good, because by having a hissy fit and inviting her BFF’s to post comments here, LL has exposed just a few more people to this corner of the androsphere.

  102. Opus says:

    A small point, I know, but it grates with me: You cannot say ‘off of’ as in profit off of it. Miss Lipshitz does so but means ‘by’ or ‘from’. I used to have a female client who constantly used the expression (as well as the equally un-felicitous ‘plus the fact’) and I gently corrected her – but she had left school at the age of fifteen; one might have expected a professional writer to be more correct in her use of English.

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    LL’s finishing her first memoir. Isn’t that special! I wonder how it begins? And why I should care?

    Bienvenuto Cellini (1500 1571) was an artist, draftsman, goldsmith, musician, soldier and lastly author. He began his autobiography with these two sentences:

    ALL men of whatsoever quality they be, who have done anything of excellence, or which may properly resemble excellence, ought, if they are persons of truth and honesty, to describe their life with their own hand; but they ought not to attempt so fine an enterprise till they have passed the age of forty. This duty occurs to my own mind now that I am travelling beyond the term of fifty-eight years, and am in Florence, the city of my birth.

    That’s how a memoir ought to start. I commend this book to all men of any age, and to those women who are worthy to read it. That includes myself, for I have not read it since my late 20’s.

    A copy in hardback is worthy for the shelf, but if you must Kindle or otherwise eBook:

    http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/4028

  104. Don’t judge me for judging you.

  105. Gunner Q says:

    “I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn…”

    Just ask, female. We men are happy to assist you with our superior intelligence. See, a “right” in the United States is a restriction on government power, not an entitlement. For example, your rights to free speech & press mean the government cannot censor, criticize or punish you for what you say.

    But we men are not affiliated with the government, now are we? So, your right to speak do not impede our right to speak back. We men feel the need to judge and criticize you because your writing, divorcing and leading have resulted in harm to men.

    We’re also entitled to lord over you but only because the Jewish God said so.

  106. Not related to this, but every once in awhile the truth is spoken. Here is a great article on how feminists think. According a CA democrat Barbara Lee climate change will force
    “food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health”

    Notice that prostitution is the same thing as marriage in a feminists mind- ESPECIALLY early marriage. I love it when the veil comes off.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-28/california-democrat-predicts-surge-hookers-blames-global-warming

  107. earl says:

    ‘We’re also entitled to lord over you but only because the Jewish God said so.’

    Which is why I think most modern Jews are atheists. Or if you will…Jews in name only.

  108. Boxer says:

    We’re also entitled to lord over you but only because the Jewish God said so.

    If Lifshitz were the sort of observant Shebrew she claims to be, she’d not be writing ridiculous clickbait articles about the inherent rightness in divorce. She’d be faithfully married to a nice Jewish dude and would be busy raising and educating his kids every day. We’d have nothing to say, and if someone did say something, her husband or father would take it up with us and get an apology and retraction as it should be done between men.

    Boxer

  109. jg says:

    @preachinginthewilderness
    I predict:
    food insecure men with limited socioeconomic resources, who are unable to sell sex for provisions like women have for centuries, will starve to death.

  110. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    I believe it was you that she responded to in her “Shebrew” rant?….priceless!……l*…….I remember reading that post…..and I think I responded to it……awesome!

    I did, and I missed your reply, so I’ve dredged it up. At the risk of giving this looney Lifshitz attention-whore more of the abuse she so craves, and more fodder for more self-congratulatory victim-mentality whining on HuffPo, please see inside text…

    You are not an anti-semite…….you just have a brain! I have said this is many of my posts on several threads.”Avoid Jewish wimminz like the plague”……L*.I have a sister that you describe perfectly.The younger sister has largely “gotten it”.She has a great marriage,great kids,great hubby….that did not come from listening to her older sister.

    It’s awesome to hear about women who “get it”. They’re the silent majority these days, with the sluts and babymamas and nouveau riche divorcée trash writing clickbait articles and being held up as the pinnacle of “empowered” womanhood. At the end of the day, your younger sister will be the “empowered” one, with a husband and kids who like her. The rest of this garbage will be out on their sorry asses. Maybe they’ll have a couple of cats if they’re lucky. Probably not.

    The only thing that I could tell you is.Jewish women are VERY controlling…and VERY manipulative.Trust me I know! You have to stand up to them.I remember growing up and seeing the way that my mother tried to manipulate my father.Thank God it never worked.Short story for you.About 20 years ago,my mother got a family inheritance.Nothing much,8 million dollars.She rubbed into my father’s face like I have never seen.”I have my own money,IT IS MINE….AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!””””……My father said..”I will not…enjoy your money”…..This was a joke.My father at the time was worth “100 times” her minuscule inheritance.What did she do with the money?….NOTHING! She put it in the bank….earned nothing for interest and continued to piss off my father by trying to rub it his face.The joke of it???……..If she really wanted to “expand” that principle sum,her husband is “THE MAN” to talk to.All she had to do is turn the money over to him…he would have given it to the family’s “money managers”…and they would have doubled and tripled it for her.But,instead she put it a bank(only a fool keeps his money on a bank…..’John D. Rockefeller’)…..and she looked at it…..WTF?…L* This is what Jewish women are like.Another funny thing you might have noticed in dating Jewish women.You will see the most awesomely beautiful Jewish woman….with the most butt ugly guy you could imagine???…..How did he get this woman you ask yourself??….Simple!…..MONEY! Jewish women are very greedy! Do not ever think otherwise! Your looks….your charm…your poise…your charisma…your manners…does not matter….MONEY is all that matters!….Shalom!!

    The girl I dated, that was her mother and father. You described them so well it’s eerie. They were still together, but her mother was a screechy harridan. Her dad was a genuinely good man who basically killed himself to provide for these ingrates. I remember finding it odd to note how her mother was much nicer to me and other non-family members than she was to her own husband (!). Her dad just took it in stride, and didn’t let it bug him. I have to admire him in hindsight.

    In any event, I am very, very glad that this chick didn’t like me enough to keep me around. I would have married her (I was young, pussy-poisoned, and in love, you know). Thankfully, she found some new dude to chase after and off she went. Definitely for the best.

    Peace,

    Boxer

  111. Farm Boy says:

    I will never understand why women don’t have the right to write, perform, be, exist, divorce or lead without a man feeling the need to judge, lord and criticize us at every turn only to end the battle against us with, “Oh and she’s very ugly.”

    I wonder if this means that she won’t act upon JDG’s and my advice that she should make sammiches for men…

  112. JDG says:

    Instead of ending the “battle” with: “Oh and she’s very ugly.”, we could end it with: “She may be ugly, but she makes a good sammich.” Who knows, after enough sammiches we may not have anything left to argue about. I for one find it difficult to disagree with a woman whose in the kitchen making her man a sammich.

  113. Never question a woman making you yummie sammiches, always question a feminist making you sammiches.

  114. Dragonfly says:

    “Dragonfly,
    Not everyone here is a christian. Besides that, I don’t see how commenting on her appearance or ancestry is something hypocritical. I don’t know if you’ve read the bible, but I see nothing about calling a spade, a spade. Nor have I seen the men here whine when feminists come here and insult their penis size or sexual prowess. To throw in one more colloquialism, a hit dog will holler.
    Also, both you and her seem to put a qualifier on Christian, as if the very act of commenting on her life is enough to make you question their faith. You also set yourself up as arbiter of not only their words, but also their piety.”

    I think Dalrock’s post was right. And having thicker skin is crucial. I did feel bad when seeing she read all the comments though, because some of them were just unecessary and distracted from the main point (truth) that Dalrock was trying to present… but my husband’s reaction was more matter of fact, that she put herself out there, in the ugly truth of what her actions are doing (and then writing about it for success). Its not the commentary on her appearance or ancestry, its the attitude and heart behind it that people pick up on isn’t right when someone is a Christian.

    Its very hard for people outside the manosphere to separate the blogger from his commenters and their behavior or attitudes. Dalrock isn’t like that, its obvious, a perceptive reader can pick up on that from reading his tone.

  115. Tam the Bam says:

    Opus, it’s endemic now. Its deformed siblings “should of” and “could of” can be heard daily on the wireless, without any embarrassed pauses from the professionals present. Even The World At One. MLE and Estuary Speak spread their relentless grip. Resistance is futile ..

  116. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    …but the worst of all (emanating I believe from Silicon Valley and much popular with teenagers) is ‘like’, as in ‘I was like WTF’. It may be a simile but it is not used as such and is somewhat monotonous when used at least once in every sentence.

    I seem to have misplaced my copy of Fowler and Fowler.

  117. earl says:

    @ Mark, Boxer

    What do you know? Even urban dictionary describes them.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jewish%20american%20princess

  118. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    …but the worst of all (emanating I believe from Silicon Valley and much popular with teenagers) is ‘like’, as in ‘I was like WTF’.

    Right state, but a different valley. Valspeak was a product of the San Fernando Valley (where I grew up).

  119. Dalrock,

    Remember what I said to you last Monday? I guarantee you, Laura Lifshitz tried to contact someone in “authority” at wordpress to try and shut down your blog. That failed. So she posted her most recent post denigrating you, specifically. And you know why?

    ….because you hurt her…

    You called her out for what she was and that hurt her. She’s wounded. You didn’t use any profanity, nothing vile, you just called her (and her behavior) “ugly.” That is the most hurtful word there is for men to use against women because it is NOT profane, NOT vile, and (most importantly) NOT ignorant. It is merely an adjective, meaning the opposite of pretty or beautiful. That is why she is so hurt right now. And she should be hurt. I weep for her daughter.

    Laura if you are reading this (and I know you are) go back to your ex-husband, and beg him to take you back and forgive you. Do that for your daughter and your own soul. If you don’t, then I certainly hope God forgives you.

  120. JDG says:

    “Okay fine, for sure, for sure!”

  121. JDG channels Moon Zappa….

  122. embracing reality says:

    Dragonfly said;

    “It does look bad when Christian men (supposedly) in the comments bash her for being Jewish, having wrinkles, and a lot of other “ugly” things that were said that had nothing to do with the fact that she was hurting her child and using it to further her career.

    Christian men commenting like assholes just turns people away… because its hypocrisy.”

    I completely concur here. This debate in our culture over dysfunctional marriage, frivolous divorce, family destruction and dismantling of society is deadly serious. No one, man, woman, religious or otherwise should be distracting from the very critical issues that are at stake here with childish personal insults. Focus on the facts! The mud slinging undermines the mission. Dalrock however was spot on here as always. Obviously though we don’t expect him to spend his time moderating comments for rudeness, it would be nice if more commenters filtered their own words.

    Also “It does look bad when Christian men [ and women ] (supposedly)…”

    Thank you for adjusting your profile pic to present yourself more modestly.

  123. Its very hard for people outside the manosphere to separate the blogger from his commenters and their behavior or attitudes. Dalrock isn’t like that, its obvious, a perceptive reader can pick up on that from reading his tone.

    Oh look , more tone policing from the resident concern troll. Carrie’s got her hatchet!

  124. Just curious Dragonlady, if Dalrock neutered his commenters to your satisfaction would he get your seal of approval? We’ve seen this routine ad nauseum, some entrist bitch finds where the men are speaking and immediately starts telling them what to do while making a career on being “oppressed”. They castrate everyone and then move on to the next most masculine thing they see. A civilization wide test in search of someone to tell them to shut up.

  125. Sarah's Daughter says:

    The mud slinging undermines the mission.

    Does it? We know dialectic doesn’t work. If it did we would be able to link to the plethora of data showing the harm of divorce on children and civilized society and women like this would be able to utilize reason and agree that she is wrong.

    We have recently witnessed what resulted when a woman was chastised, insulted, and admonished. Shame is very powerful with women. If it elicits no response then it is inconsequential. For example if shaming language is used to admonish someone for being fat, there is no offense if that person is not fat. If shaming language is used to admonish someone for being fat and the actions she takes indicate she agrees (not only that she is fat but that fat is unhealthy, evidence of gluttony and therefor sinful) then Truth has been conveyed. Her words may say “that hurt me” but there will be no denying the Truth if if she repents of her sins of gluttony and begins to submit to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

    Don’t mistake women’s verbal statements of having been offended to her not having heard Truth. Many times she hears it, internalizes it, and makes changes – though she rarely will acknowledge that it was the shame and the person willing to deliver it (no matter how crass and rude) is what made her wake up to Truth and a desire to change.

  126. earl says:

    They’d have more influence instructing their children than a bunch of guys on the internet. You are not our mothers here.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A+11-15&version=NASB

  127. Boxer says:

    Just curious Dragonlady, if Dalrock neutered his commenters to your satisfaction would he get your seal of approval?

    I’m the guy who pointed out that the origin of her surname was a Polish shtetl, and I’m the guy who called her a cunt. I didn’t use the word gratuitously. She is a cunt by any proper definition. She’s made her own kid a bastard.

    The idea that she had her feelings hurt is silly. She doesn’t give a shit about the health and safety of her own little girl. Why would anyone believe she cares about us or our opinion? She’s just trolling for clicks from the outragists on Huffington Post. That’s all.

  128. Luke says:

    Only vaguely related, but IMO very interesting:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/no_author/the-superiority-of-arranged-marriages/

    “During the 18th century, typically the man was twice the age of his bride. Why? Because he first had to get the farm, chickens, cows, etc., and show that he was a good provider. If he went to the prospective bide’s father and said he wanted to marry her, if he responded to what are your qualification, oh nothing, I just love her. That would have been a good laugh and he would have been lucky not to be injured by the door when slammed shut.

    The age difference decline to 25-33% older during the 19th century, but it was not until Hollywood got a hold of marriage and turned LUST into love at first sight that age came down to just a couple of years. Men mature slower than women so the divorce rate skyrocketed as girls expecting to marry men discovered they were still boys.

    The arranged marriages actually performed better than those anticipating love at first sight in present times overseas. There was a deeper connection of compassion. A realization that there was a team and not one of a clash of two titans. Now there is a TV show Married At First Sight which is where two people are matched and actually get married when they first meet. While some couples have split, the majority remain married. Are they tapping into the true historical way things use to be?”

    ————————————————————————————

    And: http://www.demogr.mpg.de/En/news_press/press_releases_1916/marriage_and_life_expectancy_1813.htm

    “A woman’s life expectancy is shorter the greater the age difference from her husband, irrespective of whether she is younger or older than him. However, the younger his wife, the longer a man lives. Women marrying a partner seven to nine years younger increase their mortality risk by 20 percent compared to couples where both partners are the same age. But the mortality risk of a husband who is seven to nine years older than his wife is reduced by eleven percent. (Source: Sven Drefahl)

    According to Drefahl’s study, published May 12th in the journal Demography, women marrying a partner seven to nine years younger increase their mortality risk by 20 percent. Hence, “health selection” can’t be true for women; healthy women apparently don’t go chasing after younger men. While many studies on mate selection show that women mostly prefer men the same age, most of them end up with an older husband. In the United States, on average a groom is 2.3 years older than his bride. (see figure 2). “It’s not that women couldn’t find younger partners; the majority just don’t want to”, says Sven Drefahl.”

  129. Don's Johnson says:

    Dragonfly,
    The “separation of blogger from commenters” is something most normal, logical, people do all the time. I don’t assume that every writer that discusses the president agrees that he is a marxist kenyan, just because some commenters do below the article.
    This is not a safe space for women. The realz come before the feelz here, and most of the commenters don’t care to make it more palatable to women, because that isn’t the goal of this site or most who come here. There are thousands of safe places for women on the internet. Perhaps, if the comments make one clutch the pearls, they should go to one of those sites. Unless someone is unnecessarily profane, trolling or outright lying, I have never seen Dalrock delete a post. Refute the post, don’t come here to police the tone. Nobody asked for it, and nobody cares.

  130. Excellent verse earl. Seems that having a women instruct men on the finer points of Godliness escapes the whole point. A feminist never lets irony get in the way of their solipsism.

  131. Once again a woman follows men and then lectures us on how to act. Listen, toots, if you don’t like the language used, go away, there are a plethora of websites that will canter to your feelings.

  132. earl says:

    ‘Seems that having a women instruct men on the finer points of Godliness escapes the whole point.’

    I think most of this motivation comes from being on team women and not Godliness. When’s the last time they informed us about Godliness when a man was being insulted or beaten down?

    They should stick to instructing women and children about those matters when it comes to insulting if they want to get their shaming jollies on.

  133. earl says:

    How pertinent.

    ‘Feminists are betting that men will all just sit back and be shamed into ‘polite’, feminine conversation, while they hijack Rhetoric. BUT something created by men and for men, does not work the same for women. Oh how she tries, but she just can’t debate like a man and then often has to resort to the ever famous “shaming language”. Emotions get in the way.’

    https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-feminization-of-rhetoric/

  134. earl says:

    ‘Real Rhetoric hasn’t been seen in some 200 years. No one knows what it looks like anymore; all we know is feminized Rhetoric. The closest we come is to some of the male defined spaces that make up the manosphere and even there it is probably mild compared to what I imagine the full glory of what unfeminized Rhetoric can be. Women will often complain of all the “mean, nasty” men on various sites (who really are just saying what women don’t want to hear); yet they should be reminded that this was life before women came onto the scene and demanded entrance in male spaces. If women don’t like it, they can go back to baking, knitting , blogging, or their career in the safety of a feminized zone. Men once protected women from this ‘harsh’ world, but they demanded to be included in it (starting with higher education) and with that comes a world that may not always be how women want it. Men changed their rules for women, as a courtesy, and now that women are ‘educated’, ‘independent’, and have conquered the world over (they are no more sensitive, delicate beings that need to be protected), the least they can do is let men regain what they have lost and respect the value of male Rhetoric and male spaces.’

  135. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
    (Jas 4:4)

  136. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I hate this whole “safe space” concept. It sounds reasonable, like a space where one won’t be physically assaulted. But what it really means is a space where one is free from criticism. Thus “safety” is equated with “don’t criticize me.”

    I recently heard about a case where a male college student, who questioned feminist rape statistics in a classroom, was expelled from class because his comments made some of the female students feel “unsafe.”

    A lot of strong, independent women out there who need protection from critical comments.

  137. Mark Citadel says:

    @RedPillLatecomer – the inevitable outworking of the liberal mindset with regard to safe zones is that its such a great idea, why isn’t EVERYWHERE a safe zone? Who would be in favor of unsafe zones? Bigots, that’s who.

  138. Luke says:

    Mark Citadel says:
    March 29, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    “@RedPillLatecomer – the inevitable outworking of the liberal mindset with regard to safe zones is that its such a great idea, why isn’t EVERYWHERE a safe zone?

    The inevitable best retort to that is one that’s been used by conservatives when lefties propose making an especially charred/depopulated Afro-hellhole section of Detroit an “enterprise zone”, where taxes and regulations are much reduced so as to lure nose-holding businesses (that would presumably hire locals as employees) to locate there. “Why not make the entire U.S. an enterprise zone?” The reaction is about as indignant and content-free as when a man asks a frivorced woman why she didn’t mean, and keep, her wedding vows.

  139. earl says:

    ‘A lot of strong, independent women out there who need protection from critical comments.’

    Amazing isn’t it. No wonder they were sheltered in the home. They can’t handle the real world when things get real.

  140. I hate this whole “safe space” concept. It sounds reasonable, like a space where one won’t be physically assaulted. But what it really means is a space where one is free from criticism. Thus “safety” is equated with “don’t criticize me.”

    I ran into this with Rules Girls almost 16 years ago. They didn’t want criticism and they would run to “authority” (the blog moderator with the power to ban) when they read something that made them feel criticized.

    This is going to increasingly happen the more red pill thinking goes mainstream. And why? Because red pill thinking stands up to ALL critical inquiry, and feminism can’t. So of course, women need a “safe space” where they can simmer in their own feminist juices and they don’t have to defend their thinking. They already know their thinking is… indefensible.

  141. earl says:

    Well women wanted to mingle with men….what they don’t get about men is:

    More often than not delusional thinking can be met with criticism from other men. So a man has to be able to defend what he thinks. He has to use some form of logic or reasoning behind his thinking since trying to appeal to emotions or shaming language usually won’t get the job done.

    If a woman is shocked the first time a man finally stands up to her thinking…what she doesn’t realize is most boys if they’ve been in a good male environment have been having to deal with that for years.

  142. DeNihilist says:

    Safe spaces everywhere have already started. In my area of this world, all truck drivers, muni workers, private corp. yard workers, essentially anyone who may work outdoors, are now required to wear high vis clothing. And this has all happened in just the last couple years.

  143. I’d wear my safety vest everywhere I went if I never had to hear from another feminist.

  144. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “”Which is why I think most modern Jews are atheists. Or if you will…Jews in name only.””

    I totally agree.I am not one of them.I know lots of Jewish Atheists,and if you look really closely.You will see that the same people behind the “Feminist Movement” are the same people behind the “Atheist Movement”.The same people who took down The Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer out of schools.I personally know lots of ‘Atheistic Jews’.My first retort to them…..”You cannot deny Jesus’s lineage.He comes from “Jewish Royalty”.I am correct in saying this.After this point is made?….I gauge their response…….usually…a self righteous,ignorant,university over educated moron,who I would rather not converse with!

  145. DeNihilist says:

    GiL – “I’d wear my safety vest everywhere I went if I never had to hear from another feminist.”

    Best Line Of The Week!!!

  146. Farm Boy says:

    This is a good line here also,
    Because red pill thinking stands up to ALL critical inquiry, and feminism can’t.

  147. Atticus says:

    @boxer

    “Incorrect. MRAs everywhere need to start pushing for the pre-Tender Years model of divorce, where the marital property, the father’s post-marital income, and the children all normally went with the father.

    1. That’s not a model of divorce that ever existed in North America. Read some history and get the picture.”

    You’re incorrect on this. Prior to the civil war in the US, children in the case of divorce went to the father. The father also kept all of his property and income. Children born out of wedlock were the responsibility of the mother. That’s why bastards were relatively rare or hidden. This common law tradition was a tremendous force against hypergamy.

    Read Wikipedia on the “Tender Years” doctrine.

  148. PokeSalad says:

    “Its very hard for people outside the manosphere to separate the blogger from his commenters and their behavior or attitudes. Dalrock isn’t like that, its obvious, a perceptive reader can pick up on that from reading his tone.”

    You don’t own us, sweetheart. Keep that in mind.

  149. Boxer says:

    You’re incorrect on this. Prior to the civil war in the US, children in the case of divorce went to the father. The father also kept all of his property and income. Children born out of wedlock were the responsibility of the mother. That’s why bastards were relatively rare or hidden. This common law tradition was a tremendous force against hypergamy.

    In that case, please post a reference to the federal “fathers always get the kids and all the money” divorce law.

    For the benefit of the peanut gallery: I’m not incorrect, and I have read history. In the antebellum USA, divorce was an incredibly rare occurrence, and was only granted after one party proved adultery or abandonment. While divorce laws differed from place to place (divorces in the 1800s were actually easier to get in New England than in the wild west) they followed the same general precedents.

    All the property (including the children) went to the injured spouse in those cases where a divorce was granted.

    Bear in mind that by “proving” adultery, one had to bring witnesses who would swear to actually witnessing the miscreants having sexual intercourse. Adultery was common, proving it was difficult. In the absence of said proof, the milkman’s kid was your responsibility even if everyone in town knew your wife was a ho’, so our grandfathers just had to lump it.

    Again, read Ethan Frome for a fun literary example of divorce law in the time period, or check out this cool outline: http://faculty.kirkwood.edu/emiller/mf_ppt/cherlin6e_ppt_ch12.pdf

    There is a reason I’m going all spergy on this topic. I’m sick of reactionary dudes thinking that all society’s problems will be solved if we only allow men to file easy and frivolous divorces the way women do, keeping the kids and all the money. That would be a disaster equal to the one we’ve got now. The obvious solution is to return to the framework that worked well for some two thousand years (instituted in Rome, before Christianity was ever dreamt up): Marriage ending in death, and adultery punishable by death.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  150. JDG says:

    instituted in Rome, before Christianity was ever dreamt up

    Sorry to quibble, but I believe Christianity was a plan (though not a human one) long before the republic of Rome. There were hundreds of OT prophecies that foretold of events concerning the Messiah (Jesus), some of which even pre-date the beginnings of Rome (ie: Psalm 22:16 written: 1018 BC “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”).

  151. Farm Boy,

    This is a good line here also,

    Because red pill thinking stands up to ALL critical inquiry, and feminism can’t.

    Thank you for the kudos. But all I think I did was repeat what we all know here to be so true it runs borderline with stupidity to reject it. Human beings (male and female) lonnggggg for the patriarchal model. It IS civilization. What we have right now, feminism has destroyed it. But we long for the patriarchy to return. So we fantasize about it in television.

    It is not an accident that the most popular program on tv today is the same program that has been so popular since we went on the air in 2010, The Walking Dead. And it is popular because it is PURE patriarchy and red pill thinking. People long for that because we don’t get that in our everyday lives. And even the feminists understand why it is so popular even if it tastes like shit in their mouths, they can’t get enough of it.

    http://thecrankysociologists.com/2014/10/14/the-walking-dead-return-of-the-exiled-woman/

    Red pill programming does extremely well, exceptionally well because that is what people want to watch. Think back to another extremely popular program, Breaking Bad, and how patriarchal it was, so much so that Ann Coulter referred to it as the most Biblical program on television.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-10-02.html

    This one’s about AMC’s smash TV series “Breaking Bad” — the most Christian Hollywood production since Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” (Not surprisingly, both were big hits!)

    It may seem counterintuitive that a TV show about a meth cook could have a conservative theme, much less a Christian one, but that’s because people think Christian movies are supposed to have camels — or a “Little House on the Prairie” cast. READ THE BIBLE! It’s chockablock with gore, incest, jealousy, murder, love and hate.

    Because the Bible tells the truth, the lessons are eternal — which also marks the difference between great literature and passing amusements. Recall that even Jesus usually made his points with stories.

    People long for the truth. That red pill there, it is truth. And Laura Lifshitz and every feminist knows it. Hell they can’t even keep from watching AMC’s patriarchal programming. They can’t resist it and that eats them up inside. Its the same reason why Laura had to write a blog post about Dalrock. She simply couldn’t….. resist.

  152. IBB,

    Thank you for the kudos. But all I think I did was repeat what we all know here to be so true it runs borderline with stupidity to reject it. Human beings (male and female) lonnggggg for the patriarchal model. It IS civilization. What we have right now, feminism has destroyed it. But we long for the patriarchy to return. So we fantasize about it in television.

    I’d like to express appreciation also, but more importantly I want to associate those two lines:

    “Because red pill thinking stands up to ALL critical inquiry, and feminism can’t.”

    “I’d wear my safety vest everywhere I went if I never had to hear from another feminist.”

    If we are brave enough to weather the ridicule of wearing a fluorescent orange/green as a ward against feminism are we equally as willing to stand on red-pill truths in the face of the feminist bullying? The truth is going to shut them up faster than anything all it takes is someone who is willing to express it and take their social/professional/familial lumps. One last caveat about the Truth:

    “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.”
    (Mat 10:16-18)

  153. It is not an accident that the most popular program on tv today is the same program that has been so popular since we went on the air in 2010

    Freudian Slip?!

  154. Opus says:

    I was wondering, and perhaps Mark can help me: Despite their reputation my interactions with the males of his tribe have always been without problem indeed I find them most likeable and indeed straightforward; would that I could say the same about my own people (perfidious Albionites). Why then are the Shebrews so exceptionally awful – at least in print?

  155. Anchorman says:

    She refuses any attempt to truly defend her position. In short, she writes her point of view, in which she is always the victim or, like my ex, if she admits a fault it is quickly followed with a “get out of jail free’ excuse so no one can really think badly of her without drawing scorn from flunkies.

    Even posting here, she did the, “I’m posting here and I’ll never read responses” Flounce.

    That’s the strength of mind the modern feminist possesses.

    Rants and cowardice.

  156. thedeti says:

    Red Pill Latecomer:

    “The folks at Free Republic are attacking a Muslim cleric for saying that women are by nature selfish: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3273169/posts

    “Interesting, that the reputedly “Christian conservatives” at FR are attacking a Muslim for saying what is widely accepted on the Christian manosphere. I wonder if it’s because the folks at FR are feminized Neocons, or because they’ll use any pretext to attack Muslims?”

    It’s a little of both.

    Most Christians and conservatives are solidly blue-pill in their thinking and worldview. They pedestalize and worship women, supplicate to them, and believe fervently in “egalitarian” marriages. A Christian woman is happy being led in her marriage, so long as he is leading her where she wants to go. When it comes to marriage, they believe every word that proceeds from Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, Campus Crusade for Christ, Glenn Stanton, James Dobson, Dennis Rainey, et al. This is part and parcel of their upbringing and education as Christians — they have been inculcated with it since they were old enough to walk and speak, and they believe and accept it as if it were gospel truth, handed down on tablets to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

    And most people who comment at Free Republic are fervent Christians and hardcore political conservatives. They aren’t exactly the same but there’s substantial overlap. Hardcore political conservatives look to criticize anything Muslims do, just as they do with liberals — it’s all about goring the other guy’s ox, and they’ll do anything they can to show each other up and hang them out to dry. See, for example, any talk show shoutfest on Fox News and MSNBC — they are each other’s nemesis. Any time a liberal fucks up, he’s run up the flagpole on Fox. Anytime a conservative fucks up, he’s run up the flagpole everywhere else EXCEPT Fox.

  157. Dragonfly says:

    Dalrock, you may be interested in an email a reader sent to me recently. I ran it even though I warned him that I was concerned the kind of responses he might get would only hurt him emotionally. My husband read it and thinks he’s probably Catholic, since the church teaches you can only ever marry the person you first married.

    Anyway, he wants feedback on whether or not he did the right thing, and was/will be interested in reading any comments.

    http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/03/30/man-wants-to-know-was-it-right-to-stay-with-a-cheating-lying-manipulative-wife-is-it-unconditional-love-or-unconditional-stupidity/

  158. Dalrock says:

    Dragonfly,

    I don’t have time to really look at this, but if I understand it correctly they divorced and he received favorable terms from the family courts. Now he is considering remarrying her legally. If that is right, the exchange Cane Caldo and I (and probably others) had on a Jenny Erikson post last year is fitting. I won’t tell him if remarriage to someone else is permitted: that is something he needs to look to his church to answer (and it sounds like they already did). Assuming he is going to take her back, my suggestion would be not to do another legal marriage. She only gets one marriage out of him, and she already got it. Remarrying her would to my understanding re arm the threatpoint. No need to do that, and it would in fact be wrong to create temptation for her to sin again. See the exchange I am thinking of, starting (I think) here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/trapped/#comment-100332

    From here I would do an in browser search for “Dalrock says:” and “Cane Caldo says:” to skip through the comments, going back to fill in any gaps based on quoted comments by others.

  159. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    You may want to check out http://www.gynostar.com/

    I stumbled upon it from the latest post at https://gooseberrybush.wordpress.com/ which I had found when I looked up to see if Amy Grant had ever repented of her past adultery (emotional at the very least) and validated she still has not. (No surprise there.)

    Lots of information at both sites that fits with the meme.

    [D: Thanks. I did a post years back on Gooseberrybush that you may like.]

  160. BradA says:

    I didn’t pay close enough attention. I think the second blog is rather dead. Not surprising though.

  161. earl says:

    Perhaps it has a lot to do with my religion and upbringing…but I still can’t fully understand the mindset of a person who gets into a bad situation or causes one and completely finds a way to take what they did out of the equation.

    I don’t see much of a difference in the sexes with this mindset. The difference I see though is that women get more of a pass from other women and white knights about covering up their behavior. So they can probably do this more with less impunity. When a person does call out their part in the behavior (as displayed here)…we see what happens.

  162. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ March 29, 2015 at 9:34 pm:
    “There is a reason I’m going all spergy on this topic. I’m sick of reactionary dudes thinking that all society’s problems will be solved if we only allow men to file easy and frivolous divorces the way women do, keeping the kids and all the money.”

    More power to you, Boxer. Even in the Bible, the Fall wasn’t a total disaster until Adam imitated Eve’s misconduct. Lifetime marriage ends the idea of picking winners and losers.

  163. She wants to play in a dangerous arena but whats it to be completely safe for her, hence the scripted and staged WWE wrestling.

    Come on Rhonda, sign up to win your weight class in the men’s MMA tournament. Prove your words.

  164. DeNihilist says:

    Not only does she “beat” a man, then she attacks his wife, who has no formal training! LOL!
    What she does to Stephanie, is as bad as her “belief” that she would never participate in an event that showed men beating on women. She is a hypocrite!!!

    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/ronda-rousey-wrestlemania-31-triple-h-stephanie-mcmahon

  165. Anchorman says:

    Her entire ‘success’ was engineered, and not on any merit whatsoever, yet she herself doesn’t know that.

    I don’t know about that, at all.

    She was an accomplished Olympian before the UFC. She trains very hard and is the best female UFC fighter. Doesn’t mean she should or could take on men in her weight class. That’s asking for serious injury or a clearly staged fight.

    She has legit skills. I think the latest fight with Cat Zandango was supposed to last five rounds and be the “defining” fight of female UFC. In an odd way, it was. She’s clearly superior to other female fighters, but the female undercard of two ranked fighters shows just how far female UFC needs tom come to reach true legitimacy. The undercard was an older former boxer/kickboxer and an alternative lifestyle woman who has no concept of negating the opponent’s strongest game.

    She’s getting big play because she’s pretty enough and tingles feminists with the go grrrl attitude. I would no more expect her to eschew the spotlight than I would expect LL to not publicly embarrass her family for profit.

  166. And this latest from Rhonda “I would never fight a man”

    Rhonda has no business wrestling men. And she knows why. And so do we all… at least when Chyna did that (wrestling men) she took it to the next logical level and started making “movies.”

    Its not all that uncommon for girls to wrestle boys in high school in the lowest possible weight classes (mostly because there aren’t any boys on the team that weigh less than 110 pounds) so a girl tries out and gets that weight class. It is also not uncommon for those girls who are on the team to wrestle boys from another team in a meet (should that other school actually find a boy that light.) What is highly uncommon is a girl actually defeating a boy (straight up) in a said, wrestling match. Most of the “victories” recorded by girls in high school wrestling are done so because the boy forfeits. She wins by default by showing up and him being a gentlemen.

    What is not well documented is why exactly the boy chooses to forfeit the match to a girl in his weight class? Why would he do that when the boys that DO wrestle always win? The most common belief is that he is doing so out of an act of chivalry. The boy simply refuses to try and hurt a girl. And there may be some nobility there if that were the truly the case. It is assumed. But I don’t think for one second that this is the case. Instead, I propose the boy is forfeiting so as not to embarass himself or the girl who is his opponent. And by that, I don’t mean the would be embarassment if he lost (although that is possible.) Instead, he is avoiding the embarassment of getting an errection while wrestling a girl and having everyone in the stands see it and having her “feel” it.

    These are 14, 15, and 16 year old boys. NFW are then in full control of their genitles if they are holding girls in that manner. It will be extremely difficult for the boy NOT to get a hard-on if he is trying to pin a girl, particularly if he starts with her in the position of “disadvantage.” We ignore these simple red pill truths at our peril AND at a young boy’s innocent, spontaneous, hormonal, pubescent driven over-excitement.

  167. Anchorman says:

    ibb,
    That’s the least bat-shit crazy thing you’ve posted here.

  168. Anchorman, I don’t think people really talk about it though. I can tell you the first time I actually slow danced with a girl, I was (I think) 15 and she was 16, not only was I tenting like you wouldn’t believe, I was afraid I was going to cream my jeans! I kept pulling away as not to embarass myself and I could tell that SHE could tell what was happening for me downstairs. Fortunately (for me) she acted like she didn’t care which at least made the dance more comfortable for the two of us. I only going to guess that with wrestling, take this problem and multiply by about 1000.

  169. Sheryl Sandberg got a gig that millions of women would have loved to have. She was smarter than the pool, in that way. But only in this day and age would such an artificial figurehead be created in the first place. She does not real work for Facebook, and spends all her time on her pet politics. She is clearly an unhappy person, despite being made a billionaire without doing any real work.

    And she was able to successfully frivorce #1 and Eat-Pray-Love upgrade on #2 with a CEO of SurveyMonkey. She was able to pull that off because….

    #1) she married (and frivorced) #1 very young
    #2) she is highly educated (top 0.001%)
    #3) she didn’t breed with #1 (only with #2 whom she could NEVER upgrade)

  170. Ultimately, God will judge Sheryl for what she did with #1 (after only one year of marriage.) But what I don’t think she could ever possibly understand (no matter how smart she is, and she is exceptionally intelligent) is that the other 99.999% of women who frivorce #1 would never be able to Eat-Pray-Love upgrade the way she did because God gave her so many gifts that He did not give to most other women. Hers is a unique situation. Sheryl simply chose to abuse and take immoral advantage of those gifts that God gave her.

    Pray for her TFH. She’s going to need it.

  171. DeNihilist says:

    TFH – exactly. I had never heard of this woman until Dalrock brought her up. Watching women fight is less exciting then being blind and watching paint dry underwater.

    As in boxing, even with Ali’s daughter, women fighting is stoopid! PERIOD! This MMA women division will never come to anything.

    Also, if you read the comments below, you see that MMA is still small potatoes compared to the WWE! Wrestlemania 31 had 76,000 in the audience. Biggest MMA, by far, and second not even close, was in Toronto, 56,000, which happened to have St Pierre at his prime, Canadian, and headlining. If you ever have a close look at the seats when watching the MMA on the tube, always a ton are empty. This women shit is just Dana trying to get some female butts into those empty seats.

  172. Don's Johnson says:

    IBB,
    I had a brother that wrestled in high school. He was in the 112 division, so he faced two girls over the course of his career. He forfeited neither. While forfeiture might have been due to chivalry for some, I would wager that the threat of losing to a girl is much more of a factor. It was the ultimate catch-22. If you lose, you will be laughed at for the rest of your high school career. If you win, no big deal, it was a girl. If you don’t win fast enough, you struggled with a girl. If you dominate her, you’re the asshole who beat up on a girl.
    I saw both of his matches against females, and he mercifully pinned them both within 20 seconds in the first period. He was 112 pounds with 2% body fat, these girls never stood a chance. He told me that I, several years younger and smaller than him, was stronger than either girl. They just didn’t have the muscle mass or explosiveness.
    Roussy could beat an untrained man, but I doubt any pro male would have any trouble with her.

  173. I saw both of his matches against females, and he mercifully pinned them both within 20 seconds in the first period.

    That was very smart of him.

    Roussy could beat an untrained man, but I doubt any pro male would have any trouble with her.

    Of course not.

  174. greyghost says:

    DeNihilist
    That is why she got divorced. Gina tingles. The number one reason for frivorce and divorce is gina tingle. Motivated by hypergamy and confidence of getting satisfaction.

  175. Atticus says:

    @Boxer March 29, 2015 9:34 PM

    Also for the benefit of the peanut gallery; you are incorrect and you are not being spergy or are we being reactionary. I do not want frivolous divorce. As a Roman Catholic going through it right now the issue is not “all society’s problems will be solved if we only allow men to file easy and frivolous divorces the way women do, keeping the kids and all the money”. I have 49 first cousins and over 150 first cousins once removed. I had no desire to divorce. Most men don’t; more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, some say up to 90% of those are initiated by women. When I talked to my Dad about it, he said, “I can’t help you, you’re the first person in our family this has happened to”. She cheated, I am out, period. As to the witnesses, I have video.

    Women are not rational actors. They are emotionally and hormonally driven. Prior to the Tender Years doctrine, children and resources stayed with the father. This was a huge disincentive for women to engage in bad behavior and divorce. The Tender Years doctrine was promulgated by “ Mrs. Caroline Norton, a prominent British feminist, social reformer author, journalist, and society beauty began to campaign for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton, who had undergone a divorce and been deprived of her children, worked with the politicians of those times and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to protect mothers’ rights.” (Wikipedia)

    There was no “federal “fathers always get the kids and all the money” divorce law.” It was common law.

    I never entertained the remotest thought that I would divorce. I was blindsided. You totally miss the point when you say “I’m sick of reactionary dudes thinking that all society’s problems will be solved if we only allow men to file easy and frivolous divorces the way women do, keeping the kids and all the money. That would be a disaster equal to the one we’ve got now.” Men could file divorce prior to the Tender Years doctrine, keep the kids and money, and is was not a disaster. What we are saying is cash, kids and prizes to women has created this mess.

    I won’t cite http://www.marxist.org but:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tender+Years+Doctrine
    http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol261113art2.html

  176. Atticus,

    I had no desire to divorce. Most men don’t; more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, some say up to 90% of those are initiated by women. When I talked to my Dad about it, he said, “I can’t help you, you’re the first person in our family this has happened to”. She cheated, I am out, period. As to the witnesses, I have video.

    When the film Silver Linings Playbook won an academy award for the lead actress (Jennifer Lawrence) it began to get much more replay on cable and DirecTV. Everyone wanted to watch it to see what justified this honor for Miss Lawrence. Anyone who is a movie buff (such as myself) would begin to understand in the first 45 minutes why she won the award, she completely stole the show. That is commonly talked about. What is NOT talked about in the story (as to do so would be to run contrary to the feminist imperative) is the motive for the lead actor (Bradley Cooper) in getting himself committed into an in-patient mental hospital in Baltimore. Consider…

    …Cooper’s comes home from work early. He opens the front door and sees his wife’s clothing laying all around the front step and the stairs. He hears their wedding song playing on the stereo so he follows the trail of clothes up the stairs. He finds his wife naked in the shower and thinks, oh that’s cute, we haven’t f-cked in the shower so he heads in and he finds another teacher in the shower with his wife and the two are having s-x. And what does this guy say to Cooper’s character? “I think YOU should leave right now.” Cooper did anything but that, he proceeded to almost beat this man to within an inch of his life. And he gets arrested, goes to jail, his wife gets a restraining order, the guy banging his wife gets a restraining order, the school he works at gets a restraining order, the guy banging his wife presses charges, and Cooper is given a choice of a prison sentence or time in a mental hospital to deal with his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Cooper’s wife divorces him, sells the house and keeps the proceeds, he loses his job, his life is completely destroyed. You get the picture…

    …but his life was destroyed because of the actions of his wife. She sinned, the man banging her sinned, and Cooper must answer for it because he acted out in violence (his sin.) What he did, that could happen to any one of us. But all that is talked about in the movie, is Bradley Cooper’s mental health condition and how it runs in parallel with Jennifer Lawrence’s condition. They compare their scenarios, the type of meds they were on, etc, etc, but never focus on the sins of his wife. Never-ever. She is excused because… well…. (and here is the saddest point I am finally making)… as a society we have grown to expect and even tolerate this type of amoral behavior from women. We tolerate it. We don’t hold women (like your wife) to account. They are allowed to cheat and we just have to…. understand. And thats the end of it. And law enforcement agencies and the laws on the books (and the “second set of books”) condones their adulterous behavior. We have learned to expect this of them. Gina tingles uber alles.

    Women are not rational actors. They are emotionally and hormonally driven.

    I just say that (unlike men) women aren’t moral agents but then the guys over here get all indignant about that no matter how true it is.

  177. lgrobins says:

    Dalrock,
    Why do you think men go to other men’s wives for advice? I guess it just goes to show how few resources there are for men.

  178. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Atticus,

    Sorry to hear about your situation. Pity. Quite so, women are not wholly rational actors.

    It seems to me that no adjustment of the law or culture can occur until we do away, once and for all, with the Enlightenment Humanistic idea of equality, that even the Christian churches have absorbed as true. Inequality never meant a difference in worth as a human being, it meant a difference in station and authority. Ever since we adopted the fanciful idea of equality, to assuage Eve’s envy, we have turned our world upside-down.

    Men have to learn to tell women “No.” That their emotions not not a substitute for reason, experience and God’s Word. The original sin of Adam remains our greatest hurdle; to placate our wives/daughters envy and selfishness, rather than follow our God’s commandments.

  179. greyghost says:

    IBB
    I read this is a comment (not here) and I liked it. “Women are like water and assume the shape of what ever vessel they are in.” You are right women are not natural creatures of agency. Only a wishful fool trying to show how fair he is would think otherwise. Female agency is present when it is a requirement to advance her hypergamy. Like I always say virtue out of wicked selfishness. That is the essence of civilized society.
    MGTOW is the response of the absolute best men this nation has.

  180. oldfashionedfellow says:

    innocentbystanderboston,

    Wouldn’t it be fair to say that women are more, weak over-grown children, with a limited moral scope, rather than completely absent a moral compass? I know it’s been batted around a lot, but I still like Lord Chesterfield’s advice to his son…..(though it may annoy the GBFM…….llololozlzolzolozlzlozloz)

    “As women are a considerable, or at least a pretty numerous part of company; and as their suffrages go a great way towards establishing a man’s character, in the fashionable part of the world, (which is of great importance to the fortune and figure he proposes to make in it,) it is necessary to please them. I will therefore, upon this subject, let you into certain Arcana, that will be very useful for you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal; and never seem to know. Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four and twenty hours together. Some little passion or humour always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming. A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humours and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly, forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business, (which, by the way, they always spoil); and being justly distrustful, that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man , who talks more seriously to them, an who seems to consult and trust them; I say; who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it. No flattery is either too high or too low for them. They will greedily swallow the highest, and gratefully accept of the lowest; and you may safely flatter any woman, from her understanding, down to the exquisite taste of her fan. Women who are either indisputably beautiful or indisputably ugly, are best flattered upon the score of their understandings; but those who are in a state of mediocrity, are best flattered upon their beauty, or at least their graces; for every woman, who is not absolutely ugly, thinks herself handsome; but not hearing often that she is, is the more grateful, and the more obliged to the few who tell her so, whereas a decided and conscious beauty looks upon every tribute paid to her beauty only as her due; but wants to shine, and to be considered on the side of her understanding; and a woman who is ugly enough to know that she is, knows that she has nothing left for it but her understanding, which is, consequentially and probably in more sense than one, her weak side. But these are secrets, which you must keep inviolably, if you would not, like Orpheus, be torn to pieces by the whole sex, on the contrary, a man, who thinks of living in the great world must be gallant, polite and attentive to please the women. They have, from the weakness of men, more or less influence in all courts; they absolutely stamp every man’s character in the beau monde, and make it either current, or cry it down, and stop it in payments. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to manage, please and flatter them; and never to discover the least marks of contempt, which is what they never forgive.”

  181. Boxer says:

    Also for the benefit of the peanut gallery; you are incorrect and you are not being spergy or are we being reactionary.

    Let’s go back and read what you wrote originally, shall we?

    Atticus said:

    You’re incorrect on this. Prior to the civil war in the US, children in the case of divorce went to the father. The father also kept all of his property and income. Children born out of wedlock were the responsibility of the mother. That’s why bastards were relatively rare or hidden. This common law tradition was a tremendous force against hypergamy.

    And then I replied:

    In that case, please post a reference to the federal “fathers always get the kids and all the money” divorce law.

    If I were incorrect, then you would have no problem citing the law you insist existed, prior to the civil war, which granted men “all … property and income” etc. You haven’t done this because you can’t. No such law ever existed in North America.

    You’re simply making shit up and calling it history.

    You are, of course, entitled to your high opinion of men. I have something of a realistic distrust of both men and women. Either way it’s irrelevant. We don’t need any more weird social experiments or gender deconstruction, and civilization can not afford them.

    We need to get back to what actually works (i.e. what worked in actual history, rather than the idealized fabrications you and others like to dream up, without any historical evidence or references).

    Best,

    Boxer

  182. JDG says:

    Why do you think men go to other men’s wives for advice?

    A lot of guys still think women know what women want.

  183. JDG says:

    We need to get back to what actually works

    Seconded for a return to biblical patriarchy or something similar.

  184. Farm Boy says:

    A lot of guys still think women know what women want.

    Only listen to the ones who make sammiches for their men.

  185. earl says:

    ‘A lot of guys still think women know what women want.’

    The Bible makes it clear what women want…we have to give them what they need.

  186. JDG says:

    Only listen to the ones who make sammiches for their men.

    The habit of making sammiches for her man is a very good quality for a woman to have, but it doesn’t mean she can give good marital advice to men.

  187. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    But isn’t swinging the pendulum to the other side a good move? That way it can swing back again when the pressure builds up!

  188. Eliezer Ben Yehuda says:

    “first they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they claim it was their idea to begin with”.

    The feminists are at the second stage. Rest assured, the progression is un-stoppable.

    Feminism is finished.

  189. Dragonfly says:

    Eliezer Ben Yehuda (love the name) I agree.

    But let’s see it to its grave.

  190. JDG says:

    But isn’t swinging the pendulum to the other side a good move?

    Patriarchy is not the pendulum swung too far to the other side. The default setting IS patriarchy.

  191. JDG says:

    Feminism is finished.

    Yes, but not until after it accomplished what it was meant to do from it’s inception. Now that the family is for the most part destroyed, respect for fathers, husbands, men, and masculinity are gone, female hypergamy is unchecked, and “Christianity” in the West barely resembles Christianity, we move on to the next phase of deterioration.

    From what I have seen, the replacement for feminism will every bit as detestable as feminism was for everyone with a biblical world view.

  192. JDG says:

    My last comment should read:

    From what I have seen, the replacement for feminism will be every bit as detestable as feminism is for everyone with a biblical world view.

  193. @ JDG,

    “Now that the family is for the most part destroyed, respect for fathers, husbands, men, and masculinity are gone, female hypergamy is unchecked, and “Christianity” in the West barely resembles Christianity, we move on to the next phase of deterioration.

    Jezebel had a purpose too, she delivered up the prophets of Baal to be tested and destroyed by God (through His servant Elijah). Seven thousand haven’t bowed the knee. The rest was bound for the bin. If Christ is to be all in all we can’t count on the half measures of masculine flesh to save us.

    For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

  194. KP says:

    Boxer @ 8:26 pm,

    A naive reader of your comment might come away thinking you have no idea what the phrase “common law” means.

  195. Boxer says:

    Dear KP:

    I have no idea what a “common law” divorce entails, certainly. Can you elaborate ?

  196. JDG says:

    If Christ is to be all in all we can’t count on the half measures of masculine flesh to save us.

    Amen!

  197. JDG says:

    GIL – Or any flesh for that matter.

  198. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    If Christ is to be all in all we can’t count on the half measures of masculine flesh to save us.

    This is very important for people to realize. Secular people who get all hung up on the theology often miss the underlying points in the bible, despite the fact that secular thinkers explored the same topic and came to the same basic conclusion.

    You can have civilization, or you can have the playa and slut culture. You can’t have both. Freud (certainly a secular, atheistic dude) covered this in “Civilization and its Discontents”. Marcuse wrote a rebuttal in “Eros and Civilization”, then reversed himself and agreed with Freud later in “One Dimensional Man”.

    Marcuse called what we see today in feral women and PUA types as “repressive desublimation”. They’ve desublimated their sexual hangups, but this leads to another sort of repression, even more damaging than those found in traditional cultures where people are expected to behave. (That’s the origin of the fancy term). People who can’t control their sexual impulses end up as easy prey to advertisers, who wave around trashy images to get them to buy things, and to political hucksters, who offer instant gratification at the expense of long-term social stability.

    So, atheists and agnostics can get up and mock and sneer all they want. The laws of nature won’t change for them. Unbelievers need to ask themselves whether they want to live in a functional, healthy, well-ordered society, or whether they want to live in a matriarchal shithole, where nobody knows who his father is, and rabid men and women roam around preying upon each other, unable to self-organize or build anything for future generations. You’d think the answer would be obvious (and it should be) but many of these people just can’t seem to get it.

  199. ancient mariner says:

    very late with my reply….I agree wholeheartedly with “uncle silas” you hit the nail on its head !

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