Not enough cash and prizes.

There is a new push under way for women who divorce to be rewarded with even greater amounts of cash and prizes.  Dr. Helen tackles this in Elizabeth Warren Wants Men to ‘Share the Pain’.  It isn’t just Elizabeth Warren lobbying for an increase in cash and prizes;  The Atlantic has a new article out titled The Divorce Gap, painting a picture of men frivolously divorcing and kicking their hapless wives out on the street:

…her husband told her to leave their house, and filed for a divorce she couldn’t afford. “He said he was tired of my medical issues, and unwilling to work on things,” she said, citing her severe rheumatoid arthritis and OCD, both of which she manages with medication. “He kicked me out of my own house, with no job and no home, and then my only recourse was to lawyer up. I’m paying them on credit.”

No doubt The Atlantic found this kind of one in a million case, but it is incredibly dishonest to pretend that this is how the family courts function.  All they did was take reality and switch the sexes, and all to generate support for increasing the rewards to women who blow up their families.  As every divorce lawyer knows, while there are very rare exceptions the system is designed to eject the husband from the home and replace him with an income stream for the wife.  Likewise, both Christian and secular marriage counselors will tell you that it is women, not men, who struggle most with commitment.  As Dr. Harley asks in Why Women Leave Men:

Why do women seem so dissatisfied with marriage? What do they want from their husbands? What bothers them so much about marriage that most are willing to risk their families’ future to escape it?

Elsewhere Dr Harley explains that 80% of divorces are initiated by women who become unhappy and divorce with little or no warning.

Even if you don’t talk to divorce lawyers or marriage counselors, and even if you don’t look into the academic research, everyone knows what the score is here.  It is women, not men, who not only initiate the vast majority of divorces, but shamelessly fantasize about divorce as “empowerment”.  As the very first comment on the Atlantic article notes:

atlantic_empowerment

The Atlantic understands the reality of who initiates divorce (and why) better than most, because they are in the entertainment business.  If you want to keep the interest of your female audience, part of your offering needs to be stories of women frivolous divorcing so they can imagine doing the same.  But this only applies to women;  this is why there is no counterpart to Eat Pray Love or Fireproof for men, and why only women can make a living writing about the pain they caused by blowing up their families.  A man fantasizing about destroying his family would be seen as disgusting, but for women this is not only normal and empowering, but good for business.

And again, The Atlantic knows this because this is the business they are in.  When The Atlantic isn’t publishing articles like The Divorce Gap complaining that women don’t get enough cash and prizes for divorcing, they are publishing articles like Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off:

The author is ending her marriage. Isn’t it time you did the same?

To make sure their audience knows they aren’t advocating something so gauche as men abandoning their families, the accompanying image features a group of women escaping out of the windows of their homes.  Since this isn’t a piece lobbying for more cash and prizes, The Atlantic can afford to be honest about not only the real initiators of divorce, but the real reason as well.  The piece opens with:

SADLY, AND TO my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued.

This entry was posted in Divorce, Doublethink, Dr. Helen, Dr. Willard Harley, Rebuilding the mound, Sandra Tsing Loh, selling divorce, The Atlantic, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Not enough cash and prizes.

  1. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. – Manosphere.org

  2. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. | Neoreactive

  3. honeycomb says:

    They’re losing control of the narrative and the “great oz” has been seen behind the curtain by many.

    But, never under-estimate the will of many to be deceived. The truth for most is to ugly and disturbs their very fabric of life and lie. Many married men fall into this blue-pill pit.

  4. PokeSalad says:

    Maybe Fauxahontas can enlighten us on how the Indians viewed divorce back in the day.

  5. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    A friend of mine has a spare house which he is renting out at the moment. His son when he turns 18 next year will be given the house. It has been paid off years ago. Older home, large lot. Worth around $300K CDN. I mentioned to him about divorce laws, etc. and suggested to him and his wife that they put it in a family trust. They are seriously considering it and probably will do it. A former co-worker of mine did that and it saved him from losing it. His wife left him around the time of EPL “fad”

  6. Krul says:

    At first glance the “accompanying image” looks like a picture of a bunch of women trying to commit suicide.

  7. Feminist Hater says:

    I love these stupid women placing more of the burden on divorced fathers. Great, it means less men will sign up for that burden and more 30 year old men staying at home doing nothing.

    There was simply a time when if a married women wanted to enjoy the success of her husband and make sure their children did the same. They stayed married and supported their husband. Not so anymore, marriage is a sham. This adds more proof.

    Thanks, Ms Native American Wannabe!

  8. Urban II says:

    From the second article on divorce: “(my) commitment to monogamy came unglued.”

    I cannot imagine describing my behavior in a manner so utterly lacking in agency. It’s what small children do to avoid blame for what they’ve done wrong.

  9. Feminist Hater says:

    She is one fugly bint!

  10. Gunner Q says:

    “But, never under-estimate the will of many to be deceived.”

    Yep. Just this weekend I talked to a guy who said with a straight face that women are more conservative than men. Left me speechless.

  11. Ryder says:

    From the study quoted in the article: “However women who do not have a job in any of the five years after a marital split, or who do not find a new partner, do much worse than this. Women who remain in paid work or who have a new partner fare best.”

    https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2008-07.pdf

    So, after ejecting their source of income, women who work or find a new source of income fare better? Shocking. But never fear, this divorce penalty has been cut in half over the past 13 years as the system has become more effective at extracting support for divorced women from taxpayers, employers, and the discarded source of income to whom they had previously pledged lifelong fidelity. And things are really starting to look up because, as the Atlantic piece notes, some women are taking out loans to improve their settlements, which can be “worth three times the amount of their loan.” Gotta spend money to make money.

  12. As a man who ‘went his own way’ in the 1980’s before there even was MGTOW, what makes me laugh is how feminists and their “Useful Idiots” of the female population sometimes accuse us MGTOW of somehow ‘recruiting’ men to our philosophy of men’s autonomy for themselves (as women did with ‘Women’s Liberation’).
    With stories like this, we MGTOW don’t need (or even want) to ‘recruit’ men to our philosophy — the feminists and their lapdogs in the government, the legal system, and the MSM do it all for us.

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    This argument will finally get me to the altar.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    I am a 47 year old woman…

    A little outside the usual 35 – 45 window, but not enough to quibble over. If she stayed with him until she was 50 I suspect a lot of that badfeelz would melt away once she realized her value on the remarriage market.

    Whether that 5 years would be worth the pain to her husband is a different matter. There is an implicit, unspoken assumption that any given woman is “worth it”, i.e. she may be a real pain to be around from time to time but other times “she’s worth it”. A questionable assumption at best.

  15. Asteriks says:

    Incidentally, I posted links on the IMDB to all the posts
    you have written regarding the appropriate film in question…
    For instance, here is the Fireproof page:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129423/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

  16. embracingreality says:

    There’s still a lesson for single men here

    The original story was of the 38 year old wife that was divorced do to her health problems. Women, especially American women, age horribly. A Christian married man who’s ‘fortunate’ enough to avoid being frivorced by his wife still has a high probability of ending up with a wife he doesn’t honestly want or find even remotely attractive. Most men here know that men’s market value improves over time, your wife’s most likely will not. If winning in the marriage game means lasting long enough for your wife to age to the point she will have no opportunities with other men do to her decreased attractiveness. What have you really won?

    A 40 something year old married man who would otherwise have opportunities to remarry a woman much more attractive than his wife will be morally obligated to remain married to his frumpy queen until death? You better really, really love having kids.

  17. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. | Reaction Times

  18. PAUL says:

    I am now convinced that the only way any man should get married is if there is a strong pre-nuptial agreement. Even Christians should have a pre-nuptial agreent.
    The pre-nuptial agreement should clearly state that if either party initiates a divorce, for any reason; the wife will within 24 hours move our ot the house. She will take only personal items, her clothes, jewlry, records, etc. All furniture, regardless of the source becomes his sole property. The husband gets sole prossession of the house. The husband gets full and uncontested custody of the children. The wife agrees she will pay child support to the husband. The husband gets the car free and uncontested. If they have more than one car the husband will pick which car the wife will get. All invetments become his sole property.
    Have a lawyer draw it up and make it lawyer-proof. When a man wants to propose, he should present the pre-nuptail agreement before he gives a ring. Something like, “I really want to spend my life with you, but we must agree for the sake of out future childrent to provide for them if the worst should happen. Just as I will have life insurance to provide for you and the children should I die, we need “marriage insurance” in the form of a pre-nupt to prevent a divorce from happening.”
    I believe a man, seeking marriage, has a reponsibility to provide for his and his children’s future. In the present enviorment in the courts and the church a pre-nut seems to be the only recourse a man has. Your children’s future is too important to assume your marriage will work out. Marriage is love, but it is also a business. Men, approach your future marriage as a business.
    If the woman in question refuses to sign, do not get engaged her until she has signed. Period. Before you get engaged is when you can negotiate and “Fireproof” your marriage. Marriage is love, but it is also a business. (Yes, deliberate slam to an evil movie. How about a prequel to the movie encouraging the use of a pre-nupt in the engagement? “Pre-Fireproof ”?)

  19. thedeti says:

    I love how the Atlantic article presents the 38 year old woman with RA getting frivorced by her husband and booted from the house as if this kind of thing is happening ALL THE TIME.

    It is like the fearmongering over the similarly rare-to-nonexistent phenomenon of the badass professional man, physician or lawyer or CEO, divorcing his hapless frumpy wife for the hawt secretary.

    Remember Gen. Petraeus and his dalliance with the milfy Paula Broadwell? And how she was compared with the homely, but sturdily built Holly Petraeus? Why, this kind of thing happens all the time, dontcha know. ALL women are just a secretary, stripper or hot nurse away from their husbands’ dumping them. It’s an EPIDEMIC!!!!

  20. Yeah just reverse the genders and see reality. That’s what happens to men en masse. Me and my brothers. God help us as we figure out what has really happened.

  21. feeriker says:

    Remember Gen. Petraeus and his dalliance with the milfy Paula Broadwell? And how she was compared with the homely, but sturdily built Holly Petraeus? Why, this kind of thing happens all the time, dontcha know. ALL women are just a secretary, stripper or hot nurse away from their husbands’ dumping them. It’s an EPIDEMIC!!!!

    As usual, the woman-pedestalizing MSM are awash in the apex fallacy.

    Remember: woman only ever see the top 20 percent of men, the “alpha cadre,” so AFATC, this sort thing is at “epidemic” levels. The other 80 percent of the male sex, the beta schlubs (and below) who can only dream of a Patraeus experience happening to them (or getting away with what the outlier who kicked his sick wife to the curb got away with), are sexually invisible and thus non-existent.

  22. Oh good Lord! If the linked story was posted on the blog they would call it a troll.

    >>>>>I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book.

    From Deti’s Hamsturlator: I am way, way past my expiration date who got propped by a hot guy in his 30’s and guess what! I cheated like a cheap whore and the sex was great. That was weird because my husband never made me cum like that. I was fully prepared to die in desperation over my 4th glass of wine that night and my 7th reading of Twilight…but now I am Alpha widowed. I felt the tingle and I want it. I want to jump on the cock ride again with all of the easy sex by social media- and I want it way more than my family. I want to cum. I need strong men to throw me around and call me a whore and leave their hand prints on my nasty body.

    Next, our yougogiiiiirrrrrrl heroine launches into a barrage of angry accusations, listing all that she does for the relationship and revealing her anger- her hypergamy is not being satisfied and she is pissed. I note for the record the princess left out car repairs, trash, yard work, and really most of the normal household chores. Her main argument is that she has to work so husband is not going to get any sexual effort from her except resistance and grief and it is obvious this is exactly what she is saying.

    >>I can refinance the house at the best possible interest rate; I can drive my husband to the airport; in his absence, I can sort his mail; I can be home to let the plumber in on Thursday between nine and three, and I can wait for the cable guy; I can make dinner conversation with any family member; I can ask friendly questions about anybody’s day; I can administer hugs as needed to children, adults, dogs, cats; I can empty the litter box; I can stir wet food into dry.

    So, she found the best rate on the refinancing which means “it was all her responsibility.” I am sure he did nothing and note that “attending the closing” and “going to the bank 9 times to transfer the money” and “write the check” were not on her retroactively cucking and shaming honey-do list. In fact, she lists bullshit items of common courtesy. Seriously? Talk to family members? Let in the god damn plumber and cable guy when you are home? Be friendly? Hug your kids? Change the fucking litter box and feed your 5 cats that nobody else wants?

    This woman is serious that being forced to do these tasks is grounds for divorce and destroying your family. She is delusional.

    >>>>>I can work at a career and child care and joint homeownership and even platonic male-female friendship. However, in this cluttered forest of my 40s, what I cannot authentically reconjure is the ancient dream of brides, even with the Oprah fluffery of weekly “date nights,” when gauzy candlelight obscures the messy house, child talk is nixed and silky lingerie donned, so the two of you can look into each other’s eyes and feel that “spark” again. Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list,

    Wahhhh!! Wahhh!! I have to work so you are not going to get sex. I just have to much to do micromanaging every part of my kids life I don’t have time to be a wife. Sorry bub. I don’t like your paycheck, I am going to try your aliminony. Wait, who am I kidding? I am not really sorry and I am not faking it any more.

    >>>>>>I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance.

    Hamsturlator: You disgust me and the thought of you touching me in any way makes me cringe.

    >>>It has been almost 10 years since I dined with adults on a weekly basis. My domestic evenings have typically revolved around five o’clock mac and cheese under bright lighting and then a slow melt into dishes and SpongeBob

    HAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!!!!!! What about your cats cupcake? THIS is your anti-marriage argument for women? Words fail me.

    >>>>>>> … because yet another of my marital failings was that I was never able to commit to a nanny.

    Yah, I think you could substituted the word “Beta” for “nanny” and it would have been a lot more accurate.

  23. MrWoot says:

    This topic and blog scares me as a Christian married man. My wife is for all intents and purposes opposed to me being head of household. I do not want to spend the 30+ years I have remaining on planet earth providing for a woman who refuses the sale of our house because of her fears/desires. I am a prisoner and apart from legal action would be unable to take a new job in a new location as my current job has been degrading. Financially we are blessed, without kids, and at odds on how to move forward. The last unilateral decision to move forward with a job was met by “I am not moving”. I am curious what @Dalrock would advise.

  24. garym6059 says:

    This wins the internet for the day! Great post as someone that just went through it. It’s such a rigged system!

  25. thedeti says:

    Paul:

    And a prenup like that would be tossed out of court summarily as an adhesion contract. It’s so one-sided as to be on its face unconscionable.

  26. LeeLee says:

    “SADLY, AND TO my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued.”

    Age 47? What came unglued was her hormones.

  27. Fiddlesticks says:

    The new Atlantic piece may have a sensationalist hook, but the point seems to be more that a larger subset of divorces may not need to get expensive lawyers/judges involved. It’s not clear if men or women would benefit most from this change.

    As far as the details of the case that opens the piece, it could be one-sided fabrication, it could be that the husband comes from a culture that is unsentimental and mercenary about divorce in this circumstance, it could be as bad as it sounds.

  28. Mike T says:

    thedeti,

    Indeed. You could probably get away with something more moderate like “initiating divorce without cause” entitles the initiator to only 33% of marital assets and a reduction in child custody. Probably your best bet would be to put in the contract that you agree to arbitration, preferably with a body that holds to a very strict Christian definition of marriage.

  29. tsotha says:

    And a prenup like that would be tossed out of court summarily as an adhesion contract. It’s so one-sided as to be on its face unconscionable.

    In my state there are a whole lot of things you can’t specify in a prenup. Nothing to do with child support or custody. You can put in clauses on spousal support, but if it doesn’t look very close to what the judge would have done anyway he’ll throw it out. You can put in clauses on the disposition of premarital assets, but those are generally given to the original owner anyway.

    It’s basically a waste of money.

  30. Looking Glass says:

    Pre-nups can be tossed, far too easily. (At least until some Judges end up dead as a result.) If you have pre-existing assets, there’s a lot of good lawyering that can happen to limit the impact fairly greatly. But there’s expenses to that and it involves a lot of Estate Planning as well. Plus, it matters the jurisdictions you’re in.

    One classic problem almost everyone makes when they first start to getting to know the Manosphere is the assumption that the Law isn’t 95% tilted against you is deeply seated. Asset protection isn’t easy, but you can limit a lot of the exposure and damage if you have them before Marriage.

    Though the best thing a Man can do for himself is know how to control himself. Every other piece of advice follows from that.

  31. tsotha says:

    SADLY, AND TO my horror, I am divorcing.

    “to my horror”? That kind of wording is to let everyone know that, all evidence to the contrary, she’s really not responsible for this terrible divorce that’s falling from the sky.

  32. thedeti says:

    Oh, I presume a man wanting a prenup could include clauses like limiting or eliminating alimony, and a pre-agreed division of marital property by percentage, perhaps.

    The rub is that the court will evaluate the prenup based on the positions of the H and W at the time of divorce, not at the time the prenup was made. So if a W agreed in a prenup to no alimony and a property division of 40% to her, 60% to H, and at divorce the W is a SAHM and H is a CEO earning $300K a year, a court would likely invalidate that prenup. But take that same prenup, and change the facts to W earning $200K and H earning $150K, the court would be more likely to enforce it.

    For most couples, a clause limiting alimony by time and/or amount, and a pre-marital agreement to split evenly all marital assets, have much greater chances of being enforced. You also have to make sure the prenup is signed well in advance of the wedding and that both parties had their own lawyers or at least had a chance to have their own lawyers review it before signing. Those provisions reduce the odds of invalidation for duress.

  33. thedeti says:

    MikeT:

    Most courts won’t enforce any prenup provision that deals with the kids. Not child support, not custody and not visitation. The rationale is that no party can contract for, or contract away, an obligation to support their kids. The obligation exists independently of any agreement anyone makes. Visitation also is a right of kids – kids have a right to see and have society with their parents. Where there are disputes, courts always retain the right to make and enforce orders for custody.

  34. feeriker says:

    That kind of wording is to let everyone know that, all evidence to the contrary, she’s really not responsible for this terrible divorce that’s falling from the sky.

    Since so many younger women today seem to think that a man is going to just magically “fall out of the sky” and into their laps when they decide that they’re ready to get married after a decade or more on the cock carousel, why wouldn’t they also think that a divorce will similarly and magically appear once they grow tired of and bored with said man?

  35. “SADLY, AND TO my horror, I am divorcing…”

    This has become a cliche; the language of accountability avoidance from women who blow up their marriages and then seek justification for what she did from others.

  36. greyghost says:

    The good thing about the pre nup talk is that men new to the red pill are arriving and commenting. In due time we will have another MGTOW. PS I’m waiting for the “just need to find a good Christian woman” thing next ha ha ha ha

  37. Dalrock says:

    @Fiddlesticks

    The new Atlantic piece may have a sensationalist hook, but the point seems to be more that a larger subset of divorces may not need to get expensive lawyers/judges involved. It’s not clear if men or women would benefit most from this change.

    The piece follows the standard Atlantic meandering/scatterbrained pattern, and you can’t grab on to one dead end in the middle of the piece and declare that as the real point. The Atlantic waved something distracting in front of you, and you grabbed the bait. The piece is about how women (as a class) are not getting enough out of divorce, with some nods to men on occasion being unfairly treated. After presenting a case for arbitration, the piece closes by explaining why arbitration isn’t a good idea, since women need to be able to rely upon their divorce for the long term:

    “Mediators can sometimes make things better, but there’s no real licensing for it,” Cotton says. “There is no governing body that holds anyone to anything.” He adds that “your divorce is something you have to rely upon. You need to be able to go back to it. With a divorce, you can get in front of a judge within days if something isn’t going right. If you only have a contract, it can take six to nine months. In those months, if you need money for medication or heat or child support, you could actually die. The last thing you want is your divorce breaking on you.”

    Note that the bolded part is called out as a key lesson in the article.

  38. English Language: My spouse and I are getting a divorce

    Feminist Language: Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing

    Like abortion, divorce in the Feminist Language is framed as catching a cold and then getting a few days of bed rest with high fluid intake to overcome an unfortunate, yet random setback.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Just a Regular Guy

    English Language: My spouse and I are getting a divorce

    Feminist Language: Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing

    Even the first statement is far too passive. By her own account, she got bored of honoring her commitment, had sex with another man, and decided to blow up her family.

  40. That’s funny, six years ago the Atlantic said men were obsolete:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

    You’d think 6 years would be more than enough time for these triumphant, independent women to establish themselves apart from any need for men to aid in their advancements. I guess there’s still some flesh left on our carcasses?

  41. greyghost says:

    since women need to be able to rely upon their divorce for the long term:

    Dalrock
    That was the funniest thing I’ve seen you write

  42. “…You’d think 6 years would be more than enough time for these triumphant, independent women to establish themselves apart from any need for men to aid in their advancements. I guess there’s still some flesh left on our carcasses?”

    No feminasty Western female will stop leeching from a man once she has begun, and if said man has ANYTHING that she can leech fro him

    MGTOW — because it’s far better to remain single than to wish that you were.

  43. thedeti says:

    @ feeriker:

    “Remember: woman only ever see the top 20 percent of men, the “alpha cadre,” so AFATC, this sort thing is at “epidemic” levels.”

    The so-called “alpha” high status man remains married to his wife, and cheats on her with other women on the side. He has no intention of leaving his wife. He just wants to have sex with other women, as well as remaining married to, and continuing having sex with, his wife. He wants to have it all.

    This is the “best” possible world for an alpha man, or at least one that satisfies his imperatives. He gets marriage to a woman who remains with him and takes care of his house and children. He also has sexual access to other women when he wants, which his wife might or might not know about or approve of.

    (I’d venture a guess that a good number of women married to high status attractive men know their husbands cheat, but because their husbands are discreet and don’t wave it in their wives’ faces, the wives silently tolerate it and accept it as a cost of being married to a high status man. The wives know they married “well” and couldn’t possibly have married better; and know that divorce would mean never remarrying again. The husbands respect and care about their wives’ sensibilities enough to keep the cheating on the downlow.)

    This isn’t a justification for high status men cheating. It’s simply a recognition that this is what many high status men do if they can.

  44. thedeti says:

    Exceptions to the rule above on high status men who cheat on their wives who in turn put up with it are wives who are independently wealthy and/or have their own status. Examples:

    Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. Shriver is in the extended Kennedy family and has her own money and her own power, connections and influence.

    Former SC Governor Mark Sanford and Jenny Sanford. The former Mrs. Sanford came from old money; her great grandfather founded the Skil corporation which manufactured the first power saw. She grew up in the tony north shore suburbs of Chicago, graduated Georgetown U, worked on Wall Street for a few years. She divorced Mark, with whom she has 4 sons, after Mark had an affair with an Argentinian woman and lied about it to the press. No problem for him, though – after he left the SC governorship, he landed back in Congress where he’s currently a House Republican backbencher.

  45. Feminist Hater says:

    Daddy Government is becoming broke I imagine and cannot afford to continue funding all his women. The more the government struggles to pay for divorced women and single moms and the consequences of these women, the more men will be forced, by the state, to pay for it. Including prison slavery.

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    PAUL: the only way any man should get married is if there is a strong pre-nuptial agreement. … The pre-nuptial agreement should clearly state that … The husband gets full and uncontested custody of the children.

    A legally well-crafted pre-nup can protect a man in a childless divorce. But a pre-nup cannot dictate what happens to children. A pre-nup is a contract between a man and a woman. A child, especially a yet-to-be-born child, is not a party to the pre-nup, and thus is not bound.

    A child has legal rights to support payments, and to be in the care of the “better parent” (as determined by the court), and a pre-nup cannot contract away those rights.

    Child support and custody are determined by “the best interests of the child,” and not by the best interests of the mother or father. Well, that’s the theory. In practice this means “the best interest of the mother.” Child support payments often support the mother’s lifestyle, not the child’s.

    IAE, courts award custody and support payments based on “the best interests of the child,” irrespective of any pre-nup.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    The last thing you want is your divorce breaking on you.”

    That is such a great tell. So much modern 2.0 troof packed in one sentence.

    Women who genuinely want to not just get married but who want to be married should read the Atlantic article and understand – this is the mainstream. This is the risk that they want men to take on them.

    I’m not expecting empaty, mind you, just a litte “oh. That looks bad. No wonder men are not so keen on committing” might go a long way.

  48. Anon says:

    “your divorce is something you have to rely upon. You need to be able to go back to it.

    Holy crap! This dances as close to slavery as one can without it being declared as such.

    Muslims pouring into the West = Nature hates a vacuum. Plain and simple. Keep the half-dozen people in your life you most care about safe (contingent upon reciprocal behavior from them), and outside of that, let the chips fall where they may.

  49. Dave II says:

    @ Dalrock, “since women need to be able to rely upon their divorce for the long term”

    So, the way feminism is driving things, divorce will be the new marriage 1.0: the thing the woman relies on for her long-term financial upkeep courtesy of big government, her new husband (which forces her ex-husband to work hard to foot the bill). In effect, despite the “dictionary definition of feminism”, feminism is achieving a condition in which men are not equal but enslaved to women. I use the word “enslave” as in “work without love makes a slave”, because we tend not to say we are working when we love what we are doing, which very often is a function of what we are getting out of it. Here the man works but gets nothing out for a large portion of his labour, taking less home because he has to pay a person who betrayed him precisely for her betraying him. And ironically, feminists say women do not need men but one way or another they find a way to get into a condition that men take care of them financially, despite literally being “just as good as men” at earning a living. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.

    The lessons:
    1) Women are able to earn their own money, but what they really want is to be taken care of.
    2) Being a beta male is a lot more expensive than I previously realised, and it is not getting any cheaper.
    3) God help us all.

  50. Anon says:

    Man… just when I get sad that I did not marry, do not have children, and thus will not have grandchildren, I come here and am reminded of why I made that choice.

  51. Feminist Hater says:

    I just lolled.

    Watch these two youtube clips and realize how lucky you are to not be married.

    and

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    DaveII
    So, the way feminism is driving things, divorce will be the new marriage 1.0:

    I believe that Dalrock has offered up this thesis: that “marriage” in the US is now a child support based model. He’ll correct me if I’m misstating or wrong.

    Under this model, the best care for a child is provided in a mother-only home with the father removed, but still required to provide monetary support. “Husband” is thus “sperm donor” combined with “money giver”, not ever “head of household”, or “leader”, or for that matter “defender” – there are people in uniforms for the last role – and of course this all is against a constant background whine of “Where Are All The Good Men?”.

    This is a pattern better suited to a pastoral, grass-hut society.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    FH, that first one is a classic, what with the self-contrdiction in a matter of seconds.

    How cute will she be at 30, eh?

  54. Feminist Hater says:

    Both are classics, because the first shows her hitting the wall and wondering where all the good men are at about 28 and four years later the second video shows her post wall, short hair, ugly and still single. Oh… it warms my heart!

  55. mike says:

    At the end of the day, a man must realize that signing a marriage contract is creating the possibility, due to circumstances beyond himself, to be thrown in prison due to being unable to meet alimony or child support payments.

    In fact, the probability of being thrown into the legal system due to any interaction with a woman is increasing at exponential rates.

    The problem with prenups, as deti has mentioned, is that they generally will be thrown out of court. Prenups occasionally work for the rich, because guys like Tom cruise can pay their wife several million for each child and a lump sum at the termination of the marriage with it being seen as fair by both representing lawyers prior to marriage. Most men don’t have the spare assets to pay off a wife when she divorces them. Because of this, most average middle class-upper middle class earning men are seen as a beasts of burden by the state, with their future labor only being enough to satisfy the privilege of being with a woman for x amount of years.

    The best advice I can give a man is to make sure he acquires as many assets prior to marriage as he can and become a partial legal expert regarding community property and equitable distribution depending on his state. And be sure to setup seperate accounts for the seperate property that is yours prior to marriage. If you have a business or real estate prior to marriage this becomes incredibly important. If your snowflake even begs to “help paint” one of your properties, you will find yourself in a nightmare when she divorces you. Anything that was yours before, just remember, do not allow her to get near it in any literal or abstract way.

    Also, try to live as frugally as possible and only have average to crap vehicles and an average house. It’s unfortunate if you want to spoil your wife every now and then, but be prepared to pay the price. Why? Look up and understand this phrase – “Lifestyle she has become accustomed to”. Find a frugal wife is the first smart move. After that, hopefully you can reign in expenses without being called “abusive” by her and her friends, which may accelerate the coming divorce.

    Also, many times, a woman will receive a disproportionate amount of assets after the divorce if your home is accounted for. What this means, is it may be better to not pay off your home and instead set aside those payments into other assets that may be divided more fairly. The woman almost always gets the house.

    The choice of career and dual income is another problem. Sure, the divorce rate is lower for stay at home moms where the husband earns 60% or greater of household income, but if you do have a divorce and are un upper middle earner 80-250k depending on the city, you will be severely punished! Prepare to be impoverished.

    Lastly, understand that, in a worst case scenario, you ultimately lose whatever professional license you have due to post divorce burdens, and may have to become an international fugitive. Set aside cash in offshore havens and prepare to work and live in argentina or chile or something.

    Ultimately, the best way to reduce marriage risk is to marry a woman as close to virginal as possible and earn enough, with enough stability, to allow yourself to be the primary earner. Managing to accomplish both tasks is becoming almost impossible. Earn 150k plus to cover a middle class lifestyle for a family and manage to marry a non-slut woman.

    No wonder men are demoralized. No will to protest – no point either. Everything is futile and will damage your future career. Our lawmakers are stupid baby boomers who have no understanding of the modern young mans struggle. Only apex CEO’s who happen to be men and apex male models on tinder who clean up, then we all take on the blame.

  56. CSI says:

    There is no way to reduce marriage risk to an acceptable level. The best thing to do is simply not to get married. No matter how carefully you select a wife, no matter how much she declared she loves you, there is simply no way to know if your wife will get bored at some point down the line and no longer be able to stand living with you.

  57. Anon says:

    So in a Democracy :

    1) Women tirelessly and diligently vote to get all resources transferred to them, and all costs transferred onto men. Men are hardwired to not object to this, for the most part.

    2) As all resources are in women’s hands, all media and products now have to sell to them.

    3) Women see the role of democracy as rigging everything in their favor as a gender. Men just don’t vote for pro-male issues the same way.

    Hence, we arrive at the horrors we see here. Everyone assumes Democracy is a sustainable system, but female voting patterns prove otherwise..

  58. greyghost says:

    CSI
    Very smart. The risk is not the woman but the law. By law it is a risk. Finding some cute work around is not going to spare you. Marriage is bad for men by law and is culturally and religiously bad also.

  59. Kaminsky says:

    CSI,

    Also you have to factor in how she ages. If she ages like Christie Brinkley or Sophia Loren (amazingly) then you have to keep pace the whole time earnings wise. I know ‘game’ guys will shake their head at me there but aside from that…if your wife is a 45 year old knockout some day then you had better not be toiling around at 90k a year. It’s almost like the only way to win is to hope that she balloons up as your salary grows. Your SMV has to outpace hers (outside of masterful ‘game’ or top 5% looks/height). So congratulations! Your oily-skinned, brick house of a wife stomping around in her cloud of sugar gas is staying loyal! If you’re under 120K and your wife is under 120 pounds then you had better start burying cash out in the forest. If you’re between 120 and 180k and she’s between 120 and 180 pounds then it’s a toss-up. Once you’re over 180k and she’s over 180 pounds, you can begin to breathe easier (unless she is sitting on your chest)

  60. nastynate says:

    “SADLY, AND TO my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued.”

    ▲This. This is why I can’t do it anymore. I can’t deal with women. I have dealt with this insane thought process all my life from female family and friends; and I am sick of it. She’s horrified that her marriage is rolling off the cliff, but the brake pedal was under her foot. This maddening female thought process is enforced by the machine-guns of the state. And, this is a major part of what will ultimately destroy our civilization. Violent simping on a society wide scale. The juice just isn’t worth the squeeze anymore. All my patience is gone. I’ve read Rollo’s book. It’s amazing, but I don’t even have patience for game. If it weren’t for the ever present danger of violent white knights all around, I’d be chewing women’s asses out and calling them on their idiocy daily. I’m worried one day I’ll lose self control and say things to a woman that will make my public life living hell. I become so enraged by white knights that it takes every fiber of my being not to choke them unconscious. I am in my late 30’s and now know why society pushes men so damned hard to get married young. When you reach a certain age, gain knowledge, experience, and develop wisdom, you begin seeing past the pretty mask of sexual attractiveness, to the ugly core of female imperative. Men have to be trapped while their hormones are still in control, otherwise most of them won’t commit to the living hell that modern marriage is for men today. Sometimes it’s very difficult for me to keep my Christian faith when observing the human sexual market. Women time and time again seem to prove the theory that they are biologically designed to destroy long term relationships, so as to move on to fresh/superior genetic material. It’s a frightening time we are living in here in the west. All facets of society are falling apart. The foundations of our civilization have been weakened, and grow weaker each day. All I want is to live in peace, freedom, and to pursue my interests and passions; while causing as little harm as possible to earth and it’s creatures while I’m here. I used to have hope for our future. My childhood was a living hell but I worked hard, got my mind right, and saved money. I was finally able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. But I am beginning to think that many of us are likely numbered among those unfortunate people who have to live through the collapse of their civilization.

  61. Spike says:

    Dalrock, you’re far too kind – a One-in-a-million-case like this is far too generous an estimate. “The Divorce Gap” article is disingenuous. Who exactly is this mysterious “38 year old woman” with the callous husband? Does she have a name? Why not? Is she typical?

    My first introduction to the Red Pill was this. I always assumed that it was the husband who booted out the faithful wife for the younger, hotter newer model secretary. Then the Truth Bomb hit – that wives initiate divorce now up to 80% of the time, and their husbands have been faithful.

    The only part I can vouch for is her medical condition (rheumatoid arthritis) and psychological (not medical), OCD. Both of these are difficult, certainly, but made worse my women’s NOT working at managing their conditions. Rather, they expect husbands to put up with such ”conditions”, because hey, they’re husbands and us princesses should take them for granted, right?
    You have OCD Ladies? I’ll be patient, but it’s your problem. Get it treated, get over it. Rheumatoid arthritis? Get your meds, and exercise regularly. The facts is, single women and lesbians have far worse health than married women do, because the men in married women’s lives demand that they come up with solutions rather than dramas.

  62. Kaminsky says:

    “Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing.”

    This quick verbal gesture is more than enough to fend off the totality of her guilt. So it’s to the point where a woman can destroy lives and hamster it away (truly, legitimately, the guilt is gone) with a brief utterance of as little as 3 words.

    You can see the same kind of brief verbal nod women make to address their sociopathic lack of accountability also. Starting with Jack Nicholson’s famous line in “As Good As It Gets” on how he writes female characters;

    “I start with a man and take away reason and accountability”

    I think the generally held belief that women lack accountability has come around. Even women will acknowledge it in their own self-congratulating, humble-brag way. I had a family member who blasted apart her own family and predictably had a list of reasons why her ex-husband was a POS (he wasn’t) I remember how in the middle of the list, she kind went into an aside about “Hey, and I wasn’t perfect either. I admit that.” And then you could just kind of see her gleaming, like “I’m accountable here. Aren’t I awesome?” So even while being ‘accountable’ it was still pure solipsism. Her version of ‘accountability’ was light years from any ill emotions of regret or self-loathing. It was 100% self-congratulation. Like an emotional version of a humble-brag selfie “I look like crap after working out, so sweaty.”.

    “I made mistakes too.” (Glances around the room to make sure people notice how awesome her accountability is)

  63. Moses says:

    It will get far worse before it gets better. The feminist maw is insatiable.

    Far more than now, men will be cowed and stripped before the State to serve Women. Every man alive could wear straitjackets and chastity belts and still there will be fembots screaming about rape culture and domestic violence. The gig is just too damn lucrative to give up.

    Feminism is about lust for power, not equality.

  64. Isa says:

    @Feminist Hater that is the same woman. THAT IS THE SAME WOMAN D: I think I may have figured out why no one wants her. Also, how many new trashy tats? I’m betting on at least 3, a spirit animal, a meaningful religious and or chinese symbol, and a quote from the secret.

  65. Ominous Cowherd says:

    Mike, is there any possibility for a man to take the opposite tack, and not provide at all during the marriage? Since the man isn’t going to be the paterfamilias anyway, be the drone the woman supports. Let her be faced with keeping you in the style to which you have become accustomed.

    I know this would be difficult for most men to carry off, but it seems to be the only way to minimize the potential damage.

  66. Moses says:

    “Elsewhere Dr Harley explains that 80% of divorces are initiated by women who become unhappy and divorce with little or no warning.”

    Yes. My mother “Eat, Pray, Loved” my father when I was a teenager. She eventually discovered that the source of her unhappiness lay within herself. An unnecessary tragedy.

    Now I’m married with two children. Parents live on opposite coasts. My mother laments that we split holiday time between her and my father. I’d love to tell her “What did you think would happen, Mom?” but that would be cruel. It’s not easy for me either, but my viewpoint was not considered when my mother detonated her family.

    Watching the fallout from mother frivorcing my father has made me more committed to my own marriage. I screened my wife super carefully for family values. So far so good.

  67. Moses says:

    I have a buddy whose wife cheated on him. They have three kids.

    When he discovered her infidelity she asked for an open marriage. He rejected the idea. They got divorced.

    She had been a stay-at-home mom for many years despite having a joint MBA/JD degree from a top school. Because she had not been earning money and they lived in a community property state, she took him to the cleaners. She had inherited more than 7 figures from her parents BEFORE the marriage so she got to keep that. Yet she claimed she was unable to work etc etc because her skills were obsolete and attempted maximum wealth extraction. She said he only wanted joint custody to cut his child support payments. It was a stereotypical nasty divorce. He’s still paying.

    My impression when he told me about was “This is state-sanctioned slavery.” The other thing he told me was “Never let your wife not work.”

    I don’t know how he deals with the anger and injustice. Men – be careful out there.

  68. feeriker says:

    She had been a stay-at-home mom for many years despite having a joint MBA/JD degree from a top school.

    Please, PLEASE tell me that your friend is also a lawyer.

    Sorry if I sound cruel here, but any man who marries a lawyer and is not one himself is a congenital moron! He might as well just draw up divorce papers on the day of his wedding and then sign and backdate them later on down the road when she makes the decision to nuke the marriage.

  69. feeriker says:

    ” The other thing he told me was “Never let your wife not work.”

    Sorry, but having a working wife is no divorce court ass-rape preventive either. Unless she makes considerably more than he does, he’s gonna get stuck paying or parting with something – money or property, probably lots of it.

  70. honeycomb says:

    [b]Women are hard-wired to be unhappy .. and thusly everyone around them unhappy.[/b]

  71. very nice article. It reminds me of my own experience.

  72. The Question says:

    Off topic, but I wanted to leave this link to economist Bob Murphy’s essay for single Christian men in case you thought it was worth blogging about. I’m still processing the whole thing myself. What’s really missing is him acknowledging just how bad things are for single Christian men. Part of his message seems to be NAWALT, you’re just not looking in the right places type thing – but I would encourage anyone reading this to check out his essay and not base their estimations of it off my brief analysis.

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2016/05/an-essay-for-single-christian-men.html

  73. Anon says:

    It will get far worse before it gets better. The feminist maw is insatiable.

    I might quibble with this and say that cuckservatives are at least as much to blame as ‘feminists’.

    1) Cuckservatives are more numerous
    2) Cuckservatives actually THINK they are against feminism.
    3) They typical blue-haired feminist is obsessed with rape, too few women CEOs, etc. They don’t think about the minutia of divorce laws nearly as much as cuckservatives. They may agree with all the misandry, but don’t think hard about how to tinker with alimony and CS nearly as much as cuckseratives do.

    Both are bad, but as far as destroying marriage and replacing it with a child-support model, I think cuckservatives did more of the heavy lifting than the blue-haired uggos.

  74. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Feminist Hater … wow. That is one low-class, mouthy, piece of trash. And delusional. She imagines that’s she’s a lady? She talks about all the “effort” she makes by putting on lipstick, for which men should reciprocate by spending $700 on her for dinner and a Broadway Show?

    Here’s another sewage spill pouring from her mouth:

    And she wonders why men don’t treat her like a lady? Much less view her as wife material?

  75. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The disgusting aspect is not whether she “grows her bush” or not. It’s that she feels it appropriate to discuss the topic, laced with crude language, before the public at large. Who wants to be married to a woman who mouths off publicly about her “boobies” and “bush” and “peep-peeps” to the entire world?

  76. Tom C says:

    The Atlantic article links to an article in the Economist which describes the growing business of “divorce funders.” Lenders in the US and UK are loaning money to pay for the women’s legal expenses with the anticipation that she will make three times the amount of the loan when she divorces, giving them a vested interest in the failure of the marriage.

    Rather than lend money, some firms “invest” in divorce cases, asking for repayment only if a settlement is reached.

    Taking the next logical step, why not have the couple take out a loan to pay for the wedding and she can later transfer that balance to the divorce-financing loan, maybe with a discount on the interest for staying with the same loan company. Then they can package those loans and sell them to the public, giving everyone a reason to cheer on the EPL crowd.

  77. CSI says:

    Securitize profits from divorce? Sure why not, it would serve to accelerate the decline of Marriage 2.0.

    I had the misfortune to click on those links to Dr Harley’s articles. Any young man thinking of marriage would think twice if he thought marriage meant shackling himself to an insatiable pit of need and insecurity.

    Is this sort of nonsense common in Christian circles? I see where the inspiration for movies like “Fireproof” comes from.

  78. Hells Hound says:

    Remember Gen. Petraeus and his dalliance with the milfy Paula Broadwell? And how she was compared with the homely, but sturdily built Holly Petraeus? Why, this kind of thing happens all the time, dontcha know. ALL women are just a secretary, stripper or hot nurse away from their husbands’ dumping them.

    Let’s not forget that Petraeus didn’t dump his wife. He didn’t abandon his family. He wasn’t even openly cheating on his wife.

  79. Hells Hound says:

    The original story was of the 38 year old wife that was divorced do to her health problems. Women, especially American women, age horribly.

    Let’s keep something in mind. Yes, women generally age horribly, but if a woman has even minimal foresight and self-control, she can fully neutralize that. Throughout history, it simply didn’t matter that women age horribly. A woman’s attractiveness and fertility generally peaks at 21-22, and her fertility doesn’t start markedly declining until 27. That means she has more than a decade to realize her goals on the mating market. That’s plenty of time. Consider the average woman in any society in any historical era. By the time she turned 30, she has already utilized her youth and beauty to the fullest, to the benefit of her own self, her community and her civilization. She had 3-4 healthy children, she was married to the best husband she was ever going to find, a man who had his fill of youthful sex with her. She was a respected member of her social circle. She was all set.

  80. Hells Hound says:

    That’s funny, six years ago the Atlantic said men were obsolete:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

    You’d think 6 years would be more than enough time for these triumphant, independent women to establish themselves apart from any need for men to aid in their advancements. I guess there’s still some flesh left on our carcasses?

    In women’s minds, there’s no contradiction. To them, men are obsolete *in their traditional roles*. That doesn’t mean they’re obsolete as involuntary, uncompensated financers of unrestrained hypergamy.

  81. greyghost says:

    I guess the next step is divorce insurance for men. 3yr, 5yr, 8yr 12yr etc. term policy.

  82. Blake Law says:

    We must look to idolatrous cultures to see what lies ahead for our idolatrous future.

  83. Hawk&Rock says:

    Double down on the lies. Triple down on the lies. It’s all they know. It’s all they can do. And this is why the power of organs like The Atlantic are evaporating faster than they can comprehend.

    The destruction is no longer spinable by even the most clever of the destroyers. No one with half a brain believes them anymore.

    I pray we have long memories and a zeal for justice.

  84. Carlotta says:

    Let the cracking of the feminists fake foundation begin!

    The more these loons demand, the more men wake up and become discerning the more it pays off to raise your daughters properly. I point out these things to all my children. Run from these women sons, don’t be these idiots daughters!
    In other news, a cow of a feminist is demanding paid “meternity ” leave for childless women because maternity leave is not fair because work is hard. She is being lambasted by working moms.
    It is almost like women should get married, have children and care for them or something instead of giving their life to a career to be happy….lol.

    Perhaps they have gone to far…..once they start really getting the Irish up of more and more women maybe the tide will turn.

  85. Jay Karknee says:

    So Burke was right, criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. We’ve obviously granted women a huge advantage in family court. As Dalrock writes we all know this even before checking the overwhelming data, and now the authors of this misery and injustice are doubling down! Give the poor darlings even more! Make it more lucrative! I am especially unnerved by how women are encouraged to break their vows and blow up their families, while if a man even thinks about it he is universally reviled. Also, I love Jim’s post on war games. I’ve used that myself many, many times. When it comes to the U.S. American’s marriage laws, the only winning move is to definitely not play!

  86. White Guy says:

    MrWoot: This topic and blog scares me as a Christian married man. My wife is for all intents and purposes opposed to me being head of household. I do not want to spend the 30+ years I have remaining on planet earth providing for a woman who refuses the sale of our house because of her fears/desires. I am a prisoner and apart from legal action would be unable to take a new job in a new location as my current job has been degrading. Financially we are blessed, without kids, and at odds on how to move forward. The last unilateral decision to move forward with a job was met by “I am not moving”. I am curious what @Dalrock would advise.

    I’m not Dalrock, but there are a few questions you need to ask yourself; Am I the head of house? If you are a believing man, YES you are, it is God ordained. So the next question is what is best for my family, (not her feelz), YOU are accountable to God how you lead YOUR family. If it’s to sell your house and move, then do it! She can either follow or leave, you have no control over her or her feelings. If she wants to live in rebellion to God that’s between those two, not YOU. All you can do is lead. Unless the house is in her name, put it up on the market, and take that new job, like yesterday. Tell her where you are going and if she wants to be with you fine if not it’s on her. Women respond to ACTION not words (those are their domain). Be the person God wants you to be, A MAN. Start acting like one.

    My suggestion is to head over to married red pill on reddit. Those guys are going through the same thing you are (it’s helped me quite a bit).

  87. Boxer says:

    You guys with your prenup fantasies are funny.

    Most courts won’t enforce any prenup provision that deals with the kids. Not child support, not custody and not visitation. The rationale is that no party can contract for, or contract away, an obligation to support their kids.

    Most people on this blog are not licensed to practice law. Those that are, are probably not licensed to practice in any interested reader’s locale. People who need legal advice should pony up 100 dollars and get their questions answered by a qualified pro. They should also go down to the divorce courts and watch the spectacle in all its detestable glory.

    One time, I saw some poor schlub submit his prenup agreement to the court. Without batting an eyelash, the judge said: “The parties will follow the provisions of the agreement, with respondent (husband) keeping the marital home,” then, after a very short pause, judge continued: “respondent will buy petitioner a home of equal or greater value within 30 days”.

    Sure, you get to keep the house, as the prenup says. You just have to buy princess a better one outright. Do you have 300,000 dollars to burn?

    Boxer

  88. Anon says:

    The general consensus on pre-nups from people who are familiar with the law is that it is a crapshoot, and the more it protects the man vs. what ‘family court’ indicates, the more likely it will be struck down.

    The only real protection is that it may reduce the wife’s willingness to go the divorce route in the first place in borderline cases, due to the element of doubt.

    The notion that it is solid protection is absurdly misguided. Plus, CS (the trojan horse via which the greatest injustice is done) cannot be affected by pre-nups.

  89. enrique says:

    What would have happened if a man, had confronted a woman like this (now imagine a white man and black woman or latina). But just picture for now, a white guy and a white woman, who has her kids, and the white guy starts berating her for using food stamps. Anyhow, in this case, it’s a gal on guy microaggression. He is just utilizing his cash and prizes…guess it’s so rare to see, she had to comment:

  90. Opus says:

    The refusal to enforce Pre-Nuptial agreements considered where I reside as being an agreement attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the court is merely under a legal system that otherwise purports equality under the Law to be a further instance of the Female Imperative. Imagine: you and I enter into a business agreement for the purpose of the manufacture and sale of Widgets. The agreement provides for the dissolution of the partnership at some future but unknown time should death otherwise not intervene. How would the parties feel were the presiding Judge to assert that the agreement could not oust the jurisdiction of the Court and thus the agreement would be treated as void?

    In the case of the Pre-Nup any appeal will fail because the Pre-Nup is not part of the contract of marriage and thus in the eyes of the Appeal Court is correctly treated as no more than the whim of both parties at a certain time and place and merely evidential of that insignificant fact. That the Divorce is also whim is lost on the court.

    You can now send me your $100 by using my Paypal button.

  91. enrique says:

    Damn Crackers, LOL. Ya seriously. I think this is a case, like much of our culture, of the hand-to-mouth, present-time orientation (“I don’t care if the schools fail, I just need their lunch program for my kids”). These women that drill this message home DAY IN and DAY OUT, seem to see the short term gain, for those presently married (soon to divorce) of the cavalry of white knights that may marry (and then get frivorced) in the next few years…dwindling as that number may be.

    They have no long term interests…or better worded, strategy, to see such articles and the general FI push today, has the OPPOSITE intended affect on many men. I guess, as we have seen, they will have NEW rules in place, once the number of men marrying drops below 15 percent or so. As many of us have predicted, it won’t be long until a certain “payment” is due whenever a woman leaves her toothbrush at your apartment.

    Women gonna get paid, marriage or not. In a sense, this continual and increasing push by feminists and their knights, is a macrocosm of what they do on the micro level with individual men–extract EVERY SINGLE OUNCE of money, assets and lifeblood you can out of the guy, keeping him only in a mule status, to continue working to support you. They are doing that to marriage, as it crashes down all around them–squeezing the last bits they can out of it.

  92. Novaseeker says:

    Pre-nups can be worthwhile if you have significant pre-marital assets. Many states will enforce pre-nups to the extent that they deal with pre-marital assets which have been fully disclosed, is negotiated with both parties having independent lawyers and is concluded well in advance of the wedding date. A court may still decide to invalidate it if it thinks that the overall result would be inequitable, but you do have the best shot as it pertains to pre-marital assets.

    When it comes to everything else (marital assets, children, custody, alimony, child support, grounds for divorce and so on), it’s not very likely to be enforced in most places. Courts will generally do what they think is “fair and equitable” in these areas, and will enforce the pre-nup if it’s very close to what they consider to be fair and equitable, but otherwise not. Pretty much they will ignore whatever a pre-nup says about children, custody, support and visitation, for the reasons people have said above.

    Of course family law and the practice of the family courts does differ significantly between states, and you should check with an experienced family lawyer in the state where you live in order to understand what the law is, and how it is handled by the courts, when it comes to pre-nups and their enforcement in your state.

    —–

    Plus, CS (the trojan horse via which the greatest injustice is done) cannot be affected by pre-nups.

    Indeed. This is because, as Dalrock has pointed out numerous times, child support is now the bedrock of law and policy when it comes to family life and children. It’s the lynchpin of the entire system. So there will be zero tolerance of playing around with it. In addition, monkeying with child support is hugely socially unpopular — most people very strongly support the concept of child support, as well as the amounts and the way it is calculated as an income tax on the (usually) father. So trying to change the law regarding child support is kind of a fool’s errand. You can make more progress regarding alimony (and some progress has been made in some states on that front), based on the fact that women earn money today that is in many cases comparable to, or exceeding, that of their husbands, but you won’t get anywhere with child support because people see that as being about children — even though it’s a windfall payment to mom, often — that also isn’t cared about because the mom/child unit is viewed as sacrosanct and inviolate by most people in the United States.

  93. Joe says:

    The Woman Rules: When all else fails… just make some shit up. Don’t worry, they’ll believe you.

  94. AnonS says:

    Looks like you have to exploit legal loopholes to avoid the grinder.

    With no kids, it seems making a private contract with a girl is more binding that a state marriage (states without cohabiting). Establish a trust with equal payments from both parties in it that can only be used on joint expenses in the far future. If they break up, the money goes to charity and both lose. Have a ceremony and just don’t tell people you aren’t legally married. The problem is conservatives can not think outside the box and think that state marriage is the only marriage.

    Kids are a bigger problem. Women can always steal their own children and rely on child support.

    One extreme solution I just though of would be to flip the system against itself. Have two red pill men go the courthouse and get a gay marriage to each other. Then this gay couple pays surrogate women (that happen to be their practical wives) to have their children. No court is going to break up a gay household from the claims of a surrogate.

  95. Linx says:

    My apologies. This is the video I wanted to post.

  96. james says:

    It’s no wonder women initiate 80% of divorces given feminism teaches them that men are oppressors.

    The destruction of the family unit is complete.

  97. @ Blake Law

    Yep, that’s the West’s future. Regressive, Matriarchal Tribalism.

  98. Original Laura says:

    @Tom C: Contingency fees are not allowed in divorce and custody cases in any US state that I know of. I was taught in the early 90s that the attorney was ethically obligated to preserve the marriage if possible, and to be open to the possibility of reconciliation as the case progressed. Contingency fees would create a conflict of interest between the duty to uphold marriage and the desire for a juicy fee.

  99. mojohn says:

    @Original Laura May 3, 2016 at 3:36 pm:

    I learned the same thing in law school when dirt was young.

  100. Opus says:

    I will expect the second coming long before any marriage is prolonged by so much as a micro-second by the pro-marriage sentiments of any lawyer.

  101. @thequestion,

    Lol! Lol lol lol lol!
    Oh my it’s from the devil!!

    Oh my white knight Prince! Please keep believing that! Please never join me on my level! Never accept game! Never learn what dirty sluts all women are. Never accept what they are.

    Why doesn’t you God demand you never accept what women are?

    How about you come up here with me? You want to hear about the twenty six year old Christian virgin I was gaming? And I failed to game because I wasn’t aggressive enough with her?

    Like let’s pretend awalt isn’t true right guys?

    Lol let’s all pretend awalt isn’t true. For just a little longer!

    Lol

  102. Gunner Q says:

    MrWoot @ May 2, 2016 at 3:10 pm:
    “This topic and blog scares me as a Christian married man.”

    Why scary? Understanding the situation gives you options. Options are the power to make things happen. Pick a button and push it!

    ” I am curious what @Dalrock would advise.”

    There is nothing you can do to make that rebellious wife happy so make yourself happy instead. Take that better job, move to better opportunities and if the unbeliever wants to leave then let her.

    Don’t be afraid to lose everything you currently have. Self determination is far more important (and fun) than owning nice things. It is certainly more important and fun than waking up sad because you’re still breathing. Do what makes YOU happy and if they threaten to take your chains away then laugh and stretch your wings!

  103. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Seems the best way any man can protect himself from female greed is to be as worthless as possible. Be poor. Have no assets. No career. No big income stream.

    And many young men are doing just that. Slacking off. Playing video games in their mom’s basement, even into their 20s and 30s.

    So we’re becoming a harem society. A few rich Alphas on top, with multiple girlfriends. Ever fewer Betas providers to fleece. And ever more Omegas-by-choice.

  104. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    To the man who wants to sell his house against his wife’s desires — your solution depends on how much equity you have in the house.

    If there’s still a big mortgage on the house, you can tell your wife that if she won’t move, you’ll quit your job, stop working anywhere, and the bank will repossess the house. Either way, she will move. With you to a new job and house. Or when the sheriff puts her out on the street.

    She’ll scream and call you abusive, and perhaps threaten divorce. You can say that’s fine. She can divorce you. She can put you in jail for non-payment of mortgage after you stop working. Either way, she’ll lose the house.

    Her choice: Move with you to a new house. Or end up homeless.

  105. Jim says:

    Seems the best way any man can protect himself from female greed is to be as worthless as possible. Be poor. Have no assets. No career. No big income stream.

    That’s one way. But the best way is to just not get married.

  106. Tom C says:

    @Original Laura May 3, 2016 at 3:36 pm:

    These divorce funders are not attorneys but financial firms. See BBL Churchill dot com.

  107. Tom C says:

    Gotta love their slogan:

    Secure your rightful entitlement.

  108. mrteebs says:

    Amazing to me how female empathy is a complete diode. It flows one direction only and it is apparently hardwired into them that empathy always be directed toward themselves (never away). If they ever suspect for a minute that your compassion for others does not have them firmly ensconced at the top of the recipient list, they will be quick to helpfully point out that you’re not looooooooving them.

  109. Anon says:

    So there will be zero tolerance of playing around with it. In addition, monkeying with child support is hugely socially unpopular — most people very strongly support the concept of child support,

    Indeed. Very few people know or care to grasp how it works, and is really not about benefiting children at all. But it is impossible to even discuss it with 98% of people, simply because the name of the policy is ‘child support’. As far as choosing the right name to mask something evil within a Trojan Horse, there is no better example anywhere.

    It is well-designed by those who think enslaving men and damaging children is worthwhile just to give women an ‘alpha fux/beta bux’ life. It is TOO well designed. It could destroy our entire society without all but 0.01% of people ever diagnosing the problem.

    Truly, if there is ONE thing that should be changed about America, I would unhesitantly pick the ‘child support’ complex. Just about every other problem is less fatal, or otherwise a downstream effect of, this..

  110. Anon says:

    On the #GiveMoneytoWomen campaign, look at how many fembeasts are saying over-the-top things in all seriousness :

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/GiveYourMoneyToWomen?src=hash

  111. We therefore have a duty to honestly explain to our sons that although marriage can be the best arrangement for all involved, in reality female commitment to marriage is tenuous at best. Young men need accurate information so they can best decide for themselves what life course to “gamble” on.

  112. The over-the-top pandering to women that has become a staple in modern advertising is nausea inducing.

    The latest Audi commercial features some cross promotion between Audi and the new Marvel movie coming up. During the car chase, the person wearing the pants in the family, the Wife, is driving the family SUV, while the effeminate husband is in the passenger seat blabbing about likes on Facebook, of course.

    The punchline can be found at the end of the car chase @ 1:06 of the video. Wifey McActionHero says, “Time to take a shortcut.” and abruptly turns down a side street. LaborDrone McSissypants, astounded by this feat of inconsequential traffic negotiation, he seals the deal on this teaching moment for his sons with, “Boys, that’s why I married your mother.”, foreshadowing their sons earnest prayers that Santa Claus would bring them a new father for Christmas.

  113. enrique says:

    @Original Laura

    That really doesn’t make any sense, since attorneys are getting billable hours (with reloads) throughout the divorce process–both sides, both attorneys. So any alleged avoidance of contingency fees (as if there’s anything leftover anyhow, for most MC or UMC couples) because it would appear to be a conflict of interest, could not possibly be taken seriously by anyone (man) who has been through the grinder that is American (Sharia for men) Family Law. Both sides escalate, de-escalate, “negotiate”, have a few hearings, mediation, argue, agree, encourage you to pay for those guardian ad litems, parenting classes, whatever…the entire system is rigged to go and go and go until everything is gone, and the father/husband is left paying X amount for sometimes, essentially the rest of his life in CS and/or alimony. They have no interest in diminishing costs, only increasing them.

    Contingency fees are most likely not permitted because one attorney will “lose” out of what would otherwise be essentially his “cut”, as monies would have to be restructured throughout to pay for the big “reveal” (surprise, the judge sided with her)…and anyone who took a man as a client would know they would not be getting any big prize at the end, since women can’t lose in Family Court–even when they are proven to have lied, filed false police reports, be abusive to the kids, cheat, steal, hide money, have drug addictions, etc (or any one of these things).

    Of the many sayings that used to make the rounds on DadsDivorce.com back in the early 00’s, one was, a convicted CRACK dealing mother, will get as much time with her kids (every other weekend and a couple weeks in the summer) as your every day father who is just an average, honest joe who pays his taxes and shows up for work every day.

  114. Kaminsky says:

    The advertising panders to women, for sure, and it’s also the result of women being red-carpeted to the executive positions of determining the advertising narratives. So it’s a double shot. The same dynamic is playing out in Hollywood. These female executives in charge of the narratives clearly didn’t get to those positions through storytelling talent because they always have to fall back on one single plotline: empowerment. Shouldn’t they be some of the most creative people on the planet? Why only one narrative then? Hmm….

  115. feeriker says:

    Anon says:
    May 3, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    With each passing day the wisdom of my refusal to have anything whatsoever to do with popular social media outlets becomes ever more completely validated.

  116. Kevin says:

    I would hesitate to counsel any man to marry in this sick culture. I fully acknowledge that at any moment my wife could destroy my marriage.

    That out of the way responding to some comments above about the best you can hope for if marriage works out is being marriaged to a women with a rapidly declining SMV – well duh and so what. Marriage in healthy cultures is a thing of beauty where two people give their lives to each in the ups and downs and as they both age. Thinking about marriage as a constant SMV evaluation and being worried you as an ugly old man will be married to an ugly old woman is a crazy woman way of looking at marriage. The joy and wonder of marriage is probably not worth the risk today, but in heathy cultures it can be wonderful.

  117. feeriker says:

    The advertising panders to women, for sure, and it’s also the result of women being red-carpeted to the executive positions of determining the advertising narratives.

    Women are being “red-carpeted” to the top of pretty much every industry right now, with the added benefit of having the wreckage of their destructive incompetence either buried (for the near term; the damage can’t usually be hidden for very long) or transferred to men to mop up and take the fall for.

    In the specific case of advertising, any FI-centered advertising theme that bombs or boomerangs will be blamed on men not being sufficiently dedicated to making it work, or even of sabotaging it (“there are still so many more of THEM in this industry than there are of us!”)

  118. feeriker says:

    Thinking about marriage as a constant SMV evaluation and being worried you as an ugly old man will be married to an ugly old woman is a crazy woman way of looking at marriage.

    Well, DUHHH. Unfortunately, as I need not point out, we live in crazy times.

    The joy and wonder of marriage is probably not worth the risk today, but in heathy cultures it can be wonderful.

    Ditto my first response. Since we obviously don’t live in a healthy culture –hence the discussions above of relative SMVs and the way to capitalize on them as a long-term marital survival strategy in a culture in which marriage is under assault from all sides— the point of your comment escapes me. Men are reacting in (historically) “abnormal” ways to modern threatpoints that have not existed in the past and for which such coping mechanisms were never needed before.

    TL;DR version: abnormal times call for abnormal measures

  119. Kaminsky says:

    Yeah,

    When FI narratives start to bomb in advertising, pop culture and in life in general then the patriarchy will be blamed for it. That ‘discrimination’ will galvanize and reload the FI for another round of cultural destruction.

    If that is not perpetual motion having just been invented then it is damn near.

  120. I think if the feminist imperative was truly and completely served by divorce law, it would be that women (and ONLY women, never men) would be permitted (by law) to divorce unilaterally. That is really what feminism wants.

  121. @Feministhater: LOVE LOVE LOVE the vids and the 28 – 32 comparison. I showed my son these videos so he understands what is going to happen in less than 10 years for him. They are going to slam into the wall at 28, son and then they are hoping you will be Captain Save A Ho and rescue them. They will look good. THIS is how they will look and talk just 4 years later.

    This stuff is MGTOW porn guys. Pure MGTOW pron. LOL.

    @Opus: You are right about them lawyers. I am not aware of any rule that requires the lawyer to preserve the marriage. Quite the contrary. Damn crooks the lot of them. You just ask the client if there has been a breakdown of the marriage and there is no reasonable likelihood of saving it. Then if the client wavers, you just remind them what they said. State’s vary etc.

    I think it is a good idea to fiddle around and make minor changes to the marriage laws (but you are doing it while Rome burns).

    @Anon: you don’t need the gay marriage facade. Get “married” with a full ceremony, public vows, a big party, the works. Just don’t sign or file the marriage certificate. Then sign a contract with full terms explained in detail. Fund a certain amount from your income streams into a Trust that is governed by the “Trust Agreement” between the parties. Put the house and all of what would be “marital property” into the Trust. I would use the marriage vows as the Trust language and enforce it with penalties- substantial penalties for withdrawal, if you know what I mean🙂

  122. anonymous_ng says:

    @BPP, It pays to know the laws of your state. I live in one of the common law marriage states. In my state if you did as you detailed, the state would consider you married regardless of the lack of a signed marriage certificate, and the ending of the relationship would be dealt with in family court just as if the signed cerificate existed.

  123. We had a good discussion on the marriage debate on this thread in The Red Pill featuring several epic rants by yours truly.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/4hgw7y/incremental_benefit_or_why_eschew_marriage/

  124. Kaminsky says:

    “about the best you can hope for if marriage works out is being marriaged to a women with a rapidly declining SMV – well duh and so what.”

    “Well duh and so what?”

    That is one of the most defeated, male-subservient comments I’ve ever read.

  125. greyghost says:

    All of these work around ideas to have a wife. There is no wife in the west by law. All of these silly death throws and displays of male headship are futile. The options are don’t get married period or take up arms and destroy this government that’s it.

  126. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Are there any modern, civilized nations in which marriage laws respect the rights of men?

    I assume not in North America or Western Europe or Australia/New Zealand. But any nations in Eastern Europe or Latin America, or even the Pacific Rim, in which the laws protect husbands and fathers?

  127. Mark says:

    @Jack Russell

    “”I mentioned to him about divorce laws, etc. and suggested to him and his wife that they put it in a family trust. They are seriously considering it and probably will do it.””

    What your friend wants to do is incorporate a “Real Estate Holdings Company”.He,wife and son will put their names as “principles” of the Corporation.Secondly,when and if,the property is ever sold they will escape the draconian Canadian Capital Gains taxes.Which would cost them 40% of the appreciation of the estate since purchase.I would much rather see your friend pocket the money than give it to that motherfucker Justin Trudeau.

    I will leave this right here.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/03/new-trend-gives-women-time-off-work-menstrual-cycles/

    I see this trend taking place in Canada before anywhere else.Another reason I NEVER hire wimminz!

  128. Opus says:

    @bluspillprofessor

    Lawyers do what they are retained to do. If you attend your lawyer to – say – sell your real estate, he does not say to you, ‘are you sure this is a good idea?’. He acts as he must on your instructions. To do otherwise would be to open up the probability of losing the client, and an action against the lawyer for negligence – as well as disciplinary procedure for professional misconduct.

    I am reminded of the time I was doing – god knows what – but it was in the Magistrates Court and I cannot even remember whether I had the Wife or the Husband, but my opponent – an eighty year old male lawyer! – was trying to argue before the three sixty-year-old Justices that maybe the marriage was not quite as over as my client said it was. He merely annoyed the Justices and prolonged the inevitable – by wasting half a morning. Nice old boy, though.

  129. Kaminsky says:

    Yeah Greyghost. Protecting yourself in marriage is taking on the complexity of some kind of high level buyout among finance houses. You need j.d. level knowledge in 3-4 legal disciplines, mba level financial acumen, knowledge of state law, possibly immigration law. Real estate skill to properly title your stuff and keep it sheltered. A phd in psychology wouldn’t hurt. Cooking skills would be valuable to keep her full of complex carbs and slow the yearly bloat from ten pounds down to three. Knowledge of police procedure in case she decides to lightly scratch up her arm and call in the white knights. I respect all of these guys’ here sharing their knowledge and I’m sure it’s accurate but if you step back for the big picture it’s a hilariously bad option.

  130. Jim Christian says:

    Meh, more evidence for young men to chew on in their quest to figure out marriage and whether to enter that particular bondage. The tyranny of feelings and divorce, no commitment by the women necessary, the impossible task of keeping them haaaapy in their entitlement. I got burned early and never entered the bondage again and it never cut into my sex life and enjoyment of women post-divorce.

    I eschewed many opportunities to re-marry, many of my male pals re-married and got divorce-raped many times. But it seems the men (in my circles, anyway) always dusted themselves off and started right back in with new and always, better-looking women that the women who dumped them. The women I and my buddies left behind after the I’m not haaaaapy divorce initiated by the women (never did the men initiate, too expensive) wound up single and frumpy and fat. Mine married some poor shlubb and had a tragic second child medical tragedy. She’s not haaaaapy, but couldn’t escape, too expensive to declare a second time.

    Want to break the cycle of frivolous divorce? Seriously? Go back to Fault-Based, “At Fault, With-Cause” divorce. Cases of I’m not haaaaaapy divorce have to be proved out and reasoned. EPL women pay, not the other way around. Absent that, ANY man, and I mean ANY, is out of his mother-lovin’ mind to marry in the current legal climate. It is staggering to me the number of marriages, heterosexual marriages that is, that still take place. Large numbers of men are STILL getting sucked into the dream. As for the alphabet soup of sexual depravity and their marriages, who knows? I understand the lesbians, after bed death sets in, beat each other up and down a lot these days, can’t prove it though. They all get what’s coming.

  131. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A woman wants paid family leave to spend time with her CAT — http://nypost.com/2016/05/02/pet-owners-deserve-family-leave-too/

    Bringing my adopted cat, Jameson, home with me in 2014 was one of the happiest days of my life.

    Having to go back to work two days later was one of the worst.

    While the rest of the country is hung up on the necessity of maternity leave — or even the newly coined “meternity” — one group continues to be overlooked when it comes to paid time off from work: new pet owners.

    “Paw-ternity” leave is already a reality in the UK …:

  132. Tam the Bam says:

    I know the feeling, having occasionally taken ” Jameson, home with me “ and found “Having to go back to work two days later was one of the worst.”.

  133. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Mark, Thanks for the advice. I will print it out and pass it on to my friend. He comes from a still somewhat Redpill country in Europe and his wife stayed home to raise their son. The link was interesting. Getting time off for a certain time of the month is a joke. If the woman I am considering taking to the Don Henley concert in the summer tries to pull that card. I will just go myself. I have done that before.

  134. gdgm+ says:

    Related to the OP, from a co-writer of a book on “egalitarian marriage” (H/T to ‘Captain Capitalism’ for his critique of another page on that site):

    http://omgchronicles.vickilarson.com/2016/04/26/moms-heroes/

  135. gdgm+ says:

    Whoops, I actually meant to paste this link (though the one I quoted also applies somewhat):

    http://omgchronicles.vickilarson.com/2016/03/22/divorce-isnt-that-bad/

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam ye Bam

    I know the feeling, having occasionally taken ” Jameson, home with me “ and found “Having to go back to work two days later was one of the worst.”.

    Tam’s on to something, here. Well, I once had this pal name of Jose who dropped over to stay at my place, and for sure going back to work 48 hours later was mighty difficult. Coulda used another day off for sure. Got a lot more particular about who I let just drop in, and haven’t seen that Jose Cuervo hombre since then, either.

    Yes, these girlies have a great idea. Just needs a little fine tuning.

  137. william says:

    Trap 2.0 comes when the divorcing man exits a long dry spell and promptly falls head-over-heals for the first woman that sleeps with him. Often, you see a divorcing/divorced man fall for a woman way below his status. She may be too old, poor, fat, whatever…. Please be aware that it may be something chemical or psychological, but it should be avoided.

  138. theasdgamer says:

    Betas have a misunderstanding about love and marriage. It’s not a contract involving an exchange of sex for resources. God warned betas about this.

  139. Bill Crooks says:

    Every man needs to cultivate the quality of being able to love without being taken advantage of. I expect less from women. If men can do this in general – you can expect less from women and things don’t fall apart.

  140. MrMasculine says:

    Since I was a kid I could see the glaring female privledge. When I said what I saw, I was ostracized. I’m in my forties and I’ve never been married. I have friends who have truly insane girlfriends and my friends stay with these horrible women even when they are physically abusive. I have other friends that are married to Eastern European women and they have happy marriages. These friends went over to EE and carefully selected family-oriented women who respected men. I watch as these EE women truly nuture and serve their husbands for the many years they’ve been married. I would guess my friends spent quite a bit of money to go over there. I enjoy my hobbies and have a good life. I don’t want to risk what I have for a marriage that is more of a minus than a plus. I also don’t want to drain my bank account to meet a woman in another country. I like adventure and challenge, but with the odds against me of having a successful marriage where I can lead as God intended, I’ll choose the single life instead. On a side note, older women say that they understand why I’m not interested in marriage. My mom’s 80 year old friend said that women my age are irresponsible, man-hating cry babies.

  141. Novaseeker says:

    Are there any modern, civilized nations in which marriage laws respect the rights of men?

    Not all European countries are terrible on this. Many of them have needs-based child support and no alimony at all, which greatly lessens the post-divorce financial burden on fathers. Also quite a few have more or less presumed joint physical custody, as well, which helps preserve the relationship with kids much better than often how it is in much of the US. The US and Canada are really out there in terms of being extremely pro-mother/wife in the family law area, even when compared with other Western countries.

  142. Kevin says:

    @Kaminsky
    ““about the best you can hope for if marriage works out is being married to a women with a rapidly declining SMV – well duh and so what.”

    “Well duh and so what?”

    That is one of the most defeated, male-subservient comments I’ve ever read.”

    No – I don’t think you got it. I was responding to a poster who claimed that was the outcome because they were looking at marriage as a pure calculation of relative SMV like a woman does, which as freekier points out in this environment might be needed for men. The “duh” is that absolute SMV declines for everyone as they age- usually men as well unless they are unusual so saying you would be married to someone with a fall in SMV is saying time is passing which is not insightful.

    The “so what” is because in healthy cultures (not ours) aging together is considered a wonderful and beautiful thing and only psychologically broken people spend their lives racing around trying to find the highest SMV at all times to have sex with them. Novel sex is not a big deal after you get out of your teenage years (parenthood is a big deal) and there is so much more to marriage and life (with the acknowledgement that most western women are broken and many sexually incontinent men are as well). So the original comment made a statement without insight denigrating the normal healthy expectations of previous generations of the majority of men and women. We should all be so lucky as to age together with a woman who loves us and that we love and be able to raise our children to do the same – but cannot anymore in this culture.

    I don’t think acknowledging the reality, wisdom, and joy of aging together gracefully as defeated, unless you have the fountain of youth. Now, is it worth the risk of 2.0 to have a 50% chance to achieve that goal – probably not.

  143. Novaseeker says:

    @gdgm+ —

    From your linked article:

    What I’ve discovered from my own experience with several marital counselors as well the ones Susan and I presented before, they are often not equipped to do that. They don’t know how to suggest, say, opening up a marriage that’s been sexless, or living apart together to maintain connection as well as freedom, or removing the sexual/romantic part of their relationships so they can co-parent their kids. We’re just not fully there yet.

    There you have it, folks — the FI unmasked. Heck, once you’ve got the dad on the hook for the kids, time to exercise your hypergamy. If you think divorce is bad, well, you can stay married, but just make it open, or get rid of the romantic/sexual element and make the husband a married beta orbiter while you screw other men. So sensible, no?

    Truly, I do think we are going in this direction with marriage. Not necessarily that quickly, but I do think inexorably we’re going to get to a place where it is normative for women to have sexual freedom inside marriage in the same way they do outside of marriage, and for this to be a socially enforced norm.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    Truly, I do think we are going in this direction with marriage. Not necessarily that quickly, but I do think inexorably we’re going to get to a place where it is normative for women to have sexual freedom inside marriage in the same way they do outside of marriage, and for this to be a socially enforced norm.

    If so then the leaders will most likely be the millennials, possibly the UMC millennials.

    Anecdotes from the newly married upper 20’s lower 30’s that I hear are not encouraging. It appears that a growing number of women who marry choose to keep their last name. Not hyphenated as the 2nd stage feminists did, “Smith-Jones”, but just “Jones”. In red pill terms, they would seem to be retaining a bit of their pre-marriage persona, as an option of some sort.

    Not all couples. The churchgoing college students that I know of who married in the last couple of years all followed Western tradition; she took his last name. This is not just a symbolic, empty act.

  145. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 12:10 pm:
    “Betas have a misunderstanding about love and marriage. It’s not a contract involving an exchange of sex for resources. God warned betas about this.”

    Citation for this warning?

  146. Feminist Hater says:

    You know what is coming next Gunner..

  147. Feminist Hater says:

    Betas have a misunderstanding about love and marriage. It’s not a contract involving an exchange of sex for resources. God warned betas about this.

    Just place the book and verse please for Heaven’s sake….

  148. Novaseeker says:

    OT, but you’ve been critiqued, again, Dalrock, by that tireless feminist troll IB. It’s fascinating how perfectly she mirrors back the Christian feminist mindset and approach, time and time again. Fascinating, really, and quite telling at the same time.

  149. Hawk&Rock says:

    “Citation for this warning?”

    Only betas ask for citations, beta. Alphas have a direct line from their giant balls to The Word. Do you even dance, bro?

  150. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock gives IB the tingles if you haven’t noticed. She can’t get enough of reading his blog. It’s the highlight of her day!

  151. Pingback: Random Musings and Links- #8 | Donal Graeme

  152. feeriker says:

    Anecdotes from the newly married upper 20’s lower 30’s that I hear are not encouraging. It appears that a growing number of women who marry choose to keep their last name. Not hyphenated as the 2nd stage feminists did, “Smith-Jones”, but just “Jones”. In red pill terms, they would seem to be retaining a bit of their pre-marriage persona, as an option of some sort.

    That’s called “labeling yourself NOT MARRIAGE MATERIAL, in big, bold neon letters.”

    Unfortunately, thirsty beta millennials are blind.

  153. ljess says:

    Novaseeker – What is a “Christian feminist mindset” – If there is any group anti-christian, it would be feminists.

  154. Novaseeker says:

    @ljess —

    Read this blog. Christianity is currently shot through with feminists, feminist ideas, feminist thought and praxis, and not just the “left wing churches”. It’s everywhere.

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    ljess, it depends on how “feminist” is defined. In my experience, conservative feminists tend to point to the most radfems as “feminist”. That means lesbianism and abortion as a rule. So conservative feminists can oppose lesbian weddings, tut-tut at open lesbianism, and oppose abortion (although with a few exeptions…) and then smugly insist “I’m not a feminist”. The fact that conservative feminists take as “settled” such things as Title IX, affirmative action for women throughout the economy, one-sided divorce law, one-sided domestic violence law, etc. is to be ignored.

    As Novaseeker pointed out, it’s everywhere. I even have an example.

    Take women as elder / preachers. It’s an ongoing fight in denominations and independent churches. It’s still a fight in the Roman Catholic church, although behind the scenes where it’s not visible. Here is an an example someone pointed out to me. It’s one preacher who is at a seminary, regretfully pointing out an error to another church. The video is interesting because of all the typical feminist cant in it, and that’s leaving aside the issue of “complementarian”.

    http://www.dennyburk.com/some-reflections-on-a-church-that-has-recently-embraced-egalitarianism/

    Disclaimer: I have no idea who Denny Burk is, I have never heard of “Bent Tree” church before and I’m not anywhere near where Burk lives, or Dallas. No dog in this fight.

  156. gdgm+ says:

    Novaseeker, I’m acknowledging your May 4 comment at 12:44 pm – thanks.

    Also OT but interesting, Vox Day has an article up on his blog, _Vox Populi_, which includes this picture referencing Dalrock, Cane Caldo, and other “Manosphere” blogs:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChxaL_HWwAE6L_j.jpg:large

    Here’s the Day blog post to give context:

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/05/vfm-hunt.html

  157. Spike says:

    “My commitment to monogamy, in the end, became unglued”.
    In other words, while your husband was off working – maintains your lifestyle – you cheated on him.
    Would there be the same amount of sympathy if the husband’s “commitment to monogamy became unglued”??

  158. Pingback: Selling grey divorce (everyone’s doing it). | Dalrock

  159. Newbie RP struggles says:

    Would love to see both Dalrock and Rollo’s comments on the article Dalrock linked to here: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8111_leave.html

    As an unmarried new unplugged RP male struggling with what a healthy long term relationship might look like, I don’t know what to make of this. Is it short term appeasement where she eventually betaizes him even further and eventually ends it? It seems difficult to believe the strategy advocated here would lead to long term success based on my limited RP understanding.

  160. Sir_Viver says:

    I was 100% Disabled with incurable bone marrow cancer, had a stem cell transplant, was on chemo and I STILL HAD TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

    It is now 15 years later and my kids are 31 and 29. I still have cancer and I’m still on chemo at age 68, and I AM STILL PAYING CHILD SUPPORT (in arrears) because I cannot afford an attorney! My monthly Social Security check is garnished.

    My pastor and my church helped my wife leave me in 2002 because they believed everything she claimed. Of course she neglected to tell them she was having an affair. This is why I have started AMBEC. Loving Christian husbands and fathers are being devastated by their “church-assisted” wives leaving them!…because the evangelical “anti-male bias” is so strong.

    Please join AMBEC: https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/
    DALROCK, please add AMBEC to your blog roll!

  161. Anon says:

    Sir_Viver,

    It is now 15 years later and my kids are 31 and 29. I still have cancer and I’m still on chemo at age 68, and I AM STILL PAYING CHILD SUPPORT (in arrears) because I cannot afford an attorney! My monthly Social Security check is garnished.

    Wow. If I were in this situation, I would make the calculated decision to take my own life. I just would not continue under such circumstances.

    But I am glad that you have not done that… Can’t your adult children intervene to halt the child support? What are their views on the situation?

  162. Anon says:

    Not all European countries are terrible on this. Many of them have needs-based child support and no alimony at all, which greatly lessens the post-divorce financial burden on fathers.

    Sweden has default joint custody, which is far less cruel than the default mother custody and associated imputed CS stream that exists in the US. For all the hype of Sweden being the most feminist country, there is feminism that is merely dumb, and then there is feminism that leads to male suicides…Sweden has much less of the latter than the US does..

    The problem with the Anglosphere countries is :

    a) They have been democracies the longest, so FI has infiltrated everything to a far greater degree than countries with fewer years of democracy.
    b) There is a ‘lawyer culture’, and hence a powerful group that has the ability to write laws in a manner that generates more fees for lawyers. Hence, institutions where lawyers were not even previously involved (e.g. marriage) have been colonized by lawyers as a new revenue center.
    c) Anglo-Victorian whiteknighting culture still has a major residual force

    Other democracies will worsen as more years of democracy accrue. But the lawyer factor may not emerge everywhere…

  163. Anon says:

    Novaseeker said :

    Not necessarily that quickly, but I do think inexorably we’re going to get to a place where it is normative for women to have sexual freedom inside marriage in the same way they do outside of marriage, and for this to be a socially enforced norm.

    Well, some of those men do indeed deserve that.

    Remember, we have sympathy for a misguided, naive blue-pill man who only got into that situation from bad advice.

    By contrast, a committed mangina/cuckservative truly does deserve this outcome (in the unlikely event that they are married to a woman attractive enough to even play the field at all). They are the ones who made this system sustainable, so had better put their money where their mouth is.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s