She quit big law to have babies and make dolls.

And yet she feels compelled to frame this as a courageous stand against the patriarchy.

She’s going to fix men, so that women (like her) who want to be like men will be satisfied being like men.

This entry was posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Rationalization Hamster, Social Justice Warriors, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

218 Responses to She quit big law to have babies and make dolls.

  1. Wait…
    She had to leave QATAR to fix Sexism in the United States?
    Fix the plank in your own eye first lady….

  2. Pingback: She quit big law to have babies and make dolls. | Aus-Alt-Right

  3. CEO Nikolic says:

    I have the very first comment.

    For Halloween this year I’m going to dress as Jesus Christ and picket around the neighborhood because Santa Claus . . .

    Wait. Did I say Halloween?

    *shakes head*

    I’m going back to qedbook.wordpress.com to continue writing about harassing girls. THAT’ll put the christ in them. Ignorant filthholes.

  4. White Guy says:

    Hahaha, first frames are the boys ‘fighting’ the dolls! hahahaha.
    Like when my mother told Dad, no guns in the house, I proceeded to eat a piece of toast into a shape of a gun and then pointed it at her, at age 2!

    Dad told me I used to walk around with a banana sticking out of my diaper like a cowboy quick draw. Women still can’t believe we are different.

    Sort of off topic, teamestrogen.com is closing it’s doors, because ‘reasons’.
    http://www.bicycleretailer.com/retail-news/2016/09/09/teamestrogencom-close-end-month#.V9gd4jVECO8

  5. ARL says:

    There are dolls for boys. They’re called action figures. But those encourage boys to roleplay different things than the homosexual that this woman apparently so desperately wants her son to become.

  6. CEO Nikolic says:

    (the scene: A large legal conference room in a nameless Pacific coast city.)

    (the sun is going down on a shadowy cross. dalrock’s website is flickering on a purple-rimmed 40″ sumsung tv.)

    (the ceo of quadelitedom comes in and sits down)

    “You know . . .” Nikolic says, “. . . it seems to me . . .” he steeples his fingers . . .”that Second Corinthians forbids the casual drug user from building castles out of sand. For the little children fled from Jesus unto the sand pile. And the sand pile was good. And qedbook.wordpress.com briefly replaced dalrock.wordpress.com in a blistering wave of light and Max Headroom came on and said ribbit . . . and Revelations opened up upon the Rapture to expel all the ghouls of hell upon the cemeteries of the earth, where they played with girl’s heads and tossed them around like beach balls in the gloaming early morning sky of a day upon which many hopes were loosed, much Christian gladiator blood was spilled, and the Emperor of Rome cried,

    “Bring back dat ole Christian religion!

    **Primus inter pares!**

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    This family’s (she couldn’t do this without mom, birth-sister, and trans-sister) decisions only make sense if they are answers to the question: How does one troll the Lord?

  8. stickdude90 says:

    “How are we going to raise boys to be nurturing?”

    Sorry, but I had to stop the video right there. How does someone capable of making $370k/year not realize that if there were a demand for boy’s dolls, every toy company on the planet would be rushing to fill that demand?

    On the bright side, at least she has a place to live.

  9. Don says:

    I played with dolls growing up. They were called G.I. Joe Major Matt Mason (astronaut)

  10. yamanous says:

    The boys are clearly uninterested, but when forced to use them, immediately start abusing them — and eventually move on to a more “abusable” item (the ball). Couldn’t help but chuckle when I saw the white kid was killing the black doll. She then says there are “challenges” that need to be “overcome.” Perhaps she means those new chips people are sticking in their hands and heads that will inject the fahgget gene into them.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    What century is it? Didn’t feminists try the whole gender-neutral-toys thing back in the 70’s and 80’s, only to see it fail?

    The only thing feminists learn from history is that feminists can’t learn from history.

  12. BubbaCluck says:

    I’d like to see the unedited video. I think they are not showing how they coerced the boys into playing with the dolls. Shame was probably a big element.

  13. rdchemist says:

    There are already dolls for boys. We just call them action figures. Or were they thinking of adding a burping feature along with the Kung fu grip? Perhaps the next transformer will start wetting himself. Is nothing sacred?

  14. feeriker says:

    “How are we going to raise boys to be nurturing?”

    Sorry, but I had to stop the video right there.

    You and me both. I refused to go any further at that point.

    Plenty of targets in this little video, but what struck me hardest is how this sick whackette, who is the very living, breathing definition of SWPL, was working 14-hour days in Qatar (and who the F*** as a woman moves to a country like QATAR, unless she’s an impoverished Third World laborer desperate to provide for a family??!!!) when she had two sons to raise while having a husband who should have been the provider for the family. Also, not a word spoken about said husband, at least not up until the point where I could stomach no more of her bullshit (I assume the guy’s her helpmeet, er , husband, the poor mangina cuck) in the brief photos shown of him. What, is he just an ornament who served his purpose by fathering the two future homosexuals she’s hellbent on creating?

    I really need to visit that company website and troll bomb …

  15. feeriker says:

    How does someone capable of making $370k/year not realize that if there were a demand for boy’s dolls, every toy company on the planet would be rushing to fill that demand?

    Answer: Because that someone is a LAWYER (worse yet, a “shelawyer”) – that is, someone used to using the State and the law to distort and destroy what would otherwise be free markets.

    Consider also that this individual is clearly ignorant of economics, specifically the concepts of “tradeoffs” and “opportunity costs,” as evidenced by the fact that her little atrophied little brainlet is baffled by the harsh reality that she can’t both work 14-hour days doing productive work and also raise two little boys,

  16. BillyS says:

    She was shocked that they degraded her involvement in key projects when she was less involved. The logic is not too bright in this one.

  17. feeriker says:

    She was shocked that they degraded her involvement in key projects when she was less involved. The logic is not too bright in this one.

    Those evil, meanie employers clearly didn’t understand that it’s a woman’s absolute RIGHT to play SIW in the workplace, wherever she wants, however she wants, and to whatever level of power, responsibility, or authority she fantasizes about. HOW DARE those misogynist pigs demand that she actually PERFORM in such roles and actually EARN her $370K-plus annual salary!!!!!! That’s like … like … like … EQUALITY! EWWWWW!!!!!!!

  18. Chris Nystrom says:

    Goofy. My daughter makes a good living making hand crafted dolls of both boys and girls and will sell to anyone who wants to buy them (https://www.etsy.com/shop/KimbryDolls). Nothing feminist about it.

  19. Chris Nystrom says:

    I should probably add, that even though she makes boy dolls, only women by them.

  20. Chris Nystrom says:

    …buy them.

  21. Cane Caldo says:

    They’re going to “solve” the “problem of boys’ lack of compassion” with dolls.

    Because, fuck it and why not: Let’s say that is a problem. They think dolls are a surrogate because Big Sis and Mommy can’t get Little Sis hitched and knocked-up; and thus provide something real for young boys to love.

  22. Lyn87 says:

    I watched to the end out of morbid curiosity. One of her final remarks is to bemoan the fact that only 17% of senior partners at big law firms were women.

    Let that sink in.

    She took a $370,000-a-year job at a big law firm, scaled back her work because she has small children, lost her place on fast track because she can’t work 14-hours days while being a SAHM, quit said job, and then complained that women aren’t at the top of the ladder.

    That reminds me of this.

  23. She found sexism in Qatar, which sure reflects poorly on the children of the United States.

  24. Original Laura says:

    When I was growing up in the 60s, there were little boy dolls readily available for purchase, in addition to the manly men action figures for boys like G I Joe. In the 80s, anatomically-correct baby dolls were all the rage, and lots of girls had one.

    But the “little boy” dolls were always played with by real-life little girls. And only boys played with the action figures, even though Barbie’s plastic boyfriend Ken seemed awfully similar to G I Joe, except that Ken had a much more fabulous wardrobe than G I Joe.

    This woman doesn’t want male dolls as much as she wants unisex toys, and most kids are more interested in toys designed for their gender.

  25. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    @The Real Peterman – I don’t know whether to thank you or seethe at you for making that point first and more trenchantly and succinctly than I could.

    Maybe this loon should have studied medicine rather law, so she could then waste everyone’s time performing deeply unethical experiments to rewire boys’ brains directly, rather than this ludicrous attempt to do so with dollies.

  26. Bruce says:

    Used to play with my sister’s dolls – used to make Ken and Barbie crash and die a fiery death in the Barbie Corvette while she looked on crying. Was trying to teach her about the dangers of drinking and driving.

  27. Pinelero says:

    She never heard of G.I. Joe?
    I had one and a Jeep with a recoilless rifle that shot darts. Cool stuff for a 4 year old.

  28. Bruce says:

    And mom bought me a Baby Drowsy Doll when I was real little- don’t remember it but they have pictures of me carrying it around as a toddler. But I still grew up killing birds and squirrels with my pellet gun and blowing up small critters with firecrackers. We have balls and androgens.

  29. Feminist Hater says:

    This shit is tiresome. Can’t they just stop complaining about little children enjoying being little children without being interfered with by entitled, biter, vengeful feminist cunts?!

  30. Pingback: She quit big law to have babies and make dolls. | Reaction Times

  31. Dad told me I used to walk around with a banana sticking out of my diaper

    Its one thing for a dad to relive his sports glory days through a son’s achievements…. but this? This is some serious do over with the banana in the diaper fellas.

  32. feeriker says:

    Used to play with my sister’s dolls – used to make Ken and Barbie crash and die a fiery death in the Barbie Corvette while she looked on crying. Was trying to teach her about the dangers of drinking and driving.

    I remember a friend and me taking a couple of his sister’s Raggedy Ann dolls and “burning them at the stake for witchcraft.” Needless to say, we got into a wee bit of trouble for that.

  33. feeriker says:

    This shit is tiresome. Can’t they just stop complaining about little children enjoying being little children without being interfered with by entitled, biter, vengeful feminist cunts?!

    Repeat after me, again and again until memorized and adapted:

    “The personal is political!”

    “Children are the most valuable tools of the Revolution!”

  34. Raggedy Ann dolls are usually in horror movies. You may have been onto something there.

  35. Opus says:

    Should you wish to learn more about this oppressed victim of The Patriarchy – Kirsten Jarvis Johnson – you may do so as I did by reading her LinkedIn, Facebook and Flickr pages as well as her Website and Facebook for Boy Story. I am however somewhat puzzled and perhaps Novaseeker can help:

    1. Although she has a degree in law she does not say on Linkedin that she is qualified to practise law in any jurisdiction. Is this an oversight or should I take it as read?

    2. She asserts that as a ‘Senior Associate’ she had a ‘package’ valued at £370,000. That sounds like an awful lot of money for someone in her mid-thirties and with at best eight years of legal experience behind her. What does it mean in real terms?

    3. Why given eight years of stratospherically high salary does she need to call upon the aid of ‘kickstarter’ to finance her start-up?

    4. Might there be any reason other than that of her children’s requirements that might as she asserts be cause as to why the quality of the work (though obviously not the value of the ‘package’) might at least in her view be less than it had once been?

    5. What would her husband have been doing in Qatar; was she accompanying him or he accompanying her? – and if the latter why would she need to take time off work?

  36. feeriker says:

    Opus asks:

    Others here more familiar with law may be able to offer better answers, but my take:

    1. Although she has a degree in law she does not say on Linkedin that she is qualified to practise law in any jurisdiction. Is this an oversight or should I take it as read?

    The fact that she went to a country like Qatar to practice law in an international firm probably is a fairly good indication that she’s had … (*ahem*) … “less than resounding success” in passing a bar exam in any U.S. state (again, someone more familiar with the practice of law than I am can correct me here if I’m off base).

    Two words: Hillary Clinton (failed the D.C. bar exam spectacularly, apparently on more than one occasion and never did pass it, but managed –barely– to pass the Arkansas bar exam).

    2. She asserts that as a ‘Senior Associate’ she had a ‘package’ valued at £370,000. That sounds like an awful lot of money for someone in her mid-thirties and with at best eight years of legal experience behind her. What does it mean in real terms?

    She worked for an international firm in a country where they essentially pay you an above-market salary and benefits as compensation for putting up with living in such a country and the work you do, often absent any labor protections that we’re accustomed to in the North America and Europe (ask anybody who has ever spent time in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait what that’s all about).

    3. Why given eight years of stratospherically high salary does she need to call upon the aid of ‘kickstarter’ to finance her start-up?

    Probably due to combination of: 1) having to spend every cent she earned (or very near it) to live “the lifestyle she felt entitled to” in an oil-rich emirate like Qatar, 2) hubby maybe didn’t work, which compounded the problem and precluded savings, and 3) as a woman who may very well have been the primary breadwinner for her family and being the one earning and in control of all of them money, she is, like most women in general and American women in particular, horrible at saving and managing money. In other words, despite her above-market salary and perks, she and her family were essentially living paycheck to paycheck (like most people back home in America).

    4. Might there be any reason other than that of her children’s requirements that might as she asserts be cause as to why the quality of the work (though obviously not the value of the ‘package’) might at least in her view be less than it had once been?

    My guess would be that she was a mediocre lawyer at best to begin with, and that once she was distracted by children, those true colors shown through as never before. Ergo, her bosses started pushing her way the type of work that she deserved/could truly handle, probably with the goal (albeit an unspoken one) of making the “exit door” look more and more attractive to her as the work she was saddled with became less and less appealing.

    5. What would her husband have been doing in Qatar; was she accompanying him or he accompanying her? – and if the latter why would she need to take time off work?

    Good question. From what little I saw of the video (I wasn’t about to waste life-minutes looking any deeper), she barely acknowledged her husband’s existence. I hope for HIS sake that he also had a job in Qatar –preferably a better and higher powered one than hers– and that he wasn’t just her “kitchen bitch” while there. Otherwise I can only imagine the outright ridicule and overt persecution he would’ve faced from any Qatari neighbors and/or associates (although as Yank ex-pats it’s very likely that they lived in an isolated community or compound somewhere free of any local “contamination.” For the life of me I cannot even begin to imagine Gulf Arabs, given my many years of experience in dealing with them, putting up with even a millisecond of the typical Amerikan SIW).

    As for why she worked the obscene hours that she did even with her husband living there with her and the kids, from what I’ve gathered so far, SHE wears the pants in the family and is the “man of the house,” which is why she insisted on “working like a[n inefficient and unproductive] man” with her 14-hour-plus workdays. The boys weren’t an important part of her life other than as ornaments/status markers until she realized she could exploit them for profit and gain.

  37. Kevin says:

    I work with many women and dang straight when you had to leave work to take care of your kids because you were too cheap to pay a better nanny despite making 370k!!! I hate working with women who disappear forever to have babies. Having babies is awesome and wonderful but if a guy disappeared for 3 months and than after that always had to run off for his kids of course everyone gets ticked. If you make that much money hire a 24 hour or close nanny. I have friends that are both doctors and sadly still have kids – guess what they hire nannies to do everything because if you want to play with the men you need to stop making excuses.

    As far as dolls for boys – what does she think the hundreds of action figures and super heroes and GI joes are? Holy cow. You don’t want to sell dolls to boys – you want to sell bland pointless toys to boys. But you are too late. Between video games and sports my boys hardly even play with their super hero dolls anymore.

  38. Gunner Q says:

    Opus, my read is she’s an affirmative action hire who was then stationed out of harm’s way. I doubt Qatar is their most important office. Knowingly hiring an incompetent but non-white male “senior associate” can be much cheaper than the typical AA lawsuit, especially if you see it coming.

  39. Opus says:

    @Feeriker

    Those are some excellent answers: I would just like to add to number four that they are turning out ever more new lawyers every year and so whether you be a man or a woman these large organisations will be sidelining a certain percentage of people every year. Only women, however, get to claim that their failure to progress is a result of Misogyny and nothing to do with the nature of the legal beast – the beast which gave her the opportunity and the salary in the first place.

    From her Facebook we can see that she supports all the politically correct causes which is also of course why she lives in white-flight-land with her white husband and white children – the hypocrite. Finally may I enquire as to her accent? Is that the valley-girl accent of which I have heard so much? that low purr or grrr of hers at the end of every word had me crawling up the wall of my lap-top. Her younger sister, the other Director of Boy Story and its artistic director (an interior designer by trade) is the one blessed with good looks, so Mrs Johnson – who in my day we would on the basis of your reply to 1. have been described as a clerk is doubly cursed, I would say. May I also add that in my day, the practise of Law was considered to be a Profession; Mrs Johnson describes it in the video as a Trade.

  40. Hank Flanders says:

    I remember seeing the “My Buddy” doll commercials when I was a kid in the 80s, but I don’t remember ever wanting one or knowing anyone who did. Speaking of which, it looks like someone was kind enough to upload a vid for us:

    Of course, as some youtube commenters astutely pointed out, Chucky / Child’s Play kind of ruined the My Buddy thing for people.

  41. Why aren’t there more toy guns designed for girls?

    How are girls going to learn to shoot deer if they don’t have Sarah Palin Deerhunter dolls to play with?

  42. Hose_B says:

    While the doll (vs action figure) for boys is rarer, it is certainly not impossible to buy. Everything from Cabbage patch kids and Barbie, to American Girl have boys.
    What’s really surprising is that she mislabels the difficulties at the “big law firm” as sexism. The reality as noted in the video is that she worked 8am to 10pm………for $350k a year. Once she had kids, she could not produce as she had when she did not have kids. Her productivity went down. Understandable, but true. And a lawfirm, especially a big one, is not unicef. They are a business that expects results and productivity that she could no longer provide. No sexism, just the bottom line.
    If the law firm was sexist, she wouldn’t have made 350k to begin with. She chose to leave her high demand job to raise babies and make dolls.

  43. feeriker says:

    Finally may I enquire as to her accent? Is that the valley-girl accent of which I have heard so much?

    I guess you could label as “Valley Girl” the speech pattern of the typically selfish, shallow, inarticulate, and dumbed-down white MC/UMC female under the age of 35. The term first originated in the early 80’s when Gen X(ettes) were entering adolescence, but the speech pattern is older than that. For all I know there’s another term in vogue for it now among the Millennials.

  44. Anon says:

    Sorry, but I had to stop the video right there. How does someone capable of making $370k/year not realize that if there were a demand for boy’s dolls, every toy company on the planet would be rushing to fill that demand?

    Because that job would not be available to that person, in a free market.

    Michelle Obama had a $320K make-work job in a hospital in 2008 (so after inflation, the compensation would be higher in 2016 dollars). After she left to become FLOTUS, the position was never backfilled, and quietly erased.

    Don’t underestimate how distorted the current economy is by government interference on behalf of female privilege. The closest thing to a non-female-distorted economy is visible only in first-world countries that are NOT democracies, like Singapore..

  45. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    Consider also that this individual is clearly ignorant of economics, specifically the concepts of “tradeoffs” and “opportunity costs,” as evidenced by the fact that her little atrophied little brainlet is baffled by the harsh reality that she can’t both work 14-hour days doing productive work and also raise two little boys,

    I have identified which three fields where women have the largest aptitude deficit relative to men. This is a combination of both inability and disinterest. In no particular order :

    Economics
    Asset Portfolio Management
    Astronomy

    There. In these three fields you will find the fewest legitimate female talents.

  46. Spike says:

    Bloody hell.
    She makes $370K/year. In order to make that kind of money, you have to work hard. You have to be available. You have to perform.It isn’t Monopoly money being thrown around. And yes: If you must work and have children, hire help.
    She has no clue.
    Dolls for boys? Civilization managed quite fine without them for about 15 000 years.

  47. Jed Mask says:

    Smh at this MESS!

    This woman seriously needs to REPENT and TRUST ON THE LORD JESUS for her SALVATION!: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

  48. Original Laura says:

    @Opus & Feeriker

    The most common reasons for not listing the jurisdictions in which you are authorized to practice law would be:

    (1) You have been disbarred (permanent) or suspended (temporary) from the practice of law. Generally, if you lose your bar membership in one jurisdiction, it triggers the loss of bar membership in all jurisdictions in which you are licensed.

    (2) You have discontinued practicing law and have no intention of ever returning, so when it is time to pay your bar dues, you DO NOT pay and your bar membership lapses. You can usually get your bar membership back if you pay the back dues plus late fees, etc., but if you allow the bar membership to lapse for a certain number of years, you would need to retake the bar exam, and after five years of not practicing and not studying, this will not be easy in jurisdictions like California and New York where the bar exam is very tough.

    OPUS: The number of people entering the legal profession in the USA at this point should be declining as the number of applicants and first year students at law schools has been declining for five years or more. Some third-tier law schools now have half the students that they once had. I think at least two or three law schools have already shut down, and many more will probably close over the next ten years unless they can completely restructure their business model and lower both their overhead and tuition.

    I’m not as sure about this, but my guess is that anybody with a law degree who isn’t working as an attorney within three years of graduating is unlikely to ever practice law. This would include both those who take the bar exam over and over and never pass, as well as those who pass, but cannot secure employment in the legal field.

    FEERIKER: Things may have changed, but in my day people did not pass the bar exam with flying colors, etc. They tell you your score if you fail, but not if you pass. There may be some jurisdictions now that WILL reveal your passing score, but in the old days, it was a secret. When I took the bar exam in a second jurisdiction, I was told that my Multistate score from the first jurisdiction was very good, which meant that I didn’t need to take the multistate portion a second time. But the state official wouldn’t tell me what my score was.

  49. Original Laura says:

    It’s no accident that the My Buddy doll was developed in the 80s. That is when kids stopped being allowed to play on the sidewalk with the neighbor kids. With the My Buddy doll you can pretend that you actually have a friend.

  50. feeriker says:

    They tell you your score if you fail, but not if you pass.

    Ah, ok, understood. That’s the way the exam for my technical cert works as well. If you fail the exam the first time (which happened to probably about 50 percent of applicants back when I took and passed it ten years ago, but not sure what the percentage is today), you were given specific feedback on your score, to include the knowledge domains in which you came up short, with the goal of giving you a target for re-test preparation. If you passed, you passed. That’s all they would tell you. A shame, really, as I was very curious to know how well (or poorly) I did and in which domains …

  51. feeriker says:

    It’s no accident that the My Buddy doll was developed in the 80s. That is when kids stopped being allowed to play on the sidewalk with the neighbor kids. With the My Buddy doll you can pretend that you actually have a friend.

    The more I see of vintage popular media artifacts from the early to mid 80s, the more it makes me glad that I spent most of that decade abroad and completely disconnected from American media or culture. To have watched that shite unfold and infect this society as it did would have probably unhinged me.

  52. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Back in the 1960s, when I was in kindergarten, the room had a boy’s area, with building blocks and trucks. And a girl’s area with dolls. Neither sex ever transgressed into the other sex’s area.

    I don’t know if it was ever stated as a rule, or if the areas were officially called the boy’s and girl’s areas. It just was.

    This was in a New York City public school of all places.

    Yes, I have that kind of memory. Extending back to my earliest years.

  53. Boxer says:

    Someone should tell madame LOLyer that young men have always had dolls. When I was in grades 3 and 4, my favorite toys were old star wars dolls. I had Boba Fett, Greedo, Han, Luke, R2D2, and tons of others. My friends and I recreated different battles and shit.

    Incidentally, what is it with LOLyer women and their whining? I’ve dated tons of them. Women who are smart but not particularly driven nor ambitious seem to gravitate to the legal trade. Whining about social problems gives the impression of thinking seriously, but rarely takes deep analysis. They get the map without the territory.

  54. Verne Robirds says:

    What a fool. Boys have always had access to dolls. These two very limited minds do not know that throughout most of history. Most families had 4,5,6 kids. They all played with whatever toys were around. The boys just did not like dolls. And when they played with them. It was violent, very hard on the dolls. Sorry dear but it not nurture, it is nature. Most boys are not like girls

  55. The speech pattern is labeled with the apt descriptor “Slack Jawed”. It fits because it describes the mechanics behind that kind of speech. It is de rigueur among under 40 grlz, with a sampling of middle aged women acquiring it by relocation to areas where it is predominant. It wrecks credibility except among like speakers. More men are now speaking like that as well. It is the SJW way to emphasize the feelings they force themselves to have in lieu of empathy. It is I suppose to them an empathetic and polite and unobtrusive way to speak.

  56. Whining about social problems gives the impression of thinking seriously, but rarely takes deep analysis. They get the map without the territory.

    Yes. This per Boxer, and this as an explanation for the contagious annoying mechanics of speaking and conveying this superficial grasp of complicated social issues. There is a hard correlation between gluten intolerance and this accent. I’m thinking its cause and effect, a speech pattern manifestation of un-diagnosed celiac.

  57. Jim says:

    Cunts are gonna cunt.

  58. Original Laura says:

    Red Pill Latecomer — When my elder daughter entered a public kindergarten in the late 80s, I was surprised that there was no “kitchen & dolls & dress up area” and I asked the teacher about it. She said that since so many children had attended preschools with these items, they were bored with it all, so the “girl area” had been removed. I don’t think that five year old girls are actually bored with dolls and dress up, no matter how many hours they have spent with similar toys previously. Similarly, I don’t think that the boys would have been bored with blocks and cars, but those had been stripped from the room as well. One way to keep things unisex is not to let the children have any toys at all, so that they won’t reveal any distressingly old-fashioned preferences.

  59. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Feminist Hater said [September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm]:

    This sh!t is tiresome. Can’t they just stop complaining about little children enjoying being little children without being interfered with by entitled, bitter, vengeful feminist c_nts?!

    Feminist Hater, I think it works like this (more or less):

    (1) Feminism is basically anti-motherhood: wherever it gains traction, we inevitably (SFAICT) see opportunities for motherhood derided, shamed, curtailed, delayed, and discouraged — as well, of course, being expressly encouraged to be terminated “medically”, hint, hint — the only exception of which I am aware being the Lesbian couples who “want to have kids”, where usually 50%+ of the reason, at root, is being able to spite men (“we don’t need men to have children”, being the illusion created by the invisibility of the necessary [male] sperm donor). And, God help (I don’t mean that rhetorically) a child, be it male or female, conceived as an act of spite.

    (2) Therefore, where is the next generation of Feminists going to come from? Well, true, many “Ideological Feminists” do in fact have children — but, given (1), above, necessarily, “in the limit” as they say in freshman calculus, the next generation of Feminists is going to have to come from other people’s children. And so, that is why they (as you put it) “interfere” with the natural proclivities of the kids.

    That’s my guess.

  60. Anon says:

    (1) Feminism is basically anti-motherhood: wherever it gains traction, we inevitably (SFAICT) see opportunities for motherhood derided, shamed, curtailed, delayed, and discouraged — as well, of course, being expressly encouraged to be terminated “medically”, hint, hint —

    This may be nature’s way of adapting natural selection to a species that no longer has predators like we used to – predators who culled the substandard individuals out. ‘Feminists’ and homosexuals may be the method via which nature accumulates and discharges genetic waste matter out of the species. The SJW is effectively the wastebasket via which defective genes are removed from the evolutionary process. The appearance of most SJWs would lend credence this theory.

  61. That’s why the zoo was considered supporting gender stereotypes.

  62. Boxer says:

    ‘Feminists’ and homosexuals may be the method via which nature accumulates and discharges genetic waste matter out of the species. The SJW is effectively the wastebasket via which defective genes are removed from the evolutionary process. The appearance of most SJWs would lend credence this theory.

    I’ve come to a similar conclusion re: abortion.

    There is, of course, no real upside to the mass slaughter of babies; but it is some small comfort to note that the women who get abortions are among the most irresponsible idiots that humanity has ever had the misfortune to produce.

    Whether behavioral traits are genetic or environmental or some combination, there is little doubt that they are passed on from parent to child. Thus the aborted baby, who is more likely to be a lazy slacker, a welfare parasite, or a criminal like his mama, is erased. Those resources that would have been squandered on such people can then go to normal women and men who will appreciate their child, and will make an effort to raise him up to be a good productive citizen.

    In a healthy society, no one would be able to procure or perform an abortion without the consent of both biological parents, as well as a panel of physicians who would verify that something was wrong with the baby, or that the parents had legitimate medical issues that would make pregnancy dangerous. This is the Israeli model, and it seems to work pretty well. I also like the Chinese practice of forcibly sterilizing sluts who pop out a kid with no recorded father, though admittedly that’d be a tough sell for Western people.

    Boxer

  63. OKRickety says:

    On the question of “did she go to Qatar with her husband, or did he go with her?”, it seems to me that he went with her, because she said he is doing a job search. Either way, it seems rather silly that they would return to the USA without either one having a job lined up. I think it’s likely she didn’t quit for the reasons stated.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like she’s got some of what is called “verbal fry” in her speech, it’s associated with a particular mode of thought. However, she also has a trace of a lisp.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Must. Not. Post. Music. Video. Must Not. Musical. Meme…

    ARRGH! DOGS ARE NOT CATS. BOYS ARE NOT GIRLS!

    Ok, let the Girls explain it.

  66. Anon says:

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like she’s got some of what is called “verbal fry” in her speech, it’s associated with a particular mode of thought. However, she also has a trace of a lisp.

    She definitely does not have the articulation one would expect from an attorney, particularly one who was making more than what most attorneys under 40 make.

    She sounds like someone who needs to go to Toastmasters, and will get turned away by the more advanced clubs…

  67. ManlyMan says:

    It’s called “vocal fry” and anyone who speaks that way (usually women) automatically sounds like a dumbass with no credibility.

  68. feeriker says:

    I think it’s likely she didn’t quit for the reasons stated.

    It’s very likely that she was “asked to leave,” which would explain the decision to come back stateside without any other plans lined up. Usually when you’re a western ex-pat working in a country like Qatar, once your job contract is done (or if you lose it), you have to leave. Not that ANYBODY in their right mind, especially a non-Muslim Americ**t, would choose to stay in such a country.

  69. rocko says:

    Isn’t it weird that she’s a feminist stationed in Qatar, which is next to that jihadi breeding ground known as Saudi Arabia?

  70. Dave II says:

    Well, that was the longest five-minute video I’ve watched in a while.

    The moment “The Atlantic” popped up I knew I was in for some deep doo doo. Thereafter the video just serves up yet another example of some pervasive concepts about feminists:

    1. Feminists do not understand how responsibility works.

    2. Feminists do not understand human nature (and we let such be mothers?).

    3. Feminists do not understand how capitalism works.

    4. Feminists cannot fathom that feminist theory, despite the endless stream of contradictions it faces in reality, might be wrong.

    5. To a feminist, if boys and girls are not the same it is because girls are just fine and boys should be taught to be more like girls.

    etc. This is tiring.

    Those boys are the main victims. I highly doubt this will catch on in a big way and I think her business will be going the way of teamestrogen.com in a few years, so the suffering seems mostly concentrated in those poor boys in the video who clearly show signs of coercion to play with the the dolls. I spotted embarrassment, sadness and frustration. That unbridled joy that boys normally exude at play was noticeably absent. This is child abuse on the basis of gender, so it is both child abuse and sexism. Go feminism!

  71. Pingback: Gender Neutral Parenting is a Form of Humble-Bragging | Hipster Racist

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    @feeriker
    …SHE wears the pants in the family and is the “man of the house,”…

    A central tenet (The Central Tenet?) of every story wherein the feminists are married, or have a ‘partner’, marital status not defined. I always despise the man in these stories much more than the woman. That is to say the male human being. They never seem to rate the actual title of man.

    I get it about the feminist women. I understand their motivations, unnatural if not depraved in many cases; but the mangina guys are often just about more than I can bear. I’m weak that way.

  73. Anon:

    “The closest thing to a non-female-distorted economy is visible only in first-world countries that are NOT democracies, like Singapore.”

    Not true. There have been calls for more female representation in the boardrooms. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being pumped each year for more females to join the STEM fields. Marital rape is being considered. As for democracy, we do have a functional one.

  74. Boxer says:

    This blog doesn’t have a twitter account. That’s a problem.

    I did it because I had to. If someone wants to help me run it, let me know. (Note, this is not a trolling account. I’d like it to stay up longer than a couple of days.)

  75. stickdude90 says:

    “My name is Talking Tina, and I’m going to kill you if your sons don’t play with dolls…”

  76. Avraham rosenblum says:

    I believe I played with GI Joe and set up many World War II battles and also Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday.

  77. patchasaurus says:

    Dal, sorry but this is a miss. Do not give time to wack jobs like this. The message you have forged and forwarded, which resonates with all of us, is far past this pathetic example. Only the least will find this relevant and it is fodder for the vitriolic masses to comment upon in anger, only discreditting your site and ideology. We have missed regular posts form you these last days, but rest assured that there is no pressure for you to produce, especially rudimentary matter like this. Take your time and do it right. We aren’t going anywhere.

  78. Tomasz G. says:

    This could be also tagged “Ugly Feminists”.

  79. Tomasz G. says:

    Just imagine if this woman was proposing that boys should play with sex dolls.
    We have to fight the stereotype that “dolls are for girls”.

  80. Opus says:

    One of the great things about living where I do is that in the mornings there are all the great comments at this blog for me to read through (thanks for the hard work guys). My overnight thought on Mrs Johnson is that her salary was never anywhere near 370K. She refers to it as a package and I am guessing that would include a notional amount – a large amount – for what is in all but name, Tied Accomodation – her employers owning the apartment and gaining its notional rise in value – creative accounting. The very fact that she refers to a package rather than a salary is surely evidence that it was not 370K.

    I suppose it is also the case, (and I am assuming per Original Laura that she has not passed the Bar – and even if she had done so) that having spent eight years in a rather rarified area of Law that her experience (negotiating treaties between Georgia and Ukraine for example so she says – not that I believe for one moment that she was in charge of negotiations) is of little use or interest to your average Tampa Bay law firm. She may go on to make mega-bucks with her dolls but if not it appears that aged in their mid-thirties neither she nor her husband have any form of gainful employment – hence the dolls. Her sister seems to be a ditz (but bangable). In the meanwhile they rely on hand-outs – kick-starter finance, her Mother – to survive.

    Vocal Fry: So that’s what it is, and I cannot see that going down too well in The Tampa Bay County Court, but I suppose she flies a desk. To be fair, it is really, a sad story: a woman obviously cut-out for Motherhood and surely happier that way but having imbibed the kool-aid her brain has been filled with mush such that she is attempting to turn her sons into girls whilst virtue-signalling that she is as good as any man, when in reality she was an affirmative hire, living a life that someone like my late Father could only gawp at in amazement even as she claims to be oppressed yet unable to come down to earth when (like an aging concubine) she is no longer required. One would have to have a heart of stone not to etc. etc. She says on LinkedIn that her strength is creative solutions. Describing ones strengths, always sounds like boasting of what one does not have, and thus it is best to remain tacit.

  81. Opus says:

    I suppose the dolls are one of her creative solutions. On an entirely different tack I would like to make a comment about America. I envy that she lives in what looks like a peaceful civilised neighbourhood (the ‘burbs)., with well-manicured gardens to front and rear – and on both sides of the pavement* – of a largish house in adequate grounds, with its own double-garage, (presumably) air-conditioning (no English house by-the-way is air-conditioned even though yesterday was apparently the warmest September day since 1911 – we perspire) and all mod-cons, and yet, the interior of the house seems to be anodyne, the walls look as if they are paper-thin; in short the house is devoid of any character. This is something I noticed, generally, when I was stateside: this is not of course entirely your fault, of course, as you haven’t been there very long, and your housing stock does not go back very far, but even so….

    *sidewalk

  82. Hank Flanders says:

    Opus

    One of the great things about living where I do is that in the mornings there are all the great comments at this blog for me to read through (thanks for the hard work guys). My overnight thought on Mrs Johnson is that her salary was never anywhere near 370K. She refers to it as a package and I am guessing that would include a notional amount – a large amount – for what is in all but name, Tied Accomodation – her employers owning the apartment and gaining its notional rise in value – creative accounting. The very fact that she refers to a package rather than a salary is surely evidence that it was not 370K.

    As usual, I’m skeptical. Remember this guy, and remember the correction that came later, which is now prominently displayed at the top of the article? :

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/27-year-old-millionaire-anton-ivanov-financessful-184823184.html

    Therefore, I don’t believe articles such as the following. In fact, I doubt this guy makes even $450 per client, let alone the $450k he claims he makes per client over three years:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/julesschroeder/2016/08/19/how-to-supercharge-your-coaching-company-from-a-millennial-pulling-in-150k-per-client/#6d91ec591148

    The next guy’s story is somewhat believable but only because the article states that he was a director of product at App Academy, as opposed to just being a student there, before the big bucks started rolling in. However, if this whole story was taken at face value from his blog, that alone would make me skeptical.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-engineer-negotiated-a-starting-salary-from-120k-to-250k-in-just-a-few-weeks-2016-4

  83. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    How do you keep a Twitter account without tying a phone number to it? I set one up for commenting and they locked it and want a real phone number to unlock. I am not tying my real phone number to that.

  84. elmertjones says:

    Clicked the link. First sound I heard from the auto-play video was that extended “I”. Next word “think”. Closed the link. Like fingernails on chalkboard these women.

  85. DeNihilist says:

    Original Laura – ” even though Barbie’s plastic boyfriend Ken seemed awfully similar to G I Joe, except that Ken had a much more fabulous wardrobe than G I Joe.”

    Thanks Laura, it took about 15 minutes to clean up my laptop of all the coffee I spewed on it!

    Priceless!

  86. Boxer says:

    How do you keep a Twitter account without tying a phone number to it? I set one up for commenting and they locked it and want a real phone number to unlock. I am not tying my real phone number to that.

    I can’t blame you. I don’t care too much about what Jack Dorsey or Triggly Puff thinks. SJW fags and feminists are physical cowards, and while I’m sure they could find me, I’m antifragile. If I had kids or a small business I would probably be more circumspect.

  87. DeNihilist says:

    Hah.

    After their focus group fiasco, “no” “they realized that they could play sports with them” etc., her tone changed quite significantly.

    She actually had a good bit of doubt in her voice/mannerisms after that part. Also the vid did not show her dolls anymore, but went full on SJW tripe.

  88. feeriker says:

    I can’t blame you. I don’t care too much about what Jack Dorsey or Triggly Puff thinks. SJW fags and feminists are physical cowards, and while I’m sure they could find me, I’m antifragile. If I had kids or a small business I would probably be more circumspect.

    Inre tying a phone number to a a Farcebook account, my biggest fear would be getting wardialed hundreds of times per day by adbots.

  89. Gunner Q says:

    “Finally may I enquire as to her accent? Is that the valley-girl accent of which I have heard so much?”

    For a standard of comparison, listen to the 1982 song “Valley Girl” by Frank Zappa. It’s from his album “Ship Arriving Too Late to Save A Drowning Witch”.

  90. BillyS says:

    I have been trying to think of a way around that Boxer. I wonder if a disposable phone is worth the cost.

    ====

    This discussion reminds me of watching a grand nephew play with the Barbie dolls at my father-in-law’s house this summer. He was using them as ninja fighter toys, far different than this lady even realizes.

    I would buy him some try “boy figures” to leave there if either he or I were there often enough for it to help.

  91. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    I have been trying to think of a way around that Boxer. I wonder if a disposable phone is worth the cost.

    If you’re in the USA, google voice also works.

  92. Aggie says:

    She was mostly likely incapable of keeping up with her previous workload do they tried to be nice by cutting back. See where being nice got them?

    This isn’t new. There were attempts at non-action figure boy dolls since the 60s. Always this result. They boys either make the dolls fight or they ignore them. Not exactly trail blazing here. The older versions of boy dolls where sold to girls or not sold at all.

  93. Casey says:

    There’s a great deal wrong with this woman’s perspective.

    The contradiction of (loosely quoted) ‘her employer becoming irritated when she could no longer perform post mother-hood’

    Followed up with the stated expectation that she needs to be able to leave and deal with family matters as a mother.

    Then closing with important work being taken from her and given to someone else (who could perform).

    Stark solipsism and misandry for all to see.

    Her business will fail……..badly. The first rule of business EVERY day is that you have to SELL.
    Just as the 2016 Ghostbusters crapped the bed financially, nobody is buying what she’s selling.

    She’s not the first halfwit to try this, probably not the last.

    From Wikipedia

    “The My Buddy doll line was a toy brand made by Hasbro in 1985 with the intention of making a doll to appeal to little boys and teach them about caring for their friends. This idea was both innovative and controversial for its time, as toy dolls were traditionally associated with younger girls. Hasbro also introduced a companion Kid Sister marketed toward girls. Hasbro discontinued the line before the start of the 1990s and Playskool took over production, making changes to the likeness and clothing.”

    “My Buddy is one of several dolls said to be the inspiration for Chucky, the evil doll from Child’s Play, along with That Kid and Robert the Doll.[1]”

  94. Anon says:

    rocko,

    Isn’t it weird that she’s a feminist stationed in Qatar, which is next to that jihadi breeding ground known as Saudi Arabia?

    Why is that weird? If you know how women think, you would recognize there is no contradiction there. Women get gina tingles from Islam.

    chokingonredpills,

    Your comment is contradictory. Is Singapore a democracy, or not? A non-democracy would never waste so much money on the more expensive aspects of ‘feminism’, such a a divorce industry or make-work jobs for women. If Singapore is doing that, and you claim it is a democracy, what is your point?

  95. My Buddy is one of several dolls said to be the inspiration for Chucky, the evil doll from Child’s Play, along with That Kid and Robert the Doll.[1]”

    The first 30 seconds of this clip show Belial. He who could AMOG Chucky in a heartbeat. Belial had to come from the mind of a boy that had lotsa dolls.

  96. Or maybe it’s Trumps basket of deplorables.

  97. greyghost says:

    Isn’t her husband a stay at home dad type. She was at the feminist utopia and quit. Only a few enlightened types are buying those dolls, as sure not enough to cover the lost income from her career.
    PS I wonder if her student loans are paid. And I hope that guy understands his days of banging the mrs are over. . .

  98. BillyS says:

    If you’re in the USA, google voice also works.

    It requires a real number to forward calls to. I am wondering if the end user (Twitter) could figure that out or not.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    Prepaid burner phone looks like a useful thing for a lot of reasons.

  100. Andy G says:

    Anyone else pick up on the hypocrisy of her trying to start up this business to break through sexism, yet her husband is trying to get a job?
    Why can’t she go back to work and let her husband be a stay at home father. That’s be breaking sexist barriers.
    Previous comments about living expenses in UAE are true: they ‘give’ you accommodation and utilities, but slap a massive amount on it. I read about a couple of accountants who’d been sucked into working there for big bucks, only to work out that they would have had more disposable income had they stayed in Australia, with the benefits of being near family and friends.

  101. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy & Anon Reader:

    Prepaid burner phone looks like a useful thing for a lot of reasons.

    Bear in mind that you can get a cheap but good tracfone flip phone for 20 bucks, down at your local hypermart (Target, Wal-Mart, etc.). For an extra 20 dollars you can get enough minutes to last you a month or two.

    40 dollars won’t even buy me parking and a sandwich downtown, so to me this is a pretty fair price. YMMV though.

    Burner phones… not just for dopers and ghetto rats any more!

  102. BillyS says:

    Thanks all. More than I want to spend, but likely worth it.

  103. Robert What? says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong: she had the opportunity to get into Big Law because some men started a law firm. And now she can quit and be a stay at home mom because some fool of a man will be supporting her? Take that. patriarchy!

  104. Boxer says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong: she had the opportunity to get into Big Law because some men started a law firm. And now she can quit and be a stay at home mom because some fool of a man will be supporting her? Take that. patriarchy!

    She likely also got affirmative actioned into a seat at a tier 1 law school with wymyn-only grants and scholarships. I would never criticize her for doing this if she followed through and did what her male competitors did… i.e. try to be the best attorney she could be. Instead, all those resources were squandered on someone who can’t hold down a job, and playacts at entrepreneurship.

    Protip: If you want to design dolls, that’s perfectly cool, but don’t waste society’s resources on an expensive degree you’ll never use. Thanks dolls.

  105. feeriker says:

    Protip: If you want to design dolls, that’s perfectly cool, but don’t waste society’s resources on an expensive degree you’ll never use. Thanks dolls.

    And since it doesn’t appear that she can even design dolls that anyone will want, that leaves her with … well, basically having to start over from scratch and find something she CAN do. Maybe “life coach,” or some other scam non-career that feminist wymynz seem so adept at conning others of their stripe into taking seriously?

  106. DeNihilist says:

    Feeriker, if her sister were to take up the “life coach” position, I may just sign up.
    🙂

  107. greyghost says:

    DeNihilist
    You noticed that too huh?

  108. mike says:

    Recent relevant news. Women cannot stand to lose out on having kids, but continue to be lied to by feminists about basic biology and fertility stats. I guess the carousel is still more appealing despite what they cry later.
    _______________Powell Aid Re: Fertility __________________________
    A minute later, she wrote again: “I’m in a bad place. My last try at IVF failed. I don’t know how I can ever get over not having a family of my own. I’m barely functioning.”

    “Get a grip,” Powell wrote. “Of course you can and will get over it. You are young, have your health and your mind.” He suggested looking into adoption. “You have your nephew (niece?).”

    “My step mother tried to get pregnant with my father and kept miscarrying,” Miller shared. “She is 65 now and says it is a hole in her life that has never healed. So, no, I dont think you ever get over not having your own children.”

    “Maybe you can’t fill the hole, but you can’t drop into it,” Powell advised.
    ________________

    Yeah fill that hole with cats, lots of cats.

  109. mike says:

    On topic – the waste of human capital investment on prime fertility women, while dampening mens development through AA obsessed HR depts, is possibly societies largest failing. Take top spots at the best universities only to drop out of the laborforce in 5 years. But then you have the gall to expect men to continue to outperform you with your hypergamous needs. Cut off our legs and expect us to still beat you in a race.

  110. ChristianityKilledKinship says:

    hi Dalrock – I pray all is well with you and your family. For you and the community here: I recently ran across Jack Goody’s work on how the rise of (the instution of) Christianity undermined (kinship) family as The Church(c)(r)(tm)(&tc) sought to grow in the power vaccuum in the centuries of the ongoing collapse and fragmentation after the roman empire. Aparrently the undermining of kinship leadership has deep roots in organized churchianity. I appreciate your work to reveal the problems with current day self proclaimed churchian leadership. Be well brother.

  111. @mike:

    The actual cost is insane to both society & technological development. History won’t look kindly on the stupidity.

  112. Lyn87 says:

    I’ve been otherwise occupied the past couple of days and don’t have much more to add to this discussion, but I notice a few people brought up the fact than she refers to her $370,000 package rather than salary. I may have some relevant insight, as I just did a year in that part of the world myself working for a company whose name most of you would recognize. My salary (with the various bonuses tied to hitting certain benchmarks) was $110,000, plus I got a crap-ton of vacation time that I sold back at the end. I also had full medical/dental/vision coverage. I also had my own car issued to me, and everything about it was free to me – including gas, maintenance, and insurance. I had my own villa on a Western-style compound with two pools, a full gym, a rec center, and a white-tablecloth restaurant. I didn’t pay for utilities or for the 800+ channels on the giant TV that came with the villa (most of them in Arabic, though). They did all the maintenance and even supplied me with silverware, dishes, plates, pots, and pans. And… because I was outside the US for a year, the first hundred-thousand wasn’t subject to federal or state income taxes.

    So… how much did I make? Well… that depends on what you count, doesn’t it? Adding up my paychecks yields a sum of a bit over $100,000. Buuuuut… I can add in the vacation time I sold back… and I can add in the value of the furnished villa and all the expenses that go with it that the company paid… and the car lease and its related costs that were free to me… and the medical care I got… and then the biggest part of all, the taxes I didn’t pay on the first $100,000 because I was overseas. Suddenly my “employment package” isn’t $110,000 at all… it’s closer to $150-160K, although it would be more accurate to say that it would take that amount had I been in the U.S.. When my contract was up they offered me a 15% raise and more paid vacation to stay another year (without batting an eye – they said they liked my work), but family stuff at home is simply a higher priority at the moment, so I’m taking about a 50% package cut to do similar work state-side.

    If people ask me what it pays to do what I did where I did it, I tell them my pay bracket and mention the rest, because it’s relevant for guys who are thinking about “going merc” for a year or two. I certainly do not tell people that my “compensation package” was $160,000. I’ll bet her “$370,000” includes non-pay items that didn’t actually show up in her paycheck and the equivalent of the taxes she didn’t have to pay.

  113. Opus says:

    I was having a lot of trouble (having read Lyn87 above) with Mrs Johnson’s remuneration and so I have just re-listened to the early part of the video: she says that she was in in Qatar for about two and a half years, describes working fourteen hour days* and feeling isolated and then mentions her ‘package’ as amounting to $370,000. It would not be, by any chance, that the package (which we all take to be an annual package) actually refers to the two and a half years? If so (what a deceptive sleight-of-hand) that would make an annual package of $148,000 – and thus pretty much in line with Lyn87. I find that far more believable than the telephone numbers she sought to imply.

    *Perhaps people do really work fourteen hour days (its billable hours not just bums on seats that we want Mrs Johnson! {sob, sob, sob}) – I once worked from 9am through to 9am on the next – and then crashed out for thirty-six hours – but my observation is that not only does effectiveness wear off after about eight or nine but that if you get to observe those who claim to work fourteen-hour days you find that in reality they are not really doing what they claim – nor if they are working fourteen hours can they keep it up. There is in Law firms (I much regret to say) a lot of virtue-signalling as to how long you have worked, frequently involving arriving at work one minute before anyone else and likewise leaving one minute later – which enables one to claim anything one likes – or if you prefer, leaving one minute early but with piles of files under your arm claiming that you will be up until midnight – likewise similar claims on arriving one minute late the next morning. As I indicated, Billable Hours (which are frequently as mythical as Santa Claus’ present delivery rate) are another matter and all that really counts. I might add that the English Bar being a law to itself this sort of one-upman-ship does not occur as everyone is self-employed and answerable only to themselves.

  114. Original Laura says:

    Opus, these days even a lot of the big law firms find that they have more lawyers on the payroll than they need. If there are a lot of underutilized attorneys at the firm, and a few of those attorneys are females with small children who seem at least somewhat ambivalent about being available 24/7, then the obvious temptation would be to make life increasingly unpleasant for those female attorneys in hopes that they will quit. It’s far cheaper, easier, and less risky than actually firing people, and if anyone outside the firm enquires about whether the firm is downsizing, they can deny it by asserting that they are seeking outstanding candidates for X number of vacancies, when in fact they do not intend to hire anyone in the foreseeable future unless they become swamped with work.

  115. Lyn87 says:

    Holy crap, Opus… I didn’t notice that! She was in Qatar for about two years and her total compensation “package” was around $370,000. Now it makes more sense. Considering what I wrote above, and adding her probable “family bonus” and company-provided day-care, etc, and the fact that she probably had a four-bedroom villa, it would be entirely possible for a corporate lawyer to make “around” $370K in that time period. (My villa had two bedrooms, but that was at my request. I could have just as easily gotten one of the four-bedroom palaces but I requested the smallest one available because I was a geographical bachelor and some of my colleagues brought their families).

    It also sounds like she may have done the start of her third year, so she may even be including what she would have made had she finished her contract… which isn’t nearly as impressive as her implication that she walked away from upwards of a third-of-a-million U.S. dollars in salary, annually. Still-and-all, it appears that I went into the wrong line of work, as I had to get a Masters and become a retired Lieutenant Colonel to make a comparable amount of compensation… then again we were working with Arabs and many of my work days were closer to 14 minutes than 14 hours, since third-world dandies who owe their positions to family connections have a far different idea of what constitutes “a day of work” than we Westerners do.

  116. Original Laura says:

    DeNihilist says:

    September 14, 2016 at 9:27 am

    Original Laura – ” even though Barbie’s plastic boyfriend Ken seemed awfully similar to G I Joe, except that Ken had a much more fabulous wardrobe than G I Joe.”

    Thanks Laura, it took about 15 minutes to clean up my laptop of all the coffee I spewed on it!

    Priceless!

    ************************

    DeNihilist: You KNOW that if Ken had been drafted he would have served with distinction. In fact, he tried to get an appointment to the Naval Academy because their uniforms were the coolest, but he had a burst ear drum and they wouldn’t take him even though his high school grades were really good and he had played football AND been on the swim team. So, he spent the 60s at the Malibu Dream House with Barbie and Skipper. Can you blame him for that? I wonder if he still has the pink Jeep?

  117. Opus says:

    A further thought: When one of our Orchestras goes on tour, you tend to get the Deps*; the regular players really do not relish trapesing round America or wherever and deputise their friends – thirty-one concerts in thirty-days sort-of-thing is killing – so I am reliably told. Likewise I have observed in law that those no one wants to work with tend to get shifted to Branch Offices – even as they are told that they are trail-blazing. Might relocation to Qatar be a similar sideways move. The Dolls idea seems desperate and might it be that at the end of her Qatar assignment Philadelphia no longer wanted her – although of course it would not be put quite so bluntly – probably ‘nothing to suit your particular talents – at the moment’. We will, I suppose, never know.

    *I am not sure America, and certainly not Germany, have such a system: one famous English conductor – probably Beecham – used to complain that the players he saw at rehearsal in the afternoon were quite different form the players he conducted in the evening – the ability of the English to sight-read is legendary: the regular players found more lucrative gigs – at which they presumably also sight-read.

  118. Original Laura says:

    If someone is actually earning $370,000 per year, then in a few years time they can amass a tidy nest egg if they live rather frugally. I always wonder about the people who walk out the golden door with little or nothing in their pockets. Surely they could have gritted their teeth and stuck it out till they had a new job lined up, or until the mortgage was paid off, etc.?

  119. Opus says:

    A further thought about Mrs Johnson: there are, however many American law firms; they commence when a lawyer puts up his shingle announcing his availability. Many such firms commence in the following way: a lawyer is working for a certain company and in the normal way of things forms a close bond with one or more of his clients. He maybe of equity-partner status or merely employee status or something in-between but feels that he can do better and thus agrees (subject to any covenant in restraint of trade) that he will branch out on his own taking the client(s) with him. There would of course be nothing to stop Mrs Johnson or any woman doing the same – provided her clients feel sufficiently strongly for her. In the alternative to setting up her own firm (s)he can approach another firm advising them that (s)he has certain clients on board and see what better deal they might be prepared to offer her. This happens all the time. Despite there now perhaps being more female than male lawyers there are few female initiated law firms: women tend to be risk-averse.

    Jobs are no longer for life even in law: men as well as women are let go long before retirement age. Mrs Johnson seeks to cast her rather common experience of being no longer required as a form of Misogyny: if so, how might she explain the large number of men who are also let go – law firms like armies need large numbers of Privates (associates and senior associates) and few Lieutenant-Colonels or Generals (Equity-Partners), though I can think of more than one Equity-Partner whose colleagues ganged up against him and threw him out so even a Partner is not safe from personal animosity – no one ever gets sacked for incompetence whatever they are told, only for being disliked. It occurs to me that given our suspicions as to Mrs Johnson playing somewhat fast and loose with the facts we might thus entertain the notion that the lower quality work to which she refers may refer to the lower quality work she had been offered when back in the States (and which she had declined to take-up) – for the lower quality work would indicate that she was no longer being considered – if she ever was – for Partnership. That is perhaps a hard pill to swallow. Neither her nor her husband have any form of gainful-employment*: and thus quitting (if that is as appear to be the case what she did) when one has two young sons and no permanent home whether owned or rented seems to say the least foolhardy.

    Yesterday (I noticed) she was sharing on Facebook that Middle-class incomes had risen by five per cent this past year – not much comfort if you don’t have employment.

    * Linkedin indicates that she has some interest in a Pre-Trial Organisation but I didn’t think (even if she has passed the Bar) that she has experience in Criminal Law – Criminal Law (where I am) being in any case the worst paid of all forms of Law.

  120. Novaseeker says:

    There is in Law firms (I much regret to say) a lot of virtue-signalling as to how long you have worked

    In the US at least, this is a broader culture among lawyers in general. I have been out od law firm practice for almost 20 years now, but the lawyers I work with are also always going on about how long they work and so on. It’s a bedrock part of the legal profession’s culture in the US, i think.

  121. “It wasn’t until I had my second child AND WENT THROUGH THAT MATERNITY PERIOD OF MY LIFE that the attitudes towards me changed within the firm.”
    So, I guess the partners were somewhat irritated by having to maintain the same office space and benefits package with roughly half the billable hours to show for it.
    Color me shocked.

  122. Isa says:

    The amount of hours is total crap. I work and have always worked straight through 6 to 8 hours most days, no coffee breaks or chats. I merely get focused and remain so. My main issue is that if you are productive like that, you look bad compared to the rest (doing 4 actual billable hours with their butts in the chair for 14) and get punished for it. So it’s either waste a crap ton of time at work doing f all or get fired. Nice choice eh?

    I work for a smaller start up now at home and am much, much happier even if I work 10+ hour days and weekends for the most part. No one monitoring your seat, ability to go on a walk to clear you head, no commute, and no stupid discussions of Cindy’s divorce over the cubicle wall.

    Best of all? No bs sexual politics. I am merely a voice on the phone or email handle (that doesn’t have my first name, on purpose), so my work can stand on its own as either sufficient or below par. No more tightrope walking of being pleasant, but not friendly, dressing nicely, but not frumpy or sexy, and no more groping, leering, inappropriate calls etc. All things normal in the industry I work in, but not really pleasant or conducive to top output.

    And now back to wrangling the Chinese. Twisty bastards.

  123. Mark Citadel says:

    “ugly feminist” tag very necessary here

  124. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Another friendly link airdrop.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3789957/amp/Why-modern-women-aggressive-s-called-dark-equality-surge-respectable-women-flying-violent-rages-trivial-reasons.html

    Money quote:

    “In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.”

  125. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    In the US at least, this is a broader culture among lawyers in general. I have been out od law firm practice for almost 20 years now, but the lawyers I work with are also always going on about how long they work and so on. It’s a bedrock part of the legal profession’s culture in the US, i think.

    Which is precisely why eDiscovery software and Artificial Intelligence firms like Judicata are going to obliterate a lot of lucrative billable hours for lawyers (especially female lawyers, who do more document review than litigation in courts).

  126. Anon says:

    There is no mention at all of who the husband/father is. It seems like there is a concerted effort to erase any evidence of him aside from the most minimal picture..

    This also makes it harder to get a rapid answer the extremely necessary question that must be posited in this perverse situation :

    “Who Bitch Dis Is?”

  127. MarcusD says:

    Mr. Right versus Mr. Right Now
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1024805

    We’re heading towards divorce. Is annulment an option?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1024811

    Preparing for the inevitable
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1024804

  128. Growing I had a lot of Star Wars action figures, ships and vehicles, a Little Big Horn cavalry vs. souix/cheyenne battle set with horses, Lone Ranger + Silver figure, and even the full size GI Joe action figures.
    These ARE “dolls” for boys.
    There’s no need to take the “American Girl” doll and convert it into a clean-cut, metrosexual boy version. Ridiculous! No wonder those boys were terrified.

    Also, more often than not, with boys such action figures would get destroyed in play.
    Like the time I duct-taped Boba Fett’s legs to the frame of my bicycle to rap against the spokes for that imaginary motorcycle engine sound while I went over wicked cinder-blocked jumps, etc.
    Boba Fett’s head never looked so battle scarred after that. It was awesome.

    Boys are different. And that is a good thing.
    They’re interest in play is not something in need of correction.

  129. Also, has this woman ever seen the film “Child’s Play”?
    How about “Dead Silence” or “Annabelle”?
    Somehow, I doubt it.

  130. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    Mr. Right versus Mr. Right Now
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1024805

    Once again, Xanthippe has managed to impress Brother Boxer with her immeasurable skill. She is a true artisan of subtle dishonesty. My hat is off to a master troll.

    Study her tricks well, brothers. Not many people could repackage the smelly filth of feminism into something so seemingly acceptable to good-hearted but naïve Catholic people.

  131. Gunner Q says:

    Okay, I give up. Boxer, what’s that picture you use in your signature? I’ve been seeing that “fat-lipped froggy” image around the Manosphere for awhile now but can’t figure out its meaning.

  132. tommono says:

    OT but I could use some help:

    Hi, I’ve been reading Dalrock’s blogs and the comments for about 6 months but there’s something I would like some advice with. I’m a 24-year-old Christian man looking for a wife. I have a girlfriend is a beautiful, non-feminist, non-ex-slut Christian woman (rare!) the same age as me. We’ve dated for a year and I’ve been playing the celibate boyfriend for about a year and as she’s indicated that she’d like to marry me there shouldn’t really be a big holdup.
    However, I have some reservations. We end up arguing most days we’re together, (LDR so we spend weekends together) and a lot of the time we just don’t get along. I think the problem is that despite the fact that she strongly believes in submission and doing what I say, she hasn’t got the “gentle and quiet spirit” that is actually good for the situation. She’s a smarter or at least more verbose and quicker than me. She has also been a Christian for much longer and is more devout. She’s an absolute bloodhound for awkwardness and indecision and can read me with a degree of accuracy that can be startling. In effect, she is non-feminist in doctrine and behavior but can’t really bring herself to respect me enough to like it. I can tell that if we were married, being able to have sex and dominate her in that way would help, but I don’t think it would alter the fundamentals of the situation.
    Right now I’m dealing with a foretaste of the “constant dripping of steady rain” that living with a “contentious woman” would be like. I can definitely see how it would be preferable to live on the “corner of a roof” than deal with that for the rest of my days.
    She says that she doesn’t feel cared about, which is potentially true because of how mad I get at her. Startlingly, this might actually be the true source of the difficulty and not just mad hamstering. It’s not a straight out ‘tingles’ issue because I can tell that she finds me sexually attractive but it’s probably something similar. I’ve already been practicing most of the entry level/non-evil Roissy stuff to generate attraction, I’ve been trying to be cocky/funny, and making an effort to be commanding and take the lead in things. These things have certainly worked in their own rights, but overall it hasn’t seemed to have a big enough impact to make us get along better!
    To be honest she’s right to feel that I don’t care much with her. The main thing I expect from her is contention and no matter how good of a time we’re having flirting, I’m looking out for it. I’m a fairly civil guy but I’ve developed a quick temper for what I perceive as disrespect.
    Our emotions are really wrapped up in this and we’re expecting the kind of satisfaction you’re supposed to look for from a marriage from our crappy unbiblical relationship. There’s something to be said for just going for it and getting married and she’s too much of a fanatic to divorce me so we’d probably get through our issues but I’m not sure if the game is worth the candle at this point.
    Do you guys have any advice for me about this? I really don’t want to give up on this relationship. My thirst is powerful. She’d make a good wife and mother if she could come to genuinely respect me, submit to me, and feel valued by me.

  133. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    That’s Pepe, who began as “smug frog”. You can read his story here:
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog

  134. Anon:

    “Your comment is contradictory. Is Singapore a democracy, or not? A non-democracy would never waste so much money on the more expensive aspects of ‘feminism’, such a a divorce industry or make-work jobs for women. If Singapore is doing that, and you claim it is a democracy, what is your point?”

    Singapore’s brand of democracy is a refined version of the British’s. Thanks to a certain leader, it has been observed to be closer to an authoritative democracy (it’s a contradiction, I know) than the one that the British or Americans are familiar with. We have a very active feminist group which openly promotes LGBT causes and even conducted sexuality education in schools. (A group of Christian women once successfully overthrew the organisation’s board. It raised eyebrows and the … queers and feminists fought back successfully.) We have the Women’s Charter which legally binds a husband to pay alimony (albeit a token sum) to his wife even if she has been proven to be in an adulterous relationship. All male citizens are conscripted (which contributed in some ways to emasculation). Women who are on military scholarships are celebrated and honoured at every available opportunity in the media and public space.

    What’s stopping the Government and society from turning fully liberal is the presence of Muslims among the local populace and Islamic nations in our region (Southeast Asia).

  135. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    Once again, Xanthippe has managed to impress Brother Boxer with her immeasurable skill. She is a true artisan of subtle dishonesty. My hat is off to a master troll.

    She’s quite good at it.

    One thing I’ve noticed is the “hit and run” tactic – if she senses that someone knows more than her about a topic (which is typically the case), she disappears (a bit like BlueEyedLady). Either that, or she sticks with rhetoric. Dialectic doesn’t work with her. Another user, LaSainte, was just like Xanthippe. Interestingly, some of those types talk about having three, four, and even five degrees.

  136. Feminist Hater says:

    tommono. You’ve had a year to decide if you can be married and have a Biblical marriage with this woman. Ask her a straight up question of whether she can submit to you or not. Furthermore, I don’t think you really care for her and she doesn’t really care for you. In my opinion, a disaster waiting to happen.

  137. Feminist Hater says:

    I love those Cafe Catholic Churchian forum threads, they’re a gold mine of defiance, loose spirituality, inability to keep vows and amazing hamsterlations fit for kings!

  138. Feminist Hater says:

    Funny that the women who comment most over at Catholic forums over ideas of Christian marriage are not Christian at all. Talk about letting the enemy through the gates. I’m amazed that BlueEyedLady and Xanthippe haven’t been sent packing for their obvious non-biblical stances and ability to undermine marriages with their musings.

  139. Opus says:

    @tommono

    When in doubt, don’t.

  140. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus & Feminist Hater:

    One thing I’ve noticed is the “hit and run” tactic – if she senses that someone knows more than her about a topic (which is typically the case), she disappears (a bit like BlueEyedLady). Either that, or she sticks with rhetoric. Dialectic doesn’t work with her. Another user, LaSainte, was just like Xanthippe. Interestingly, some of those types talk about having three, four, and even five degrees.

    If your contention is that X is a career academic, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. The sort of sophistry that she’s adept at is a necessary skill in that environment. Even so, she’s better at it than most others.

    Funny that the women who comment most over at Catholic forums over ideas of Christian marriage are not Christian at all. Talk about letting the enemy through the gates. I’m amazed that BlueEyedLady and Xanthippe haven’t been sent packing for their obvious non-biblical stances and ability to undermine marriages with their musings.

    That’s a good catch. BEL and X can (too often to be coincidental) be found tag-teaming people. I passed over BEL’s nonsense on page 2, but it’s illustrative of the way that those two often work together in a “good-cop, bad-cop” sort of way to spread their memes while ambiguating the intentions behind them.

    X: “Here’s an article about a woman who had an abortion, let’s be sympathetic to her plight.”

    Random Commenter: “Oh abortion is terrible!”

    X: “Yes I know, but she was talking about a specific time in her life… let’s feel sorry for her even if we must condemn the act in general.”

    BEL: “Some people have no sympathy at all! Random Commenter needs to be more circumspect!”

    etc.

    Boxer

  141. Avraham rosenblum says:

    tommono: My experience is things are better when the rules are known. That was workable and in fat great until religious people started sticking their noses into our businesses.

  142. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Tommono:
    I mean to say marriage in the context of a the Law of Moses is usually pretty good. Everyone knows what to expect and what their obligations are. Everything is either already spelled out in excruciating detail or else discussed before hand and accepted by all parties.

    What makes this work is not the society they live in, but the fact that both parties are loyal to the Law of Moses and want to keep it to the ultimate extent of their abilities.

    This work perfectly well unless neighbors or insane religious leaders begin to stick their noses into where they are not wanted. And the trouble is almost all religious leader are insane. It is the particular Achilles heel of the religious world. It comes from a curse of Jeremiah the prophet. When the people did not listen to ירמיהו [Jeremiah] and other true prophets God gave a curse that he would send evil leaders and to them we would listen.

  143. Opus says:

    I never quite understand (per choking on red pills) why it is asserted that Britain operates as a Democracy. The British do not get to choose anything of importance – neither their Head of State, their Prime Minister, their Judiciary or any aspect of Government policy. The sleight of hand that enables people to imagine that they are living in a democracy and that democracy is a good thing is a General Election every four or five years but all that is then chosen is a representative for the Borough in one of the two Houses of Parliament, and that representative is then free to do what ever he or she wishes (there has never been any law against a woman being such a representative). The electorate has (with frequently bad consequences) been enlarged over the past two centuries commencing with the Great Reform Act of 1832 (overseen by-the-way by Bertrand Russell’s grandfather, then Prime Minister – Lord John Russell) but the system remains essentially what it was before the Norman Invasion of 1066. There are also for completeness Local elections where by the way Women have always had a right to vote.

    The only Democratic action ever offered the British was Brexit earlier this year. Look at what a cat-amongst-pigeons that turned out to be so I don’t think that experiment will be tried again – you simply cannot have the electorate dictating Government Policy and I say that as someone who much approves of the result. Democracy is not by-the-way a synonym for freedom and as we can see from documents of the thirteenth and fourteenth century the English always asserted that they were and saw themselves as free – presumably unlike those who lived on the other side of the channel. As Exhibit A in why voting is irrelevant I offer the views of so many British people as to the outcome of your forthcoming Presidential elections where of course they do not have a vote but are sufficiently partisan one might otherwise suspect that they did. There was never a democratic revolution in America; the electorate expanded by reason of a rise in rateable values and the increasing number of men holding such land.

  144. Chris says:

    “Funny that the women who comment most over at Catholic forums over ideas of Christian marriage are not Christian at all.”

    Catholics in general are of the “Cafeteria Christian” variety. “I will solemnly say to them, ‘I never knew you.'”

  145. feeriker says:

    Opus says:

    Democracy is not by-the-way a synonym for freedom

    I continue to marvel at the fact that this obvious truism is beyond the common (?)-sense grasp of the average citizen of any of the world’s “free” (i.e., nominally republican oligarchies disguised as “democratic”) nations. “Democracy” is Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a system in which a 51 percent majority of “the People”[TM] can prey upon the minority 49 percent – ’cause “majority rules!” How “majority rule” and “freedom” (for the individual) can be reconciled with each other is something that no one has apparently felt interested in exploring. But then again, since “the majority” does not, in reality, determine anything, in any nation anywhere on earth, it’s a moot point.

    The British do not get to choose anything of importance – neither their Head of State, their Prime Minister, their Judiciary or any aspect of Government policy. The sleight of hand that enables people to imagine that they are living in a democracy and that democracy is a good thing is a General Election every four or five years …

    Britain is no different in this regard than any other “democracy” on earth. Most certainly the “Beacon on the Hill” is no exception.

    “A man is no less a slave because he gets to choose a new master every term of years.”.
    ~ Lysander Spooner.

  146. Verne says:

    @tommono

    She sounds like a strong very intelligent mans wife maybe a wonderful one at that.
    But the fact that she is stronger and smarter than you, sort of kills it. A wife need so have respect for her husband.
    My wife was aggressive and sharp, she tested me almost daily. It was a good marriage, but I am a stubborn man and thrived on mild conflict. You do not sound like that sort of a man. It would be a shame to get rid of the woman you are describing. She sounds rare. But she may not be for you. The more you end up under her thumb, the less she will respect you and the more she will put you under her thumb.

    If you can not assert your authority to her without constant arguing. If she does not show some respect. It would be a marriage made in hell. A woman need not be a mouse, to show respect. Standing up ,speaking her mind then dropping it, is fine. But if she keeps coming back repeatably she has no respect for you, move on. Even if she is a good woman, you may not be her man.
    .
    If she already owns you, You just cant bring yourself to leave her, then try to be a stronger man, but never be a louder man. Don’t fight, calmly state your case and drop it. Demand that she also drops it, when your mind is made up. Do not let her use her faster verbal skills on you. If she can not live with that, then she will leave you. And that is a good thing if she does.

  147. BillyS says:

    He suggested looking into adoption

    I have read stories that adoption can work well, but it was definitely not our experience. I am now nearing retirement age with no strong family below me and only 1 son who has more loyalty to his birth family (and birth father) than me.

    I post this as a warning to anyone who sees adoption as a simple solution.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    tommono
    To be honest she’s right to feel that I don’t care much with her. The main thing I expect from her is contention and no matter how good of a time we’re having flirting, I’m looking out for it. I’m a fairly civil guy but I’ve developed a quick temper for what I perceive as disrespect.

    By expecting contention, you are hypersensitising yourself to it, and you are communicating without words (subcommunication) that expectation. This is an issue that you need to work on regardless of whether you marry this woman or not.

    Have you spent much time around dogs? Dogs are simpler creatures that people, and they react very well to subcommunications; your tone of voice, posture, gestures, even your scent all are subcommunicating to the animal. This is why dealing with a strange dog or your own dog from a fearful or even tentative mindset can produce poor behavior, the dog picks up on the fact that your words and your subcommunications are not in sync with each other, not congruent. But if you approach a dog with confidence, expecting certain behavior and completely self assured that you are both able and willing to deal with any misbehavior, said dog generally will comply a lot sooner. Ther emight not vbe any misbehavior at all, because of a solid frame of mind on your part.

    Did I just compare women to dogs? Yeah, but women are more complicated and interesting.

    Question:
    Do you truly believe, in your heart, that you both can and should be the leader, the head of this woman? That could well be the issue, because while every man has doubts, if they get too near the surface of his thinking then his demeanor becomes tentative, and that leads to doubts on her part.

    At some level you are perhaps afraid of her, or intimidated by her, and this leaks into your thinking as well as your demanor. Resutling in unsureness on her part, leading to more fitness testing. You need to hone your comfidence in swatting fitness tests away starting, hmm, about now. On average women are more verbally facile than men, do not try to out-argue her especially when she gets into “verbal torrent” mode, i.e. nonstop talking. That’s the time to slooooow dooooown and both choose your words carefully and speak them slowly, distinctly and with a deeper vocal timbre. Don’t compete with her verbal ability at all. Use silence to your advantage, too.

    I’ll leave the theology / Bible study to others, but will point out just because she’s been Christian longer than you have it reallly doesn’t give her any authority over you. In fact there are passages that explicitly tell wives to submit to men who aren’t Christian at all, to win said man over with her behavior.

    Again, this kind of issue is not going away, you’ll have to learn how to deal with this sometime, if not with this woman than with another. It is a good idea for you to marry at your age. Have you read Dalrock’s articles on vetting women for marriage? It would be worth your while to do so.

    Write back. Other men will answer.

  149. BillyS says:

    Tommono,

    Your girlfriend sounds a lot like my wife. She is very submissive in many ways, but certainly pushes a lot more than I would prefer. We are almost at the 30 year mark, so I would tell you it does not change.

    We do not date nearly that long and I would tell you to either wed or break it off soon since I see no merit in long term dating like that.

    I would not expect her to magically cease to push against you in marriage. I would bet that all US women today have picked up some of the culture and may not even realize it. My wife is much better than others, but I can still not expect perfection from her.

    I am not sure the exact answer. I know my life would have been much poorer without her, but many things would cause me not to take the same path had I known what I know now.

    Also waiting means she is getting older and having children becomes harder the older you get. Delays are not helpful there.

    No easy answers. Your girlfriend might be the best you can get, as I am not convinced many or even any better choices exist, but it is likely to be a bumpy ride no matter what. I would bet that any others here who have been married a long time would have similar messages, though perhaps a few really have avoided that.

    I believe Dalrock did a post on picking the right wife a while back.

  150. Bodichi says:

    @tommono

    Anonymous Reader’s advice was just about perfect. Here is a mere supplementary piece to it. You have to know, on a subconscious level, that if she broke it off you would be fine. Completely fine. If you don’t know this, down in your bones, she will chew you up and spit you out. As AR said women can sense your feelings and emotions. You cannot hide them with anger. She can tell you are covering your fear of loosing her.

    The bottom line is this. LDR’s generally don’t work. If you think shes smarter than you, its generally not going to work. If she really is smarter than you it probably isn’t going to work. If you are getting shit tested this hard before marriage its only going to increase. If there is a doubt, there isn’t a doubt.

    If you can’t walk away from her, you MUST walk away from her.

  151. Lyn87 says:

    Tommono,

    Far be it from me to tell someone what to do in the absence of a Biblical mandate, but I can offer some insight after nearly three decades of no-conflict marriage. I typed out a lengthy response that keeps being eaten by the cyber-gremlins before it shows up (I assume it’s a formatting thing), so I’ll give you the VERY redacted version:

    She doesn’t respect you. That’s a VERY big red flag. Now go read Dalrock’s article Threatpoint before you decide if/how to proceed.

  152. Dalrock says:

    Welcome Tommono,

    You already have some good replies upthread, but I wanted to chime in as well.

    We end up arguing most days we’re together, (LDR so we spend weekends together) and a lot of the time we just don’t get along. I think the problem is that despite the fact that she strongly believes in submission and doing what I say, she hasn’t got the “gentle and quiet spirit” that is actually good for the situation. She’s a smarter or at least more verbose and quicker than me. She has also been a Christian for much longer and is more devout. She’s an absolute bloodhound for awkwardness and indecision and can read me with a degree of accuracy that can be startling. In effect, she is non-feminist in doctrine and behavior but can’t really bring herself to respect me enough to like it. I can tell that if we were married, being able to have sex and dominate her in that way would help, but I don’t think it would alter the fundamentals of the situation.
    Right now I’m dealing with a foretaste of the “constant dripping of steady rain” that living with a “contentious woman” would be like. I can definitely see how it would be preferable to live on the “corner of a roof” than deal with that for the rest of my days.

    What I would ask is not only why do you want to marry her?, but why you even hang out with her when she is unpleasant? I ask this even though I am fairly certain I already know the answer. I strongly suspect (because this is extremely common) the reason is:

    1) You feel like you have an obligation to be around her when she is contentious because you are in a relationship*.
    2) You believe that if you were to break off the relationship with her that you wouldn’t be able to attract a woman as attractive as she is.

    Ironically, if 1&2 weren’t the case, if she didn’t sense that you feel this way on both counts, she would be far less inclined to test you. This isn’t to say her being bitchy is understandable, as this is entirely on her. She could and should resist the temptation, but the temptation to be contentious is greater because in your gut you believe both 1 & 2 are correct.

    Moreover, she no doubt shares this belief on both counts. There is a paradox here because if she really could do better, if there were real men who are a better “catch” than you who not only exist but are interested in committing to her, she would be with him and not with you. The problem is, while women are experts at qualifying the men around them for their attractiveness as mating/dating/marriage partners and not held back by sentimentality when it comes to pursuing the best option, they are terrible at recognizing that a better option won’t magically appear.

    Put in ruthless simplicity, she treats you like crap because deep down, both of you believe she could do better. I can explain logically why this isn’t the case, but I’m not sure which of the two of you will be harder to get to truly accept and internalize the truth.

    Realistically, I’m very unlikely to be able to convince either of you at an emotional level, even though logically it is as clear as it could be. If I could convince you that you don’t have an obligation to stick around when she acts like a bitch, it wouldn’t matter that I can’t convince her because you wouldn’t do so. She either would choose to become sweet because she wanted you around, or one or both of you would realize that you just aren’t a good match. If I could go back in time and convince you of this a year ago, she would either be a dating memory or would be treating you much, better. If she was just a memory, the qualities you possess that caused her to select you as her best marriage/relationship option would have attracted another woman roughly as attractive as your fiancée. Actually, since this change of frame on your part is foundational “game”, you would almost certainly have attracted an even more attractive woman, who would also be treating you well.

    She says that she doesn’t feel cared about, which is potentially true because of how mad I get at her. Startlingly, this might actually be the true source of the difficulty and not just mad hamstering. It’s not a straight out ‘tingles’ issue because I can tell that she finds me sexually attractive but it’s probably something similar.

    This is almost certainly about a lack of attraction. Women perceive missing/weakened attraction towards their mate as feeling unloved by their mate. Our culture (especially modern Christian culture), then locks us into a loop guaranteed to make it all worse.

    There’s something to be said for just going for it and getting married and she’s too much of a fanatic to divorce me so we’d probably get through our issues but I’m not sure if the game is worth the candle at this point.

    If you were already married, I would say you are very much on to something here. The permanence of marriage has a way of eventually sorting out seemingly intractable problems. The problem is, you aren’t even married yet and you are dealing with something that will only get worse post marriage. You think she’s contentious now, try giving her a hostage or two that she can rip away on a whim, with the state forcing you to generously reward her should she decide to nuke your most valuable possession (your family). Right now she has no leverage on you, and you can’t stand up to her as it is. Dramatically raising the stakes won’t make this easier. Eventually she would hopefully realize that she lucked out when she married you. But in years/decades until then, the culture/media/church will be whispering in her ear what she is already tempted to believe, that you somehow trapped/tricked her into marriage. And even worse, at some level (the part that drives your decisions) you will agree with her, because if you didn’t believe it you wouldn’t be trying to marry a woman you don’t enjoy being around.

    *See punishing with her presence for an explanation of the female mindset here.

  153. Gunner Q says:

    And my two cents, Tommono, a long-distance relationship means you are only seeing her at her best behavior… and you don’t like her at her best. I think you’re asking us for permission to break off with her and you have it. (1 Cor. 7:37-38) Just make it brief. “It’s been a year, we keep arguing, I can do better than you.” Be selfish here; marriage is YOUR decision and nobody else’s.

    Find a local girl you can incorporate into your daily routine. If there are no suitable local girls and you end up alone, that’s no bad thing these days. Scarcity mentality is a man-killer.

    “I can definitely see how it would be preferable to live on the “corner of a roof” than deal with that for the rest of my days.”

    Dude, listen to yourself.

    “Did I just compare women to dogs? Yeah, but women are more complicated and interesting.”

    There are excellent reasons why Man’s Best Friend is not a woman. Exhibit A: obedience school. Exhibit B: open displays of affection.

  154. Lyn87 says:

    Tommono,

    One more thing from my long explanation that disappeared into the aether:

    A wife is subordinate to her husband in the same way that a soldier is subordinate to his OIC (Officer In Charge). When I was an OIC I solicited input from my subordinates and tasked them to tell me if they thought I was about to do something stupid, but at no point did they argue with me, even if they thought I was wrong at the time. Subordinates don’t argue with their superiors. If they do, it’s because there’s a lack of respect. “Husband” is a rank just as real as “Lieutenant Colonel” is, and your potential wife is already showing a severe lack of willingness to follow your lead NOW by her being contentious.

    You noted that she’s a long-time Christian and is “devout,” but there are a lot of women who say all the right things about wifely submission, but their walk frequently does not match their talk.

    Bottom line: a person who argues with you all the time doesn’t respect your right to lead.

  155. Isa says:

    So, “LDR so we spend weekends together?” Strong guess this means fornication, or if you are staying in the same place, that she isn’t sexually attracted to you. Those are the only two options I see. No woman of “strong” faith would be shacking up with some guy she met a year ago without a ring.

    Also, if she is getting it reguarly and is still unpleasant? Won’t improve with time. Trust me on that.

  156. The idea that boys need to learn “nurturing” from playing with dolls as a young boy is a red herring.

    I’ve never seen a father with his new baby that can be considered anything but “nurturing.” I’ve never actually seen a father interacting with his young child that has been anything but ridiculous “doting.”

    Data may not be the plural of anecdote, but I am positive that my experiences – along with the experiences of virtually even man I know – is near universal, at least for my specific subset of humanity (which would seem to include the woman in question.)

    So, clearly, there is some other agenda here.

    Whoever mentioned above that the real target market here is feminist mothers is likely completely correct. This is nothing more than a commercial aimed at mothers who dropped out of a “career” to raise children and need some sort of way to socially signal they are still “feminist.”

    That is all this is, nothing more – it’s a marketing gimmick and liberal SWPL status signaling. To read anything more into it is to give it more importance than it deserves.

  157. Anon says:

    Tommono,

    You have received some of the most valuable advice you will get anywhere, from the other commenters here. Some additional points :

    You said :
    However, I have some reservations. We end up arguing most days we’re together,

    If this is happening even before marriage, at your age, you almost certainly should not get married to this woman.

    There’s something to be said for just going for it and getting married and she’s too much of a fanatic to divorce me so we’d probably get through our issues but I’m not sure if the game is worth the candle at this point.

    So you really want to live your life under threatpoint?

    Plus, you said that you have been celibate for a year of dating. While you may think that is traditional, the ‘courtship’ period in the old days was weeks, not years. There was no historical period where a year or more of celibacy was normal.

    I remind you that at your ages, you are over a decade before your peak attractiveness, while she is already at her peak and will only go downhill from here. This means you are, indeed, giving up more.

    Lastly, your position is what a man would say from a position of scarcity. Since it is not cheating to verbally speak to other women, try to do 100 daytime approaches. Just chat up women that you find attractive. You don’t have to go on a date with any of them, but at least gain this skill so you get a better idea of how to increase your market value, so that you have more balls with which to decide to leave your girlfriend. This is NOT cheating, and I can say with some certainty that your girlfriend certainly does the equivalent with other men when you are not around…

    Your dealings with her, more than anything else, has to be from a position of greater choice on your end. From there, unless she improves her treatment of you greatly, and you have reason to believe this change is permanent, you have no obligation to marry her. End the relationship and find someone better (which is much easier once you become adept at the daytime approach practice described above).

  158. MarcusD says:

    What do you personally consider to be feminine and masculine qualities?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1025029

  159. Opus says:

    Long Distance Relationships are problematic: I speak as one who has obtained the Olympic Qualifying Standard therein. I tend however to be of the view that courtship needs not merely to be just that but also to be swift. If things drift, then one is moving into that dreadful Victorian invention the Boy/Girl friend, and in Tommono’s case that seems to have all the disadvantages of celibacy as well as the responsibilities of marriage in his case the tolerating of a bad-tempered woman. As Miss Manners once wrote – and it must have struck a chord with me to remember it: a man owes no responsibility for a woman unless and until he is married; being a boyfriend is thus marriage-lite, and largely of far greater benefit to a woman than to a man.

  160. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    In the top right corner of the web-page at the hyperlink provided by MarcusD, immediately above this present comment, there is (perhaps unsurprisingly given the web-page MarcusD is citing) an image-hyperlink to http://www.catholicsingles.com, which is a dating website for “single Catholics” (duh).

    I mean this image here.

    Every now and then, for our edification and entertainment, MarcusD posts hyperlinks to some ridiculous rubbish in “Catholic Forums”, and every now and then I click on them, and once there, somewhere in the margin where the web-ads are, I always see some version of that particular image, ─ and every time, it always bugs the hell out of me.

    It’s supposed to be oh-so-sexy, while also at the same time being oh-so-Christian (because, plainly, they’re just-marrieds), and yet — and I bring this up here for your observations and opinions, gentlemen — the body-language strikes me as being just “off” enough to be deeply creepy.

    It looks to me not so much like the “newlyweds” are kissing, or that he is kissing her, as that she is kissing him, and that in doing so she is (i.e., judging from their respective postures) literally “dragging him down”.

    And, what man doesn’t want to have his life dragged down, by some woman who has harpooned him? [</sarc>]

    Anyway, based solely on the visuals here, the marketing message seems to be: men, come to the “Catholic Singles” dating website, where you will find plenty of women who will drag you down (mind you, oh-so-sexily, but drag you down nevertheless). I take that as a serious marketing fail.

    Unless Blue-pill glasses make any typical man visiting that dating website — or, seeing its advertising visuals — blind to all that, which I suppose given the current state of the culture, must usually be the case. Maybe.

    Alternately, that particular advertising image is targetting Da Wimminz only, in which case perhaps it isn’t a marketing fail (“Finally, thanks to “Catholic Singles Dot Con”, she’s caught her a man! See her body language? We tell no lie!”), but even then, “Here at Catholic Singles, ladies, you’ll finally have a decent crack at dragging a man kicking and screaming into matrimonial bliss!” doesn’t strike me as being the ideal (subliminal) marketing message a dating website may wish to project into the subconscious minds of its prospective [female or male] customers.

    Comments? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris? Anyone?

  161. Otto Lamp says:

    I recall being in a waiting room 20 years ago reading a magazine article titled along the lines of “Why Are Our Sons Growing Up Gay?”

    It was about moms that had done all the “right” (meaning left-wing) things in raising their sons. They had prohibited them from paying with toy guns, violent toys, roughhousing, or participating in competitive sports. Rather, they had forced them to participate in “positive” (meaning female oriented) activities growing up.

    The moms were disappointed that their sons had grown up to be gay. They thought they were producing compassionate, Alan Alda type men, not gay men. The reason was obvious to anyone with eyes. When you raise a boy to despise the things boys like and instead prefer the things girls like, when he becomes an adult he will despise the things men like (women) and prefer the things women like (men).

    Of course, this article couldn’t be published today, as it would be politically incorrect for any mother to declare she was disappointed that her son was gay. She instead must celebrate the fact that she will have no grandchildren.

    The woman who is the subject of this article can’t see the long term picture. She thinks she will produce “kinder, gentler” men. Instead, she will produce men who are mentally damaged from years of denying & suppressing their innate (male) psychology.

  162. Original Laura says:

    Tommano: I would like to add something from a woman’s point of view to all of the advice that you have gotten from the men. There will be a temptation here for you to keep things going as they are out of fear that you will be alone and lonely if you break up with your girlfriend, and out of the hope that the relationship will “turn a corner” and improve if a wedding date is set, etc. But a woman’s time frame is not a man’s. You have plenty of years left to find a wife, while your girlfriend needs to be looking diligently for a husband at this point in her life. (IIRC both of you are about 24 years old.) Letting a dysfunctional relationship drag on interminably is unfair to her.

    As others have pointed out, your girlfriend wouldn’t be so cantankerous with you if she had deep love and respect for you. The behavior that you are experiencing now is the best you will ever get from her, and the behavior is bad enough to cause you very significant distress.

    Break things off as soon as possible by telling her that she has a lot of great qualities, but that the two of you seem to be bringing out the worst in each other. Then say something conciliatory about long distance relationships causing difficulties not otherwise encountered. Do not have this conversation in a public place where she will feel publicly humiliated in any way, and try to avoid breaking up with her in a way that causes embarrassment for her. IOW if you agreed to be her escort to her favorite cousin’s wedding, and that date is a week away, then wait until that social obligation is fulfilled.

    This is the kindest way to handle things. She does not meet your expectations, and you need to move on, but she does apparently have some excellent qualities and may very well be quite capable of being a good wife to someone else, so set her free so that she can start looking for someone else.

    If your girlfriend has the ability to reflect on her past behavior and learn from her mistakes, she will form the correct opinion that if she had treated you better you might have asked to marry her, and that the marriage could have been a good one. This should cause her to handle herself better with a future boyfriend. It’s very possible that she has initiated the break-up in all of her prior dating, so being the one rejected this time around may do her a world of good in the long run. In some ways, your situation parallels the situation of men who say that they are “stuck in the friend zone” with a girl that they really like. Once you are in the friend zone, it is hard to change the dynamics of the relationship, and the same is true here. Your girlfriend has formed a pattern with you of treating you badly, and there is probably no way of trying to fix that pattern now that it has been formed that doesn’t make you look like a wuss for having put up with it this long. You are just going to have to chalk this up to experience, and trust that it will be a learning experience for your soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend as well.

    There are five major components to personality: Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness to New Experience, and Extroversion vs. Introversion. Women who are highly “Agreeable” have been shown to have far lower divorce rates than other women. The woman you are currently dating is obviously not very “Agreeable” at all. Please don’t try to convince yourself that this can work.

  163. feeriker says:

    The woman who is the subject of this article can’t see the long term picture.

    How many women do you know who can?

  164. Lyn87 says:

    @ Original Laura,

    I buddy of mine was in an on-again/off-again relationship with a woman for NINE YEARS. She treated him like crap, but he’s an otherwise-alpha guy who can play women like a drum set. I’ve seen him in action with women and he’s a total natural, but for some reason she had her hooks in him deep… he was an anomaly: an alpha stud with oneitis. Whenever they would be “on a break” (because she kicked him to the curb), he could – and did – sleep with a large number of attractive and much younger women (I saw their pictures and their Facebook messages to him, and even met one of them). But eventually she would snap her fingers and he’d run right back to her.

    Here’s the thing: she’s no great catch. She’s reasonably attractive and her family is filthy rich, but they all live in a very class-based Middle-Eastern country where the social dynamic is quite a bit different, and she’s a divorcee with a kid (that’s a HUGE hit to her MMV in that social echelon). Essentially, she’s not in contention for a top guy from her country because of her personal situation, while her family’s social status makes it unthinkable for her to marry a man from a lower “caste” who has comparable MMV. She wouldn’t even consider such a match anyway; being a product of her environment. She found the sweet spot with my friend, because he’s American and for various reasons that match would have been acceptable at both the personal and family levels. But guys like him are as rare as hen’s teeth over there, and he was BY FAR the best she could ever do.

    Anyway, she was a total bitch to him much of the time, and after their last break-up (when he was going to her country to propose… again, and she sent him away… again), a couple of us staged a bit of an intervention. He ended up re-connecting with another girl he knew from the same country (he’s really enamored of the girls from there), and they’re now engaged and back in the U.S.. The new girl is younger, prettier, from a better family, is neither a divorcee nor a single mother, doesn’t act like a spoiled drama queen… and treats him with great respect.

    She tried to crack the whip and demanded that he apologize to her when he stated to show real interest in the other girl, but it was too late: he told her that he was sick of the way she had constantly disrespected him for nine years while demanding everything and giving nothing, and he was now happy to be with a woman who treated him well.

    THAT was the catalyst that F-I-N-A-L-L-Y made The Bitch grovel… and grovel she did. Long apologies… sappy videos… the works. With her spell broken, my buddy entered the “anger” phase, and he showed us her attempts to reel him back in. I couldn’t stand her, and even I felt embarrassment at the way she abased herself (but not too embarrassed to laugh). At that point she realized that she had overplayed her hand and lost badly. She had driven her last, best chance at a good marriage into the arms of a woman who is superior to her in every way. To add icing to the cake, she and her family know the new girl and her family (the upper classes in ME countries can be insular that way), and her family members LOVE my friend and think she’s an idiot for treating him poorly and driving him away. It’s hard for Westerners to understand just how screwed she is now: she’s pretty much doomed to a life of single motherhood that her social peers will regard with pity. Her life will be a cautionary tale for younger women in that group. She’ll do it in comfort, but she’ll do it alone.

  165. Anonymous Reader says:

    Original Laura
    If your girlfriend has the ability to reflect on her past behavior and learn from her mistakes

    Then she’d be a man. Or a unicorn.

  166. feeriker says:

    Lyn87 says:
    September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    My hat is off to your friend for finally regaining his senses. A VERY brave man, by the way, for fishing in the waters he fished in. VERY dangerous! (I’m assuming from your description that both women are probably from Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, or perhaps Levantine Armenian Christian families. I’m thoroughly familiar with these communities). I do hope he appreciates –well, I have to assume that after all those years he DOES clearly understand and appreciate– the cultural dynamics of what he is marrying into. His ex was indeed a 24-karat moronette for treating him the way she did, and probably had serious issues that ran even deeper than what he saw on the surface (divorce is quite rare in that culture; if he was really familiar with it, should have sent up up a bright red flag with a HAZMAT symbol on it that something was VERY wrong with her. Her ex-husband obviously saw it!).

    Your assessment at the end is correct; she will never know another man again as a husband, unless she “lucks out” [*smirk*] and lands a wealthy, decrepit old widower three times her age, which is usually the fate that befalls such women in that culture. A man her own age or younger? Not a chance.

  167. feeriker says:

    If your girlfriend has the ability to reflect on her past behavior and learn from her mistakes

    Then she’d be a man. Or a unicorn.

    GOLD!

  168. Original Laura says:

    @Lyn87

    Decade-long situations like the one that you described don’t happen too often, but they do occur. Manipulation by one party always seems to be a major element.

    My (male) cousin’s best friend was Jewish. At the age of 18 the Jewish friend met his soulmate, but they were “too young” to get married and his parents did not want him to date a non-Jew (she was Christian.) He kept assuring her that his parents would eventually agree to the marriage, and this went on all through college and graduate school and beyond. Finally, when both were 28 she gave him a deadline, which he blew. She broke off with him, refused to take his phone calls, and started dating other guys, and it ended up that they both married other people. I always wondered whether either marriage was happy, but both marriages produced children.

    If you date somebody steadily for a year or more and you still aren’t “ready” to get married, either there is a lack of love or a lack of trust, or both.

  169. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    To everyone in this thread who gave advice to “Tommano”: thank you all. This stuff is all superb.

    There are some “rather young men” in my family, whom I shall oblige to read it all (once they are old enough for it to be relevant in their lives).

    Pax Christus Vobiscum. (ツ)

  170. DeNihilist says:

    Tommano, I only agree with one of O Laura’s suggestions, break it off in private.

    Otherwise no, do not lie about why you are dropping her. She needs to know that her attitude is a real concdern. “the truth shall set you free”

    One other thing, give her a kitten this last time you see her. Not only is it a symbol of what she should expect if she doesn’t smarten up, but it also gives her emotions something positive to dwell on, and usually, I have found, you can leave the scene of the break up with very little drama.

    Slam her, she deserves it.

  171. Boxer says:

    Ah Lyn87, writing these feelgood romantic shorts that we all know and love…

    Like Yac-Yac, I’m also grateful to all you respondents. I don’t know how I feel about every piece of advice. Getting some unstable woman a kitten for a parting gift doesn’t seem charitable to our fuzzy friend, but mostly it’s been pro-click and solid masculinity. Good stuff for the young brothers to ponder.

  172. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Tommono, regarding your girlfriend being “smarter” than you … modern people make too much of intelligence and “smarts.” Especially liberals, feminists, and modern Jews and Asians. They idolize Harvard and other elite schools. Feminists are always calling their female heroines “scary smart” and “whip smart” and “crazy smart” etc., as if supreme “smartness” is the highest compliment one can offer. That men should love women based on how many degrees they have, from how elite a school.

    But smartness is just another skill. Important but not determinative of a person’s value or even overall abilities. I don’t recall the Bible over-emphasizing any hero’s smartness or intelligence.

    Moses’ distinguishing characteristics were his meekness, humility, and that he spoke directly to God. Numbers 12:3: Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth..

    Solomon was wise, but wisdom’s key attribute is fear of the Lord, which means being humble and submissive before God. Smart people are not necessarily wise.

    Smartness is a skill. If a wife is smart, it’s a skill she brings to her husband, for him to make use of as he sees fit. To consider her counsel, among other factors, before making his decision.

    Unfortunately, many modern women think they’re all crazy, scary, super smart (even when they’re less than bright) and that it entitles them to lead. If your girlfriend thinks her superior intellect makes you unfit to lead her, that would be a problem.

  173. Opus says:

    There is unfortunately no easy or pleasant way to break off communications with someone that one has been dating. I have done it in different ways but the result is always the same, considerable sadness on the part of the woman and recurring doubt after a while on my part as to whether I could have done it differently – or should have done it at all. Heartiste thinks one should disappear without explanation and allow her Hamster to fill in the blanks – she will, of course do so, and she will get it wrong. In a sense explaining why you are dropping a woman hurts her twice, once by reason of your action and once by reason of your words – which add insult to injury. I agree with Heartiste. If you take Heartiste’s advice you will probably receive a letter from your ex-girlfriend; should you do so do not attempt any form of reply.

  174. tommono says:

    I’m overcome by all of these generous replies. It’s painful that the consensus is that I am being pretty foolish but I basically agree with you all. I’ve taken some time off with her to get my head straight. Please bear with me and be patient with me. I’m in the position where if I leave her it will be like I failed and wasted everybody’s time AND rejected a potential gem. If I stay and try more, I’ll feel like I’m wasting everybody’s time and putting up with slights that I shouldn’t have to bear. My natural inclination is to prefer the second because at least that way I can work on things. My first post probably made me sound better than I am and her like more of a harpy. I was not in a good mood.
    To be clear, there has been 0 fornication between us but we make out very heavily when we are with each other. I also do not fear the threatpoint, whatsoever. Throughout our relationship, it has always been me threatening to leave and actually leaving. Over and over, she has begged me not to leave her and gone far out of her way to keep me from writing her off. It’s possible that if we were married, it would be the other way around. I just doubt it.
    @Avraham Rosenblum
    No religious leaders involved, thankfully.
    @Verne
    “She sounds rare. But she may not be for you. The more you end up under her thumb, the less she will respect you and the more she will put you under her thumb.”
    Very true words.
    @Anonymous Reader
    “Do you truly believe, in your heart, that you both can and should be the leader, the head of this woman? That could well be the issue, because while every man has doubts, if they get too near the surface of his thinking then his demeanor becomes tentative, and that leads to doubts on her part.
    At some level you are perhaps afraid of her, or intimidated by her, and this leaks into your thinking as well as your demeanor.”
    Yeah this is the case. I know pretty well by now that I should be the leader and that anything else will be hopelessly awful. I just don’t feel in my heart that I’m up for it a lot of the time. I’ve failed enough, and seen enough that I can’t trust in my composure (subcommunications) through questioning. The “verbal torrent” mode of communication is a favorite of hers and a lot she won’t stop until I stop her. Sometimes, she takes it as a personal offense and a mark that I’m not listening when I don’t stop her! Annoying! The idea of slowing down and projecting strength and sureness in that way sounds like it could be very valuable. I’ve got a cowardly subconscious tactic of aping the mannerisms of whoever I’m around. Often, I’m drawn into the rhythm and anxiety of her verbal style which hurts my ability to think and convey my thoughts effectively. On theology: I have the (provisional as we’re not married) authority over her, but since I care for the truth of what is right to do I listen to her viewpoint. I’ve found that she’s right a lot, unfortunately. That’s all I meant by her having been a Christian longer than me.
    “Again, this kind of issue is not going away, you’ll have to learn how to deal with this sometime, if not with this woman than with another. It is a good idea for you to marry at your age. Have you read Dalrock’s articles on vetting women for marriage? It would be worth your while to do so.”
    I assume that you are referring to “Interviewing a Prospective Wife” parts I and II when you say vetting women for marriage. I am confident that she’s not a feminist and would take it very seriously. It is worrying that her natural, feminine weakness detection circuits flare up in my presence but like you said I’ll have to figure it out eventually.
    @BillyS
    Yeah I don’t really expect that she would cease to push against me even in the best case scenario. I can envision a situation where I handled it better and she learned to be more respectful though. Waiting definitely isn’t a good answer I agree.
    @Bodichi
    I would be pretty lonely if we weren’t together but it’s always me who is one contemplating leaving and giving up in my heart. She has said to me many times, (in contentious mode), something along the lines of: “I feel like if I just walked out the door right now you wouldn’t come after me or even give a crap.” She was right!
    @Dalrock
    I think about marrying her because because I hope for things to be ok. There aren’t a lot of attractive options around and I’m not allowed to be promiscuous. When she isn’t being unpleasant, I find her to be very interesting, cute, and loving. It would be a good relationship if I could bear up a little better under the stress, projecting strength, not getting mad, and not getting caught up in word games, and if she could get over this desire to lash out at me and fitness test me so much. This is certainly a scarcity mindset but what am I going to do about the state of the world? If I was a DJ or the proverbial rockbanddrummer looking to rack up notches then the abundance mindset would be helpful and certainly warranted. In the situation where feminism has completely infiltrated everybody’s minds and the churches, IDK what to do to rationally have an abundance mindset. I went to a sermon last month where they made the case that “helpmeet” actually ought to be interpreted as “warrior.” Someone kill me. I really don’t want to be alone though. I’m really desperately yearning for a wife. (I recognize that what I just typed is ludicrously pessimistic and self pitying and I’ll try not to make any decisions based on it. I won’t delete it though because it can give you guys an idea of my mindset.)

    I’ll examine the issue closely and if I find that the real problem is lack of attraction I will leave. It just doesn’t seem like it completely. She pines for me a lot when we’re apart and always joyfully throws herself into my arms, kissing me a lot and saying how much she loves me and missed me when we meet again. Can you see how something like that would speak powerfully to me about her genuine affection/attraction? Generally, I’m much less enthusiastic because I’m always watching out for the slights and the next fight and don’t just enjoy myself.
    @Lyn87
    I typed this out in Word so I wouldn’t lose it. Once burned twice shy! Very good point about how I would be the OIC. I have never been in the military so I do not have a good grasp of this mindset. Our arguments are usually about what is the best thing to do/believe in a certain situation by God. Since I care for the truth and am trying to “be ye perfect” to the best of my ability, I probably am letting these things rankle for too long and getting caught up in word games before saying what we’re going to go with. I think there’s a very large extent she’s willing to go with my judgement me even when she thinks I’m wrong. There’s a big gap between that and feeling in her gut that I’m probably right even though we disagree, though. It’s very frustrating how much of this stuff has to come from a mindset confident that I will be obeyed and ought to be obeyed. It’s also very frustrating because I know a lot of my problem here comes from the fact that my parents modeled an egalitarian marriage for me where my Dad was always content to agree with my mom for the most part and she was always content to show him love and respect. It’s very messed up in reality but it’s the only blueprint for a relationship that I have in my bones. Learning to actually lead and not seek consensus forever would probably fix our issues. The problem is compounded by the fact that her Dad is a millionaire CEO who’s very charismatic and a natural leader. He’s not a very good person but that’s what I’m measuring up against subconsciously, for the most part.
    @Isa
    No fornication. We do stay in the same place, though. She has been content to wait for me to ask to marry her within maybe two months of us meeting.
    @GunnerQ
    I know that Paul says that it’s better not to be married. In my personal situation though, if I didn’t have the hope of it, I would really be in despair. I guess that’s a level of faith that I just haven’t achieved. It’s certainly possible that I could find local girl. As it is though, I “burn with a passion” right now! I’ve got a hot girlfriend in my talons and I really want to make it work!
    @Anon
    I realize that what I’m doing is definitely not traditional in the sense that it’s what people have done in the past. The patriarchy is totally busted. I’m just trying to figure out what to do in the ruins. I do not believe that operating from a position of greater choice ought to change things materially because God mandated that we be monogamous. The success of a marriage should not be based on the man having a greater ability to cheat! (What I just typed is ludicrously grandiose and certainly makes me sound like I’m acting in better faith than I really am.) I realize that I substituted in marriage for bf/gf nonsense in my above statement.To the extent that chatting up a lot of girls could give me confidence in my own worthiness as a man it could certainly be valuable.
    @Opus
    I agree that being the celibate BF sucks. I just don’t see good alternatives. I haven’t got any responsibility to her other than our mutual hope.
    @Original Laura
    I agree that dragging things out is unfair to her. Amusingly, I have agreed to be her escort at a cousin’s wedding in the next few weeks. It’s on 10/1.
    @Red Pill Latecomer
    I agree. We put way too much value in intelligence. It’s certainly possible her high estimation of her own intelligence could be a problem.

    Overall, after having read everybody’s responses my inclination is to think it over and either give it a month to show a change for the better, or to leave her now. Sorry to everybody who I haven’t been able to fully express the reality of the situation and my thoughts to. I’m going to try hard not to be an idiot on purpose or give in to self pity.

  175. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    If your contention is that X is a career academic, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. The sort of sophistry that she’s adept at is a necessary skill in that environment. Even so, she’s better at it than most others.

    From what she’s said on the forum, Xanthippe is not an academic. Her husband is, apparently.

  176. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    That’s a good catch. BEL and X can (too often to be coincidental) be found tag-teaming people.

    It’s made me wonder whether BEL is a troll. Some of her statements and views are so trite (e.g. always quoting from the third rate poem, “The New Colossus”) that I wonder if she’s really who she says she is. Then again, if her background story is true (i.e. paternal disengagement, drug use, promiscuity, etc – it’s all so stereotypical) she could be the real thing. That she finds a ‘home’ (and kindred spirits) at CAF does not really reflect well on CAF.

  177. Lyn87 says:

    tommono,

    I did save my long, original message to you, but when I tried to post it twice and it failed both times, I figured maybe it was a case of Divine Intervention, so I just erased it. I’ll say one last thing, though:

    Like your girlfriend, people who know me in meat-space think of me as “That Scary-Smart Guy” (which hasn’t done much to prevent me from making typographical/editing errors on blogs like this one). Since I’m also a generally serious person (tediously so, by some accounts) and I make an effort to be personable to everyone, a lot of people have asked me for my advice over the years about things ranging from the trivial to the very serious. In my experience, most people asking for advice aren’t really seeking advice at all, but rather a push in the direction they want to go (whether they admit it to themselves or not).

    You asked for some outside perspective on your situation, and you got responses from a dozen of us members of the Dalrock Peanut Gallery, and not one of us said, “Marry that girl!” The responses ranged from, “Run like your life depends on it” to, “Be careful… you’re potentially entering dangerous territory.”

    You got what you asked for: outside perspective. Now I sense a fair amount of subtle back-tracking in your detailed responses at September 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm. I may be reading you wrong (obviously we aren’t talking face-to-face), but the pattern is familiar to me: 1) Ask for advice – 2) Receive advice that doesn’t match what the person wants to do – 3) Ignore the advice and do what he/she wanted to do anyway.

    This is usually followed at some point by: 4) Reap the whirlwind.

    Now… whether that’s due to my misperception, you overstating your original case in the heat of anger, or you understating the case now that you feel the need to come to “Her Ladyship’s” defense, I don’t know. What I DO know is that you should figure out why you’re giving off that vibe before you set something in motion that is not easily stopped.

  178. tommono says:

    Thanks for the timely response Lyn87.
    I think I did do a lot of subtle back tracking in my response. I could tell I was arguing in bad faith in some way and I could tell I was white knighting for a girl I complained a lot about myself just previously. You can’t blame me though because at least it’s white knighting that could eventually get me laid.

    Partially that’s due to the emotional response of seeing a lot of people make criticisms/assumptions, which I felt my experience contradicted and which were along basic manospheric lines that I’ve already got my antennae out for. Nobody seemed like they were on the money and I had a level of basic affront for people assuming I hadn’t been looking out for the obvious (regardless of if they are right).
    The advice flowing from those assumptions contradicts what I really want to have happen.

    I am fearful of letting a (potentially) good opportunity go. I am fearful of admitting defeat and facing life without a solid prospect for love and intimacy. I have had years of that and I don’t want it anymore.

    The only advice I want to hear is how I can fix and redeem the situation. I don’t want to hear any real advice and I hardly had that intention when I made my first post. I’ll try to hear the advice anyway.

    My mind is messed up.
    The things I want to believe are that:
    The faults are more on me – I can show her I am respectable and that I can be relied on
    They problems are not structural or intrinsic in our personalities/backgrounds but can be fixed by using simple techniques
    I can make the relationship work
    What faults are on her can be easily remedied once she sees that I am being better (this is idiotic. She should work on them now if she’s gonna)
    I won’t have to figure out finding another girl or face aloneness.

    The whole exercise seems futile. It doesn’t seem like I can make the relationship work unless I believe a lot of very unlikely things. Even if I make another stab at it there’s hardly a guarantee that I can be significantly more confident, decisive, and interesting than I’ve been my whole life. Time will keep ticking for her, preventing her from finding somebody who can be good for her.

    The only way to really believe that I can do it, really, is to buy into her frame that I haven’t shown her a degree of love and willingness to bear with her. She says that since I’m always on the verge of walking out the door due to her behavior, she doesn’t feel like I’m willing to believe that she’s anything but trash for the way she feels, or she could be healed by me loving her better. Can I really believe that? It doesn’t seem believable on its face because it puts the entire onus on me when she’s also being nasty. It seems to conflate the issue of her not being able to trust me with the issue of her getting frustrated with all the little things I do. If she was really worried that I’m about to walk out the door, couldn’t she bring herself to treat me a little better, instead of lashing out more?

    This line of thought indicates that I should break up with her. If staying with her is coming from a place of fear, can it have good results? I want to believe it will! I really need to get my head straight. I’m going to take a walk and think about the reality of her behavior.

  179. Anon says:

    Tommono,

    You can’t blame me though because at least it’s white knighting that could eventually get me laid.

    What a horrible sentence…

    That is exactly what will not get you laid, either with this woman or others.

    Plus, is your goal to get laid before marriage? Or to marry and only have sex after marriage? Big difference.

    If the former, you have utterly taken the wrong path (usually, sex happens after roughly 7 *hours* together, give or take. Not a year.). If the latter, a celibate ‘courtship’ of 1 year is just too long, and was NOT the way things were done in the old days (in any culture). It was meant to be weeks, not years. There is nothing traditional about your current situation.

  180. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If this report is true, there are many young adults virgins in Japan (women as well as men) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/more-than-40-per-cent-of-japans-adult-singles-are-virgins-says-s/

  181. tommono says:

    @Anon

    It was a joke referring to this image:

    Usually a good way to convince a white knight to stop sticking up for random girls on the internet is to remind him that there’s a 0% chance of getting laid. My goal, if I can see a way to stay with her in good conscience, would be to have sex with her after marriage.

  182. @RPL:

    Eh, two things people really don’t get about Japan:

    1) The Women have ruled the place for 1000 years. It’s only the young ones that think working a job is a “good” idea. (Japan is the only country where Deaths from Overwork > Murder Rate.)

    2) Survey data is never accurate. Answering personal questions is always out of bounds. So they’ll answer how they believe the person asking wants them to answer. Thus, lying is utterly acceptable. (It’s hard to explain that bribery is not only functionally legal but expected in Japan. It’s a very different culture.) But it wouldn’t surprise me if the level of 0 sexual partners isn’t the highest among the Modern economies.

    The Japanese culture is pulling far more inward as the population drops to a more natural baseline from which the island can sustain it. (Japan has to import 50% of its calories. It’s sort of fascinating to watch the population naturally adapt to this and shrink itself, wholly without any specific outside intervention. Probably more scary than fascinating, if we’re being honest.)

  183. Otto Lamp says:

    @tommono,

    No man should today should even consider getting getting married till they are 30. The prime age for a man to get married is 30 to 40 years old.

    Why? A man’s marriage market value shoots through the roof when he turns 30. You will be able to land a women SIGNIFICANTLY SUPERIOR to any you could land now.

    When you turn 30, start targeting women 5-10 years younger than you as potential wives. That is the right age difference between husband and wife.

    In the mean time, chill out. You are 24. Too young to even be thinking about getting married. Spend your time developing yourself.

    The girl you are living with ain’t going to be your wife anyway. She’s the wrong age. So drop it. She’s NOT the one.

    And, quit living with her. Sex or not, you two are playing married. You’re not.

  184. infowarrior1 says:

    @LG
    ”1) The Women have ruled the place for 1000 years. It’s only the young ones that think working a job is a “good” idea. (Japan is the only country where Deaths from Overwork > Murder Rate.)”

    You think the pre-modern Patriarchy of Japan is a facade? Could you point me to sources that indicate your insight?

    ”The Japanese culture is pulling far more inward as the population drops to a more natural baseline from which the island can sustain it.”

    Interesting.

  185. Isa says:

    @otto lamp
    Precisely. That is why it is sinful to sleep over, sex or not. The sin if scandal, which is roughly the natural assumptions people will make if they see a man enter a woman’s place at night and exit the next morning.

    Also, this guy is thinking way too much. I use 3 key factors to evaluate a relationship:
    1. Am I content spending 24 hours with them
    2. Am I a better person with them than I am alone
    3. Am I growing in my morals and ethics, or generally as a person.

    The answer must be yes to all 3 before you marry, and 1 year is enough time to evaluate them thoroughly. Regardless, asking for advice in a tldr format on an anonymous blog? Pretty good sign that one of the conditions isn’t met. Content and fulfilled people live their lives offline.

  186. American says:

    I honestly can’t figure out; given the enormous loss of liberty, colossal threats and liabilities, rapid decline of benefits, etc… that accompany marriage, cohabitation, and acting as a sperm donor for a female’s children she can deprive men of anytime she wishes to file that no fault divorce why men still bother with marriage, cohabitation, and progeny. They keep learning the hard way.

  187. Original Laura says:

    @DeNihilist

    I wasn’t suggesting that tommono be untruthful to the girlfriend about why he was breaking off the relationship. My suggestion was that he keep his explanation brief and to the point by stating the main reason that he was leaving, which was that the two of them quarrel too much. That one reason is plenty of reason to break up, and there is no added benefit to tommono listing 50 different mistakes that the girlfriend made during the course of their relationship that led him to a decision to disengage.

    I strongly disagree with your suggestion of giving the girlfriend a kitten as you break up with her. Never give anybody a pet when they haven’t asked for one. It isn’t fair to the recipient or to the pet.

    @tommono When you are frustrated and upset, there is a temptation to “get it all out of your system,” but this really isn’t wise. The person being dumped is going to be upset, even if they also recognized that the relationship was troubled. The world is a small place these days, and you don’t want to create a desire in her to “get even.”

    Have the guts to tell her in person, or at least over the phone. Do NOT put anything in writing because a written communication is permanent, whereas a verbal communication tends to fade away unless it is vicious. Try very hard not to embarrass or humiliate her. Admit that you feel sadness that the relationship didn’t work out. Keep it all as private as possible, and don’t immediately change your Facebook status to “single”. Let her do that first so that she can pretend to her friends that SHE dumped you if she wants to do so.

    Tommono, remember that you are looking for a helpmeet. From your own description, this girl is very high maintenance. Anybody who has been married to a high-maintenance spouse will tell you plainly that it left them exhausted and miserable. Steer clear of people who are chronically dissatisfied. They don’t even make good acquaintances. @Lyn87 wrote some words of wisdom — study them. You are too focused on trying to fix the unfixable. Try instead to come to terms with the fact that you and your girlfriend are not right for each other. To quote @Opus, when in doubt, don’t.

  188. Lost Patrol says:

    @tommono

    You asked the question, and received a colossal amount of highly useful advice from a variety of people who have seen it all before. Life is full of choices. If I was the old cowboy, I would say at this point you’ve either got to get on with livin’ or get on with dyin’. You’re too young to get on with dyin’, so let us know how it turns out.

  189. Apologies for the following offtopic question:

    I could have sworn that I saw a series of online messages from women captured on this blog. A military wife was talking about how she wanted to commit adultery and the other women were encouraging her to cheat on her husband.

    Was that on this thread? Was that even on this blog? I had wanted to repost them with some analysis…

    Thanks in advance for anyone who can point me at the messages.

  190. Dave says:

    If this report is true, there are many young adults virgins in Japan (women as well as men) : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/more-than-40-per-cent-of-japans-adult-singles-are-virgins-says-s/

    So….could this be good news for those men who are still looking?

  191. Opus says:

    Back to the OP: I just typed the words Boys with Dolls into YouTube and came across a number of Videos, some dating back a number of years, encouraging the notion that boys should play with dolls, so Mrs Johnson may be a little late to the party that no boy wants to be invited to. Mrs Johnson’s video has so far received an underwhelming 2,601 views and I guess that most of those come via this blog.

  192. @infowarrior1:

    I should be a little more clear with the statement, but it’s accurate. Though not when you think about it in the Western context. It’s not a Matriarchy, like the de facto state of most of Africa, as the society is highly ordered, but the Women run their homes with an iron fist. And they have for a very long time.

    The state of their Patriarchy serves the Women there extremely well, when taken into account how the FI operates. Japanese culture is still an uninterrupted people group that has survived for at least 1700 years on the Island. So much of the culture exists in a place that’s self-sustaining, yet the culture itself is highly feminine in orientation & operation. (Realize that Shinto is a god & goddess worshiping pantheistic religion, something easily forgotten by most.) This is much of the reason it crushes so many of the young Men there.

    The flipside, as anyone around here should understand, is the cunning Lothario in Japan will get laid like a forest is going out of style. He just has to be properly discrete about it. (Japanese actually uses numbering for the terms of “mistress”. It’s just understood a Man won’t have one mistress but an entire chain of them, if he can pull even another one.) But if you’re not, you’ll be crushed by the culture, which is enforced by the Women. As until fairly recently, a Father having much input on his children’s lives was sort of rare. Sex & children was a thing that just “happened” for a lot of Men in Japanese history. (They still “arrange” a significant amount of marriages in Japan.)

    This is also why a lot of historically important Japanese figures would, these days, be considered whacked-out homosexuals. Though it’s far more Sparta than Gay Bath Houses. (Though one is in for a wild time if you read up on some of the religious practices the Emperor still has to maintain.)

    So, yes, Japanese culture is run by their Women, but it’s also worked out most of the kinks to survive over the last 1000 years. Though Japanese Women don’t want to be Men; that’s what causes Western Feminists so much trouble.

    As for the population effect, what we’re getting a chance to see, in real-time, is the way a society adapts when it reaches the edges of the capacity to live in a place. Japan has worked hard to increase their home-grown calories to 50% per year, but the island itself is almost all mountains. They can’t sustain the society without imports. At least at 120 million. 60 million they’ll be fine. And, lo & behold, that’s where the demographics are pointed by the end of the century.

    The problem is the damage the adaptation does to the society itself. You now have a nation of people that have no siblings. Each generation has less people to connect to than the previous one. And, well, who’s going to take care of their elderly parents? It’s not just a wealth issue, but simply an issue of physical capacity of the society.

  193. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sailor gives birth at sea, aboard an aircraft carrier. It appears she didn’t know she was pregnant: http://abc13.com/news/navy-sailor-gives-birth-to-baby-on-aircraft-carrier-at-sea/1509832/

    It wasn’t clear Monday whether the sailor, who had complained of abdominal pains before giving birth, knew she was pregnant.

  194. DeNihilist says:

    One of the ways the Japanese have adapted is with super heavy drinking. My son is in Japan for a year. He says most mornings, you just step over the 3 piece suite (all male) that have passed out on the sidewalk. No one bats an eyelid at this.

    Also at the dojo he is training in, they had a party to celebrate some anniversary. The saki gets passed around and it is disrespectful to turn it down. He commented that if not for his girlfriend coming and getting him, he would more then likely have ended up as one of those sidewalk men that night.

  195. @DeNihilist:

    One of the problems with the old social customs + cheaply available alcohol. Lots of alcohol problems.

  196. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isa
    Also, this guy is thinking way too much. I use 3 key factors to evaluate a relationship:
    1. Am I content spending 24 hours with them

    Sensible.

    2. Am I a better person with them than I am alone

    This smacks way too much of “soulmate” or “completes me” or “makes me be gooder” or some other Romantic nonsense stuff like that. I do not expect other people to “make me gooder”, as if they possess some ultra-betterness that will rub off on me if I hang out with them long enough.

    3. Am I growing in my morals and ethics, or generally as a person.

    Shouldn’t this be indepedent of any given person? If you only grow when you are around this other person, what’s really going on?

  197. Isa says:

    @anonymous reader

    I am not the best at articulating the last points I admit. Soul mates are a load of rubbish, and completion is a lie. It is more about the other helping to bring out your virtues rather than your flaws, which, given time, may become less if you no longer are indulging them. Of course you may independently do this, and must, but it is much easier in a hospitable environment.

    I think about it a bit like harmonic resonance where when two frequencies are in sync they are greater than alone, but if they clash they negate the other. Most people can manage to find harmony, but they must look carefully to not find a partner that matches and magnifies their negative qualities.

  198. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isa, ok, that makes more sense. The extreme example would be people with substance problems like booze, pot, pills, meth, etc. where being around people who don’t do that stuff makes it easier to keep away from it. More prosaically if someone brings out a person’s bad side – anger, snark, recklessness, etc. then it would be wise to not hang out with them.

    I was a bartender for a short time and found that my patience with drunks got shorter and shorter, which was a sign to change jobs. I’ve never spent much time around women in the romantic sense who smoked, it was a red flag to me. People who are angry all the time are just wearing to work with, I can imagine how much worse to live with them.

    Etc. and so forth.

  199. tommono says:

    Alright. I called her and broke up with her.

  200. Boxer says:

    Alright. I called her and broke up with her.

    From what you’ve spilled here, you’ve surely done both yourself and her a huge favor. Don’t sweat it too much.

    Friendly advice: Those hoes can smell it when you’re newly single. It’s eerie how they pick up on it. They’ll be coming out of the woodwork to try and snag you. Take care of yourself and don’t start dating for a few weeks.

    Take Care,

    Boxer

  201. Anon says:

    tommono,

    Alright. I called her and broke up with her.

    Good. Now, practice your daytime approaching of women. No need to push for dates at first, just make it second nature to open and chat up any pretty girl you see out there in the daytime.

    Expect the first 30-50 to get you nothing, but once you see that there are easily 10+ opportunities available per day on weekdays, then the abundance that does exist for a man who can do this becomes apparent.

  202. Isa says:

    @anonymous reader
    The alcoholic enabler paradigm is what what I was thinking of as well. Eerie. As I get older it is much easier to recognize and dump people and things out of my life that bring out bad qualities in me. Even if I don’t become imperious, sarcastic, and impatient, I have to work so hard not to be that I feel like I ran a marathon after a couple hours around them.

    I have actually had roommates with mental issues in the past, ranging from narcissistic personality to bipolar and/or borderline. I sure know how to pick ’em. By the end each time, I started to doubt my own sanity and was quite the basket case, contemplating offing myself etc. Can’t imagine living with someone like that more than a year… Well, I probably would have killed myself, so the marriage would be shortlived with no divorce fulfilling the Christian mandate! Fantastic!

  203. Micha Elyi says:

    She quit big law to have babies and make dolls.

    A man supporting a family could have used the opportunity for a law degree that this female wasted.

  204. Micha Elyi says:

    “Funny that the women who comment most over at Catholic forums over ideas of Christian marriage are not Christian at all.”

    Catholics in general are of the “Cafeteria Christian” variety. “I will solemnly say to them, ‘I never knew you.’”
    Chris

    Best wishes to you in your search for the Church that only lets in perfect people, Chris.
    By the way, you can’t get more “Cafeteria Christian” than a Protestant, though there are some Catholics who try.

  205. Lyn87 says:

    Michael Elyi,

    I’m sure we’re all guilty of picking-and-choosing to some degree, and I’m not going to get into another Protestant-Catholic scrap here, but since you took up the cudgel, you may wish to reconsider your assertion that a religious movement based on the idea of sola scriptura (adherence to an unchanging text) is MORE likely to produce Cafeteria Christians than a religious movement based on whatever guy is sitting in a chair that has changed hands well over a hundred times – often between rival factions with very different views.

    As I type this it is Sunday, and there will be no shortage of Cafeteria Christians in either Protestant or Catholic pews this morning, but read CAF if you think the commenters are adhering to either the text of Scripture or whatever Catholic doctrine is today on any given subject.

  206. Otto Lamp says:

    Lyn87, Micha Elyi,

    The Protestant = sola scriptura / Catholic = ex cathedra divide has long been washed away in American Christianity.

    Go to the Spirit of Error website (http://www.spiritoferror.org/) and spend some time researching NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). It is a movement within Protestant Christianity that believes apostles and prophets are COMMON today, and their pronouncements are on par with scripture.

    Bill Simmons claims God has spoken to him directly and instructed him to create a new translation of the Bible.

    “Simmons claims God gave him REVELATION about how to translate a controversial verse, Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” He claims the word “submit” is probably a mistranslation and the verse should actually read, “Wives be tenderly devoted to your husband as the church is tenderly devoted to Christ.”

    While NAR teachings are fringe (compared to historic Christian doctrine), the movement is becoming becoming mainstream and working its way into mainstream Churches. If your pastor says things like “I received a word form the Lord” or “The Lord spoke to me and said…” then a red flag should go up.

  207. Lyn87 says:

    Otto,

    You seem to be suggesting that God does not speak to His people anymore. You’re going to have to do away with quite a bit of NT scripture if you are. Except for some fringe groups that probably shouldn’t even be considered Christian (much less “Protestant”), we all accept that there can be no revelation that contradicts scripture (hence “sola scriptura“). Although there are differences in precisely what certain scriptures mean – just as there are factions within Catholicism that differ on doctrine – we agree that whatever they mean, the scriptures are correct. Anyone who receives a “revelation” contrary to scripture did not receive it from God – period, but that does not preclude such things as “Word of Knowledge” (1 Cor 12:8), for example.

    This is straying significantly off-topic, so I’m going to drop out of this line of discussion.

  208. Avraham rosenblum says:

    It is considered possible to have a revelation that is for the sake of the hour. We know one is not allowed to sacrifice anywhere as long as the Temple is standing as in clear in the Bible. Yet Eliyahu sacrificed on Mount Carmel. This is considered valid as long as it is not permanent but rather a temporary measure. Joan of Arc was accused of transgressing Scripture by wearing means clothing though she never said it was for anyone else and he was simply following what was revealed to her

  209. @Avraham rosenblum I always wondered about the previous and current standing of “no sacrifices” due to no Temple. There were sacrifices in the desert and at Gibeon prior to the Temple as noted in 1 Chron 21:29 For the tabernacle of the YH_H, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon.

  210. Avraham rosenblum says:

    I do not remember the dates. But off hand I recall that the Tabernacle had several phases. One in the desert and one in Shiloh. When it stood in Shilo it was the only allowed place of sacrifice. That was a long period [I think a few hundred years]. Then there was about six months in Gibeon. When ever it was taken down, sacrifice was allowed anywhere. The only reason why now no sacrifice is allowed in because the last resting place of the Ark in Jerusalem was called Menucha[resting place] in the Torah itself and you can see this also I think in the words of Natan the prophet and after that there is no longer any allowance for private altars. What I m trying to say is the Temple was the more permanent version of the Tabernacle and as long as it stands no sacrifice is allowed anywhere else as mentioned in the Law of Moses. In fact outside sacrifice is on the list of the most severe things.

  211. Humm….I recall reading their were still sacrifices during the Babylon exile.

  212. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Even today one could do sacrifice in the place where the Temple stood. That place [Jerusalem] became permanent after King Solomon. Still as you noted there were people that ignored the prohibition and did offer sacrifices elsewhere–but not according to the Law.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s