A cold calculation.

Child support is the answer to the question “How shall we replace the nuclear family”?  This much is axiomatic, with the only question being how many nuclear families we want to replace.  Radical feminists want to destroy all marriages, or at the least eliminate the need for all women to remain married.  Conservatives want to replace a smaller percentage of marriages with the new family model, and based on conservative arguments that destroying 30-40% of marriages is not excessive, this is a fair estimate of how many marriages conservatives (in general) wish to destroy.

The difference of course is not just in the number of marriages each group wants to destroy, but the rationale each group uses to determine when a marriage should be destroyed.  Feminists see marriage in general as a threat to women’s autonomy, and therefore it is no surprise they fall on the side of mass replacement.  Conservatives on the other hand are more conservative in their goals for replacing marriage.  Usually conservatives argue that marriages need to be destroyed if the husband is unable or unwilling to sufficiently provide for his family, or if he is abusive or unfaithful.  But even here the terms are open to broad interpretation, as there is no defined amount of provision husbands must provide to be safe in this model, and abuse and infidelity have been stretched beyond all reason so that a husband viewing pornography is now often accused of both abuse and infidelity.

Feminists astutely recognize that conservatives have given them carte blanche to destroy families, so long as the feminists pretend they are only destroying marriages for the most serious reasons.  As a result, we have answered both the question of how to replace marriage (with child support and other cash and prizes) as well as how many marriages should be replaced (as many as women desire).  This has been codified into law, and perfectly describes our family courts.  Women who want to divorce know they are assured of receiving custody, and custody determines who gets (vs pays) the cash and prizes.

Since there is by design no attempt in our system to determine if the man being punished actually deserves to be punished, the only conservative defense of this system is a claim that no sane woman would do this unless pushed to the limits by a truly bad man.  Although the system is designed to provide a strong incentive for wives to eject husbands from the family, conservatives vehemently argue that following this route creates so much hardship for a wife that no formal protections against abusing the system are required.

But feminists long ago were able to craft this new legal model with the full support of conservatives.  Feminists have also been largely successful at removing the social stigma against wives who destroy their families, with the great help of conservatives (especially Christian conservatives).  Now that the new regime is in place and supported by nearly everyone, the need for divorcing mothers to keep up the facade that conservatives rely on is fading away.  Now women who discard the father of their children have less incentive to pretend that they did anything but make the obvious cost/benefit calculation our family model invites them to make.  Is it easier to stay married and raise children with less than 100% autonomy, or is it easier to eject the father from the home while retaining the bulk of his spendable earnings?

Yesterday Salon published an article by single mother Dena Landon that breaks this taboo.  In All the single mamas: Raising kids isn’t always easier with a partner Landon explains how she made the cold calculation that it was easier to eject her disabled husband from the home than to honor her marriage vows (emphasis mine):

When I tell people that I’m a single mom, with 60 percent custody, the typical response is a combination of pity and comments like, “you’re so strong” or “what a tough job.” If I’m not in the mood to engage with the person commenting, I’ll just smile and say, “thanks.” But sometimes I’ll respond with the truth: “Actually, it’s easier than being married.”

There’s a narrative that has taken root in society of the hardworking, tired and overwhelmed single mom. And I am all of those things — often. But this narrative is sometimes subtly used to support the retro notion that a two-parent family is still best, with its implication that it would be easier if I had someone to help me…

Note the contemptuous mocking of the conservatives who created our new family structure with the belief that women would pretend the system wasn’t a formula for cold, calculating women like Landon to destroy their families.  This lie is no longer required, and therefore Salon and Landon are eager to correct the record.

The father of Landon’s children has MS, and either way would not do the housework as he was told. This made ejecting him from the home and collecting cash and prizes the obvious logical choice:

“Sure, Dena, ask your handicapped husband, who spent all day at work, to clean the house.” He’d snap his laptop close and get up in a huff, legs buckling twice, before stalking into his study and leaving me to watch our son.

But Landon goes a step farther, and explains that even when husbands do the chores their wives demand, it can still be easier to seize 100% of the power by taking the family courts up on their standing offer:

Other single moms have noted that even if their exes had cooked or helped out with the kids, it’s still easier for these women to go it alone now than to deal with the constant negotiating, tension and passive aggressive behavior around household chores that they experienced during their marriages.

…There are no internal struggles: Should I leave the mess and see if he cleans it up? Do I have the energy for another argument about housework? If there’s a mess, it’s hers.

While Landon’s cold calculation is commonplace among single mothers, her candor is still fairly rare.  What she is admitting to is after all quite ugly.  Not only did she casually break her sacred vow, but she is admitting to forcing her son to grow up without his father in the home because mommy wanted to flex her feminist muscles.  The response in the comments to this incredible ugliness is unsurprising.  Jerseyguy999 wrote:

Wow ! Salon is desperate for feminist heroines.  Because this woman, Landon, sounds like a b**ch.  Her husband is working – which is tough enough with Multiple Sclerosis  But then he divorces him because he doesn’t clean the dishes ? THIS is the problem in our society.  Don’t you get it liberals ? My mother and father were married for over 30 years until my Mom died.  Not all of it was great.  But they worked through the tough times because they understood the importance of preserving the family.  But here is a woman who figures divorce is a good option because her husband doesnt’ pick up his socks.  Sure, the guy maybe should be more considerate.  But getting a divorce shouldn’t be like deciding the jeans you got don’t fit exactly right … and you’ll just return them.  Geez !

Pointing out this ugliness reflexively lead to the standard motte and bailey game when it comes to no fault divorce.  While the article was about the incentives wives have to toss out good husbands out of convenience, once the ugliness was pointed out commenter tinwoman replied explaining that the real reason women divorce is because men are abusive:

…you have NO idea how many women are divorced because they were abused.  You seem to think it is rare?  Women file for most divorces, and guess what honey bunches, they cite abuse as a reason almost half the time– and many more abused women don’t cite abuse as a reason because they were badly advised in the divorce process or because all they want is out.

Oh wait, women are always lying when they say they’re abused, right?

While there will always be an incentive to play the motte and bailey game regarding no fault divorce and child support, we should also expect to see more of this kind of honesty moving forward.  For the near and medium term at least feminists know that conservatives aren’t in a position to admit what an evil system they have created.  As a result conservatives will instead try to ignore or deny the very open taunting by feminists and double down on the argument that weak men are screwing feminism up.  Over time however as marriage continues to crumble and the economic benefits of the system are forgone, eventually we will start to see a push by our elites to reign in the worst abuses of the family courts.  The problem is, by the time the pain is great enough to no longer ignore, much of the massive goodwill of men towards marriage that sustains this new model will have been squandered.

This entry was posted in Child Support, Cracks in the narrative, Denial, Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Fatherhood, Feminists, Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to A cold calculation.

  1. Pingback: A cold calculation. — Dalrock – Inconceivable!

  2. Pingback: A cold calculation. | Aus-Alt-Right

  3. Frank K says:

    “While there will always be an incentive to play the motte and bailey game regarding no fault divorce and child support, we should also expect to see more of this kind of honesty moving forward.”

    If people think that marriage is in free fall now, look out below! … anyway, these “brutally honest” women are doing the next generation of would be grooms a huge favor. Now it isn’t just high profile feminists saying this crap … now it’s your friend’s mom, or your own mom being frank and open about what she really thinks.

  4. Lyn87 says:

    Mark my words.

    The day will come when Landon’s children will rise up and condemn her.

    And she will deserve every bit of it.

  5. Frank K says:

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the UK, trying to keep you wife from spending the rent money on whatever she wants to spend it on is a form of “abuse” these days. So, yeah, I guess a lot of women are “abused”

  6. BillyS says:

    My wife believes her life will be much better without me, yet she wants my money each month. She has no meal qualms about this form of theft.

  7. Frank K says:

    BIllyS,
    It’s a sweet deal for women, isn’t it?

  8. Boxer says:

    My wife believes her life will be much better without me, yet she wants my money each month. She has no meal qualms about this form of theft.

    Your wife has no appreciation for being a wife, and the honor and respect that title affords a woman. Sorry to tell you, she deserves what she gets. If she goes through with the divorce, she’ll be a skank-ho single mom with divorce bastards.

    My default setting is to look upon divorcées as far worse people than skanks and prostitutes. A skank knows she is being immoral but doesn’t try to enslave a man with alimony payments, and is honest enough to make her own way in the world, for the most part.

    In the old days, other married women would have told your soon-to-be ex-wife these simple truths. Now, she just has the media cheerleading as she charges toward her own destruction. Sad, but nothing we can do about it.

  9. Lyn87 says:

    We give both sexes the right to end a marriage, but only one sex the right to continue to reap the benefits while sticking the other with full responsibilities, and we wonder why the vast majority of divorces are initiated by the “receiver” sex.

    It’s not about “abuse.” It never was. Real unilateral husband-on-wife abuse is so rare as be statistically irrelevant, but in order to provide the fig-leaf of justification we have to pretend that any time a husband isn’t actively prostrating himself before his wife and actively acquiring whatever she claims will make her happy at any given moment, that he is somehow “abusing” her. Needless to say, she has no reciprocal obligation to him or his children.

    Simply put: no man has any rights within marriage that will ever be enforced by the law or even the church, while his responsibilities are legion, heavy, and backed up by pastors and policemen.

    THAT is where we are now, and the cat – already long-since out of the bag – is now howling on the rooftop.

    This is what feminists and their enablers want… and now they have it.

    They’re not going to like the ending of this movie.

  10. Snowy says:

    Don’t forget that it’s “in the best interests of the children” that Mum gets full custody. Also these feminist cuckservatives ought to acknowledge that if it’s easier for a single parent, on this case Mum, to rear the children themselves rather than being married, then the same applies to a single Dad. But they won’t. MGTOW all the way. Bring on the artificial womb.

  11. DrTorch says:

    ” For the near and medium term at least feminists know that conservatives aren’t in a position to admit what an evil system they have created”

    I hope that’s only partly right. Plenty of GenX lived w/ frivorce and they resent it, even in “conservative” churches. Some of us are now old enough to be leaders and we speak out about it.

    I agree that in the near- and mid-terms TPTB will mostly squelch these voices, but they’re out there and getting louder.

  12. Adam says:

    I struggle to contemplate the reaction from progressives if a man were to divorce his disabled wife because she didn’t do the dishes and then openly boasted about it.

  13. Tam the Bam says:

    If I was one of this horror’s kids, I’d be living in constant fear of becoming seriously (and therefore expensively) ill, seeing what she did to Dad. Is “mommy” going to take me to the vet? Or just leave me in the woods?

  14. CSI says:

    One would think household chores, such as dishes, vacuuming, etc. were the most exhausting and most strenuous form of work in America today. The husband who spends 10+ hours a day in work and in transit has a holiday in comparison with the poor stay at home mother who has to do these terrible chores!

  15. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    you have NO idea how many women are divorced because they were abused

    And judging from that post, neither does she, but it’s actually better here to cite no real stats, since it’s just a deflection.

    Of course, the “argument” is rendered irrefutable by the brilliant use of “honeybunches”. I know I would be cowed into silence by the use of such a powerful rhetorical weapon.

    @Adam – No man is THAT reckless.

  16. BillyS says:

    I don’t keep the house even up to the lower standard of my wife, but it certainly does not take that much time.

  17. Original Laura says:

    I followed the link to this article and read it in full. The author appears to have married her husband AFTER he was diagnosed with MS, and both of them continued to work full time, so I wonder why they didn’t negotiate and budget for a plan to use cleaning services, etc. Whatever luxuries (such as vacations) that they had to give up to make maid service a reality would have been well worth it.

    There are a lot of two-career couple divorces that are similar to this one. One person ends up feeling overwhelmed and the other spouse pretends that there isn’t a problem. In this case, BOTH of them were undoubtedly exhausted. A five-day-a-week work schedule may have been too much for the husband as his MS progressed, and he certainly shouldn’t have been expected to do much after getting home. But the wife was working full time and then dealing with a toddler in the evenings, along with the cooking and cleaning, and the husband was criticizing her failings as a wife and mother when she was already working very long days. One of the things that the wife pointed out in the article was that getting divorced gave her every other weekend to herself. My guess is that she started allowing her mind to dwell on how great it would be to have some days all to herself and she talked herself into divorcing. Very sad.

  18. feeriker says:

    While Landon’s cold calculation is commonplace among single mothers, her candor is still fairly rare. What she is admitting to is after all quite ugly. Not only did she casually break her sacred vow, but she is admitting to forcing her son to grow up without his father in the home because mommy wanted to flex her feminist muscles.

    The silver lining to a very dark and ugly cloud: this Landon skank-bitch, but publishing her story and attention-whoring just hung a bright neon sign on herself reading “MEN, AVOID ME LIKE SYPHILIS/AIDS!”

  19. What Ms. Landon, and all of her impulsive girlfriends-in-arms, forgot to do was fast forward a few years. Her husband is now infirm or dead. Her children are teenagers who feel abandoned, neglected, angry and start to hate her guts. Still in search of who the hell they really are, the children begin to hold more frequent, adult conversations with their uncles and aunts and grandparents and learn about how much their father truly wanted, loved and cared for them. They see their dad in videos and in scrapbook photos. They might know more about his dreams from a diary he kept. They may see how “normal” their dad was, not this sick, inconsiderate, abusive monster their mother repeatedly portrayed and later ejected for “their own good”.

    When someone says “family destroyed”, they often can’t really capture or convey what that means. It’s a loaded expression and perhaps a bit understated in many respects.

    What comes to mind with “family destroyed” is frequently a destruction by active violence, alcoholism, substance abuse and even sexual abuse as all trust and innocence is annihilated for good, never again to return. Never to be the same.

    But what often doesn’t get a lot of air time in terms of “family destroyed” is when an understanding bestowed upon a child at a young age and repeated throughout life is eventually revealed as a bald-face lie. This too results in an annihilation of truth and trust. And while this doesn’t always happen, and is more often successfully concealed, when it does happen, Ms. Landon and her life will never be quite be the same.

  20. feeriker says:

    My wife believes her life will be much better without me, yet she wants my money each month. She has no meal qualms about this form of theft.

    Welcome to the club, Billy. However, take comfort, however cold, in this:

    WIthin a VERY short time (as in, probably just a matter of a few weeks, a couple of months at the most), once she’s out in the world on her own after nearly three decades of marriage, your ex is going to be hit square in the face by the coal shovel of reality. The lonely nights are going to seem interminable to her. The friends she used to have when she was with you won’t be there for her anymore. She’ll probably struggle financially, even with the shakedown money she’s getting from you each month (women seem incapable of budgeting their money, no matter how much of it they get). People who knew the two of you will avoid her like the plague, unable to deal with the awkwardness that is the aftermath of her blowing up the marriage. Her own family might even treat her differently for blowing up her marriage so frivolously.

    In short, she’s torn a hole in her life that is three decades large (one-third of a lifetime) and it’s going to make a hard impact.

    My ex still occasionally calls me looking for a shoulder to cry on, realizing too late that neglecting and spitting upon a marriage of two and a half decades, accompanied by playing adulterous slut (to what must have been some poor blind and deaf bastard without a sense of smell), didn’t quite bring the satisfaction of freedomz that she just KNEW it would. When she calls, I tell her I’m busy and brusquely hang up. I haven’t yet gotten to the point of saying “you created this hard bed and then pissed, shat, and puked in it. Now enjoy sleeping in it.” I’m saving that for the day that she decides to get really persistent and obnoxious. I’m also saving the delivery of the news that she will soon be replaced with a “new and vastly improved” Mrs. feeriker.

    I’ve forgiven and moved on (wayyyyyy on down the road), but I haven’t forgotten. Reconciliation is not an option with this woman (and frankly, I suspect that it’s a foolish thing to even consider for most women of the kind who do things like this) because it would be taken as a sign of weakness and just enable her to do it all over again. Unless she lives with the permanent consequences of what she did, nothing would change and the whole cycle would start anew.

    So, Billy, my point in bringing all of this up is that yes, you’re probably seriously hurting right now and yes, what your wife of nearly three decades is doing is painful, as was what my ex did as well. One doesn’t stay committed to a marriage for decades and not hurt when the other party chooses to tear it to shreds. However, you will find, if you haven’t already, that we men are more resilient than we give ourselves credit for. I used to play the role of beta supplicator, which at some point probably built the foundation of the wedge that eventually grew between me and the ex. Thank God I found the manosphere well before she went into full-on destructive mode. It made the damage much easier to cope with when she did, and made MY TAKING CARE OF MEeasier than ever. Had I not discovered this blog and others like it before everything melted down, I’d be a hopeless melted-down wreck myself right now. Instead, I’m enjoying life more than ever, even with all of its challenges (and I’m facing some really tough ones right now).

    Stay strong, brother. I know this sounds like a cliche, but believe me, you WILL look back on this someday in the very near future and sprout a big, shit-eating grin when you realize just how well you survived it and how easily you were able to move on with life (and maybe, if you have a vindictive streak to nurture, when you reflect on how miserable your ex is working her shitty, minimum-wage job and coming home to her lonely, cat-filled studio apartment).

  21. feeriker says:

    What Ms. Landon, and all of her impulsive girlfriends-in-arms, forgot to do was fast forward a few years. Her husband is now infirm or dead. Her children are teenagers who feel abandoned, neglected, angry and start to hate her guts.

    My young teenage grandson is at this stage right now. Not only is his lifelong resentment of his mother (a skank-ho single mom) boiling over into rebellion, but now he’s also targeted his grandmother who blew up her marriage to his grandfather. I don’t know how this going to be fixed, but it’s not going to end well no matter what is done.

  22. ….not unlike waking up from a nightmare, where you suddenly uncover at the end that the one person you trusted the most in your life, the one who loved you immensely, raised you, held you, fed and protected you, not a good person. In fact, they are in some ways a relentless, destructive, unrepentant monster who has kept you close and exclusively to them all this time for cruel and nefarious reasons.

  23. feeriker says:

    There are a lot of two-career couple divorces that are similar to this one.

    The obvious lesson to be learned here, as in so many other examples of this today, is “both parents working full-time jobs leads to nothing good.” But of course we can NEVER admit something so obvious because it obliterates the illusion of Mommy being a SIW.

  24. Frank K says:

    “The obvious lesson to be learned here, as in so many other examples of this today, is “both parents working full-time jobs leads to nothing good.”

    Yup. With few exceptions, every career woman I know is utterly unhappy with her husband. He’s never good enough. Never. I get to hear them complain about the usual things: he doesn’t cook, he doesn’t do house work. Never mind that he keeps the yard immaculate, brings home enough income that she can spend most of her paycheck on herself and she drives a luxury car or a top of the line import SUV, or that he takes care of fixing everything. Nope, they bitch about petty things, and even if he did cook and clean the house, she’d find some other fault with him.

  25. feeriker says:

    If I was one of this horror’s kids, I’d be living in constant fear of becoming seriously (and therefore expensively) ill, seeing what she did to Dad. Is “mommy” going to take me to the vet? Or just leave me in the woods?

    You laugh:

    http://liveactionnews.org/mother-wins-case-to-kill-her-disabled-daughter/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889573/Mother-handed-three-month-old-baby-girl-stranger-claiming-couldn-t-afford-feed-infant.html

  26. feeriker says:

    With few exceptions, every career woman I know is utterly unhappy with her husband. He’s never good enough. Never. I get to hear them complain about the usual things: he doesn’t cook, he doesn’t do house work.

    But of course. Why would she ever compliment or praise the person she’s competing with? What, is she supposed to be some kind of helpmeet or something?

  27. Anon says:

    It is articles like this one that remind us that cuckservatives are really just hardcore leftist socialists. They just want payments to be organized from man to woman.

    Other than that, an 80% tax rate, under imputation no less, is a delightful concept to the cuckservative.

  28. feeriker says:

    Other than that, an 80% tax rate, under imputation no less, is a delightful concept to the cuckservative.

    Cuckservative “men” are all for this sick system – until they themselves fall victim to it and get ass-raped by it. Then the howls of indignation and outrage begin. An especially delicious flavor of Schadenfreude, that.

  29. Tam the Bam says:

    Definitely not laughing, Feeriker, it’s heartbreaking. Probably just being a bit too British and snide. Can’t help it, it’s me culture innit. I have a vague idea of what those kids are going through from my own, not dissimilar childhood miseries (long gone).

  30. @feeriker
    I think there’s a lot of this going on thousands of times over. They are first to point out how heroic they are as single moms, and also how resilient children are for making the passage of divorce into teenage years and on to adulthood.

    Except most single mom’s are anything but heroic, and most children are not as resilient as people surmise when it comes to the prolific playing off of one another by the parents. Even amicable divorces screw kids up. The truth is that, by the very nature of it, divorce creates a deep wound in children of fault, inadequacy, powerlessness and fear that often never heals quite right.

    Part of me wishes to say “hey, nothing to see here! move along! please disperse!” because this is the “strong and independent (R)” film episode that has been playing in theaters for decades. It’s now the rev of software that runs on the western female’s brain. And so who gives a shit when they are all beyond any kind of criticism?

    Exactly.

    But I will say one thing. Whenever I hear a married man claim that he is “happily married” or make remarks of that kind publicly about his marital success, I just don’t believe him.

    I think the truth is that most married men we know – fathers, uncles, brothers, friends, colleagues – are not happily married. Most men are in fact the opposite – miserably married. They keep the truth of their misery to themselves, often to their graves. Or they attempt to lie about it unconvincingly.

    Most men I know personally today – co-workers, friends, family members – are working 60 hour weeks getting their asses kicked up and down at work, only to have their wives continue the beatings of morale at home – and in front of children – and all during the, preciously anticipated but totally consumed, weekends. If he fails to run a load of dishes, or a load of laundry, then she writes his name on her blackboard of disapproval or gives him the silent treatment.

    So when young guys look up on this behavior, they must begin to ask themselves:

    Is this the best there is?

    Is this the best that I as a man, husband and father can hope for? That there’s one, two or few woman out there who will finally be nice to us?

    It becomes absurd and profoundly sad when that girl being nice to you is the best you can hope for, but at the same time like a child with immense power to annihilate you and your life at a careless whim.

    I do not blame young men of the west for boycotting marriage entirely.

  31. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    OT, but it’s an oldie from 2014, written by one of your favorite people. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/on-daughters-and-dating-how-to-intimidate-suitors

    Apparently Jen Wilkin is a female Trump:
    “you need to build a wall. That’s right, you heard me—build a wall. Go all “Rapunzel.” Build it so high that only the strongest of suitors can scale it. But don’t wait until your baby girl is a teenager, bro—start now.”

    In other words: We need to build a wall. It’s gonna be yuuge. And it’s got to be built quickly!

    Oh, and don’t forget the requisite “Tell her you think she is absolutely beautiful” comment. (Paging Matt Walsh).

  32. feeriker says:

    Definitely not laughing, Feeriker, it’s heartbreaking.

    Nah, just a figure of speech, Tam.

    Yes, it’s indeed a heartbreaking commentary on the state of the world we live in that every time we think we can exaggerate beyond the bounds of disbelief that we stumble across an example –alas, usually MULTIPLE examples– of people reminding us that fallen humanity is capable of far worse than anything our imaginations can conjure up. Who can blame people for wanting to say “Stop the world! I’m getting off!”?

  33. feeriker says:

    In other words: We need to build a wall. It’s gonna be yuuge. And it’s got to be built quickly!

    And then let’s measure the number of years between when the last brick is put in place and when the screaming starts of “MY DAUGHTER IS STILL SINGLE! OH, GAWD, WHY CAN’T SHE GET A DATE??!! HOW COME ALL THE MEN ARE IGNORING MY DAUGHTER??!! WHERE ARE ALL THE REAL MEN OUT THERE??!! WILL SOMEBODY PUHLLLLLEEEEEEEASE MAN UP AND MARRY MY DAUGHTER?????!!!!!”

    That pesky little “cause and effect” thing that’s just sooooo hard to understand …

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    commenter tinwoman replied explaining that the real reason women divorce is because men are abusive:

    …you have NO idea how many women are divorced because they were abused. You seem to think it is rare?

    I admit it, I used to think abusive husbands were rare. However, from a previous posts here I now see that abuse = anything that makes the wife unhappy. I have been on the lookout for this ever since, and it is prolific. I now disregard any woman’s claim of abuse as my first reaction. Feminism has taken away my (White) Knighthood.

    “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” – Aesop

  35. Pingback: A cold calculation. | Reaction Times

  36. Anon says:

    Remember that most cuckservatives and manginas actually *want* to be cuckolded.

    If you can stomach having sex with the ugly shoggoths that the typical mangina (and to a lesser extent, cuckservative) is married, to it is your duty to create the win-win-win situation.

    You get to reproduce on the other man’s dime.
    The woman wants AF/BB
    The cuck wants to be cucked.

    Everybody wins! Especially the cuck, who gets to man up, step up, and enable a woman to fulfull her aspirations.

    Do it.

    **Cuckolding is an evil act, but a) most of the blame lies with the woman, and b) make sure the person you are cuckolding is a mangina or cuckservative, because then, it is what they *want*, so you are merely helping the lesser man.

  37. Lyn87 says:

    The Question,

    That article was bad, and the comments were worse… the word “cringeworthy” comes to mind. That fits neatly with what Lost Patrol wrote. Parents who raise their daughters like that are likely to be in for some rude surprises. Those surprises might take the form of having spinster daughters. They might take the form of their little princesses whoring it up with the “slouchy-pants” losers they’re so determined to scare off. They might end up with bastard grandchildren. Or they might end up with all three embodied in the same woman.

    (None of those outcomes would prevent them from blaming men for not being man enough to wife them up after they hit the Wall and start going back to church.)

    And the male-bashing in the comments was off the charts, especially among the more feminist female readers, although a couple of mothers-of-sons pushed back. Anyone who thinks that churches are overflowing with high-quality young women who are chomping at the bit to find suitable young men for Christian matrimony must travel in very different circles than the rest of us… or they have a very odd view of what constitutes quality. Every girl in the church I grew up in was a slut.

    Every. Single. One.

    Guys don’t ask for much, but what guys ask for is important. All these clowns berating young men for not jumping into marriage are blissfully unaware of just how damaged most of those “beautiful” young women are: branch-swinging, Chad-chasing, unchaste, prideful, contentious, bossy, and fat. Then consider that the church is on board with the same stuff the world is on board with regarding divorce and knowing Who Is Always At Fault (spoiler: it’s always the male). Like Dalrock’s post shows, the church is just half-a-beat behind the world, and that’s more a matter of form than substance (as guys like BillyS and feeriker can attest).

  38. Lyn87 says:

    Lost Patrol writes,

    I admit it, I used to think abusive husbands were rare. However, from a previous posts here I now see that abuse = anything that makes the wife unhappy. I have been on the lookout for this ever since, and it is prolific. I now disregard any woman’s claim of abuse as my first reaction. Feminism has taken away my (White) Knighthood.

    “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” – Aesop

    Right there with you, brother. My default reaction to a random woman’s tale of abuse or even rape is disbelief, and they may thank feminists for that. At this point I’m not sure I could ever return a guilty verdict against a man accused of such a crime as a juror unless there was audio and video footage for the entire 24 hours before, during, and after the alleged crime… (and even then only if they didn’t know each other beforehand, otherwise I’d have to consider the strong possibility that there was ongoing mitigating provocation and vote to acquit anyway).

  39. Anon says:

    At this point I’m not sure I could ever return a guilty verdict against a man accused of such a crime as a juror unless there was audio and video footage for the entire 24 hours before, during, and after the alleged crime…

    Indeed. If I ever get called for Jury Duty on any rape or sexual assault case, I am going to jury-nullify the whole things unless there is an extremely high level of iron-clad proof provided. It would have to be an extremely iron-clad level of proof. I will not merely acquit, but do jury nullification so as to not have to persuade any blue pill fellow jurors.

  40. RPC says:

    I hope I live long enough to see society inevitably break down and women suddenly need men again. The only reason detestable women like the one in this article have the ability to live independently without assistance is because men — their government, their inventions, their protection, their willingness to fight and die in wars, and their willingness to surrender their God-given authority — have ALLOWED it.

    Dalrock states: Feminists have also been largely successful at removing the social stigma against wives who destroy their families, with the great help of conservatives (especially Christian conservatives).

    I would take it further. It’s not just that the stigma has been removed. There is now a perverse glamour for single/divorced mothers in today’s church. They are held up as beautiful, innocent victims. There are “ministries” galore focused on single women. Just last weekend our church was promoting a holiday “ministry” to provide Thanksgiving dinners to single mothers in the community. As if these poor victims don’t have enough resources already. It’s all just so Fing masturbatory.

    Being a single mother gets you cash and prizes in the secular world. In the “Christian” world it gets you moral rewards: sympathy, praise, and a martyr-like virtue.

    Where are the “ministries” for single men?

    I’ve had enough.

  41. But where are all the good men to impregnate us and put a ring on it first???

    Beuller?? Anyone?? Beuller?

  42. Dalrock

    Please do something on the new cohort of 50 somethings in this first wave of 1980s divorces.

    The kids are now grown and gone. The child support has ended. There may be alimony but much less. They are so beyond SMV that no man will ever LTR it. Even a ONS is unlikely.

    Millions of weomen facing anothert 15 -20 years working or pre retirement. Alone. Financially strapped. Without a safety net.

    Yes late life divorce is rare. But the crop of 30year old divorces who couldnt remarry are aging into the same state. What does the future hold for them and how will they impact the feminist conversation? How does one ignore these walking poster children for the feminist dream??

    And who is going to casre for them as they age and need help with the family home they now ramble around in?

  43. Roger C. says:

    So what steps can we make to promote changes in law so that the filing party in a divorce, if no fault is alleged, relinquishes custody of the children, gives up all property held in common (save for things like clothes and toiletries), and has to be put in the child support system?

    And if fault is alleged, there should be a trial, bench or jury, to determine whether the allegation is true, and split the estate appropriately?

  44. mmaier2112 says:

    Watching the broads in my family and of my acquaintance attempting to rationalize their idiotic decisions (some going back decades) is truly amusing, if truly sad at the same time.

    Women will do anything and most will never feel the least bit of a twinge of regret. Because to do so would be admitting they were wrong.

    If they wind up burning in Hell and there are day trips, I will LOL. I really will. But I am smaller a person than I know I should be.

  45. “Build it so high that only the strongest of suitors can scale it.”

    Won’t that only make it so that Daughter ends up with a guy who has little respect for other people’s boundaries?

  46. Frank K says:

    “So what steps can we make to promote changes in law …”

    Import a ton of Muslims and impose Shariah law?

  47. Dave says:

    I once read that the word No is one of the most powerful word in the English language.
    As more men start using that word when the opportunity to become a “Bucking Beta” comes their way, so much will the lots of men, everywhere, improve.

  48. Lyn87 says:

    RPC writes,

    “I hope I live long enough to see society inevitably break down and women suddenly need men again. The only reason detestable women like the one in this article have the ability to live independently without assistance is because men — their government, their inventions, their protection, their willingness to fight and die in wars, and their willingness to surrender their God-given authority — have ALLOWED it.

    I referred Brother Boxer to the Daniel Amneus book, “The Garbage Generation” in another thread, and Prof. Amneus makes the same point in a roundabout way. Feminism can only exist as a parasite on a healthy/wealthy society (until it kills the host), and history unfailingly shows that the only way for a society to become healthy/wealthy is to embrace patriarchy.

    It’s like the recent US election: the cry-bullies ought to be rejoicing that Trump won. Patriarchal capitalism is the goose that lays the golden eggs that creates enough excess wealth for parasitical philosophies to live… whether liberalism, feminism, fat acceptance, or milquetoast Christianity. The SJWs and assorted libtards have had their hands on the levers of power for eight years, and they did plenty of damage… now they need to let the adults run things for a while or they’ll be nothing left for them to loot – at which point they’ll have to face a very uncaring world equipped with nothing more than a victim complex and a degree in “Gender Studies” (neither of which would be worth a bucket of warm spit).

  49. feeriker says:

    I now disregard any woman’s claim of abuse as my first reaction. Feminism has taken away my (White) Knighthood.

    “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” – Aesop

    Heartily third Lyn and Anon. My default visceral reaction nowadays to any claim by any woman of abuse or rape is “BULLSHIT, bitch.” There would have to be OVERWHELMING AND INCONTROVERTIBLE physical evidence against a man (as in video footage clearly showing him in the act) for me to even consider believing such claims.

    “Ladies,” thank your feminist “leaders” for destroying your credibility (which, like virginity, is something that once lost can never be regained).

    “The Feminist Liar Who Cried Abuse/Rape.” – Author(s) Unknown

  50. Lost Patrol says:

    My default reaction to a random woman’s tale of abuse or even rape is disbelief, and they may thank feminists for that.

    Lyn,

    Another thing that is happening with me along these same lines, that I can hardly believe myself; is that feminists like the one featured in this post are succeeding in making me into the misogynist they’ve always claimed I was. And here I was thinking I loved women, nearly all of them.

    I spent almost my entire life completely enthralled with females. Looking back, I really thought of little else. I chased after them and spent all my money on them. I actually had a series of hot girlfriends (ironically, back then they were called “cool” chicks), but eventually they all dumped me because I was the poster boy for what we now term beta, blue pill, etc. I never gave up though, because I thought they were mostly all great, and they could do little wrong in my book. This seems fairly pathetic now, but those were the facts at the time.

    The relentless onslaught of feminism in all its forms has pushed me so far back into a corner that I have lost nearly all of that. I now tend to view women with more suspicion than anything else. It’s not relevant, because I’m an old married guy; but I’ve spoken with younger men who are losing interest in the modern feminist offerings in this same way. That, as others have pointed out in this thread and others, is a different kettle of fish.

  51. feeriker says:

    I hope I live long enough to see society inevitably break down and women suddenly need men again.

    By the time that happens women will have long since destroyed what little good will remained between the sexes and men will have long since learned to get along without them. Any talk by women about “needing men” again will be seen as the hypergamous opportunism that it is and will be dismissed out of hand by most self-respecting men, the majority of whom by that time will be red pill-aware. The few men who do decide to take on an estrogen bag as a burden will set conditions for the relationship that will make the life of female slaves of ages past seem positively benign by comparison.

    “It’s gonna be a bitch to be a bitch.”

  52. feeriker says:

    Another thing that is happening with me along these same lines, that I can hardly believe myself; is that feminists like the one featured in this post are succeeding in making me into the misogynist they’ve always claimed I was.

    That is, of course, what they really want – or think they want. However, it’s one of those “be careful what you wish for; you just might get it” things. Dr. Frankenstein wanted a monster and created one. It turned out rather badly for him in the end.

  53. This cold calculation is all too common. The movie “Mrs Doubtfire” was ALL about this cold calculation. Sally Fields’ character felt completely okay and morally vindicated with blowing up the family and ejecting her husband out of their home simply because… she was angry. So Robin Williams had to dress up like a woman just to see his kids everyday. That is how much he loved his kids. And all throughout the movie, never once are we led to believe that mom is a villain in anyway.

    48.9%. That is our current percentage of people in this country over the age of 18 who are married, 48.9%. And every year, that number drops linearly. And a new “record” is reached, a new low bar for the stick which civilized society must now “limbo” underneath. We passed the 50% threshold in 2013 and we are not going back, not until feminism and unilateral no-fault-divorce goes bye-bye. That will not be happening.

    I am one of those people that actually believe that civilized society can not exist in the absence of marriage. It simply can’t. Marriage came before all forms of government, all of them. Marriage came before all forms of organized religion, all of them. Marriage was at the beginning long before we even called it marriage. You can not build civilization when the entire foundation of what all civilization is built on is ripped away, you can’t. In 1976, 72% of all people 18 and older were married. I expect that at the end of Trump’s presidency, we will be at (or below) 44% of all people 18 and older that are married. You think the violence is bad now, that the rioting is bad now? Ha. You people haven’t seen ANYTHING yet…..

  54. Lyn87 says:

    Lost Patrol,

    As a fellow OMG (Old Married Guy), I also no longer have a dog in this fight, except insofar as it affects the church. I’m fairly well insulated from the effects on a personal level – by the Grace of God. My wife really is a unicorn, but I’m not under any delusions about how rare such creatures are, and our current church has exactly zero male-bashing… ever. I’ve had a couple of disagreements with the official doctrinal statements, but nothing I can’t live with in the five years we’ve been there.

    Having said that: it was hard enough being single “back in the day”… I can’t imagine transporting my young, single self into today’s mating market. I don’t suppose it’s gotten much better. I don’t know if unicorns are more or less numerous now than they were then, but in today’s legal and cultural climate, only a unicorn would do: husbands have no authority that is bound to be recognized by pastors or judges, and neither society nor the church will exercise any, so it’s up to the woman herself to be a good Christian wife.

  55. Deja Vu says:

    Wow. My mother kicked my no-longer-able-to-work-or-walk MS-suffering father out of the house and moved in a new man two months later…this was over 40 years ago…Satan moves in mysterious ways…and, apparently, he shares the same M.O. with new women each generation. Who knew?

  56. Jim Christian says:

    Liberals are dying out, I figure. How could they NOT? 30 or 40 MILLION abortions. For five decades we’ve had Feminism crushing the notion of families, of babies. The birthrates of the wily, idiotic Feminist has to have been way below replacement rate. The members of the Alphabet Soup of Sexual Depravity, they don’t marry and have children. Blacks killing and maiming each other to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year certainly help the theory. Plus, the universities daily (for decades now) encourage the behaviors and lifestyles and attitudes that prohibit the growth of the liberal base, over time. Further, their abject destruction of Christianity, indeed any religion, that doesn’t do much for birthrates, either.

    Isn’t the Liberal base burning itself out? Have we perhaps just seen the first ripple of a wave that overwhelms Liberals, the reduction of their numbers among voters? Is there a shred of demographic evidence in my musings to suggest/support the theory? I realize they’ve tried to make up the electoral numbers with their support of illegal immigrants, but I do wonder what the chances are that the liberal base has dropped in numbers, beyond recovery?

    Could the Demographic Pendulum have swung away from them and toward us? It won’t budge the courts for a long time, but doesn’t the theory hold some water?

  57. feeriker says:

    Liberals are dying out, I figure. How could they NOT? 30 or 40 MILLION abortions.

    That might very well be. Unfortunately, conservatives aren’t reproducing at anything close to replacement level either, to say nothing of creating a population explosion of their own (cuckservatives, for all of their verbal flatulence about “family values,” clearly aren’t very interested in creating or maintaining large and thriving families. With cuckservative women being nothing but anti-abortion feminists who put careers and carousel riding over marriage, motherhood, and family, just like their liberal sestren, this isn’t surprising), With both ideological ends of the spectrum it’s now a race to the demographic bottom. Small wonder both sides are hellbent on importing as many immigrants (non-white, of course) as possible to compensate for their own lack of motivation to perpetuate their own posterity.

  58. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    With cuckservative women being nothing but anti-abortion feminists who put careers and carousel riding over marriage, motherhood, and family,

    They are only ‘anti-abortion’, BECAUSE they can get a guaranteed, tax-free, imputed and under penalty of imprisonment income stream from the father, with no accountability on whether they spend it on the child. I bet a lot of these women just feed their children banana peels and pasta water in order to keep the child alive so as to keep the payments ongoing.

    All things considered, abortion is better than enslavement of the father…. The only way to remove both is a complete removal of democracy.

    IBB

    Sally Fields’ character felt completely okay and morally vindicated with blowing up the family and ejecting her husband out of their home simply because… she was angry.

    Remember to add the other major point in ‘feminist’ propaganda : Sally Fields was able to trade up from Robin Williams to Pierce Brosnan after detonating her family, even as a 40+ divorced mother with kids.

    In real life, Robin Williams’ suicide probably had some elements of similarity to that film, as most male suicides do.

  59. BillyS says:

    Feeriker,

    I am doing well overall. I miss her occasionally, but I get over it reasonably quick now.

    I just got back from an event both of us went to for several years and I initially got hit with lousy feelings, but I worked past those.

    My wife will not have any existing friends around because she moved to another state, to be close to her very old mother. She enjoys Survivor and other such TV enough that she will likely be fine for a while. I suspect alimony will be higher than I will like, but not what she wants. It is likely going to have to end up in arbitration, but that should work to my advantage for several reasons (lack of effort on her part and her letting a certification that she could make more with expire).

    I am really praying about whether it would be good for my son and family to move in with me. It would have the advantage of having some grandchildren close, but would risk my son and I ruining our improved relationship by butting heads, something that is too likely.

    I have enough space, but I am not sure that is a good choice.

    I do find I want a good wife, so I doubt I will be able to go full MGTOW, but I want to be very cautious going that route, since I don’t want to repeat this part in a few years. I am not sure how to find a good target in the proper age range that is not very scarred.

  60. In real life, Robin Williams’ suicide probably had some elements of similarity to that film, as most male suicides do.

    That was the first thing I thought when I heard it.

  61. feeriker says:

    In real life, Robin Williams’ suicide probably had some elements of similarity to that film, as most male suicides do.

    That was the first thing I thought when I heard it.

    Yup.

    Tragically, he didn’t leave a suicide note of any kind, so we’ll never know. He probably figured at that point “Why bother? Who’s going to give a rat fuck anyway?”

  62. Jim Christian says:

    Jesus, Sally Fields traded up, eh? Did Pierce dump HER yet?

    BillyS, good luck. You don’t seem to be cut from the same roguish cloth as I, but I found, after my “Not Haaaaapy” divorce that remaining single was the best move. Mine was 1992, it was Virginia, she had a little fear for reasons I won’t go into here and it’s over now in any case. I still had some rights, I dictated no moving with our daughter, no live-ins, no overnights while my daughter was in the house. I would have taken her to court and she knew it. My ex wasn’t particularly promiscuous, but then, overweight and 33, her options were pretty limited. She even dabbled in lesbianism, and THAT was about to become an issue in court and she drifted out of that and married some poor schlubb of a man and they had a daughter with epilepsy. Tragic. Because that’s what happens when women dump a decent guy. I used to feel very sorry for her second husband, but better him than me.

    My advice, stay single. Get a vasectomy, become a little more like women, be a little predatory, enjoy the company of women but never let one rule you. Mine was 1992, and even then, you couldn’t trust them. If they’ve been to college in the past twenty years, they will cheat, leave, dump, steal, you name it, they can rationalize it. You have to harden your heart out there. Yeah, sure, it would be NICE to find a good one, but there are fewer and fewer of them.

  63. Avraham rosenblum says:

    I went through this in around 1990. This left me with not just a personal problem but also an intellectual problem. That is how to synthesis the information in order to create a ore accurate worldview and then to act properly based on this new world view. I never got very far with this, But i found an approximate solution based on the opinion of Maimonides and Rabbainu Yona from Granada. That is to concentrate of personal improvement and not look at what is wrong with others but rather to find what is wrong with me and to seek to improve myself. That is to learn the Law of Moses, Physics and Metaphysics. That is I attributed my problems to some kind of lack of understanding and some kind of attitude problem and some kind of lack of good character within myself. I figured if I could change myself for the better then the whole world would change for the better. But I needed an accurate idea of what is good character. So I needed to synthesize information that I was getting from reading the Law of Moses (Written and Oral) and reading about the world and also experience.

  64. Feminist Hater says:

    I do find I want a good wife, so I doubt I will be able to go full MGTOW, but I want to be very cautious going that route, since I don’t want to repeat this part in a few years. I am not sure how to find a good target in the proper age range that is not very scarred.

    Going to be real with you. You might not want to go full Mgtow but I would caution hugely against simply jumping into other relationships and seeking a new marriage partner at least for a year to two years. Take a long break, improve yourself, your situation and learn to be able to survive as yourself without validation from another. Focus on work, your children and your family and friends network. Put time into those and rebuild any connections lost during your marriage. A partner will come later if that is what you truly want.

  65. Minesweeper says:

    I think as some have said marriage will eventually (shortly – maybe 2 gens?) only be viable for the upper classes. Where divorce is still regarded as an expensive failure and not financially rewarded as both will have substantial assets going into the marriage. And only lawyers will benefit from the eventual long and drawn out divorce if one occurs.

    It just goes to show the real heart of woman, given the chance to utterly ruin her children’s father, its the option taken everytime. I cant see marriage being reformed without the entirety of feminism being rolled back.

    Which is only going to lead to more and more unhappy women, seeing the number of (formerly) attractive women who can’t get no man in their 40’s after initiating a divorce is actually quite sad for everyone. MGTOW can do ok, survive, but women on their own develop their own kind of desperation.

  66. Boxer says:

    Feminist Hater sez:

    Going to be real with you. You might not want to go full Mgtow but I would caution hugely against simply jumping into other relationships and seeking a new marriage partner at least for a year to two years. Take a long break, improve yourself, your situation and learn to be able to survive as yourself without validation from another. Focus on work, your children and your family and friends network. Put time into those and rebuild any connections lost during your marriage. A partner will come later if that is what you truly want.

    180

  67. Lost Patrol says:

    @feeriker

    That is, of course, what they really want – or think they want.

    It did not occur to me that feminists actually want me to hate women. I thought they knew perfectly well that most men liked women quite a bit, often enjoyed having them around; and that ‘Misogynist!’ was simply a term they bandied about to help them get their way. I understood that feminists wanted me to take a backseat, support and defend their choices, and become a mangina; and pushed this so much that I grew increasingly annoyed – but not that they might actually be trying to make me hate them as they hate me.

  68. Lost Patrol says:

    Lyn,

    I’m glad to hear of your circumstances in that regard. One likes to know it can happen somewhere.

  69. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960156/Prisoner-officer-s-wife-comments-prisoner-s-Facebook-pictures.html

    Lol. Women are so moral and have God’s marriage Textbook in their hearts! lollolallozllzlzozlzlzolzozl!

  70. Dalrock says:

    @BillyS

    I suspect alimony will be higher than I will like, but not what she wants.

    From what I understand, in Texas alimony is pretty uncommon. A wife has to meet a very strict set of requirements to qualify for alimony: http://cordellcordell.com/resources/texas/texas-maintenance/

  71. Novaseeker says:

    I realize they’ve tried to make up the electoral numbers with their support of illegal immigrants, but I do wonder what the chances are that the liberal base has dropped in numbers, beyond recovery?

    Could the Demographic Pendulum have swung away from them and toward us? It won’t budge the courts for a long time, but doesn’t the theory hold some water?

    Well, it was really more that she wasn’t able to get the black voters to turn out like Obama did. She did win the national PV by running up the score in CA among Asians, Latinos and progressive whites. However, she wasn’t able to run up the score among blacks in Philly, Detroit and Milwaukee like Obama did, and so she lost those states. They were all pretty close, and her vote totals in the cities were much, much lower than Obama’s were. That’s not because all the black people who voted for Obama are gone, it’s because they had record turnout twice to vote for a black guy, but nothing close to that turnout for an old white woman (go figure, huh?).

    The demographic problem for the right still exists, but the Obama coalition doesn’t work under the EC system due to the problems she faced in PA, WI and MI by not being able to really pile on votes in the inner cities like Obama did. Latinos are still about as democratic as they were under Obama, which is notable given that the right was running Mr-Build-A-Wall, and he got pretty much as many Latinos to vote for him as Romney did. Young people also didn’t come out in the same numbers as they did under Obama in 2008, but their turnout was also lower in 2012 than in 2008. If Sanders were running, more young votes would have been cast, and for Bernie, but I think Bernie gets fewer black and Latino votes than “She” did, so probably still a net loss — dunno. But the longer term demographic issue regarding Latinos and Asians is still a real one — it’s just that the issue Hillary had was about black turnout, for the most part, which isn’t part of the demographic issue overall because their share of the population isn’t expected to change much in the coming decades.

    It’s funny seeing many Dems blame the result on white women. Yes, Hillary didn’t win college educated white women by as much as she thought she would, but if she had turned out the black votes in the inner city that Obama did it wouldn’t have mattered. That was her problem. White women always split their vote and there were indications the whole election that many younger white women in particular were not very enthusiastic about Hillary. Blacks by contrast are overwhelmingly Democratic, and so every one of them who comes out to vote is overwhelmingly likely to vote for whomever the Democrats are running, so the game is 100% about turnout. The demographics didn’t change that much in 4 years, but the turnout of blacks changed enough to cost Hillary at least three states, maybe 4.

  72. Novaseeker says:

    So what steps can we make to promote changes in law so that the filing party in a divorce, if no fault is alleged, relinquishes custody of the children, gives up all property held in common (save for things like clothes and toiletries), and has to be put in the child support system?

    And if fault is alleged, there should be a trial, bench or jury, to determine whether the allegation is true, and split the estate appropriately?

    You’d have to have a revolution in family law, because the whole idea of no fault is to make divorce easier, not to make it harder by punishing people who initiate a no fault divorce. Also, the kids are seen under family law as a separate issue quite apart from the fault or not in the breakdown of the marriage, so that would be a second revolution. Neither of these is likely no matter how much you lobby, really, at this point in time. Tinkering is available, however — things like presumptions of shared custody and alimony limits and/or elimination. Broader changes are very unlikely until such time, if ever, that women become the primary payor spouses, at which point I believe we will see some changes.

  73. greyghost says:

    I’m sure the Christian church is all in on this one

  74. BillyS says:

    Alimony is odd in Texas Dalrock, but the length of my marriage makes it an option. It is capped at 20%, which is good, as my wife initially wanted/expected more than the maximum. It is immoral in this context, but it probably sounded good to the white knights writing the law. Good they put a cap in though.

    The woman does have to pursue income and it seems to be based on what she needs rather than other things, but no firm guidelines exist beyond the legal maximum limit. I have a feeling I will have to pay a mediator to get an amount. This would be resolved except for that, but she is not really thinking this through.

    (I texted her last night asking what she would do when the alimony ended, in response to a text from her that an offer I put forth was too low. I am fairly certain she has not really counted the cost in this area.)

  75. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    I did review the page you noted already. Good information, but light on specifics beyond the broad areas. I would love more detail on what is “reasonable” in that context, but even my lawyer said no firm principles exist outside what the site noted.

    I likely need to just relax at this point and let things work out, something that is not my strongest skill.

  76. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Billy S I highly recommend not to text her. Anything you write she will be looking for ways to use against you.

  77. BillyS says:

    That is a good point. I am trying to resolve the last issue, but keeping quiet is likely the best approach at this point.

  78. Pingback: What Next? White Supremacists In Suits And Ties In Washington

  79. Gunner Q says:

    Roger C. @ November 21, 2016 at 9:18 pm:
    “So what steps can we make to promote changes in law…”

    More than laws, we need to promote Christianity. Changing laws without a moral compass rarely ends well. At this point, most men would be happy to legislate our AF/BB parallel, the Madonna/Whore sexual strategy. That’s a better fate for society but not good enough for Christ.

    Jim Christian @ 12:10 am:
    “Isn’t the Liberal base burning itself out?”

    Liberals reproduce by recruiting, not breeding. The way to cull their numbers is to shut down public education, the college-industrial complex and the journalism industry. That’s why those are primary targets for liberal takeover, because they need to get their hooks into impressionable minds. Also why they try so hard to exterminate fathers.

    Lost Patrol @ 6:04 am:
    “It did not occur to me that feminists actually want me to hate women.”

    They want the drama hatred creates… but men pushed too far become indifferent, not angry. Female Doomsday: It’s over, Barbie, I need to live my life now.

  80. Frank K says:

    “Broader changes are very unlikely until such time, if ever, that women become the primary payor spouses, at which point I believe we will see some changes.”

    This. If this comes to pass, and it might as women are earning the majority of college degrees and are first in line for good paying .gov jobs and AA positions in Corporate America, then we will hear politicians and “church” leaders demand that these “unfair laws” be amended.

  81. Frank K says:

    “I texted her last night asking what she would do when the alimony ended, in response to a text from her that an offer I put forth was too low. I am fairly certain she has not really counted the cost in this area”

    If she was thinking about the future and consequences she wouldn’t be divorcing you now, would she?

  82. Frank K says:

    “Billy S I highly recommend not to text her. Anything you write she will be looking for ways to use against you.”

    Agreed, let your lawyer do the talking.

  83. Frank K says:

    “Liberals reproduce by recruiting, not breeding.”

    And via immigration, both legal and illegal.

    Immigrants, for all their personal “old country conservatism” will vote for monsters like Clinton in the hope that she will make it easier for them to bring over even more relatives from the old country.

  84. Frank K says:

    “More than laws, we need to promote Christianity. Changing laws without a moral compass rarely ends well. At this point, most men would be happy to legislate our AF/BB parallel, the Madonna/Whore sexual strategy. That’s a better fate for society but not good enough for Christ.”

    Agreed. Talk to most young men and you will find that they not only don’t mind that their future wives have a partner count once associated with prostitutes, many actually think that it’s a good thing, allegedly because she’ll be some sort of love goddess in the bedroom, because she’s “experienced”; never mind that she’s probably diseased – then again, that’s also becoming a badge of honor, from what I’ve read. That so many men actually want an LTR (and possibly marriage) with what are basically pro-bono prostitutes screams to us that without Christ nothing can be accomplished.

  85. Pingback: What Next? White Supremacists In Suits And Ties In Washington | D!SRUPT

  86. feeriker says:

    Agreed, let your lawyer do the talking.

    Absolutely, at least until the divorce is finalized – especially if you have a better lawyer than she does (as I did). Let HER (or her lawyer) be the one to step on a landmine.

  87. Gunner Q says:

    @Frank K,
    “And via immigration, both legal and illegal.”

    Who needs immigration when you have vote fraud? The Democrats’ most loyal voting bloc is the dead.

    “Talk to most young men and you will find that they not only don’t mind that their future wives have a partner count once associated with prostitutes, many actually think that it’s a good thing, allegedly because she’ll be some sort of love goddess in the bedroom, because she’s “experienced””

    Madonna/Whore is a guy bedding all the sluts he wants until he reaches his sexual prime then using the accumulated skills/experience/wealth to land an attractive virgin to have kids with. She gets the “love god” not him. This works better than AF/BB because sex is available to all men and the (few) women who get husbands have a guy who “Just Gets It”. It’s likely to succeed the current AF/BB system because men are starved for sex and don’t have fathers/God to teach them better. And of course, most women today are too damaged for marriage.

    But yeah, STDs are a big problem with the strategy. Also hypocrisy, bastardy, inhumane treatment of women and lower class men get sex but still not wives.

  88. @mgtowhorseman
    The answer to your question above.
    What are 50 years+ low-to-no SMV female divorcees who are alone and looking for more protection and resources via male companionship?

    Bear in mind there is no shortage of old, divorced blue pill bastards willing to stand in line to run the gauntlet yet again a special prize – a hot bowl of chicken noodle soup with arsenic sauce:

    http://www.ourtime.com/

  89. Clarence says:

    A paper that Dalrock might have some use for, and backs up what Novaseeker is saying: divorce is the preferred option because ‘it protects the state’, basically:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807222

  90. Cane Caldo says:

    Over time however as marriage continues to crumble and the economic benefits of the system are forgone, eventually we will start to see a push by our elites to reign in the worst abuses of the family courts. The problem is, by the time the pain is great enough to no longer ignore, much of the massive goodwill of men towards marriage that sustains this new model will have been squandered.

    And there is the question if they haven’t waited too long before they begin to try to reign in disaster. It is not enough to reign in the the abuses because even the non-abuse cases literally breed disaster. I don’t know what the threshold/tipping point of the combined forces of divorce and OoW birth is, but I believe we’re past it and will stay there for a good long time. You can’t go back and re-father people. Once they grow up without one they tend to perpetuate it, and at a faster rate than the children of married parents perpetuate marriage.

  91. Frank K says:

    “Madonna/Whore is a guy bedding all the sluts he wants until he reaches his sexual prime then using the accumulated skills/experience/wealth to land an attractive virgin to have kids with.”

    Are there really guys like that (other than idiot Hollyweird stars)? From what I have observed, the AF guys never become interested in marriage, and why would they? They get all the sex they want, without any strings or the threat of divorce/alimony.

    The only guys who will put a ring on it these days are the thirsty Betas, who are simply grateful that a “retired slut” will marry them. And they are grateful, because the sluts used to ignore them when they were younger. So they happily marry pro-bono prostitutes, that is until she gets bored with her BetaBux and starts cheating, and then takes him to the cleaners in divorce court.

    A question remains: who do the young virgins marry? I’m guessing that they marry the older, higher value Betas and maybe a few reformed Alphas. Though I have to wonder just how many virginal brides are left? When I tell people that my wife and I have had no other partners, most people think I’m joking.

  92. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    You’d have to have a revolution in family law, because the whole idea of no fault is to make divorce easier, not to make it harder by punishing people who initiate a no fault divorce. Also, the kids are seen under family law as a separate issue quite apart from the fault or not in the breakdown of the marriage, so that would be a second revolution. Neither of these is likely no matter how much you lobby, really, at this point in time. Tinkering is available, however — things like presumptions of shared custody and alimony limits and/or elimination. Broader changes are very unlikely until such time, if ever, that women become the primary payor spouses, at which point I believe we will see some changes.

    I don’t see women ever becoming the primary payor spouses. The courts will make the odd example of extraordinary situations just to keep up the pretense of being fair, but we won’t ever see a majority shift.

    I agree that changes aren’t feasible right now, but the real issue is the system reflects our societal belief on marriage/families. The claim that it is about the best interest of children is pure nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. It is the same exact thing as the military saying they are opening the ranks to transvestites and opening the SEAL team to women to improve the quality of applicants. In both cases, it is the lie that conservatives insisted on in order to support “progress”. The real issue is that neither conservatives nor feminists are interested in providing any legal force to marriage, or in lessening the incentives to women to divorce. This could change, but I only see it changing following either a profound religious revival or our elites realizing that marriage is needed to keep their pet projects funded.

    If the will is there, what seems impossible today will suddenly become quite possible. Look at the recent cases of Brexit and even Trump for examples of how given enough pain what is possible suddenly changes. I’m not saying changing public opinion would be either quick or easy, but that once there is a real conviction that it needs to change the rest will just be details.

  93. feeriker says:

    Of interest, and tangentially related (file under a “sad-story-with-a-happy(ish)-ending”). Got this as a newsletter email this morning:

    https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/this-guy-got-destroyed-by-the-system-20507/

  94. feeriker says:

    Bear in mind there is no shortage of old, divorced blue pill bastards willing to stand in line to run the gauntlet yet again a special prize – a hot bowl of chicken noodle soup with arsenic sauce:

    http://www.ourtime.com/

    It’s a coin toss as to whether derisive laughter or lamentation is appropriate here. Needless to say, the difference in appearance between the actors who portray “clients” in this site’s TV ads and the portraits on the sites actual dating profiles is chasmic.

  95. Frank K says:

    LOL! It does make one wonder where they find all those good and young looking seniors

  96. thedeti says:

    “This could change, but I only see it changing following either a profound religious revival or our elites realizing that marriage is needed to keep their pet projects funded.

    “If the will is there, what seems impossible today will suddenly become quite possible. Look at the recent cases of Brexit and even Trump for examples of how given enough pain what is possible suddenly changes. I’m not saying changing public opinion would be either quick or easy, but that once there is a real conviction that it needs to change the rest will just be details.”

    I am not sure either revival, or a realization that marriage is necessary to keep government’s coffers filled, is going to happen. So what else could cause it? You’ve in the past suggested that if marriage rates continue to crater, that could cause a change. You’ve also said that as more and more women get squeezed out of marriage, having to wait longer and longer to marry such that they can’t marry in the first place or have kids, because men are refusing marriage, that could do it.

    I think economic collapse or severe economic crisis could do it. Can’t think of anything else, really.

  97. Gunner Q says:

    Frank K @ 12:22 pm:
    “Are there really guys like that (other than idiot Hollyweird stars)? From what I have observed, the AF guys never become interested in marriage, and why would they? They get all the sex they want, without any strings or the threat of divorce/alimony.”

    Family. Alphas want all the sex but most don’t want all their kids being emotionally stunted bastards. How does he get both? He “sows his wild oats” then, as his hormones calm down, leverages his sexual experience and sky-high preselection to land an attractive virgin breeder who then cannot divorce him. The system also works for higher Betas who can gain traction by using prostitutes/escort to figure out how women tick. Even lower Betas can get sex, too, and she’ll fake interest in him in return for repeat business.

    Many modern PUAs follow this script, lots of sex then settle down in old(er) age, although nobody sane agrees to actual marriage today. I don’t fault them for doing that–atheists are not Christians–but seeing as it’s now an informal thing, it isn’t hard to see it become the legislated replacement for feminism.

    I haven’t been to Europe but it sounds like Madonna/Whore has a long history on that continent. Professional prostitutes, mistress culture and so on.

  98. Heidi_storage says:

    Holy cats, the author is even worse than her I’m-so-happy-I-unloaded-my-disabled-husband piece would indicate. A very quick look at her XOJane articles reveals that:

    1) Her disabled husband was “abusive” because he didn’t like going on big, expensive trips with her and didn’t like to use wheelchairs;

    2) She was teaching her then four-year-old boy (there’s a picture of him in a women’s hat) about women’s periods so that he won’t “legislate” women’s bodies when he grows up; and

    3) She used Tindr with her five-year-old son and invited him to comment on the various profiles, while also explaining when it’s appropriate to use his penis for “adult fun time.”

    Yuck.

  99. Frank K says:

    From what I have observed, an Alpha “sowing his oats” when young and then later marrying a blushing virgin and raising a family with her is a thing of the past. They understand what the modern western woman is like, especially since they bedded many married women along the way, and they know that it isn’t like in the Disney movies anymore. And they understand all the legal liabilities involved with marriage, about how the courts and pretty much everyone else will side with her when she chooses to nuke the marriage, and that she will get cash and prizes (from him). And being an Alpha, he knows that he can continue to bed women even in his middle age. And when he finally loses interest, he can pursue other interests. Not to mention that many of them consider children to be a liability too. Betas want those things, Alphas in general do not.

  100. Original Laura says:

    @Heidi Storage

    Your research only causes me to be more confused as to why this woman married a man who had already been diagnosed with multiple schlerosis. For the most part, people who are better than average at the caretaker role know who they are, and those who are worse than average are aware of their shortcomings.

    Very odd to be this selfish AND knowingly marry a man with a debilitating illness.

  101. Frank K says:

    “leverages his sexual experience and sky-high preselection to land an attractive virgin breeder who then cannot divorce him.”

    There is no such thing as a woman who cannot divorce you, and she doesn’t even need a reason to eject you from your own home and family and collect cash and prizes.

  102. Frank K says:

    “Your research only causes me to be more confused as to why this woman married a man who had already been diagnosed with multiple schlerosis.”

    Cash and prizes are the usual answer to such mysteries. He was a BetaBux, nothing more. I wouldn’t be surprised if the kid isn’t even his. She’s probably hitting the eject button because she realizes that her workhorse soon will be unable to provide.

  103. feeriker says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the kid isn’t even his.

    She certainly comes across as the type who would think nothing of telling her son “He isn’t really your daddy.”

  104. Morgan says:

    NO FAULT, NO SUPPORT. This is the simplest rallying cry that any family court reform should follow. Clicking a box for no fault divorce, removes child support and removes alimony support. And guaranteed 50% joint custody makes sure that each parent pays their fair share for their kids. All that’s left is to add up their assets and divide by two.

    Asset division was by far the easiest part of the divorce. Her fight for more custody and more child support tripled the cost of our divorce. And what do unhappy wives do to increase cash and prizes before any divorce? They quit their meaningless jobs that they only got because they were unhappy in the home in the first place (So she can work on improving the marriage that she’s tearing down, of course). Income changes over time, and garnishing it to support an ex spouse makes no sense after any time period, when it can be manipulated so easily.

    All that’s left is to make sure false accusations are met with equivalent consequences, and cap support at minimum wage. If I can hire a nanny to perform the same services for the kids that she provides, why should I be required to pay her to take care of her own kids? Every singe dad needs a shirt that reads, “Babysitting? That’s what I pay the ex wife to do,” to make sure everyone knows which parent is the real babysitter.

  105. Gunner Q says:

    @FrankK, I’m talking about possible futures not the current situation.

  106. hansolo007 says:

    Conservatives and Christians fought hard against gay marriage, seeing it as a war on traditional marriage and the family (which it is but it’s limited to a few percent of the population), but didn’t do much about no-fault divorce and custody-plus-child-support going predominately to women. Talk about focusing on the wrong thing–something that affects a low single-digit % of the population vs something (no-fault divorce and child support) that looms over the 80% or so that will have children..

  107. Frank K says:

    Thanks for the clarification. I do think, that while it’s not impossible, that a lot would have to change for alphas to want to marry and be fathers. The current environment is outright hostile to families, or at least to conventional ones. Between the costs of raising kids, being under the constant threat of having Child Protection Services yanking them from your home, the threats of divorce and paying onerous alimony and child support it’s a wonder that anyone still chooses to marry and have kids. The apple cart would definitely have to be flipped over to change that. And as long as we are a secular society, I don’t see what would drive that change.

  108. feeriker says:

    All that’s left is to make sure false accusations are met with equivalent consequences,

    I can see this getting bogged down in an endless game of legal wrangling over “prove that (s)he made this accusation maliciously!” What would seem obvious to the layman operating from a common-sense perspective can be twisted by seasoned family law shysters into a tangled web of utter ambiguity that will defy all resolution. Punishing false accusers, and thus removing the incentive to make such accusations, robs the legal profession of a lot of billable work. The lawyers guild (which includes FCL judges) won’t stand for it.

  109. Pingback: What Next? White Supremacists In Suits And Ties In Washington | Fighting Missouri Court Abuses

  110. Christian says:

    “But even here the terms are open to broad interpretation, as there is no defined amount of provision husbands must provide to be safe in this model, and abuse and infidelity have been stretched beyond all reason so that a husband viewing pornography is now often accused of both abuse and infidelity.”

    Yes. Exhibit A, from the cuckservative side:

    http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/11/25/married-men-your-porn-habit-is-an-adultery-habit/

  111. Minesweeper says:

    @Christian , the only guys who I have met who were vehemently against looking at porn and castigated others over this were (of course) eventually found out be swimming in the stuff and their reaction and striking out was just a reaction of their own issues.

    So I bet MW probably has a porn habit that would horrify most of us considering how often he goes on about it.

  112. Pingback: What Next? White Supremacists In Suits And Ties In Washington | PopularResistance.Org

  113. Pingback: Appealing to the converged authorities [quotage] | Dark Brightness

  114. BillyS says:

    One thing that is often missed is that women in porn look enthusiastic. No starfish sex (or worse) there. (At least not in mainstream stuff, I am sure some porn exists for any possibility.)

  115. Kate says:

    @Original Laura: I agree that outside cleaning help would save many a two-income marriage. I call it “outsourcing your arguments.” In fact, I think it should be the first thing a couple on the brink of divorce should discuss. When a husband becomes seen as just another piece of clutter, there is a major problem.

    Even within the one-income family ideal, if the non-working partner prefers not to do certain work, prioritize having outside help and sacrifice something less important to familial happiness. I would rather have only one shared car, only go out once every couple months, have fewer clothes, etc. than not have a clean house.

  116. Kate says:

    The coldest calculation comes in at the state level by the determination of child support. The only recipe for a “happy” divorce is one in which there is enough money to go around. My ex and I went into divorce negotiations with the intention that neither of us would be financially destroyed. I put myself at great risk to give him half a share of my assets so that he could have his own home near us. Early sacrifices have a way of paying off later though. I eventually recovered from that financial setback and his child support (lower than state mandate) has enabled me to take another leap in buying a second home for our daughter next to our two.

    What most people don’t think about when they divorce is the future. Especially if you have children, this person will never not be a part of your life. They might feel like an enemy at the time of divorce, but, if you treat them right, they will still be your greatest ally down the road when it comes to your child. And that is what you have to think about. My advice to anyone divorcing is still the same as it was when I did it ten years ago: keep the state out of it and negotiate out of court. It’s a far different thing for a man to support a child when he knows that money is being used for good purposes and it feels like a gift and a real contribution than when he feels like he has no control over it and it’s being stolen from him.

  117. Kiljoy says:

    Ann Coulter on single mothers https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=awSB3MULn-4
    In case it hadn’t been flagged up… I guess it’s actually quite old

  118. Lyn87 says:

    Needless to say, the best arrangement for children with regard to divorce is default father custody. Not only would there be far fewer divorce-orphans if women were denied cash-n-prizes (and the kids) for blowing up their families, but those kids would be better off with their fathers than with their mothers, anyway.

  119. Pingback: White Supremacists In Suits And Ties In Washington | PopularResistance.Org

  120. Pingback: What Next? White Supremacists in Suits and Ties in Washington. | Lacy MacAuley

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s