Being divorced is their essence, but don’t label them.

My own divorce story is woven into many posts usually as part of my commentary at the end of each post. I have, however written a few posts specifically about my journey which I’ve always seen in my mind as a climb up a mountain. When I reach the top I stand up tall, raise my arms to the sky, lift my face up and let the wind blow through my hair. I’m not there yet but I’m getting there.

–Mandy Walker, Divorce and Me

In my last post I introduced Mandy Walker, professional divorcée and gray divorce poster child.  Walker wears many hats.  She is:

  1. A divorce coach.
  2. A divorce mediator.
  3. A host/facillitator of divorce support groups.
  4. A writer about divorce, including her blog Since My Divorce and (formerly) divorce related posts at Huffington Post.

All of this was made possible by, you guessed it, divorcing her husband. Divorce changed her life and gave her her new identity.  And yet, Walker is deeply troubled that her doctor would ask about her marital status.  Walker asks Huffington Post readers to join her in refusing to answer this question in Why I Refuse To Give My Marital Status:

Asking about marital status is an anachronism. It no longer serves a purpose and is irrelevant. Won’t you join me in boycotting this question?

Walker has made her divorce the defining moment of her life;  she literally can’t shut up about it.  Yet she is uncomfortable identifying herself as a divorcée to her own doctor.  Why?

As absurd as this sounds, there is a good reason for it.  For women, divorce involves a huge loss of status if it isn’t quickly followed by remarriage.  Checking the box “Divorced” is a painful admission of profound failure.

It isn’t just Walker who is haunted by her status as a divorcée.  Fellow professional divorcée, divorce blogger, and Huffington Post Divorce author Rosemond (Rosie) Perdue Cranner is also deeply troubled by the post divorce status double standard.  Rosie explains in I’m a Divorcee? But what do you call a man who’s divorced?

…it is telling that the world needs a word to describe a woman’s previous marital status but society doesn’t feel the need to label a man’s track record. Why? No one really cares if a man’s been married before but a woman? It’s a mark.

…nobody cares if a man has been married before, but for a woman there is still a bit of old world stink. A slight stench of previously used goods. I think that the literal translation of Divorcee is, “someone’s been in my vagina already, so move along.”

Rosie is wrong on one part, and right on the other.  There already is a word for a man who is divorced.  The word is divorcé.  But she is absolutely right about the different status implications for divorced men and women.  This is one of those intractable problems that feminists simply can’t solve, because it comes down to the heart of the differences between men and women.  Feminists can try to change the language all they like, but they won’t be able to change the way both men and women think about these things.  The same goes for the terms frigid, slut and coward, and the different perception of single mothers vs single fathers.

For example, on another post Rosie warns divorced women over forty to avoid dating never married childless men over 40:

Don’t waste your time dating a man over 40 who’s never been married and had kids.

Rosie, who elsewhere argues that men should face the same stigma women do for being divorced, argues that women should shun never married men and seek out divorced men:

Here’s my advice.  Want a real shot at happiness? Find yourself a man who’s been married before. Find a man who’s had kids. Someone who knows what its like to drive carpool. To hold his wife’s hand in the hospital. Someone who’s got battle scars and loss. Find a real man, not a self involved 40 something man child.

Laughably, Rosie tries to claim that having broken a solemn vow is more moral than not having made the vow at all:

4. Being married before means you are brave enough to make a commitment. 

Yes, we’ve been married and our marriages failed but at least we had the courage to say I Do.

Maybe we failed miserably but we took the walk down the aisle, threw the wedding bouquet and put ourselves in debt to have a kick ass party. At least we tried. Men who’ve made it to 40 and can’t commit? Let them go.

See Also:  Haunted by a number

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Can't keep a man, Divorce, Grey Divorce, Having it all, Hold my beer and watch this, Marriage, selling divorce, Status of marriage, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Being divorced is their essence, but don’t label them.

  1. Pingback: Being divorced is their essence, but don’t label them. | @the_arv

  2. Poptarts says:

    Proudly declares “put ourselves in debt to have a kick ass party”.

    And that gentlemen is why women should NEVER have been given the right to vote, hold any position of power in society or any say in policy decisions outside of the home furnishings. They will blow up the world to have a “kick ass party” first.

  3. feministhater says:

    Thank God. Who would want a divorced woman anyway? A never married man who seeks to marry a divorced women is looking to get his heart and his wallet removed through his anus. A divorced man who looks to marry a divorced women is seeking to get stabbed in the gut, having his kidneys, heart and other organs removed, being taken off of life support and having his life savings squandered .. Don’t be stupid.

    These women are doing men a massive service, likely the biggest service to be given to men by women ever, bar feminism itself. They are holding clear, bright luminous lights above their heads and screaming “Warning! Warning! Danger ahead, avoid at all costs!”.

    Rather than pointing out their delusions, thank them and ask them to keep advertising. It saves lives!

  4. Emperor Constantine says:

    I just got into a huge argument with family because I refused to allow their fat, vulgar, trashy single mom “friend” to insult me and the other men around the patio having dinner and a few beers. I pushed back hard and made it clear that it was unacceptable for them to allow fat, trashy single mom to speak to me and the other men around the table disrespectfully.

    This post helped me understand her shrewish behavior, and constant need to put men down: it’s a reaction to her understanding that she is fundamentally lower status than us men (including divorced men like me), and therefore she needs to bring men down to her level. So as usual, great work Dalrock. As a Christian, please pray for me to have the strength to face and deal with all the evil you have exposed for me. At times it is overwhelming and more than a little depressing.

    I’ve absolutely had it with the matriarchy/gynocracy/white-knights in my family, it makes me sick to my stomach to have to deal with it, their ignorance and inability to see the destruction and evil wrought upon the helpless children of divorce (including effectively a lost decade for both my kids, now in their late 20s and only just beginning to get their lives in order), and I think I need to just sever the connection.

    What’s strange is that my sister is upset with another female family member, who separated from her husband and has been on a nonstop, Tinder-driven slutfest for almost 18 months, to include bringing home hookups WHEN HER YOUNG SON IS PRESENT. (My ex-wife did the same. Fortunately, I only found out years later when my son told me. If I had known at the time, it’s quite possible I would have killed her in a fit of rage.) She doesn’t make the connection that her single mom “friend” and single mom family member are exactly the same: low-class, family-destroying, rebellious Jezebels that are not fit for respectable society.

    My suggestion for the blog readers/posters is that, if you have the stomach for it, draw this line in the sand. Make it clear you will not associate with single mothers in public settings where there are other respectable people. The only way to get patriarchy back is to insist on it in our public (at least as much as work might allow it) and private lives. And if we must reduce our circle of friends and family we allow into our lives to achieve true patriarchy, so be it.

  5. infowarrior1 says:

    Egalitarian delusion destroys nations. Providing cover the the envious and wicked.As has chivalry as had been practiced since courtly love.

  6. Philalethes says:

    So a good man is a man who will commit, while a good woman is one who reneges on her commitments? Isn’t there a term for that? Oh yeah, “double… something”?

    “A man is true to his word. A woman is true to her feelings.” The latter, btw, also describes a chimpanzee.

  7. Patrick Albanese says:

    Let me sum up her argument…

    Only date divorced men. They know how to commit!

  8. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I have, however written a few posts specifically about my journey which I’ve always seen in my mind as a climb up a mountain. When I reach the top I stand up tall, raise my arms to the sky, lift my face up and let the wind blow through my hair.

    Women are such drama queens. She plops her fat butt into a comfy chair and blogs. This, in her mind, is an arduous journey climbing up a mountain, the wind blowing through her hair.

    When did the word “journey” come to mean “passive trivial thoughts about nothing very much”?

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Patrick Albanese

    Let me sum up her argument…

    Only date divorced men. They know how to commit!

    This is the logical part of her argument. It makes perfect sense, if she is assuming that nearly all men who end up divorced ended up that way because their ex wives couldn’t honor their marriage vows.

  10. Damn Crackers says:

    Speaking as an over-40, never married man-child, I agree with Rosie. All those divorced harridans should only seek out divorced men. Divorces, good luck with your new admirers.

  11. Eduardo the Magnificent says:

    She knows. Men never married by 40 are either woke or broke. Neither is good for a return to the altar followed shortly by the judge’s chambers.

  12. Novaseeker says:

    This is the logical part of her argument. It makes perfect sense, if she is assuming that nearly all men who end up divorced ended up that way because their ex wives couldn’t honor their marriage vows.

    Dalrock —

    Yes, precisely.

    When I read that, I thought “well, at least here we have consistency and honesty”. The logic is simple. Marriage and divorce are tools for women — women are the actors, and always justified in entering or leaving a marriage, and a man’s role is to give commitment on command, and to deal with her rescinding commitment on command in a cheery, appreciative way, understanding that it was his fault in total, but healing himself of his flaws so that he can give commitment to another woman on her command at some future point. It is the “woman as agent, man as committer-on-demand” model of marriage that underlies this view, so it makes perfect sense for her to prefer strongly men who have already committed-on-command to another woman. Such men have already been trained, and have a track record of proving to be responsive to a woman’s command to commit, whereas the other guys may be somewhat resistant to obeying the command, and therefore are problematic to the woman-as-agent.

    Makes perfect sense, when you parse it, really — she’s just too daft to recognize she let her empowered pants down when she wrote that.

  13. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    It is the “woman as agent, man as committer-on-demand” model of marriage that underlies this view,

    Keep in mind that uber-cuckservatives like Brad Wilcucks and Jim Gay-ratty are working hard to force men into this. They are just as bad, if not worse than, these feminists…

    feministhater,

    They are holding clear, bright luminous lights above their heads and screaming “Warning! Warning! Danger ahead, avoid at all costs!”.

    Unfortunately, no. By all accounts, most men just cannot learn. We should no longer have sympathy for men who make blue-pill decisions at this point..

    Emperor Constantine,

    The only way to get patriarchy back is to insist on it in our public (at least as much as work might allow it) and private lives.

    Well, given that there is virtually no Men’s Rights activism, and never has been, there is no chance of that. The only way to undo the damage caused by female suffrage is either a) a violent upheaval that results in millions of deaths, or b) some advanced, futuristic implementation of artificial intelligence into the political and judicial system, that strips out FI, fake news, etc. and coldly forces the most economically productive decisions…

  14. Anon says:

    A man is true to his word. A woman is true to her feelings.” The latter, btw, also describes a chimpanzee.

    Psychologically, a male human differs from a male chimpanzee by a much greater distance than a female human differs from a female chimpanzee. This truth is borne out by how quickly women devolve back to a feral state once strict patriarchal control is lifted. Note that one of the most common forms of female rebellion is to deliberately worsen her appearance, despite that being the most important determinant of her social status and how much men will do for her..

  15. Anon says:

    If you want to measure whether men are wising up to how lopsided this all is, one merely has to look at the ratio of upvotes to downvotes on the Jim Gay-ratty ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud’ video.

    Upvotes outnumber downvotes 4 to 1. And the downvotes are only after the ‘sphere heavily sent red-pillers there. While the comments are more evenly balanced (which is still bad), the upvotes indicate how much passive acquiescence there is. Most men are completely hopeless.

  16. Patrick Albanese says:

    “This is the logical part of her argument. It makes perfect sense, if she is assuming that nearly all men who end up divorced ended up that way because their ex wives couldn’t honor their marriage vows.”

    Yep!

    Of course the irony is, if divorce is always the fault if the husband, then by dating only divorced men she is accepting other women’s rejects.

    If she were to believe that the divorced men she is dating are only divorced because it was the ex wives faults….. then she might have to confront the reality that she bears some responsibility for her own divorce.

    And we can’t have that.

  17. Pingback: Being divorced is their essence, but don’t label them. | Reaction Times

  18. Tarl says:

    “Only date divorced men. They know how to commit!”

    They have swallowed the blue pill once before, so they probably won’t gag if you force it down their throats again! Once a beta, always a beta!

  19. Gunner Q says:

    Emperor Constantine @ 7:41 am:
    “This post helped me understand her shrewish behavior, and constant need to put men down: it’s a reaction to her understanding that she is fundamentally lower status than us men (including divorced men like me), and therefore she needs to bring men down to her level.”

    I’ve discovered this is true about many men as well. Some speak to communicate, others speak to be heard, others speak to attack. Conversation is the preferred battleground of the weak and passive-aggressive.

    God, I hate the posturing. No wonder low-trust people talk funny. In their tiny minds, to agree is to admit defeat.

  20. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Tarl:
    “Once a beta, always a beta!”
    Not necessarily, it’s a long slog, and the white knight illusionary benefits are there to remain blue pill, but it’s worth the effort to join Team Red.

  21. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    How much of this difference in perception between divorced men and women do you think has to do with the fact that everyone quietly knows that women initiate divorce and not men? The theory would be that a divorced man is perceived as being abandoned by their spouse and therefore his status is not a reflection of their character, while the reverse is true of women.

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    It is the “woman as agent, man as committer-on-demand”

    This dovetails perfectly with the child-support model of marriage, and AF-BB and AF-BC.
    Heck, it’s the robot / mule / vending machine / ATM model of men. This isn’t tipping her hand, this is spreading the cards out on the table and Snapchatting pictures of them to the world.

    Oh, and it completely reduces men to objects. Funny thing, that.

    “I see London, I see France…”

  23. “Brad Wilcucks and Jim Gay-ratty”

    Grow up.

  24. White Guy says:

    Peterman, dude, those men have earned those titles, let them keep them.

  25. Philalethes says:

    …the literal translation of Divorcee is, “someone’s been in my vagina already, so move along.”

    Yup, exactly. I’ve read that a woman’s DNA is altered by each different injection of male seed that she accepts into her body. I don’t believe the same is true of males, since they are unlikely to absorb any of the female’s bodily fluids, or at most a negligible amount. Anyway, the idea is not especially appealing.

    Promiscuity in women is illness, a leakage of identity. The promiscuous woman is self-contaminated and incapable of clear ideas. She has ruptured the ritual integrity of her body. … Even in the liberated or lesbian woman there is some biologic restraint whispering: keep the birth canal clean. In judiciously withholding herself, woman protects an invisible fetus. … Women hold themselves in reserve because the female body is a reservoir, a virgin patch of still, pooled water where the fetus comes to term. Male chase and female flight are not just a social game. The double standard may be one of nature’s organic laws. – Camille Paglia, “Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art” (Chapter One, Sexual Personae)

  26. Boxer says:

    The Real Peterman sez:

    Grow up.

    The people you’re defending have made a career out of spreading memes which denigrate nice husbands and family men. They game wives and daughters of their congregations from the pulpit, while they describe the fathers and husbands of these women as lazy, broken, and stupid… when the opposite is usually the case.

    There’s really no reason to be civil to such people. They’re your deadly enemies.

    Boxer

  27. tsotha says:

    This is my favorite part from the “don’t date men who’ve never been married” article:

    Leave these men to embarrass themselves and date cocktail waitresses who are 22.

    It problem isn’t that they don’t know how to commit or they’re “selfish asswipes”. It’s that they’re dating her because they don’t have to wait long for the sex, and if they do decide to get married they can get someone younger.

  28. Pingback: Being divorced is their essence, but don’t label them. - Top

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    tsotha

    To mix fables:
    “I’m throwing him in that briar patch because the grapes are sour anyway”.

  30. Zapp Brannigan says:

    @Boxer and Anon

    I don’t know to whom “Wilcucks” refers, but why attack Jim Geraghty for praising Ward Cleaver? He’s making the point that Mr. Cleaver:

    – Loves his family;
    – Works hard to provide for them;
    – Receives love and respect for his role as the head of the household.

    The only thing missing from the list (and, having watched the show, I believe it is hinted at as well) is service to God.

    I don’t really see anything wrong with Geraghty suggesting that men emulate Ward Cleaver; the guy is pretty awesome. In fact, I enjoy watching Leave it to Beaver with my own kids because it’s such a great example of a functional, loving family. And, one the things that I most like about the character of Ward Cleaver is that, while he is a strong, wise, fatherly figure, he is shown to be wrong occasionally. It’s a nice reminder that of the man’s essential humanity and it keeps him from being a god-like parent that always knows what to do.

    If you want to attack Geraghty for not suggesting that women need to emulate June Cleaver I guess that’s your prerogative, but that wasn’t the subject of the video.

  31. Lost Patrol says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    At times it is overwhelming and more than a little depressing.

    No doubt. Maybe most here would agree. Stay the course brother. We can’t save the situation and none of us is getting out of here alive anyway; but each man can help himself and maybe some key people around him in the meantime. Take your R&R from the battles when and where you find it, like here at Dalrock University.

    The patriarchy, such as it is or was, will not be back to “the west” in our lifetimes on a societal level. The action is localized and driven from the bottom, as you’re doing within your own zone. Novaseeker explains why this is true much better than I. Maybe he will reprint a version here.

  32. BillyS says:

    Phil,

    I don’t believe DNA can be altered, especially not by semen. I am certain it does have an impact, but modifying DNA is a much different thing.

  33. feministhater says:

    I don’t believe DNA can be altered, especially not by semen. I am certain it does have an impact, but modifying DNA is a much different thing.

    The study didn’t say it alters DNA, it says the each different male adds a small portion of his DNA to the woman, which in turn ends up in the uterus and in the fertilized egg, thus a small portion of make-up of the DNA of the child would come from the other lovers.

  34. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Boxer said:
    “There’s really no reason to be civil to such people. They’re your deadly enemies.”

    No truer words have been spoken on this blog. This is spiritual and intellectual combat, and the stakes are very high. I’ve seen the equivalent of the mangled bodies and corpses in the messed up lives of 5 children up close and personal, a brother-in-law who hung himself, it’s not pretty.

    What sometimes surprises (and inspires) me in this fight is the energy of Dalrock and Rollo, who are happily married. They could have walked on by, but didn’t. They have taken the time and a good part of their lives to address these wrongs and teach men like me what was really happening. That’s a hell of a thing, if you think about it. Plus all the other brothers here in the comments, the comments are usually just as good as Dalrock’s post, amazing stuff, thank you everyone for the wisdom.

    @Lost Patrol said:
    “No doubt. Maybe most here would agree. Stay the course brother. We can’t save the situation and none of us is getting out of here alive anyway; but each man can help himself and maybe some key people around him in the meantime. ”

    Thanks, much appreciated brother. I’ll look for the Novaseeker piece you mentioned.

  35. Philalethes says:

    feministhater:

    The study didn’t say it alters DNA, it says the each different male adds a small portion of his DNA to the woman….

    Thanks for the clarification. Do you have a link for this?

  36. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Zapp Brannigan said:
    “I don’t know to whom “Wilcucks” refers, but why attack Jim Geraghty for praising Ward Cleaver? ”

    That’s not why the manosphere is attacking him. It’s because he is selling a lie: that woman’s characters and the entire culture and legal system have not radically changed since the 1950s for the worse relative to fathers and husbands. I paid a terrible price because I believed the lie twice (yes I know, slow learner); worse than that, my children have paid a much steeper price than I did. Again, the stakes are very high here. This is why Dalrock’s first rule of wife selection is correct: is this woman the right person to be the mother of your children?

    The reason for the ferocious response against Wilcox and Geraghty is also driven by their wimpy AMOG’ing and despicable suggestion that there is something wrong with men pursuing their own masculine goals, dreams, and passions first, and women second. It’s those very dreams, goals, and passions that built civilization, not pussy/Goddess worship. It’s what unites Christian Red Pillers like me with astute non-religious folks like Rollo, Boxer, etc. We both see human nature for what it really is, and want to help build a world around us that accepts and reflects that.

  37. feministhater says:

    Not offhand Phil. I can’t exactly remember where I read it but I’ll find it sometime and re post it for you. Someone else can also post if they have a link to the study.

  38. Boxer says:

    Dear Zapp:

    I don’t know to whom “Wilcucks” refers, but why attack Jim Geraghty for praising Ward Cleaver?

    Geraghty has a history which includes much more than sermons about Ward Cleaver. See his book, written with the cuck Cam Edwards, entitled Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Raise a Family, and Other Manly Advice for more of this.

    More generally, such people embody what Hanna Arendt called The banality of evil. This echoes old Talmud and Bible stories (and there are a few of them) in Jewish mythology. The point is that most bad deeds aren’t committed by serial killers or violent thugs. Evil is most often done by people who appear disguised as helpful friends and efficient bureaucrats. Geraghty appears to be giving good advice when he tells family men to “man up,” but he’s actually making himself look good at their expense, and weakening their positions in the eyes of others.

    People like this are parasites. They feed off the decay of their host — which is to say, nice patriarchal families. They seek to weaken and sicken their host so that they can continue to feed off the decaying organism.

    I don’t generally do the name-calling thing, but I would never criticize other men for doing it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Philalethes

    Thanks for the clarification. Do you have a link for this?

    I think the phenomenon he is referring to is telegony. Here is one link, but by searching on the term you will be able to find more. However, most articles probably point back to the same study released around Oct 2014:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11133203/Could-previous-lovers-influence-appearance-of-future-children.html

    [Edit: I see I’m late in offering a link.]

  40. thedeti says:

    Yeah. THis notion of women retaining the DNA of prior lovers and this changing them and affecting their offspring is called telegony. There’s evidence for it in fruit flies but it’s not been found in humans. Telegony has not been replicated or established in humans. There are such things as the chimera phenomenon, defined as

    “an organism containing a mixture of genetically different tissues, formed by processes such as fusion of early embryos, grafting, or mutation”

    The idea is that a woman’s offspring incorporates not only the biological father’s DNA, but also the DNA of her prior lovers, which remains in her body and slightly alters her own DNA, which then affects the offspring such that they will also have some characteristics of the woman’s prior lovers, or at least some of their DNA.

    It’s theorized that chimera is one reason why some DNA tests give “false positives”, i.e. that the child isn’t the biological offspring of the putative father, when in fact the child IS his. The chimera phenomenon and the presence of other DNA confuses the test and alters the results. This is also another reason why paternity tests are being opposed, because if a test comes up false positive, it could be because the mother had a few prior lovers but at the time of conception, no sex partners other than the putative father.

    Of course, there is no way this will ever be studied scientifically, because of the possible ramifications socially and culturally, if there is biological support for the notion that a woman’s prior sex partners genetically affect her later offspring. Because that would lend support to the notion that women seek out superior genetic material for reproduction and that a woman’s body can retain those superior genes by incorporating them into her own body for the purpose of later reproduction with inferior sperm. Sounds like science fiction, but… there’s support for it in fruit flies….

  41. Anon says:

    Zapp,

    I don’t know to whom “Wilcucks” refers, but why attack Jim Geraghty for praising Ward Cleaver?

    Have you *seen* the ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video from Jim Gay-ratty? Go see that, and then tell us if you still have a high opinion of him. Keep in mind that he married a single mother who may or may not be younger than him.

    His video is actually worse than anything from Brad Wilcucks or Dennis Prager..

    Dalrock did a recent article about Jim G’s writings as well…

  42. rocko says:

    In all fairness, I don’t see why any sane woman would go for a divorced man, or for that matter, a man with at least one baby mama. And yet I disagree with Ms Walker in that regard. There’s not that big of a stigma around divorced men as around divorced women because, simply put, many women WILL go for divorced men. There could be many reasons, from a perceived level of maturity vs that of a single never married man, perceived sexual prowess based on the number of children the man has had, income, etc. Simply put, for better or worse, these men are still seen as providers, while non rich/famous divorced women are seen as liabilities.

  43. Philalethes says:

    … that would lend support to the notion that women seek out superior genetic material for reproduction and that a woman’s body can retain those superior genes by incorporating them into her own body for the purpose of later reproduction with inferior sperm.”

    Reminds me that I believe I also read somewhere, years ago, that female chimps, who when in heat mate with all the males in the troupe – presumably to (a) keep the peace and (b) ensure that her resulting child will not be killed, as none of the males will know for sure that he isn’t the father – are able to retain and later use the sperm they prefer. A search didn’t find anything definite about this, but this article in NYT is interesting: Battle Of the Sexes Is Discerned In Sperm. Of course, that was 17 years ago; doubtless there is more information now – such as the articles linked above. Also Wikipedia: Sperm competition.

    Anyway, the whole subject is not particularly enchanting, I must say.

  44. rugby11 says:

    Dalrock

  45. Luke says:

    Re telegony in human females: it has long been known that any woman who has ever been pregnant (even briefly) ever after will have DNA from the fetus in her bloodstream. What is controversial are 1) the ever-more-probable case of even a never-pregnant woman saving and using some DNA from past lovers as a contribution to children she bears years later, and 2) that her OWN DNA may be altered by condomless sex partners.

  46. Anon says:

    Rosie the Divorcer said :

    Leave these men to embarrass themselves and date cocktail waitresses who are 22.

    She actually thinks that a 22 y/o has lower SMV than a 40 y/o divorce coach, and that men need to be told what is best for them, by her….

    That is one huge hamster. Not to mention the fact that she thinks she is smarter than a cocktail waitress, just on account of having some useless credential..

    I am surprised so few others here latched onto this…

  47. They Call Me Tom says:

    Fear of commitment… yeah that’s why. /sarcasm
    It’s rather that women’s hypergamy doesn’t know when to stop. They want to always have an out, just in case a perceived upgrade comes along. The hypergamy doesn’t even stop when they’re at the point of diminishing smv and mmv… they still want the out, just in case.
    In fact, most women don’t even want to marry, because the out is so much easier that way. Because… they don’t want to miss out on the thing that they’ll never actually have thanks to their hypergamy.

  48. American says:

    I saw the writing on the wall and never married or had children. There is a Mandy Walker out there that I cheated out of her divorce :).

  49. feeriker says:

    I am surprised so few others here latched onto this…

    I saw it immediately, but figured that the delusional idiocy was so obvious that it didn’t even merit a comment.

  50. feeriker says:

    In fact, most women don’t even want to marry, because the out is so much easier that way. Because… they don’t want to miss out on the thing that they’ll never actually have thanks to their hypergamy.

    There is ZE-RO difference between such women and the children who try to avoid going to school because they want spend all of their lives playing and daydreaming. The only difference is that society recognizes (at least for the time being; all future bets are off) that allowing children to succumb to and indulge their base instincts is not only catastrophic for society, but for the children themselves too. Thus they are forced into a regimented environment for their own good and the good of society until they reach a certain age of cerebral maturity where they can make rational decisions that are not inherently injurious. Alas, while most male children eventually reach this stage, the success rate for women is another story …

  51. Hermilion says:

    There is one thing in her arguments – since most divorces are frivolous on part of women nowadays, it is no bad argument to pick divorced men – they are mostly victims of thier past wives after all, not some spoiled apples 😉

  52. Zapp Brannigan says:

    @Constantine and Boxer

    OK, I get that. Culture has radically shifted to the left in the intervening 60-odd years since those exemplars of masculine virtue Geraghty highlights were on TV. Women’s priorities and views on masculinity are manifestly different (and I would argue, worse) than they were prior to the institutionalized insanity of second and third-wave feminism.

    But my issue with this argument, and the MGTOW movement in general, is the underlying blanket assumption that ALL women have drunk the Kool-Aide, that all women are tainted by the virus of weaponized feminism and are just waiting to lure some unsuspecting, traditional blue-pilled man into perdition. There are no exceptions. To me, it reads like the entire female population are carriers of some kind of contagion that is death to any man who comes into contact with it.

    I know, I know. That’s an exaggeration. But my point is that this view of “Women” as this monolithic force bent on male destruction is simply not true, and it’s counterproductive.

    Wait. Before you all start typing your response, hear this: I probably agree with 90% of your views on women, and all of them on feminism. I am most certainly red-pilled. I love my wife very much, but ten years of marriage has disabused me of the pretty lies I was fed about the female nature (i.e. they were naturally virginal, holy, submissive, nurturing, etc.). Now, some women undoubtedly possess these qualities in different measures, but I no longer believe that all women just magically possess them by virtue of birth. We only seem to differ on two points: the feminine motive and what this means for men.

    However, the fact is that I know several (read: more than ten) men in happy, stable marriages with women. I’m one of them. It’s possible. MGTOW apparently teaches that marriage is the Kobayashi Maru test, and advises men to reject it completely. It’s this defeatist attitude that I cannot accept. Look, I understand that the risks of marriage have grown exponentially due to the influence of poisonous feminism and the horror that is the family court system, but there are still good women out there and our society needs strong marriages. THAT is why I don’t have a problem with Geraghty reminding men of the masculine virtues of responsibility, protection, and strength: because they are still valued by women today (whether they admit it or not), and they are ESPECIALLY valued by the very women that would probably fall into the “good” category I’ve written about above.

    And, understand, none of what I’ve written above should be construed that women do not have a lot of work to do themselves. They absolutely do. But that’s a different subject altogether.

    In conclusion, by recommending men forego the Ward Cleaver virtues and marriage completely, I think the MGTOW movement would deprive a man of one of the very few truly joyful experiences in this life, namely that of loving a woman, raising a family, and living to see his legacy continue.

  53. Boxer says:

    Dear Zapp:

    This is addressed to me, but I don’t think you’re really familiar with my positions on these matters.

    But my issue with this argument, and the MGTOW movement in general, is the underlying blanket assumption that ALL women have drunk the Kool-Aide, that all women are tainted by the virus of weaponized feminism and are just waiting to lure some unsuspecting, traditional blue-pilled man into perdition. There are no exceptions. To me, it reads like the entire female population are carriers of some kind of contagion that is death to any man who comes into contact with it.

    If you look at any complex machine, you’ll find the parts under a lot of pressure. A MiG-29, for example, is composed of pieces which, when the plane is performing well, want to fly apart. They’re held together by rivets and (ironically) air pressure.

    This is analogous to a human couple. Male and female were created to survive in hostile environments, and both individuals have different (often opposing) drives that ideally will allow the couple to raise children and live through life’s stochastic series of earthquakes and tidal waves.

    The problem today is in the radically altered environment, where couples find themselves.

    However, the fact is that I know several (read: more than ten) men in happy, stable marriages with women. I’m one of them. It’s possible. MGTOW apparently teaches that marriage is the Kobayashi Maru test, and advises men to reject it completely. It’s this defeatist attitude that I cannot accept.

    If this were true, you’d be able to cite the MGTOW codex to back it up. In reality, there is no such binding definition.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/angst-mgtow/

    MGTOW actually teaches that every man ought to do what’s right for him. If you’re happily married, then frivolously divorcing your wife would be foolish. That’s my interpretation of MGTOW, which is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

    Personally, I think most men in my situation ought to not get married because men who have been promiscuous would likely not be able to change their ways. If I got married, whoever the poor girl was would surely divorce me before long, and she’d be justified, because I like having sex too much to be faithful. In the interim, I’d be a poor example for any children I had, etc. This is also a tenet of MGTOW (as I interpret it). It requires absolute honesty, especially with yourself.

    Best,

    Boxer

  54. Gunner Q says:

    Zapp Brannigan @ 9:54 am:
    “MGTOW apparently teaches that marriage is the Kobayashi Maru test, and advises men to reject it completely. It’s this defeatist attitude that I cannot accept.”

    That you believe this is a defeatist attitude tells us much. Why MUST MUST MUST every man get married no matter the risks? If he would be happier living & dying alone then why should he choose “victory” instead? Whose victory is that, anyway? Christ personally sanctioned the deliberate choice of bachelorhood so it isn’t His.

    You are deaf to the suffering of innocent men.

    “And, understand, none of what I’ve written above should be construed that women do not have a lot of work to do themselves. They absolutely do. But that’s a different subject altogether.”

    Don’t play us for fools. We are not the pew chumps you see every Sunday. MGTOW would not exist if women were pleasant, frisky, loyal and helpful so it’s obviously not a “different subject altogether”.

  55. Zapp Brannigan says:

    @Boxer

    Understood. I don’t believe marriage is for every man. You know yourself better than any other person in this world; if you don’t think it’s right for you, I certainly would not presume to impose it on you. My point was simply that it’s not wrong to encourage men to embrace the Ward Cleaver virtues as this philosophy is actually attractive to the sorts of women that guy looking to get married should consider.

    Also, I was not aware of any MGTOW Codex. All I know of it is what I’ve seen here and on a few other websites. My experience is heavily influenced not just be articles but by comment sections as well, which, given their emotional nature, may not be the most representative example of this philosophy. Your responses are thoughtful and measured, and not the typical “All women suck!!!!1!” BS I have seen in the past, so I thank you for that. I understand that “contagion” comment was an exaggeration (and labeled it as such) but it’s an exaggeration in service of a valid point: whether intentional or not, that view is often the sense I get from the MGTOW folks. I don’t have any issue with a man who wants to pursue his own interests; hell, I’m an avid gamer and I still find time to enjoy this hobby. My beef is that the MGTOW movement projects the image (again, this is MY impression) that marriage and commitment to a woman is not just pointless, but actively wrong and stupid. That’s where I take issue with it. Because I know of the blessings that flow from marriage and family are still attainable, even in a modern society that denigrates them, and to instruct men to forego this path is a mistake.

    If that’s not the philosophy, I’ll retract my complaint.

    @Gunner

    “Why MUST MUST MUST every man get married no matter the risks?”

    Who’s saying that? I didn’t. See my note above to Boxer.

    I simply pointed out that the masculine virtues embodied by the Ward Cleavers of the world are good and should be pursued, whether one wishes to marry or not. It also has the bonus of making you more attractive to the sorts of women who would probably make a good wife.

    “You are deaf to the suffering of innocent men.”

    Please. I’m on this site fairly frequently, I just never comment. Just because I don’t think marriage and family is a trap doesn’t mean I don’t care about men getting divorce-raped. Or falsely accused of rape. Or having to suffer the soft fascism that is modern feminism in almost every aspect of his life. That stuff makes my blood boil. But again, these gross injustices don’t represent the entirety of the relationship between man and woman. There is ample room for agreement on these issues AND the positive aspects of marriage.

    “We are not the pew chumps you see every Sunday.”

    And that is a shame. I mean that. I won’t attempt to proselytize you except to say that faith, particularly when exercised as the head of a family, gives a man meaning and purpose to his life that no other worldly thing can match.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    Zapp Brannigan @ 11:41 am:
    “Why MUST MUST MUST every man get married no matter the risks?”
    “Who’s saying that? I didn’t.”

    You did. Quote: “Look, I understand that the risks of marriage have grown exponentially due to the influence of poisonous feminism and the horror that is the family court system, but there are still good women out there and our society needs strong marriages.”

    “I simply pointed out that the masculine virtues embodied by the Ward Cleavers of the world are good and should be pursued, whether one wishes to marry or not.”

    The “masculine virtue” of Ward Cleaver, as sold by Wilcux & friends, is working ever harder in the expectation that society will appreciate & reward him for doing so, regardless of whether society ever does.

    “It also has the bonus of making you more attractive to the sorts of women who would probably make a good wife.”

    HAHAHAAAA! All women are female. The only difference between June Cleaver and Miley Cyrus is the former was raised, disciplined and supervised to serve an unsexy husband.

    ” I won’t attempt to proselytize you except to say that faith, particularly when exercised as the head of a family, gives a man meaning and purpose to his life that no other worldly thing can match.”

    You haven’t been here long if you think I’m not a devout Christian… but I agree that modern churches give a man meaning and purpose that is completely detached from reality.

    What’s with the not proselytizing? That is not a Christian attitude. Study up on your apologetics & evangelism and you won’t be limited to brute-force “Jesus loves you, come on Sunday” sermonizing. In fact, once you learn Evangelism Step 1 is the existence of evil within human nature you’ll be better able to understand our discussions about feminism. It is Original Sin writ large. Nothing new.

    In fact, PLEASE proselytize me. Sell me on your religious beliefs. I want to see why you believe what you do, why “meaning and purpose” has anything whatsoever to do with humanity’s justified damnation before Almighty God.

  57. Zapp Brannigan says:

    @Gunner

    Last comment on this subject as I have made my beliefs clear already.

    1. Simply stating that our society needs strong marriages is NOT the same thing as saying that “every man MUST MUST MUST get married”. The former is a statement of fact, the latter is a mistaken interpretation of that statement. I do not think every man is cut out for marriage, but I do think that marriage and the creation of a family is a worthy life goal that most men should pursue, even if they do not attain it. My view of MGTOW is that the movement is, at best, distrustful of men who choose to pursue the Ward Cleaver virtues as a husband and father, and at worst openly hostile to them. Now, this may not be accurate but that is the impression I’ve developed from my interactions with members of the movement. This one included.

    2. “The “masculine virtue” of Ward Cleaver, as sold by Wilcux & friends, is working ever harder in the expectation that society will appreciate & reward him for doing so, regardless of whether society ever does.”

    You know, I don’t buy this line. Yes, men are generally denigrated in popular culture (movies, TV, music), but this is the same culture that elevates all sorts of degenerate behaviors to the level of a virtue. Why would you expect the culture, inimical as it has become to tradition and Christianity, to reflect positive views of marriage and fatherhood? Yes, it pisses me off to see how fathers are shown to be clueless schlubs that need to be saved by their perfect wives on TV, but what of it? I receive the love and respect of my wife, my children, my extended family, my friends, my co-workers, and my fellow parishioners. In short, my work as a husband and father commands the respect of all those who matter to me.

    I get that it’s ridiculously unfair how men are portrayed in and treated by our society. I just don’t think that giving up completely is the answer. Understand, I’m absolutely not saying that a man doesn’t need to change his life strategy to accommodate the dangerous cultural minefield our society has become. That much is obvious. But simply saying that society hates Ward Cleavers and turning away from the promise of family completely is not the right answer in my opinion. Mainly because, as I pointed out above, that statement is not entirely accurate. Debased popular culture may hate Ward Cleaver; society, by which I mean the complex interrelationship of personal and professional relationships that make up the life a person, does not.*

    3. “You haven’t been here long if you think I’m not a devout Christian… but I agree that modern churches give a man meaning and purpose that is completely detached from reality.”

    That’s great, glad to hear it. But if you’re a devout Christian, why sneer at “the pew chumps you see every Sunday”? Can you perhaps understand why I might not know that you’re a devout Christian when you write this?

    And I chose not to proselytize because a comments section is a terrible medium in which to do so. There is simply too much that we don’t know about one another and discussions typically become polarized with each party holding to his own position. Not really a fertile ground for a religious conversion.

    4. “Evangelism Step 1 is the existence of evil within human nature you’ll be better able to understand our discussions about feminism.”

    I do understand this. It is bedrock Christian theology. Feminism is an attempt by women to supplant the role of men and take to themselves power that was not intended for them. As I said in my original post, I completely agree with MGTOW about the cancer that is feminism. But, since not all women are feminists (fewer than a third even identify as such), and there are observably good women out there, how does this invalidate my point that inculcating the Ward Cleaver virtues to attract a good woman for marriage is still a worthy endeavor?

    *Probably the best example I can give of this is Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart where he proves that some of the wealthy of this country may speak all the politically correct platitudes about single motherhood, feminism, and gay marriage, but arrange their own families according to traditional values and gender roles. Because they know it works.

  58. Dalrock says:

    @Zapp Brannigan

    2. “The “masculine virtue” of Ward Cleaver, as sold by Wilcux & friends, is working ever harder in the expectation that society will appreciate & reward him for doing so, regardless of whether society ever does.”

    You know, I don’t buy this line. Yes, men are generally denigrated in popular culture (movies, TV, music), but this is the same culture that elevates all sorts of degenerate behaviors to the level of a virtue. Why would you expect the culture, inimical as it has become to tradition and Christianity, to reflect positive views of marriage and fatherhood?

    The problem is that even Wilcox and Geraghty don’t have the respect for married fathers they use as a selling point for marriage and fatherhood. They aren’t just selling something society won’t offer, they are selling something they won’t offer either.

  59. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas,

    Gunner Q:

    HAHAHAAAA! All women are female. The only difference between June Cleaver and Miley Cyrus is the former was raised, disciplined and supervised to serve an unsexy husband.

    This simply isn’t true. Even in a healthy, patriarchal society, there will be hoez and playaz. They’ll be much less numerous, but they’ll still be there.

    The overarching problem in our society is the removal of all penalties for being a ho’ or playa, which allows for people on the fence to adopt the lifestyle. This is compounded by an inherent female strength – lying and rationalization.

    When it is impossible to tell the decent people from the hoez and playaz, then the most sensible thing to do is to assume the worst about everyone, and not get married at all.

    Zapp:

    I receive the love and respect of my wife, my children, my extended family, my friends, my co-workers, and my fellow parishioners. In short, my work as a husband and father commands the respect of all those who matter to me.

    Gunner, and those like them, now have the positive duty to show how frivolously divorcing your wife is somehow less degenerate than it would be if your wife did it to you.

    This double standard is a theoretical weakness in this part of the ‘sphere which I think you’ve done a good job pointing out here, but which won’t be solved by either of us. Talking to many of the men here is very similar to talking to radical feminists, and for many of the same reasons. Many participants have been screwed so badly that they just can’t understand the fact that there are men in happy marriages, anywhere.

    As some married bro told me once, the best way to protest frivolous divorce is not to get one. I respect all married bros and am glad that so many men are able to (somehow) navigate this decadent social minefield and keep their marriages intact and happy. I’d like to see the numbers on that end grow.

    Boxer

  60. Boxer says:

    Dear Zapp:

    Sorry, I didn’t see this one.

    Also, I was not aware of any MGTOW Codex. All I know of it is what I’ve seen here and on a few other websites. My experience is heavily influenced not just be articles but by comment sections as well, which, given their emotional nature, may not be the most representative example of this philosophy.

    There are people in the ‘sphere (Rob Fedders and his kooky disciples, notably “Anonymous Reader” who posts here) who will attempt to tell you that MGTOW is synonymous with nutty Ayn Rand libertarian political philosophy. They are liars. MGTOW existed long before they ever arrived. Moreover, these people have never really added anything substantive to MGTOW.

    There are another group of MGTOW types who equate it with “marriage strike”. This is silly. There are married MGTOW dudes around. Most of them are like you (married before they decided to adopt the lifestyle). Those that aren’t tend to be expats, who went to Ukraine or Philippines to marry. There are also MGTOW guys who are not married because they’re gay or celibate.

    The heterosexual guys who aren’t married (like y’r boy Boxer) aren’t part of any strike, or other mass movement. We just aren’t going to get married because, individually, we’ve decided marriage is a bad deal for us. The point of MGTOW is going one’s own way. Necessarily, my way won’t be anyone else’s.

    I’d love it if there were some sort of mass movement like a marriage strike. It’d probably reduce the social order to chaos in a matter of weeks, but that isn’t happening and never will happen. Men just aren’t wired to stand up for other men.

    The best I think I can do is just to agitate for social change on my own, coupled with supporting guys like you. I don’t delude myself with the idea that I’m going to make some sort of a difference, but it gives me something to do while the earth turns.

    Boxer

  61. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Zapp Brannigan said:
    “My view of MGTOW is that the movement is, at best, distrustful of men who choose to pursue the Ward Cleaver virtues as a husband and father, and at worst openly hostile to them. Now, this may not be accurate but that is the impression I’ve developed from my interactions with members of the movement. This one included.”

    We’re fine with Ward Cleaver and his virtues. We like the fact that his is a patriarch, respected by his submissive wife and children, etc. etc. However, we all agree that world no longer exists. BTW I’m very skeptical that your wife actually behaves in the way that June Cleaver did, that she is actually that submissive and respectful.

    What we don’t like are people like Wilcox, Geraghty, and Prager telling us, effectively, we are not “real” men unless we are married, especially in the context of the extreme financial, emotional, and frankly physical risks associated with marriage today. [And by the way, it’s clear you don’t think men have to be married to be real men, you just want more men to consider marriage, which is fine.] What’s worse, they do not hold woman accountable for their evil behavior in the slightest degree, because they would rather AMOG and posture and keep their public positions than hold women accountable for the death of the family. As Dalrock has said many times, it takes real courage to tell women they are wrong and weather that storm, both at the personal and cultural level. You can read Dalrock’s post on all this here:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/will-wilcox-and-the-men-of-national-review-respect-you-in-the-morning/

    Each wing of Team Red (Christian and non-religious/PUA) has it’s own reason for objecting to telling men they must marry to become “real” men. [You never said that, but Wilcox et al. have many times.]

    The Christian Red Pill view is that being single is a perfectly valid way to serve God, and many parts of scripture suggest being single is better (St. Paul explicitly says so, and the RCC insists on this for its clergy and religious for Biblical reasons). In addition, the lesson of the parable of the ten virgins is clear: it’s your personal responsibility to perfect your soul and store up graces for when you need them; no one, including your wife, can do this for you.

    Non-religious Red Piller’s will laugh in your face in you tell them your wife get’s the tingles because you became a “real” man when you married her. That is the ultimate in defining your life by her frame and letting her be the dominant partner. Moreover, one of the most refreshing things about non-religious Red Piller’s is that they are focused on becoming better men first (sometimes practiced as “monk mode”, where they avoid any sexual contact with women) in ways that every Christian can acknowledge and respect: lifting and eating right, which requires self-discipline and self-respect; working hard to improve your life and achieve more; never giving up; saving, investing, reducing debt, and living in minimalist ways to control your financial freedom, etc. etc. Like the 5 virgins who stored up oil properly, these Red Pillers are building themselves up first, to prepare themselves for whatever they want or need out of life, with or without a woman (or many woman).

  62. BillyS says:

    Zapp,

    I know, I know. That’s an exaggeration. But my point is that this view of “Women” as this monolithic force bent on male destruction is simply not true, and it’s counterproductive.

    All are under sin. They have sinful desires that are no longer constrained by society. That is a fact. No mass conspiracy is necessary, just an understanding of The Fall.

    However, the fact is that I know several (read: more than ten) men in happy, stable marriages with women.

    I would have agreed with you a year ago, but my marriage of almost 30 years is now history. It is clear in retrospect, but hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. Stability can be a big illusion.

    I am not MGTOW and I have written against it here at times, but you are missing part of the picture as well. You have fallen into the trap of “it works for me and some I know, so it is all relatively fine if you can just be as good as I am.” Sorry, life is not that simple.

    Boxer,

    The problem today is in the radically altered environment, where couples find themselves.

    Exactly.

    MGTOW actually teaches that every man ought to do what’s right for him. If you’re happily married, then frivolously divorcing your wife would be foolish. That’s my interpretation of MGTOW, which is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

    I do not believe it is the common definition though. MGTOW is hedonistic for most from what I have read. I completely understand why many are drawn to that, but I remain a civilizationist so I want to do what I can to find a way to continue/rebuild a solid Christian civilization, which inherently works against MGTOW.

    My activity is almost certainly to be limited to writing and hopefully mentoring others at this point though.

    I like having sex too much to be faithful. In the interim, I’d be a poor example for any children I had, etc. This is also a tenet of MGTOW (as I interpret it). It requires absolute honesty, especially with yourself.

    I would argue that the first part here works against the final part. Knowing an ultimate authority exists does play a role here, one you are not quite at yet.

    Zapp,

    HAHAHAAAA! All women are female. The only difference between June Cleaver and Miley Cyrus is the former was raised, disciplined and supervised to serve an unsexy husband.

    BS. Society has changed significantly between the two. One is also completely fictional. My grandmother was extremely loyal to my grandfather, but she was no June Cleaver, by any stretch of the imagination. Comparing a myth with a modern hedonist is not useful.

    You haven’t been here long if you think I’m not a devout Christian…

    I don’t judge salvation as quickly as many in these reply discussions, but I don’t recall seeing any replies outside this thread that would affirm or deny anything about the state of your Christian beliefs. You may have had posts, but they are infrequent enough to not really be relevant for most heavy in the fray here.

    Simply stating that our society needs strong marriages is NOT the same thing as saying that “every man MUST MUST MUST get married”.

    You will get that response. Live with it and ignore it, as needed. I get it regularly too, as I take a civilizationist stand. Many who participate in these forums have been greatly burned. I have as well, though not as bad as some and I have a strong faith that is enabling me to get through without going to the aspect of some, though even I get pulled to some of that if I dwell on what has happened to me (and what continues for a while in the future).

    You know, I don’t buy this line. Yes, men are generally denigrated in popular culture (movies, TV, music), but this is the same culture that elevates all sorts of degenerate behaviors to the level of a virtue.

    Christian culture does that just as much, which is the main problem/point. How many preachers hold women accountable compared to how many regularly slam men? How many “christian” movies portray the father as a dolt? Step back a bit and consider things a bit more.

    I receive the love and respect of my wife, my children, my extended family, my friends, my co-workers, and my fellow parishioners. In short, my work as a husband and father commands the respect of all those who matter to me.

    That is great, until is stops working. You may make it through without the failure that is so frequent for many. That doesn’t lessen the risk, it just shows you are in the minority. That is the flaw in your thinking.

    That’s great, glad to hear it. But if you’re a devout Christian, why sneer at “the pew chumps you see every Sunday”? Can you perhaps understand why I might not know that you’re a devout Christian when you write this?

    I don’t sneer quite as much, but I see the same thing in a wide range of churches. See https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/exalting-women-and-cutting-men-down/ for a discussion of that.

    And I chose not to proselytize because a comments section is a terrible medium in which to do so. There is simply too much that we don’t know about one another and discussions typically become polarized with each party holding to his own position. Not really a fertile ground for a religious conversion.

    Then you may not want to participate much here. I speak the truth, as I see it of course, and let things fall where they may. I get whacked at times, but I also whack back at other times. That is the nature of these places. Don’t complain about a forum, but still participate.

    Boxer,

    Gunner, and those like them, now have the positive duty to show how frivolously divorcing your wife is somehow less degenerate than it would be if your wife did it to you.

    I know you are at odds with some here, but I have never seen male frivorce idealized here. I do recall reading about it as a solution (from some) to a harpy wife or one on the edge of frivorce herself, but that would be a different issue. (Knowing a wife would frivorce in the future is not as clear as some may feel, but some signs do point to that.)

    Some definitely push for not marrying in the first place, but that is different.

  63. James K says:

    But she is absolutely right about the different status implications for divorced men and women. This is one of those intractable problems that feminists simply can’t solve, because it comes down to the heart of the differences between men and women.

    And also because a divorced woman’s status is lowered as perceived by other women. This puts feminists in a quandary: there isn’t a man they can blame.

    Don’t waste your time dating a man over 40 who’s never been married and had kids.

    – means “Don’t want those icky betas who haven’t earned the approval of a bride!” On the other hand, those guys aren’t broke from paying alimony, and they live in blissful and romantic ignorance about the tricks that wives can play when a marriage ends in divorce.

  64. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    I know you are at odds with some here, but I have never seen male frivorce idealized here.

    You don’t remember the plethora of arguments I’ve been in on Dalrock? They start out with someone saying something like …

    Men never frivolously divorce their wives

    And I usually respond with: Well, it’s not as common that men do, but let me tell you about my cousin Joe, who divorced his nice Mormon wife and made his kids bastards, in order to bang a series of sleazy Reno cocktail waitresses

    And then the script goes:

    It’s not TRUE! Your cousin must have had a REAL GOOD REASON to CHEAT AND DIVORCE because men DO NOT DO THAT

    etc.

    Or we could just call Artisanal Toad back. He’ll tell us how it’s never cool for women to seek out strange dick, but when men want to cat around, it’s “OK” and actually in line with the bible, somehow…

    These sorts of double standards are actually understandable to me. I get that there are many honorable guys here, who were done wrong. The problem arises when such men project their own values on all men, and assume that every divorce in history has been the fault of a nasty wimminz… because men are great, and women suck, and FUCK YOU MOM! etc.

    And, like I told Zapp, I don’t delude myself into thinking that I can ever reach such men. It’s a sort of feedback loop. I just hope that most of them work through their anger, and move on to enjoying life again, rather than becoming male versions of trigglypuff and big red. Going through life angry and fearful doesn’t seem like very much fun.

    Best,

    Boxer

  65. Son of Liberty says:

    I’m glad DNA is being discussed becasue it is ESSENTIAL to merge it with the Bible (King James). This feature is called Microchimerism and the study wasn’t done in fruit fly’s, but with real women…

    Notice how it never made it mainstream news? Because it will disturb the Jesuit/Freemason and Satanic power agenda in Washington and in the media to further destroy the male and female relations in this country, that it is in an absolute low. A forum goes into detail with a few jokes but useful input from users who get it. Users also speculates another research done in Russia, about how DNA during orgasm is some sort of a radio emission frequency, light waves, that ALSO has an effect with the not only the female,but the male also. It is why in the Bible states, once fornication happens, you are married forever. Marriage is NOT a a piece of paper, or a mental agreement, it is scientific, a science that we have yet to know or is not out in the open, but surely the dark powers through Luciferianism know exactly how it works.

    This is probably what you call Soul Ties in the Bible. Which means imagine having sexual relations to a non-Virgin? You are tying your soul to the countless other souls, which we all know are attached to Demons. (Notice how a quick YouTube about “Soul Ties” and here a lot more women than men…)

    Truth About Soul Ties Part 1 and 2
    Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercourse with
    Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain

  66. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    Sorry for replying piecemeal. It’s not very efficient. I keep thinking I don’t have the time to argue, but I can’t resist your solid points, in the end.

    I do not believe it is the common definition though. MGTOW is hedonistic for most from what I have read. I completely understand why many are drawn to that, but I remain a civilizationist so I want to do what I can to find a way to continue/rebuild a solid Christian civilization, which inherently works against MGTOW.

    I think it’s more of an if-a-then-b scenario than a dichotomy. I think men are gifted with conflicting drives (the drive to marry and have children vs. the drive to cut a new trail and explore the world). A healthy patriarchal society enhances the payoff for those men who choose the first option at the expense of the second. A degenerate, decadent late-capitalist matriarchal shithole makes the first almost impossible, while the second is much less difficult.

    In the end, no man ever gets all his needs met. The solution is to get most of them met and live a happy life. Men can do this no matter where or when they are placed.

    In hindsight, I realize that if I had grown up in my grandfather’s era, I’d likely live his life, as a father of children and loving husband. In some ways it would suck being tied down, but the payoff would be there. For better and for worse, I don’t live in that society. It’s impossible to get back there. So I make do and have fun in this one.

    Strategically, every individual will have an objectively better life if we get back to something similar to my grandfather’s era, so I’m on your side in the overall plan. My grandfather’s era put men on the moon and synthesized antibiotics. This one is rapidly devolving to the point where we don’t have passable highways.

    Best,

    Boxer

  67. jason says:

    Even back in the mid 1990’s was hearing dating “experts” (women, stuff in the newspapers, early information that was on the Internet, on TV, women out in the world) say “A man even with a divorce, or never married but is a father is better than the single ‘boys’ out there who can’t accept responsibility.”

    No sister, guys like me who were never good enough, never cool enough, never handsome enough, never arrogant enough, never cocky enough…………just “had enough” by time the decade ended. We left you to have the players, the swingers, divorced dad’s who were the biggest chumps around who didn’t learn the first time, guys who always ended up abusing you….the list goes on.

    Sadly, my Christian sisters for the most part are no better…and the ones who are, well…they are married!

    So tired of women who messed up their marriages, their children’s lives, wrecked a man and threw contempt on him now “demanding” and “expecting” real men who have been through this already to sign up for more!

    Come Lord Jesus come!

  68. Gunner Q says:

    Zapp Brannigan @ 2:11 pm:
    “But if you’re a devout Christian, why sneer at “the pew chumps you see every Sunday”?”

    Because I’m a devout Christian. Pew chumps don’t attend church because they follow Christ. They attend for the fun, the feelings and the free child care. They want to go through empty motions of worship and never wake up. They rarely crack a Bible despite claiming to be Protestant and the times they do, they say God changed His mind about stuff. Spare me these false believers listening to false priest worshiping a false god.

    “I do understand this. It is bedrock Christian theology. Feminism is an attempt by women to supplant the role of men and take to themselves power that was not intended for them.”

    You *don’t* understand this. Women would have had no success if there weren’t lots of men eager to help them rebel. Once again, feminism is Original Sin. It is not an external force acting upon women. It is not a battle between the sexes. It is not a culture or ideology. It is male & female human nature unleashed. Every single one of us risks ending up a participant in this moral corruption… and if you fault men for their prudent reactions against female rebellion, if you think you’re above our troubles, then guess which side you’re landing on.

    BillyS @ 3:57 pm:
    “MGTOW is hedonistic for most from what I have read.”

    Selfish, not hedonistic. Hedonists don’t walk away from sex. MGTOWs generally do.

  69. Exit_Sandman says:

    “Walker has made her divorce the defining moment of her life; she literally can’t shut up about it. Yet she is uncomfortable identifying herself as a divorcée to her own doctor. Why? As absurd as this sounds, there is a good reason for it. For women, divorce involves a huge loss of status if it isn’t quickly followed by remarriage. Checking the box “Divorced” is a painful admission of profound failure.”

    While this might hold true from the perspective of a devout Christian, I would suggest a different and probably more prominent reason: the claim for victimhood.

    The current sociocultural climate not only in the US, but in most Western nations is contaminated with a SJWist “victims are wonderful”-ideology – the more victim points you score, the more you can claim that you’re unjustly put at a disadvantage, the better you are equipped to constantly accuse and judge the “privileged” group (straight white men with a Christian background, whether they’re religious or not), the more efficient you are shielded against criticism,and the more support you get from the other professional victims who assemble under the umbrella of the rainbow coalition of progress.

    Seen from that perspective, I presume that this woman’s motivation is less that she’s chagrined due to her status as a divorcée, but but more because she’s actively looking for things to be pissed off about – which ultimately is what the motivation of the feminist movement these days has been reduced to: less a struggle against tangible disadvantages, and more a well-publicized moaning about mostly imagined injustices.

  70. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Boxer:
    “Talking to many of the men here is very similar to talking to radical feminists, and for many of the same reasons. Many participants have been screwed so badly that they just can’t understand the fact that there are men in happy marriages, anywhere.”

    Personally, my anger is directed towards cucks who AMOG that you are not a complete man (like them) unless you are married, thereby throwing men into the furnace of the Feminine Imperative just to gain a few points with the culture/women. That’s why I found your comment “People like this are parasites.” to be apt. And those bodies being thrown into the furnace, they keep it hot and glowing and ready for more.

  71. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    I’m only commenting again because I didn’t expect to get a response from the webmaster and would like to address your comment. Also, I’d like to take this opportunity to say thank you for the work you do maintaining this great website.

    So, right off the bat, I can’t respond to the Wilcox arguments because I don’t know who he is. My focus will be on the National Review guys, Dennis and Jim.

    My argument in a nutshell:
    1. Marriage is an institution given to us by God and is good for the soul by providing meaning and purpose to a man’s life (to say nothing of the good it does for a wife and children). We’re good here.
    2. Marriage is good for society. As a guy who writes about marriage and family full time, I’m certain you’re familiar with the statistics that show the strong associations between two-parent, opposite sex marriage and a raft of positive outcomes for men, women and children. I’d be willing to bet that we can agree on this too.
    3. Feminism has wreaked havoc on the relationship between the sexes, has institutionalized unjust laws aimed at punishing men, and has indelibly altered a man’s risk profile for marriage. This is the MGTOW position as I understand it, and I completely agree.
    4. Given 1 and 2 and allowing for 3, I maintain that all men should STILL pursue marriage as a serious option, even though the risk profile has scaled up significantly. There are good women out there, more than I think most men believe there to be, and marriage and children are still worth the risk (though I concede, as with any high-risk stock with a high beta, there will be fewer takers). Here’s where we part ways, I think.

    I read your link. You make a good argument. Basically, I think our disagreement boils down to this: Geraghty and Prager are telling men to get married, and pop culture (note, not society) is telling women to divorce the good and loving husband and follow the Eat, Pray, Love model. Why aren’t they telling women to get their act together and stop blowing up their families just because they feel like traveling or hooking up with the local barista?

    Like I said, this is a good argument. I completely agree. Prager and Geraghty must address this issue if they wish to be intellectually honest about the state of marriage in America today. Women failing to live up to the covenant of marriage and destroying lives in the process is a huge problem that isn’t getting a fraction of the attention it deserves.

    However, I have two objections:

    1. I don’t see the problem of telling men that they should consider adopting the Ward Cleaver virtues and attempting marriage. Implicit in these videos is the assumption that a man is an adult and is capable of determining for himself if a woman is worth the risk (there are often warning signs). Yes, it’s plainly wrong to not highlight the selfishness and cupidity of modern women as a risk. But, if you proceed from the assumption that there are a lot of good women out there and that marriage is a fundamental good for men and society at large, I think it’s defensible to encourage men to marry.

    2. You and others have stated that society doesn’t respect the family man. You’ve provided evidence of your position, some of which I accept (the Republicans link in your article just pointed to an article on efforts to give divorced fathers equal time with their kids, which I don’t view as “contempt”). But I can’t fully get on board with this view. Popular culture? Sure. However, as I said above, I receive all the respect I need from my family and from institutions like church, scouting, and even, shockingly, my kids’ public school (Texas is still Red). Regarding the various male-bashing sermons people have quoted here, perhaps the reason I’m unfamiliar with this phenomenon is the fact that I’m Roman Catholic. I honestly can’t remember ever hearing a priest lay into men in the way these pastors have. On the other hand, I’ve only once heard a priest call out women directly for their BS (the guy was a former Marine and had some balls), so take that for what you will.

    In conclusion, I agree with you that Prager and Geraghty are only telling half the story. But it’s still a valid argument.

    @Constantine
    First, nice name. Second, I agree with your whole post.

    @Billy
    “You may make it through without the failure that is so frequent for many. That doesn’t lessen the risk, it just shows you are in the minority. That is the flaw in your thinking.”

    Even if you believe the somewhat questionable 50% of marriages fail statistic, that still doesn’t constitute my view of there being a lot of stable marriages as “being in the minority”. The chances may not be what a man wants to see before making that plunge, but the number of stable marriages is not in the minority. And I don’t pretend to think my personal experience may be extrapolated out to the country at large. I shared that data point merely to point out that stable marriages are possible.

    “Christian culture does that just as much, which is the main problem/point. How many preachers hold women accountable compared to how many regularly slam men? How many “christian” movies portray the father as a dolt? Step back a bit and consider things a bit more.”

    As I said above, I just don’t get this in the Catholic Church. Maybe some do, but I’ve never heard a priest slamming men in a homily. As to the Christian movies, the examples Dalrock has provided do bear out your claim; I guess I don’t watch very many Christian movies.

    “Don’t complain about a forum, but still participate.”

    I wasn’t complaining, just stating a fact.

    @Gunner

    I disagree with much of what you wrote, but I can’t keep up the commenting. Let’s just let this lie.

  72. Boxer says:

    Dear Emperor Constantine:

    Personally, my anger is directed towards cucks who AMOG that you are not a complete man (like them) unless you are married, thereby throwing men into the furnace of the Feminine Imperative just to gain a few points with the culture/women. That’s why I found your comment “People like this are parasites.” to be apt. And those bodies being thrown into the furnace, they keep it hot and glowing and ready for more.

    Right. Not only do these poseurs lambaste bachelors, but they save their most extreme, white-hot hatred for married family men. In doing so they simultaneously enrich themselves (ironically at the expense of the married men they unjustly criticize, through the conduit of these same men’s wives’ pocketbooks) but they make the families of the congregation objectively less stable. It’s really a shameful racket.

    I suppose, in hindsight, that I should retract my likening them to parasites, and apologize to all ticks and roaches for the analogy. A tick doesn’t consciously try to kill its host. It seeks a sort of equilibrium. A tick is also born to his life, and in his own sort of parasitism, the tick is fulfilling its inborn drives and living up to its potential. Feminist-Christian preachers have no such defense. They squander their gifts to live at the expense of others, doing no productive work themselves. They’re really the most useless creatures that nature has unfortunately produced. A total abomination.

    Best,

    Boxer

  73. Dalrock says:

    @Zapp Brannigan

    I’m only commenting again because I didn’t expect to get a response from the webmaster and would like to address your comment. Also, I’d like to take this opportunity to say thank you for the work you do maintaining this great website.

    Thank you, and welcome to the blog.

    My argument in a nutshell…

    You and I are in full agreement on 1-3. I think we are in agreement on item 4. I wrote a guest post at the Orthosphere a few years back detailing my position.

    I read your link. You make a good argument. Basically, I think our disagreement boils down to this: Geraghty and Prager are telling men to get married, and pop culture (note, not society) is telling women to divorce the good and loving husband and follow the Eat, Pray, Love model. Why aren’t they telling women to get their act together and stop blowing up their families just because they feel like traveling or hooking up with the local barista?

    There is much more to it. They aren’t just being strategically silent regarding the dominant social movement of our age. Unlike you and I, they don’t like traditional marriage. They like the modern version, which lasts as long as the wife is happy, and keeps an ever present offer of cash and prizes should she ever become unhappy honoring her vows. You can’t hold this view and say you respect married men, including married fathers. It is a lie. I think you already saw the quote from Prager saying divorce (and therefore marriage vows) isn’t a moral issue:

    …whenever conservatives describe [moral] decline, they include the high divorce rate, along with crime and out-of-wedlock births, as a prime example. I believe conservatives are wrong here.

    For quotes from Cam Edwards and Jim Gerahty on the same topic, see this post. These men don’t see marriage as being about sexual morality.

    You and others have stated that society doesn’t respect the family man. You’ve provided evidence of your position, some of which I accept (the Republicans link in your article just pointed to an article on efforts to give divorced fathers equal time with their kids, which I don’t view as “contempt”). But I can’t fully get on board with this view. Popular culture? Sure. However, as I said above, I receive all the respect I need from my family and from institutions like church, scouting, and even, shockingly, my kids’ public school (Texas is still Red).

    This isn’t about my needs or your needs. We both have what we need. This is about the very clear message we send as a culture about married fathers. The schools may have the kids send home fathers day cards, but the courts stand ever ready to reward the wife with cash and prizes should she ever desire to kick the father out. That sends an undeniable message. Likewise the police being primed to arrest a married father, even if the evidence shows the wife is assaulting the husband. The message, again, is undeniable. Making all of this worse, is the game of make believe our cultural leaders go through to ignore this fact when bemoaning the fact that young men are getting the message loud and clear. Men are motivated by respect. If you want to discourage them from doing something, make it clear that it is disrespected. We’ve moved heaven and earth to send this message. Now we complain that it is starting (and only starting) to be received.

    Regarding the various male-bashing sermons people have quoted here, perhaps the reason I’m unfamiliar with this phenomenon is the fact that I’m Roman Catholic. I honestly can’t remember ever hearing a priest lay into men in the way these pastors have. On the other hand, I’ve only once heard a priest call out women directly for their BS (the guy was a former Marine and had some balls), so take that for what you will.

    Your experience with Catholic priests matches what others have told me. However, there is still a surprising embrace of divorce in the RCC. A while back I did two posts (here and here) on a woman at Catholic Answer’s Forum asking a priest if God was telling her to divorce her husband. His answer was truly astounding. According to some of my readers, the priest is known as very conservative.

    Also, the reaction by the RCC to rampant divorce by ramping up the annulment process. In the US the RCC is by standing ready to declare marriages null should the wife decide she not longer wishes to remain married. The RCC has ramped up the process in the US so much that 5% of the WW Catholic population accounts for 80% of WW RCC annulments. When challenged about the explosion in US annulments, the Archdioceses of Boston explained that the problem is the RCC in the rest of the world needs to crank up the annulment capacity like the US as an investment in justice.

    13. There are too many declarations granted in the United States – NO.
    The United States vs. other countries

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

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

    I only bring this up because the problem isn’t unique to any one group. It is incredibly widespread, but it displays itself in different ways in different groups.

  74. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    It’s not TRUE! Your cousin must have had a REAL GOOD REASON to CHEAT AND DIVORCE because men DO NOT DO THAT

    Some replies have said that, but I don’t recall it being from the main arguers here. A few may get caught in the double standards trap you “quote” here, but that would be just as ludicrous as the claim that most women who file for divorce are forced to do so by their bad husbands.

    Bad behavior should be confronted by whoever does it. Though many places already chastise men on a regular basis, while giving women a free pass. That makes responses focusing on what women do quite appropriate, especially for this blog. (This has been discussed before in other contexts.)

    Or we could just call Artisanal Toad back. He’ll tell us how it’s never cool for women to seek out strange dick, but when men want to cat around, it’s “OK” and actually in line with the bible, somehow…

    AT has been a regular replier at times, but I would not lump him in who I talk about. You may have me there. He has some very unique ideas….

    For better and for worse, I don’t live in that society. It’s impossible to get back there. So I make do and have fun in this one.

    [Heb 11:25 NKJV] 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,

    God set patterns in place,. Violating them has costs that are not always immediately seen. That is why I would still oppose your path, as I have noted before. It is understandable, but not productive. You don’t seem as evangelical about your actions as some today, so I am far less driven to stand against it.

    Gunner Q,

    Selfish, not hedonistic. Hedonists don’t walk away from sex. MGTOWs generally do.

    Selfishness is doing what you want, at least as I see it. This may be because I am not using that term correctly, but enough of those who are self-proclaimed MGTOWs pursue hedonistic things that it seems to be the same to me, in general at least.

    Zapp,

    4. Given 1 and 2 and allowing for 3, I maintain that all men should STILL pursue marriage as a serious option, even though the risk profile has scaled up significantly. There are good women out there, more than I think most men believe there to be, and marriage and children are still worth the risk (though I concede, as with any high-risk stock with a high beta, there will be fewer takers). Here’s where we part ways, I think.

    One reason you get so much pushback here is because this is far too simplistic. The rot is woven deeply in modern society. I didn’t think my marriage was perfect, but I assumed my church and wife would hold their faith and beliefs at a much higher value than the world. Reality proved that to be foolish. A church that preached “divorce is not an option” was more focused on “protecting” my ex-wife from false claims of abuse than marriage preservation. They also could not do anything outside normal services to reach out to me personally while I went through an incredible amount of pain.

    My wife likely still presents herself as a faithful Christian as well and would proclaim that to any future love interest, yet she can simply ignore the clear commands from God to not divorce. She got most annoyed as I began to note some of the hard truths behind our modern society in the past few years. She blamed her actions on those things rather than her own errors.

    She is more attractive than most her age and will likely to be able to pull some idiot if she goes that route in the future, so she would seem to fit your “good woman” profile in some ways. (Her figure was genetic, not due to any significant effort on her part, she looks just like her mom, and unfortunately acts just like her.)

    Thus your assertion here is missing a big part of the picture and you would find value thinking about it far more.

    And I don’t pretend to think my personal experience may be extrapolated out to the country at large. I shared that data point merely to point out that stable marriages are possible.

    Your replies went beyond that. They were not the exact same as those who made the claim much more directly, but they did claim that as point 4 above indicates.

    As I said above, I just don’t get this in the Catholic Church. Maybe some do, but I’ve never heard a priest slamming men in a homily. As to the Christian movies, the examples Dalrock has provided do bear out your claim; I guess I don’t watch very many Christian movies.

    That makes sense, but you focused only on the idiocy of the world in these things in a recent reply. I and others here note that it is far more than just the world, unfortunately.

    I am not as harsh as Gunner Q, for example, but I share much of the skepticism of even those Christians I otherwise would align myself with. Challenging what they preach is quite consistent with what is written in the Scriptures, so it is not a problem at all.

  75. BillyS says:

    Personally, my anger is directed towards cucks who AMOG that you are not a complete man (like them) unless you are married

    Unfortunately man is incomplete without a spouse. This thought hit me a few nights ago and I have a post almost ready to put up in my blog on that very topic.

    God said it was not good for a man to be alone. He then made a woman to fill that need. The Fall messed the situation up, but it did not negate the principle.

    What is so hard today is that being connected to a specific woman is good for a man, but modern society puts so many mines in this path that it can be difficult to properly carry out. No easy solutions here.

  76. BillyS says:

    Note that it was not Boxer’s statement I quoted at the start 2 replies ago. I added an italics tag that seems to have been stomped. He did post that, but it was his characterization of what others said, not his own statement.

  77. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Dalrock said:
    “Also, the reaction by the RCC to rampant divorce by ramping up the annulment process.”

    Given that women initiate the vast majority of divorces, I am almost certain they file and are granted most annulments. Think about that: in other words, the RCC is mirroring easy legal divorce with it’s easy annulment process, to the benefit of Catholic women and the HUGE DETRIMENT of the Catholic family. Once again, families and men are sacrificed on the altar of the FI. I have never, ever, in my whole life, heard a Catholic priest, in public or private, criticize a woman who frivorce’d her husband.

    In my personal experience, my annulment request from my first wife was denied twice, and in every case of an instance of the immorality or evil I brought up on her part (which were many and varied), this was waved away and I was told it was not proper “grounds” for an annulment. In contrast, in two separate cases, woman I know easily got annulments when they ejected the father from the home.

    Priests don’t go after women when they nuke their families because the Church has been overtaken by the FI like every other institution. In addition, priests personally just don’t grok what is happening: they are not married themselves, and they usually come from very solid families, they don’t experience divorce personally very much themselves. I think these priests assume the people involved, specifically men, are weak or messed up.

  78. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Dalrock,

    OK, this really has to be my last post as I’m failing as a father by taking so much time away from work and family to type all these long responses. But I’m doing so because I think it’s important and this discussion has been instructive for me.

    I’ll keep it short:

    1. Yes, I think we’re in agreement on all 4 assumptions.
    2. I may not impute exactly the same marriage motives for Geraghty as I think there’s some gray to the sections you’ve quoted, but your interpretation is certainly defensible. Cam’s sections more clearly illustrate your point.
    3. “…but the courts stand ever ready to reward the wife with cash and prizes should she ever desire to kick the father out.” Stark, but undeniably true. Understand that I have not denied this reality in any of my comments. I’ve simply stated that marriage and family are intrinsic goods that should still be pursued in spite of the frightening risks now attached to them.
    4. On the point about the explosion of annulments in the Catholic Church, I agree that it’s symptomatic of Catholics’ increasingly lackadaisical attitude toward the sacrament of marriage. However, the source article from which the statistics are pulled makes several important points explaining why and how it has occurred that blunt the full thrust of the argument that the Church is getting soft on divorce. My view is that at least there is an official structure to adjudicate a case that is, by it’s nature, subjective, and this process requires time and effort to complete. I’m actually much more inclined to rake the Church over the coals for Her *objective* failings in the attempt to get by in a fallen world, such as the scandalous act of offering the Eucharist to those in open, direct rebellion against Church teachings.

    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to speak with me. And keep up the good work!

  79. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    Some replies have said that, but I don’t recall it being from the main arguers here. A few may get caught in the double standards trap you “quote” here, but that would be just as ludicrous as the claim that most women who file for divorce are forced to do so by their bad husbands.

    An oldie but a goodie, featuring some main arguers, past and present, in thrall to assorted variations of the double standard.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/

    This whole discussion is also a primer on another popular delusion: marriage as exchange of capital. This is a goony idea which resembles many of the worst feminist arguments.

    God set patterns in place,. Violating them has costs that are not always immediately seen. That is why I would still oppose your path, as I have noted before. It is understandable, but not productive.

    Are you a Christian or a Mormon or a Jew?

    I’d understand why Mormons and Jews would hate my lifestyle. They have commandments about marrying women, and having as many kids as one can.

    My lifestyle is not that much different than that of a medieval Christian monk. I have flings from time to time, but if we’re realistic, we’ll agree that many monks took a symbolic view of their vows of chastity — a few of them were skank-ho male sluts who put me to shame. I also catch saturday evening vigil mass at least as often as many of those guys did. lol

    Best,

    Boxer

  80. Samuel Culpepper says:

    Yes Rosie, you are used goods! So she intuitively knows that no man wants a used woman, but yet women like her keep preaching sexual freedom to the younger generation . . . that is pure evil.

    But we all know that it isn’t just divorcee’s who are use goods, so why don’t men refuse to marry used women in general regardless of their status as “never married”? A never married slut is just a big a divorce rape risk as the previously married slut, only difference is a piece of paper from the state . . . nothing else.

  81. Dalrock says:

    @ZB

    OK, this really has to be my last post as I’m failing as a father by taking so much time away from work and family to type all these long responses. But I’m doing so because I think it’s important and this discussion has been instructive for me.

    I understand, and I have enjoyed the exchange. I don’t expect us to agree on everything, but I hope to better understand where and why we disagree. From that metric it has been an excellent discussion.

    Incidentally, I have found that I have time to either blog or comment, but (generally) not time for both. Commenting can be a much bigger time suck than blogging itself, especially if the comment is in response to another comment, and more so if it is an ongoing discussion. This is why I seldom respond in the comments section. I probably comment on other people’s blogs more often than I post in my own comment’s section.

  82. thedeti says:

    Zapp:

    If marriage is an intrinsic good that should be pursued, then it’s incumbent on the men pursuing it to understand the enormous risks, the paltry rewards, and how to “do marriage” in 2017’s the post feminist, post-Christian West. Your approach doesn’t take any of that into account.

    You say there are often red flags for bad women. That’s true, but we as a society expend herculean effort to conceal those red flags, tell men to ignore them, and shame men when they call attention to said red flags. We tell men that a woman can sleep with 1000 men before she gets married, but once she is “ready to marry”, she’s good to go, despite her promiscuity and all the problems it causes.

    You also say there are good things about marriage. There are good things about traditional marriage. But our society no longer honors traditional marriage. Even our churches and religious institutions are openly hostile to traditional marriage. Our society has made it impossible to have a traditional marriage, really. Whatever is good about traditional marriage in the post-Christian West is far overshadowed by the enormous risks any kind of marriage presents. At the end of a marriage, the wife is deified, the husband demonized. The wife gets cash and prizes. The husband gets a court order to pay (and pay and pay and pay). All these things are concealed about marriage now.

    Most men don’t get to partake in the one, basic, intrinsic good in marriage, and that’s sexual access. The one and only benefit a man gets from marriage is legitimate sex, and a legitimate outlet for his sex drive. But now he can’t even have that, with “marital rape” and “affirmative consent” on the horizon. And most men don’t get to have sex in marriage because they’re not attractive enough to get married AND STAY married. They aren’t attractive enough because no one has ever taught them how to be attractive, they dont’ know what “attractive” means, and they can’t be it if they don’t know what it is. They have no idea what women find attractive, and even if they did, many of them couldn’t be attractive enough.

    Women have made it clear: Given the choice between hot sex with a string of attractive men, or marriage for life to a less attractive man, they’ll take option 1 because they can, because no one stops them, because everyone encourages them to do it, and because the beta bitchboys will pick up the tab and marry their banged out selves when they’re good and ready to marry.

    No one protects the investment men make in their marriages and families. No one makes the wife honor her vows.

  83. Gunner Q says:

    ” I’ve simply stated that marriage and family are intrinsic goods that should still be pursued in spite of the frightening risks now attached to them.”

    In both Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7, God spoke against marriage and recommended bachelorhood if possible. Marriage is therefore not inherently good for men–it is one of two possible options, and frequently the lesser one–and more than that, men have no duty to get married. Your belief that Christianity is marriage-centric is itself a product of feminist thought.

    Therefore, you are infected with feminism. We all are to varying degrees but you refuse to confront the darkness inside you. A better Christian would be concerned for the welfare of his fellow man instead of bring concerned that his fellow man might live free of women.

  84. White Guy says:

    Thedeti has it right, being married in America is a dangerous place to be as a man.

    Case in point: I unplugged from the matrix last February (thanks in no small part to the men around here, Bless you Brothers), in that time it’s been the most crazy time of my life EVER, now granted I unplugged and almost blew it all up going red pill rambo at first, but I have never gone beyond ‘passive dread’ with her.

    I thought I married a conservative christian woman, 14 years ago back when I was 27 (and she was 32)…
    -What I got was a previously promiscuous woman (who feelz guilty about it now),
    -She’s taken another ‘christian women’ to Planned Parenthood for emotional support while married
    -While unplugging she’s 1.Driven Drunk, 2.Gone to Bible Class Drunk, 3.Screamed and Cursed at me in front of the kids, both sober and drunk 4.Trapped me in a room where I couldn’t leave unless I got physical with her so we could ‘talk’ – this includes one time threatening suicide during our ‘talks’ 5. Physical attacks that escalated to drawing blood (third and last time, I told her I would Divorce her the next day if she ever did it again). 6. And almost every other day she brings up divorce and tells me to ‘just do it’ so she can ‘grieve her marriage’. roll eyes… But hey, the sex has gotten more frequent and better.

    At the end of all this I told her I would ‘walk’ if she ever: 1. Hit me ever again, 2. Did something to endanger MY kids, 3.Adultery.
    All of this behavior of hers seems to comes from me unplugging from the FI. For 15 months this insanity is all due to me actually ‘seeing’ the truth and acting on it.

    So here’s the best part of my story of unplugging so far. I asked her to name the things that would cause her to divorce me, (lots of ‘hamstering’ but finally got her to tell me) in this order. 1. If I don’t insure that her needs (and the kids) are my #1 priority, 2. If she continues to feel miserable 3. And of course adultery.

    Sooooo, I have to lay aside everything for her needs, insure her feelz’ aren’t ever ‘bad’ and can’t seek comfort elsewhere or ELSE. By Webster’s definition I’m a slave in my own marriage to this ‘conservative christian woman’.

    Please pray for me brothers, I need it.

    Step right up men, sign up for marriage,its GREAT, just find yourself a ‘good christian girl’.

  85. BillyS says:

    White Guy,

    I definitely pray for you. I suspect your wife will file at some point. My wife did so after being afraid I would file on her (or so she claimed). She really had no remorse for anything she did in our interactions. Not as bad as your wife, but threatening future action (divorce) is not necessarily wise since it then puts the idea in her head and lets her pick the timing and events.

    She can lie about you, get you arrested, etc. Not a good situation.

    I still won’t recommend divorce, but the path looks very rocky for you.

  86. feministhater says:

    Given 1 and 2 and allowing for 3, I maintain that all men should STILL pursue marriage as a serious option, even though the risk profile has scaled up significantly. There are good women out there, more than I think most men believe there to be, and marriage and children are still worth the risk (though I concede, as with any high-risk stock with a high beta, there will be fewer takers). Here’s where we part ways, I think.

    Most men here know this isn’t true anymore. Most, like me, have spent the whole of their late teens and half of their twenties believing it, with our utmost being. After bitter disappointment and more disappointment, some of us realized that continuing down the same path wasn’t worth it anymore. I was lucky enough to find Dalrock and have learned a great deal. An immense amount of knowledge, advice, raw data, Scriptural reading and many other such information, worth its weight in gold.

    What this has taught me isn’t what most want to hear. What it has taught me though is that there are men out there who were lucky enough to find their unicorn who has actually been a helpmeet and a boon to his marriage and life. However, this man still has to work to game his wife and keep her attraction triggers up. What it has also taught me is that the rest of us have a close to zero chance of ever having that sort of marriage anyway, even if we were able to game and maintain attraction to a satisfactory point. They were the lucky ones, the rest of us are left with marriages that have divorce on the horizon, with all the pitfalls that entails; or are sexless, loveless and generally of such poor quality as to have been better not to have entered into in the first place, i.e. those marriages a man stays in only to maintain his vows to God.

    What it has taught me is that marriage isn’t really an option. I’m no longer to mourn its passing in my life.

    I will never bet on any stock that will land me in jail and certainly not one with a 50% failure rate that turns me into a wage slave for the rest of my days. It’s game, set and match on that point alone I’m afraid.

  87. BillyS says:

    Gunner Q,

    In both Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7, God spoke against marriage and recommended bachelorhood if possible

    Jesus never contradicted the previous statement in Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone. The verses you note are only in the context of instead doing full time Christian ministry, not just doing your own things.

    I have noted it before, but I won’t chastise a man for doing that approach, but claiming a Biblical mandate for it is misinterpreting what is written.

  88. Emperor Constantine says:

    @White Guy said:
    “Please pray for me brothers, I need it.”

    Consider it done. Very sorry about your situation, been there and done that. All I can tell you is that if she doesn’t improve or change and you have to leave, you will come out stronger and better for it.

    “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” Friedrich Nietzsche

  89. BillyS says:

    FH,

    What it has taught me is that marriage isn’t really an option. I’m no longer to mourn its passing in my life.

    That approach is certainly reasonable for you, but it is important those in your situation don’t shove the “don’t marry” message on young men any more than someone shoves the “you must marry” message on them.

    Teaching them of the dangers involved is definitely worthwhile. Doing all you can to open their eyes, or at least the eyes of those who are open to that, is worthwhile. (Wasting time on those who won’t listen is not productive.)

    Humanity would cease if marriage/pairing stopped, so that is not going to happen overall, since God has promised many things that involve the continuation of humanity. It may be quite rough getting to that though. Things weren’t easy for the early persecuted church, but people and families made it through, in spite of a system that worked against them.

  90. Emperor Constantine says:

    @BillyS said:
    “The verses you note are only in the context of instead doing full time Christian ministry, not just doing your own things.”

    From Genesis:
    “The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.”
    In this context, God seems to be referring specifically to Adam (i.e., “the man” rather than all men) in the Garden of Eden. But I’m sympathetic to your point.

    Christians are expected to improve the world but first and foremost, you are to work out your own salvation, with or without a wife. Again that is the lesson of the ten virgins: at the critical moment of judgement, it’s what you personally did, not what others can do for you. That does ultimately require good works that come out of faith, but frankly, as so many here have eloquently pointed out (like “thedeti” just did in his last comment) marrying promiscuous, unrepentant women (i.e., most women today) is prideful (“I’ll fix her while I **ck her!”) white-knighting and in no way a good work. It is very clearly warned against in the Bible in numerous places.

  91. feministhater says:

    Humanity would cease if marriage/pairing stopped, so that is not going to happen overall, since God has promised many things that involve the continuation of humanity. It may be quite rough getting to that though. Things weren’t easy for the early persecuted church, but people and families made it through, in spite of a system that worked against them.

    A man must make his own choice. I placed no ‘must’ in my statement. It was about what I had learned and what I think my chances are in marriage or lack there of. Now if men think they are so much better than that, then they can roll the dice and hope for the best. However, it is a gamble, a risk with a terrible consequence for those that get it wrong and most men will get it wrong.

  92. feministhater says:

    Things weren’t easy for the early persecuted church, but people and families made it through, in spite of a system that worked against them.

    Which I believe is a major difference compared to today. Whilst then it was against Christians, it wasn’t against the husband alone. Today, it’s against Christian husbands, using the wife to bash them with divorce and remove their authority to lead their family.

    The change from attacking Christians alone, forcing them to rely on each other, making them stronger to one of attacking the husband alone and taking the side of the wife and ramping up her rebelliousness, has be wholly successful in the destruction of the Christian family and the strength of such a union.

  93. Novaseeker says:

    She really had no remorse for anything she did in our interactions.

    @Billy —

    They pretty much never do — that is the most common scenario. Once a woman decides you’re on the way out, they self-justify everything they do, and therefore they feel zero remorse — it’s all perfectly justified in their minds.

    My ex committed adultery, more than once, and had no remorse whatsoever about it — said she “felt nothing like that”. The “Christian” marriage counselor told me (she had, to her credit, kicked my ex out of the joint counseling after learning of the adultery which was taking place while we were in joint counseling!) that it was common that such a person would never express or feel remorse for their actions, and that if I wanted to preserve the marriage I had to forget about her ever really feeling or expressing remorse for the adulter(ies).

    The hamster is very real.

  94. Emperor Constantine says:

    @ Feminist Hater said:
    “After bitter disappointment and more disappointment, some of us realized that continuing down the same path wasn’t worth it anymore. I was lucky enough to find Dalrock and have learned a great deal. An immense amount of knowledge, advice, raw data, Scriptural reading and many other such information, worth its weight in gold.”

    Roger that, I got started with Athol Kay, integrated that, then found Red Pill Reddit and Red Pill Room, plus Rollo. All good, but none integrated the Red Pill and Christianity like Dalrock and his band of merry (?) men. The wit, eloquence, wisdom and humor found here is absolutely worth its weight in gold. It has helped me finally come to terms with what happened to me, including the part where I hold myself accountable (still working on that though).

  95. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 6:50 pm:
    “The verses you note are only in the context of instead doing full time Christian ministry, not just doing your own things.”

    The context of Matthew 19 is that easy divorce isn’t supposed to be an option and the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is avoiding hardship in life. Both contexts are more relevant to our troubles than God’s reason for making the second human.

    Professional clergy are not even supposed to exist. The Apostle Paul’s ministry included blue-collar work to feed himself. Even Christ worked as a carpenter for most of His life. “Full time Christian ministry” is the example set by Pharisees, not believers.

  96. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    My ex committed adultery, more than once, and had no remorse whatsoever about it — said she “felt nothing like that”. The “Christian” marriage counselor told me (she had, to her credit, kicked my ex out of the joint counseling after learning of the adultery which was taking place while we were in joint counseling!) that it was common that such a person would never express or feel remorse for their actions, and that if I wanted to preserve the marriage I had to forget about her ever really feeling or expressing remorse for the adulter(ies).

    Brutal. Proverbs 30 explains the same thing:

    “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’

  97. BillyS says:

    I told my wife that Scripture Dalrock and Novaseeker and she just ignored it. I still wish things could change, but barring a true miracle (including her repentance) the path is set to never rejoin.

    Gunner Q,

    The context of Matthew 19 is that easy divorce isn’t supposed to be an option and the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is avoiding hardship in life. Both contexts are more relevant to our troubles than God’s reason for making the second human.

    You are right that Matthew was to reinforce marriage, but the single aspect was specifically for the Kingdom of God, not for living a life focused on self:

    [Mat 19:12 NKJV] 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from [their] mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept [it], let him accept [it].”

    Note that it says “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” not for the sake of the man having a life of his own. Definitely not MGTOW, since the Kingdom of Heaven is the important target.

    Professional clergy are not even supposed to exist. The Apostle Paul’s ministry included blue-collar work to feed himself. Even Christ worked as a carpenter for most of His life. “Full time Christian ministry” is the example set by Pharisees, not believers.

    That is very incomplete. Paul did not work a regular daytime job most of his time. He did in seasons, but only one part is clearly noted as far as I recall. The idea no one should ever be full time is contradicted by

    [1Co 9:14 NKJV] 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

    The early Apostles were not out fishing to make money either, in the middle of preaching. They were supported by the Church at the time as well.

    You are free to believe differently, but both verses still emphasize a focus on the Kingdom of God that is missing from the lives of most MGTOWs. You may be unique there, which would be a good thing. Few who follow that path do much of anything to spread their faith in any ways I have seen, directly or indirectly.

  98. BillyS says:

    Paul’s advice to avoid hardship is also relative. He had plenty of hardship due to his preaching, even though he was single. It makes much more sense to understand he would have had more hardship if he has taken a wife along. Though he noted that was even fine since the other apostles did so.

    We should be very hesitant building a “be single” doctrine on those two verses.

  99. Emperor Constantine says:

    @BillyS said:
    “I told my wife that Scripture Dalrock and Novaseeker and she just ignored it. I still wish things could change, but barring a true miracle (including her repentance) the path is set to never rejoin.”

    So sorry for the horrific pain this has caused you, brother, may God bless you and keep you in the palm of His hand until he raises you up on the last day.

  100. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    That approach is certainly reasonable for you, but it is important those in your situation don’t shove the “don’t marry” message on young men any more than someone shoves the “you must marry” message on them.

    I’ve never seen Feminist Hater condemn the married bros for being married.

    More generally (this doesn’t apply to FH – I don’t know his history):

    One thing you seem to have no problem with is the idea that promiscuity changes the personalities of those who indulge in it. That’s a common meme here, though the double standard comes into play (as it often does).

    If it’s sensible to believe that a history of promiscuity is damaging to women, then isn’t it also reasonable to assume it’d have an effect on men?

    A couple of years after embracing the playa lifestyle, I got burned out of it. Largely this was an introspective thing. I realized that I had become an asshole, and not just to the women I dated, but to everyone.

    People with such a history, both men and women, are poor candidates for the discipline of marriage. If such a man marries, his wife takes a huge risk that he’ll bring her an STD, or father a kid with some other ho’ who she’ll have to help him support. That isn’t any more fair to a woman than it is to a man.

    I think people (both men and women) can certainly overcome their histories, but the history is still there, and such people remain poor bets for this vocation. There are probably a number of us here in this comment section, and you really ought to thank us for knowing ourselves well enough not to be marrying your sister or daughter or cousin.

    We should be very hesitant building a “be single” doctrine on those two verses.

    Jesus says that But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given..

    That whole chapter is actually very clear. I don’t need any guru to interpret the words of the master for me. Some of us just aren’t very good insurance risks, and Jesus is telling people like us that we need to stay out of the pool. That’s not only sensible, but it’s also easy to do. You’ll be glad to know that chaste, marriageable women generally don’t give us the time of day beyond mild flirting and such. Hoez and playaz know their own.

    You are free to believe differently, but both verses still emphasize a focus on the Kingdom of God that is missing from the lives of most MGTOWs.

    History suggests that The Kingdom of God is built not only by preachers and philosophers. It needs physicians and construction laborers and garbagemen too. I don’t know what this guy does as his day job, but if he does it well, then he’s building civilization.

    Best,

    Boxer

  101. Boxer says:

    Dear White Guy:

    I haven’t been to his web page in a very long time, but a guy named Athol Kay gives very good advice in situations like yours.

    http://marriedmansexlife.com

    Sooooo, I have to lay aside everything for her needs, insure her feelz’ aren’t ever ‘bad’ and can’t seek comfort elsewhere or ELSE. By Webster’s definition I’m a slave in my own marriage to this ‘conservative christian woman’.

    Please pray for me brothers, I need it.

    Step right up men, sign up for marriage,its GREAT, just find yourself a ‘good christian girl’.

    You need to be cool. You’re in a very dangerous situation. You also need to start living something of a double life.

    Go see a competent attorney in your area, pronto. Don’t tell anyone about this. You can usually get a referral from the state or county bar association where you live. Don’t take legal advice from anyone on the internet. You don’t need to file yet. Just talk to him and see what you’re up against.

    If you have the time, go sit in on a session in your local divorce courts. Get the layout. You may be there soon, so it makes sense to get familiar with the layout.

    You also need to quietly start stashing money away. Again, don’t tell anyone about this. I’d lay aside as much as you could without being discovered.

    You might want to buy a cheap ipod which will allow you to record video or audio on the fly. If your wife flips out again, and the police come, this will likely keep you out of the jail house (if you’ve read this blog you know that they automatically assume the husband is the aggressor, unless you have evidence to the contrary.)

    The minute she files for divorce, you’ll likely be out of your house and your life will turn upside down. It sounds like she’s on her way to doing this. If you do these little things now, your life will likely be easier later.

    Good luck,

    Boxer

  102. Rollory says:

    Speaking as a man (barely) over 40 who has never been married and has no children – I totally agree with her! Divorcees should not waste their time with me, because I will not be wasting time with them!

    I didn’t get this far and put as much effort into red-pill internalization as I have to then settle into beta provider mode for somebody else’s cast-offs.

  103. Boxer says:

    Dear Rollory:

    Speaking as a man (barely) over 40 who has never been married and has no children – I totally agree with her! Divorcees should not waste their time with me, because I will not be wasting time with them!

    Doesn’t the whole diatribe read like sour grapes from a spurned loser? She wrote this nonsense after a long history of such men nexting her.

    Think about it. Haven’t you found it common for women to start fronting about how you’re not man enough for them… and this most often happens after you laugh off their advances? It’s a transparent, dishonest, ego-salvaging way to re-write history after being rejected, and nothing more.

    Boxer

  104. Anon says:

    Doesn’t the whole diatribe read like sour grapes from a spurned loser? She wrote this nonsense after a long history of such men nexting her.

    Not just that, but one can hardly pack more cliches into what she said if one wanted to write a parody.

    i) The 22 y/os are undesirable. She wants that to be true, so it is!
    ii) A cocktail waitress is somehow intellectually inferior to a ‘divorce coach’..
    iii) The men’s free choice has no merit. By rejecting a 40 y/o divorce coach for 22 y/o cocktail waitresses, the men are obviously losers. There is no other possible explanation.

  105. Haven’t you found it common for women to start fronting about how you’re not man enough for them… and this most often happens after you laugh off their advances?

    @Boxer
    Women always think (or at least say) that something’s wrong with YOU if you don’t want THEM. The only significant difference is that they use a different vocabulary and target different things. A college-educated youngster will not call you a fag, but a poor working class gal might not even know that the word “fat shaming” even exists. But generally speaking, women believe that “real” men are interested in them; and if they’re not interested in them, that just proves they’re not “real” men.

    Maybe this is one of the reasons why they always believe that men want to harass and rape them.

  106. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “Don’t waste your time dating a man over 40 who’s never been married and had kids.”

    Because there is absolutely, positively no way he’ll ever be interested in you anyhow.

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    The 22 y/os are undesirable. She wants that to be true, so it is!

    Reminds me of my life as a 25-year old graduate student. I was casually dating a couple of 19-year old undergrads, and I rapidly began to enjoy bringing this up whenever a wall-hitting 30-something would put the moves on me.

    On one occasion, one of these shrews actually had the nerve to whine “but what about women my age? What are we supposed to do?”

    Makes me burst out laughing just dredging up such memories.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  108. thedeti says:

    @White Guy:

    “Case in point: I unplugged from the matrix last February (thanks in no small part to the men around here, Bless you Brothers),”

    Good for you.

    “in that time it’s been the most crazy time of my life EVER, now granted I unplugged and almost blew it all up going red pill rambo at first, but I have never gone beyond ‘passive dread’ with her.”

    You’ll have that. Red Pill Rambo isn’t the way to go, at least not yet.

    “I thought I married a conservative christian woman, 14 years ago back when I was 27 (and she was 32)…
    -What I got was a previously promiscuous woman (who feelz guilty about it now),”

    Sounds familiar. Let me guess.

    What happened was you found a reformed slut, a “born again virgin”, who spoke good Christianese, and who said all the right things: “I’m tired of the games and the players. Want to do it right this time. I just want a nice guy who will treat me right. I promise I’ll be worth the wait. I care about you.” You worked for weeks or months to “earn” what she gave other guys for free or the cost of a few drinks. You told her how much you loved her and cared about her so you could get into her pants. All the while she put on the “good girl” “I’ve learned my lessons” act. She lied to you about her N.

    She lied to you and told you she just wanted to get married and be a wife and a mommy all along, it’s all she ever wanted. She thought the other guys loved her because they had sex with her, she thought they’d respect her and call her in the morning, she never wanted casual sex, blah blah blah bullshit bullshit bullshit. And you believed it because you were thirsty and you cared about her and women don’t lie and women especially don’t lie about sex and…..

    Yeah…. been there done that.

    ” -She’s taken another ‘christian women’ to Planned Parenthood for emotional support while married
    -While unplugging she’s 1.Driven Drunk, 2.Gone to Bible Class Drunk, 3.Screamed and Cursed at me in front of the kids, both sober and drunk 4.Trapped me in a room where I couldn’t leave unless I got physical with her so we could ‘talk’ – this includes one time threatening suicide during our ‘talks’ 5. Physical attacks that escalated to drawing blood (third and last time, I told her I would Divorce her the next day if she ever did it again). 6. And almost every other day she brings up divorce and tells me to ‘just do it’ so she can ‘grieve her marriage’. roll eyes… But hey, the sex has gotten more frequent and better.

    At the end of all this I told her I would ‘walk’ if she ever: 1. Hit me ever again, 2. Did something to endanger MY kids, 3.Adultery.”

    Pretty well done.

    Your wife has a drinking problem. Likely it’s existed for a long time, well before you. Tell her to get it into shape, or file for legal separation and for full custody of the kids. Paint her as a mentally unstable drunk/addict who’s a danger to herself, to you, and to her children. Move her out of the house. Get her parents involved. Get your parents involved.

    As for the screaming, cursing at you in front of the kids, shut down all disrespect immediately. Confront it and correct it. If it continues, tell her you’re done and the papers will be on file.

    As for the false imprisonment and physical attacks, well done. She’s had her free “hit”. She will gets no more chances. If either of these ever happen again, the papers will be on file the next day.

    As for the divorce threats, tell her “don’t threaten me with divorce again. The next time you bring that up, you had better have divorce papers in your hand for me to sign. If you don’t, I’ll get them. Do not threaten me like that again. You do, and I’ll file.”

    ” All of this behavior of hers seems to comes from me unplugging from the FI. For 15 months this insanity is all due to me actually ‘seeing’ the truth and acting on it.”

    That, and the fact that she’s losing control of you, and she’s getting called out and confronted on her actions.

    “So here’s the best part of my story of unplugging so far. I asked her to name the things that would cause her to divorce me, (lots of ‘hamstering’ but finally got her to tell me) in this order. 1. If I don’t insure that her needs (and the kids) are my #1 priority, 2. If she continues to feel miserable 3. And of course adultery.”

    Don’t ask her that again. At this point, where things are between you two right now, who cares what would cause her to leave and divorce? You’re around 75% of the way there anyway. Like Boxer said, she’s probably going to file soon, if you don’t.

    The minute you ask a wife who’s raging, threatening divorce,

    “Sooooo, I have to lay aside everything for her needs, insure her feelz’ aren’t ever ‘bad’ and can’t seek comfort elsewhere or ELSE. By Webster’s definition I’m a slave in my own marriage to this ‘conservative christian woman’.

    Please pray for me brothers, I need it.”

    That, i’ll do. Prayers going up now. But you must take action. you have an out of control wife who is a threat to you, your children, and herself. Take Boxer’s advice. Go see a lawyer TODAY if you haven’t already. Find out what you’re up against. Get him on retainer and prepare to file or to defend against a filing. The next time she threatens you physically, get your phone out and start video recording. Get a voice activated recorder and put it in her car. Start journaling and documenting everything that happens in that house. Document her drinking, her conduct, her statements. If she injures you, take photos and video of the injuries. Establish yourself as taking care of the kids and protecting them against Mom’s drunken outbursts. Be prepared to represent your wife to lawyers, the police, courts, and therapists as a mentally and emotionally unstable drunk/addict who’s endangering herself, you, and her children. All you have done is try to protect yourself and your children.

    Good luck, and prayers for you.

  109. thedeti says:

    Finishing a thought above:

    The minute you ask a wife who’s raging at you, threatening divorce, disrespecting you in front of the kids, and generally being out of control – the minute you ask her how she feels or what would cause her to divorce you, you give her control. You validate her feelings. You allow her to manipulate you.

    She’s not worth talking to or arguing with. Her views and feelings are inconsequential. So don’t give them any airing or attention.

  110. White Guy says:

    Thanks Guys! I mean that.
    1.I’ve already spoken to the attorney and gotten over the shock (in private of course) of what I’m facing.
    2.I’ve got some private funds set aside (and my father has offered to help)
    3.Boxer, I might head down to court sometime just to watch the ‘kracken’ feed, I’ll leave my wallet in my car!
    4.It’s been a few months since the insanity and she’s calmed down from the drinking and some of the more crazy stuff, but the times she was ‘nuts’ I did capture some of her texts (she doesn’t know I can read them) and recorded some of our convos. I’ve still got the recording app on my phone ready to go.
    5.Appreciate it Deti, It was your council where I got the idea to ‘spell out’ my conditions for divorce to her.

    deti, can I contact you offline to discuss some of this with you? There aren’t many red pill believers out there, and it makes it hard.

  111. thedeti says:

    d e t I n a t i o n 4 2 @ g m a i l . c o m

  112. White Guy says:

    Thanks Brother!

  113. White Guy says:

    deti, email sent from my yahoo account.

  114. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ June 8, 2017 at 8:50 pm:
    “Note that it says “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” not for the sake of the man having a life of his own. Definitely not MGTOW, since the Kingdom of Heaven is the important target.”

    ‘Not for the sake of the man having a life of his own’? What an interesting statement. Do you follow Christ in the hope of achieving oblivion? Absolution of responsibility? You would end up up like many believers I’ve seen who, deprived of oppression at the hand of God, reject Him to receive oppression at the hand of false priests. I think they are still Christians… but they are natural born slaves who can accept Christ’s sacrifice but not Christ’s friendship.

    God gave you feet so you could walk. He gave you a tongue so you could talk. He gave you free will so you could disagree.

  115. BillyS says:

    I am not sure I follow Gunner Q. Some chose to dedicate more of their life to furthering the Kingdom than others. Doing our own thing can be perfectly fine, but is not focused on furthering the Kingdom of God in the sense discussed in those Scriptures.

    I am not saying any choice (likely yours) is definitely wrong, I am only saying that the Scriptures you note do not support a focus primarily on self. You are free to disagree of course.

  116. Dale says:

    @BillyS
    > In both Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7, God spoke against marriage and recommended bachelorhood if possible
    >
    >Jesus never contradicted the previous statement in Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone. The verses you note are only in the context of instead doing full time Christian ministry, not just doing your own things.

    It is ironic that you mention context Billy, because you are incorrect on context in both sides of your statement.
    1) You claim that 1 Cor 7 and Matt 19 have a “context of … full time Christian ministry”. Matt 19 is in context of whether it is “better not to marry”, not “ministry”. Jesus’ response refers to three groups of eunuchs, only one of which could be considered related to “ministry”, and Jesus’ summary statement is, “Let anyone accept this who can” — not “only full-time elders/ministers”, but “anyone”. Yes, 1 Cor 7 refers to undivided devotion to God… but what does that have to do with “full time ministry”? I can be devoted to God in my software job, by having honesty in business, being loving in relationships, generous, etc.

    2) You have failed to consider the context of Gen 2:18; but so do most “religious” people. God did not say, “It is not good for the man to be free from a wife”; he said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” And what is the context of this statement? Adam was, literally, alone. There was not one human friend for him. That situation is no longer true. Each man can have men as friends, so they are not alone, so they can meet together (Heb 10:24-25), and so they can sharpen one another (Prov 27:17). A wife was how God chose to address Adam being alone; God did not say it was the only way or even the best way. I think God was trying to kill three birds with one stone; Adam’s loneliness, Adam’s need for a subordinate to increase the production of his own labours (helper) and God’s desire for man to “be fruitful and multiply”.

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