Only the foolish tear it down.

Heidi Stone has decided to build up her own home, instead of tearing it down*:

Simply? It makes sense to just stay married. Especially for us, ladies. Especially for us.

That’s you and me, darlin’. You and me. We’ve already invested our perky selves, baby-making hips, and the “looks cute in a two-piece” years. We’ve given them to the man we wake up to and the children we make dinner for and unless we are careful, that investment might not pay off.

I know I want to reap the rewards of that investment.

I’ve earned those rewards. There is no way I want to jeopardize where I end up and how I live because I didn’t have the courage or willingness to pursue my marriage and family with integrity now. Before the hurricanes and menopausal tornadoes.

See, to be blunt, we don’t fare well in the re-marriage market as only 25% of women who are divorced in their 30’s-40’s actually remarry. Men will generally marry at a rate closer to 50% but, even then, they aren’t looking at our Match.Com profiles. They tend to marry women far younger than themselves the second time and, well, that rather gives a raspberry to both our aging marketability and our chances at second time marital bliss.

*H/T Vox Day.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Divorce, Vox Day. Bookmark the permalink.

307 Responses to Only the foolish tear it down.

  1. PokeSalad says:

    Well, she isn’t going to be on Valenti’s nor Sandberg’s Christmas card list this year.

  2. She says:

    “When it all boils down and we are left with the goop in the bottom of the pain, it seems wiser to just hang on to the 41% chance that I get to be one of the women who can hold on to her husband and intact family for the long haul. At least as much as it is in my power to do so. Don’t feel like you have power? Oh, I disagree. Strongly. We have so much power. We have no idea how much power we have.”

    Wives are the ones who must “settle” on the sediments of any relationship. They were immensely valuable for a time and to settle for less causes so much indignation, regret and resentment toward the very men who love them.

    It never occurs to wives or girlfriends what men are left with the sludge in the bottom of the pan as well. Their sacrifice is ordinary and packed full of “but, you’re supposed to”. How often are the rewards for a husband’s sacrifice merely negative attitude, ingratitude and involuntary, unilaterally-decided sexual retirement? Who cares. It’s only ever been all about her.

    So the dire conclusion among these ingrate battleaxes is to stay married for reasons of “we’re rotten milk and our hypergamy to seek out better options is forever stalled by creepy leftovers”.
    They don’t arrive at this conclusion for reasons of love, adoration, faith, genuine sexual attraction or female virtue and honor.

    Husbands are to be tolerated.

  3. Neguy says:

    She’s making it rain red pills.

  4. feministhater says:

    So the dire conclusion among these ingrate battleaxes is to stay married for reasons of “we’re rotten milk and our hypergamy to seek out better options is forever stalled by creepy leftovers”.
    They don’t arrive at this conclusion for reasons of love, adoration, faith, genuine sexual attraction or female virtue and honor.

    Husbands are to be tolerated.

    Yep, they cannot love men who and merely above average or average and cannot stand men who are below average. Staying married, being married, getting a divorce, all of these things to women are merely done because of their own selfishness. As greyghost as always said, they only way to get a woman to change her ways is to make it in her own selfish interests to do so.

    I’m telling you gents, feminism has given men the greatest gift of all: Women’s true nature and how to avoid it. You don’t have to be the guy stuck with the sludge anymore, you don’t have to be the man who deals with her diminishing looks, her menopause and her hot flushes, you don’t have to be that man. You are free to just leave them be. MGTOW, the greatest gift to mankind.

  5. earlthomas786 says:

    You mean eat, pray, fornicate wasn’t what really happens in meatspace?

  6. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I’m telling you gents, feminism has given men the greatest gift of all: Women’s true nature and how to avoid it.’

    Genesis 3 did it long before the name was changed to feminism.

  7. geronimo says:

    Some of you guys are better off single, or at least your potential mates are. When you are married awhile, the sediment creeps in. There’s sludge in the pot and it comes from both parties. As she pointed out, your wife isn’t the smokin’ hot 25 year old anymore either. She’s trying to point out to the idiots that the reasons they use to rationalize divorce are wrong, in the terms of those reasons. This isn’t the Heman Woman haters club. Give it a rest.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    Interesting to see an article by a woman that uses even a smattering of the statistics.

    Then there is this text:
    Every day, systematically destroying their homes, one snark, one bitterness, one resentment at a time the foundation crumbles until there is nothing left to preserve. Nothing left to fight for or hold on to.

    and

    But there really is no limit to the depths of ugliness in the human heart. Have you thought about how disrespect and comparison, victimhood, and slander can pull down your house?

    That is surprising to read from any female human at all.

  9. Tarl says:

    The bad news is: her feelz trump boring old statistics every single time.

    And right now… she’s not haaaaaaaaaappy.

  10. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘That is surprising to read from any female human at all.’

    Given how easily women are deceived…any amount of self awareness from them is shocking. Makes me wonder if her father was more red pill than most.

  11. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘That is surprising to read from any female human at all.’

    Given how easily women are deceived…any amount of self awareness from them is shocking. Makes me wonder if her father was more red pill than most.

  12. Bruce says:

    Mark Richardson (Oz Conservative) claimed that only 7% of women who are single at age 50 will ever cohabit with a man again. I don’t know where he got the statistic.

  13. Gaza says:

    “They don’t arrive at this conclusion for reasons of love, adoration, faith, genuine sexual attraction or female virtue and honor.”

    Yes. This would be the “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” that Rollo so aptly illuminates in his work. She is voicing it. And as others have said, only because she rationalizes that it is now in her best (self) interest to stay put.

    Her wedding vows are absent from the calculations but her ego/hypergamy drive is laid bare. Yet in doing so she *feels* that she is being honorable and virtuous.

    Her case for staying married is all about ‘me’ ‘I’, and team woman. Even though it is a cold calculation that admits to some of the reality of the right tail of the SMV/MMV curve, she still infers that staying married is now female heroism.

    Instead of celebrating the honor and virtue of keeping a promise, the beauty of motherhood, the grace that is the autumn of life with grandkids and the satisfaction of a robust, loving family, she laments what has been lost; her takeaway is the sunk costs fallacy of marriage. You see ladies, you should just resign yourself to run out the clock because sticking the divorce landing is precarious at best.

    Her “stay married” advice is not nearly as damaging as is her admission of her declining value, “those (best) years are behind me”. She is guilty of blasphemy to the SIW, lean-in, you go girl, sacred female experience dogma that instructs the still single cohort to never settle even while they too pass the rubicon of the SMV/MMV.

    A 35 y/o single woman looking for the cash-out can’t even stake claim to giving her potential husband her best years. In the inverted world of our cultural overlords, men are supposed to buy into the right-tail of the SMV being the best, that all those men made her who she is today. She didn’t even know “who she was” back then! lol

    Women won’t be listening either way, but this lady is instructive for men who need the red pill hammered into them at every turn.

  14. earlthomas786 says:

    Her case for staying married is all about ‘me’ ‘I’, and team woman. Even though it is a cold calculation that admits to some of the reality of the right tail of the SMV/MMV curve, she still infers that staying married is now female heroism.

    It’s the same script the divorcee uses when she’s the hero in her own story…minus the fact she’s delusional to the curve.

    Although despite the not so perfect intentions…anything that starts to advise women to keep the marriage together is much better than everything out there trying to tear them apart.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Given how easily women are deceived…any amount of self awareness from them is shocking. Makes me wonder if her father was more red pill than most.

    Reading her bio at the site it seems more likely that her husband has hand.

  16. Frank K says:

    She was ominously quiet about the carousel and how it raises the probability of a future divorce, but you could almost read the warning between the lines, as in “yeah, you enjoyed some really hot men in your prime and by comparison hubby doesn’t cut it. I know you’re unfulfilled, but listen to me, whatever you do, don’t divorce him, you’ll regret it because you won’t find a replacement for him. He’s the best you can do for now, so fake the orgasms if you must”

    Of course, she couldn’t write that.

  17. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K says:
    October 10, 2017 at 10:41 am

    “She was ominously quiet about the carousel and how it raises the probability of a future divorce, but you could almost read the warning between the lines, as in ‘yeah, you enjoyed some really hot men in your prime and by comparison hubby doesn’t cut it’.”

    That’s probably because she’s addressing women who actually married in their prime. See this quote from her blog post.

    “We’ve already invested our perky selves, baby-making hips, and the ‘looks cute in a two-piece’ years. We’ve given them to the man we wake up to and the children we make dinner for and unless we are careful, that investment might not pay off.”

    She’s not writing to women who gave their “perky selves, baby-making hips, and the ‘looks cute in a two-piece’ years” to “six-pack Craig”, then “garage-band-drummer Vince”, then “Harley McBadboy”. She’s writing to women who – like her, judging from her bio [“22 years as wife to Brian, mom to Isaac (19) & Dillon (17).”] – married young, had kids right away, and are now nearing the empty nest years.

    The Whispers (as Dalrock calls them) are just as much a temptation to such women as they are to former carousel riders. The difference is that former carousel riders – for obvious reasons – have a much harder time resisting the temptation.

  18. BillyS says:

    It is amazing how many gripe about a decent blog post. Noting all the other good things would be worthless. She is unlikely to be heard by those who really need her advice either way, but going for the “what’s in it for me” aspect is a good additional thing to have.

    Too many of you just want to argue logic with those who only respond to emotion. Write your own logic posts if you want, but don’t cut down others who are at least tackling the same problem!

  19. earlthomas786 says:

    Reading her bio at the site it seems more likely that her husband has hand.

    Reading this post also mentions he had a hand. Turns out during her formative years she swallowed the poison of feminism most women have…and had no idea what submission was for the longest time other than something they think ‘makes them weak’.

    http://heidistone.net/death-of-a-feminist/

    The most self-aware thing I got from it…she realized the problems in her marriage with the husband becoming more distance and kids picking up on her bad behavior were mostly her fault.

    Despite what the deceivers say…being sassy, sarcastic, and a nag isn’t what it’s cracked up to be ladies.

  20. Anon says:

    Funny how basic cause-and-effect, that even a 12 y/o boy would easily deduce, seems exceptionally intelligent from a woman.

  21. heidi says:

    Anon says:
    October 10, 2017 at 11:09 am

    Anon wins the internet for best comment.

    “Funny how basic cause-and-effect, that even a 12 y/o boy would easily deduce, seems exceptionally intelligent from a woman.”

  22. Yep it’s better than the alternative of a divorce but it’s not great. Yes, this woman is very logical. Its in her best interest to keep the best deal for her. Swell.

    Yeah, that’s what I thought. From a single man’s perspective she’s demonstrating why we should stay that way. I’m sure there’s exceptions but generally women are users, takers in their relationships with men. One obvious exception is Alpha F*** followed by Beta Bucks. The hell with that.

    Setting aside for a moment that there may not be any sex in a marriage or she may get so fat the husband won’t care. Is marriage for men simply overpriced yet sanctified prostitution?

    From a logical standpoint, why bother?

  23. Yes. The disappointment and resentment in her words is thick and palpable.
    There’s a certain underlying longing for “what might have been”, had she pulled out the pin, garnered the children to her side, and leveraged the courts to seize her future security and financial well-being by force.
    She makes herself (and “team woman”) sound like a poor, sorrowful, caged bird.
    If only the world would see the beauty of her wings in full, free flight again!
    She could finally be “happy”.

    It’s just as you say.
    Female ypergamy, opportunism, parasitism and selfishness laid bare. No shame. No apologies.

  24. earlthomas786 says:

    From a single man’s perspective she’s demonstrating why we should stay that way. I’m sure there’s exceptions but generally women are users, takers in their relationships with men.

    They were created to be our helpmates in marriage…with the widespread deception they are getting, the agenda is to flip the script.

    Is marriage for men simply overpriced yet sanctified prostitution?

    It’s meant to create a family. If she’s not bringing submission and children into the marriage then she really is a taker in it.

  25. Oscar says:

    “Our children were small and I began to see them mimicking some of my more ugly traits. They picked up my anger and they picked up my fear of being caught doing something which I knew was questionable but I had justified it anyway.” ~ Heidi Stone

    http://heidistone.net/death-of-a-feminist/

    How often does a wife live in perpetual disobedience and disrespect towards her husband, then turns around and whines – to her husband – that the children are disobedient and disrespectful to her?

  26. Pingback: Only the foolish tear it down. | Reaction Times

  27. It also occurs to me now why so many married women today are miserable and angry.
    Their edges are already singed with disappointment in the men they selected, no matter how kind, loving, generous and oak-like, no matter what the reality of his provision and security.
    It always irritates and burns at their very souls.

    It strikes me why the majority of wives are subconsciously never quite satisfied until, and even well after, their own husbands are emotionally defeated, despondent and made utterly miserable in the marriage as well.

    So if you know that the girl you fall in love with is eventually going to grow to resent and hate you over time, then what the hell is the point of sacrificing everything for this woman? Or any woman?
    She’s disappointed.
    But what about him? What an underwhelming return on his investment in her!

    It’s not that she won’t “have and to hold”. She just can’t. Not from a place of genuineness. That doesn’t assure her survival. She we always doubt you.

    If she can never genuinely rely on you, then she cannot appreciate and love you for who you are, and will only selectively offer her exclusivity, adoration and intimacy under at best capricious conditions. This leads me to believe that we have lost as men before we even start.

  28. Anon says:

    Tarl,

    The bad news is: her feelz trump boring old statistics every single time.

    Statistice = Mansplaining, dontcha know?

    It is amazing how loudly a femtwat will announce her own primate-level intellect and her status as a massive net resource-devourer by denouncing facts, logic, and statistics as ‘mansplaining’.

  29. ACThinker says:

    hm.. so divorce is 60% *better go with the 41% odds)… but 75% of the time the woman initiates. I’m a little currious about that stat, but I’ll go with it. So that means 41% stay together, 45% divoce because she wants to and 15% because he wants to….*

    yup sounds like the woman have a lot of control (the 45%) to decide to stay in the marriage. And given that their ablity to remarry (assuming they want to) is low, it makes a lot of sense for her to stay.

    *. I’m confused on how the 75/25% stat for divoces get going. I beleive it, but I’d like to know that forinstance if she cheats and he files, that counts as her initiating a divorce, and if he cheats and she files, that is in my mind him initiating. So if she grows tired and gets him removed (or just gets him to go) and he files…. she initiated…. Like I said, I can believe the stat. I’d just like more on the method.

  30. earlthomas786 says:

    How often does a wife live in perpetual disobedience and disrespect towards her husband, then turns around and whines – to her husband – that the children are disobedient and disrespectful to her?

    It’s that type of cause and effect that is easy for a 12 year old boy to understand but takes a Herculan effort for a woman to get it.

  31. earlthomas786 says:

    So if you know that the girl you fall in love with is eventually going to grow to resent and hate you over time, then what the hell is the point of sacrificing everything for this woman? Or any woman?

    At least in Christian marriage…a husband is required to love his wife. Much like if a woman doesn’t want to submit to her husband she shouldn’t marry, if a man doesn’t want to love his wife, he shouldn’t marry.

    Of note if you notice…she tends to grow in resentment and hatred toward her husband if she’s rebellious and not submissive. Seems to me love and submission go together as much as resentment and rebellion do.

  32. SnapperTrx says:

    She is told that these traits in a wife are par for the course, that she has the “right” to be disobedient and disrespectful whereas her children do not. “Children obey your parents” as compared to “Wives, obey your husbands so long as he is doing stuff that makes you feel you should be obedient, otherwise teach him a lesson he wont soon forget!”.

  33. earlthomas786 says:

    She is told that these traits in a wife are par for the course, that she has the “right” to be disobedient and disrespectful whereas her children do not. “Children obey your parents” as compared to “Wives, obey your husbands so long as he is doing stuff that makes you feel you should be obedient, otherwise teach him a lesson he wont soon forget!”.

    Funny how kids don’t pick up on those subtleties…they just see dear old mom who is an authority figure to them rebel against her authority, the husband…so it should be fine for them to rebel against parents. Eventually they’ll rebel against any authority figure…like the police, their boss, or even God. They could be unemployed, in jail, and/or an atheist.

    Seem far fetched? Look where we are now.

  34. Mandy says:

    Better than promoting divorce but I prefer the notion that a marriage is of higher value than material ones. The focus is on lack of finding a new partner so It is still a selfish proposition.

    No talk of elevating the human spirit by following God’s commandment leaves me cold.

  35. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    October 10, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    “Funny how kids don’t pick up on those subtleties…they just see dear old mom who is an authority figure to them rebel against her authority, the husband…so it should be fine for them to rebel against parents. Eventually they’ll rebel against any authority figure…like the police, their boss, or even God.”

    Bingo!

    That’s why, when the Apostle Paul explained which members of the Church are supposed to submit to which other members of the Church (Eph 5:21 – 6:9), he began by commanding wives to submit to their husbands. He understood that rebellious wives raise rebellious children, who then become rebellious adults who rebel against employers, civil authorities, church authorities, and ultimately God.

    That’s also why Satan attacks wifely submission with such ferocity. Wifely rebellion destroys families (the foolish woman tears her house down with her own hands [Prov 14:1]), and if you destroy families, you destroy the Church.

    Also, marriage is an earthly picture of Christ and the Church. Wifely rebellion destroys marriages, which destroys the earthly image of Christ and the Church.

  36. Jed Mask says:

    Hmmm… Good stuff.

    It’s good to hear a woman preaching to other women to “do the right thing” and explaining the “consequences” of how “not doing the right thing” will cause them hurt. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  37. Jim says:

    As greyghost as always said, they only way to get a woman to change her ways is to make it in her own selfish interests to do so.

    Yes. This is why they just need to be told to do something instead of asking their permission or kowtowing to them. The latter just makies them more resentful and bitchy in the end anyway. BUT this can’t really be done unless the law is behind the man, and for right now that it is the complete opposite.

    I’m telling you gents, feminism has given men the greatest gift of all: Women’s true nature and how to avoid it. You don’t have to be the guy stuck with the sludge anymore, you don’t have to be the man who deals with her diminishing looks, her menopause and her hot flushes, you don’t have to be that man. You are free to just leave them be. MGTOW, the greatest gift to mankind.

    Marriage can be a great thing but it has to be built upon a strong patriarchy. And I don’t mean a faux patriarchy I mean the real thing. When it isn’t it’s just a complete joke. So much so that it just destroys families and as a result, nations.

    I would agree that feminism has exposed women’s real nature to a few generations of men who somewhere along the line forgot it. But I would say that even as an intransigent MGTOW I’d say it’s not really the greatest gift but just a necessary and temporary stopgap to the HUGE problem of rebellious women and the previous generations of limp-wristed men who failed to put the bitches in their place.

    Even YouTube MGTOWs like Turd Flinging Monkey agree that MGTOW is just a temporary stopgap (yes, his words), it’s not really a solution. But for now it IS necessary and his a great gift until society collapses and we can begin to rebuild it. The problem is that so many men just don’t get it. Most of them are totally drunk on the egalitarian bullshit and can’t seem to see it unless they get burnt. MGTOW popped up in response to a legal and political system that says “F you” to men no matter what you do. It’s a justified protest of sorts. When women are finally put back in their place legally, culturally and politically MGTOW will disappear since it won’t be needed anymore. But until then it will probably continue to grow.

    It’s that type of cause and effect that is easy for a 12 year old boy to understand but takes a Herculan effort for a woman to get it.

    I know what you mean…all too well. That’s why women should be property of their fathers and then their husbands when they get married.

  38. thedeti says:

    Constrainedlocus:

    You’ve got it exactly. I was trying to find the words to describe this, but I think you’ve seized on it.

    The fact of the matter is that most women are severely disappointed and seethe with bitterness and resentment because they couldn’t marry Mr. Alpha Bucks (the good looking badass high earning provider) or Mr. Beta F*cks (the good looking lower earning but easy-going comfort inducing guy).

    They had to settle on Beta Bucks. The nebbishly, slightly off, Nice Guy who never got the date; the guy she paid no attention to back in school; the guy she copied her test answers off of; the nerdling who played trombone in the band while she spun her flag.

    And they absolutely HATE it.

    But the Heidi Stones of the world are determined to make the best of it, I guess. She wants to stay in the marriage, but is clearly unhaaaaaappy.

    What we need to remember is that this really isn’t anything new. It was just voiced in Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique as “the Problem That Has No Name”. And then society came up with a solution. And then we figured out that that “solution” created far more problems than it “solved”, and it didn’t even “solve” the “problem” it was intended to address. So Heidi suggests we return to just staying in the ho hum, so-so, ‘meh’ marriage and make the best of it.

    This is why men are exhorted in the manosphere to take charge, lead the relationship, lead the marriage, and make the key decisions. Set down clear rules and boundaries, announce the consequences for breaking the rules and boundaries, and then impose the consequences, every time the rule or boundary is broken. (Kind of like what I do with my 11 year old son and 17 year old daughter, but I digress.)

    Women are finding out they kind of like living where the rules are clear, the consquences of breaking them are equally clear, and someone else worries about “the big stuff”.

  39. earlthomas786 says:

    The fact of the matter is that most women are severely disappointed and seethe with bitterness and resentment because they couldn’t marry Mr. Alpha Bucks (the good looking badass high earning provider) or Mr. Beta F*cks (the good looking lower earning but easy-going comfort inducing guy).

    Would a rebellious woman be happy in a marriage to that alpha or beta? Could their own severe disappointment and bitterness come more from the interior rebellion than regretting the poor fellow they married?

    I guess my overall thought is…does rebellion or lack of submission come from their own feelings or who they perceive their husband to be? Her own heart or projection onto her husband?

  40. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    I am convinced that inward rebellion can make a wife rebel against any kind of husband. The same alpha factors that can be compelling can also be repulsive.

  41. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    October 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    “I guess my overall thought is…does rebellion or lack of submission come from their own feelings or who they perceive their husband to be? Her own heart or projection onto her husband?”

    A woman’s sin flows from the same place a man’s sin flows from; the flesh.

    Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

    Which is why “follow your heart” is the worst advice a human can receive.

  42. OKRickety says:

    It is common here to see comments that women don’t recognize reality, but instead believe in fantasies such as believing they will find the right man to marry after reaching age 30, or frivorcing their husband of 15 years believing they will find a better option.

    In light of the above, I do not understand why many are complaining about Heidi Stone, whose post demonstrates her awareness of the real world. The responses say things like it is “all about her”, her “not so perfect intentions”, “Its in her best interest to keep the best deal for her”, and “Female ypergamy, opportunism, parasitism and selfishness laid bare.”.

    It seems that a woman who does use logic and recommends acting accordingly is still considered lacking.

  43. Scott says:

    I have to admit. I wanted this to be a beautiful, idealistic approach to reasoning in favor of staying, but as Mandy points out it falls short of that.

    “Stay because you will probably not do well in the after-divorce market” is not exactly inspiring.

    I stay in my marriage because it honors a commitment I made and I look forward to growing old with her, and having a house full of grandbabies running around when I am old.

    An Orthodox priest/scholar who I read a lot talks about the folly of the “true love” argument. I can’t find the quote now but he basically you can’t “know” if it was “true love” until one of you is dead. Until that point, you are just perfecting your love for each other.

    Lying on your death bed, you look back at the entire story and realize you accomplished “true love” rather than having it be something that hits you like cupids arrow. I hope all those little faces are the last thing I see before I close my eyes for the last time. Why is that so hard to understand?

  44. OKRickety says:

    Gaza said:
    Her wedding vows are absent from the calculations but her ego/hypergamy drive is laid bare. Yet in doing so she *feels* that she is being honorable and virtuous.”

    They are no longer unmentioned.

    Heidi Stone (in a comment on the same post):
    “However, I don’t just tolerate him. Because that isn’t fulfilling my marriage vows. I love, honor, obey, serve, and adore him. Sometimes out of a sheer determination and sometimes because I am overwhelmed by the intensity of how dear he is.”

    While she is undoubtedly imperfect (just like all of us), I am pleased to see her attitude toward her own marriage, and her desire to have other women reach the same point. You can bitch about what she says if you want, but, if I were looking for a wife, I’d want a woman like her, not the elusive unicorn.

  45. thedeti says:

    OKRickety:

    What you’re seeing in the responses here is to a woman who clearly is responding solely to self interest. The regret, the resentment and the bitterness are clear in the piece. She is plainly having an “I missed out” moment. Not a thing about how much she cares about her husband, how she wants to be with him. Nope. It’s all “gotta stay married, cuz I don’t wanna end up in the poorhouse. Gotta keep him on the treadmill supporting me and my kidz.”

    No, her husband is “the goop in the bottom of the pan”. He’s the leftovers, the table scraps. He’s all that’s left after all the fun.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    In light of the above, I do not understand why many are complaining about Heidi Stone, whose post demonstrates her awareness of the real world. The responses say things like it is “all about her”, her “not so perfect intentions”, “Its in her best interest to keep the best deal for her”, and “Female ypergamy, opportunism, parasitism and selfishness laid bare.”.

    It seems that a woman who does use logic and recommends acting accordingly is still considered lacking.

    It is indeed strange. She is making the same argument that I have on many occasions. Realistically, her post is the message most likely to have an impact on a woman tempted to pull her own “hold my beer and watch this” stunt. Telling such women that their children will suffer means nothing, as it will be instantly rationalized away. The same with talk of commitment, honoring vows, God, etc.

    I think the difference (and the frustration) is that coming from a married woman the message feels like disrespect of her husband. I don’t know if the charge is accurate or not, but I can understand the perception of it. But even assuming this isn’t mostly rhetorically tuned towards the audience, even the cold hard calculation that her current husband, the father of her children, is her only real chance to have a happy marriage opens the door to putting the whispers away and actually loving and appreciating her husband.

  47. thedeti says:

    Yes, scott also pointed out that Heidi’s approach is “gotta stay married, because he’ll just haffta do. Can’t do no better.”

  48. ys says:

    This is wise advice for women with a not-stellar past (which is most) on how they should stay married.

  49. thedeti says:

    If Heidi Stone is so enamored of her husband, why is he referred to metaphorically as “the goop in the bottom of the pain”? (I think she met “pan”, but methinks there’s a Freudian slip in there.)

    It’s just typical of how so, so many women obviously look at their husbands – they’re “less than”, they’re the ones who got “settled for”, they’re the leftovers, the also rans, the table scraps, the stuff no one else wanted. The “well, I need to get married, so I guess this leftover beta bux guy is the best I can do, so he’ll just haffta do” attitude. That’s what gets me.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    If Heidi Stone is so enamored of her husband, why is he referred to metaphorically as “the goop in the bottom of the pain”? (I think she met “pan”, but methinks there’s a Freudian slip in there.)

    I don’t think the goop is her husband. I think the goop she is talking about is an older woman’s remarriage options.

    Have you seen the dating market for women our age? Have you seen the dudes interested in us? How many of those men would want a ready-made family and a whole set of busted up luggage? How many of those men would you want around your 14-year-old daughter or raising your little boys?

    Hollywood says women can do anything and have anything no matter what they look like or what mess they’ve made of their lives. But Hollywood also uses CGI to make dead people talk so we know they’re a bunch of liars anyway.

    When it all boils down and we are left with the goop in the bottom of the pain, it seems wiser to just hang on to the 41% chance that I get to be one of the women who can hold on to her husband and intact family for the long haul. At least as much as it is in my power to do so.

    More specifically, she refers to the remaining years with her husband as a reward for investing her younger, perky years with him:

    That’s you and me, darlin’. You and me. We’ve already invested our perky selves, baby-making hips, and the “looks cute in a two-piece” years. We’ve given them to the man we wake up to and the children we make dinner for and unless we are careful, that investment might not pay off.

    I know I want to reap the rewards of that investment.

    I’ve earned those rewards. There is no way I want to jeopardize where I end up and how I live because I didn’t have the courage or willingness to pursue my marriage and family with integrity now. Before the hurricanes and menopausal tornadoes.

    The goop is what she will get if she pulls the EPL ripcord. Her husband is the reward, not the goop.

  51. earl says:

    Which is why “follow your heart” is the worst advice a human can receive.

    I’ve thought that too…specifically because of the verse you just mentioned. Which is why the world’s advice is often lacking.

    @OkRickety

    It seems that a woman who does use logic and recommends acting accordingly is still considered lacking.

    I also stated her advice to keep the marriage together is better than giving advice to divorce. The reasons that if she did divorce she’d have the goop to deal with aren’t as good as ‘it’s the vows I made to him and God’, ‘it’s because I respect him and what he does for our family’, ‘it’s because I submit to him and his authority’.

  52. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    Where’s Rollo when we need him?

    Stone’s piece might have come off a bit better and been better received here if she’d said something like this:

    “I’m staying with my husband because I love him, I care about him, we made a great life together, my heart still leaps when I think about him or hear his voice, we have great sex that’s only gotten better as we’ve gotten older, I love the kids that he gave me, and I really like spending time with him as a man. He has sacrificed IMMENSELY for me and our family, I appreciate them from the bottom of my heart, and I am willing to repay that as best as I can. I made promises to that man, and I intend to keep them.”

    Instead, what she said was, in essence:

    “I’m staying with my husband because I can’t do any better than him, the dating market for divorced moms in their late 30s and early 40s sucks toilet water, I can’t replace him, and I can get more financial support from him being his wife than I can collecting alimony and child support. So I’m going to be as nice to him as I can because I need him on that treadmill taking care of me and mine. I’m going to build up my house, not because it’s the right thing to do for all of us, but because building up my house serves my selfish, self-centered ends.”

    Or at least it came off that way.

    I called for Rollo because this all confirms “men love idealistically; women love opportunistically”. Here it is, confirmation, writ large on two blogs.

  53. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    She didn’t say she was doing that. She said that is what women ready to nuke things for better options should consider. That is different.

    And I am supposed to be the purist here.

    Getting a wife to stay rather than nuke things is a positive step! The reason for that doesn’t have to be perfect.

    Scott,

    You are a man and not the primary target of her post. Women, in general, do not value faithfulness as much as you do. Posting about how she needed to be faithful would not help one bit with her target audience. It is women who will nuke things, not men.

  54. thedeti says:

    BillyS:

    “You are a man and not the primary target of her post. Women, in general, do not value faithfulness as much as you do.”

    OK, I guess I can kind of see that. Stone’s piece is a woman talking to women.

    Much like here, we’re men talking to men, and our messages are often not well received elsewhere, where the hens congregate to pickalittletalkalittlecheepcheepcheeptalkalotpickalittlemore.

    Fair enough.

  55. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 2:19 pm:
    “I’m staying with my husband because I love him, I care about him, we made a great life together, my heart still leaps when I think about him or hear his voice”

    Funny thing, Scripture does not command a wife to love, like or even appreciate her husband. She is only commanded to respect and obey. Don’t we treat Christ the same way? In fact, the 12 Disciples did in John 6:66-67.

    “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

    Peter didn’t say “We love you, Lord!” He said “What’s the alternative? There’s only you.”

    Good enough.

  56. Heidi Stone says:

    Fantastic. Really. It’s like you read my mind. No sarcasm. Promise.

    ““I’m staying with my husband because I love him, I care about him, we made a great life together, my heart still leaps when I think about him or hear his voice, we have great sex that’s only gotten better as we’ve gotten older, I love the kids that he gave me, and I really like spending time with him as a man. He has sacrificed IMMENSELY for me and our family, I appreciate them from the bottom of my heart, and I am willing to repay that as best as I can. I made promises to that man, and I intend to keep them.””

    I didn’t expect to keep the marriage I defiantly tried to destroy with my ignorance and “you go girl” attitude when I was much younger. And to see that we are here now, nearly 24 years later, is nothing less than God’s grace and goodness.

    I didn’t expect anyone to read my tiny little blog. It was aa visceral response to the discovery that not one but TWO marriages of friends were falling apart in the space of two days. I’m so tired of grieving over the loss of families and homes and seeing my friend’s hearts in shreds. Someone needs to tell the truth. So, being a woman, I wrote truth, harsh truth, to women about women issues. Plenty of folks are doing the same for the dudes.

    The grass is not greener. The opportunities are not more golden. I haven’t settled for my husband. He settled for me. In so many ways. And my gratitude for his loyalty, his provision, his care, his love, and the children he gave me is magnificent.

    But I don’t expect you to believe me or give any credibility to what I’ve said. Which is fine. You don’t really know me. This is just an article from someone you’ll never talk to. Maybe it will make you think about something or just be a diversion. I have no idea.

    And, BTW, “goop in the bottom of the pain” was originally a typo but I left it because, honestly, that is real too.

    Thanks for all the feedback.

  57. earl says:

    Peter didn’t say “We love you, Lord!” He said “What’s the alternative? There’s only you.”

    Good enough.

    Well to be fair he later did say he loved Him after denying Him. But that was after a crucifixion and resurrection.

    But you are right…a wife is not commanded to love her husband (she still can though). A husband is commanded to love his wife.

  58. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    October 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    “… a wife is not commanded to love her husband…”

    Yes, she is.

    Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children

    We’re also commanded to love our neighbor, and our closest neighbor is our spouse.

  59. OKRickety says:

    thedeti, Dalrock, Scott,

    and BillyS (who gets my vote for the best analysis so far)

    “When it all boils down and we are left with the goop in the bottom of the pain, ….”

    Rather than all the negativity about “goop”, I think a contextual analysis suggests that this phrase means In the final analysis, …..

    ‘The regret, the resentment and the bitterness are clear in the piece. She is plainly having an “I missed out” moment.’

    Well, to me, it is clear that she is trying to get her target audience (women considering divorce) to recognize these negative thoughts and feelings as their own. If they identify with them, then she is hoping that they will read further and listen to her advice.

    Deti’s suggested wording: “I’m staying with my husband because I love him, … I made promises to that man, and I intend to keep them.”

    I think the following covers this presumed failure on her part.

    Heidi Stone (in a later comment): “It is a reality that I will never do better than the man I have given myself to for 23 years. However, I don’t just tolerate him. Because that isn’t fulfilling my marriage vows. I love, honor, obey, serve, and adore him. Sometimes out of a sheer determination and sometimes because I am overwhelmed by the intensity of how dear he is.

    “Getting a wife to stay rather than nuke things is a positive step! The reason for that doesn’t have to be perfect.”

    Thanks, BillyS. It seems that perfection (in personal behavior, and in blog posts and comments) is the only acceptable standard for many commenters here. Even God doesn’t expect us to be perfect, although He does want us to strive for that goal.

  60. Frank K says:

    Maybe I was too harsh with my earlier remark and perhaps Heidi is simply trying to stem the divorce rate by reminding women that the grass isn’t greener on the other side of the divorce fence.

    Her wording does remind us though that to many women men are nothing more than providers and wallets.

  61. thedeti says:

    OKRickety:

    It seems that perfection (in personal behavior, and in blog posts and comments) is the only acceptable standard for many commenters here. Even God doesn’t expect us to be perfect, although He does want us to strive for that goal.

    No, perfection is not the only acceptable standard. What is happening is that we’re seeing “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” playing out in real time, and it’s jarring and abrasive. We can take the abrasion and the jarring much easier from the world and our jobs and our male friends and even from our enemies, much easier than we can take it from our women. We expect to be cut and bruised and abraded in the world. We don’t expect it from our women.

    We expect (or at least hope) our women to help us and be a safe haven, a respite from a harsh and unforgiving world; not an unrefined set of “well, guess this is as good as it gets, guess I’ll stay with him because I can’t do any better, and the hot 50 year old guys don’t wanna marry me” statements.

  62. BillyS says:

    All of us here can be purists in some areas.

  63. feministhater says:

    I think the following covers this presumed failure on her part.

    In truth she only stated so once prodded. The fact that it didn’t come out in the original is more than enough reason to pause. You might think it covers any presumed failure but it could simply be her telling men what they want to hear.

  64. earl says:

    Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children

    That was a command to what older women are supposed to be encouraging younger women to do.

    We’re also commanded to love our neighbor, and our closest neighbor is our spouse.

    We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourself…in marriage that’s the husband loving his wife. Eph 5:28

    When it comes to marriage the command is the husband is to love the wife and the wife is to submit to the husband and respect him.

  65. earl says:

    We expect (or at least hope) our women to help us and be a safe haven, a respite from a harsh and unforgiving world;

    Well the part about helping is true when it comes to a wife…I don’t know where the safe haven idea from a cruel world came into play…unless you are talking about a mother.

  66. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    October 10, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    “That was a command to what older women are supposed to be encouraging younger women to do.”

    The word used is not “encourage”, it’s “teach”. Why would Paul command the older women of the Church to “teach” the younger women to love their husbands if loving their husbands is unnecessary?

    “We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourself…in marriage that’s the husband loving his wife.”

    So, the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:31) doesn’t apply to women? Says who?

  67. feministhater says:

    Well, to me, it is clear that she is trying to get her target audience (women considering divorce) to recognize these negative thoughts and feelings as their own. If they identify with them, then she is hoping that they will read further and listen to her advice.

    Exactly, she is doing so not by reminding them that they made vows to their husbands and before God and to keep them but because they will be worse off if they decide to act on those whispers. Which is why this whole conversation started.

    It plainly shows that the way to change how a woman acts is to appeal to her vanity, to show her that she already has the best she’s ever going to have. The advice would have to be entirely different if say 60% or more of divorced women were sticking the landing, not with loser men but with men far superior to their loyal husbands, for it to have any affect.

    What would her counsel have been if women were making off like bandits and getting rich men to marry them in droves upon divorce from boring hubby? Would it be like men are commanded when we are told to enjoy the wife of our youth and not seek out new wives, even if we get a better deal; or would she be totally on board with it because women got a better deal through divorce. And if she believes the former, like men are told, why did she not include it as the primary reason women must stay with their husbands? The Marriage Vows are reason number one to remain married, not a woman’s vanity and selfishness.

    Out of one side of your mouths you believe women are capable of truly being NAWALTS but then out the other side of your mouth, you contradict yourselves by showing that the only way women can be taught to not to be their own worst enemy is to appeal to their own selfishness and vanity, proving that they are not NAWALTS at all.

  68. thedeti says:

    I don’t know where the safe haven idea from a cruel world came into play…unless you are talking about a mother.

    No, not a mother. A wife. In his home. A place where there isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) abrasion, jarring, cutting, bruising, conflict, contentiousness, disrespect, nagging, complaining, undermining, subversion, or collusion with others.

  69. I agree with Deti’s comment above.

    Her post essentially damns her husband with faint praise.

    It reads more like that of the owner of a reliable, no-frills vehicle which dependably took her from A to B for years. The owner open shares her regrets for hanging onto it for so long, and then gradually comes to the conclusion that she can no longer trade it in easily for another vehicle of equal or greater value. Because of this fact, she (however reluctantly) decides to stick with reliable, dependable and boring.

    Yes. She really “loves” that car. For it’s utility.

    Except her vehicle isn’t what actually depreciated in value over time. Ironically it’s the owner herself who realizes that it is She who has most depreciated in value in the sexual marketplace.

    I personally cannot blame her for common female nature and having such truthful introspections of her life path. One might even commend her for her honesty about it.

    But it is nonetheless unpleasant, unsavory and laid bare for all men to see.

    I guess, on some level men should be grateful for lessons such as hers.

  70. feministhater says:

    No, not a mother. A wife. In his home. A place where there isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) abrasion, jarring, cutting, bruising, conflict, contentiousness, disrespect, nagging, complaining, undermining, subversion, or collusion with others.

    I think Earl is confused here. Life is not easy and the home is meant to be a place with less suffering. I guess we’re meant to come home to lions, tigers and snakes otherwise we’re all mammas boys.

    The wife is meant to be a helpmeet, that means making things easier, not harder. If a helper makes things harder, they’re a liability and not worth the extra hassle. The idea of a helper is that the help they give provides more benefit than the things they cost.

    I do get him though, women are not helpmeets and don’t make life easier and thus are a liability and not worth the extra hassle. Lovely when loose ends get untangled and everything is understandable.

  71. earl says:

    So, the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:31) doesn’t apply to women? Says who?

    I never said that didn’t apply to women, I said they certainly could love their husbands:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/10/10/only-the-foolish-tear-it-down/#comment-248387

    But Paul didn’t explicitly command wives to love their husbands in the context of a marital relationship…he said submit and respect. He did say the husbands were to love their wives.

    The word used is not “encourage”, it’s “teach”.

    I don’t know which Bible version you are using…the ones I looked at had ‘encourage’ or ‘train’.

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    I followed this link from Instapundit.

    https://judgybitch.wordpress.com/tag/doing-laundry/

    I don’t how the author is perceived in the androsphere, but she references Margaret Wente that appeared here a short time ago, and sluts; and makes her case for Heidi Stone’s concept of reaping the rewards of her investment.

  73. thedeti says:

    “It reads more like that of the owner of a reliable, no-frills vehicle which dependably took her from A to B for years. The owner open shares her regrets for hanging onto it for so long”

    Something like that.

    Toyota Camrys are great cars. Dependable, reliable, and (most importantly) affordable. But if you could afford a Lexus LS 460, you’d buy that. You’d trade up. You’d trade in the Camry and let someone else buy it at a reduced price.

    What’s going on here is that Heidi is openly lamenting that she will never be able to afford the Lexus, and she knows it. But, the bright spot is she’s got a really good Camry. So she’s keeping that Camry and fixing it up and keeping it running because her only other choice is a Yugo, or having no car at all.

  74. Hugh Mann says:

    We must be fair. Our host and many others often point out that the rewards of EatPrayLove aren’t all they’re cracked up to be by Hollywood, then this woman gets hauled over the coals for not only noticing it, but acting on it! Fair play to her.

    And if her decision is based on cold rationality then she’s a unicorn of great rarity and value 😉

  75. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Where’s Rollo when we need him?

    I called for Rollo because this all confirms “men love idealistically; women love opportunistically”. Here it is, confirmation, writ large on two blogs.

    But you are missing Rollo’s main point, the part he always makes immediately after stating the above; it is foolish for men to be bitter against such a reality.

  76. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    October 10, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    “I never said that didn’t apply to women… ”

    Okay, so does the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:31) apply to women, or doesn’t it? If not, why not? If so, who is a married woman’s nearest neighbor?

    “But Paul didn’t explicitly command wives to love their husbands in the context of a marital relationship…he said submit and respect. He did say the husbands were to love their wives.”

    You didn’t answer my question. Why would Paul command the older women of the Church to “teach” the younger women to love their husbands if loving their husbands is unnecessary?

    “I don’t know which Bible version you are using…the ones I looked at had ‘encourage’ or ‘train’.”

    King Jimmy. The question stands.

  77. feministhater says:

    And if her decision is based on cold rationality then she’s a unicorn of great rarity and value.

    Ah yes, the rewards of low expectation raising its head again.

  78. earl says:

    Okay, so does the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:31) apply to women, or doesn’t it? If not, why not? If so, who is a married woman’s nearest neighbor?

    Why would Paul command the older women of the Church to “teach” the younger women to love their husbands if loving their husbands is unnecessary?

    Why wouldn’t Paul just command the wife to love her husband then and skip the middlewoman? Why even bother mentioning respect and submission?

    We’re talking about different relationships. Neighbors-yourself, older women to younger women, husband and wife.

  79. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    October 10, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    “Why wouldn’t Paul just command the wife to love her husband then and skip the middlewoman? Why even bother mentioning respect and submission?”

    Those aren’t answers. Those are questions, which are the exact opposite of answers. Please answer the question this time. Why would Paul command the older women of the Church to “teach” the younger women to love their husbands if loving their husbands is unnecessary?

    “We’re talking about different relationships. Neighbors-yourself, older women to younger women, husband and wife.”

    Again, not an answer, but an evasion this time. Please answer the questions. Does the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:31) apply to women, or doesn’t it? If not, why not? If so, who is a married woman’s nearest neighbor?

  80. earl says:

    ‘Again, not an answer, but an evasion this time. ‘

    How is pointing out the different relationships in the context of Scripture an evasion? Explain Ephesians 5:28 then and tell me why Paul doesn’t state the other way around for a wife.

    If so, who is a married woman’s nearest neighbor?

    When it comes to neighbors…Jesus explained pretty well who your neighbor is. The one you show mercy to.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37

  81. Carlotta says:

    testing

    [D: I checked the spam bin and didn’t see any comments from you. I did find two others however, one from Pavetack and a second from Heidi.]

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Yes, scott also pointed out that Heidi’s approach is “gotta stay married, because he’ll just haffta do. Can’t do no better.”

    The message she is countering is the whispers. The fastest and easiest way to crush the whispers is to lay them bare as frauds, as laughably untrue. Wives dreaming of divorce opening their own adventure to a higher moral plane and a better husband, via a series of hay rolls with Harley McBadboy and Rockbanddrummer? Point out what really happened in EPL. She met an old bald guy who married her for a visa!

    The thing is, once you kill that script, the whispers, then the woman can get on a path to loving and appreciating her husband. And that love and appreciation will be real. But it requires humility, and the humility requires popping the bubble, destroying the “you can do better” narrative that was running in an endless loop.

    @Oscar

    You didn’t answer my question. Why would Paul command the older women of the Church to “teach” the younger women to love their husbands if loving their husbands is unnecessary?

    Exactly. Paul commands Timothy to command older women to teach younger women to love their husbands. It is no less a command than if Paul had commanded Timothy to teach the younger women directly, or if Paul wrote the letter to the younger women directly.

  83. feministhater says:

    LOL gents, if you haven’t got it by now, you’ll never get it. No man alive wants to be with his wife for the sole reason of ‘she can’t do no better’. For most men, that’s just a bitter, toxic pill that doesn’t allow him to love his wife. How can you love someone who only sticks with you because they would be in the poor house if they didn’t? It’s the truth of the matter. At the heart of men is the absolute hunger to be wanted, admired and needed. One of the reasons men love women like they do is the core need within men to achieve that from a woman. A woman who is a slave to her marriage by consequence alone is merely a sex object but a woman who actually wants to be your slave, who needs to be your slave by her choice.. well, that’s something men would die for. Knowing that you can never have this, well… that’s why men are still here questioning the same thing again and again.

    For men who are married, I guess they have to live with it and adjust accordingly by putting their hands over their ears and burying their heads between their legs and singing ‘la la la la la, I can’t hear you!’ For the rest, just pay your dues and keep your head low and don’t attract the attention of a future wife. She doesn’t love you like that anyway.

    Don’t get mad, just come to terms with it.

  84. feministhater says:

    The thing is, once you kill that script, the whispers, then the woman can get on a path to loving and appreciating her husband. And that love and appreciation will be real. But it requires humility, and the humility requires popping the bubble, destroying the “you can do better” narrative that was running in an endless loop.

    The script will merely pop up again soon enough. As it always does. How did it get started anyway? If the script is, as you say, laughably untrue, then either women believed it anyway, knowing it to be untrue or are so hopelessly delusional that even though the delusion has now been popped, another will soon take its place as easily as this one started.

  85. earl says:

    @Dalrock, Oscar

    Ok…I see what you are getting at.

  86. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “The fastest and easiest way to crush the whispers is to lay them bare as frauds, as laughably untrue.”

    If people truly could learn from the experiences of others in anything other than the rarest of cases, this blog would be a bunch of blank pages. “Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them” is a fantastic lie: people usually know the history, and often there’s some to tell them the history, but the ego is always there, saying “you’re better and smarter than those old fools, you’ll do it RIGHT!”

    Many people would rather die than admit any of their most cherished beliefs are false, and they’ll drag others down with them just to avoid saying “I was wrong”.

  87. earl says:

    Now my question would be…why did Paul place that particular responsibility onto the older women? Are younger women more receptive to that advice from other older women versus say someone else.

  88. feministhater says:

    I didn’t expect anyone to read my tiny little blog. It was aa visceral response to the discovery that not one but TWO marriages of friends were falling apart in the space of two days. I’m so tired of grieving over the loss of families and homes and seeing my friend’s hearts in shreds. Someone needs to tell the truth. So, being a woman, I wrote truth, harsh truth, to women about women issues. Plenty of folks are doing the same for the dudes.

    And what would be your counsel if divorce wasn’t harsh to women but allowed them to trade up and find a better, more lucrative husband 60-80% of the time?

    The quibble is based on a simple difference. Yours is a consequence based lesson, ours is a moral based one. A simple change in the consequences makes your lesson meaningless, which is exactly what divorced women ask for. If you haven’t noticed? They complain bitterly about not finding good men or not finding wealthy men or being in the poor house and demand that society change the consequences to benefit them but never do they put two and two together and realise why they’re in the quandary they’re in. A moral based lesson stands the test of time no matter the consequences and remains a guiding principle to those that hear it and learn it, i.e. you stay married because you made vows to your partner in front of God and other witnesses and keep them for better or worse. If women cannot understand this, they have no business entering into a marriage contract. Women say they understand it but reality clearly shows they do not.

  89. thedeti says:

    Heidi

    Fantastic. Really. It’s like you read my mind. No sarcasm. Promise.

    OK. Great. You claim you meant this:

    ““I’m staying with my husband because I love him, I care about him, we made a great life together, my heart still leaps when I think about him or hear his voice, we have great sex that’s only gotten better as we’ve gotten older, I love the kids that he gave me, and I really like spending time with him as a man. He has sacrificed IMMENSELY for me and our family, I appreciate them from the bottom of my heart, and I am willing to repay that as best as I can. I made promises to that man, and I intend to keep them.””

    But you didn’t say that, even if that’s what you meant. You instead said, in essence, this:

    I’m staying with my husband because I can’t do any better than him, the dating market for divorced moms in their late 30s and early 40s sucks toilet water, I can’t replace him, and I can get more financial support from him being his wife than I can collecting alimony and child support. So I’m going to be as nice to him as I can because I need him on that treadmill taking care of me and mine. I’m going to build up my house, not because it’s the right thing to do for all of us, but because building up my house serves my selfish, self-centered ends.”

    And you know what? That second message is the one that’s actually going to get through to women. Because women understand need, fear, rejection, social judgment, loss of social status, lack of resources, and self-interest far better than they understand love, respect, caring, commitment, sacrifice, shared interest, and sexual attraction.

    And I shouldn’t have been shocked or even a little offended by it. Dalrock and Rickety were right – when it’s women talking to women, the message of “cant do better, serve my own self-interests” is how you do it.

    And you are right. Your two friends who detonated their marriages? Despite what their social media accounts will say about their lives, it will suck for them. Really suck. Like financially, romantically, sexually, socially, everything.

    Best to you. Take care of that Camry, because no Lexuses are in your future.

  90. earl says:

    And what would be your counsel if divorce wasn’t harsh to women but allowed them to trade up and find a better, more lucrative husband 60-80% of the time?

    I think her point was it will be much harder for them to find a second husband.

    It wouldn’t be harder for them to find another man to mess around with for a time being…but her chances of a commitment from a guy are very low.

    I’d ask her counsel moreso about the corrupt justice system giving women almost all the cash and prizes in a divorce. That’s a pretty big incentive to detonate if you don’t like your husband anymore.

  91. feministhater says:

    I think her point was it will be much harder for them to find a second husband.

    I know, that’s her ‘consequence’ based lesson which is why I’m asking her what her lesson would have been if the consequences where not dire at all but in fact were positive…

    Let’s say, if every divorced woman got a 2 million dollar payout right away, a new mansion which was paid for by a hunky billionaire man who became her husband only after she had sampled a bit more on the carousel and was ready again for matrimonial bliss. Yes, the dream for married women. What would her advice be to women looking to divorce if the consequences favoured them instead and didn’t leave them alone, alone with cats?

  92. earl says:

    Yeesh…that sounds exactly like the devil giving you everything you could ever imagine in the world and the only thing you’d have to give up is your soul. How many people would make that trade? Unless they have some idea what the devil is actually about or read how Jesus dealt with the temptations…I’d say a lot.

  93. Heidi Stone says:

    Either I say something or I don’t. No inference needed, feministhater.

    But you are right about one thing.

    I couldn’t possibly do better. My husband is my ideal. I don’t want anyone else. There is no positive future for me that does not include him as my husband. I didn’t settle for him. I’ve never settled for him. We have been poor as church mice and somewhat comfortable. We’ve been homeless and had a lovely little place. We’ve raised and homeschooled our sons side by side, we’ve run our business together for 22 years.

    Carry on.

  94. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    October 10, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    “Now my question would be…why did Paul place that particular responsibility onto the older women? Are younger women more receptive to that advice from other older women versus say someone else.”

    Back then, young women learned almost everything from older women (grandmothers, mothers, aunts, family friends, etc.), just as young men learned almost everything from older men*. That’s how values were transmitted and enforced across cultures, time and space until very recently, and that is still true today in most non-Western cultures. It’s almost as though things SHOULD be done that way.

    *That’s not an absolute, obviously. Solomon stated that he learned some wisdom from his mother.

  95. earl says:

    Another reason why women would be foolish to tear down their marriage because they think the grass is greener…this comment on Vox’s site pretty much outlines how a lot of younger men are viewing marriage:

    I am seldom shocked by anything I see in this country anymore. I do not even try to keep score, since every day brings a new low. But I admit to being surprised when I saw how 70 percent of young men today (20 – 34) are not married. This must be one of the most profound differences between young men today and when I was in that same age range.

    But to be honest, it would seem to be rational behavior, given what this society and the Family Law Courts have done to ruin marriage for the rest of us.

    In a fundamental way, marriage may have lost quite a bit of it’s purpose. Since it is not what it used to be, then what IS it?

    If it is not a partnership, not a friendship, not about sex, not about children, not about a home, or shared property, or even a family-owned business or farm of some sort….then I wonder what marriage is supposed to be anymore. If it has no purposes, then why on earth would any man enter into such an open-ended obligation with virtually no say about how it is operated and no vote on when it is ended?

  96. Dale says:

    For the purposes of being read by rebellious women who are still at the starting point of destroying their own marriage/house, Heidi wrote a very good article.

    As others have mentioned above, men love more idealistically / sacrificially than women do. Before I, as a man, become arrogant about the selfish women, I need to remember that this is similar to how God loves us men far better than we love God back. Acts 17:25:
    25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. For he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

  97. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    To all who are claiming that the Bible does not command a wife to love her husband. If she is a Christian she is commanded to love the brethren, her neighbor and even her enemy. Are you really gonna hang your hat on the idea that only person in all of creation she need not love is her husband? Considering the antitype of Christ and the Church are you seriously contending that the church need not love her Lord? Just because you don not find the words arranged in the form of “wives love your husbands” doesn’t mean it is not there. It is there in spades!

  98. Robert What? says:

    How un-American of her.

  99. Carlotta says:

    Hi Dalrock, it seems to have eaten my other one.

    Basically, color me surprised that a married mother (YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ACTUALLY BIBLICALLY QUALIFIED UNLIKE OTHER WOMEN SPOTLIGHTED HERE) takes on an incredibly difficult topic that she is sure to be roasted for by women and for some commenters here …..it just is not good enough because she did not use FEELINGS! ?
    That is because she is a women talking to women who are about to blow up their family BECAUSE of their FEELINGS!. She is giving them a nice slap in the face, a bucket full of cold water on the head and telling them to think instead of feel for once. It is the equivalent of taking your buddy somewhere who is about to leave his family because the stress of providing and protecting is getting to him and the office whore is looking good. So you talk some feelings into him. You give him a picture of his children crying for him, his wife being mistreated by other men when she was loyal to him, etc. You envoke feelings of protection and honor in men to get them to do the right thing when the wrong thing makes sense. You smack the hell out of a womens feelings with logic and cold hard reality when the wrong thing feels right.

    You know, you all go on and on about how rotten women are and constantly spotlight the ones doing it wrong. There are ones doing it right and you would think knowing all they are up against there would be encouragement in the smallest way. Heidi, good on ya! I have personally saved 3 marriages in the last 5 years with the exact same things you said. They overcame their feelings and did the right thing. Being programmed by your own churches, parents and schools is incredibly hard to overcome! Dalrock, good on you for supporting her. The rest are showing that mgtow is the homoerotic equivalent of feminism. Both hate women and both are deadends trying to take others down with them. Step aside now, the bold and courageous are about the business of rebuilding.

  100. Scott says:

    Carlotta, I’m married and I have 4 children. I am not MGTOW.

    Am I a closeted homosesxual because I am skeptical and a little bummed out by the content of the original post?

    I think her coming here and clarifying her original comments was pretty good stuff. Still processing some questions I have for her.

  101. earl says:

    The rest are showing that mgtow is the homoerotic equivalent of feminism.

    I commended her for keeping the marriages together. I don’t know if time investment and you don’t have any better options would be my go to reasons…but if it works, it works.

    I just wonder whatever happened to…you made a vow to God and your spouse until death?

  102. Kate says:

    There isn’t much that’s wrong with your modern pampered wife that couldn’t be cured by a spanking and a week in a coal mine.

  103. feministhater says:

    You know, you all go on and on about how rotten women are and constantly spotlight the ones doing it wrong. There are ones doing it right and you would think knowing all they are up against there would be encouragement in the smallest way. Heidi, good on ya! I have personally saved 3 marriages in the last 5 years with the exact same things you said. They overcame their feelings and did the right thing. Being programmed by your own churches, parents and schools is incredibly hard to overcome! Dalrock, good on you for supporting her. The rest are showing that mgtow is the homoerotic equivalent of feminism. Both hate women and both are deadends trying to take others down with them. Step aside now, the bold and courageous are about the business of rebuilding.

    More shaming, why don’t you answer the question I posed for her yet she avoided.

    What would her lesson be if women profited from divorce and stuck the landing?

  104. feministhater says:

    I just wonder whatever happened to…you made a vow to God and your spouse until death?

    Well obviously that doesn’t work with married women looking to get out of their vow. Lol!

  105. PokeSalad says:

    The rest are showing that mgtow is the homoerotic equivalent of feminism.

    Wait, what?

  106. feministhater says:

    Am I a closeted homosesxual because I am skeptical and a little bummed out by the content of the original post?

    He’s just another tradcon who thinks he knows better. Biggest man in the room sort of thing. Calling MGTOWs homosexuals is just another shaming attempt, he has nothing and that’s more than enough to empty his rant into the cuck manifesto repository.

  107. Feministhater, any moral education will teach both the standard and the consequences for breaking the standard. Not only will it teach the consequences brought on by an authority, it also teaches the natural consequences that falls on a person even if the authorities never hear about the infraction. Thus, Exodus tells us that the penalty for adultery is death. But Proverbs 7 teaches us that death comes to adulterers even when the king watches from his window and does nothing. Natural consequences. That is what Mrs. Stone is teaching to her hearers. Even when the authorities encourage divorce and unjustly punish the husband, consequences still fall upon the rebellious wife.

    Moreover, is it not the case that Jesus expects us to learn to love Him by obeying Him first?

    John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

    1 Samuel 15:22 “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”

    A wife who is not obeying her husband (thus, a rebellious wife) should first obey her husband. The love with grow out of that obedience.

  108. feministhater says:

    Either I say something or I don’t. No inference needed, feministhater.

    You didn’t say it in your original piece and only stated it after you were asked. You missed the most vital piece to your marriage without even a ‘gasp’ for air and only commented on it once prodded as an after thought.

    Furthermore, why don’t you answer the question? How good is your consequence lesson for wives when women are rewarded for divorce and are able to stick the landing with a better man than their husband?

  109. Embracing Reality says:

    Homoerotic? Nah, nobody here is homosexual. Don’t flatter yourself, no one is keeping secrets from you. We’d tell you if we were, we don’t care what you think.

    The “deal” for women is better to stay married, it’s logically true. The best deal for men, seems to be better to stay single. Logic again.

  110. PokeSalad says:

    I’m a bit late to the party, obviously, but I would like to commend Ms. Stone for coming here and adding some excellent context and commentary to the discussion. Well done.

  111. Pingback: Only the foolish tear it down. - Top

  112. Spike says:

    Please pardon my cynical self, but whenever I see the surname ”Stone”, I’m inclined to think she’s a member of the tribe of evil females who gave us feminism in the first place. You know, that tribe that just so happens to run all of politics, all of finance, all of entertainment and all of the news. What a coincidence.
    That said, I welcome articles such as this, that a lot of women are waking up to the fat that feminism harms them and their children just as much as it hurts men (actually, more!).
    It just isn’t enough to simply say, ”No.” Unless we start seeing women actually begin lobbying to wind back no-fault divorce, start raising their daughters to understand that they will marry a ”boring loyal dude” man, eschew hook-up culture, contraception, abortion, the carousel and raise children while they still have ”perky (tits) and look cute in a two-piece”, – I’m still going to consider marriage a risk not worth taking or a cynical exercise on their part.

  113. Heidi Stone says:

    PokeSalad, ahem. Mrs. Stone.

    And, Spike, while Stone is my married name, it is true I am genetically part of that particular tribe although my allegiance is with the King of the Jews, Jesus.

  114. Heidi Stone says:

    And to everyone else, thank you for engaging. It has been an interesting day. Much food for thought and interesting narratives.

  115. Jason says:

    Carlotta,

    I am doing exactly what you, and countless millions and millions of American women wanted from me:

    Which is to leave you all alone.

    When I finally complied…….to MY surprise, I got happier. I actually became more productive. I quit feeling sad and sorry for myself. I began to be me again instead of being what you wanted me to be at the present moment while I was wasting DECADES trying to get you all to like me I don’t hate women. I don’t want “bad” things to happen to you. I don’t any woman physically hurt by a man. I don’t want women raped by men. MGTOW was a result when I decided to you leave you all alone. It wasn’t the cause. I wasn’t good enough anyone of you and frankly here……most of you really were not worth me losing my mind over. It’s cool now. I leave you all alone. This is exactly what you all wanted.

    Homosexual? If I was batting with my gay brothers “out” there I certainly would have had zero problem in meeting and dating a plenty. I lived 12 years in San Francisco. I was approached, hit on, flirted with and propositioned by tons of gay men…….and we both know that gay men will do just about anything with anybody in a loose “tolerant” environment like San Francisco……so maybe I am flattering myself on that…….

    MGTOW cannot be equalled or paraelled with “feminism”
    MGTOW is to go your own way, Feminism is a dikat and platform of what men MUST do to make you all feel happy and theoretically equal. It will never be enough because one cannot change biology….men and woman ARE different. Feminism denies this.

    MGTOW is as varied as the unique features and gifts we all have. There is no comparison.

  116. Carlotta says:

    @Scott
    You just answered your own question, I was not talking to you. Mostly to that forked tongue freak Feministhater who says every women, everywhere is horrible no matter what and if they are not it is a trick so never even try guys. Crabs in a bucket of homosexual recruiter he is, take your pick.

    And what does it matter what Heidi says as long as it is the truth and effective? You guys have all been saying it for years and now are upset because a women is saying it to another women? She is running the herd in the right way, what on earth is the problem?
    @Feministhater
    I am a women, hence the name Carlotta and you are a demon of despair. Be gone now, tootles.

    “What would her lesson be if women profited from divorce and stuck the landing?” Many already do, especially for a short time. That is their perception of reality. They have been tricked on what the prizes are. She is trying to show them the prizes they get suck and you are trading diamonds for feces. She is one of the only ones saying it in a sea of indoctrination going the other way. Her words are effective for women. Just like a women telling a women her butt looks big in something vs her husband saying it. Guess what gets you on the treadmill faster? Herd mentality is talked about here all the time. Women who are qualified are to teach women. She is doing that, please let us know your qualifications for correcting her?
    @Embracing Reality
    Yeah, I said it. The constant doom, despair, no women is ever worth it nonsene comes off exactly the way the butch feminists do. Cry on my shoulder while I slip a hand on your butt.
    @Heidi
    Good job, keep going Sister!
    @ Earl
    Sure, you just go ahead and remember your vow of chastity when your body has other ideas and a hot naked women is on your lap. Of course you need the cold shower to help. Is running the other way and taking a cold shower something to be mocked for? No, whatever works! Consider this their cold shower.
    You simply do not understand how to snap a women out of her feelings. We do, now step aside and let us. I have not come through the fire and hell I have for nothing and neither has Heidi.

  117. PokeSalad says:

    PokeSalad, ahem. Mrs. Stone.

    When to Use Ms

    In objection to the generic term ‘Mr’ that does not distinguish single men from married men, feminists began promoting the term ‘Ms’ for women to serve as the female counterpart to Mister. “Ms” can be used by any adult women regardless of her marital status, however, “Ms” refers to adult women, not to girls.

    Nicely played, “Mrs” Stone. The American Heritage of English Usage says Ms. is appropriate for women regardless of marital status, but, instead of graciously accepting a compliment sincerely given, you thought you saw a chance to “needle” a man for no real reason.

    Thanks for confirming the stereotype. I withdraw my compliment.

  118. Carlotta says:

    And, Spike, while Stone is my married name, it is true I am genetically part of that particular tribe although my allegiance is with the King of the Jews, Jesus.
    @ Heidi
    That is what matters.

  119. earl says:

    The “deal” for women is better to stay married, it’s logically true. The best deal for men, seems to be better to stay single. Logic again.

    Women really screwed themselves over with the ‘I don’t need a man’ mindset. And then they get upset and start making homosexual claims when men finally got fed up with their toxic mindset….because a lot of men found some peace and happiness once they finally cut out the feminists.

    Sure I’d like to have a wife who is my helpmate, and a family…but if I don’t find one who knows the feminist mindset is garbage that just means I’ll have to deal with some bouts of loneliness and work a little harder to make sure I have everything taken care of in my simple life. I certainly have no desire to own many cats either.

  120. Carlotta says:

    @Poke
    She is getting slammed on all sides and you are seriously on her about this? Had she let it go someone here would have used it against her. It is almost like some commenters here are not on the side they pretend to be…….

  121. Scott says:

    Jason-

    I went to graduate school in the Bay Area and it is kind of like that.

    The GF I had before I met Mychael had a lot of gay friends and they were pretty forward about what they thought.

    Mostly everyone had a sense of humor about it, which is of course one of the recurring themes of my blogging. If everybody would just tell the truth about things (race/sex/whatever) have a good laugh and move on it would be easier for all.

  122. Carlotta says:

    @Earl
    Who fed women that they dont need men? Are you telling me that 5 year old girls hearingbthat from church, tv, mom and DAD should have the experience and discernment to know that is crap? How about a 12 year old? 17? If you spent day after day hearing this for years on end, when would you know it was wrong? How would you know it was wrong? What would it take to get you to step out against everything you have been and are being told by those you trust?

  123. Carlotta says:

    @Jason
    I and millions of women do not know you and have zero input or control on your life. You do. Sorry to hear it has been rough, join the crowd. And yes, this is the exact pitch feminists give. All men rape, all men are evil….stay away from them, we are special, we are the future, come with us….nice boobs.

  124. earl says:

    You simply do not understand how to snap a women out of her feelings. We do, now step aside and let us.

    Snap out of your feelings and dispense your wisdom to your children.

  125. Heidi Stone says:

    Pokesalad: As you wish. I merely prefer Mrs. as it is a title I am proud to carry while Ms. seems generic can apply to either married or unmarried women. No intent to needle you or shame. Just merely stating that I am, very much, a Mrs. and request to be referred to as such.

    Feministhater:
    Either I say something or I don’t. No inference needed, feministhater.

    You didn’t say it in your original piece and only stated it after you were asked.
    ___
    It seemed obvious to me. But apparently, it wasn’t. Good catch.

    You missed the most vital piece to your marriage without even a ‘gasp’ for air and only commented on it once prodded as an after thought.
    ___
    I also don’t feel the need to tell everyone I meet that I am a devout monogamist. Which seems to be vital to marriage as well. It’s only an afterthought if it part of what drives me, a total stranger, to write about interesting things on the internets. Telling you about my vows seems secondary to the observable reality that I am happily married to my first and only husband.

    The post wasn’t about me. It was about the struggles women in general find to be true.

    Furthermore, why don’t you answer the question? How good is your consequence lesson for wives when women are rewarded for divorce and are able to stick the landing with a better man than their husband?
    ———
    No amount of money will make the healing process for a ripped soul any less painful. No financial windfall will make a woman more beautiful in the long run. In fact, having a load of money might make it more difficult for her to find someone who might be sincere about her at all. She’s gorgeous as long as there are plenty of dollars to throw around. Her money doesn’t make her more valuable as a woman, as a wife, or as a viable life partner. It just means she has money and, perhaps, more options. I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been wealthy. None of the statistics I read as I was researching indicated that wealthy women were more fundamentally marriageable than their less financially stable peers. And frankly, if any quality men were to see a woman who royally screwed her ex-husband? I suspect they would avoid her like the plague unless she was pretty enough to warrent sex for fun, no strings.

    I imagine her marketability would tank far lower than the statistical average of 25%.

    That is the consequence I would envision for women who are “rewarded” financially.

    If they do have the gift of a better man than their first husband? And I’ve seen some of those women coming out of abusive (legitimate: drug use, violence, compulsive alchoholics, gamblers…) relationships and have found good men. Then to those women, who are Christians, I would ask one question.

    Did you honor your husband with all you were capable of and did you do all you could to live as a godly woman?

    If she did? Then she has a clear conscience.

    But I don’t really have all the answers. Just the beginning of a conversation.

  126. Luke says:

    Heidi, I read your essay on your website. You appear to be a rare prize of a wife, mother, and woman. I wish far more women were much more like you than how they actually are.

  127. rachel says:

    I can see how the post could be read as evidence of ‘rollo’s law’, however I don’t think that any blog post can cover everything. Heidi’s post was specifically reacting to women she knows who are nuking their marriages because they think that the grass is always greener. Therefore she is focusing on reminding them that it most certainly is not greener. She could gush to them about her own marriage but they would say, ‘well bully for you but i’m not in a good marriage’. (Never mind that they could do something about that.) She could have appealed to their sense of duty to stay, their vows etc and that could work some but her friends have clearly already convinced themselves that they are justified (however erroneously) in leaving so that argument wouldn’t be the most effective either. So she chose to focus on the selfish motives to stay…because her friends are acting selfishly. She is talking to and about them not herself. They are acting from selfish base instincts so she is appealing to them. It is where they are at. It is the language they are speaking right now. If they do reconsider then in time she could encourage them to hold their vows and their husband in the high regard that will cause them to love and honour their man.

  128. feeriker says:

    This would be the “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” that Rollo so aptly illuminates in his work.

    It occurs to me to ask: if “opportunistically” is the only way that women can love (and I’m not asserting here that it is), can it truthfully and accurately be called “love,” especially if we accept this as the true Christian definition of the term?

    If women do not love, by this definition, then what do we call this behavior that might be the cloest they will ever come to it?

  129. greyghost says:

    constrainedlocus

    So the dire conclusion among these ingrate battleaxes is to stay married for reasons of “we’re rotten milk and our hypergamy to seek out better options is forever stalled by creepy leftovers”.
    They don’t arrive at this conclusion for reasons of love, adoration, faith, genuine sexual attraction or female virtue and honor.

    Husbands are to be tolerated.

    This is ok and as good as it gets. When it is advised that husbands learn “game” it taps into the same female characteristics. Good behavior is good behavior . there is nothing good and loving romantic about female nature. Prefeminism law and culture provided the “game’ to line up female nature to good for culture and family behavior.

  130. feministhater says:

    I am a women, hence the name Carlotta and you are a demon of despair. Be gone now, tootles.

    Hm, I don’t take your avatar name at face value. Not going anywhere. Calling me a demon is just the usual fanfare. I’m just your average faceless male, you can call me any name in the book, it will change nothing.

  131. feministhater says:

    I also don’t feel the need to tell everyone I meet that I am a devout monogamist. Which seems to be vital to marriage as well. It’s only an afterthought if it part of what drives me, a total stranger, to write about interesting things on the internets. Telling you about my vows seems secondary to the observable reality that I am happily married to my first and only husband.

    It’s not me you’re telling, you’re moving the goalposts. It’s obvious that I was directly saying that you should be telling women who are thinking about divorce that they should honour their vows, that should be first and foremost in your mind. I don’t personally care about ‘your’ vows but you should and so should the women thinking about divorce whom you’re trying to reach with your piece. It has zero to do with me. Nice try in moving those goal posts.

  132. feministhater says:

    No amount of money will make the healing process for a ripped soul any less painful. No financial windfall will make a woman more beautiful in the long run. In fact, having a load of money might make it more difficult for her to find someone who might be sincere about her at all. She’s gorgeous as long as there are plenty of dollars to throw around. Her money doesn’t make her more valuable as a woman, as a wife, or as a viable life partner. It just means she has money and, perhaps, more options. I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been wealthy. None of the statistics I read as I was researching indicated that wealthy women were more fundamentally marriageable than their less financially stable peers. And frankly, if any quality men were to see a woman who royally screwed her ex-husband? I suspect they would avoid her like the plague unless she was pretty enough to warrent sex for fun, no strings.

    All bullshit rhetoric, not even an attempt at answering the question. Your consequences fall on deaf ears for the delusions of greener pastures are all that is required to get women to throw in the towel on marriage as has been seen from the decades of increasing divorce and the businesses and entertainment built around it. All for the pleasure of women.

    Dalrock has a piece on his blog about elderly women getting divorced from their elderly husbands. No need to catch another sucker, just purely her selfish need to end the marriage, collect her 30 pieces of silver and be free of taking care of him in his old age. That’s all the proof I need to show that whatever consequences you dig up to try and stop women from pulling the cord will be overrun by their delusions of grandeur, even to the point of saying that is better to be alone than to be with their loyal and boring husband.

    Without real attempts at getting women to keep their vows for the very sake of keeping their promise made before God, witnesses and in front of the husband, it’s all meaningless bullshit and will have zero impact on the future of marriages.

  133. feministhater says:

    Mostly to that forked tongue freak Feministhater who says every women, everywhere is horrible no matter what and if they are not it is a trick so never even try guys. Crabs in a bucket of homosexual recruiter he is, take your pick.

    Your mask is slipping. Calling people names just makes you look bitter and unwelcoming.

    If you think you can fix the problem of loose women and frivorce, go ahead. No one is going to stop you except women. Lol!

  134. feministhater says:

    Snap out of your feelings and dispense your wisdom to your children.

    Oh no, no, no Earl! She is going to fix all the problems. Just step aside and let her and her sisters fix all the problems. They’re going to do it, i tell ya! Haha. Focusing on her children?! KEK!

    Hey, I’m game, let her knock herself out, will be fun to see them try and put the genie back in the bottle.

    She just wants us to shut up, ’tis all. It’s not like she can focus on fixing the problems with a little ‘He-Man Wimminz Haters Club’ talking amongst themselves. It’s so distracting and really impolite. And immature, don’t forget that..

    “This cannot be allowed to stand, shut it down!” – Carlotta 2017

  135. Carlotta comes across as overly aggressive.
    Are you a different person to Heidi Stone, or are you her alter?
    Nevertheless, I wish that more women would do their part in fighting the cancer of feminism. No matter how imperfect the messenger, it’s better to get the message out in some form or another than to stay silent.

  136. Dave says:

    Heidi is truly rare among American women, though she is not uncommon in other parts of the world.
    Right now as we speak, South African women are open to sharing their husbands with their single female friends who are unable to find husbands.
    No, we are not talking about uneducated, ugly women here, but attractive, professional women who are eager to serve their husbands, and want to make them happy in any way possible. But they’ve come to realize that responsible, marrying men are now rarer than diamonds, and far more valuable than gold. The shortage is very severe.
    Thus, they are not only OK with their idea of sharing their men, but they think the best help they could offer their female friends is to allow those lonely men experience the touch of a man.
    And this is not uncommon in other parts of Africa.

    It is good that Heidi has realized the truth that feminism, with its anti-family stance, cannot win. It’s like the NFL guys who take a knee for the national anthem. When all is said and done, nationalism will win, hands down. Americans will always choose the flag over football, irrespective of who the president might be.

  137. Dave says:

    * I meant lonely women, not lonely men.

  138. earlthomas786 says:

    Carlotta comes across as overly aggressive.

    It’s what happens when men are saying things that cause her bad feels and her mom instincts kick in. That works for her own sons, not so much for those who aren’t.

  139. Roger says:

    I’m surprised (or really not surprised) to read some of the comments to Heidi’s very sensible article. Could she have said ANYTHING that would not have drawn these guys’ scorn?

  140. Carlotta says:

    @Pariah
    Sigh, and when women do tackle this subject what is the response online? No, I am not Heidi, never heard of her before Dalrocks article and I have commented here for years.

    @ Earl
    I do, I have many children and a wonderful husband. They love my wisdom and my cookies. I can not wait for sons and daughters in love and grandbabies….all who will also love my cookies and an occasional bit of advice (Grandpa will handle most of it, I will be too busy kissing everyone). I only commented because of the malcontent feministhater but you somehow dropped yourself into the mix.
    But I stand by my comments. Any freaks that want to hang out with my sons and tell them how horrible all women are all the time will be dealt with appropriately, by them, and scorned by us all.
    You know, we have friends who have never married or had children. We fold them into our family and they return the love. We both benefit. You may want to consider that as an option instead of lumping yourself in with FH.
    @ Feministhater
    The only reason you are not convinced I am a women is because you come off very Dworkian. Time will tell, the clues are adding up. As they say, no one hates other women as much as other women. And, it really does not matter what you think. I am enjoying building a large family that will take my values and multiply them into the world. You will die alone after being no more that a blip on a keyboard. Rage all you want.

    Back to my full and enjoyable life.

  141. Carlotta says:

    @Roger
    Exactly. But look carefully at who those commenters are. Interesting how they say women want fried ice, no?

  142. earlthomas786 says:

    You may want to consider that as an option instead of lumping yourself in with FH.

    I don’t lump myself with him. I have my opinions and he has his. You should be a good example to your sons about what they should look for in a wife. My mother is like that…which is why I’m more mad that a lot of women took the feminist route and basically screwed themselves over rather than being rewarded for being a good woman like my mother. Your sons are going to have to run into both types out there…and they shouldn’t be naive to think all women are sugar and spice.

  143. Lost Patrol says:

    Heidi Stone is telling women that the smart play is to stay married and preserve her family. Don’t change horses in mid-stream and all that. Does it matter if she is not telling it like I might? “Hey Heidi, you’re doing the right thing wrong.” Or do I just let it ride?

    The Gospel according to Mark, chapter 9, 38-40:

    [John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. “For he who is not against us is for us.]

    I know I’m skating out onto theological thin ice here, but the underlying principle holds for me at least. Heidi is not against us…

    As usual I’m of two minds on the issue because it’s good to highlight for her areas where her logic or argument are weak, this can help her refine her work if she cares to learn from that. Dalrock does it all the time for preachers that have good intentions but flawed technique due to their fear of a woman’s disapproval.

  144. Copy of comment in Heidi”s article – (reply to a bitter woman ) – Apparently we do, Most MGTOW would have been paired up in times long past. It is today’s “modern” woman who used the state like a battering ram to destroy everything around her who has created MGTOW. Take the time to read proverbs 31 and meditate. How much power was a good wife wielding/how much responsibility to her husband and family was expected?

  145. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    Exactly. Paul commands Timothy to command older women to teach younger women to love their husbands. It is no less a command than if Paul had commanded Timothy to teach the younger women directly, or if Paul wrote the letter to the younger women directly.

    It seems quite reasonable to take this as a message that it was better for older women to reinforce this key point in day-to-day living than it was for Timothy to only preach on it during services and such.

    FH,

    You are even more belligerent than normal. Must every blog post be a horrible error if it doesn’t say everything you would? Why don’t you start your own blog if that is the point?

    Carlotta,

    Back to my full and enjoyable life.

    Then why are you bothering to post here? Concern troll is concerned….

    Yeah, some like FH are too extreme. So what? Many men have been really screwed over. Open your eyes to that fact and realize that much of what you think is true is not. Your sons shouldn’t wallow in it like FH, but they should not hide from it either. They need to know reality.

    Exactly. But look carefully at who those commenters are. Interesting how they say women want fried ice, no?

    Most women do want fried ice. I could name countless examples, especially since I have stuck my toe in the modern online dating market. Far more unrealistic than even the posts here. The attacks on Heidi do seem odd, but it is not everyone here, so stop focusing on those and deal with the important issues.

    Men tend to be far more faithful than has been portrayed. Women are the ones nuking marriages in the vast majority of cases, while blaming their husbands for every problem they claim led to that.

  146. feministhater says:

    Right now as we speak, South African women are open to sharing their husbands with their single female friends who are unable to find husbands.

    Do tell? This is news to me as a South African.

  147. feministhater says:

    You are even more belligerent than normal. Must every blog post be a horrible error if it doesn’t say everything you would? Why don’t you start your own blog if that is the point?

    I’m just the same guy I’ve always been. I say exactly what I think is wrong about a person’s writing or advice. I don’t hold back. It is a huge error not to start off with THE VOWS when talking about why a person should stay in marriage. I won’t hold back so expect more in future.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Heidi Stone is telling women that the smart play is to stay married and preserve her family. Don’t change horses in mid-stream and all that. Does it matter if she is not telling it like I might? “Hey Heidi, you’re doing the right thing wrong.” Or do I just let it ride?

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. That’s my suggestion. Heidi Stone is pushing back against other women’s hypergamy with the tools she thinks will work. That’s a good thing, no matter how imperfect some men may find it. It’s rather arrogant for commenters who don’t communicate well with women to tell her “you’re not doing it right!”, by the way. Of course, one could go to her site and read a bit before commenting, so as not to comment from ignorance. Yep, could do that too.

    “You’re not doing it right” is a common theme that I’ve seen in the androsphere since 2010, but it is older than that. Anonymous Age 64 used to comment here, at the Spearhead and some other places. He had run groups for divorced men back in the 1980’s, and pointed out that regularly some recently divorced man would join a group he was moderating & immediately start in with “You’re not doing this right! You’re doing it wrong!”. It’s a common enough mistake, probably should have its own acronym.

    Men that are stuck in the anger phase will tend to that error. There are regulars here who are stuck in that phase. Not a good place to be, mentally.

    The tl;dr is this: nobody here would know about Heidi Stone if Vox Day hadn’t hilighted her site. She’s pushing back against the divorce industry in her own way at her own blog; maybe not “perfectly” but good enough, and that’s more than many other female bloggers have done.

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the “good enough”.

  149. feministhater says:

    The only reason you are not convinced I am a women is because you come off very Dworkian. Time will tell, the clues are adding up. As they say, no one hates other women as much as other women. And, it really does not matter what you think. I am enjoying building a large family that will take my values and multiply them into the world. You will die alone after being no more that a blip on a keyboard. Rage all you want.

    I didn’t say I was unconvinced you were not a woman. I stated that I don’t take it as a given from your avatar name. That’s all. Build your large family, no one here is stopping you but you have come across with huge amounts of anger, calling others demons and homosexuals. You don’t like me, I get that so I won’t like you either. All is fair in love and war.

    We all die alone in respect to our physical body. Even married couples. Even those with large families, nothing will stop that. Divorce all but ensures most men who expect to have a wife by their side on their death bed, probably won’t get one even after making huge sacrifices for her, Billy is a perfect example of this. You rage against me but you waste your energy. I’m not a demon and I’m not homosexual so all your name calling amounts to nothing but raging against the dying of the light.

  150. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    Yes to your last comment. I made the mistake of criticizing Heidi for failing to articulate the message the way I thought she should have. I forgot that she’s not talking to me or to the manosphere. She’s talking to women, and for it to reach women, the message has to be phrased for maximum effect and impact on women. How does a woman do that in this circumstance? By appealing to her self interest and possible loss of status and resources. By realizing that remaining with a man is nearly purely opportunistic and self-interested.

    She did well, and I should have recognized her target audience.

  151. feministhater says:

    It seems quite reasonable to take this as a message that it was better for older women to reinforce this key point in day-to-day living than it was for Timothy to only preach on it during services and such.

    So you understand this but when it is pointed out that neither Heidi nor Carlotta did this and in fact instead rely on a woman’s vanity and selfishness as a means to teaching women to stay in their marriages, you’re at a loss as to why it is pointed out….

    It states right there they should have been teaching women to love and honour their husbands, not to dress them down as merely the ‘best they can do’.

  152. feministhater says:

    By appealing to her self interest and possible loss of status and resources. By realizing that remaining with a man is nearly purely opportunistic and self-interested.

    She did well, and I should have recognized her target audience.

    I like your style. Hit the nail on the head.

  153. feministhater says:

    Back to my full and enjoyable life.

    So full and enjoyable, you’re here bitching about how some men don’t like women. Okay, sure thing hon. Fuck off.

  154. earlthomas786 says:

    “Heidi Stone is pushing back against other women’s hypergamy with the tools she thinks will work.”

    Her method is really good against hypergamy. Remember the actual definition of the term is marrying into a higher class…not having causal sex with hotter men.

    Chances are most women won’t marry up if they divorce since remarriage odds are fairly low and how many men out there would be an upgrade…best they’ll get is still being financially supported by an ex but still ends up alone.

  155. thedeti says:

    @ FemHater:

    I like your style. Hit the nail on the head.

    Thanks, but the point is not to pour vitriol on a woman who’s speaking to women in their language. We shouldn’t have expected Heidi to prepare the message in a way palatable to men. She’s not talking to men.

    The way you get women to see this is to say things like “you will not do better on the open market. Current hubby is as good as it’s ever going to get, and if you really think about it, current hubby isn’t all that bad. You will lose a lot in a divorce, and odds are you won’t remarry, and if you do remarry, it will be to a man who’s worse than hubby and with more baggage than you yourself have.

    “Plus, all those friends egging you on? They won’t be there for you to help you pick up the pieces of the marriage you just smashed to smithereens. THey’ll be over there in the corner smirking and laughing about your pathetic situation.”

  156. feministhater says:

    It’s just a view into the hivemind. Signing on the dotted line into an institution called marriage when the other party doesn’t take it seriously, nor understands it and is only kept in it due to her own selfish desires or appealing to her vanity and status, yeah, no.

    As good as it can get, sure. It’s just not very good at all when it comes down to it. This is no solution, deep down you all know this.

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    Heidi Stone is saying almost exactly the same thing Dalrock has pointed out over the years. She said it in a feminine way, rather than a masculine way. Some angry men don’t like that. It suggests they don’t understand women…

    feministhater
    It’s just a view into the hivemind.

    Yes. It is. So your eyes hurt? If you used them more, they’d get tougher.
    You are still stuck in anger, because at some level you still believe the feminist / equalist nonsense that “women are men with boobs”. Why would any man want to let his mind be held captive by feminist lies? Yet that’s where you are – chained down by the lies of feminism. That is a sad thing.

    To put it another way:

  158. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    I find hope in seeing that some here seem to have adjusted their opinion on Heidi Stone to a more positive light, even though some others seem to have doubled down. Have you ever considered a comment system that would allow “likes” and “dislikes”? Perhaps that feedback would be helpful in guiding commenters to a better understanding. I know there are comments that I think are awesomely good (I “like” them), and others that are the opposite (I “dislike” them). I would like to express that without the need to add a new comment.

  159. feministhater says:

    No Anon Reader. Read the fine print. A person who doesn’t understand nor keep their vows for the sake of that promise itself, has no earthly or heavenly business getting married. Either you believe women are qualified to take marriage vows or you don’t. Hold them accountable or don’t bother. Done.

  160. feministhater says:

    Have you ever considered a comment system that would allow “likes” and “dislikes”? Perhaps that feedback would be helpful in guiding commenters to a better understanding.

    The truth is very much disliked. Would you care to place a thumbs down on that comment? Seeing as it provides ‘better’ understanding.

  161. Embracing Reality says:

    Good review of the subject post by Rachel. She didn’t deny the truth though neither did she exactly acknowledge it:

    -Men want good love, sex, companionship from wives.

    -Women want good Money$, love, companionship and maybe sex from husbands (sex is first from Alpha, anything else is bonus).

    It is what it is. . .

    The problem, Carlotta, is that we know the truth now. We know. It’s the secret your grandmothers kept for eons. In truth’ their reputations were far better than the truth. Now, in truth, modern women’s reputations are worse than the truth. Thats the problem with a bad reputation, you can’t afford to get one. Once the reputation is trashed there will be no fixing it. This won’t get fixed. Your sons will learn the reputation of women if they’re young, you can’t stop it.

    And why are women regularly offering to put a hand in my butt? Leave my prostate alone! I could smash a different, attractive, “Church” slut every month if I chose. I don’t because I fear God. Marry them instead? Rhetorical.

    Bros before ho’s. No homo, no cats.

  162. feministhater says:

    Heidi Stone is saying almost exactly the same thing Dalrock has pointed out over the years. She said it in a feminine way, rather than a masculine way. Some angry men don’t like that. It suggests they don’t understand women…

    When you getting married then, hotshot?

  163. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    Have you ever considered a comment system that would allow “likes” and “dislikes”? Perhaps that feedback would be helpful in guiding commenters to a better understanding. I know there are comments that I think are awesomely good (I “like” them), and others that are the opposite (I “dislike” them). I would like to express that without the need to add a new comment.

    I haven’t really considered it, simply because it isn’t an option with the free WordPress managed blog hosting. I do like and use that feature on blogs that have it though.

  164. earlthomas786 says:

    Heidi’s rationale on keeping the marriage together is much like an economic mindset. You’ve invested this time and youth and you want to reap the future rewards. Trying to break that to find something better puts you at a huge risk to lose everything you’ve built. Heck my dad tells me that’s how the stock market works….you’ll go through ups and downs but don’t bail out in a crash because over time you make money.

    Even the traditional martial vows have an economic standpoint to them.

    “I, ______, take you, ______, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part.”

  165. feministhater says:

    No Earl, that’s not an economic stand point at all. It’s a status stand point. And it’s stating that no matter the status of your spouse, you stay with them. It’s not at all saying that if you stay with your spouse you will get more money down the line. It’s ‘keep your promise no matter what happens to your spouse’. There is no guaranteed reward.

    You are all trying to find a loophole to make it a more honest lie. It comes crashing down when the State adds things like ‘no fault’ divorce into the mix. Funnily enough, this mindset everyone here has set up the exact out come that lead to ‘no fault’. The consequences for a women looking to get divorced when ‘fault’ divorce laws were on the books, caused women to suffer more than they do today when they pulled the cord. What happened? Women complained, that’s what happened and said it was wrong to have to remain with a man they did not love and suffer consequences for ending the marriage. Hence ‘no fault’. Those vows they took be damned. The bad consequences did nothing to stop ‘no fault’ divorce being passed and increasing the divorce rate straight afterwards. How is this method any different?

  166. earlthomas786 says:

    No Earl, that’s not an economic stand point at all. It’s a status stand point. And it’s stating that no matter the status of your spouse, you stay with them. It’s not at all saying that if you stay with your spouse you will get more money down the line. It’s ‘keep your promise no matter what happens to your spouse’. There is no guaranteed reward.

    There’s no difference between the two. It’s a risk/reward strategy. Along with finances, it’s about time and what you’ve built in that time.

    The reward is you don’t tear up your family/house and you keep the man who has the wife goggles that saw you in your perky youth. He’ll even love you through your crazy menopausal years whereas most men will see you as an old unfertile woman. He’ll be there to usher her children into productive adulthood…or be the guy who will still discipline her sons when they get bigger than her. There’s plenty of rewards keeping the marriage together over a divorce. Most women who initiate a no fault case obviously don’t get about that or think that far.

  167. thedeti says:

    FemHater:

    But here’s the thing: If Heidi stays with her husband, she might get the financial rewards. if she leaves her husband she might get financial “rewards” (i.e. cash and prizes).

    But what if the rewards arent’ financial? What if they’re status of being married and staying married? What if they’re having someone to care about you and give a sh!t about you when you’re old (like my parents did, for better or for worse)? What if they’re having someone there with you to watch TV reruns and channel surf? What if they’re pulling up your roots and moving closer to where your kids live, on another life adventure?

    What if women can stop for a minute and look at those rewards that Heidi has “earned” and wants to reap?

    make it a more honest lie

    But it isn’t a lie. It’s a woman speaking to women in their native tongue. It’s using the incentives women understand to make the point: Loss of status, loss of resources, loss of money, rejection, judgment, online dating hell, pump and dumps, give it up by date 3 or he’s gonna flee, it really won’t get better, you really can’t replace hubby with someone better.

    Women understand this better than love, respect, honor, loyalty, fidelity, promises, your word is your bond, and duty. Those kinds of abstractions are men talking to men. Women just don’t respond to those incentives. They respond to real, down and dirty stuff.

    You think your sex life sucks now? Just wait until aging Alpha McGorgeous pump and dumps you.

    You think your money life sucks now? Just wait until the alimony and child support don’t cover it and you need a full time job that pays at least $50K a year.

    You think your social life sucks now? Just wait until your social life degenerates to chat rooms and comboxes and answering 50 “hey” ‘s from the cubs looking to cut their sexual teeth on you from the online dating sites.

    You think your hubby sucks? Just wait until the attractive guys are interested in you for sex only, and you need to give it up right now or we’re moving on. Just wait until the only guys interested in you for anything other than sex are pudgy sad sacks driving 15 year old cars, living in shitty one BR walkups, and paying 65% of their earnings to a bitch ex wife.

    Women understand all THAT.

  168. feministhater says:

    There’s no difference between the two. It’s a risk/reward strategy. Along with finances, it’s about time and what you’ve built in that time.

    I’m sorry, it’s not a risk/reward strategy. That is a vow, it’s a promise to do those things with your spouse no matter the status that you or your spouse find yourselves in. That is all. You’re building something in your mind that simply does not exist.

  169. feministhater says:

    Women understand all THAT.

    Do they?! Really? Care to explain the shit house we’re in then? Since they didn’t get the memo the first few decades they were having a ball… with divorce.

  170. earlthomas786 says:

    But it isn’t a lie. It’s a woman speaking to women in their native tongue. It’s using the incentives women understand to make the point: Loss of status, loss of resources, loss of money, rejection, judgment, online dating hell, pump and dumps, give it up by date 3 or he’s gonna flee, it really won’t get better, you really can’t replace hubby with someone better.

    Really the lie is what Hollywood cinema produces for what life is like for divorcees…a non stop fun time full of trips, excitement, experiences, ending with marrying a man who puts your former husband to shame. EPL is the lie, the hell most divorce women go through is closer to what it’s really like.

  171. thedeti says:

    FemHater:

    Many women come to understand it all too late. But they do. Read the pieces mostly in the UK tabloids about old cat ladies.

    They know. Deep, deep down, they know. They might not let on that they know. But they know.

    And Heidi is sounding the alarm.

  172. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I’m sorry, it’s not a risk/reward strategy. That is a vow, it’s a promise to do those things with your spouse no matter the status that you or your spouse find yourselves in.’

    And if you break that vow, these are the risks you run into. It’s not as rewarding as Hollywood or even the corrupt court system makes it out to be.

    Should I ever get married…I wouldn’t ever get divorced…and I bet you could tell me the numerous risks I’d be taking if I decided to divorce.

  173. feministhater says:

    Do you really think the alarm wasn’t sounded before ‘no fault’ divorce was passed or even before that, many, many years ago when feminism first reared its ugly head in Western society or even Roman society. This is nothing new, it has been tried before, women merely conned their way out of the consequences of divorce and reverted it back onto their husbands and men in general.

    What makes you so sure that Heidi’s method is any different? Sure, women suffer the consequences now, if they’re old and unattractive. If they’re not, they can reap good rewards and if their ex-husbands were rich, huge alimony and child support payments. In the end, the older the women gets, the less inclined she is to need to stick that landing with another mate. She may just want to end the marriage, collect her prizes and enjoy her old age. Your consequences state will not stop this. It can’t.

    I just don’t see how doing what has been tried before is going to change anything. Especially if you believe women actually get this. To me it seems that some might get it but most do not. Still, being married to a women who, underneath it all, just despises you and wishes she could get away but can’t simply due to finances, is no marriage at all. It’s fighting over scraps.

  174. feministhater says:

    Should I ever get married…I wouldn’t ever get divorced…and I bet you could tell me the numerous risks I’d be taking if I decided to divorce.

    Of course I would, that has never been my quibble. My quibble has been that you keeping your vows is more important than your vanity or your status or your feelz. You made a promise, keep it, unless your wife cheated, you are not obliged to leave that marriage until death.

    A divorced man is far more likely to find a younger, better wife after his divorce. If there were no financial rewards from divorce, the divorced man would be in a far better position to find a better mate than he was when he was younger. However, men are told, outright, you don’t do that, you stay with the wife of your youth, you made a vow and you must honour it. If women cannot be told to that and be held to it, it’s worthless.

  175. ys says:

    And here I thought women were never satisfied. I guess men aren’t either. An appeal to women to not divorce is simply evil. All there is to it.

  176. feministhater says:

    That should read.. “If there were no financial penalties……”

  177. Bruce says:

    Really some pretty good discussion here. Just some random thoughts/reactions:
    “Women understand this better than love, respect, honor, loyalty, fidelity, promises, your word is your bond, and duty. Those kinds of abstractions are men talking to men. Women just don’t respond to those incentives. They respond to real, down and dirty stuff.”
    Then why doesn’t scripture speak to women this way (I mean laying out the practical implications) when (as they remind us) the Scriptures are speaking to them? The scriptures sound closer to what FH is saying.
    At the same time, I am vaguely aware of a Catholic tendency (Earl?) to steer believers away from choosing evil behaviors/moral sin and I suppose her arguments could be seen as doing just that.
    Not coming down on either side strongly, just found this whole discussion fascinating. Would really love to see Cane’s input.

  178. Bruce says:

    One thing I disagree with:

    “That is the consequence I would envision for women who are “rewarded” financially.
    If they do have the gift of a better man than their first husband? And I’ve seen some of those women coming out of abusive (legitimate: drug use, violence, compulsive alchoholics, gamblers…) relationships and have found good men. Then to those women, who are Christians, I would ask one question.
    Did you honor your husband with all you were capable of and did you do all you could to live as a godly woman?
    If she did? Then she has a clear conscience.”

    No, God does not recognize second marriages. Women are not to divorce and remarry regardless of circumstances.

  179. earlthomas786 says:

    Do you really think the alarm wasn’t sounded before ‘no fault’ divorce was passed or even before that, many, many years ago when feminism first reared its ugly head in Western society or even Roman society.

    No fault was enacted by the Russians in the October Revolution with the specific thought that marriage was a bourgeois institution…basically a social-economic pact between a husband and wife. It took away the church vow aspect. It came to the US because of Reagan (which I believe he regretted).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

    I do agree vows are the ideal reason to keep the marriage together…but we unfortunately live in a time where no-fault is rampant and you can’t put down or disregard the social-economic aspect either. Especially since breaking the vows will often lower your social and economic status…when many women are fed the lie through their hypergamy that they can no fault and marry into higher social and economic class.

  180. earlthomas786 says:

    At the same time, I am vaguely aware of a Catholic tendency (Earl?) to steer believers away from choosing evil behaviors/moral sin and I suppose her arguments could be seen as doing just that.

    That’s what I could see it as. Some guys may not like it…but anything that keeps marriages together is better than openly advocating for divorce because of some deluded idea you can marry into a higher social or economic class.

  181. earlthomas786 says:

    The interesting thing I found out today is that no-fault was another one of those ‘errors of Russia’ the Virgin Mary was warning us about at Fatima. Forcibly removing the divine aspect of marriage and making it completely state-secular really takes the essence out of it. That’s probably why a lot of so called pastors think you can have an egalitarian marriage.

  182. thedeti says:

    Earl:

    As California Governor, Reagan signed the first no fault divorce law in the US in 1970. He had said, or others speculated, that Reagan’s own divorce from first wife Jane Wyman was the impetus for it. When Wyman filed the petition, she alleged mental cruelty. He couldn’t understand it – he’d never said anything cruel or mean to her. She put it in the petition only because she had to allege something to file a valid divorce petition, and she couldn’t prove he had cheated on her (he hadn’t), he had beaten her (he hadn’t) , he had abandoned her (he hadn’t) , or that he was an irretrievable drunk or drug addict (he wasn’t). So she had to allege he was mean and not nice to her.

    Reagan gave her the divorce only because he knew they had “grown apart” due to work schedules, and Wyman just didn’t want to be married to him anymore. Reagan is said to have been deeply depressed for the better part of a year after she divorced him in 1949.

    Reagan also wanted to find a way for people to divorce easily without having to prove racy, salacious or derogatory allegations in court, and to allow amicable divorces. He never foresaw that no fault would incentivize divorce and would end marriages that could otherwise be made to work.

  183. earlthomas786 says:

    Reagan gave her the divorce only because he knew they had “grown apart” due to work schedules, and Wyman just didn’t want to be married to him anymore.

    Yeah her mental anguish was her trying to find an excuse to leave because she didn’t have the feels for him (perhaps never did). Imagine that…a Hollywood actor who was good looking and a woman still wanted to end it. That’s why the alpha/beta idea is more than just the superficial.

    That’s why I hope a woman tells me her lack of a connection before marriage…it’s 1000X worse in a marriage.

  184. thedeti says:

    Earl:

    Jane Wyman, like most actresses of her day, was a proto feminist. She earned her own money and didn’t need to rely on a man for financial support. She had her own career independent of her husband’s. She had her own fame, money, and power, and didn’t need any of it from a man – even a man with a career like Reagan’s. Plus her career was really taking off and Reagan’s was stalling – in 1948, the year she filed for divorce from Reagan, she won the Best Actress Oscar, and later won 3 Golden Globe awards.

    Wyman was an A-list actress, was working all the time, was wealthy, powerful, and famous, and her career overshadowed that of her husband. A recipe for the end of a marriage.

  185. BillyS says:

    FH,

    So you understand this but when it is pointed out that neither Heidi nor Carlotta did this and in fact instead rely on a woman’s vanity and selfishness as a means to teaching women to stay in their marriages, you’re at a loss as to why it is pointed out….

    The Scriptures don’t say that is the only way to teach younger women.

    ys,

    And here I thought women were never satisfied. I guess men aren’t either. An appeal to women to not divorce is simply evil. All there is to it.

    It is FH that isn’t satisfied at this point. Most others have at least moved on.

    Bruce,

    The scriptures sound closer to what FH is saying.

    Which Scriptures?

    No, God does not recognize second marriages. Women are not to divorce and remarry regardless of circumstances.

    You don’t know the Scriptures very well. He said the woman at the well had 5 marriages. Jesus recognized all 5.

    Earl,

    Yeah her mental anguish was her trying to find an excuse to leave because she didn’t have the feels for him (perhaps never did).

    Sounds like my divorce. I was such a mentally abusive guy, don’t you know…?

  186. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    October 11, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    “Imagine that…a Hollywood actor who was good looking and a woman still wanted to end it.”

    Happens all the time.

  187. earl says:

    Jane Wyman, like most actresses of her day, was a proto feminist.

    Hence why she may have never liked him in the first place.

  188. earl says:

    Happens all the time.

    I think it’s mostly done as a career move for both involved and then divorce when something better comes along…for some, it’s truly what the ugliness of hypergamy is all about. They can get away with it a lot better than Jane Doe in Podunk, Illinois.

  189. feministhater says:

    It is FH that isn’t satisfied at this point. Most others have at least moved on.

    You guys are fully satisfied that your wives are not to be held to their vows as it’s too hard to get them to understand that vows mean something and they mean what they state. Lol, I get it, you don’t like that I keep bringing this up, but it needs to be brought up. If you truly think women cannot get what a promise is and be made to keep it, just like men, then what you are in fact saying is that women have no moral leg to stand on when getting married. If, as everyone says, women only understand a status change and have no desire to keep their vows otherwise, then they shouldn’t be allowed to make them. The case being made by you and others is one against marriage, not for it.

  190. feministhater says:

    The Scriptures don’t say that is the only way to teach younger women.

    Huh? I guess they could learn by reading the Bible, however, this is a direct command on what older women are to teach younger women. It tells older women to teach younger women to love and honour their husbands, it does not advise them to teach women that their ability to monkey branch is severely limited and will result in a poor landing. If a married women thought like that, the older women would probably give her a good slap and tell her to stop, not ifs or buts. That’s it. Love and honour your husband.

  191. earl says:

    If you truly think women cannot get what a promise is and be made to keep it, just like men, then what you are in fact saying is that women have no moral leg to stand on when getting married.

    Fine…then what other rationale would you use if the woman is adamant on breaking her vows and not caring about what she stated because she has those unhappppy feelz.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    No Anon Reader. Read the fine print. A person who doesn’t understand nor keep their vows for the sake of that promise itself, has no earthly or heavenly business getting married.

    In other words, only women who think like men have any business getting married in your opinion. You are still stuck in the anger phase, and still chained down by feminist, equalist, lies.

  193. thedeti says:

    You guys are fully satisfied that your wives are not to be held to their vows as it’s too hard to get them to understand that vows mean something and they mean what they state.

    No, wives are to be held to their vows. The question is what you tell them and show them to pressure them into being held to their vows, and to pressure them into holding their vows themselves. Do you appeal to abstractions, or down and dirty facts that affect their lives right now?

    Duty, honor, loyalty, fidelity, keeping your word – that’s how you appeal to men.

    No hunky millionaire handyman in your future, pump and dumps only, online dating hell, loss of status, loss of resources, poverty, children’s dysfunction, being the butt of the divorcee club’s jokes and being excluded from the married women’s kaffeeklatsch – that’s how you appeal to women.

  194. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    You guys are fully satisfied that your wives are not to be held to their vows as it’s too hard to get them to understand that vows mean something and they mean what they state.

    Strawman. Plus a run-on sentence. Calm down. Your anger is running away with you.

  195. feministhater says:

    In other words, only women who think like men have any business getting married in your opinion. You are still stuck in the anger phase, and still chained down by feminist, equalist, lies.

    No I’m not. A promise is a promise. A person who makes, whether male or female has zero to do with if they are equal or not, that is your assumption and a pretty shitty one at that. If she can make vows and not be expected to honour them, the vows are useless.

    Try another shaming attempt.

  196. feministhater says:

    No anger here. You need to check your gauge.

  197. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    And here I thought women were never satisfied. I guess men aren’t either.

    You have a problem with the difference between “some” and all”. You really do. Might want to work on that.

  198. Bruce says:

    “He said the woman at the well had 5 marriages. Jesus recognized all 5.”
    We are not given sufficient information by John to draw that conclusion. Fortunately, Christ and Paul are clear on this elsewhere and the Church upholds their teaching – no divorce with remarriage. Not for “drug use, violence, compulsive alchoholics, gamblers.”
    She doesn’t even hold to the permissive, classical Protestant position which is why I said I disagree.

  199. feministhater says:

    No, wives are to be held to their vows. The question is what you tell them and show them to pressure them into being held to their vows, and to pressure them into holding their vows themselves. Do you appeal to abstractions, or down and dirty facts that affect their lives right now?

    How about the truth? That they are to love and honour their husbands and submit to him. If they leave, they will met with dire consequences. Hold women to account for their actions. This abstract idea that women can understand one set of consequences, that only happen years after her divorce, but yet cannot understand the basic meaning underpinning a ‘vow’ is ludicrous.

  200. feministhater says:

    No hunky millionaire handyman in your future, pump and dumps only, online dating hell, loss of status, loss of resources, poverty, children’s dysfunction, being the butt of the divorcee club’s jokes and being excluded from the married women’s kaffeeklatsch.

    That’s how you appeal to a narcissist.

  201. Bruce says:

    “Bruce,
    The scriptures sound closer to what FH is saying.
    Which Scriptures?”

    I think Feminist Hater at 2:15 captures what I was getting at. E.g. Paul doesn’t address the women with pragmatic advice on her loss of marriage market value. I’m not saying that this woman is doing some bad thing I just don’t think FH is crazy or angry for pointing these things out.

  202. Bruce says:

    “This abstract idea that women can understand one set of consequences, that only happen years after her divorce, but yet cannot understand the basic meaning underpinning a ‘vow’ is ludicrous”
    Plus they can’t understand consequences like hellfire.

  203. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    No I’m not. A promise is a promise.

    You expect women to regard a promise exactly the same as a man would. That’s expecting women to be just like men (except for the “have baby” part). which is one of the lies of feminism.

    A person who makes, whether male or female has zero to do with if they are equal or not, that is your assumption and a pretty shitty one at that.

    Women can keep promises, it can be difficult for them. They must be trained, and their social circle matters too. There’s lots of details, but it is useless to point them out to you because you cannot accept the differences between men and women. You are still chained to the feminist lie of “men and women are alike”.

    If she can make vows and not be expected to honour them, the vows are useless.

    That’s another straw man. Nobody here is saying “we shouldn’t expect women to honor vows”.

  204. ys says:

    AR-
    You’re dumb if you didn’t know what I meant, and try-hard if you did.

  205. feministhater says:

    Fine…then what other rationale would you use if the woman is adamant on breaking her vows and not caring about what she stated because she has those unhappppy feelz.

    You’ve answered your own question. She doesn’t care and is adamant, she will end up divorced whether you like it or not. She’s made the choice. The Church used to hold her to account and make her stick it out regardless but no longer does. The Church might have forced her to bear the consequences of her belligerent act if she went ahead and divorced anyway, making her serve as a warning to other women in the congregation. No longer the case. Older women should have been teaching younger women to love and honour their husbands to nip this in the bud but haven’t been doing so, so now they have to resort to scaremongering as a futile attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

    There is no institution by which women are hold to account over their marriages, so they are free to do what they will and there is very little you can do to stop them. Telling women that they might end up alone, poor, used and abused does very little when their ears are tickled by a multitude of other sources that have far more reach and power than you do, telling and selling them stories of what they really, really want.

    The whole divorce industry now makes a living off of women’s vanity and selfishness. The true costs of her decisions are not felt for many years as she lives a life paid for by her X. That he is now lower status and that she will end up lower status by the end provides no damper on her ability to pull that cord. Women have been doing this for many, many years, that kids suffered hasn’t stopped them, that they end up alone and with cats hasn’t stopped them, the whispers have become more of a steady stream of noise and have not abated, the only thing stopping the increase in divorce is a decrease in marriage driven by the lower status of men.

    So sure, focus on telling women that they can do no better than the boring man they have. They might stay, they might not. Who knows.

  206. feministhater says:

    You expect women to regard a promise exactly the same as a man would. That’s expecting women to be just like men (except for the “have baby” part). which is one of the lies of feminism.

    I expect them to honour their promises, the commitments they make. This has no bearing on their over all equality, or lack their of, to men. A non-sequitur. Expecting women to keep their promise and to honour their vows is not the same and it cannot be inferred that I think of them as exactly the same, except for babies.

    An expectation that women should keep their promises like men does in no way infer that the two are equal. Try again.

  207. earl says:

    You’ve answered your own question. She doesn’t care and is adamant, she will end up divorced whether you like it or not.

    That’s what I thought. You wouldn’t even try the ‘you’ll end up alone with cats after numerous men use you for sex, and you’ll be a pariah’ route.

  208. feministhater says:

    That’s what I thought. You wouldn’t even try the ‘you’ll end up alone with cats after numerous men use you for sex, and you’ll be a pariah’ route.

    Why would I? Do I have the ability to make it happen? No. Making idle threats is not my game.

  209. Cane Caldo says:

    A lot of men don’t like to hear Heidi’s cold, calculated, and right-on message because it’s not a romanticized view of husbands. Honestly, It’s not something I want to hear either, and for the same reason.

    Life is tough, Cane Caldo. Get over it.

  210. Isa says:

    @feministhater The issue is that speaking this way to a woman is a strategy, and generally an effective one, to get her to change her behavior. Spelling out her upcoming financial hell (half of a lower class household is still poverty, but with the bonus of impossiblly doubled expenses), her complete lack of attractiveness to decent men, etc may help snap them out of the “my husband/life/marriage isn’t exactly what I want it to be” vortex. Another excellent card is that that man will always be in your life in some capacity if you have children, but a divorced man is likely to annoy her in ways she could only dream of as a coupled woman (i.e. missed holidays, birthdays, vacations).

    She is in a place of selfishness, so arguing from a place of virtue and truth will not penetrate the me me me armor.

  211. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    No anger here. You need to check your gauge.

    Does “hate” involve anger, feministhater?

  212. Isa says:

    @thedeti What I was attempting to say, but with eloquence.

  213. feministhater says:

    Does “hate” involve anger, feministhater?

    Would you like me to change my avatar name to make you feel better?

  214. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys

    You’re dumb if you didn’t know what I meant, and try-hard if you did.

    Oh, please, ys, do better than that.
    Here’s another comment thread where you can’t seem to deal with the OP, or with anything else of substance. Instead you ankle-bite. It’s like you want to troll for flames, but don’t know how to.

    Suggestion:
    Why don’t you offer something beyond that sniping? Maybe explicate on Heidi Stone’s original posting, or her comments here? Share some of your own experience on how women can be helped to keep their promises. Something beyond the childishness you’ve displayed in multiple threads would be a good idea.

  215. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    Would you like me to change my avatar name to make you feel better?

    Getting past all that anger will make you feel better.

  216. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isa
    She is in a place of selfishness, so arguing from a place of virtue and truth will not penetrate the me me me armor.

    Very likely the case. As Deti and others pointed out, once a woman decides to stay rather than detonate, there’s time for her to reacquire affection for her husband. Demanding that she love him right now isn’t going to work.

    The purists object, because they want the world to work differently. It’s like their house is on fire, the volunteer fire fighters show up and there’s not enough pressure in the main water line. So the volunteers run a pump hose to a stinky, stagnant pond and get enough water to start to work.

    “No! Don’t pour that stinky water on my house just because it’s on fire! Only use clean, fire hydrant water to put out my fire!” would be a really, really, really dumb thing to say.

  217. thedeti says:

    As Deti and others pointed out, once a woman decides to stay rather than detonate, there’s time for her to reacquire affection for her husband. Demanding that she love him right now isn’t going to work.

    Actually I didn’t even think of the “time to love hubby again” angle. I was just thinking “if you want to pressure a woman into honoring and obeying her vows and keeping her promise, what’s the best way to do that?” And revealing to her the utter shitshow she’ll be getting when she blows it all up is the best way to do that.

    Yes, it does give her time, and that’s important because of women’s mercurial natures. When they’re experiencing marital problems and lack of attraction and affection, it’s always all about how she feels right now. It’s not about what happened yesterday or the history or the plan for the future. It’s always about her immediate emotions.

    Most women’s feelings about the situation change from day to day. They just consider how they feel, and how they feel right now. They often can’t see past the feelings and emotions they’re having in the moment – all they can consider is the immediacy of it all.

  218. Jim says:

    Would you like me to change my avatar name to make you feel better?

    Nothing wrong with hating an ideology that has destroyed so many men if you ask me. I also hate the sick ideology of Communism that murdered 100 million people in the last century. The two are linked anyway.

  219. feministhater says:

    Yes, it does give her time, and that’s important because of women’s mercurial natures. When they’re experiencing marital problems and lack of attraction and affection, it’s always all about how she feels right now. It’s not about what happened yesterday or the history or the plan for the future. It’s always about her immediate emotions.

    If it’s all about her immediate emotions then how is revealing to her how she might feel in 5 to 10 years going to change that? Contradiction.

  220. earl says:

    Why would I? Do I have the ability to make it happen? No. Making idle threats is not my game.

    Well that’s fine…but some people can see the merit of using threats as a last resort if the person isn’t going to listen to the ideal reasons why. Especially since when it comes to what happens after a divorce…the threats aren’t that idle.

    There’s only one ideal world out there and it isn’t this one.

  221. feministhater says:

    Most women’s feelings about the situation change from day to day. They just consider how they feel, and how they feel right now. They often can’t see past the feelings and emotions they’re having in the moment – all they can consider is the immediacy of it all.

    Sounds like a battle you’ll eventually lose in time. Better to try a more sustainable approach.

  222. feministhater says:

    Well that’s fine…but some people can see the merit of using threats as a last resort if the person isn’t going to listen to the ideal reasons why. Especially since when it comes to what happens after a divorce…the threats aren’t that idle.

    They are idle from the person making the threats. You do not have the ability to make them come true. Only time will tell whether the women suffers them or not. It very much seems like most here are pretending that the preceding 100 years or more didn’t happen and that the feminist movement didn’t have the impact on marriage it did and that women have not been given benefits far beyond their wildest dreams, benefits that remove the very need for the husband to be in the picture to begin with.

    You gents are playing a very elitist game here, only the top to medium tier women will suffer the immense loss of status you’re all talking about. The lower status women suffer no loss and in fact gain immense welfare upon divorce, lifting their status up. The baby momma drama exists for a reason. Women choose to forgo the status of married women because the benefits from the state outweigh those from low status hubby. You’ve already cut out a big chunk of your population, a part of the population Dalrock constantly argues needs marriage the most.

    Your plan might work but only for those women who already know they have chosen from the cream of the crop, the very people who marry mostly for status anyhow. Their mind’s fully cognizant of the reality of what marriage entails.

    I’m not into band aids to repair the damage done. I’m in the ‘let in burn and perhaps rebuild afterwards’ camp. I focus my energy there. Building a community from scratch, with immediate consequences, where promises and vows have meaning again.

  223. earl says:

    Sounds like a battle you’ll eventually lose in time. Better to try a more sustainable approach.

    Let’s just make women, ‘men with boobs’.

    Feelings are how a woman naturally operates…which is why it’s shocking to men when a woman uses some logic in her discourse.

  224. Kevin says:

    My initial take was that this was a positive development and written to other women to get them to think twice. We need all the allies we can get and the purity movement of perfection in manosphere word and deed does not make a big tent.

    Impressed Heidi decided to take it on herself to explain and expand her views. Good on her for committing to her marriage and letting other women know the stats.

  225. Spike says:

    http://heidistone.net/death-of-a-feminist/

    Knock me down with a feather. I mean, is this possible?

  226. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    “I haven’t really considered it, simply because it isn’t an option with the free WordPress managed blog hosting.”

    I’m far from an expert on WordPress (or web programming), but it does like there some free alternatives that might work. Having done a little research, I found 18 Best WordPress Comment Plugins has some promising suggestions. To me, wpDiscuz looks good. The article also discusses two plugins: Simple Comment Editing (allows editing up to 5 minutes after posting) and Comment Popularity (allows upvoting/downvoting). These latter two might be adequate to improve the commenting here. Perhaps you would have a look and ask an expert for their opinion.

  227. feministhater says:

    I’m far from an expert on WordPress (or web programming), but it does like there some free alternatives that might work. Having done a little research, I found 18 Best WordPress Comment Plugins has some promising suggestions. To me, wpDiscuz looks good. The article also discusses two plugins: Simple Comment Editing (allows editing up to 5 minutes after posting) and Comment Popularity (allows upvoting/downvoting). These latter two might be adequate to improve the commenting here. Perhaps you would have a look and ask an expert for their opinion.

    Comment editing sounds cool.

  228. greyghost says:

    If the men here think a women will stay in a marriage or behave well out of goodness you asking for something that doesn’t exist. That is unicorn stuff. The woman is actually speaking t women as a red pill man would. She is speaking to them as they are. There is no romance in this.
    We all keep speaking around it and seem lost to make the connection. One comment here and one comment there all accurate and valid in it’s own right. Seeing all as a whole makes for how valid speaking to women as done here is correct. Women don’t love status and, money ,security, and drama are where it is at and the false joy of getting these things are sexually arousing. The thrill of using sexuality to achieve these desired things is filled will emotions and drama as addictive as meth. TV shows and romance novels thrive on it.
    Where i’m at in life I now see single women 38 and up and they are in terrible shape. They are jacked up and all had men the loved them and made a commitment to them.
    So lady speak to them so they can hear you and don’t worry about it looking pretty. MGTOW is on the rise and becoming the way of more and more men. Trust me there is nothing for a 40 year old woman and the number 40 is starting to creep downward.

  229. Carlotta says:

    Your sons are going to have to run into both types out there…and they shouldn’t be naive to think all women are sugar and spice.

    @Earl lol I am their Mama and they have a bunch of Sisters. There is no danger of them being blind to this. My oldest has had no problem with putting his Sisters and even me in check since he was 3. He does it respectfully cause I am his Mama, but he simply gives me the look now like his Daddy and I seriously consider if I need to calm down lol.I usually just think he is right and trust him and he is not yet ten. Both sexes get a very eye opening understanding of hunan behavior here with a massive dose of the Bible. But hey, we have not gotten to full on relationships yet and frankly, Dad is going to handle it. Seen too many lunatic mother in laws and I do not want to be one.

  230. Carlotta says:

    Huh? I guess they could learn by reading the Bible, however, this is a direct command on what older women are to teach younger women. It tells older women to teach younger women to love and honour their husbands, it does not advise them to teach women that their ability to monkey branch is severely limited and will result in a poor landing. If a married women thought like that, the older women would probably give her a good slap and tell her to stop, not ifs or buts. That’s it. Love and honour your husband.

    Yes,it does. It specifically requires us (not you) to teach them to be sober, chaste, modest, to love their children, to love their husband, to keep the home etc. Do you follow the Bible? No, so you do not have a dog in the fight and all you do is start trouble,
    You seem to be a stone cold feminist, have an intense hatred of women especially those seeking to follow the Bible, an inappropriate need to correct other mens wives and daughters and a lack of understanding in what qualifies you to teach anything. I would love to see you make any of these comments in real life instead of online under the guise of “feministhater” Maybe feminist and hater. Like I said, all your comments are very telling.

  231. feministhater says:

    Yes,it does. It specifically requires us (not you) to teach them to be sober, chaste, modest, to love their children, to love their husband, to keep the home etc. Do you follow the Bible? No, so you do not have a dog in the fight and all you do is start trouble,
    You seem to be a stone cold feminist, have an intense hatred of women especially those seeking to follow the Bible, an inappropriate need to correct other mens wives and daughters and a lack of understanding in what qualifies you to teach anything. I would love to see you make any of these comments in real life instead of online under the guise of “feministhater” Maybe feminist and hater. Like I said, all your comments are very telling.

    You don’t know me at all, keep your thoughts to yourself instead,

  232. Pingback: The Peter, Titus 2, and marriage connection | Christianity and masculinity

  233. Heidi’s post “death of a feminist” was painful for me to read. She sounds very bitter, prideful, and selfish.

    She said: “I hated them.”
    The Bible says: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 1 John 3:15 NASB; and also: “If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” 1 John 4:20 NASB.

    She said: “I did everything in my power to control my husband…”
    The Bible says: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Samuel 15:23a KJB.

    To refuse to submit to godly authority is to lift yourself up as an idol.

    She said: “For the first time in our married life I turned to God and asked Him to help me love my husband.”
    Would have to read more of her posts to see if that’s all she did. Because if she only changed her attitude because of the threat of divorce, then does that simply stem from the same self-centeredness rather than a desire to please God?
    This isn’t meant as an attack on her. We all start somewhere in our realisation of error, even if that realisation results from selfish desires.

    I agree with feministhater; women should be held accountable for their wedding vows, otherwise they lack moral agency.

  234. feministhater says:

    Definition of correct
    transitive verb
    1 a :to make or set right :amend

    correct an error

    b :counteract, neutralize

    correct a harmful tendency

    c :to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition

    correct a lens for spherical aberration

    She’s having surgery to correct her vision.

    2 a :to discipline or punish (someone) for some fault or lapse

    b :to point out usually for amendment the errors or faults of

    We can dispense with the correcting of an error or to neutralize a harmful tendency. Those are what people do to help each other. You on the other hand convicted me of ‘correcting’ other men’s wives and daughters. So, put up or shut up time, where have I corrected, i.e. provided punishment to another man’s wife or daughter? Everyone has the ability to have an opinion and to argue for that opinion, that is absolutely their right to do. So… where have I taken it upon myself to travel to or engage in any sort of punitive measures against another man’s wife or daughter.

    Oh, if you say that me merely voicing my opinion is ‘correcting’ another man’s wife or daughter on issues we disagree with, you’re full of shit and not worth a further second of my time.

  235. Heidi’s post “death of a feminist” was painful for me to read. She sounded very bitter, prideful, and selfish. (Hopefully she’s not still like that).

    She said: “I hated them.”
    The Bible says: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 1 John 3:15 NASB; and also: “If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” 1 John 4:20 NASB.

    She said: “I did everything in my power to control my husband…”
    The Bible says: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Samuel 15:23a KJB.

    To refuse to submit to godly authority is to lift yourself up as an idol.

    She said: “For the first time in our married life I turned to God and asked Him to help me love my husband.”

    Would have to read more of her posts to see if that’s all she did. Because if she only changed her attitude because of the threat of divorce, then does that simply stem from the same self-centeredness rather than a desire to please God?
    This isn’t meant as an attack on her. We all start somewhere in our realisation of error, even if that realisation results from selfish desires.

    I agree with feministhater; women should be held accountable for their wedding vows, otherwise they lack moral agency.

  236. Jason says:

    In other news….the Boy Scouts of America is now letting “girls” join. As a former Cub Scout (1978-1981) and a Scoutmaster of a very active Scout Troop for just over six years (2011-2017) that camped, and hiked HARD-CORE…..I was betrayed. No “feelz” about it. Really tired of “women” demanding that every space, moment, and place that is for boys be “opened up” in the name of “equality” and “fairness”

    This is a sad day for men and boys nationwide.

  237. Jason says:

    Shame on the BSA btw. Pox on their house. All these “big shots” employed by the BSA talking “tough” and “down” to rank and file Scoutmasters that could kick their simp-@ss in the wilderness, and who are the real men of this once fine organization now have no longer any excuses for wasting their time in the BSA.

  238. Jason says:

    @ Scott

    Exactly. I had many a good laugh with flamin’ gay men in San Francisco. One handsome gay man and myself once……we decided to go out and go clubbing together one night. Our goal was to “break up a couple…he gets the guy, and I get the girl”

    No, it didn’t happen….and yes there was massive drug intake going on, and drinking…but we did have a good time that night………we disagreed on many topics at the time (1998) and I wasn’t even a born again yet, but I have always been a die hard fiscal-conservative…..but we did have a great time skulking the San Francisco scene as young guys in our twenties

  239. info says:

    While the post by Heidi is objectively correct. I think that the motive in and of itself is built on sand. The good outcomes depend on current conditions rather than eternal truths. The real solution is salvation without which a person’s motivation is corrupt

  240. 7817 says:

    The death of a feminist article reads like a confession and repentance.

    I’m certainly not going to condemn that.

    As far as it goes, there are no unicorns, AWALT when it comes to hypergamy and opportunistic love, because all have sinned. But, all men are like that too. We’ve all sinned.

    One extreme of sin peculiar to men is to worship Woman. The other extreme is to hate Woman. The blue pill guy who takes the red pill transitions from one, then to the other, and then to treating woman as the human beings they are, except understanding them now.

    If you still hate women you are still in denial about reality. Accept the painful truth, whatever it is, and then do the best you can with what you’ve got.

    Despair is rage against reality.

    It’s a lot better to be grateful than hateful.

  241. Embracing Reality says:

    Yep, accepted the truth about women a long time ago. Accepted the truth about the risks in a legal system that encourages female hypergamy. How can MGTOW, under the circumstances, be anything less than logical?

  242. earl says:

    If you still hate women you are still in denial about reality. Accept the painful truth, whatever it is, and then do the best you can with what you’ve got.

    Yeah…accepting the truth shouldn’t mean you hate it. Women will never be ‘men with boobs’.
    The only way you’ll ever find the ideal woman is to find the one who is without sin.

  243. melmoth says:

    “We’ve already invested our perky selves, baby-making hips, and the “looks cute in a two-piece” years.”

    I think ‘selves’ is a placeholder there. Fine. I hope for your husband’s sake that you gave him some real nice peak years. But the way it’s spoken here, it’s like you’re saying that all women, straight across the board, are looking ‘cute in a two-piece’ but it’s so far from being so. When gender relations are discussed, it’s kind of a given that women just bring this juggernaut sexuality to the game. The magical female body is a huge factor in gender relations. But, and it’s a big but, many women these days are not bringing much to the table at all. So much so that I’m actually getting tired of hearing about the vaunted sexual power of women and their beauty bringing men to their knees. Would be nice, but it’s becoming a very small percentage of the population, outside of the 23 and unders who are simply children, fwiw. And after a few years of marriage and a kid…forget it. You’re down to single digit percentages of women who have any sexual value. The only thing holding marriages together is the loyalty, outdated chivalry, and integrity of males. A lot of them are starting to wonder why they should be that way. Once men start asking themselves; “What’s in it for me?” then the wheels are off.

  244. BillyS says:

    So what should Heidi’s blog post covered, for all those who say she is way off target? Would your ideal post have changed any women? If so, what kind of women? If not, why bother? Why not tilt at windmills instead?

  245. feeriker says:

    Once men start asking themselves; “What’s in it for me?” then the wheels are off.

    Most women these days will respond to such a question with shaming along the lines of “it’s not about YOU!”, “man up!,” or “it’s your responsibility as a man!” (rich, that, women talking about a concept that they know nothing about and have never exercised).

    In other words, in their oh-so-uniquely-21st-Century-female manner, the answer they’re giving you to your question is “nothing whatsoever.”

    Twenty-first Century Western women: the world’s most accomplished MGTOW engineers.

  246. Jim says:

    Once men start asking themselves; “What’s in it for me?” then the wheels are off.

    No, no. We can’t do that. Only Cunt Lives Matter. Remember?

    Most women these days will respond to such a question with shaming along the lines of “it’s not about YOU!”, “man up!,” or “it’s your responsibility as a man!” (rich, that, women talking about a concept that they know nothing about and have never exercised).

    No creature on Earth projects more often than they do. Where do you think the SJWs picked it up from?

    In other words, in their oh-so-uniquely-21st-Century-female manner, the answer they’re giving you to your question is “nothing whatsoever.”

    Yup. For all their talk of equality (an impossible goal anyway) they’re really just brats wanting what they want when they want it, even if it means throwing a nation into chaos to get it. Too many of them are just too dumb to see it or too narcissistic to care.

    Twenty-first Century Western women: the world’s most accomplished MGTOW engineers.

    You bet! If Alt-Right, Neomasculinist, Christian Patriarchs or whatever want MGTOW to disappear then you’re going to have to put the women back in their place because women aren’t going to fix the problem themselves. If you don’t MGTOW will only grow even larger. That’s the key. Nothing else will matter if men are just too cucked to do it.

  247. Dale says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    That video clip you posted was fantastic. Going to save it off YouTube…. 🙂

  248. Dota says:

    I’m coming in late on this, so perhaps this point has already been raised. I just want to say that despite the message of this article, the tone of the writer still sounds selfish (“I made an investment, I want the rewards “).

    Why is it that the only way to get women to act is to appeal to their selfishness? Feminists do it to destroy the family and this woman is also appealing to the same selfish instinct, but this time to preserve marriage. Is it really impossible to motivate women solely on the basis of ideals and/or the collective good?

    What if this article instead stated that women shouldn’t divorce because it’s bad for Society’s health rather than focus on women’s declining power to (selfishly) trade up?

  249. T Leif says:

    I understand where Heidi is coming from and why she wrote this for her intended audience.

    But you gotta love the implicit entitlement in this piece. She’s given her “perky self” and “baby-making hips” so now she gets to enjoy the rewards. In other words, she gives 15 years of her hotness for 50 years of his resources. And this is fair… how?

    She’s only about halfway there, but I understand that it would be difficult to tell women that you should give your perky selves, make babies, then make it a point to be work at being physically appealing and sexually giving to your husband. IOW, it would be hard to say: the giving and taking of rewards is on-going, not only when you are young. Is it hard to stay svelte in your 40s? Of course it is. It is also hard for men to increase their income.

    GIVE and TAKE. Now there’s a concept that’s sorely lacking in today’s world.

  250. info says:

    What this blog post by Heidi is meant to persuade shows what unregenerate fallen female nature looks like.it ain’t pretty and darned monstrous. But we must accept those facts. Its important to see this for ourselves and dispell our idealism on this. And allows us to truly hold women to account as well as seeing their need of salvation. This is the “flesh” that the holy spirit struggles against in the believer.

  251. JDG says:

    “Ms” is a product of feminism. It came to us in the same pile of dung as the great switch-a-roo of “gender” with “sex” and changes in word definitions (such as “abuse” which can now mean anything someone doesn’t like).

  252. earlthomas786 says:

    Its important to see this for ourselves and dispell our idealism on this. And allows us to truly hold women to account as well as seeing their need of salvation.

    Agreed…I don’t know why men would be mad that women are like that unless they are still holding on to their vision of an ideal woman. Woman because of the fall have that fallen nature in them (just like men do). Feelings and wanting more is what led Eve to follow through with the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit.

    The only ideal woman out there is the one who is without sin and follows God’s will. Catholics point out who this is.

  253. modgrit says:

    I’m glad to see a few women are joining the red pill movement.

  254. earlthomas786 says:

    GIVE and TAKE. Now there’s a concept that’s sorely lacking in today’s world.

    A true marriage is supposed to be Give, give, and give.

  255. ys says:

    AR-
    I have and did (comment on the original post). You seem to want to feud with me, as you keep singling me out. Again, it’s pointless. If I were right on something, you wouldn’t admit it, so why bother? I am not your enemy and you come off stupid.

  256. Jason says:

    MGTOW in the Christian world is on the cusp of exploding inside the church, if it hasn’t already. I am speaking for Protestants here, because that is the frame of reference I know quite well

    *Many Christian men have “left” the church, and have formed or joined study Bible study groups, have found fellowship on Skype and other mediums with men who Believe, pray, read the Word and repent.

    *Many of the men left in church have taken the path of just focusing on God. They will volunteer for a ministry. They help out. They leave the women alone and have just taken “inaction” concerning the possibility of meeting a “good Christian woman”

    *In most larger Evangelical churches, men who are set-apart understand the rules of engagement with women: You basically have one chance with one woman in the church. It doesn’t become a marriage proposal in two to three weeks? You’re done. In smaller churches (which most of America attends) men who have common sense understand quickly that dating is impossible in the church. One slip up, one rejection of a date will make that man “off limits” by all the single women in the church because no woman wants another woman’s rejects. It also makes for an awkward situation. A man goes on a couple of dates with a women. It doesn’t work out? Who gets blamed???? It’s easier to just serve, attend, focus on Christ. A man that actually takes the pastors words seriously to “pursue” a woman, and follows “it’s not good to be alone” becomes “that guy” in church (the reputation of that guy who asks out all the women). It’s a no win situation. Easier to just go your own way, focus on Christ….and leave the ladies alone. Which is actually a pretty prudent and smart route.

    MGTOW was not brought into the church by players, not brought in by “conservative” pastors. It wasn’t because of “game” nor has it appeared because of men wanting to live in the basement and play video games all day (and on THAT note……who are these men??????? I hear pastors SAY this phrase all the time, church women say this frequently…..the men that are going to church, and are involved and SINGLE don’t live like this. The guy who plays video games all day, and lives in a basement doesn’t go to church). MGTOW arrived in the church as a result of bossy women, girl power attitude, horrible, just horrible contemporary praise music, ministry that focuses on diapers, the childrens ministry, women who inspire zero desire in men (with attitude, bad personalities, entitlement and a frumpy appearance). MGTOW arrived because again……..men only had one card left, and they are playing it now. Notice all the shaming from the pulpit, all the passive aggressive remarks by women, and the “lamenting” about “America not being a Christian country anymore” has not changed one thing. It keeps getting worse. MGTOW can only be pushed back when the church pushes back.

    *Men, we welcome you. Men, we want you involved. Men, you count. Men, we will earnestly pray for you. Men, we will answer the tough questions about The Bible, Christ, God, repentance and Salvation. Men, we will help you become a better man. Men, we want you to know He has not forsaken you. Men, the cause and case for Christ requires you.

    This will take work….something just about all of the Protestant churches do not want to do.

  257. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘One slip up, one rejection of a date will make that man “off limits” by all the single women in the church because no woman wants another woman’s rejects.’

    Caring more about team woman than finding a husband….a one way ticket to cats.

  258. Embracing Reality says:

    @ Jason,

    A lot of the females at this party fail to see why MGTOW is, and will continue to be, a logical choice for Christian men. Your aware of the base reason I’m sure but you didn’t mention it specifically, probably because you’re probably a polite Gentleman. You’re a better man than me! Speaking for Christian MGTOW’s, if I may, I will take it from here for a moment.

    It’s about SEX:

    God created sex and our bodies, male and female’ it’s why men marry Genesis 2:24. Matthew 19′ Mark 10, 1 Corinthians 7.

    Christian women are failing:

    *Many even most women can’t trigger even basic attraction from men because of the fat problem. A few extra pounds doesnt bother men but obesity is abnormal, that’s what its unattractive. The human male is attracted to the shape of a basically fit human female. It’s biology, God made that. Women make themselves fat.

    *Women are postponing marriage while they are young. This means men are adjusting to going without sex while they are young if they are obedient Christians. Learning by default to live celibate. It ‘should’ be obvious to women why this is bad for women if they want husbands.

    *Women, even though Christians are sexually compromised when single, some are even promiscuous. No good Christian man wants to marry that kind of woman.

    *Women reputedly withhold sex in their marriages.

    This is about sex. Leaving out the horrible attitude of so many Christian women, the legal system, church politics for now. Women’s behavior in relation to sex and their sexual appeal, before and after a marriage, is killing the hell out of men’s desire for marriage.

    Christian men’s desire? Christian women are killing the hell out of it!

    I predict millions of Christian MGTOW even those who never even heard of it. Women’s choices are pushing men right into it. Phony Christian men and non-believers will just use women for sex, where’s the incentive to marry them?

    Christian women are training Christian men to go their own way.

  259. Oscar says:

    @ melmoth says:
    October 11, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    “Once men start asking themselves; ‘What’s in it for me?’ then the wheels are off.”

    If men didn’t already ask themselves “what’s in it for me?”, the androsphere wouldn’t exist. Men have always asked themselves “what’s in it for me?” Always have, always will.

  260. Carlotta says:

    You don’t know me at all, keep your thoughts to yourself instead.

    @ Feminist, Hater
    By your fruits I know you demon of despair. You hate women and want men who believe in the Bible to hate them too and despair. I know exactly what you are.

  261. earlthomas786 says:

    Christian women are training Christian men to go their own way.

    And there are two things that will happen if things don’t change…both have the same ends but one outcome may be better than the other:

    More men consider the priest vocation…We do need more priests…however if there aren’t new families the church continues to lose people.

    Or more men give up the church….which will also mean less families and the church continues to lose people.

    A lot of Christian women are giving up the one thing they can do to keep the church going…getting married and making future Christians.

  262. feministhater says:

    By your fruits I know you demon of despair. You hate women and want men who believe in the Bible to hate them too and despair. I know exactly what you are.

    No, you don’t but you do like to call people names and make up accusations. Are you going to provide proof for your accusation or not? Remember, you accused me of correcting other men’s wives and daughters. Go ahead, provide your proof or be known for the liar you are.

  263. earlthomas786 says:

    *Women are postponing marriage while they are young. This means men are adjusting to going without sex while they are young if they are obedient Christians. Learning by default to live celibate. It ‘should’ be obvious to women why this is bad for women if they want husbands.

    I don’t think they do get why it’s a bad thing. If men learn to live celibate and I mean truly celibate (not easing the pain with porn and fapping)…they begin to see more about how women operate with eyes wide open (even the sexually immoral men know it to an extent but use that knowledge to exploit). Then groups of men start internet discussions asking questions like ‘what’s in it for me?’. The more women hold out on marriage (and sex in it) for whatever reward they think they’ll get…the more men are going to find other pursuits in life. Some will be Godly, others secular.

  264. Carlotta says:

    There seems to be a misunderstanding or a purposefull deception being purported between being in a fallen state vs. being filled with the Holy Spirit, salvation bought by the blood of the Messiah and grafted in to Israel. Both genders are either in a fallen state or redeemed and becoming sanctified. It is not all women are evil and all men are honorable and noble like feminist, hater and pariah would have you believe. I would love to hear their moral standard. Has anyone considered where they get their moral standards from let alone what their actual gender, loyalties and lifestyles are? But any of the men here who believe the Bible here should be able to see through that.
    Seeing as Heidi accepted that she was sinning and chose to use her self as a way to reach other women lost in sin….you would think that would be supported and encouraged.
    Those that are not have a very vested interest in women being hated no matter what, right feminist, hater? (who examines everyone elses motives and constantly makes accusations but will not answer simple questions like “Do you follow the Bible?”

  265. feministhater says:

    Carlotta, you’re digging yourself further into a ditch. Stop digging. Your accusations are baseless, and your vitriolic dislike of me and others who think like me is showing. Go tend to your own family. You’re doing nothing here that will help them; all you’re doing is showing how a woman acts when a man doesn’t do her bidding.

    I will no longer respond to you. Have a nice life.

  266. Embracing Reality says:

    A favorite quote, not sure of its source:

    ” You can love women or you can understand them ”

    I understand women, I don’t hate them but I don’t 💕Love💖 them like they’re special. They are not special, I know that now, I see through them. This is happening to a lot of men. The tide is turning, the thrill is gone. The mystique, in the minds of men, that women counted on in the west was always a pretty lie. Now we see women for what they are and what they have become. Not special, not helpful. Sex in a marriage, maybe, maybe not.

    Forgive? The blood? Right! That can fix the eternal consequence of sin.

    Bad choices? The natural consequences of stupid decisions don’t vanish into the clouds because we repent. Many women will suffer the consequences of their stupid choices for the rest of their lives. Thing is, many men will get away with the same choices, consequence free. Men and women are not the same. The sexual revolution cost women the most.

  267. greyghost says:

    Would have to read more of her posts to see if that’s all she did. Because if she only changed her attitude because of the threat of divorce, then does that simply stem from the same self-centeredness rather than a desire to please God?
    This isn’t meant as an attack on her. We all start somewhere in our realisation of error, even if that realisation results from selfish desires.
    Don’t fall for the equality shit. This is women. They are selfish and always have been. It is as woman as a vagina. God doesn’t tell you to love because she is lovable. he tells you t6hat because she isn’t. Christian men men today think they can make women lovable Hiedi is as good as it gets and the best it has ever been. All female “goodnees” is for selfish reasons . That is female nature 101. Good behavior is the yard stick. there are no unicorns. remember that toil thing from genesis in the bible.

  268. Embracing Reality says:

    Right, women are selfish and always have been. The difference now, versus 50 years ago is that the laws, culture, church have taken all of men’s rights and protections away. Meanwhile women have been encouraged to be more selfish than ever. Obviously we’re being destroyed as a society, it’s being done on purpose by those in power. Ultimately the devil himself. Now what? The ship is sabotage, rigged to sink an explode. We know it. Tell me to buy a ticket and get on board anyway. It’s the right thing to do?

  269. info says:

    @Embracing Reality
    ”Right, women are selfish and always have been.”
    Until they are redeemed and that selfishness is curtailed by sanctification. Women are capable of redemption not because of their goodness but because there is always those who repent who by the grace of God strives to overcome their own sinful flesh.

    Women repented in history and women repent even now. And don’t think that just because even it seems that all women are perpetually flawed that there isn’t a remnant akin to the 7000 who did not kiss the Idol of Baal in Elijah’s day.

    Of course there is no hope in a purely secular viewpoint. But not if you are Christian. We believe in grace in spite of humanities sinfulness. Because this is the Gospel and the fruit of our creators great mercy. Be glad that God didn’t nuke the earth because of our wickedness long ago and he holds his hands out for those who would respond.

  270. Embracing Reality says:

    Forgiveness of the consequences of sin, for those who are truly repentant, are eternal.

    Consequences of bad choices can last the rest of this temporal life.

    Choose wisely, if it’s not already too late. . .

  271. Lost Patrol says:

    Consequences of bad choices can last the rest of this temporal life.

    Even to the 3rd or 4th generation.

    Born again virgins and their support network don’t seem to grasp this concept. Sinful acts can be forgiven, but that doesn’t mean they don’t continue to have downstream effects.

  272. feeriker says:

    A true marriage is supposed to be Give, give, and give by both spouses.

    Fixed. Those last three words in the amendment are very important to emphasize, since all too often these days “Give, give, and give” is done by only one half of the couple.1

  273. Just Saying says:

    They tend to marry women far younger than themselves the second time

    Those are the facts – unfortunately women and facts are like oil and water, they don’t mix. Women live in their fantasy world and if they “WANT” something different they will destroy what they have seeking that out. Usually it ends in disaster for them, but they never learn – they are incapable of it. That is why I advise men to enjoy women – they are so enjoyable – but only on your terms. To do anything else is stupidity.

  274. T Leif says:

    A true marriage is supposed to be Give, give, and give.

    A true marriage is supposed to be Give, give, and give by both spouses.

    I don’t think anyone is built to only Give. It gets cloying after a while.

    If I were married, I would like to believe I would be Taking my wife when I want her. In the ideal scenario, she Gives me her virginity, her body, her submission, etc, and I Take. And I Give her all the things men are supposed to Give their wives. This reciprocation lasts until we die. That’s the marital vow, to have and to hold.

  275. Kate says:

    “Hiedi is as good as it gets and the best it has ever been.”

    Decidedly not. Would-be-frivorcees may find this information appealing; they were never women of high moral character to begin with, so they can be easily swayed with how they will benefit from action A versus action B.

    A virtuous woman will hear feministhater’s posts like a oboe floating above a crowd of grunge musicians and say, “Yes, yes.” The nobility in our nature can and should be called out: not with rationales but with strength of conviction. You do something because it is the right thing to do, not necessarily because it will be the right thing for you.

  276. Pingback: The big Heidi Stone shake up | American Dad

  277. I beileve the story of Lot and Abraham show where we are now.

    If you have a NAWALT stay on top of the mountain and be prepared to share with your brother, and continue to find new innovative ways to distance yourself as much as you can. So before any “Nuke” we will already be raptured but just remember there will be a similiar situation to what happened in Genesis 13. A wise man should learn from Lot that he cannot control the situation; to ignore the fertile plain, particuarly the splendour of megacities and get their family fast away and limit exposure wherever whenever & however can.

    A similiar issue is explored with Joseph and his brothers. They should of never left Canaan, and constant economic trade made them think that the soltitude of goshen was a given,..they later found it was not…

  278. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘The nobility in our nature can and should be called out: not with rationales but with strength of conviction. You do something because it is the right thing to do, not necessarily because it will be the right thing for you.’

    A good way to know your strengths is to know your weaknesses. A woman of noble nature is one who understands listening to the temptation of always wanting more isn’t always in her best interest.

  279. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kate
    You do something because it is the right thing to do, not necessarily because it will be the right thing for you.

    Cool. So next time you’re driving in a hurry and you are over the speed limit I’m sure you will slow down not because there’s a cop visible down the road but because it’s the right thing to do. I’m sure.

    Some women don’t respond to high minded arguments. Some do, but not all the time. A few can be reached thaty way. Plus even the most self-reflective woman on the world who actually will do the right thing for the right reason, even she can get all spun up sometimes and respond only to the bluntest of tools upside her pride-filled head. Using the tool at hand to keep a woman from detonating a marriage is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Once the crisis has passed in the case of Heidi’s friends, it ought to be time to have more serious talks. But a woman who is spun up to the point of contemplating frivorce might not respond to the high road.

    PS:
    I’d like to follow these perfectionists around for about a week, videoing. Then we’d see just how much their actions track their words.

    PPS:
    By the way, “Kate”, are you the same “Kate” who posts at Rollo’s from time to time, who used to post as “Geisha Kate”? Just asking.

  280. 8 in the Gate says:

    Good discussion gents. To note, when Mrs. Stone was “invited” to this party by a link to her post, she could have shown up defensive and full of a bellicose moxie. However, she remained humble and respectful with her interactions, and I think, because of that, was listened to. I know that this is an open blog, but it consists mainly of men who do the commenting. This could serve as a good example of how a woman should interact on a blog full of men. Considering the likes of some of the female posters, it was rather refreshing.

  281. Son of Liberty says:

    constrainedlocus and thedeti, direct to the point without our ingrained baby-boomer/gen-x accustomed tendencies to take over our feelings in a place and era where the spirit of Jezebel is as strongest than ever in Biblical history.

  282. Son of Liberty says:

    Oleaginous Outrager says:
    October 10, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Many people would rather die than admit any of their most cherished beliefs are false, and they’ll drag others down with them just to avoid saying “I was wrong”.

    Agreed. Of those type, many of whom refuse to admit Revelation 17…
    it is grotesquely unbelievable.

  283. Son of Liberty says:

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    October 10, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    To all who are claiming that the Bible does not command a wife to love her husband. If she is a Christian she is commanded to love the brethren, her neighbor and even her enemy. Are you really gonna hang your hat on the idea that only person in all of creation she need not love is her husband? Considering the antitype of Christ and the Church are you seriously contending that the church need not love her Lord? Just because you don not find the words arranged in the form of “wives love your husbands” doesn’t mean it is not there. It is there in spades!

    Wrong! But it is an ecumenical teaching! Let me find the teaching and announcement, somewhere uhm, along the different councils and gatherings within the past 1700 years!…

    Anyways, let us remind ourselves that the Morningstar, Light Bearer, Satan hates Women…

    Daniel 11:37 1611/1769 KJV
    “Neither shall he (Satan) regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”

    If Satan had an IQ of 90, he’d call them all sorts of names and throw absolute hatred like that of those idiots on so called “redpill” “mgtow” YouTube video comments, and for that reason, the larger liberal blogs and cucky establishments automatically tie this behavior with the other side of genuine mgtow/redpill movement, consisting of concerned men about the state of the Jezebel spirit-possessed American female.
    But if Satan had an IQ of 1000, which I would not doubt, then he’d start with a smooth smile, a caress and love to offer all females of the world a view of feminism, an option to vote, “better” dressing alternatives, makeup (pre-Noah Flood fallen angel witchcraft teachings of facial manipulation, an illusion which God possibly banned or forbid from the MANY other forbidden knowledge gained by the gods that lasted and survived past the flood towards the Egyptian civilization, and obviously today), empowerment, independence, etc.

    In other words, let us be careful that this “manosphere” does not get out of control into some perfectly executed Satanic plan and only remain sound to Biblical doctrine such as “better to remain single if not burning with passion” to that extent or whatever in the Bible, Also, as well know and admit, that the mainstream media down the line in a few years, controlled by satanic powers, can infiltrate and piggyback this mgtow thing into an illusion of giving men a “louder voice”, or some sort of a “reasonable movement to take into attention” and turn it into some wicked execution of success in culture or society to hate Women. As a Jim has said…

    But I would say that even as an intransigent MGTOW I’d say it’s not really the greatest gift but just a necessary and temporary stopgap to the HUGE problem of rebellious women and the previous generations of limp-wristed men who failed to put the b*** in their place.

    Minus the b word, for reasons explained above. We must be careful.

  284. They Call Me Tom says:

    On knowing your nature: I often tell people I’ve worked with a while that I have a short temper, to which they react with disbelief, because being mindful of my temper, it doesn’t get loose.
    Imagine if I told myself, “It’s just your nature, you gotta be you, you go girl!” I bet there would be less disbelief.
    Similarly, women who are aware of their flaws, and that they are flaws, tend not to exhibit those flaws half as much as the ’empowered’ types who think they can do no wrong.

  285. feeriker says:

    Similarly, women who are aware of their flaws, and that they are flaws, tend not to exhibit those flaws half as much as the ’empowered’ types who think they can do no wrong.

    When you are a member of a privileged and protected group that the PTB bend over backwards to coddle, grant special “rights” to, pedestalize, and generally release from all forms of accountability, then you have no motivation or reason to hold your most destructive inner demons in check. This is where we as a society are now: reaping the bitter, toxic, destructive fruits from more than half a century of allowing women to act, unrestrained, on their most destructive (especially to themselves) impulses.

    Those women who hold themselves to account, who refuse to go with the herd, who live humble lives as loving wives and mothers, are the ones who truly merit pedestalizaion, even if they would refuse to accept it. If only society (to include Christians and their churches) cared enough to recognize them as an endangered species and took steps to protect them and encourage their proliferation…

  286. earlthomas786 says:

    Similarly, women who are aware of their flaws, and that they are flaws, tend not to exhibit those flaws half as much as the ’empowered’ types who think they can do no wrong.

    Which is why when guys mention AWALT…what they are saying is true. It’s just a matter of how much the women goes with her nature or how much she relies on God and the man she is subject to overcome it.

    Imagine if I told myself, “It’s just your nature, you gotta be you, you go girl!” I bet there would be less disbelief.

    The more we give into our fallen nature…the worse things get. It’s short term satisfaction, followed by long term isolation.

  287. Trust says:

    @feeriker says: October 14, 2017 at 3:59 pm
    When you are a member of a privileged and protected group that the PTB bend over backwards to coddle, grant special “rights” to, pedestalize, and generally release from all forms of accountability, then you have no motivation or reason to hold your most destructive inner demons in check.
    ____________

    I do find it an interesting paradox.

    On one hand, women claim men are so dangerous (1 in 5 women are raped) that they need to be stripped of due process (VAWA, Title IX) to protect women. On the other hand, women walk around like they have an invisible force field and fearlessly (foolishly) jump into confrontations, including phyical (i.e., the ballsy woman at six flags).

    On one hand, women claim that they are just as capable and often superior in every economic capacity. On the other, they demand special grants and programs, special benefits, WIC, alimony, etc.

    The list goes on and on.

    But there is a very simple explanation for all the contradictions. Their goal is to implement the solution, which is always the same (simply put “more”), and any problem that can be manufactured to promote the desired solution is what is used. If they are stronger, do X for them. If they are weaker, do X for them. If they are superior, do X for them. If they are inferior, do X for them.

    The goal is never about solving the problem, it’s all about the solution. Which is why the problems change but the solution never does. They’ve went from government programs to affirmative action to alimony to child support to VAWA and Title IX laws (the ability to get men fired expelled or imprisoned without due process).

    Their current initiative is for the government to force others to pay for their birth control even when they have a moral objection to infanticides. Nevermind that they aren’t outlawing it, if they have to pay for something themselves they act like it’s not available.

    It’s morbidly amusing that they want to force mostly men they aren’t sleeping with to provide their birth control… they wouldn’t ask the men they actually have sex with, because those men don’t think they are worth the money.

  288. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘What do women want?’

    More.

  289. earlthomas786 says:

    It’s morbidly amusing that they want to force mostly men they aren’t sleeping with to provide their birth control… they wouldn’t ask the men they actually have sex with, because those men don’t think they are worth the money.

    All the scientific studies have shown how those pills dramatically change a woman’s hormones, her brain chemistry, and her choice in mate. Thinking on a spiritual level…perhaps it’s something that pours gas on her hypergamous nature. Hence why she wants both AF (where he doesn’t pay) and BB (where he does) when it comes to it.

  290. Kate says:

    “A good way to know your strengths is to know your weaknesses. A woman of noble nature is one who understands listening to the temptation of always wanting more isn’t always in her best interest.”

    I agree with you, but I don’t think we’re always supposed to look out for our own best interests. We’re supposed to be willing to lose everything and everybody in order to follow God. He rarely requires this of us. Merely being WILLING is usually enough. At least, that has been my experience.

    God, moreso than a police officer, is keeping a daily record of our lives. Shouldn’t we be living as though he’s always watching? (rhetorical question)

  291. Trust says:

    @earlthomas786: All the scientific studies have shown how those pills dramatically change a woman’s hormones, her brain chemistry, and her choice in mate. ”
    _________

    I’ve heard of that. A woman is on birth control when single and marries a dependable beta. She then goes off birth control to get pregnant, and she starts tingling for alpha bastards and finds her loyal husband repulsive.

    I think there is a deeper psychological problem at work. We teach that women are attracted to good men, which provides a dual rationalization. When they get a good man, their lack of tingles are framed as “he must not be a good enough man.” When they encounter an alpha bastard, their tingles are framed as “he must be a better man.” We punish good men and then send an army of horny women into the paths of bad men.

    We teach men about their sexual challenges. I know, and have always known, as a man, that a woman’s beauty and her ability to give me erections are not a measure of her worth. That I needed to judge women on a deeper level.

    We need to teach women the same thing. That it is as normal for them to be drawn to a rebellious man is it is for a man to be drawn to a sexed up woman. That it is perfectly normal for her to be somewhat turned off by her loyal husband and for an exciting bad boy to catch her eye. And, like we teach men, teach her that it is her responsibility to manage her urges, work at her marriage, and behave properly.

    If someone taught men that getting aroused at a hot chick in a bar was the fault of his wife for not being good enough, we’d rightly see it as absurd. Amazing how absurdity is often only realized when we flip the genders.

    Of course, there are some men who teach this for ego reasons…. if their wife puts out it must be because they are such great men, not because their wife is a great wife.

  292. Kate says:

    “Do no harm” is an excellent mantra to live by. Since it can be nearly impossible to achieve, “minimize the damage” is another one. But this is not the highest level of activity we are capable of; with God’s help, we are capable of much, much more: almost anything!

    My comments should not be read as an attack on the author’s work, rather a challenge to raise the bar. Let’s not be satisfied with doing the minimum or what might be naturally expected of us. Let’s put that desire for “more” into the right packaging. Let’s do more good works. Let’s pray more. Let’s purify our souls more. Let’s be even better wives. Let’s be even better mothers. Let’s not pat ourselves on the back for merely meeting a basic expectation: let’s exceed it.

  293. Kate says:

    “God, moreso than a police officer, is keeping a daily record of our lives. Shouldn’t we be living as though he’s always watching? (rhetorical question)”

    And in saying that, I should clarify that the object of following laws is not to avoid punishment but to demonstrate obedience. Every difficulty we face in life is simply another opportunity to show our devotion to God. When we stray from him, he will humble us. If we accept his lessons, then he will sustain us. The answer to every conceivable problem is simple: pray. Pray not for outcomes: pray for strength to endure and for your “enemy’s” heart to be opened to God.

    Okay, I’m done now! 🙂

  294. Gunner Q says:

    Trust @ 8:00 am:
    “The goal is never about solving the problem, it’s all about the solution. Which is why the problems change but the solution never does.”

    You nailed it. Men speak to communicate, women speak to manipulate.

  295. earlthomas786 says:

    We teach men about their sexual challenges. I know, and have always known, as a man, that a woman’s beauty and her ability to give me erections are not a measure of her worth. That I needed to judge women on a deeper level.

    We need to teach women the same thing. That it is as normal for them to be drawn to a rebellious man is it is for a man to be drawn to a sexed up woman. That it is perfectly normal for her to be somewhat turned off by her loyal husband and for an exciting bad boy to catch her eye. And, like we teach men, teach her that it is her responsibility to manage her urges, work at her marriage, and behave properly.

    Bingo! There’s plenty of women out there I know give me the ‘tingles’…however what comes out of their mouths, what they are wearing, and their demeanor says ‘you’ll be sorry’.

    The ones I’ve seen in church that have some merit…those are the one’s I’ve pursued.

  296. earlthomas786 says:

    And in saying that, I should clarify that the object of following laws is not to avoid punishment but to demonstrate obedience.

    Demonstrating obedience is the perfect reason to follow the law, avoiding punishment is the imperfect reason. However both in their own ways are still beneficial.

  297. feeriker says:

    And, like we teach men, teach her that it is her responsibility to manage her urges, work at her marriage, and behave properly.

    There you go again, trying to hold women accountable for their behavior.

    ABUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE!!!!!!!!

  298. Pingback: Selected Sunday Scriptures- #134 | Donal Graeme

  299. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kate
    God, moreso than a police officer, is keeping a daily record of our lives. Shouldn’t we be living as though he’s always watching? (rhetorical question)

    “Should be” and “is” are not the same thing, as I explained to you before.
    The ideal vs. the real. When someone is in the process of harming another person or persons (frivorce harms many people) getting them to stop by any means necessary is more important than some ideal way of stopping them.

    Because stopping the harm is more important than purity of intent.

    Again, are you the same “Kate” who posts at Rational Male from time to time, who used to comment as “GeishaKate”? Could you answer this time?

  300. I think what Feministhater was treated a bit unfairly. If he is wrong and holding women to the standards of men, then we should simply change the marriage vows to however women think and whatever we are going to hold them accountable for doing or not doing. For example, we should change the traditional marriage vows, “richer or poorer” etc and simply add, “As long as I don’t get a better offer or my as long as my emotional state doesn’t change”. Then everyone can go into a marriage with clear eyes and clear expectations.

  301. Son of Liberty piece needs to be highlighted* – Deut 32 “So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.

  302. feeriker says:

    [W]e should change the traditional marriage vows, “richer or poorer” etc and simply add, “As long as I don’t get a better offer or my as long as my emotional state doesn’t change”.

    That’s essentially what “marriage” is now, in practice.

    Then everyone can go into a marriage with clear eyes and clear expectations.

    That’s the LAST thing that women and their PTB enablers want. If marriage contracts spelled out clearly and honestly the terms of the arrangement as they now are in practice, then NO men would marry, ever. That means no more fodder for the divorce law and family court slaughterhouses/cash cows. The system would never tolerate that risk, which is why it’s essential to continue to lie, dissemble, and maintain the illusions.

  303. OKRickety says:

    christiantrader said on October 15, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    “For example, we should change the traditional marriage vows, “richer or poorer” etc and simply add, “As long as I don’t get a better offer or my as long as my emotional state doesn’t change”. Then everyone can go into a marriage with clear eyes and clear expectations.”

    Speaking of marriage vows, I found a recent post by Biblical Gender Roles to be thought-provoking. In 7 Principles for Making Biblical Marriage Vows, he writes:

    ‘For example, to say “until death do us part” without quantifying that with God’s allowance for divorce in the case of certain sins is by definition taking away from marriage as God has defined it.
    […]
    If you are going to write verbose marriage vows and you want them to be Biblically based you must account for sin in marriage just as God accounts for sin in marriage in the Bible.’

    Overall, he advocates that marriage vows be brief and Biblical. Although some might consider this to reducing commitment in marriage, I think it could be the opposite. How many wives believe they have justification for divorce because the husband didn’t cherish them to their own expectation?

    Regardless of differences of opinion on divorce, it is certain that the Bible does not teach that divorce is acceptable for the specific reason of breaking the marriage vows.

  304. thedeti says:

    are you the same “Kate” who posts at Rational Male from time to time, who used to comment as “GeishaKate”? Could you answer this time?

    And who is married to Mark Minter, the man famous for posting “don’t get married” everywhere, then… getting (re)married?

  305. feministhater says:

    That’s the LAST thing that women and their PTB enablers want. If marriage contracts spelled out clearly and honestly the terms of the arrangement as they now are in practice, then NO men would marry, ever. That means no more fodder for the divorce law and family court slaughterhouses/cash cows. The system would never tolerate that risk, which is why it’s essential to continue to lie, dissemble, and maintain the illusions.

    The truth shall set you free!

    It’s all bullshit. It’s a con job and a sham. An illusion.

  306. Kate says:

    Of course I’m me! 🙂

  307. Jim Beam says:

    FeministHater is ruining some unnamed people on here…

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