On cue

As I explained in my last post, there is a form of doublethink involved with the topic of how families get broken up. When the discussion is how to hold marriages together, everyone knows the solution is for men to do whatever it takes to stop their wives from getting bored and nuking the family. Marriage counselor Dr. Harley puts it this way (emphasis mine):

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

Yet whenever the topic is the terrible cost of broken families, everyone knows the problem is men abandoning their children and not honoring their marriage vows.

But each day the amnesia returns again, and as soon as the discussion is about how to hold families together, everyone once again knows that broken homes are caused by women ejecting the father of their children from the family. As Justice Schanfarber explains today in Why Women Leave Men They Love: What Every Man Needs to Know* (emphasis mine):

As a marriage counsellor working with men and women in relationship crisis, I help clients navigate numerous issues. While many situations are complex, there’s one profoundly simple truth that men need to know: Women leave men they love.

They feel terrible about it. It tears their heart out of them. But they do it. They rally their courage and their resources and they leave. Women leave men with whom they have children, homes and lives.

Of course when we talk about women leaving what we are almost always talking about is the woman staying put and expelling the man from the house, as an attorney explains in Five Ways to Get a Spouse Out of the House.  As one divorcée brilliantly put it, divorce is a neutron bomb for men.

Either way, as Schanfarber explains, women’s commitment in marriage is notoriously fickle; it could give out at any moment should a woman no longer feel the spark.  Every child in an intact family could have their lives turned upside down at any moment should their mother become bored of being married.

Your wife is not your property. She does not owe you her soul. You earn it. Day by day, moment after moment.

*H/T enrique

Posted in Child Support, Denial, Divorce, Doublethink, Dr. Willard Harley, Feral Females, New Morality, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists | 96 Comments

Commitment issues

Dr. Harley explains in Why Women Leave Men* that women have commitment issues:

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

What is interesting is that what Dr. Harley is saying is (depending on the context) conventional wisdom.  Everyone knows that traditional marriage is a cruel institution that “traps” women in commitment, depriving them of the romantic love their noble hearts desire.  Everyone knows that no fault divorce is required to liberate women from being trapped in commitment.

Modern women’s enthusiasm for divorce is hardly a well kept secret**.  If you are looking at media aimed to women, divorce empowerment is a staple.  This is quite literally a shameless obsession.  As new commenter Anna mentioned recently:

It’s crazy that every time that I find an article about marriage, it’s either about the actual wedding or divorce. As a 26 year old woman that has been married for 6 years, I’m well aware of the pressure for divorcing. There’s always a “5 ways to know that your marriage is over”. This is how I found your website and it all makes so much sense, even though I’m not a christian. I have no idea why society is leaning towards destroying its foundations.

Yet change the context to the cost of broken families, and suddenly everyone knows that men are running away from commitment.  This is especially important when it comes to conservative backing for child support.  In 2005 Phyllis Schlafly laid out what should be the standard conservative position on a government program designed to destroy families in Federal Incentives Make Children Fatherless:

The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers’ high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father’s payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers…

We can no longer ignore how taxpayers’ money is incentivizing divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government’s complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without their fathers.

Yet Schlafly is an extreme outlier among conservatives on this topic.  Conservatives are the strongest backers of the child support system, and this is due to a deeply held belief that broken families are caused by men who aren’t willing to stick around and raise their kids.  This belief is so strong that conservatives end up taking very unconservative positions on the family.  Instead of opposing a law that creates perverse incentives to break up families, they enthusiastically support it.  Instead of supporting marriage, they support the system designed to replace marriage.  Instead of supporting an incentive based structure for production, they are wedded to a crushing soviet style quota system that discourages hard work.

Most recently this dynamic came up in an opinion piece at the Washington Post.  President Obama is pushing to stop accruing child support to men who are in prison, since child support is in theory based on a man’s potential earnings.  As Instapundit noted, even feminists can see the absurdity of piling on crushing debt to men who aren’t in a position to pay.  Yet conservatives love child support, and will fight any changes that don’t make the system stronger:

Congressional Republicans oppose the new policy. They argue that it would undercut the 1996 welfare reform act, which pressed states to locate missing fathers and bill them for child support so taxpayers wouldn’t bear the full burden of their children’s welfare.

“I am fundamentally opposed to policies that allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities, which, in turn, results in more families having to go on welfare,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a speech in June on the Senate floor. Obama’s new regulations, he said, “would undermine a key feature of welfare reform, which is that single mothers can avoid welfare if fathers comply with child-support orders.”

It is important to note that this is not about recouping money from convicts who can afford to support their children.  This is about maintaining a credible threat to other men, as a reminder that they must do everything in their power to earn the amount the courts have assigned as their production quota.  Billing these incarcerated men costs far more than any amount actually collected, and by making it harder for them to succeed after release it also makes them more likely to end up back in prison.

See Also: 

*HT Pedat Ebediyah

**Not all modern women view divorce as empowerment, but a large enough majority does feel this way, which is why divorce empowerment is ubiquitous in entertainment aimed at women.

Posted in Child Support, Dr. Willard Harley, New Morality, Phyllis Schlafly, Replacing Marriage, Romantic Love, selling divorce, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up | 180 Comments

Repenting of sexual morality.

A month ago Liška at XO Jane wrote Marriage Shouldn’t Be an Endurance Sport.  Liška repents of her sin of trying to tempt a friend into honoring her marriage vows (emphasis mine):

There was no abuse. No one had been caught in flagrante delicto. Their kids weren’t acting out. They didn’t even argue. Her marriage to Lee* had simply run its course…

While Ann was crunching numbers, figuring out how to make it as a single mom, I was like Mephistopheles tempting Faustus. She and the kids wouldn’t have to worry about the money if she and Lee stuck together, I reminded her. Was she really sure?

She tells us she was guilty of divorce shaming, something she did despite knowing better:

I’d divorced-shamed my best friend.

Funny, but Ann’s reasons were the same I used when people asked why me and my husband of eight years got divorced. This meant that not only was I a hypocrite, I was the one with issues.

This is the upside down world we live in, where encouraging people to remain married is tempting them to do evil, and Christians celebrate the awesome power of threats to destroy the family in their scheme to invert headship.

Most social commentators wonder why roughly half of first marriages end in divorce.  However, the more relevant question is how can marriage stripped of all legal force survive in a culture where it is more moral to encourage divorce, or at least threats of divorce, than to encourage honoring marriage vows.  How is it possible for so many marriages to survive when everyone agrees that divorce (and not marriage) is sacred, and the family courts back up this new morality with offers of cash and prizes to any woman who does the right thing and blows up her family?  What is the “evil” that threatens our sacred institution of divorce?

Liška understands, at least in her gut, what the most dangerous remaining threat to divorce is.  This threat is the status women gain from marriage (or something like marriage).  This is what her post is really about, decrying the one force which is standing in the way of moral progress.  Liška read the NYT article I referenced here, and was disturbed that women in the comments section were bragging that they had the status of remaining married, a status that Liška and her friend no longer have.  This must stop:

The comments section, however, was disturbingly duration focused: “I want to kill him a lot the time, but we’ve made it 20-35-50 years, ha-ha!”

Is quantity of time a measure of its quality? Exactly how many “and yets” does a person have to take?

If law offers an out to marriage, society continues to act as its enforcer. We continue to promote marriage longevity like it’s an endurance event. We reward and acknowledge it by milestone with anniversary parties and bragging rights…


Posted in New Morality, Professional Divorcee, Status of marriage, XO Jane | 332 Comments

God’s secret plan for every married man’s life.

Magnus asks

I wonder what Dr. Hegstrom and the Davissons would say to a genuinely abused man: A man who has been denied sex for years, has been emotionally manipulated and threatened with divorce and financial ruin, and has had his children taken away to be raised by the mother and a replacement father on the other side of the country. Would they care? Would they have even an ounce of sympathy? Are are they so blinded with ideology that they are incapable of empathy and reason?

No need to wonder.  They would say that since women are “responders”, everything she did was ultimately his fault and proof that he wasn’t following the instructions God wrote for him.  If he weren’t doing something terribly wrong, she would not have done those things.  He needs to admit his abuse and beg for her forgiveness.  They would at the same time counsel her to forgive him when he repents.

I know this from Joel and Kathy’s book The Man of Her Dreams The Woman of His!  See page 31 where Joel explains what Dr. Hegstrom taught him about women’s misbehavior when Joel attended Life Way International.  This moment was Joel’s epiphany (all emphasis in quotes below is from the original):

A few more hours into the training, I repeated the question in another manner. “Can’t the woman be the problem? The man is not always the problem in marriage.” Of course I gestured toward my problem wife! This continued into the second day until Dr. Hegstrom finally had enough. He told me point blank that I was the problem in my marriage. He told me that Kathy was desperate to have a great marriage relationship for that is how God made her.

He continued saying that my issues had caused the problems in our marriage and that if I would get healed and change that I would have a most incredible wife. He emphatically stated that she might have some very minor issues that needed to be addressed but that she will deal with those on her own after I have dealt with mine.

Paul told me that God made Kathy a responder and that her problems were a reflection of her responding to my treatment of her. He said that when I grow up and lay my life down for my wife as Christ did for the church that I would be amazed at how wonderful a wife I have.

This was the beginning. A seed was planted…

This is very similar to the theology FotF and Dr. Clarke teach, where the wife is made by God to know what should be going on in the marriage and the husband needs only to put her in charge.  In fact, Joel and Kathy spell this out more directly in their book.  On page 36 in a frame box it says:

Men, here it is.  Your wife wants a fabulous relationship with you.  God made her that way.

On the same page Joel explains that this is the meaning of Genesis 3:16:

Your wife wants a fabulous and happy relationship with you.  God made her that way.  In Genesis God spoke to your wife concerning this desire that she would have for you.

Your desire shall be for your husband.
–Genesis 3:16

She wants you baby, she wants you!  However, what God created your wife to desire is a deep, meaningful, bonded, successful relationship with you.

On page 86 they explain in another framed box that the wife’s feelings are a marriage manual from God:

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.

On page 90 they explain that God has written His instructions for men in their wive’s hearts, and that only by doing what their wife feels is right can they know God’s will not just for the marriage, but God’s plan for the man himself:

It is very simple.  When your wife’s marriage manual points out that you have violated her in some way, your job is to hear her heart and accept what it is that your personal marriage manual is saying to you.  Your wife may not have a clue as to how to handle the household checkbook.  She may not have a clue as how to run a lawnmower.  What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God.  The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be.  The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual.  How do read that marriage manual?  We listen to her heart.

The logic is as plain as it is absurd:  If you wish to serve God, submit to your wife’s emotions in all things.

I realize that this stuff is so flat out ridiculous that some will suspect I’m making this up.  I urge you to check the book out for yourself using Google Books or the Amazon “look inside” feature to see that this is accurate (barring possible typographical errors).  Keep in mind that Joel and Kathy are writing about what they learned in Life Way International from Dr. Hegstrom, and that FotF urges your pastor to send men accused of abuse to this same place to learn Life Way International’s theology of marriage.

Prior to researching for this series of posts I thought that Joel and Kathy were on the fringe, expressing a theology outside the modern Christian mainstream.  In researching these posts I’ve been surprised to learn that they are:

  1. Even more absurd in their theology than I had previously understood.  They take wife worship to a whole new level, far worse than I had ever seen before.
  2. Teaching a theology that is well within the modern Christian mainstream.  This isn’t as far as I can tell taught as overtly as Joel and Kathy do (yet).  However it is taught in a less obvious form on venues like the FotF radio program, as well in full strength behind closed doors at “marriage counseling” sessions endorsed by mainstream Christian organizations.
Posted in Attacking headship, Domestic Violence, Dr. David Clarke, Dr. Paul Hegstrom, Focus on the Family, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Marriage, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Wife worship, You can't make this stuff up | 362 Comments

Way ahead of you

Commenters pacguy and Jonadab-the-Rechabite both point out that by the definitions of abuse from Life Skills International and FotF wives are regularly abusing their husbands, and they are very often doing so at the direction of Life Skills, FotF, the Davissons, and Drs. Hegstrom, Clarke, and Harley.   Each of the following is defined as abuse on the Life Skills Power and Control wheel:

  • Affection is conditional (denying sex would certainly count here)
  • Threatens to end the relationship
  • Threatens to take the children.
  • Uses partner’s money and/or credit with or without their knowledge.
  • Accuses.
  • Manipulates.
  • Commits mental blackmail.

This is a very short sample, but it gives an idea of the problem feminists have here.  Feminists are using accusations of abuse to bully and abuse good men.  There is no way around this.  It works because good men want to help and protect women.  It is as I mentioned, sheer evil brilliance.

Moreover, they know exactly what they are doing, which is why they created a special definition of abuse called knowledge abuse.  If you point out that by their definition of abuse that you are in fact the one being abused, this is proof that you are an abuser.

Receives a limited amount of counseling and uses it against partner;  uses knowledge of partner’s past against them…

Reads and listens to self-help books and tapes then uses the information to blame the partner for problems in the relationship.

So when your wife listens to FotF and learns that you are the source of the relationship’s problems and threatens to leave you, take your children away from you, and/or denies sex unless you do what she wants, you can’t defend yourself by pointing out that these are all abuse.  As the man you are the abuser, period, and arguing otherwise is just more proof that you are an abuser.

Even worse, if your wife is diagnosed as Borderline, Bipolar, etc. and you point out that she is abusing you in ways that fit with this diagnosis, this is also knowledge abuse:

uses medical professional’s comments or advice to blame partner for the problems in the relationship

These folks know exactly what they are doing, and they have spent decades perfecting their methodology to do so.  Don’t fall for the same mistake so many other men have made of assuming they are actually acting in (perhaps misguided) good faith, or that this is actually about abuse.  It is not, it is about destroying headship by taking power away from husbands and giving it to their wives.  They come right out and tell us this by explaining that you can’t use their own definitions against them, just like the Duluth Model website tells us this more directly (emphasis mine):

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

As they state plainly, the goal of the Duluth Model is to:

…change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.

This isn’t about methods or tactics of using power, which is why they are fine when women use the same methods against men.  This is about the power dynamic itself.  This isn’t about how power is used, but about who has the power.

Related:  The crazy dictator.

Posted in Attacking headship, Domestic Violence, Dr. David Clarke, Dr. Paul Hegstrom, Dr. Willard Harley, Duluth Model, Focus on the Family, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Threatpoint, Wake-up call, You can't make this stuff up | 94 Comments