Several readers have pointed out the news stories on the woman who has ditched her roles as wife and mother for the excitement of tramping around in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Even Captain Capitalism saw this story and was kind enough to think of me. The story is like wildfire in the media, with multiple outlets telling the same basic story as the NY Post does in its piece Florida banker’s wife left family to join Wall Street protesters:
A married mother of four from Florida ditched her family to become part of the raggedy mob in Zuccotti Park — keeping the park clean by day and keeping herself warm at night with the help of a young waiter from Brooklyn.
“I’m not planning on going home,” an unapologetic Stacey Hessler, 38, told The Post yesterday.
“I have no idea what the future holds, but I’m here indefinitely. Forever,”
Stories like this are almost too easy to take apart, as they so often follow the same script; flighty middle aged woman decides she isn’t haaaapy and abandons her husband and children, with the lack of foresight to consider the long term implications of her choice. At some point it almost becomes unsporting. What strikes me about this story and the Occupy Wall Street movement as a whole however is how quickly traditional gender roles have sprouted up in this oh so enlightened community. This woman is a prime example of this. While presumably fleeing the confining bourgeois roles of wife and mother, she immediately cozies up to another man*. Where’s the free love? Why would a protesting fish immediately acquire a bicycle?
One likely reason is the general lack of security in the camp itself. It turns out that a mob of anarchists can at times be somewhat unstable. The hard left finds its romanticism of the homeless and disdain for institutions of harnessed male power in direct contradiction. News stories like this one and this one tell us how the movement has created a security nightmare by inviting the homeless into the camp. We learn of nighttime shouting matches over property and space, the occasional knife threat, and even threats by one homeless man to spread HIV via a syringe. The AP story tells us:
Last week, a homeless man menaced a crowd of spectators with a pair of scissors.
I know what happens next! A 5 ft 4 tall man with wide hips and some sort of mask/helmet obscuring his face dove into action making short work of the threatening man. Only then does the short man with wide hips take off his helmet/mask, shaking free her long feminine hair in the process. We were all duped! It was really a bad-ass woman saving the crowd with an amazing display of moxie! Lets see if my years of watching feminist TV and movie action scenes has lead me to make an accurate prediction:
Micaiah Dutt, a four-tour veteran of the Iraq War, and two other former soldiers had no problem tackling and subduing the man. Other members of the protest’s volunteer security detail have been punched and threatened with knives.
See! I was right. These badass women warriors swooped into action and went all Lara Croft on his ass!
Dutt said he felt helpless at times and noted that the man he helped subdue could, in theory, press assault charges against him.
“I served four tours in Iraq, and I felt more safe there at times than here,” he told a gathering of protest organizers under a drizzly evening sky. “There, I had a weapon and knew the people around me were with me. Here, I don’t know.”
Oh, thats strange. I’m guessing all of the Xena types were busy with real security threats, and left the men to mop this one up.
Either way, the news stories I’ve read show a fair degree of insecurity in the Occupy [insert name of place here] movement camps. The housewife turned tramp in the original story quickly finding herself a man in camp reminded me of the movie Defiance, and how quickly the women in the camp attached themselves to “camp husbands” for security in a very insecure environment. Heartiste has written about this basic phenomenon in his post Tough Times Are A Bounty For Betas.
But just because she felt the need to get herself a man amidst the insecurity of the camp, it doesn’t mean she is following traditional gender roles in other areas. For example, she makes it a point to contribute her gender neutral talents to the good of the community. Per the NY Post article:
She got coffee and a granola bar from the protest kitchen before sorting laundry for two hours.
And she isn’t alone. From the examiner.com article Night and Day, Life at Occupy Wall Street:
It is about 11:15 am and a woman takes her place in a lawn chair knitting hats and scarves for the protesters, keeping track on a board of how many she has already made and donated.
*Edit: Chels linked to an article in the Village Voice which claims that Ms. Hessler’s sleeping arrangement with the waiter are non sexual. The original NY Post story contains the phrase “she plans to stray awhile” in the url for the story, but also includes the statement “She swears she’s not romantically involved with her new friend.” I’ll leave it to my readers to come to their own conclusions on this.
I watched the video interview… lights are on, but nobodies home. Her husband is probably happy she’s taken a break. I wouldn’t want to be married to her.
I’ll go waaay out on a limb here and predict that Mrs. Unhaaaapy Protest Ho is not sleeping with an exciting exotic young male because she likes protests. She likes protests because of the exciting exotic young males.
This stuff reminds me of Hunter Thompson’s Hell’s Angels book. After his initial article about the Angels hit print, he started getting fan mail from bored housewives who thought that whole scene sounded like a “kick”.
This is an old, old story.
Is not a secret that I write fairytales and I love happy endings.
My happy ending for this story is for the husband to have found already a younger, hotter woman that is occupying his house. The children understanding that their mother abandoned them welcomed her and finally realize what a mother should do and will forever use this action against her for as long as she lives and he is in talks with his lawyers with a great case for a divorce in which abandonment of the house and children don’t let her get custody or alimony. And they lived happily ever after. 🙂
The way the articles have described the husband, he sounds like the typical hapless beta provider. And, as usual, his wife eventually finds herself biting that hand, because she believes that no matter what she does, he will be made to keep feeding her with it.
In her case, she may be surprised (abandoning kids, even by women, is frowned upon to a substantial degree by most family courts), if her husband has the balls to make it stick.
I sincerely hope she loses custody of her children. Not that it seems like she cares very much.
He will take her back, they always do because this is Hollywood and she’s a celebrity now. Dont judge her, she’s sorrrrrrrry!
I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt here and just say that this is otherwise a good mom going through a midlife crisis/breakdown, and she’s going to regret her actions for as long as she lives and she’s going to make it up to her kids and her husband.
(I reallllly hope I’m right)
This sort of thing is not uncommon. My friend’s wife did this to him at 37. She ditched him, her children, her nice house. He’s a great dad, good looking guy, makes decent money. She tried to go back to him only to discover he’d married a 10 years younger, hotter woman who is great with his kids.
So essentially a younger woman that treats him great is now living in her nice big house, sleeping in her bed, and step-mother to her two kids, whom she no longer has custody of.
While she lives in her Aunt’s basement, on the other side of the country and only sees her kids once or twice a year.
This shit is starting to bite women on the arse too.
Holy crap Im a precog I read chels mind
Holy crap Im a precog I read chels mind
Well you didn’t read enough, because otherwise, you’d have known that I have quite a few superlatives I want to call her, BUT I hope that she’s going to wake up *very* soon, and realize what a mistake she made, and go back to her family.
Seems rather cruel to wish to inflict that back on the husband.
@nugganu
You see happy endings happen in real life too! 😀
@ Yaboymatt
You and every other red pill man.
@nugganu:
The interesting contrast to your story is that if she had decided to do her “exploring” in a different way, she could have booted her husband out of his home and kept the kids. He got lucky. She completely f’d up her entire life. And while it was probably hell for him and the kids, they get off a lot better. Go figure.
Yaboymatt – “He will take her back, they always do because this is Hollywood and she’s a celebrity now.”
I’m not so sure. It doesn’t seem that this husband has made any effort to encourage her to come back (unlike the beta guy in Ohio(?) a couple of years ago who’s wife stage, with the help of her boyfriend, her disappearance to look like an abduction, while she left hubby with their infant daughter to run off with the new guy to another state. Despite the fact that she clearly no longer wished to be with him and their child, that guy went on TV to beg her to come home to him/them). I think it just might be a sign that he doesn’t want her back. Even if he did still feel something for her, how publicly emasculating would it be for him to even appear to accept her back.
That guy in Gainsville, Fl. whose wife stage her kidnapping (again, along with her new boyfriend) in order to extort money for her new life also went on TV to proclaim his support of his wife (who was caught on tape even talking about killing him for the insurance money); but that was in the first few days afterwards, when he likley was still ikn a bit od shcok, and still wished to beleive that his wife had been kidnapped, raped, and held for ransom, rather than that she had conspired with her lover to fleece him and leave him. At least he came to his senses and filed for divorce shortly thereafter, presumably as the reality of what had happened began to sink in.
In this recent case, the guy will have had time to have had the reality set in. His wife has publicly humiliated him by rather openly cuckolding him, and proclaiming that she has no intention of returning to him. With 4 kids to support, and a home to maintain (both of which it seems he has been doing without her financial help for some time), it’s likely that he will realize that the whore has NOTHING to offer him, save for the shame should he take her back.
I actually expect to hear (assuming it’s made public knowledge) that he has already begun divorce proceedings while she is off on her EPL adventure.
Chels – “I hope that she’s going to wake up *very* soon, and realize what a mistake she made, and go back to her family.”
This situation provides an excellent test of female verse male attitudes vis-à-vis family abandonment.
It’s still probably more common for men to abandon families (although it’s probably more prevalent a the lower socio-economic levels) than for women to do so (although they seem to be increasing in number, especially in higher socio-economic levels); thus the contrast in the attitudes expressed by men vs. those expressed by women will, IMHO, be quite revealing.
It seems almost universal that when a guy runs out on his family, women reflexively will argue against the wife taking him back. Likewise, I cannot recall ever hearing from any men that a man who’d abandoned his family should be accepted back by his wife.
Yet, here, you express a hope that she will return to her husband (with the underlying assumption that he should take her back). No talk of “kicking her whoring ass to the curb” on your part. Do you really believe she deserves to be taken back?
It seem (from a relatively few comments so far – both here, and on other sites) that most men are remaining ideologically consistent, and declaring that she should NOT be welcomed back home, whereas at least a few women seem to think that she should be – should she decide she wishes to return home (all on her terms, of course).
I’m wonder in other women who comment her will join you in hoping for her to be welcomed home by her husband, or whether they will show the same sort of disdain typically held for men who’ve done such things, calling for the man’s ass to meet the curb?
I’ll wait and see what people have to say.
@slwerner
Well I already expressed the disdain so so far we are 1-1 on women supporting the whore to get a second chances.
I wanted to mention that in pop culture this is quite common too. There was this disgusting episode of Malcolm in the middle were Stevie’s mom abandoned her family to “live her life” returned home and told everything she did to her husband and both boy and husband took her back. Lois was disgusted by this and didn’t wanted to take her back as friend too, but the episode treated her as judgmental and she finally “saw the light” at the end of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I have the same issues with LaBarbara in Futurama that has showed spending time with her ex Alpha boyfriend (Is not clear if she had sex with him or not they left that ambiguous) and poor Hermes is always fighting to keep her attention. Really I love Futurama but I’m sick of Hermes playing a chump to his wife, specially since he has a boy, what is the poor kid learning? To be a chump to your wife no matter what. sick lesson to learn.
slwerner: nailed it.
If my wife ever did anything like this to me, it would be followed with a phone call asking her the address to which the divorce papers should be sent, and informing her that the items she left at my house would be sold.
Anacaona – “Well I already expressed the disdain…”
I had actually seen your comment, so it was an oversight on my part not to have acknowledged that you had already done so. I apologize for having failed to do so.
It think that it represents a female romantic theme in pop-culture. I also remember the first Bridget Jones movie in which her mother runs off for a a romantic adventure with a TV personality, then returns home to her publicly humiliated husband and demands to know if he’s going to unquestioningly take her back. I think women love to believe that their husbands will always want and welcome them back should they chose to return.
But, the reality is that, just as with men who do it, if she did it once, she’ll likely do it again should he be fool enough to take her back.
I know of several instance of cheating husbands, forgiven by their wives, who ended up repeatedly cheating on their forgiving wives. It’s no doubt the same for cheating women if they are forgiven by husbands. Actual physical abandonment simply makes the situation far worse than just cheating.
The female id has replaced the Ten Commandments as the highest moral authority in western culture. Whatever makes women feel good at the moment… must be so, must be allowed, — indeed, must be celebrated — at the cost of all things else. So if a woman wants to go EatPrayLove, we must celebrate that, and if she later decides that she wants to go back to her husband, we must be ready to support that decision as well. And he must take her back if that’s what she wants, because whatever a woman wants at the moment, whatever makes her happiest… must come first, period.
Retrenched:
Roissy Maxim #23: “The vagina tingle is the principal moral code to which women subscribe. All other moral considerations are secondary.”
Get IVF free if you are about to become a single mother:
– http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2052694/IVF-Single-women-3k-fertility-treatment-free-couples-forced-pay.html
Wrong all of you.
She will return to her home, hire a lawyer, claim her husband “abused” her, get him kicked out of his house, reclaim her children, get a monthly stipend, and live happily ever after with her new boyfriend from OWS. In her spare time she will write a book on her experiences, appear on Oprah, and advise the film makers from the Lifetime channel on her made for TV movie. May even front a line of cosmetics and “Eat, Pray, Love” style scarves and handbags.
Also, the film producers during a “focus group” will change her boyfriend’s name from Sven to Fernando.
I know of several instance of cheating husbands, forgiven by their wives, who ended up repeatedly cheating on their forgiving wives. It’s no doubt the same for cheating women if they are forgiven by husbands. Actual physical abandonment simply makes the situation far worse than just cheating.
ITA. In my country cheating is the national sport must of my friend take the first forgive as how much are they going to have to pay off to get away with it next time. If the wife cried three days and didn’t had sex for a month with them, plus they needed to buy the washing machine she has been asking for months, beg forgiveness three times. They will remember this next time they are out looking for punani and decide if the woman they are sleeping with is worth a month of no sex with the wives, some empty words of repent and a washing machine. The first time sets the tone. Even the men whose first time had the women leaving the house and filling for divorce will cheat if the opportunity is good enough (a really hot model in a remote place preferably) or assume that the wife didn’t really loved them if she was willing to walk away that easy and move on as fast as they can. I know I lived in a sick, sick society.
Sadly I think Uncle Elmer will be proven right.
Yes I may have been ironic with the precog crack but this woman will be made into a celebrity, book deal, movie deal, everything. We have witnessed the birth of another epl men. And we will be forced to watch this woman profit massively from either her divorce story, or her story of finding herself and her husbands “growth”.
Wait, she DIDN’T get the house and kids?
I thought she always gets it all, which was what FC was all about.
Why did she leave if she was not getting the money on a ‘no fault’ basis (which is why diivorces were low pre-1968)?
There are still some crazy people in the world who do things despite the legal ramifications. A woman who leaves the house *and* the kids is going to have a tough time winning unless the ex-husband “condones” her behavior by later reconciling with her (in which case, it basically “resets” the situation, and she can then do the regular 911 call and TRO routine later on). She can try to claim abuse, but that’s hard to make stick since she left the kids with Dad and absconded from Fla. to NYC and isn’t saying she was abused.
i can’t fathom why her husband would want to let her back in the house, really, after this Excellent Adventure on her part. Although sentimental things might still be affecting him, Game principles, applied psychology and facts about oxytocin tell me any bond she had with her husband is long gone, and microbiology 101 tells me she’s about as desirable as potato salad that’s been sitting out on the kitchen table for a day…or two. “Free love” ain’t what it apparently was back in 1968.
Can’t help but wonder how many different diseases she’s been exposed to so far? HPV seems very likely, herpes likely, chlamydia and gonnorhea definitely possible, syphillus maybe, and with alcoholic street people in the camps hepatitis A is a distinct possibility. Some curable, some not. Who wants to welcome a biohazard into their house, eh?
@ slwerner
If my husband was to do that, I’d take him back, provided he didn’t cheat and regretted his actions, but he’d definitely be on “probation”. Maybe I’m naive, but to me, it just seems like she made a stupid mistake and I don’t want to jump to conclusions like Anonymous Reader did without having all the information (besides running away, everything else is just rumors).
[D: She is bragging to the press. This isn’t a case of rumors.]
Chels, just for you, this cheerful digression. Not to worry, the fatality rate for Hep-A is very low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_A
Hepatitis A (formerly known as infectious hepatitis) is an acute infectious disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis A virus (Hep A),[1] an RNA virus, usually spread the fecal-oral route; transmitted person-to-person by ingestion of contaminated food or water or through direct contact with an infectious person.
Transmission
The virus spreads by the fecal-oral route and infections often occur in conditions of poor sanitation and overcrowding.
@TFH
This is actually the norm. Even when women get the house and clean out/destroy the ex husband it ultimately tends to work out very badly for them. This is why the “real life” divorce fantasy stories have to be fudged so much (EPL, Stella, even Lorraine Berry). If it really worked as advertised, they would be trumpeting the real deal. Even if it seems to work upfront, their low level of self control and future time orientation means very bad news in retirement. Also, feminists don’t mind if they have to feed one of their own to the monster from time to time under the pretense of being fair. What, 1 million men lost their children? Well look at that one woman over there who had the same thing happen to her. This proves the system is fair!
@Chels
I know you mean well. But any society that considers a “mistake” to betray your vows is bound to fail. If any person that is merely considering to run away from the commitment they made in front of their family and loved ones when an “adventure” shows up, will consider the fact that there is a chance of being forgiven and that the family they left is going to wait for them intact will be something weighting in the pro side. How many times people stop themselves to do something wrong if they know they can go back to their old lives with little annoyance? Humans are morally lazy, give them no consequences for their actions and they will shoot each other for a pair of shoe.
A couple of this overgrown children stories being out with the ending of her not able to take her husband and her children hating her would do a lot more good than any forgiveness and embracing will ever do for our society, YMMV, as usual.
This is how she describes herself, so that she went to this protest is nothing surprising:
And apparently, her family supports her.:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/protesting_zucc.php
Just had a read about Hessler.
Woman’s a nutter. A perpetual female Peter Pan it would seem.
Selfish and deluded. Does not give a hoot about her family.
Perfect opportunity for her husband to kick her puerile and sorry ass to the curb.
Chels, thanks for the link to the villagevoice blog. Fascinating.
Now I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a gardener hanging out in OWS who’s a secret millionaire.
@Anacaona: It is known as moral hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
@Anacaona
It reminds me of the Eminem song Guilty Conscience:
@RL
Thanks! This a great link to try and explain why “forgiveness” most be done in moderation. Again personally I’m not a forgiving person because I had seen few examples were the forgiven goes all Jean Valjean in life after the fact…Is not impossible just very rare. I do have 10% cynicism after all. 😉
Chels – “And apparently, her family supports her”
I’ve seen these claims, and I have to say that I’m skeptical. This is the word of a highly biased third party who does not know the family and is simply repeating (she claims) that this is what Stacy has been telling people.
But, use your common sense. She’s left her banker husband to protest the banking industry, she’s shacked up with another man (like anyone but you questions whether we can assume she is having sex with him), and she says she does not plan on going home. If her family is behind her on this, why haven’t they been interviewed by the pro-OWS press?
Seems like the press is just trying to do some damage control after the initial story, in which she admits to having abandoned her family, with no intentions of returning.
And, for her part, it seems to me that just like the fantasy’s in pop-culture, Hessler simply likes to believe that her family is somehow behind her – her children have probably not yet started to cuss her out in their phone conversations (none of which are indicated to be with her husband, BTW) in the hopes that by being nice, she’ll consider coming home. [she called her youngest daughter for a couple of minutes on the girls birthday – how touching!]
Cheating on a spouse is bad enough, yet might be forgiven. Physically abandoning not only a spouse but children as well is pretty much checking out of the marriage entirely. There’s little how of repairing such situations under the best of circumstances – let alone a situation in which one spouse goes the extra step of rejecting the others career (the one that paid for all her other BS, BTW). If there is love, spouses tend to identify with and stand behind one another – including career choices. I doubt there’s been any love in the Hessler marriage for quite some time.
If this guy is truly behind her on this (I’ll buy it when I hear it from him, and only him), then he is a prime candidate for “loser-beta of the year”.
And apparently, her family supports her:
Well, y’know, could be her husband has been doing the Backdoor, er, I mean Upstairs Maid for a couple of years already and doesn’t care. Or maybe he’s just an Omega Herb.
Kids are likely to be disasters down the road. Sigh…
Also, the film producers during a “focus group” will change her boyfriend’s name from Sven to Fernando.
I already have the first draft of the script.
Stacy was a free spirit since college she meets her free spirited husband he promised to be always like this, cue to 20 years later the husband has sold out to the bank world and she had been forced into the same role but she never forgot her ideals. The Occupy Wall Street movement reminds her of who she was and she BEGS her husband to come with her, he refuses possibly slapping her, she try to take the kids but he threatens her with the police and she leaves heartbroken to do the right thing. She meets Fernando who is exactly the way her husband was in college, she resist the temptation for a while but after a nasty call from her husband she has sex with him and is wonderful she feel really guilty about her husband but all looks like the marriage is broken anyway and Fernando is everything her husband is not. The end could be whether her husband coming to his senses and going with her to the Occupy WS with her children while Fernando just looks longingly knowing that it can’t be no more or the husband is arrested for child abuse the kids go with mom and welcome her new father singing Kumbaya.
Stacy will be played by Rachel Weisz, the husband Jason Alexander and Fernando, Olivier Martinez.
Thanks Chels for the Village Voice link. I’ve added an edit to the original post with that link, and a clarification that the original NY Post story says she claims she isn’t romantically involved with the waiter.
“the original post story says she claims she isn’t romantically involved with the waiter.”
I’ll bet her new friend (in New York) Lauren Napoli will be happy to vouch for her not being romantically involved (BTW, not being romantically involved, given today’s hook-up culture, might just mean that they limit it to being night-time “f*ck-buddies”).
But seriously, how long can two people sleep together, cuddling to keep warm before it turns sexual?
And, Stacey Hessler has been taking a good beating in the press. Odd that “fully-behind-her”, and ‘not-concerned-that-shes-sleeping-with-another-man” Curtiss Hessler hasn’t called a news conference to make clear his support of his wife, don’t ya think? Given that it’s now well known who he is, where he lives, and where he works, it’s hard to believe that some enterprising journalist hasn’t approached him for a comment. I’m sure Curtiss would be happy to set the record straight.
So, why haven’t the pro-OWS press given us his side of the story, given that as new-friend Napoli tells us, he fully supports what crazy Stacey is doing?
I’ve added an edit to the original post with that link, and a clarification that the original NY Post story says she claims she isn’t romantically involved with the waiter.
Well, sure, for some definition of “romantically involved”, or “is”, or one of those other words. Could be true, if she’s met that gardener who is secretly a millionaire…
@slwerner says:
The phrase is rather vague, isn’t it? Either way she still attached herself to a man, which was what struck me as downright patriarchal about the story.
You have to love the fact that the waiter’s name is “Rami” too…
Update from Susan’s blog:
“A thousand thanks. Here is how I see the fight against feminism – I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Ending the feminist agenda will require turning the tide with male politicians, who have done a lot to support the feminist ideology. That means producing a clear and vocal majority clamoring for change. This cannot be done without women – it’s mathematically impossible.
Also, if women perceive feminism as getting in the way of their own goals, I.e., sluts are preventing me from getting a boyfriend, then they will speak out against feminism. Ultimately, female intrasexual competition is the key, because women are very invested in the outcome.
MRAs hate the idea of making women allies, but they can’t do it without us. That’s my assessment of the situation.”
You got a problem with that, I got a problem with you.
Cross posted from 80/20 thread.
I wonder if she ran this idea past her family, or even just her husband, before she ran off on her little adventure. Or did the poor beta come home to find her packing a suitcase and printing out a bus ticket? “Honeypie, I’m off to occupy Wall Street. Don’t bother making enough dinner for me.”
How did that conversation go? Or did she just take off without mentioning it, maybe leaving behind a letter? Did she seek her husband’s opinion, or even try to assuage his inevitable feelings of abandonment before she took off?
Something tells me this flower child avoided the awkward conversation rather than, y’know, actually DO anything to take someone else’s feelings into account. Freakin’ hippies don’t care about fixing anything, just about avoiding any unfuzzy feelings.
@ Dalrock
I’m not defending her, what she did was wrong, but I’m just really hoping for the best.
@ Desiderius
Can we please not turn this topic into another “Bash Susan Walsh” thread? It’s old already, get over it, just agree to disagree and move on.
“Its old already, get over it.”
If only those blacks in Mississippi would have just gotten over it, I’d still feel comfortable at the water fountain and the bus. 😦
Chels – “I’m not defending her”
Perhaps not directly, but you did seem to buy, unquestioningly, into the word of a woman who’s only known her since she arrived in New York claiming that her family was behind her in her relocation to NY to protest and live with another man.
I just found it odd.
And, we don’t really know what’s “best” in their situation. Perhaps “best” is for the husband that she doesn’t seem to love or respect to realize once-and-for-all that there is no saving their marriage. As she herself admits, “He says he’s working for ‘the Man,’ and I’m fighting against him” – sounds to me that she is completely rejecting Curtiss in no small part due to what he does for a living, and to provide for the children she seems to have little concern for. Not the kind of stuff that can be easily resolved, even without her taking up with another man.
This may be the best opportunity Curtiss will ever have to be rid of her, while retaining custody of his children, and with the least amount of financial cost to his family and he.
Sorry, Chels, but I just don’t see it “best” to take back a wayward wife who’s humiliated and rejected you publicly, romantic fantasies of “happily ever-afters” not withstanding.
You have to love the fact that the waiter’s name is “Rami” too…
I laughed.
I hope husband has a wise friend whispering in his ear: open a new bank account, put your money in it, only leave enough in the joint checking for her to be able to buy toothpaste and sunflower seeds. Then file for a restraining order. Her instability, and the likelihood that she’s contracted some communicable disease should be enough to keep her out of the house. He might not get it, but I’d file on her anyway.
“Can we please not turn this topic into another “Bash Susan Walsh” thread? It’s old already, get over it, just agree to disagree and move on.”
I fail to see where the bashers have a leg to stand on, given this clarification of her position. That position has not been nearly so clear or the stakes/strategy so bluntly put before.
Chels, maybe you would indeed take your husband back if he pulled a stunt like this. That has nothing to do with what Curtiss should do. The reason is simple, and subtle, and yet obvious:
Men and women are different. Not just in reproductive plumbing, but in brain structure, in thinking patterns, and in emotional patterns. There’s no question in my mind but that this woman has severed all emotional ties with her husband in Florida. The marriage is over. She is no longer loyal to him, and either is or soon will be loyal to another man in the OWS shanty town. Women are not equipped emotionally to have divided loyalties, you are loyal to one man or another man. Serial monogamy is not the same thing as polyandry, and frankly outside of a few cultural flash-in-the-pan events such as hippie communes in the 60’s, real polyandry just doesn’t happen.
And my remarks about disease were not in jest. HPV doesn’t just cause cancer of the female reproductive system, it is also a cause of tumors in the head and neck. We are just now starting to see the leading edge of a wedge of unknown size: men with, say, tonsil cancer resulting from an HPV infection they contracted from a woman by performing orally on her. Probably it won’t ever be too common, but there really are few options for someone with such a tumor and none of them are good.
Curtiss would be inviting physical harm to himself to welcome his now ex-wife back to his bed. Count on that.
Well, lets hope he refuses to take her back and she loses out in the ensuing divorce. Reality might not be that good, but this does seem a pretty clear cut case of spousal abandonment provided they don’t actually reconcile in the meantime.
Not to mention she has probably caught something communicable at this “protest”.
Is anybody really surprised that typical gender roles assert themselves? The same was true of the “egalitarian” Israeli Kibbutuz.
Jason
“Sorry, Chels, but I just don’t see it “best” to take back a wayward wife who’s humiliated and rejected you publicly…”
In regards to a woman’s bad relationship decisions and when to dump them?
One ping, Vasily, one ping.
Is anybody really surprised that typical gender roles assert themselves? The same was true of the “egalitarian” Israeli Kibbutuz.
When the saber toothed tiger is at the mouth of the cave, teh wimmenz suddenly stop being all strong, smart, and independent and demand that men “do something, now”. OWS is in a very big city, and to a lot of urban denizens all those people look like free lunch one way or another. The same is true of the other Occupy Wherevers.
It’s enough to make one believe in that notion that evolution has differentiated men and women at the genetic level in more than just “innie” vs. “outie” plumbing.
I’ll bet on no evidence whatsoever that: A. This chick is not only banging the waiter, some third world type, but also a bunch of other dudes at OWS; B. her kids are being tormented “You’re mom’s a slut” because that’s how kids are (the boys particularly will get it, but so will the girls); C. She’s staring divorce in the face — she’s basically at all-day/night weed-sex orgy, unfit for marriage. Even the most beta guy can do better with porn.
But the wider issue is how this affects most women. A guy considering marriage, will look at this, and how its celebrated by women, and figure marriage is a bad deal. Better to co-habitate, or even just date a lot, because marriage runs a not inconsiderable risk of the wife running off to screw third world waiters when she’s bored. [She’s not that hot, she’s not aging well, the quality of men around her is going to decline rapidly, given that she seems a woman entirely dependent on looks and has nothing else going for her literally.]
Her hubby is not going to find another woman. He’s famous for being less than some third world waiter, by his own wife who (maybe) bore him four kids. That right there says pretty much any guy is preferable. But there’s always porn. Being a beta provider is worthless, even more so a father, in the sexual marketplace. He MIGHT spend time/money studying PUA, but that’s stretching it with four kids. Most likely a long, porn-filled slog and a lesson for every man and boy around him. Don’t, Don’t EVER, DON’T EVER! be beta. Or get married.
And, we don’t really know what’s “best” in their situation. Perhaps “best” is for the husband that she doesn’t seem to love or respect to realize once-and-for-all that there is no saving their marriage. As she herself admits, “He says he’s working for ‘the Man,’ and I’m fighting against him” – sounds to me that she is completely rejecting Curtiss in no small part due to what he does for a living, and to provide for the children she seems to have little concern for. Not the kind of stuff that can be easily resolved, even without her taking up with another man.
Agree.
TFH when a woman abandons her family she is just gone. FC isn’t going to have her pay a dime. She gets a life reset. A man cannot do that he still has to keep paying for his family. This woman in NYC won’t be required to do a damn thing. One mistake that guy in florida can do is take her back or not get legal paper in on this. She can show back up a year or two from now to get her kids and ask for CS and get it no questions asked. That is the norm for these type of things. I worked with a guy that had this happen to them. When the money runs out just go and get your meal tickets.
From Desiderius
MRAs hate the idea of making women allies, but they can’t do it without us. That’s my assessment of the situation.”
MRA’s hate niave young mra’s and mangina’s making women allies. Women will always work in what they think is in their own selfish interest. Women will work to dchange the law but it sure as hell will not be as allies of MRA’s, any man,their children or even for the good of society in general period. As soon as men and the so called women against feminism understand that, things will get interesting real quick.
When I was counseling divorced men, 1984 to 1993, I got two calls from men with the same problem. So, I will write as if they were one tale. They came home from work, and found the “goodbye idiot” note, pick up the kids, I am gone.
They did not call me for advice.
They buckled down and took care of their kids, as men will do.
They did not get a temporary custody order, nor did they call me for advice.
After a few months, when Butch the Biker tired of her and dumped her, she called home, telling him how sorry she was that she had treated him so badly, that he was the best thing that ever happened to her, and she wanted to come home and be a good wife to him. But, um, send money to Kansas for a bus ticket.
He did not call me for advice. He sent the money, and took her back.
After six months of marital bliss, she filed for divorce. He did not call me for advice.
She got the house; the car; the kids; child support; property settlement; and probably alimony.
Once the ruling was final, then he calls me for advice. There was nothing we could do. You can be sure the idiot told all his friends that big mouthed father’s activist couldn’t do anything for him.
We call this female maneuver: Stopping By Home To Pick Up A Few Things.
I contemplated this issue. I realized it was probably not correct to tell a man not to take back the mother of his children, even though this is the correct action for the Cuckolded.
I decided if asked, I’d tell them, to tell her she could come back, but she had to pay her own bus ticket.
When she got back, she had to get a job; live alone; no dating, and perhaps an occasional visit with his kids, for the same time she was gone, or two years whichever was longer, and then if she met all the conditions he would take her back.
but, of course he would get an emergency temporary custody order first.
Anonymous age 69
@Anonymous age 69,
Hard to argue with that advice. If the wife is really serious about making it work like she claims to be, then she has to demonstrate genuine repentance and a willingness to actually make it work out. To be honest, the same advice would apply to a man who behaved in a similar fashion (although possibly not with Butch the Biker!!).
You also left out, get tested for STD’s and know in no uncertain terms that any breach of the conditions was an automatic deal breaker and that if she wanted back she could expect to be on an extremely short leash for the rest of their lives together. Which again, would be the same suggestion to a wife taking the husband back.
You can have a second chance if you want, and I can forgive you, but don’t expect me to trust you in the same way as you violated that.
As the saying goes, you might be able to forgive someone for abusing your kids, but forgiving them doens’t mean letting them baby sit your children again. People forget that about forgiveness.
Jason
(Conservative) Women will talk about how nice and responsible the MRA’s are…
but will never put their daughters in touch with them,
or demand that men get paid twice as much as women so that men can pay for a family on a single income.
@greyghost,
I think your thinking about an alliance with women to change the laws is mistaken. Or at least incomplete.
After all, I think you are right that in general MRA’s (Men’s Rights Advocated? I _really_ need a glossary, so I am assuming I get the gist of the acronym, maybe this is misguided, and then apologies) do not want to get into strategic alliances with women, at least not until the women actually understand why they MRA’s are upset and see their point of view (which may be never), but there is nothing wrong with a tactical alliance with women to get things done.
Think about the alliance between the Soviet Union and the West in WW2. Nobody really wanted to be in bed with “Uncle Joe” but it was a necessary temporay alliance to get a bigger issue settled.
Jason
I’ve known a half dozen guys who came home to note on the table and wifey was off on her great adventure…5 Joe-the-love-sponges, and 1 butch-the-bull-dike. In every case the guys played it right…all logic, no emotion. They immediately emptied the bank accounts, canceled all credit cards, changed the locks, and filed petitions of abandonment. In 2 cases they moved and did not give forwarding addresses. In every case, wifey reconsidered about 18 months later and (God bless them), NONE of them took her back! All told the kids what a skank whore their mother is! All have moved on, some married again, some not, ALL could not be happier. 3 kept track of the whore through the kids and it has not ended well for the adventure-tramps. One is dead, one has had the 4th failed shack-up situation, one now gives 5 dollar “monica’s” at the bus station to support a heroin habit.
If there was a service where potential beta victims could hire an alpha to sweep the wife off her feet and spirit her away so he (beta) could swiftly move and block her divorce-theft…hummm, perhaps an online service? The PUA’s could pile drive her until Mr beta took care of things, then alpha would pump-n-dump and collect his fee. Whore/tramp would still be in the gina-tingle afterglow, pining for the alpha while Mr beta is high fiving his buds over beers laughing about the one that got away…wink!
I’ve sure a Susan W type could be hornswaggled into developing a profile for moist panty inducing male archtypes; an enterprising person would then recruit these guys to be placed on-line. All Mr beta would have to do is organize the meet…kitchen remodel, lawn service, whatever.
@ Desiderius
Men built civilization. We didn’t need the women’s help then, we don’t need it now. Combine this with greyghost’s reply and there is your answer. Understand? If not, again Susan Walsh is a part of the problem not the solution.
Does it makes me a terribly person to find Buck’s idea very funny?
I don’t think it would work as business model though a Beta would need to be really really feed up with his wife to hire the services of an Alpha guy to get her to leave.
I do think it could work as a reality show though. The wife that doesn’t go with the Alpha wins a million dollars the ones that do win humiliation in national TV.
Joshua,
“Men built civilization.”
You know who agrees with you on that nonsense (who the fuck do you think raised those men, Einstein)? Radical feminists. That’s why they’re tearing this civilization limb from limb. Why don’t you just get a room and get it over with.
“greyghost’s reply and there is your answer. Understand?”
I understand that greyghost didn’t even read what Susan said before mailing in his reply like a Marcotte wannabe. Who’s the mangina here again?
@ Jason
An MRA that has spent any amount of time studying women and has made a serious attempt to learn the concept of game knows you do not directly ally with women. Women do not care about any thing but themselves. Women will always do what they think is in their selfish interest including rid themselves of their own children. No matter how much pain and death is caused by the actions and votes of women on others including themselves they will always stand for even hysterically at times what they think is in their own interest. This is normal for a woman. It is a normal part of natural normal (it is normal) hypergamy. This is the essense of “game” and why it is so effective. MGTOW types down play game understandably but indirectly apply a technique to direct female selfish behavior that will coincidentally benefit society. (Think about what i said there,and I meant what I said. Women do not do a damn thing that will benefit society they do what they think benefits themselves.) At the current time the only reason women are even thinking about what is going on with men is because what is happening with men is affecting them and there desire for a LTR or marriage to a man they want (hypergamy 101).
Everything abart feminism from family law,popular culture,abortion,DV laws all of it is there to remove any and all checks on savage hypergamy. The latest move is to remove the social stigma of the term slut.Even the fat is beautiful or “40 is the new 20” is there to change views on physical appearance and child bearing ideals (another check on hypergamy)
Dalrocks blog is a check on hypergamy. He is using data to show women it is not in their best interest to live feral lives with unchecked hypergamy. (one thing he talks about is the selling of divorce)
Think game Jason. Think about a woman, knowing what you know now voting to repeal VAWA or actually cheering when a woman gets the hell beat out of her for assulting a man. Hint: It sure as hell won’t be from any sense of fairness or justice that is damn sure.
Hopefully this explains why woman are not, can not, and will never be direct allies of the MRM not for reasons one would think.
Desiderius
Yeah that greyghost is a trolling dipshit. I’m going to see if I can get Dalrock to moderate that guy.
In all seriousness I feel you are mistaken on the subjuect and should check out my previous comment in reply to Jason.
Men built civilization. We didn’t need the women’s help then, we don’t need it now.
The ironic thing is that at least a few of the most prominent MRAs don’t subscribe to this idea. Paul Elam got angry a while back when a bunch of redditors (I assume you were one of them, but I may be wrong, excuse me if I am) downvoted a post on Patricia Overberg’s death (she was an advocate for male DV victims). He also banned a guy recently for badmouthing Izzey, a female contributor to AVFM. Total mangina, right? Looking at The Spearhead, I also see “Female Masculinist” and “Hestia” on the contributor blogroll. Guess another MRM stronghold has succumbed to misandry.
That said, Desiderius, about the whole ‘raising/incubating’ thing, I get the distinct feeling that Joshua is one of those guys holding out for artificial wombs and nanny/sex robots to live in a glorious woman-free utopia. I’m not even going to argue with that, just say that of all the MRM’s foes, Susan Walsh and her “finishing school hos” are pretty small time. If you really want your final victory in the gender wars, rather than wasting time on Ms. Walsh you’d be much better off researching genetics, obstetrics, or some other field relating to childbirth to help advance “civilization” to the point where you’ll never have to see another evil, selfish, hypergamous woman again. Or if you can’t do that, at least donate some money to a transhumanist organization or something.
@greyghost,
I can see the point you are making and I have met women (not as bad as you paint but still generally quite selfish, plus I have seen the way feminists behave) like that, but I also know women who are not as you describe at all.
Of course they haven’t drunk (or not drunk nearly as deeply) of the feminsts Kool-Aid, and so are less poisoned by it as a result.
I think the observation that many women go along with what they think is in their interests and fail to understand the false bill of goods they are being sold is correct, but it isn’t all women. Of course my counter examples are all very Godly Christian Women I know, so they are probably at least in part corner cases.
Jason
Chels, how exactly is this a good mom? ….
When was the last time a GOOD MOM, leaves her wife & kids for a protest, & a bartender ….
& how exactly is she going wake up from all the empowered sex from the bartender, & alpha males paying her attention in the protest?
Also why should a family accept back somebody who sleeps with a bartender & abandons them effectively for no reason ?
Why should a family accept anyone so undependable & vacous?
especially somebody whos supposed to be the parent of a family …
Are you that morally corrupt, to even try & excuse her disgusting behaviour as some sort of ridiculous theoretical female empowering garbage ….
Get your facts straight, chels, your comments are a disgrace, & an insult to families in general
I still find the story of nugganu’s friend to be unusual. A woman actually suffering the consequences of her actions
I actually know of two wives who suffered the consequences of such actions. It’s uncommon, but not unheard of so long as the man stays on his game legally and strategically and holds his ground.
Btw as for not bashing Susan Walsh, the backlash against her is just beginning
She sold out to a renowned male hating feminist, Amanda Marcotte in an article on a site run by a mainstream man hating congolomerate like Clear Channel
Check out her comments sucking up to Amanda Marcotte
the article itself consists of commentary like this …
“anti-feminist rants from men abounded. Naturally, Marcotte supporters were in the minority.”
Naturally? Erm she obviously means unnaturally ….
& this hate filled suggestion,
“As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?:
“You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”
This is WHY theres a backlash against susan walsh & her website, shes now stooping to shilling for feminists
Btw this isnt meant to be an attack on susan walsh, just pointing out the facts
Does she think she can get away with posting an article containing paragraph such as below, with NO backlash from the MRA movement or manosphere ???
“As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?: “You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”
” A woman who nurtures a family is equally as valuable as a woman who runs a company as CEO (even more so, given the track records of some high profile female CEOs).”
& the most laughable ….
“It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that feminism has helped men in important ways: It’s reduced the financial burden of men; it’s allowed men the option to be stay-at-home dads and thus nurture their relationships with their children; it’s allowed men to look at women as their equal partners. Many men rejoice in these gains, and they must not lose sight of them.”
“It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that feminism has helped men in important ways: It’s reduced the financial burden of men; it’s allowed men the option to be stay-at-home dads and thus nurture their relationships with their children; it’s allowed men to look at women as their equal partners. Many men rejoice in these gains, and they must not lose sight of them.”
Did Susan write that? Wow. I’d need to see it in context.
That said, I’ve never perceived Susan Walsh as a MRA activist or even a MRA sympathizer. In fact, I always kind of figured she was a feminist, just one of the rare ones who is self-aware, has a grasp of human nature, and is intellectually honest. Kind of like Camille Paglia in that sense.
In fairness, the only stuff I’ve ever read of hers was the stuff Dalrock has linked to. Could you provide a link to the article you’ve excerpted from, rmax?
Terri, I looked it up, apparently the quote about feminism comes from this article:
http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/culturefashion/kinky-stuff/feminism-the-winter-of-men%E2%80%99s-discontent/
I don’t think it’s a quote from Ms. Walsh herself.
I’ve never seen anything about “Hooking Up, Smartly” or “more kissing, less banging” as having anything even remotely related to the issues that MRAs are attempting to call attention to – like unfair family courts, false rape accusations, the anti-male bias of the educational systems and the MRM, and how Affirmative Action for women distorts the self-regulating features of the labor market. The question of how to raise the price that women can get away with charging for sex seems like far more of a socon question.
There is no point in making her the scapegoat du jour. The Gender War is full of one hit wonders whose names no one can remember 3 years down the line. There is nothing she has done which merits the credit she is trying to claim for herself or the criticism she is drawing,
She has said repeatedly that she is grateful for the “opportunities” that feminism provided her and seems to have a generally positive opinion of it. However, the “opportunity” to put her many years of expensive education on hold and be supported by her husband in the role of SAHM did not come from feminism. If it came from anywhere, it came from the dreaded old “Patriarchy.”
My prediction is that future generations of women will not have that particular opportunity available to many of them.
What she is trying to accomplish is in no way motivated by any concern for men and their situation, but seems to be purely motivated by helping women. There is nothing wrong with that because nothing that she talks about is of much concern to men other than socons.
I think most guys who have been involved with Men’s Rights for very long don’t see her as either an enemy or an ally – but someone largely irrelevant pursuing her own agenda which does not affect theirs much if at all.
When feminism starts to harm women enough, they will get involved in fighting it. Susan strikes me as a woman who wants to hold on to all the gains feminism has won for women, but has added up the check which has been being rung up and wants to get women out before that check comes due.
My guess is that 3-5 years hence she will never have been involved with accomplishing anything, and few people will remember her name.
I suggest that people not waste their time making much ado about nothing – either pro or con.
From reading her website, Susan Walsh is somewhere in the middle; she’s not an MRA, but she’s not a traditionalist either and she’s definitely not a feminist. She does pick on women who engage in bad behavior, but then she doesn’t believe all women are bad either (something some of you take issue with, I see).
I actually like Walsh’s blog a lot, she’s a voice of reason between all the traditionalists/conservatives and the women-haters.
And back on topic, what Hessler did is not what right, but I do believe that everyone deserves a second chance IF they honestly regret what they’ve done, if it was a temporary mental blip and if she’s serious about her role as a wife and a mother.
Chels
And back on topic, what Hessler did is not what right, but I do believe that everyone deserves a second chance IF they honestly regret what they’ve done, if it was a temporary mental blip and if she’s serious about her role as a wife and a mother.
Chels, you do not understand female psychology. None of us can know what the cause of Hessler’s behavior is, although hypergamy suggests that she irrationally saw the young men with no shirts on displayed on TV & they displayed higher SMV to her than her husband. But she’s been in the OWS shanty town for how long, now? This is way beyond slumming for a day.
This is betrayal. Are you arguing that women should have the right to betray their vows at any time, for any reason, and pay no price for that betrayal? Does that make any sense at all?
Again: for her husband to accept her back in his bed would invite physical harm to him. So you want her husband to be physically harmed, if it gives her another shot at betraying him down the road, it seems to me. Is that what you mean? Or am I reading too much between the lines?
everyone deserves a second chance IF they honestly regret what they’ve done
Would you give the same “second chance” to a man who abandoned his family? Your own husband, if you were to get married only to have him abandon you later on?
If so, good for you, I can at least acknowledge your intellectual consistency. If not, however, I believe you may unfortunately be letting Mr. Hamster get the best of you.
Or am I reading too much between the lines?
You’re reading too much between the lines; I definitely do not want her husband to be harmed and I’m definitely not arguing that women should have the right to betray their vows.
What I am arguing, however, is that perhaps this woman does deserve a second chance if she comes to the realization that what she’s done is wrong, if she regrets it, if she changes her attitude and if she can gain back her husband’s trust. If so, is it really best for her family to break up? Is it best for the kids to grow up without a mother? Personally, I don’t believe it is.
Would you give the same “second chance” to a man who abandoned his family? Your own husband, if you were to get married only to have him abandon you later on?
I already said I would:
____
Chels says:
October 24, 2011 at 6:25 pm
@ slwerner
If my husband was to do that, I’d take him back, provided he didn’t cheat and regretted his actions, but he’d definitely be on “probation”.
Well, that’s good, then. That said, do you believe this woman should be on “probation?” as well? I mean, she should at least get checked out for STDs and stuff before her husband were to take her back no matter how contrite she was.
And this is all hypothetical anyways, there’s absolutely zero evidence that she feels the least bit sorry anyways. While I suppose I can understand where you’re coming from, IMO it’s a waste to spend even a little bit of time on any sympathy for this woman whatsoever. It doesn’t seem like she wants or deserves a “second chance.”
Chels
What I am arguing, however, is that perhaps this woman does deserve a second chance if she comes to the realization that what she’s done is wrong, if she regrets it, if she changes her attitude and if she can gain back her husband’s trust.
Part of regaining trust IMO would require an extensive battery of medical testing for a variety of diseases and a full course of treatment for those diseases, followed by more testing to verify if a cure has been achieved or not. That could be expensive. Of course, you’d expect her husband to pay for all of that, because she’s so valuable, right? Suppose she did not have genital herpes before, but has it now (cheaters of both sexes do bring things like that home), that means treatment for the rest of her life, and it also has some implications for their sex life. Should that bother him in any way?
Suppose that she says that she realizes she’s done wrong, says she regrets it, says she’s had a change of attitude, he takes her back, and a year or two down the line she decides she’s really not haaaapy, and hits him with a divorce filing out of the blue, demanding custody of the children and half of all assets as is her due under the laws of marriage 2.0. In that case he would have to spend tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how much he wanted to contest the divorce (he would likely wind up paying for both his lawyer adn hers, as required by law) if he wanted to have any connection with his children at all. If her attorney convinced her to slap the husband with a false Domestic Violence accusation, he might have to spend some time in jail, and more money on defending against that. Eventually she would probably wind up with the house and joint custody of the children plus a monthly payment. Then she could invite some of her new friends from OWS to drop by and visit; if they showed up, the children would be at greater risk of various forms of abuse at the hands of her “boyfriends”, statistically. Because due to the way female pair-bonding works, if he took her back there would be a definiite risk of this happening. You are asking him to take all these risks; why should he do so? What’s the potential reward that is so great it’s worth risking his financial and mental health, and the mental and physical health of his children for?
I’m trying to help you walk through the full extent of what you are saying. A middle aged man with children is not going to see this woman’s betrayal the same way an unmarried woman in her 20’s will. But you are asking a middle aged man with children to take her back, so maybe that perspective has some value and should be considered, eh?
@TFH
“Wait, she DIDN’T get the house and kids?
I thought she always gets it all, which was what FC was all about.
Why did she leave if she was not getting the money on a ‘no fault’ basis (which is why diivorces were low pre-1968)”
Nope – for 2 full years she was running around, partying, and riding loads of cocks. She was too busy getting wasted, and, more importantly – too busy being extremely vindictive to think it through properly. Then she got desperate for money. He offered her $50 grand settlement or thereabouts, and she accepted it.
I think also too, she met a fella with some money. But then he dumped her, hence her attempt to get back with her husband. She figured the new woman in his life wouldn’t last, but she soon discovered they were engaged. They just got married in August, so she was S.O.L., given that she already signed the agreement for 50 grand, which was more than generous, given she never worked.
Game over. The court views it as abandonment of her children, and her sons want little to do with her now; they elected to stay with their dad.
I recall how much she used to yell at and degrade him in front of her kids, so I have no sympathy for her.
In nature, stupidity is a capital crime – the judgment is absolutely impartial, the sentence is carried out immediately, and there is no appeal.
– Robert Heinlein, paraphrased.
@TFH – I also have to add that when she moved out, she started waitressing and became involved with some pretty scummy people, and didn’t have a good enough apartment to have the kids there for any meaningful access. They soon tired of visiting her and having to hang around scummy bars. They’re essentially teenagers now and often joked out loud in front of everyone about the types of men their mother was hanging around with. This is really looked down upon in our courts these days.
After 3 years of running around partying, disappearing for months on end with various different men, and ignoring her children’s needs, she essentially shot herself in the foot. I also know of one other woman who lost custody of one of her children – because of impaired driving with her child in the car. So things are starting to look up, albeit, the woman has to really, really f*ck up to lose custody.
In my first example, she was simply so consumed with being vindictive that she did not plan her course well, meanwhile he was plotting, getting prepared, and I assume had loads of evidence on her. She was simply too stupid to realise that she was irrevocably damaging her case with this behaviour.
Not to mention ostracizing her boys.
If your definition of “mother” is “female body slightly above room temperature”, then perhaps you are right.
But, other people may disagree and believe that a woman who describes herself as –
•”Hippie homemaker”
•”Self-described ‘vegan freak’”
•”Into dreadlocks, roller derby and ‘unschooling’ her kids”
•”Acts like a self-obsessed college sophomore”
•”Middle-aged flower child”
•Boasted of “California-style beliefs.”
– may end up doing those children more harm than good.
And, please, WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN here?!!?!?! 😈
@Chels:
Want to congratulate you on slowly coming around. 🙂 You’ve improved so much! (That’s not just random pandering, you’ve been slowly making major progress at this type of analysis and should be encouraged to continue)
On the tramp in question, while a lot of us can still appreciate “hoping someone gets their life back together”, she’s shown a pattern of making a massively horrible decision and sticking to it. While their can be reconciliation, it pretty much will come after a divorce. Abandonment can’t be taken lightly. Especially given the circumstances. She’s a 38 year old acting like a child. Yes, children deserve to have their mother around unless there is a major problem/danger (they *do* have better lives) but she’s created her own major problem, which is now her husband and children’s. They simply have to protect themselves, which means removing her from the picture.
One sort of side comment about Affairs. After a bunch of time reading Athol’s work and a few other places, Affairs are one of the most interesting relationship dynamics. A good portion of them that are found, actually don’t end in divorce. The relationship is completely changed (but it was broken before the Affair, anyway), but a new relationship, based on trust oddly enough, can be forged. But that takes an ability to deal with the issues that caused the relationship breakdown. Running off and abandoning the family is a far different issue.
Ah, the price of being a Herb is sometimes very great, indeed. It ’tis a dirty job, but someone has to do it.” I’m glad that Curtiss volunteered.
Chels says:
October 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Chels, you’re not even standing up for men in your own head with this line of thinking.
@hurpadurp
This is doubly true because we also don’t know what the husband has actually said to her. If he really did say “go ahead, I support you”, then this gets very murky, even though she is protesting in a sense him as a banker. I wish I was confident enough in the average american husband to assume that he stood his ground, but I don’t. Additionally, as the article Chels linked to pointed out this woman is a known quantity. She didn’t go from seemingly well adjusted housewife to hippy nutcase overnight here. It seems likely that she has always been this way. If so, the husband willingly married into this kind of disaster.
@nugganu
Hers was an extreme case, but one trait which is standard issue with frivolous divorcees is low impulse control and lack of future time orientation. I’ve heard several stories where ex husbands used this to their advantage. The difficulty would seem to be in how to present such an offer. If you aren’t careful, you will only whet her appetite, and smelling blood in the water she could end up going for everything she can get. However, the latter risk is already on the table, so unless you think she is truly likely to be “reasonable”, not really a risk.
I know of one woman whose ex husband offered to pay her slightly more alimony for a short fixed period of time for example, and she took it. Why shouldn’t she? She just knew she was going to be snapped up by a high status man. Now she lives with an unemployed (SS mental disability) man who is a former mental patient/drug addict, who only survives because his mother pays all of the bills (She owns the house and decides what groceries they get). The guy can’t even get a driver’s license. Oh, and that alimony stopped coming in about a year ago. Good thing too, because the ex husband has a new young wife.
Dalrock
She didn’t go from seemingly well adjusted housewife to hippy nutcase overnight here. It seems likely that she has always been this way. If so, the husband willingly married into this kind of disaster.
This is a valid point. There are men who enjoy having a ‘free spirit” for a wife. Perhaps this guy is one of them.
I stand by my contention that this marriage is over and done with, that she’s no longer loyal to the guy in Florida and is or soon will be loyal to a man in the shantytown on Manhattan. Even if she wanders back down to Florida in a year or so, the marriage is done. Although the ex-husband in this case may not undestand that.
[D: That doesn’t seem unlikely.]
I would also like to add, that I myself spent upward of 12 grand in pursuit of the mother of my child, so that I could take responsibility, and PAY HER support, and get into my child’s life, as she took off and married another fella, before my child was even a year old.
So you see, these feminists are projecting a whole lot of crap when they talk about deadbeat dads. I know more mothers that are deadbeats than fathers.
Modern Marriage: too much of a BAD thing
Dalrock – I believe you are correct – she has a low impulse control – hence why she started jumping on guys dicks she met off facebook. She then promptly left. Once he waived the 50 grand she was off like a shot – I think she did indeed have the money man (who was older) lined up and thought it was in the bag. Like I said, her sons elected to stay with their dad, and given they were now at that age that they could decide that, it was game over. I’m not even sure that she retained counsel – yes, she’s that stupid.
At the same token, even after all that damage she caused, I believe she didn’t want to make him sell the house as she didn’t want to uproot the boys even more, so at least she had that much humility.
The money man dumped her, and last I heard she had blown the 50 grand. Sadly for her, the legal stuff was all wrapped up – she signed away her life. She actually had the gall to ask one of our mutual friends if I was single. Heh. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
Either way, she’s screwed and even admitted as much.
That said, it doesn’t often end badly for these types of women, my ex landed a guy 7 years her junior, 6 months after giving birth to my child. Why he would walk into that, I’ll never know, perhaps he had a lactation fetish.
Dalrock, with all these horror stories, I think its important to emphasize this only applies to one segment of the population. I’d be interested in knowing what collge that woman went to, if any, and what she did for a living – how much money she earned. It seems that the more educated are less likely to self-destruct in this manner.
The woman who took off to OWS, at least to me, shows all the signs of drug abuse, and of course, one or more mental disorders. But I just can’t shake the feeling of the drug abuse.
Right… which itself is also correlated with low IQ and educational achievement. Though, from rereading the article, this woman seems like an educated liberal, so perhaps she is an exception.
Pingback: Business opportunity for PMAFT « Patriactionary
Also, if women perceive feminism as getting in the way of their own goals, I.e., sluts are preventing me from getting a boyfriend, then they will speak out against feminism.”
How do sluts prevent women from getting boyfriends? Most guys want girlfriends, not simply their turn with the neighborhood slut, and that’s assuming they are going to get a turn. It is the girls who either don’t want boyfriends, or rule out some high percentage of guys ab initio from the boyfriend pool and only want alphas as boyfriends. Which, for most girls, amounts to the same thing in practice, as the alphas will not become their boyfriends. Sluts existed long before feminism, and their existence did not prevent most girls from getting boyfriends. Feminism in some forms tells girls to shun boys altogether. That form of it actually makes it easier for the girls who want boyfriends to get them, because it decreases the competition. True, other forms of feminsim promote sluttish behavior, but, again, that only decreases the competition. The more sluts there are, the fewer girlfriend material girls there are for the boys who want girlfriends to choose from.
The premise here is false. I think it goes like this…if a lot of girls act like sluts, the guys won’t bother to look for girlfriends, because of all that slut sex that is out there for them to have without bothering to have a girlfriend. But, in reality, most sluts are mostly screwing alpha guys, not the average guys. Whatever notion one has of the “eighty-twenty” thing, I doubt anyone would claim that the easy, slut sex, hookups are being offered to men equally and across the boards. The research that is relied on claims that there are plenty of male virgins out there. Clearly, they are not getting their “share” of the slut sex. Why wouldn’t these guys want girlfriends? No reason. And, in fact, they do. But, again, it is the girls, including the non slutty ones, who don’t want them. They are the men women don’t see (to shamelessly plagerize James Tiptree!).
On another level, feminism works against BF/GF relationships, but that has nothing to do with sluts. Feminsm teaches girls that they don’t need men. Girls who believe this whole heartedly don’t want boyfriends. But that is not the author’s point. She is clearly concerned with the girls who DO want boyfriends. Well, to repeat, all feminism has done here is decreased the competition for them. With the increase in man haters, LUGs, and sluts (which is the direct or indirect product of feminsm), the pool of GF material girls has never been smaller, on a proportional basis.
A girl who really wants a BF should go out and look for one of the overlooked, beta guys. There are plenty of them out there, more than ever, actually. She hardly needs to take on feminism to get a BF. All she needs to do is burn her bucket list and stop trying to find Prince Charming among the alphas and make believe PUA alphas.
“Ultimately, female intrasexual competition is the key, because women are very invested in the outcome.”
This is just nonsense. Feminism has led to a large decrease in girlfriend material girls, and only a relatively smaller decrease in boyfriend material boys (ie the ones who have been so battered by years of feminist propaganda as to their gender-based inferiority that they have “given up” on girls, and perhaps, life, altogether).
“MRAs hate the idea of making women allies, but they can’t do it without us. That’s my assessment of the situation.”
I think that assessment is wrong. MRAs welcome women allies, but there are so few that are really willing to be allies. Most of them are allies of convenience only, like the author here, who sees the entire issue as one in which the concerns of women are at stake. Notice that she makes no mention of what’s good for men, or what is fair, or even what is good for society as a whole. Nope. The only concern is that girls who want boyfriends should be able to get them. That’s it. Girls want boyfriends. Well then, we had better get started producing guys who they deem wothy of being GF and BF with, hadn’t we? Wouldn’t want a girl to be disappointed, would we? Some of the others are simply trying to have it both ways… they want to be hang on to their female priveleges while at the same time pretend that they are on the side of the oppressed. Others still simply get their jollies by insuating themselves in MRA spaces and then throwing bombs around and stirring the shit. They love to see men square off over them, with some defending them and some attacking. Mostly, I think, they do this not from a conscious motive to hurt the movement, but merely because it makes them feel good to be the center of attention, and to have even so called MRAs act as white knights in their behalf.
Women can be allies, but if they want to be allies they should act like allies. An ally doesn’t try to run the show. An ally does not foster divisions within the movement. An ally really tries to empathize with the folks who started the movement and who are the victims, and to at least attempt to view things from their perspective, not her own. She should genuinely be concerned with the plight of men, not merely say, “yeah, but feminism hurts women too” at every opportunity.
Whether we can “do it without them” is another question. Most social movements that have succeeded have had allies. But, again, the need is for genuine allies. Not self serving ones. Not attention seekers. Not folks who want to take over.
“You got a problem with that, I got a problem with you”
I’m not sure who said this, but is speaks volumes. Confrontational. Divisive. “You’re either with us or against us.” Who needs or wants “allies” like this, or on these terms?
I just read your arguments with Sheila on tolovehonorandvacuum.com and really loved what you have to say. My blog is all about a woman’s role in marriage so I completely agree with you. My question, how do I sign up to receive your blog? I don’t see a GFC button or email. Thanks.
Blessings,
Lori
http://www.lorialexander.blogspot.com
[D: Thanks, and welcome! I’m not familiar with GFC. I know you can set it up in google reader.]
I think i’d like to speak up in defense of @Chel’s, in part because I basically agree with her on this thing, I think.
If the wife in question had a “prodigal son” experience and realised what she had done and came home then I think her husband should at least entertain the idea of taking her back. Marriage vows are vows after all.
Although I agree it seems she has likely broken hers (she might not be sleeping with the guy, but I would be skeptical of that, she does seem to have followed the gina tingles) perhaps the marriage can be reparied. I mean does the guy really want to start over at ~40? I don’t think I would want to either.
Also I don’t think Chel’s is suggesting that the woman be allowed back consequence free in all of this.
As I said above, she should reasonably expect to be kept on a very short leash (metaphorically, but still) for quite some time to come if not the rest of the marriage till one of them snuffs it. If she was serious about earning back her husbands trust and demonstrated genuine repentance (which in part would be shown by agreeing to go along with conditions that are set) then I would suggest he should take her back because that is the right thing to do.
That being said, I doubt she is coming home till she finds herself out of other options and chances are she will want to come back as if she hasn’t done anything wrong. In that case, he should get rid of her while the chance presents itself. Even if he gets a divorce and stuff finalised now they can always remarry later.
Anyway, just some thoughts and a short defense of Chel’s.
Jason
Jason that was the most niave comment I have seen from a man in a while. There is no leash any man can put his wife on. That woman coming home is coming home to collect her half period. Chel’s is making comments and stating opinions in her world with her laws and standards that she lives by. Men don’t live in that world. Based on her world responsibilities and requiements she is right. Based on reality for a man she is just taking care of herself if she finds herself making a choice like that. ( “all women should have a right to choice but I could never abort my baby”)
Nothing will interfere with hypergamy.
Susan Walsh isn’t an MRA. She never claimed to be one. Susan isn’t a religious convservative either. Her website is for young women who have been part of a feminist culture. The attacks against her by some posters are ridiculous.
@greyghost,
I’m not sure he can’t put her on a very short leash. By divorcing her at this point and making sure she signs a very strong pre-nup in a second marriage, he could likely hold her to quite a short leash indeed. That is my guess anyway.
You are right, it is likely if she comes home it will be in an effort to collect “her half”, but as I said, if I was in that situation, she’d have to show genuinie repentance to even get a hearing. Taking her back open arms would be idiotic, hopefully he has more sense than that.
Jason
@Jason
I would say that she already broke her vows her marriage is non-existent. The marriage ceremony is declaring certain intentions and promises in front of witnesses. She has broken those promises in front of witnesses. I know is legally more complicated than that, but any relationship she might have with her spouse would be a new one anyway and he is the one that got abandoned is his call to choose to get the damages good or not as bride all over again. But he is not obligated to be half of a marriage that was already broken, YMMV.
@Buck: ” The PUA’s could pile drive her until Mr beta took care of things, then alpha would pump-n-dump and collect his fee.”
Nice adaptation of the movie ‘My Best Friend’s Girl’: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046163/
@Anacaona,
Oh I would agree. The husband is certainly well within his rights to kick her to the kerb. The marriage has been broken, I guess the only question is whether or not it is able to be repaired.
I don’t know whether or not I would take her back if my wife did that to me, from a biblical point of view (assuming she is involved sexually with the waiter, and frankly given the whole abandonment thing) he is justified in seeking a divorce.
Still, the end of any marriage is a sad thing, as it is a union that isn’t made to come apart.
Jason
Still, the end of any marriage is a sad thing, as it is a union that isn’t made to come apart.
ITA, but I already grieve this marriage. Marriage needs TWO people to keep it going but only ONE to destroy it, sad but true.
Feminism isn’t preventing women from finding boyfriends. Women’s demand that any potential boyfriend be an alpha that meets a 2000 point checklist is what’s keeping them from finding boyfriends.
This is in addition to the unmitigated arrogance of comparing a girl whining about not being able to get a boyfriend with a man who is sitting in jail due to a false rape charge or a man who has had his life destroyed by anti-family courts.
This is exactly what is going on. There are also a lot of aging second wave feminists who are suddenly concerned they won’t get any grandkids pretending to be allies.
I have been around the MRM in various forms since the late 90s when the only MRM sites out there were Zed’s and Rod Van Mechlen’s sites. A constant problem was women who would show up and claim to support us, but would later be exposed as having a completely different agenda. This problem hasn’t stopped. If anything the larger size of the MRM makes it worse. This is a problem we need to be prepared to deal with because the number of women trying to defraud us by pretending to be allies will only increase in the future.
Helen Smith, who I have brought up before, is a good example of a true ally that meets your definition. I brought her up in previous comments, but it’s clear that most anyone complaining that MRAs are chasing away allies wasn’t interested in the existence of an actual ally that has proven herself to be one. We must ask the question why anyone who is complaining the MRM chases away allies is ignoring a proven actual ally in favor a fake ally.
One thing to remember is that “yeah, but feminism hurts women too” becomes “feminism only hurts women” very quickly. There are lots of “anti-feminist” women out there who believe that all men are benefiting from feminism.
@Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech,
You noted that
“There are lots of “anti-feminist” women out there who believe that all men are benefiting from feminism.”
In fairness, If your sample of men you look at consist of PUA’s and the like, then you might rightly conclude that all/lots of men are benifiting from feminism. The reality is obviously different, no question, but the very complaint that girls cant find boyfriends but only guys that want to pump and dump them suggests something about the sample that is being looked at, doesn’t it?
Also it is interesting that when you hear, “yeah, but feminism hurts women too”, that I think in general the people making those claims don’t really understand how it hurts women (or men) and that they don’t understand that many of the “problems” they are witnessing are entirely predictable outcomes of the “advances” that they “won” in the past.
Jason
@ Jason
“If your sample of men you look at consist of PUA’s and the like, then you might rightly conclude that all/lots of men are benifiting from feminism. The reality is obviously different, no question, but the very complaint that girls cant find boyfriends but only guys that want to pump and dump them suggests something about the sample that is being looked at, doesn’t it?”
Yep. Apex fallacy.
then you might rightly conclude that all/lots of men are benifiting from feminism.
A lot of PUAs say this, but they also admit that what’s good for them is bad for society as a whole, or that they just don’t care. The inimitable Roissy states this explicitly:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/spinsterhood-bastard-children-are-our-future/
You want to put in the hard work turning this ship around, be my guest. The sordid status quo benefits me. It would really cramp my style if the pool of attractive young women suddenly dried up from a rush to the altar and the nursery.
(Emphasis Added)
Still, I think there are others who take a more nuanced view of feminism than simple nihilism. As another reliably intelligent commentator ’round here, Novaseeker, pointed out:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/why-wont-these-peter-pan-manboys-man-up-and-marry-aging-flighty-selfish-career-gal-sluts-already/
If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women.
This is not to say he (or I) believe feminism is a “good thing,” but we’re pointing out that it has had some unintended side effects which benefit men, despite the intent of the misandrists. Thanks to feminism, it’s much easier than it used to be for a man to say, “Hey, you grrlz need me like a fish needs a bicycle, right? Cool. I’ll just Go My Own Way, you StrongIndependentWomen (TM) won’t care, after all. Later!”
Chels:
…I do believe that everyone deserves a second chance IF they honestly regret what they’ve done…
We like to say things like that because we want to believe if we ever screw up royally ourselves, that someone will be there to give us a second chance. But it’s kind of like saying you deserve free health care. Even if we aggree on what you deserve, we still have to answer the question, who’s going to provide it?
if you deserve free health care, then some doctor must be obligated to give it to you. But how obligated is he? If you show up and his office and say “give me what I deserve”, what if, say, his own son is sick and he wants to go home to take care of his son? If you really do deserve it, then he’s obligated to stay and take care of you while he own life suffers. If on the other hand, he’s free to say “sorry, I have other priorities right now” then I guess you didn’t really deserve it after all. You can only deserve what someone else is obligated to provide.
So if this woman deserves a second chance, then her husband is obligated to provide it. But what if she turns his stomach now? What if he feels nothing but utter betrayal when he looks at her? What if every time he sees her he thinks of her and some greasy bartender doing it like rabbits under a flapping tarp, neither one of them having bathed for a week? Is he still obligated to take her back?
Or maybe another way to put it is, who deserves something more? Does she deserve a second chance more than her husband deserves to make up his own mind about her betrayal? Maybe since she already made her choice without worrying about him, he deserves to make his choice now without worrying about her.
Not trying to pile on, really just trying to put it in prespective. You’re talking about what she might deserve, the rest of us are concerned with what the rest of her family deserves. Since she’s already walked away from her obligations, nobody else is obligated to give her anything, thus she can’t possible deserve anything, whether she regrets her behavior or not.
The balls in her husband’s court – his choice if he wants her back and under what conditions. No moral obligation on his part to even let her back in the door.
I generally like to think the best of people, but it takes an incredible amount of naivety to believe that Stacey isn’t getting plowed at least once a day. Incredibly close quarters, “out of sight, out of mind”, seeing many others involved in similar behavior (even if the others aren’t cheating themselves), plus in all likelihood at least once form of mind-altering/inhibition-lowering substance (not that hippie chicks have very many inhibitions to lower): All add up to chances of her slipping up (assuming she doesn’t intend to cheat) once virtually guaranteed. If she does it one time, even if it’s just an HJ, all bets are off. One thing leads to another, after just a few days she’s pulling trains. All the best intentions in the world aside, this is the logical conclusion to her getting on that bus and abandoning her family.
So is Chels & her mangina eunuch followers like jason, ever going to address the following?
Also why should a family accept back somebody who sleeps with a bartender & abandons them effectively for no reason ?
Why should a family accept anyone so undependable & vacous?
especially somebody whos supposed to be the parent of a family …
Are you that morally corrupt, to even try & excuse her disgusting behaviour as some sort of ridiculous theoretical female empowering garbage …. ?
Hell chels even tries to call her a good mom …. how utterly devoid of any form of sense of honour are you chels?
What wont you stoop to in your deliberate degeneracy?
As for Susan Walsh she posted & collaborated with a well known man hating feminist, & featured the man hating piece on her site, & proceeded to laud the article & the man hating feminist
no attempt at scapegoating susan walsh, she chose to sell out to a male hating feminist rag, the proofs obviously there for everyone to see
Most Importantly she NEVER calls out any of the man hating portions in the post on her site, ie the quotes i posted from her piece she collaborated on
Try & find comments addressing the blatant ridiculous paragraphs below on her site,
“As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?: “You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”
Not even the conclusion by the writer of the piece as below is addressed, all susan walsh does is offer platitudes to the filthy feminist rag, not one backbone in her, literally pussy begging them to allow her to post another hate filled article on her site
If susan walsh is not part of the mra or the manosphere, then why are they linking to her site, when she posts garbage by feminists like the one below
Interestingly Laura from The Thinking House Wife did the exact same thing recently, posted an article by mangina extraordinaire jesse powell, basically agreeing with it then blocked all comments
” A woman who nurtures a family is equally as valuable as a woman who runs a company as CEO (even more so, given the track records of some high profile female CEOs).”
& the most laughable conclusion of susan walshs collaborative post by the feminist editor ….
Ironically the conclusion of the piece starts with it would be dishonest ….
Heres some news for the feminist hag, it would be dishonest to acknowledge feminism hasnt destroyed women for centuries, & their attempt at creating stay at home dads has failed spectacularly
“It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that feminism has helped men in important ways: It’s reduced the financial burden of men; it’s allowed men the option to be stay-at-home dads and thus nurture their relationships with their children; it’s allowed men to look at women as their equal partners. Many men rejoice in these gains, and they must not lose sight of them.”
TFH: “A woman cheating is much worse than a man cheating, actually.”
I wondered about this on Athol’s blog a while back and got jumped on for it (by a woman of course), so did a post on my old blog (Thag Jones) and I’ve reposted it here. I was thinking of the emotional impact more than anything (being a woman and all), which you also mentioned. I think it’s an interesting question since as usual, the cultural meme is that men have no feelings and teh poor wimminz are the victims in every scenario.
This OWS scenario is a microcosm for the future sexual dystopia Roissy outlined a while back. Crazy shit.
@PMAFT
I understand the desire to accurately define one’s allies, but this is a discussion on the internet, not a political party. It strikes me that many are demanding orthodoxy, especially of women participating in the discussion. I also don’t understand the level of animosity many have for women who are motivated to question feminism out of their own self interest. As I’ve laid out in the past, we lost the war; self interest and an accurate assessment of the realities of feminism are all we have left. The women commenting here for the most part are no more responsible for feminism than the average man. By merely being here, they are in fact showing more interest than the average man.
CL: “This OWS scenario is a microcosm for the future sexual dystopia Roissy outlined a while back. Crazy shit.”
In the movie Soylent Green after an economic collapse an apartment for a well-off businessman came with a nubile young woman (semi-clothed) included referred to as “Oh, shes furniture”
One of the more substantive critiques of Susan Walsh’s blog I’ve read here—assuming that’s what it is.
I’m just not sure what else you can–or should–really expect from women these days. I don’t think her defenders are saying to sign up Walsh as a card-carrying MRA—only that she’s more friend than foe. Sure, it’s not much—but it’s a start.
Call her out but fighting a flame war over her is like attacking Troy over Rosie O’Donnell.
What I am noticing more and more, and I’ve said this before, is the sheer amount of young women that I grew up with who are now entering their 40’s, unmarried and childless. They all seem to have dug their heels in even more with the ‘I’ve waited this long, so he better be perfect’ hamster spinning nonsense. Nothing will stop that hamster spinning and nothing will stop the sheer entitlement, even after their looks are gone, their SMV is virtually zero, and their reproductive cycle has ended, they will simply not settle for anything less than George Clooney/millionaire/Porsche Driving Doctor/Lawyer.
Wow, good job feminism.
Like I mentioned before, I have run into a girl I dated in my early 20’s who is now completely washed up at 37, but still thinks she can attract a man, even though she’s now 200+ lbs with an arse the width of an axe-handle. Her face is really distorted now too, like someone took a cricket bat to it awhile ago and it’s only just healed. She isn’t the only one I know either, there are so many.
The cock carousel/settle down in their 30’s meme that Roissy and others often cite is the truth.
My first ex is smack in the middle of her 30’s and is approaching spinsterhood, yet she remains adamantly defiant, and I dare say will do to the very bitter end. What’s worse for her is not only have her looks gone, but her personality is downright heinous, and she becomes more bitter with each passing day. She also holds a massive grudge against me, but hey, she was the one who decided to let me go, and now I have the one thing she wants most, yet continues to elude her – a child. Of course, her script that she had written in her head about me is not even close to reality, alas, she listened to all her friends when they told her how I wouldn’t amount to anything, wouldn’t get married or have kids. Well, the marriage thing is spot on but that is incidental.
The cognitive dissonance amongst these white fembots who grew up in the 70’s is absolutely astounding. “I was promised that I could have it all!”
The younger ones fresh out of University are even funnier, “I have no experience but I’m willing to start at the top!”
Feminism has unleashed a massive entitlement complex amongst white females. That’s why they absolutely hate hate hate women like Sarah Palin. And their utter contempt for Asian females is staggering too.
“I have no experience but I’m willing to start at the top!”
Ha ha ha ha ha! D’oh!
No offense meant, but anybody who thinks Hessler should get a second chance needs to get a grip. If her husband takes her back at this point, he may as well put a shotgun to his balls and pull the trigger. With 99% certainty, she would f**k around again; and he would get raped in the court. He’d do well to get out now, while he can.
““MRAs welcome women allies, but there are so few that are really willing to be allies. Most of them are allies of convenience only, like the author here, who sees the entire issue as one in which the concerns of women are at stake. Notice that she makes no mention of what’s good for men, or what is fair, or even what is good for society as a whole. Nope. The only concern is that girls who want boyfriends should be able to get them. That’s it. Girls want boyfriends. Well then, we had better get started producing guys who they deem wothy of being GF and BF with, hadn’t we? Wouldn’t want a girl to be disappointed, would we?”
It depends on what the blog is advocating. Its in the interests of both most men, as well as women, to marry when they are 20 years old and avoid a promiscuous lifestyle. Now, how many of the women’s blog advocate this?
Hang on a second everyone,
Can I make it clear, that I do not think this woman _deserves_ anything.
Her husband might _chose_ to take her back if she demonstrates genuine repentance for her actions.
I agree with the suggestion that he should divorce her at this point, given her behavior and the nature of Marriage 2.0.
I’m just saying that marraiges aren’t suppose to end and that he might want to take her back if she repents in part because he made a promise to her on his wedding day.
He doens’t have to, he would be well advised to protect himself from her at this point. I’m just suggesting that marriage relationships are based on sacrifical love by design. That that has become distorted in Marriage 2.0 by loony feminists doens’t change the original purpose and nature of marriage.
Jason
@rmaxd
“So is Chels & her mangina eunuch followers like jason, ever going to address the following?”
Sure, do you think you can be an adult and not call me names?
“Also why should a family accept back somebody who sleeps with a bartender & abandons them effectively for no reason ?”
I don’t think they have any obligation to what so ever. I said that a few times. The husband might seek to honour his marriage vows inspite of what his wife did, but he is not obliged to, that is the nature of a contract.
“Why should a family accept anyone so undependable & vacous?”
See previous answer. Although additionally, the husband did marry her, so he did likely know what she was like. I would say the same thing to a wife you know. My position is consistent.
“Are you that morally corrupt, to even try & excuse her disgusting behaviour as some sort of ridiculous theoretical female empowering garbage …. ?”
If you can quote where I did that feel free to point it out. But I have never said her behavior was anything but reprehensible. There is no excuse for what she has done.
“Most Importantly she NEVER calls out any of the man hating portions in the post on her site, ie the quotes i posted from her piece she collaborated on”
There are a few of these, I have no idea why you think any of this is actually relevant?
“Not even the conclusion by the writer of the piece as below is addressed, all susan walsh does is offer platitudes to the filthy feminist rag, not one backbone in her, literally pussy begging them to allow her to post another hate filled article on her site”
Ok, but again, how is any of this relevant to anything I said? Or that Chel’s said for that matter?
“If susan walsh is not part of the mra or the manosphere, then why are they linking to her site, when she posts garbage by feminists like the one below”
How would I know? What makes you think I am her manager/PR person/etc ?
“Heres some news for the feminist hag, it would be dishonest to acknowledge feminism hasnt destroyed women for centuries, & their attempt at creating stay at home dads has failed spectacularly”
And I am a “mangina” for agreeing with that statement why exactly?
This whole thing had the feeling of a scattergun rant that didn’t really address the point I or Chel’s made. Do you think you could try to be a little more focused in future?
Jason
I think he could take her back and have the marriage work, but he would first have to earn her respect/fear by having a fling with a younger woman. If he did that, she’d probably not only want to come back, but would behave herself. If he doesn’t have at least one relationship before taking her back, than she’ll continue to disrespect him.
This happened with two of my uncles – their wives decided to leave them, they both went into new relationships as quickly as possible, the wives than wanted them back.
@TFH
“Next, they will say ‘why buy the pig when we can instead buy individual sausage links’.”
The response would seem to be, “Because you don’t seem to like the random individual sausages”
Jason
“And their utter contempt for Asian females is staggering too.”
I’ve noticed this. Try telling an American woman that Asian women are “more feminine”. They’ll respond with all kinds of crudities, such as “but they have bodies like little boys, you must be gay” etc.
Anonymous, Jason: there is no marriage at this point for these people. She’s broken her side of the marriage contract. She has or soon will transfer her loyalty from her banker ex husband to a man who rouses ‘gina tingles in the OWS shanty town. Any feelings she had for the banker ex husband are fading or gone. This is elementary female psychology, although if it is new to you I understand, lots of men don’t know this or are just learning it.
Even the most orthodox Christian would not disagree with a divorce at this point, if adultery on her part could be shown.
And that’s aside from all the health dangers I’ve already pointed out.
PS: Anonymous, you might consider some handle to differentiate you from other Anonymous’s.
@Anonymous Reader,
“there is no marriage at this point for these people. She’s broken her side of the marriage contract.”
You’ll note that I didn’t disagree that she had broken the marriage contract and that he was well within his rights to a divorce. I don’t disagree that he has entirely legitimate grounds to divorce this women (for abandonment, and especially if adultery is involved).
I’m just saying, he might take her back if she comes to her senses and repents of her behavior. He might chose to honour his marriage vows even as she has violated hers.
Biblically this is pretty much the story of the whole old testament between Israel and God.
Please don’t see me as saying that he must or even that he should take her back. I have never claimed that at any point. He could take her back, but he isn’t obliged too and I agree it probably isn’t even advisable without some genuine repentance on her part which may or may not be forth coming.
I would note, that he does need to forgive her for what she has done, but forgiving her and taking her back are different things and forgiving her. Like I said above, You might forgive a baby sitter for molesting your child but that wouldn’t require you to allow them to baby sit again.
Jason
Jason
You’ll note that I didn’t disagree that she had broken the marriage contract and that he was well within his rights to a divorce. I don’t disagree that he has entirely legitimate grounds to divorce this women (for abandonment, and especially if adultery is involved).
I’m just saying, he might take her back if she comes to her senses and repents of her behavior. He might chose to honour his marriage vows even as she has violated hers.
There are no vows to honor. She has effectively dissolved the marriage. What part of that do you not understand? Do you not understand the high probability that she has by now contracted one or more STD’s, such as HPV, herpes, chlamydia, etc.?
One more time: it is elementary female psychology that women are loyal to one man at a time. She’s dropped her banker ex-husband in favor of another man. She’s done. There’s no marriage. It’s over.
At this point, the only reason for her to return to Florida is to obtain more resources (money, house, etc.) from her ex-husband via a divorce settlement. So your point is what, that he “could” take her back? Sure, and he “could” climb in the bathtub with a toaster, or he “could” go for a swim in the nearest alligator pond for that matter.
Why are you suggesting that this man should consider harming himself?
Sorry, left a part out
Jason
He could take her back, but he isn’t obliged too and I agree it probably isn’t even advisable without some genuine repentance on her part which may or may not be forth coming.
One more time: she’s left him. Any “repentence” at this point would be all but certain to be an act, a pose, a smoke screen to get herself back into the house, in order to facilitate divorce theft.
I would note, that he does need to forgive her for what she has done,
Why?
but forgiving her and taking her back are different things and forgiving her. Like I said above, You might forgive a baby sitter for molesting your child but that wouldn’t require you to allow them to baby sit again.
I might. Or I might take steps to ensure that baby sitter never touched any child again.
@Anonymous Reader,
“There are no vows to honor. She has effectively dissolved the marriage. What part of that do you not understand?”
I understand all of it. Go back and read what I wrote.
“Why are you suggesting that this man should consider harming himself?”
I quite explictly said he _should not_ and previously outline several times what would be any sane conditions on an attempt at reconcilitioan including getting tested for a plethora of diseases.
Please read what I wrote and respond to that rather than skim it and go off half cocked. That is what feminists do and you are clearly better than that.
Jason
@Anonymous Reader,
“One more time: she’s left him. Any “repentence” at this point would be all but certain to be an act, a pose, a smoke screen to get herself back into the house, in order to facilitate divorce theft.”
So you claim. You will note that I did advocate that he divorce her and that any reconciliation require a new marriage contract with a pre-nup. I have said that more than once. I’m only saying he could take her back and that he might want to, but only cautiously and under strict conditions, that he should probably kick her to the curb and move on.
“I would note, that he does need to forgive her for what she has done,
Why?”
Because it is the nature of forgiveness and bitterness and resentment poison the soul. Forgiving her is for his benifit more than it is for her.
“I might. Or I might take steps to ensure that baby sitter never touched any child again.”
Sure, but I think you are missing my point quite spectacularly.
Jason
@TFH,
You make an interesting observation about women and the vote and the collapse of society, although are you sure it is not mere correlation rather than causation.
I agree most women likely vote for things that benifit themselves, but in truth most men today vote the same way. If it were otherwise we would not have the politicans we have. I think what you might be pointing to as the fault of women voting is a general trend in western civilization that results from many of the ideas of the englightenment working themselves out to their logical conclusion.
You’d have thought we would have learned from the results of the French Revolution, but given all the revolutions and ideas that followed it would seem not 😦
Jason
I think people are being a bit harsh to Jason, really, he’s defending the sanctity of the marriage. Granted this woman don’t really deserve to be taken back, but if the guy does, that’s his choice. If we really want to play with the idea of the only choice is the choice we want him to make, it only makes us like the feminists we try so hard to fight againts. I read most of Jason’s other posts, and he’s very consistent about the whole divorce being last resort thing. Lets not devolve into our enemies here guys.
@Theotheryoshi
Thanks 🙂 I’m glad somebody gets it 😀
Jason
Jason – “I agree most women likely vote for things that benifit themselves, but in truth most men today vote the same way. “
Women vote not just for themselves, personally, but also for “Team Woman” as well. If they perceive something to be a benefit to women (in general), they will tend to vote for it (abortion, welfare state, etc.) and against those things they see as potentially harmful or limiting to other women (mandatory paternity testing, paternity fraud reform, child support reform, etc.)
I just don’t see men doing the same thing. In fact, men are more likely to be swayed by the “for the women and children” arguments, and vote against “Team Man” (like voting against mandatory paternity testing, paternity fraud reform, child support reform, etc.).
It’s the real problem why a cohesive and effective Men’s Right Movement remains so elusive – men don’t tend to vote (nor act) with the benefit of “Team Man” in mind, but will readily vote for the benefit of “Team Woman” with minimal persuasion (they think it might be better for children or protecting women, like the VAWA; or if think it will get them in “good” with women and get them laid).
Yes, men will vote in line with what they perceive to be in their own personal “best interest”, but are not so likely to consider what might be best for for other men (in general) if they don’t perceive a personal benefit in doing so.
There is no Sanctity of marriage and hasn’t been for a while. The man shouldn’t take the woman back. And like it or not we have all been drafted in to a nasty culture war. This man needs to start legal action now for the sake of his kids and his own long term well being. As soon as the romance of the protest is gone she will return to collect.
Also saving marriage in this world of misandry does nothing to end the conditions that put the man in the position he is in. He “saves” his marriage he just sacrificed his son. A man in todays world is doomed if he sees his wife or any woman as more than a uterus to grow a child in. The men that have the most problems and emotional issues with women are men that live and think there is more than that. The man already has kids his wife is now just a burden on him and her stepping out like that was the best stroke of luck a man in todays world could have.
This is how it can be and all is by laws of misandry. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/26/on-becoming-a-deadbeat-dad/
@ Jason, no problem buddy, I just hate to see us turn into those we despise. Sides, if I really wanted to join a feces throwing contest, I would just go down to the zoo… or anywhere in America for that matter… Lots of shit gets thrown around… not all of it fecal matter…
Theotheryoshi
I think people are being a bit harsh to Jason, really, he’s defending the sanctity of the marriage.
What marriage? She’s left. If she’s had sex with her bunkmate, even Jesus would approve of the divorce. All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together.
There. Is. No. Marriage. Left. To. Defend.
Granted this woman don’t really deserve to be taken back, but if the guy does, that’s his choice.
I completely agree with this statement. And in fact, I can’t see anyone on this thread saying otherwise. I can see people, starting with myself, strongly stating that it would be very dangerous to that man to do so. But nothing any of us say here will have the slightest effect upon the ex-husband.
If we really want to play with the idea of the only choice is the choice we want him to make,
This is a strawman.
@greyghost,
Honestly i’m not sure that is true that the sanctity of marriage is dead, although it is pretty much on life support at this point with many seeking to finally pull the plug.
As I said a few times, the right course of action is likely divorce her and if she wants to come back, then take his time, make her earn his trust back and make sure there is a strong pre-nup in place before getting remarried.
Your story is horrific and represents the insanity of the current system and the evil in the hearts of many women when it is unrestrained by just laws. I must ask though, do you really think if the situation was reversed and men held the upper hand, that stories like yours would not exist but from women?
I don’t disagree with you that the current set of laws are insane and fundamentally unjust (and therefore not laws but acts of violence by the state against its citizens).
“A man in todays world is doomed if he sees his wife or any woman as more than a uterus to grow a child in. ”
Unfortunately I think there is some truth in what you say. Not completely, I know women who aren’t like the ones you have encountered, then again I know women who are and have seen the damage that is wrought by feminist influenced divorce laws. I don’t think your point is wrong, I just think it broadbrushes more than is warranted.
Jason
do you really think if the situation was reversed and men held the upper hand, that stories like yours would not exist but from women?
*coughthirdworldcough*
Jason – “do you really think if the situation was reversed and men held the upper hand, that stories like yours would not exist but from women?”
We’ve (those of us who been around the Manosphere and significant time have seen this one before.
The simplest answer is that men used to have that upper-hand, including presumptive father custody of children and no financial liability to the ex-wife. It used to be that a guy who caught his wife being unfaithful (for instance), could pretty much just kick her to the, keep the house, keep the children, and be outright done with her. There was a lot less divorce then, not to mention a lot less infidelity – especially on the part of women.
It seemed that even though the laws were stacked on their behalf, men tended not to abuse their advantage. But it was that advantage that feminism set out to (and has wildly succeeded in doing) reverse. Women now enjoy a significant advantage, and quite a few have no problem abusing it.
In (some) Islamic countries, and man need only proclaim “I divorce thee” three times, and he’s done with her, keeps the kids, and all the assets as well. As far as I know, the divorce rate is quite low in those countries where men still have the upper-hand.
The question you need to be asking yourself is, “why is that the case?”
do you really think if the situation was reversed and men held the upper hand, that stories like yours would not exist but from women?
Nope, A woman sees herself as “abused ” when a man stops giving to her. Women are not forced by the government to suffer at the feet of men the way men are. And every woman knows it including anaconda there..
@slwerner,
“The simplest answer is that men used to have that upper-hand, including presumptive father custody of children and no financial liability to the ex-wife. It used to be that a guy who caught his wife being unfaithful (for instance), could pretty much just kick her to the, keep the house, keep the children, and be outright done with her. There was a lot less divorce then, not to mention a lot less infidelity – especially on the part of women.”
The culture itself was different though. I would suggest a lot of the problems we see today are the result of the outworking of the ideas of the “enlightenment” to their fullest along with the ideas of Nietzsche finally working themselves out in a culture wide fashion. I’m not suggesting men aren’t abused by women, or that women aren’t taking advantage of the current state of affairs, but I think you may be comparing apples and oranges a bit here when you say “men used to have it this way but now women do”. I’m not sure men ever did have it that way. I think you give men more credit for restraint than they fully deserve.
“Women now enjoy a significant advantage, and quite a few have no problem abusing it.”
No argument from me there.
“In (some) Islamic countries, and man need only proclaim “I divorce thee” three times, and he’s done with her, keeps the kids, and all the assets as well. As far as I know, the divorce rate is quite low in those countries where men still have the upper-hand.”
They can also marry polygamously, but i’m not sure the situation is identical. Men might have the “upper hand” in these cultures (actually they pretty much do) but the culture also praises child rearing and fidelity in a way ours doens’t but used too. Again, I think you might be comparing apples and oranges.
Now i’m not saying your observation is necessarily wrong, but i’m not sure your case is made by the data you present. Does that make sense?
IIRC Orthodox Jewish culture has a very low divorce rate as well, even when it co-exists with the western feminised insanity. Why aren’t those girls are willing to “abuse the system”?
Jason
@TFH,
“1) Multiple countries are arriving at the same result.”
True, but they are all quite similar countries aren’t they. This observation is inconclusive.
“2) The laws are so intricately built around creating a hypergamous utopia for women.”
In theory perhaps, but in reality it is far from that. Although I wont dispute this is the behavior of feminists and the lobbying they have done, I am still skeptical of the conclusion that women are the problem rather than a general direction the culture has been on since the “englightenment”.
“3) Women don’t really see the bottom 80% of men as human beings, but rather as a resource to be plundered.”
No doubt some do. I question the claim that all women do as my actual experience with women has been different. Some do, no doubt, and I have seen that also, but not all women. Of course most of the marriages I am in a position to observe up close are between people who were virgins or near virgins when married and went into it with an expectation of it being for life and a surrounding community that encouraged this expectation. Still some divorces and very bad behaviour by various spouses (interestingly all women in the case I know any details about) but nothing to indicate it is _all women_.
“Ladylike behavior requires a strict cultural condition of a girl starting from a young age, and when this is dismantled, women become a lot more ‘feral’ than men do.”
I think there is definitely some truth to that observation. Keep in mind I don’t disagree with your observations in general, I just think you might be mistaking symptoms for causes to some degree.
“And yes, women do require more ‘civilizational conditioning’ than men do.”
I’m not sure this is true, but they certainly require very different conditioning than men do. But this could be a matter of perspective and terminology as much as anything else.
“Absolutely wrong. There are TONS of ‘men’ willing to jump to assist a woman or defend a woman AGAINST someone from his own gender, but virtually NO women who do the same for men, no matter how great the injustice against men.”
I’d need more data to make a decision on this. No doubt there is some truth to this, but it seems in some sense that the proposed solution is to “act like the women” on the part of men. This seems somewhat counter productive.
“Your religious background has taught you something very wrong about what women are really like – much like children are taught through cartoons that polar bears and hippos are cute and cuddly (both do kill any human who gets too close).”
I actually don’t have a religious background. I am 36, and prior to becoming a Christian about age 18 I was an atheist. My actual experience of women confirms all of what you observe being true of some women, some of it being true for a greater percentage and some women being seeming outliers who would never behave like this. I think the reality is more complex than your observations, thats all.
Jason
Jason – “I think you might be comparing apples and oranges.”
There are no perfect comparisons to be made. Still, where and when men have had the advantages, they haven’t abused them to anywhere near the same extent women in the west are doing today.
I’m certain that culture and religious norms do play a role in this, but it’s hard to image they can fully account to the significant differences between the way the genders have tended to abuse their advantage.
I do believe that married women today think about and plan for divorce. On a post here (Dalrock’s) a while back, there was even the revelation by a woman who interviewed married women and found that even those in supposedly happy marriages still tended to think about divorce at an alarmingly high rate.
I’d image that this comes from the more hard-wired tendency for women to think in a self-protective manner, whereas men tend to be more sacrificial (towards their wives, their children, and even strangers) than women are. This likely also manifests in men being generally more content in a given marriage than are their wives.
I’d go so far to suggest that if you could set up a more apples-to-apples comparison [for example, if one could question husbands and wives separately from each other, and pose the question to them that if they could leave their marriage and take the lions share of the assets with them (and have custody of any children), would they be willing to do so?], that far more wives would be willing to take advantage of the advantage afforded them than would their respective husbands.
@TFH,
“Yes. When men held the upper hand, almost all children grew up with both biological parents. This is true in poor countries today, the ‘third world’ as Anaconda calls them (and no, average men are not systematically oppressing average women in those countries).”
I wouldn’t actually suggest they are. Although I would note that the cultures you reference are very different to post-enlightenment western culture. I think you might well be comparing apples to oranges, and that the problems with western civilization didn’t start with “feminism” but that that is actually a symptom of the problem itself.
“When women gain some power, we suddenly see that over half of all children do not spend their first 18 years with both biological parents in the same house.”
Over half? Hang on a sec. Where do you get that data point from? I question its validity based on the observation that although half of marriages end in divorce, it isn’t nearly that high for first marriages.
“Jason, you are desperately hoping to see that female personal responsibility is as high as male personal responsibility, when in reality, on average, it is not. Men are more likely to put their children’s well-being above their own, than women are.”
I’m not desperately hoping for anything actually. I question your mind reading skills. My experience of mothers is that they will put their kids needs ahead of their own in lots of instances. As much as fathers? It is hard to tell. Given the number of divorces initiated by women and the fact that any divorce even from a “bad marriage” is harmful to kids, it would seem to bear out your data point that many women will not put their children first. Plus there are clear cases of that like mothers killing their kids to keep their boyfriends etc. The problem is that many of the worst cases you could cite are clearly at best outliers, and the lies told about the harmlessness of divorce are really only finally coming to light after decades of trying this lunacy out full force. I will concede on average, individual mothers are less likely to sacrifically love their children as much as, on average, an individual father will. But I am very skeptical of the claim that all women are like that, and I think part of the problem is with the samples of “all women” that you use to draw your conclusions.
Jason
@TFH,
I’m not sure Japan and India are good counter examples though. India has long had influence from the west when it was part of the English Commonwealth and Japan has had enormous changes since the end of WW2 that have seen it become extremely westernised.
BTW, I don’t disagree that much misandry goes unchallenged in modern democracies.
Jason
Jason – Over half? Hang on a sec. Where do you get that data point from? I question its validity based on the observation that although half of marriages end in divorce, it isn’t nearly that high for first marriages.”
It seems that you’ve neglected to consider the number of children being born out-of-wedlock, many of whom will spend most, if not all, of their childhoods without their father living with them. Add them to the nearly half of children (born into marriages) who will see their parents divorce during their childhoods, and it seem given that the number will be well of half
@slwerner
“There are no perfect comparisons to be made. Still, where and when men have had the advantages, they haven’t abused them to anywhere near the same extent women in the west are doing today.”
That is the problem with your example though. Divorce until very recently was always highly stigmatised for men and women. Even when men “had all the power”, the action still had a high social stigma attached to it.
Please understand though, i’m not saying that women aren’t abusing the privledge given them, i’m just suggesting men are often less noble that you suggest.
“I’m certain that culture and religious norms do play a role in this, but it’s hard to image they can fully account to the significant differences between the way the genders have tended to abuse their advantage.”
I don’t know, but all I am saying is that it is very difficult to make the comparison. The circumstances we find ourselves in today are largely unique it seems historically.
“I do believe that married women today think about and plan for divorce.”
No doubt. We are in a culture that sells divorce fantasies to women and indoctrinated them with the idea that if they are not “happy” in a marriage then it is there “right” to abandon it. Given this is the message women are fed from just about every angle today in the popular culture, why do you think the divorce rate for first time marriages between genuine virgins is as low as it is?
“I’d image that this comes from the more hard-wired tendency for women to think in a self-protective manner, whereas men tend to be more sacrificial”
There is probably something to this to some degree. Although women can be quite sacrifical themselves.
“This likely also manifests in men being generally more content in a given marriage than are their wives.”
Part of this probably also stems from the observation that men are more easily pleased, plus to be fair, you are looking at a sample of women who have had the “don’t settle” idiocy drilled into them for much of their lives. Is it a surprise some of them are so screwed up when you fill their heads with nonsense?
“I’d go so far to suggest that if you could set up a more apples-to-apples comparison [for example, if one could question husbands and wives separately from each other, and pose the question to them that if they could leave their marriage and take the lions share of the assets with them (and have custody of any children), would they be willing to do so?], that far more wives would be willing to take advantage of the advantage afforded them than would their respective husbands.”
That would be an interesting experiment, but there are lots of things to account for. Just taking to piles (one husbands and one wives) and comparing the answers is not going to give a very good result. There would be more variables to tease out. Much like the feminists idiotic “men make more money than women” statistic they like to trot out that, upon closer inspection has nothing at all to do with some sort of discrimination against women.
Jason
Err, that should be:
“…the number well over half of all children.
@slwerner,
“It seems that you’ve neglected to consider the number of children being born out-of-wedlock”
Fair enough. Not sure I would count them as having fathers to be honest. In a sane world, children born out of wedlock would leave the father with no rights and no responsibilities to the children.
“Add them to the nearly half of children (born into marriages) who will see their parents divorce during their childhoods, and it seem given that the number will be well of half”
But that is just it. Half of all first marriages (which I would bet are the most common ones to produce the bulk of children to married parents) don’t end in divorce. The statistic is misleading.
But I do see your point about unwed mothers. Although indulging them with welfare payments and child support is actually a good chunk of the problem I think.
Jason
Jason – “i’m just suggesting men are often less noble that you suggest. “
I never meant suggest some great nobility on the part of men. Men are merely human as well, and as such, far from perfect. All I’m saying is that all else being equal, all things considered, women are simply more likely than are men to opt to play their advantage via divorce.
Whether it’s feminism, declining morals, or some combination thereof, that’s just where we’ve ended-up today.
And, of course, it’s just my speculation. As Anacaona likes to qualify such things, “Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV)”.
@TFH,
Hang on we are talking past each other.
“This completely contradicts your earlier point where the US/UK/Canada are ‘very similar countries’. I then give you examples of misandry via democracy in India and Japan, and now you say the opposite, contradicting yourself.”
Wait a sec. I said, India and Japan are countries with very significant western cultural influences, either since WW2 or since they were a British colony. I don’t think I have contradicted myself at all. I’m also not seeking to avoid anything.
“Where, exactly, is it being challenged. How many protests have their been against misandric laws in the US?”
Sorry, bad sentence structure on my part. I agree misandry goes largely unchallenged in the west today.
Jason
@slwerner,
“All I’m saying is that all else being equal, all things considered, women are simply more likely than are men to opt to play their advantage via divorce.”
Based on the current circumstances I have no doubt you are right. Although as I said I think feminism is often more of a symptom of the underlying problem than the problem itself. Although there is plenty of misery today that is the direct result of feminist shenanigins.
Jason
As Anacaona likes to qualify such things, “Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV)”.
Thank you for spelling my handle right *kissinthecheek* 🙂
@TFH,
“Name a country that has been a Democracy for a long time, that does NOT have a lot of misandry.”
Ancient Greece and Ancient Roman had experiments in democracy and republican government and I don’t think they were overrun with misandry like we have today. This is admittedly a speculative conclusion given the limited records we have, but still, they would seem to be counter examples that did have popularly elected governments and the like for decades or centuries.
Also, you seem to have a funny idea of what a “democracy” is. Most western countries are not actually democracies but some form of representational republic (with or without an elected monarch etc). Republics are not democracies though as they have the rule of law, not the rule of the people.
Jason
@TFH,
“41% of babies in the US today are born out of wedlock. Google it – it is a well-known stat (that feminists are proud of).”
Yeah I have heard that, it is even worse in England. God that is depressing. No culture survives this sort of insanity.
“Of the remaining 59%, some undergo the divorce of their parents after birth. Say, 30% of this group. This makes the 41% rise to a number of (41 + 0.33*0.59) about 60%.”
Fair enough. I concede that data point. Not that I said it was false, just that I wanted to know its origin.
“So under 40% of children today will live their first 18 years with both biological parents.”
Well I guess we should prepare to reap the whirlwind then in a the next decade 😦 Given the incredible collection of bad effects assocaited with parents being raised by single mothers.
“Both slwerner and myself have seen this happen with many men before you – you are desperately hoping that the reality is not as bad as we say, but can’t really come up with counter-evidence.”
I’m not sure which bit you think I am dismissing as “not as bad as you say”. I’m not buying the “all women are like this” line because it runs counter to my actual experience. I’m certainly not claim that no women are like this either, as that also runs counter to my experience. I’m not claiming the laws are not deeply infected with feminist misandry, that is also clearly the case. I am not denying that marriage is a risky proposition for men today. I’m not even denying that women can be sneaky and dishonest or that in general they seek to “marry up” when they marry or that they divorce for frivoluous reasons.
What part do you think I am denying exactly? Apart from the All women are like this bit.
Jason
Jason – “I’m not buying the “all women are like this””
As a newcomer, you might not be aware of this, but NAWALT is pretty much an unwritten “given” in most everyone’s posts here, and through the Manosphere. We tend to refer to the statistically more probable woman as being representative of women in general. But, we all know that there are exceptions, even if we don’t bother to include that qualifier with every comment posted.
BTW, just to be clear, I am generally this picky with most “statistics” and “facts”. It isn’t just the ones you are presenting here. Long experience dealing with the political left and talking to non-christians about aspects of christianity, have made me skeptical of most stats and facts without digging into them a bit to see what lies underneath.
So it isn’t just you guys. I can be like this with lots of things.
Jason
Okay, now for the real important question. Are there four a’s in haaaaapy or five?
[D: I try to mix it up to keep things fresh.]
@slwerner,
Fair enough. If someone had mentioned that sooner, it would have probably helped to generate more light and less heat. Now that I know it is an underlying assumption it puts things in a different light.
Jason
@TFH,
“OK, putting aside that you have to go back 2000 years to find an example……(I actually meant countries TODAY)…..”
Well, first you didn’t say that, and second, if you recall, a large part of my point about countries today is that they are all infected with “democracy” from the same basic source. If it was democracy itself that was the problem then Greece and Rome should have had the same problems, but they didn’t. I think the problem is a combination of factors thats all.
“Note that Ancient Rome DID have restrictions on women, and they had a lower class of voting rights than men did. After that, as feminism spread more in Ancient Rome, this weakened their empire greatly.”
I know women were lower class citizens (to some degree). Can you point to examples of this expanding feminism in ancient Rome? I would also note that Ancient Israel was setout in a very egalitarian fashion and didn’t seem to have the same problems either, but it isn’t a democracy either so maybe a moot point.
“Women voting leads to more and more misandric laws getting piled on, as women can be bribed for their votes indefinitely (and the ‘bribe’ constitutes stripping men of rights).”
The same could be said for “workers voting” or the “the poor” voting, or any block voting really. If the politicans are allowed to bribe groups of voters with other peoples money and discriminatory laws then they will do so and get their support as a result. It isn’t just women voting against men although that is an extremely illustrative example.
“A Presidential Republic (USA) vs. a Parliamentary System (UK) still have moved inexorably towards misandry.”
True. Keep in mind, i’m not disputing this observation. Representational western republics (and western influenced ones) (where republic is the “rule of law”, whether they have an elected or hereditary monarch etc) are sliding towards misandry. I totally agree with this observation. What I think is feminism is more of a symptom of the problem though rather than its cause. I’m not saying feminism hasn’t been a bad thing or that it hasn’t been directly responsible for a lot of misery. Please don’t hear me saying that.
Jason
BTW, I am thoroughly enjoying the back and forward and kicking ideas around. Thanks for indulding me 🙂
Jason
@ TFH
“Women voting leads to more and more misandric laws getting piled on, as women can be bribed for their votes indefinitely (and the ‘bribe’ constitutes stripping men of rights).”
And here’s yet another example of this, posted today by the False Rape Society..
The April 4 directive, and now the draft VAWA reauthorization act, increase the risk to innocent men that they will be found guilty based solely on the say-so of a rape accuser. For too many women’s advocates, that twisted, vile outcome–not justice for all–“is absolutely crucial to the women’s community.”
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/congress-is-about-to-screw-over-your.html
@Retrenched
I did hear something about this 😦 Many colleges want to do that lower standard of evidence for a host of things (mostly political speech and “hate crime”) related.
Why don’t women understand that these sorts of laws will actually make things worse not better for them?
Jason
Jason – “Many colleges want to do that lower standard of evidence for a host of things…”
However, in the specific case of alleged sexual misconduct, they have not so subtly had their Title IX funding threatened by the Dept. Of Ed. if they did not adopt a mere “preponderance of evidence” standard .
And now, this “guidance” is proposed to be formally and legally adopted within the VAWA re-authorization.
This is quite significant.
Jason it looks like you actually care about marriage and seem to be from a christian faith point of view. There is more to his than just playing nice and being a gentleman. There is a way to beat feminism and actually vote out the laws of misandry. ( todays feral women will selfishly vote out misandry)
One thing to remember Jason you will never know a life with out misandry. No matter how good you are or how kind you are you will always be hated and despised because you are a man. At any given time any woman can decide your life is not needed and the government with gleefully kill you for her or insure you suffer. All that talk about the constitution and rights doesn’t apply to men if a woman says so. (ever notice how women seem to be able to kill there husbands and kids and not seem to get into much truoble for it)
Well back subject. Women do not care about men. There is no capacity for women to love (as you love) but women to get the gina tingles. (women call this love) The one thing that is bringing women to even concern themselves with men is that on the outer margins women can not find the alpha man they want.With the vote women have selfishly voted in a full range of misandry inside and outsidfe of the law to enhance hypergamy. At present everything you see in pop culture to the law and education is to allow women to pursue their hypergamious tendencies without any restriction. Any restriction including wedding vows is considered oppression and misogyny.
What is amazing and very hard for a “good” man like yourself to grasp is this. This behavior is all natural and normal for a woman. It is so instinctive and predictable that a woman can be “gamed” into the gina tingles and voting out the power they legally and socially have it they think it is in their best interest. If the hypergamy requires women to vote out the laws of misandry it will happen.
Study “game” and the pick up artist (PUA) real hard. The whole psychology behind it along with the concept behing and purpose of MGTOW. (Tthis is a monolog from George Elam on AVFM radio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IItf23mqgg) And then check out and study the “man-up” type articles that women complaining about the lack of men being published. The one thing women want is for a man to pay attention to them. In paticular a man they find attractive or want. Do not base that comment on what women say, base it on behavior.
I’d add to what greyghost says:
An older woman suddenly interested in men’s rights doesn’t mean very much when they are doing so without saying “men need to be paid more for the work they do”(since they are primary breadwinners) or “women must be held accountable for their crimes”(since a light sentence is another injustice done to their victims).
Very sure some women use men’s rights gatherings / clubs as dating pools, so that they can both “pick the winner” or “destroy the patriarchy”.
And remember that for all your smooth and enlightened friends who are “good with the ladies”, you can be sure they will never mention mens’ rights.
@TFH,
“That was also a time when life expectancy was 30, there was no mass-media, etc.
But it appears that you have no example of a country today, that has been a democracy (i.e. women voting) for 60+ years, that does not have substantial misandry. That is a powerful point.”
But my point still stands that they are infected from a similar source and are all post-enlightenment. I’m not saying the misandry doens’t exist or that many women don’t seek to vote themselves more privledges. Just that your thesis that women voting is to blame.
“Not really. Poor working class men want less from government than wealthy socialite women.”
That is the claim, but the history of unions and workers groups suggest otherwise as does the current OWS idiocy.
“Women are far more *driven* to ruthlessly demand wealth transfers from the government. Women are naturally socialist, due to evolutionary realities from earlier times, that get amplified when they get to vote on a macro scale.”
Actually I think any human being that doens’t think carefully is more naturally “socialist” because they haven’t learned that “love doesn’t scale”. Women might tend to do this more, but I suspect more of that stems from socialisation that genes. Maybe i’m wrong. But it is only the failure of love to scale that disilluions people.
“If you find all the people who pay the most in taxes, and all the people who receive the most from taxpayers, there is one distinction more stark than all others. The former are male, and the latter are female.”
No doubt true, but again, break the statistics down. Don’t just make a big pile and go “aha!”. That is exactly what feminists do.
“SS and Medicare, for starters, are HUGE transfers from men to women, even more than they are transfers from young to old.”
I question this, because women live longer, so you would assume it would go more from men to women. Are you sure that is not a statistical artifact though?
“Roissy and The Spearhead had detailed posts about this. You can find those pretty easily.”
Can you point me to Roissy’s blog? I have found The Spearhead through links, so I can probably search that, although if you have a specific example in mind a link would prevent any confusion.
Jason
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/
slwerner: “It seems that you’ve neglected to consider the number of children being born out-of-wedlock, many of whom will spend most, if not all, of their childhoods without their father living with them. Add them to the nearly half of children (born into marriages) who will see their parents divorce during their childhoods, and it seem given that the number will be well of half.”
In Sweden only 58 % of children reach the age of 17 in an intact family. For the whole 0-17 group the figure is 74 %.
http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx
I guess most Western countries are close to those figures (5-10 % deviations). I don’t think any Western country has 75 % or more of 18 YO living in intact families or more than 90 % for the group 0-17.
I think the “more than half” figure is too pessimistic. OOW birth does not necessarily mean absent father. Maybe the line goes 10-20 % under the figures for married parents. My guess is that the worst country will “only” be 5 or 10 % from the Swedish figures (i.e. 65-70 % for all children 0-17).
Women unionize faster, and in a broader range of professions, than men do. Think teacher’s unions that outright bar men from even being teachers.
Do you have a citation for that? According to Wikipedia’s history of unionism in the United States, at least, men had begun forming local trade unions “in the late eighteenth century,” while women had begun to get organized during the nineteenth.
This isn’t even questioning the assertion that women are essentially stupid, amoral children, I’d just like a citation about the union thing.
Pingback: Men Didn’t Abuse Their Power In The Past » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
Well, with a 40-year-long running dialogue, it doesn’t always seem necessary to start every conversation from the beginning and review all the assumptions in every conversation, just in case there newbies around who need to be brought up to speed. .
And, just so you know, that line of argument is also such a cliche in the Manosphere that we also have an abbreviation for it – BMDBTT – “BUT, Men Do Bad Things, TOO!!”
You line of argument here, and in other threads, is the main reason why I said in another thread that I didn’t think it was possible to turn things around. Every time some man starts to talk about how bad things are getting, someone derails the conversation to be about NAWALT and BMDBTT. It works just like the parlor magician’s trick of distracting you with banter while he appears to pull a rabbit out of your ear.
We haven’t ever been able to address the problems, because we have not been able to talk about them. We haven’t been able to talk about them, because some feminist or white knight comes in determined to defend womanhood and distorts the conversation into one of the two killer cliches – NAWALT, or BMDBTT.
Real conversation on the issue ceases because however true they may be, they are not relevant.
It is like people who have been trying to point out that –
1) there is a problem,
2) it is getting worse because no one is even recognizing it much less doing anything to address it,
3) it will keep getting worse until something is done about it
– are having a conversation that goes like this –
MRA – “Pointing a loaded gun at your head and pulling the trigger is dangerous.’
WK/Fem – “But, not all cylinders are loaded.”
MRA – “That’s not the point. It may not be absolutely 100% certain that you will blow your brains out, but it is still dangerous.”
WK/Fem – “NACAL!!!!!!
MRA – “Yes, we know that. Let’s talk about the ones that ARE loaded and what they are doing to people.”
WK/Fem – “BUT, if you stick a knife to your head, that can be dangerous, too!!!!”
And the argument goes on and on and on, but never gets anywhere.
Yes, men are capable of doing bad things. Virtually all cultures realize that and have a large number of laws and punishments designed to discourage men who do bad things. When a man murders someone, everyone in the world does not try to come up with an excuse why he did it and a reason to let him go – “give him another chance” – as they always do with women.
This is so common in our culture that we even have a shorthand term for it, too – “Pussy Pass.”
However “noble” men may inherently be or not be, most of the cultures we live in demand that they act with a certain base level of nobility. This is not the case with women – they can kill their own husbands, children, any other man, anyone but a woman, and everyone will make excuses for them.
One of the best examples of that here in the US is the way that false rape accusations are dealt with, The lie that “only 2% of accusations are false” – in other worlds they believe that “Women are far too noble to lie about that” allows them to destroy the lives of men left and right with their lies.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/congress-is-about-to-screw-over-your.html
But, of course, we can’t talk about those things, either, because NAWALT and BMDBTT.
zed: About BMDBTT. The biggest Swedish MRA blog has the moniker “Exposing the unexposed half of the equality question” , just so that the blog owner can cut these people short and tell them that there are plenty of fora for them. Not that it works that well. Feminists and their useful idiots still sometimes come there to try their NAWALT and BMDBTT tricks.
Can you point me to Roissy’s blog?
Oh, I forgot to mention, Jason, he’s no longer Roissy but “heartiste.” His blog is now at heartiste.wordpress.com. I don’t think he deleted any of his posts before he made the name change, but if you want to get to his older posts you’ll have to change roissy to heartiste in the address bar. If you’re reading TFH’s “The Misandry Bubble” right now, you’ll have to do that to read some of the blog posts he hyperlinks to.
Lavazza, I don’t read Svenska but it seems to me from the translator I ran that table for “children living with biological father” includes both married and cohabiting couples. Is that correct? I’m curious partly because the last time I checked, marriage was dropping all across northern Europe and being replaced with cohabitation – “living together”.
slwerner
However, in the specific case of alleged sexual misconduct, they have not so subtly had their Title IX funding threatened by the Dept. Of Ed. if they did not adopt a mere “preponderance of evidence” standard .
This has been done in the last year, if I remember rightly. NOW brags of having a lot of influence in the White House.
And now, this “guidance” is proposed to be formally and legally adopted within the VAWA re-authorization.
Once I would have thought that such “guidance” in legislation would be a poison pill sure to kill it. However, the successful passage of the Lautenberg amendment as a rider to a budget bill, with no debate at all, and the failure of court challenges to that law makes me pessimistic.
[Lautenberg essentially strips the US right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment) from anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”. No other Constitutional right can be taken away upon conviction for a misdemeanor (crime punishable by less than 1 year in jail, traditionally a “minor” crime such as petty theft) and there was no debate on it in the Congress whatsoever.]
One would like to hope that the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations would lobby extensively against this, because changing any criminal trial from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of the evidence” overturns centuries of legal precedent. However, because it’s part of VAWA, and thus ‘for the women”, I’m not optimistic at all about that.
As slwerner said, this is significant.
AR: Yeah. The figures are for children living with both their biological parents. In Sweden it is quite common to have children first and marry later or not all. If step parents are included the figures increase with 5 %, so that “only” 20 % of children live in a one parent household.
Checking the Swedish statistics site I see that men have gained 2,0 years in life expectancy in 10 years, compared to 1,5 for women. Especially men with higher education (red) have gained in life expectancy. The difference to higher educated women is only 3 years instead of 4, which is the average.
http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____321874.aspx
Brendan–
Yeah, first I read about her my first thought was that this would be a great time to divorce her. First have an attorney draw up a divorce petition, then move almost all the money out of the joint account he no doubt has with her into his separate account, then wait another couple of weeks so that it’s a very substantial amount of time, then have papers served on her. Voila, he gets custody. She should be made to pay child support based on imputed earnings, but that’s rarely done with women, in yet another example of striking gender inequity in family court.
@TFH
“Nope. Women unionize faster, and in a broader range of professions, than men do. Think teacher’s unions that outright bar men from even being teachers.”
I think you missed my point. I was pointing to the general entitlement mentality. Perhaps some women feel more entitled than men on average, but it does seem that at least in the younger generation the guys are catching up really quickly, and the history of trade unionism suggests, especially public sector unions, that plenty of people feel entitled to live at the expense of others.
Actually upon reflection, maybe women do feel more “entitled” to live at the expense of others because historically that was the way things worked. The women bore the children and the husband brought home the food. Unfortunately now to many people expect the bread winner to be the state.
“Also full of misandry. Check PMAFT’s blog for a photoessay of how OWS is full of misandry.”
The whole thing is full of entitlement mentality gone wild period. Although I see your point about the misandry.
“You are really going out of your way to defend women, with no evidence whatsoever to support your wishes.”
I’m not really going out of my way to defend women. We are having a conversation and i’m just asking you to substaniate your points.
“This is the most obvious one of all. Women live longer than men, which is why these programs even exist (and are thus a massive transfer of wealth from men to women).”
You claim this, but whites live longer than blacks as well. Is this also a secret racist wealth transfer program?
“Try starting ANY program where women pay and men receive”
Given I am in favour of getting the state out of _everything_ but law and order and defence and maybe some large public infrastructure i’ll have to pass on that suggestion.
“In fact, women use more healthcare per year than men. I suppose you will ‘doubt’ this too (as well as doubt that the sky is blue).”
I see no reason to doubt this. This is a conversation, it has back and forth. Why are you getting upset by this?
“In fact, many women are now complaining that ‘men are living too long’”
Many? I’m sure you can find some, but “many”? And the narcissistic evil of human beings seems to know no bounds.
“You are too quick to assume the innocence of women, without providing sources.”
No, I just tend to question things. Long experience has taught me that things are very rarely as clear cut as many people want them to be.
Jason
Ruddyturnstone,
“I’m not sure who said this, but is speaks volumes. Confrontational. Divisive. “You’re either with us or against us.” Who needs or wants “allies” like this, or on these terms?”
I did. Certainly confrontational – unlike women, men don’t shy away from that – but not intended to be divisive. The opposite, in fact.
As for what I said, in your case I was mistaken. Your comment was well argued. You had a problem with Susan, and I have no problem with you.
Pingback: Good ol’ boys of the patriarchy sweep rape under the rug. | Dalrock
“I’ll leave it to my readers to come to their own conclusions on this.”
She’s banging the waiter.
Good post.
Can anyone guess how this story ended? Hint, she bagged $85K in the divorce.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/occu_bye_bye_kids_Q5YFd2qFGXYCXsknWVMfcK