Creative destruction.
Back in May Empathologism wrote about Joel and Kathy Davisson in his post Your wife had and affair, its your fault. One of their catch phrases is “lowering the boom”. They use this term to describe wives using the divorce meatgrinder to punish husbands who have “abused” them. However, it is worth noting that anything which makes a Christian wife unhaaaapy could be argued as fitting their incredibly expansive definition of “abuse”. Does he not make her haaapy? That’s abuse! Does he not go to counseling as she commands? That’s abuse! Does he not read the relationship books she assigns to him? That’s abuse! From Don’t Develop BITTERNESS (Note: The original site has been taken down, but the Wayback machine has an archive here. In case that one goes away, here is an archive of the archive.):
Has she spoke directly to him about her heart felt needs… and he has rejected her heart-cry repeatedly?
Has she begged him to go to counseling, and he has refused?
Has she pleaded with him to read good books on marriage – yet he has declined to do so?
However, they do have requirements on the wife. Her job is to lead her husband and forgive him for being a failure:
One of these requirements is that she speak up to her husband, very clearly, and COMMUNICATE to him exactly what he is doing or not doing that is straining the relationship. Has she learned to speak up and REQUIRE that he be a man of God in his marriage by being the husband that he promised to be when he convinced her to marry him?
Another requirement for a wife, is to forgive her husband, IF he hears her heart and begins to change in to the husband that he promised to be when they were dating. She needs to recognize his efforts at change.
Has she forgiven him for failures and recognized efforts at change?
If a wife has NOT been plain spoken, If a wife has NOT called upon her church leadership to speak to her husband and call him to accountability, if she has NOT asked him to read books or go to counseling, then she has to do this first. First things first.
I’m sure there are many unhaaapy Christian wives reading my post who want to know: I’ve nagged him and complained about him to others. I’ve told him what to read and which Oprah episodes to watch. And I’m always having to forgive him for being such a failure. What next should a godly wife do?
Many of my other Christian readers are no doubt thinking of the scriptural instruction that wives win their husband over without a word, and they would be technically right. No words are required, just a good divorce lawyer. If he is making her unhaaaapy, Joel and Kathy explain that she has a sacred obligation to use the family courts to crush him (emphasis mine):
If she has done all of this, and he is still a manipulative, controlling, and abusive husband. Or if he is simply a retreating, non-responsive husband to her needs who continually ignores her pleas, informing her that she is losing her sanity, then she must act before she becomes embittered.
She must act before she indeed does lose her mind.
She must decisively give him what he wants: out of the marriage. What does he want? He wants OUT!
In this case, it is time for him to get exactly what he wants, and that is to be put out of the home.
She must engage the law to the fullest extent to extract child support and alimony. If her state can extract this from him with a separation, then separation is the way to go. If her state cannot extract this in a separation only, then she must file a divorce to put his back to the wall.
But don’t worry, this is all part of God’s plan. They explain that crushing him with the family courts is to ideally be used as a threatpoint. This is needed to restore the wife’s position of headship over her rebellious husband, and taking command of him using this tool is her biblical duty (emphasis mine):
Do we WANT divorce.. or separation in these cases, until “death do us part?”
Absolutely NOT!
We WANT restoration!
We WANT healing in the marriages.
If this wife does NOTHING, the end result is clear: She will become a bitter woman who is so deeply wounded that in many cases, her relationship with the Lord will be hurt or even ended.
Her husband will continue in his rebellion.
Even worse, there is a chance that if she doesn’t act quickly to crush her rebellious husband the no fault divorce process might misfire terribly and be used to punish her:
In most of these cases, when a wife does not finally leave him out of bitterness and anger, he will file for divorce.
He will feel fully justified that his crazy wife was the full problem in the marriage.
He may even turn the children against her because she is so crazy.
She may not see her children return to her until they are young adults and begin to understand, in retrospect, the abuse that their wonderful father put her through.
These end results are NOT good, but the Body of Christ is replete with examples of this exact end result: bitter and deeply wounded wives and self-justifying, pride-filled, completely deceived husbands and ex-husbands.
It is VERY, VERY hard to convince a Christian wife of this course of action.
Thats right, she might suffer the injustice of having her children taken from her with no due process. She could suffer this fate simply by his word alone, and the normally justified process could be instead used to trample the innocent! This is why it is so critical that an unhappy wife act decisively and crush him with the family court, and do it with extreme prejudice:
Woe to that wife who believes her husbands first proclamation of change and welcomes him back into her heart and home immediately. The first two wives that we had personal experience with, who kicked their husbands out or left the husband respectively, BOTH let the husbands come back TOO SOON. Within a week of coming home, each of these husbands reverted to their old behavior.
In one case, it took a year for the wife to get circumstances organized again to where she could leave. In the other case, the husband turned things around, provoked his wife to hit him, got a restraining order against HER, and she ended up being out of the home. He ended up with the child. It took SIX MONTHS for her to get back into her home, regain control of the child and get him out.
This is why it is also critical not only to crush him decisively, but to make him grovel:
The Spirit of God would compel you to give your husband (or ex-husband if that be the case) a chance.
Test him.
Put him through the ringer.
Make him grovel.
You suffered for twenty years.
If he cannot stand to suffer, outside the home, for a period of time, while he is doing everything that he needs to do to bring healing to your heart, then he is not a changed man. (How long of a time? That is pretty individual. If a wife has only been in a marriage for a short time, then the time would be short. If he has been a lousy husband for twenty years, then longer, obviously.
Note that even if you have only been married a short time, you suffered for twenty years. I would add that wives should be careful not to let him twist this around and make you sound crazy when you say this either. Keep in mind the husband who provoked his poor wife into beating him. He made it look like she was the abuser! Don’t use your fists to punish him, use the tools God gave you, the family court.
But lets say you are a wife who has been obedient to the Scripture (as interpreted by Joel and Kathy) and used the holy family court to crush your husband and piously made him grovel. How will a Christian woman know when her husband is finally acting the way God intends? As Dr. Mohler (separately) explains here, it is through the mysterious wisdom of her vagina, the one needle which always points to the true north of godliness:
A Christian woman CANNOT resist her husband, when he becomes Christlike.
Thats it. You will know it is time to once again honor your marriage vows when he has won back your love.
While Joel and Kathy are so incredibly over the top in how they present all of this, note that what they are describing is the plot to the movie Fireproof.
I’m not aware of any Christian leaders who are willing to directly associate themselves with Joel and Kathy and their far too overt calls to use the divorce process to bring wayward husbands in line, and I would be shocked to learn of any. However, note that no active permission from a pastor or any church body is required. All that is required is for the family courts to exist as a no reason required tool to crush husbands, and for the church to look the other way.
Actually I left out one extremely important step. Husbands who have been brought to heel need to demonstrate this by reading Joel and Kathy’s books and attending their weekend retreat:
What does this wife do when her husband first turns his heart back toward her?
She must demand that he get into counseling and begin a journey of discovery, BEFORE the marriage is restored.
Our books are perfect for this man. Paul Hegstrom’s books are perfect for this man. Ken Nair’s books are perfect for this man.
Our Intensive Marriage Weekend is a required necessity for this couple, BEFORE the marriage is restored.
I might offer that Sheila Gregoire’s book To Love Honor and Vacuum should be added to the list to teach the newly tamed husband all about biblical headship.
Edit: Click here for a list of exciting products and services you can purchase from Joel and Kathy to assist on your journey of marital creative destruction.
See also:
Wrecking ball image licensed as Creative Commons by Stefan Kühn.
If a wife has NOT been plain spoken, If a wife has NOT called upon her church leadership to speak to her husband and call him to accountability, if she has NOT asked him to read books or go to counseling, then she has to do this first. First things first.
She must engage the law to the fullest extent to extract child support and alimony.
Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam, or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
These people are truly vile: none of their advice conforms to biblical principles; these people and those who support them are ungodly wolves.
From reading this, I conclude that the Christian man, in this day and age, must walk alone throughout his life, even to the point of avoiding the church. The individual Christian must take responsibility for upholding sound, biblical doctrine even if it means walking the solitary life in the midst of society.
Biblically, the Christian is forbidden to to support, house, or wish godspeed to teachers of false doctrines lest they themselves be judged along with such: the time has come to serve notice on these ravening wolves in the church.
This might be some of the nastiest female supremacism I’ve ever read. It’s honestly hard for me to say which is worse – Radfem insistence that all heterosexual sex is rape, or the above.
That ain’t no wife, that’s a whore calling for her pimp and his henchmen to rough up and shake her john down.
There are a lot of lunatics on the web. You could waste your entire blog ridiculing them. Are these two particularly influential among fundies or something? (I’ve never heard of them, because I don’t move in those circles, because I’m not an idiot.)
Danceny says:
There are a lot of lunatics on the web.
Lunatics with the force of law behind them.
I had to click through the link to verify what you were quoting. I thought I was reading a guest speaker making a really twisted parody. Sad. Related, my dad seems to really dig books and conferences like those – even Fireproof and that latest one of the last few years. That he abets a matriarch completely eludes him.
@Danceny
As I wrote, I don’t know of any Christian leaders who are willing to associate with this level of frankness. But how many Christians do you know who were horrified by the plot of Fireproof? And what church would expel a wife who followed the advice?
Many of my other Christian readers are no doubt thinking of the scriptural instruction that wives win their husband over without a word
I’m, uh, thinking of Ephesians 5:22-33
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
The church is so stupid sometimes. And toothless. Seriously, look at how church congregations work. Where’s the centralization? Where’s the authority to discipline their members via excommunication (from an ENTIRE denomination, no less)? The church is IRRELEVANT to our lives. It has no real, tangible impact on our lives. Even if the pastors make fools of themselves and accuse you of not being feminist enough for their church, you can just walk out of there and find another church. The pastors are no longer shepherds, they are no longer able to maintain the flock and ensure that the flock stays together. They have lost the authority once afforded to the Catholic Church before the Reformation.
On the bright side, at least this irrelevancy of the church means they can’t come after you with torture tools for not being enough of a mangina.
That’s not to say there aren’t some good churches left out there, but seriously… good luck finding one of them. If you do, enjoy it while it lasts. It will probably last. Assuming God doesn’t bring fire and brimstone on this country before then.
Sorry Tarl…St. Paul was just a bitter single misogynist who couldn’t get laid. That’s why he wrote such terrible stuff about women.
/sarcasm
A hypothesis:
This is a cheesy commercial venture, full stop. Relationship books are not repair manuals or Mickey Spillane novellas: the target market is female. Hence, they appeal to the amour-propre of a certain segment of that population.
Disgusted. That couple should be thrown out of the church as the wolves they are.
Anyone remember Harvey and Marilyn Diamond? Same business, somewhat different inventory.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/fitforlife.html
The longer I look at these issues the more convinced I am that dowries will eventually make a return.
“Lunatics with the force of law behind them.” Exactly.
These people are sick – and evil. Leper Messiahs (check your Metallica if the reference doesn’t take).
Dalrock, I forgot to mention this, but Country Music Television (CMT) has been showing “Fireproof” in regular movie rotation for several weeks this month (December 2012). One night last week, it was aired back to back at least three times. I’m guessing that it doesn’t cost them very much to run it. Still, nothin’ better to watch between Christmas and New Year’s Eve than a “Fireproof” marathon, eh?
Art Deco, I have never been to any of these seminars, weekends, etc. but from what I can tell, they are almost exclusively marketed to women. P.T. Barnum was right. But there is also marketing to desperate, deeply betaized husbands of the what can I do to make her love me again? variety. That’s the aspect that I despise. Because these kinds of things are like handing a cement life preserver to a drowning man, or a bottle of 150 proof booze to a woman alcoholic. Or both at the same time, in the case of a “couples retreat”.
PS: Art Deco, I would genuinely appreciate your critique of my little parable on the nearly dead previous thread.
I found some comments on The Marriage Bed (TMB) about these two. Apparently they have tried to convince the folks who frequent that site of their adherence to Scripture and TMB’s errors of interpretation and were ‘run out of town’ by the good folks on TMB. I can only reiterate here what I have said in other places: for mature Christian input on matters marital, including sex, TMB is the place to go. And empath, if you are reading, CF do not like you telling their readers to go to TMB.
Why do feminists think that everything is a zero sum game?
@AR
Your parable was very direct. Little room for misinterpretation. How about a true Christian helping him in the end, putting the Churchians to shame. Maybe also something about the government not helping him because was not from a favored group. Sometimes subtler is better.
@ukfred
The Marriage Bed has a serious air of ickiness for me. There is a climate of repression or wrong expression. They fear nudity and demonize only men for porn, and they mostly offer pussy passes for wives that withhold sex and do not teach men how to be dominant. It is egalitarian and femDOM.
Just because TMB points out that Joel and Kathy are not worthwhile does not mean that TMB is a go to site for good advice on marriage. Catholic Answers forum is even worse and totally femDOM, by the way.
Anonymous Reader:
Literary criticism I do not do, so no exposition. As I said, I think you identify a real problem with the culture of contemporary Christian discourse and fellowship. I have told confederates in the past, that when they speak to a 23 year old man, they must make utterances in form and substance which tally with his understanding of the world he inhabits. He has a mother, he has sisters, and there are the women in his life who come and go. Their messy human reality is not lost on him and he is unlikely to idealize them, nor should he. To make him the scapegoat of the troubles of our time is to invite him to ignore you. And you will deserve it. I usually persuade one person per thread.
Fr. Neuhaus used to say that every society gets sex wrong (but the substance and degree of error does vary temporally). Same deal with marriage and child-rearing. Still, the ruin of domestic life all over the occidental world had not been seen in I do not know when.
I am curious as to how this advice works out for any woman who would follow it. I wonder if they tried this on the wrong man, if they wouldn’t end up meeting the Lord much sooner than they were expecting.
UKFred, I went and peeked at TMB and found it to be interesting. The site mods are very smart to limit some forums to subscriber-only.
Yet more reason why its best to not get married.
The year i got married, i was working a part-time/casual job. During pre marital counselling, the facilitator kept circling back to it. She could not leave it alone. It obviously bothered her immensely that wifey-to-be was working full time and i was not.
Male utility, expendability and all that.
On divorce, i like the approach taken by this man. When it all goes bad, just sue the lawyers that drafted the prenup:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/grant-hackett-suing-lawyers-over-prenup-20121231-2c1wq.html
“I conclude that the Christian man, in this day and age, must walk alone throughout his life, even to the point of avoiding the church.”
—
Well, not alone, but yes, you are correct.
CL, did you go read the section they have at TMB on refusal of sex in marriage? I have not, but would be curious to know your opinion.
Art Deco, I do not ask for lit-crit. I ask if it is your opinion that traditional conservatives would be able to see any point at all to my little parable, or if it would be too subtle for them. I also ask if there is any thing they might have heard or read in their traditional, conservative ways that might be similar to my story, or if everything in it would be new to them.
Art Deco
As I said, I think you identify a real problem with the culture of contemporary Christian discourse and fellowship. I have told confederates in the past, that when they speak to a 23 year old man, they must make utterances in form and substance which tally with his understanding of the world he inhabits. He has a mother, he has sisters, and there are the women in his life who come and go. Their messy human reality is not lost on him and he is unlikely to idealize them, nor should he. To make him the scapegoat of the troubles of our time is to invite him to ignore you. And you will deserve it. I usually persuade one person per thread.
Then more power to you. Feel free to take any point that I make that might be of use to you and rework it to serve your own purpose, if it is of help. My writing is “open source”…
However, it isn’t just the 23 year old men.
Consider two scenarios.
A: A 35 year old woman who has never been married, with three children by three different men.
B: A 35 year old man who was married, but has been thrown out of his house, served with a bogus protective order based on vague claims of DV, who is sleeping in his car because he can’t access his bank account or any credit cards due to legal freezing of assets, and who is in danger of losing the job he’s held for 15 years.
Assume one of each of the above comes to your church, in need of some help. How would they be treated? Would one be more likely to receive ongoing help than the other? If so, which one?
In my opinion, a lot of traditional conservatives are in the process of making themselves totally irrelevant to men who are in need of help. Some of those men will have long memories.
And lo the lord unto her ‘Goddess, he can no longer ignite the gina tingle. You must journey to tje divorce lawyer and engage the courts. They will stripe him of all his land, his livestock and his livilyhood and then cast him among the sodomites. In this you will do for me, for his great crime of not being exciting” and she went and engaged the courts with the laywers and it came to pass that her husband was stripped of all worldly goods and cast among the sodomites. And a the Lord looked down and said it was good.
@AR
I haven’t delved into it a whole lot but my general sense of it is not good. 7man confirms my sense of it as he commented at TMB before I met him. He was seeking to find out how women really felt and what women wanted. He told me that on the surface TMB looks good, yet they are seeking answers just like everyone else. They are not very aware about what is happening to men and children in our world and although it sounds good on the surface (kind of like Sheila Gregoire does when one first sees her site), it is often eyewash. A very telling point is the demonisation of men for porn use without understanding the reasons. Often a man uses porn because something is off in his marriage.
Women do other things when it is off; most particularly more testing, more nagging, and more control. Unless these issues are addressed together, it is futile. Shaming men for what they do in a bad marriage just shifts the entire blame to men and nothing improves. TMB needs a dose of manosphere truth, but individuals resist the thing they most need. I see this over and over again.
Their article (only one that I’m aware of) on Christian Naturism is way off base as well – basically saying that because wives can be reluctant, it is a wedge between couples and that men often get into it for the ‘wrong reasons’ – the implication being that a man is only there to lust after naked women. This hands over control of the marriage to the wife’s feelings and it is femDOM.
There is no substance to it and so in order to support their views, they resort to anecdote. Their stance on contraception is also BS – they say the Bible doesn’t mention it, but that is simply false (when looking at the Greek and historical context). That it doesn’t mention specific modern methods (duh!) is used as rationalisation to OK artificial contraception, but it is clear in the Greek (sorcery and pharmakeia) that this is prohibited.
That is just from a cursory glance at the site, which is why I can’t even be bothered to dig deeper; the shit is already spread on the walls.
One last thing, in the article on headship is this quote you can all have a field day with: “I’m supposed to emulate the perfect Christ, while my wife is to emulate the very imperfect church…” Go and see for yourself – look at the Headship article and spot the nuggets of femDOM nonsense. (Hint: It’s in just about every sentence written there).
@AR
I got distracted by all the crap at TMB and didn’t look at the sexual refusal that you asked about. Summary: 22 reasons to excuse a wife that refuses sex, without any mention of the 3 most important (hormonal contraception during dating, ongoing HC, letting a woman be in charge).
In the town I have been living in, protestant clergymen have largely made themselves irrelevant in the practice of social ministry and know nothing of it. Committees of the laity run social ministries with little pastoral input. The penultimate incident of which I have personal knowledge, the American Baptist pastor fobbed off the issue off on a local realtor who at least knew who to call among the local (secular) philanthropies. The last incident I am aware of, the Anglican vicar first told the applicant to come back when he had finished his lunch. Later he told him to go to Syracuse because “we don’t do that here”. The man went over to the American Baptist church and ran into a random laywomen (the pastor being absent). She took it upon herself to address his problem out of her wallet. The churches are in deep yoghurt of their own manufacture, at least in the part of the country where I have spent most of my life.
Dude, this all seems so horrible. Small point in the article, but on engaging the church leadership to correct him, shouldn’t they hear his side of the story first? I seem to recall reading something somewhere about not answering a matter before you hear it. If the wife is about to detonate a Christian marriage, shouldn’t somebody in the church be arbiting this, just for input sake? This type of advice is like pastoral malpractice.
Here is the TMB link on MY SPOUSE WON’T HAVE SEX which CL was referring to.
Well Danceny it’s great that you are not an idiot. Though that is actually a separate claim from whether or not you run with fundies. No, J and K are not influential with fundies, not that fundies need any help with man bad woman good for the most part. They are however quite popular with a varied cross section of (gasp) women. They also have minions and mini me’s running round the web, one will show up here…..be sure….as this is a big blog.
Dal rock is not wasting time on this. Regardless that JK are the edge of the spectrum, it’s keen to note that they are the natural end game for the direction the church is pushing….edging little by little….and when a poor wounded fawn finally finds JK she sighs relieved that finally someone gets her frame. Though no major ministers support them, when they come up, as they often did at Christian Forums because I raised the topic, it’s well better than 80 percent of self proclaimed Christian women that actively or tacitly support them. What women wouldn’t ? Well, some don’t, and some lie.
The other gem is they have men stuck in toddler stage…their words. For a real treat watch the video on the home page….for a serious shock, read their forum where they dole out this advice. And if you have masochist tendencies, subscribe to their email letter, where you will get the testimony letters from the beaten men who won back the wife.
I want to know how long those men last before they snap postal…..or before the woman is rutting with the landscaper.
Glad you raised this Dalrock. I crossed your road at 1:39 PM today in the driving rain.
“I conclude that the Christian man, in this day and age, must walk alone throughout his life, even to the point of avoiding the church.”
Not an option for the conscientious Catholic (or for the Orthodox either). Failure to attend Mass (or the Divine Liturgy) is a matter for the confessional. (Though I think what we are speaking of is more of an evangelical problem and eastern Churches I have attended are not feminized).
you thought these two were EVIL? check out the ramblings of this woman:
http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/
NB: for full effect, she has put a picture of a woman on a hamster wheel …….
Wow! is all I can say.
Dunno. I think this pair are oily enough that their target market will lose interest ‘ere long.
@ Art Deco: not a matter for the confessional protestant either. We are commanded to meet together.
@ General: this couple are frankly heretical. They forget that God hates divorce. (And yes, I have been through the meat grinder that is the family court. I hate divorce too). Besides, saying that a man is in rebellion for not following their feminist teaching is frankly cultic.
I have one, simple question: how does anyone JUSTIFY this in light of the Scriptures?! I must have missed something, because MY Bible frowns upon divorce, and all but tells Christians NOT to do it…
Oh Platinum misses you have hit the mother lode. Charis is a separate topic to herself. Hers is adjunct to J and K, she was a regular divine fem worshiper at CF. she has some great stuff.
If you wish to see the thing where women take basic Greek translations and use clever tools like word proximity (that word is near this word in book xyz, so lets assume we an plop it down in abc and see how it changes the meanings. Her blog name should tell anyone who follows this stuff that you wll get a dose of that, of kephale (if I got the spelling right) and lots of very faux exegesis based on translations, but following not rules of logic or syntax. She proves we can truly get what we want from scripture. And she is angry to boot.
One of her tenets is called beastly sex which is sex that the husband wants for purely physical urges. She says that must be rebuked and soul unifying sex only thank you much. And it’s the woman who is the judge of that by the way.
I haven’t picked on her because I know her. There is lots there, and links to lots of others. These are the intellectual heavies of the evangelical feminist movement.
Cracks me up the hamster wheel, which she uses to illustrate something else.
I recommend, dalrock, go there and get some ideas, not that you need help with topics, but these are core Christian marriage and gender issues, scripture invoked and twisted, silly claims made that the church is marching head fast into patriarchy and how dangerous that it,,,,,,,dystopian fiction.
Chris…they are a cult…zero doubt. But setting them side simply like that is a bad idea because they sell something that Christian women will buy. They sell sympathy and drama, and they sell power and control.
I’ve asked before, imagine the reverse of a ministry that set men over women just like they do the opposite….OF COURSE many men would take it, less because men don’t wanna be bothered by stuff.
TMB is also a great topic. it’s just not this topic, surprisingly there isn’t even that much overlap. but CL7M like that. That’s ok. All these should be outed. It’s not a waste of time as one unbeliever or unenthusiastic liberal believer suggested up top. For most, especially this in the battles now, these are the issues that will rake their very lives.
Ask Joel Davisson to explain how God hating divorce fits with them selling divorce. Seriously, or find his writings on it. hates Divorce means hates MEN divorcing no hates MEN abusing their wives. not divorce generally, especially when the snowflakes need their hearts to be listened to.
Jesus was wise enough to NOT marry.
Modern day pastors: The shepherd has become the sheep.
@Art Deco
As cynical as I might sound feminism is coming to a church near you. The question is if the church can resist such satanic forces. Eastern orthodoxy will not be spared the feminization of the world.
Those two characters you discribed here Dalrock are talking about the foundations of murder suicides.
Sharrukin: “Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam, or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.”
Ah, no wonder feminists hate their considerate, helpful husbands– so they can take his house, his kids and half or more of his money and give it to a yearned-for rapacious jihadist who’ll validate her feminine sexuality by taking her like mercilously like a goat and/or concubine whenever he wants– the feminazi-islamist connection appears! (All that “soulmate” cruising EPL-liberated folk who aren’y “haaapy”… )
@ Dalrock, just for fun, do a dissertation on this Charis lady….
and I quote her “For a Christian wife, being “subject to her husband in everything” may or may not resemble her experience being “subject to Christ in everything” depending on how much her husband reflects Christlikeness in the manner in which he treats her (which is the thrust of Paul’s teaching directed to husbands in Ephesians 5).”
and
“And if I am SUBJECT TO a man who is constantly WILTING me by his behavior and refuses to change his WILTING ways, then in this day and age (unlike the peasants of yesteryear), I have the power to choose not to be SUBJECT TO him anymore.”
#NuffSed……
@ empath, I saw that link from Charis, and let’s say that the full impact of what is discussed on this blog has hit me HARD!! and I’m serious!!! I actually felt my jaw drop!! I’m not exaggerating!!
@ Dalrock, my future husband wherever he is, cannot thank you enough for drilling sense into my head. 2012 may have been a terrible year for me, but one of the highlights was finding this blog. keep up the good work in the new year.
You’re damn right that she’s a vile whore.
I hope she burns in hell.
Eastern orthodoxy will not be spared the feminization of the world.
Cannot say about Orthodoxy. The Byzantine-rite Catholic parishes have (in my observation) proven not to be porous to contemporary corruptions of creed, code, and cult.
There really is only two religions that still operate from the patriarchy perspective.
The Catholic Church and Islam. Protestant churches quickly corrupted themselves when they allowed birth control.
With all respect to Art Deco and taterearl:
While I can imagine there are still parishes out there that are mostly unaffected, I know to my absolute certain knowledge that in the blue states both the Catholics and the Orthodox are full of understanding for single carousel riders and their thug spawn, thinking nothing of praising their heroic single motherhood and trying to hook them up to naive church betas to that they can pay for the “little lady” and her brood. The feminine imperative is in full swing. Might be there are holdouts out in the red states. But these are just that – holdouts. Last stances before the deluge of “man up and marry those sluts!”
What they say is inconsequential. What they do is where it is.
both the Catholics and the Orthodox are full of understanding for single carousel riders and their thug spawn, thinking nothing of praising their heroic single motherhood and trying to hook them up to naive church betas to that they can pay for the “little lady” and her brood. The feminine imperative is in full swing. Might be there are holdouts out in the red states. But these are just that – holdouts.
I am a lifelong resident of blue states and believe me I have never witnessed anything like this in a novus ordo parish, a traditional latin parish, or an eastern-rite parish. The daily life of a contemporary Catholic parish has a number of wretched elements, but what you describe I have never seen. The proprietor of this site has quoted officials of Focus on the Family uttering sentiments you describe, but Focus on the Family is not a Catholic outfit. For the most part, pastors are loath to be confrontational in their formal preaching (although that reserve is no where near the evasions that I have seen mainline protestant clergy practice as a matter of routine), so you often get infrequent and qualified remarks on topics where historic ethics and morals collides with contemporary sensibilities. The closest I have seen to what you describe would be the activities of crisis pregnancy centers, but I think these are mostly oriented toward arranging for transitional practical help for the pregnant unmarried as a conduit to derailing an abortion.
You know, the best discrete reason to marry someone and stay married to someone (apart from categorical imperatives derived from tradition, scripture, and the magisterium) is that she is the mother of your offspring. You are always in some way lashed to the woman who bore your children. Shotgun marriages are not a fragile as is commonly assumed. They do face threats to their durability, the chief (but by no means sole) threat being a taste for expressive divorce among mothers. The Catholic Church is not promoting expressive divorce on any level, they are just not giving the divorce culture the vigorous and multi-valent resistance it merits. (Yes, the diocesan annulment mill is a scandal).
The Church promotes at least 6 months before marriage to go through a time where a priest counsels what is expected of both spouses. Now I haven’t gone through this so I can’t tell you if it’s all about the man gets all the responsibility and the woman gets all the reward or anything else that is not scriptural but at least the man will have an idea of what lady he is getting involved with.
Annulments from what I can tell are a harder process than divorce…there has to be a fault involved. Combined with the fact the woman does not receive cash and prizes from a marriage separation…just that she was never married to begin with. Birth control is still not allowed (even though women do it, that is still a sin)…which I feel birth control is the root issue of the problems we have today. The Church is anti-abortion and does not allow female pastors.
Now that’s not to say there are weak priests who do not exercise sound doctrine…but the central concepts of the Church are patriarchy.
Annulments from what I can tell are a harder process than divorce…there has to be a fault involved. Combined with the fact the woman does not receive cash and prizes from a marriage separation…just that she was never married to begin with.
In theory, yes, but in practice in the typical US diocese, no. Annulments are not that hard to get in the typical US Catholic diocese because the most common ground is that the person was not capable of making the required commitment — something which is routinely proven by actions subsequent to the marriage which are used to demonstrate that the person didn’t understand what the commitment was, and therefore never made the proper commitment (lacked the required intent to enter into the sacramental marriage). Almost any significant marital problem can be used as evidence of this, and is, in these tribunals. The key about them is that (1) it is a pain in the ass of a process, because unlike the no-fault situation in the civil aspect of the divorce, to get an annulment you need to dissect and exhume the marriage, testify and so on, and that’s a pain in the ass for most people and (2) it’s time and energy consuming as compared with the civil divorce side of things. Many Catholics who are divorced don’t bother with getting an annulment for these reasons — the most common reason people do it is if they want to be remarried in the Catholic Church. I realize that outside the US it’s harder for Catholics to get an annulment, but that isn’t the case in the US.
Also, she still gets cash and prizes. Not from the Church, but from the civil divorce process — just like any other divorcee. And, as far as I am aware, it is required that one be civilly divorced in order to have one’s marriage annulled, so by the time the marriage is annulled, she’s already cashed in.
Elusive Wapiti went through a Catholic divorce and annulment process in the Eastern United States about ten years ago, and is useful reading on this process (although I have also seen the process firsthand back when I was Catholic in the years before 2000).
Here is a question, why do women nag and men not? A good answer might have some insight.
Afterall, men are supposed to submit to their wife’s nagging.
Ha. Once one of these harpies kicks a man out of the house to “work on himself”, what do you think is going to happen? He will be in his room at the motel 8 and think to himself- damn this ain’t so bad, boy this silence is great, no nagging, crying or drama. No more “the problem that has no name”, just peace and quiet.
Only a sackless wonder would grovel for a wife like these described. I seriously cannot belive a man would prostrate himself to a bitter angry Harridan after tasting freedom.
Any real life stories that say otherwise?
@Shinzaemon- to add to that, he might be at the Motel 8 and start thinking about all the “things” he can do now that he is unsupervised.
Sackless wonder who would grovel prostate to his wife?
John Gray, and the dudes who wrote the “Every Man” series
Shinza, they offer tons of stories. Ive knows some personally, not via that stupid ministry, but generally, who when they found themselves kicked out were prepared to grovel, especially when kids are involved. One thing to keep in mind is that this idea is reflected in the filing stats themselves. Men have more staying power, do not wish to jettison a marriage, are cozy in it even if not elated. Men stay….period. Women emote and react, file divorce and with much legal and relational violence send the man to be alone. Men, after married for years and with kids, find the friends and support they thought they had evaporate as they all coddle the woman. Men then kill themselves. All of this shows that no, men do not simply sigh, relieved that they no longer are subject to bitchiness. Whether it makes sense is irrelevant.
Almost all evangelical teaching is a teeing up of the drive where she tosses the man as, at least, a mode of correction, and at most a real ridding of the jerk
This stuff is comprehensive and spans decades of the churchians life beginning as little children and then teens. Those not raised in church (me) can see it more easily, like i can see that the fish is submerged in water while the fish says “huh?”.
The men who end up “winning back the wife”, some will actually take what they can get, which again reflects two things, one a level of commitment that is too great like a kicked dog, and two, just how adaptable men are. I mean a man marries a pleasant woman who is enthusiastic for sex, and light hearted. Fast Fwd and he is subject to endless complaining, lists, and no/little sex….yet these men laugh at the street parties in the neighborhoods and treat their wives pleasantly.
Wives, having trouble submitting to your husband? Ignore the advice from J&K. Instead try physical posture, positional submission for 2 minutes a day. Professor Amy Cuddy says it works even if you don’t feel like doing it:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/31/body-language.aspx
Kudos to Red Pill Wifey. She had this figured out last October:
http://redpillwifery.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/girl-game-submissive-positioning/
Maybe this is one of the reasons that spanking works.
@Bee
The physical reflects the spiritual and vice versa. As well as spanking, couples should try arguing naked, facing each other, and holding hands. Good luck angrily shouting back and forth while in that position! (Side benefit: doors stay on hinges).
I will just say that any church group or ministry that promotes divorce, even as a threat, is not to be trusted.
Why any man would even consider marrying a woman like this, who would cause immeasurable harm to him, his children and his extended family, is something I cannot comprehend. This ministry is not even sugar coating divorce and the part it plays in revenge of the wife on the husband and by extension, his children.
Anyway, for lawyers, stupid women like this are our meal tickets. Please continue to feed the legal profession, you silly ass churchian femcunts!
Here you go……some really cool tips on divorcing. Who needs J and K when you can read these 19 things and g’head and scrap the marriage!
http://www.ivillage.com/divorce-advice-parents-ending-their-marriage/6-b-468392#468450
The ministries that do not openly promote divorce, threat or otherwise, actually do promote divorce.
The worst is DivorceCare, a feel good thing for people to attend for healing during and after divorce. This thing is nothing more than a built in support network for women filing divorces. It pays lip service to reconciliation, and amounts to groups of women circling up after the canned power points/videos and emoting how hurt they are that divorce happened…..as we know divorce is a sentient thing amok in churches, and maybe a good exterminator is in order
Someone should explain to women that life is not always fun and happy. That is the way it is. It is nobodys fault. My grandmothers knew this, therefore their marriages worked.
I suppose you can’t sell any books with that message
Every time someone gives me crap about leaving Christianity, I’ll think about this lovely couple now. Give me honest heathen gods and pagan idolatry over this sanctimonious, misandrous and utterly hypocritical dreck. It’s openly exploitative of the divorce culture and cynically determined to .ruin lives under the flag of religion. I’m kind of embarrassed for y’all. Kind of the Christian equivalent of the pay-per-minute “psychics” in my religion.
“Someone should explain to women that life is not always fun and happy.”
Sure you could tell them that….but they will never understand it.
If you want peace, quit trying to explain things to women. They’ll feel happy when things are going good and feel sad when things don’t. Let them have your ear for a bit to air out their feelings and then be done with the conversation.
Men should should suppress feeling exceeding elated when things go good or crippling depression when things are going bad.
Farm boy is right. They did once understand it. They are steeped in a culture that tells them otherwise now that industry has freed them to have time to wallow under the cloud of unreconciled emotions. Its not a valid excuse. Its giving over to a proclivity no morally differently than when men give in the the swirling cloud of sexual urges.
Those are the two proclivity pillars of the genders, and how we manage them should be more similar. (spare me the snowflake claims)
@Farm Boy
I think less affluent women understand this better. Only a complete idiot thinks life should be (or even can be) all fun and games and endless bliss. Who reads all these dumb books? Middle and upper middle class powdered arse entitled brats, not peasant wenches who have actual work to do. This is all a symptom of an affluent culture; people didn’t used to have so much ‘stuff’ and thus had more realistic expectations. Step one: kill your television!
taterearl is right. Men shouldn’t allow themselves to get swept under by a woman’s emotions. Ride the waves, lend an ear, but don’t let it define your reality. (And don’t forget the Skittles).
I call it the ‘decadent culture’. Humans only have time to worry about such banalities when the going is too good.
Annulments from what I can tell are a harder process than divorce…there has to be a fault involved.
…
Almost any significant marital problem can be used as evidence of this, and is, in these tribunals.
I think about a third of all applications for annulment are refused, and those applying are self-selected. Roughly a quarter of nominal Catholics who shuffle through family court later receive annulments from canon law tribunals. The ‘fault’ that needs to be shown is not misbehavior within marriage but rather some sort of event or omission or pattern of conduct indicative of an antecedent state of being which invalidates the original marriage vows. The most cut-and-dried cases involve defects of form, which do not require proceedings in front of a tribunal. Catholics hoping to marry divorces can have the previous marriage examined for a declaration of nullity. To take one example, marriage vows in front of a civil magistrate and without witnesses are generally considered canonical nullities.
Why are the less affluent then so unsettled? I agree with you, they do understand this better. Its just an add on question, why then their particular flavor of gruel?
The ‘fault’ that needs to be shown is not misbehavior within marriage but rather some sort of event or omission or pattern of conduct indicative of an antecedent state of being which invalidates the original marriage vows.
Yes, but that’s big enough to drive a tank through, to be honest, for any decent advocate.
I think less affluent women understand this better. Only a complete idiot thinks life should be (or even can be) all fun and games and endless bliss. Who reads all these dumb books?
Yet, curiously, it is a long established pattern that metrics of marital durability are positively correlated with income and social stratum. I think Bradford Wilcox has emphasized this point recently, but an older generation of sociologists found this pattern to be the case decades ago.
Yes, but that’s big enough to drive a tank through, to be honest, for any decent advocate.
Way too lax, but a great many applications for annulment are refused anyway.
I call it the ‘decadent culture’. Humans only have time to worry about such banalities when the going is too good.
Yes, but there is a distinction between the whole and the parts. As societies grow more affluent, such things as expressive divorce are more common. However, you have not found in our own society in recent decades a positive cross-sectional association between divorce on the one hand and class and income on the other. The more affluent at any point are less likely to divorce.
If you want peace, quit trying to explain things to women. They’ll feel happy when things are going good and feel sad when things don’t. Let them have your ear for a bit to air out their feelings and then be done with the conversation.
A better way is to let them calm down, then explain things (and reward them also for being calm and listening). Learned that from Cesar Millan
Thank God I’m an an unmarried atheist.
@Art Deco
Yet, curiously, it is a long established pattern that metrics of marital durability are positively correlated with income and social stratum.
I would attribute that to the welfare state. Without that, the less affluent would have less option for divorce. Even the ‘poor’ nowadays are not really living in poverty, in spite of that term being bandied about quite a bit, especially with all the ‘benefits’ (dubious though they are) that single moms get.
‘Decadent culture’ is a good term for it. Everyone expects as a given things that not so long ago were considered luxuries. How many women (or even men, for that matter) would want to ‘make do’ without a car? Even in the city? Yet, one can survive perfectly well (and save a boat load of money over time) without a car.
Outside my place of employment is a blue collar neighborhood with 1000 sq ft brick ranch houses. These are reasonably nice areas. Several friends lived there for a while, then moved to a much fancier neighborhood. Their story was always the same.
In the more modest neighborhood, all households had a “stay at home mom”, as they would not make enough money to pay for child care to make a job worthwhile. In the fancy neighborhood, all of the mothers had a full time job. Now, on to how the children’s character and behavior (I think you know what comes next).
The point is, when you are concerned about surviving, then you have less time to worry about stupid stuff. Also, most of the modest neighborhood women were not indoctrinated in various “liberal arts” programs at universities.
“A better way is to let them calm down, then explain things (and reward them also for being calm and listening). Learned that from Cesar Millan”
I’d just reward them for being calm and listening…and then not get frustrated when they act up again after I explained it to them.
Yet, curiously, it is a long established pattern that metrics of marital durability are positively correlated with income and social stratum.
For these people, their children are reflections on themselves. They must go to the best universities, etc. The best way to do that is to stay married, even if they do not like each other.
I’d just reward them for being calm and listening…and then not get frustrated when they act up again after I explained it to them.
Just wait for them to calm down again. Go watch the football game or something.
So right Samuel. I found Dalrock when I googled eat pray love ( eat betray divorce). When I was kicked out I saw the synopsis for the movie. It felt like a punch in the gut. I rembered seeing that frigging book on my coffee table. I did not know Oprah was my enemy at the time.
Wisdom I have learned post divorce.
What’s yours is ours. What’ hers is hers.
If you make more than her= tingles. If she makes more, you a parasite.
If you have to go to counseling, it’s over. Save your self the money and start working on your game. You are going to need it. The SMP is a battle zone.
She will always be contacted by her exes via facebook and you have to rely on her commitment or you are toast ( did not happen but she rubbed it in). How could I know which male friends are harmless and which we’re wolves in hiding?
When she is done with you she will sign up for match.com, find her “real soulmate” and will be screwing in your bed after your moving van has left.
A project I have thinking about is: how to combat the threat of Facebook in the light of VAWA. This would be “emotional abuse”. A working solution is necessary in this day and age for the red pill man trying to keep/save his marriage.
For these people, their children are reflections on themselves. They must go to the best universities, etc. The best way to do that is to stay married, even if they do not like each other.
It’s something like that. Perhaps they like each other and get along well enough, but many of these marriages are rather lackluster to say the least (I say this from decades of observation of them). The key difference is that the spouses are (i) very future time oriented themselves and have never generally traded short term advantage for long term uncertainty in all other areas of their lives (and are consistent in this one as well) and (ii) realization that splitting up would disadvantage the long term orientation for the kids, and so they stick together, at least while the kids are minors. There is also quite a bit of very subtle yet nevertheless present criticism of people in this class who are divorced (I get this from my peers as well — not directly, it is never direct, but it is there anyway). In all this is positive because it leads to lower divorce rates — but the key isn’t that these people are head over heels for each other or living lives of wonderful, constant passion, hot sex, and unending achievements, superlatives and so on — they are just very good at plodding along through middling marriages, because plodding along in general is what they are good at.
Below this class, the FTO is much less strong, and so divorce is more common.
(And don’t forget the Skittles).
Darn right I don’t. Be a Skittles man.
Get out of evangelical churches. I women rarely behave like this in one of the conservative offshoots of mainline Protestant churches (OPC, URC, PCA, etc). According to the Belgic Confession – and many other strains of Christianity would agree – church discipline is one of the marks of a true church. If members aren’t disciplined for spreading conflict amongst the genders and between wife and husband, you can bet that there are a lot of other reasons to leave the ‘church’ also. My 20-year experience with Evangelicalism was that the gospel was rarely preached. Instead, a vague therapeutic moralism was preached every Sunday morning.
It’s doubtful that women on these evangelical feminist blogs are Christians at all: failing to submit to your husband is failing to submit to Christ’s lordship.
These heretical feminists do not cease the power-seeking at the confines of marriage and family,they seek power positions in homeowners associations,Country and State regulatory and taxing boards.
They write new laws on the Federal level.
They are so arrogant as to want to impede and ensnare any male in their sight, and (The have the law behind them.)
Feminist
Occupied
Government
FOG
Right on Brendan. Stoicism?
Speaking of no future time orientation (NFTO), these Red, Hot, and Blue pigs take the cake,
That is to say,if this was just about marriage I could be less offensive in my postings as I simply boycott that institution.
But no,this is about a sea change in the entire global society,and it will bring anarchy,chaos,and death.
The 4 horsemen indeed.
This theology is a plague,much like the locusts.The famine is the famine of truth and justice.
You get my drift,keep at it.
Art Deco, taterearl, JHJ:
I am a protestant, raised liberal mainline protestant, currently nondenominational, living in red areas in the midwest. The liberal prot churches I was raised in were fully immersed in the “help the heroic single mom” culture, complete with full assistance to the mom and thugspawn, demonization and criminalization of the deadbeat dads, excommunication of dad and embrace of mom, and “man always wrong-woman always right” view of marriage. It’s really quite dysfunctional.
@ CL:
“Men shouldn’t allow themselves to get swept under by a woman’s emotions. Ride the waves, lend an ear, but don’t let it define your reality”
I must confess this is one of the most difficult things for me to actually put into practice. This is because I must actually live with a woman who is subject to allowing her feelings to define her reality (at least temporarily). The only way I have found to deal with it is to remind myself that it is temporary; that she’ll return to “normal” when it is over; that her feelings are real but we don’t make decisions based on them; and to remove myself from the situation until the feelings have passed.
@deti….
I feel most people’s beef with Christianity and especially men is the Protestant churches. Like I said I think they went south when they allowed birth control and then once the females got that they started wanting more. The Anglicans started it and then they all fell.
The Catholic church may have its problems too…but not from the female imperative. Females can’t get a foothold because birth control is not allowed or promoted by the church.
Interesting post. I agree that society is a mess and that marriages are in deep trouble, but the little I know of the Davissons is not quite the picture described here. I have a friend who went to them for help – her husband was alcoholic, very rarely agreed to have sex with her (would use porn, but refused to sleep with her despite her being quite pretty), regularly used the silent treatment and other passive-aggressive tactics on her, and sometimes would blow up at her and the kids, swearing and throwing things. I believe it was from the Davissons that she learned how to set some hard boundaries and informed him that she was going to go back to school to support herself and that he needed to go to counseling and get some help. She told him that she would give the marriage three more years because she really wanted it to work out, but that she was not going to stay forever and be treated this, and if he made progress she would stay and keep working on it with him.
I think it’s been four years now? He has made progress. Things are still somewhat tentative, but he is getting better about being a *decent human being.* Women are not always simply “unhaaaapy” when they decide to leave. Humans of both sexes sometimes give and give until their tank runs dry and then they can’t do it anymore and leave. It’s important to realize ahead of time if your partner is sucking you dry and tell them about it, and while I don’t like husbands being browbeaten into constantly reading books or going to conferences or whatever, telling women NOT to tell their husbands that something is wrong is not constructive at all. He should tell her in return if he thinks she is being frivolous and unrealistic. Then they can both stomp off and sulk for a bit, then try to tackle the problem.
Deti
If you live with a woman who creates emotional realities, then she gets together with others who do similarly, it’s fascinating. Listening as some real world tangible problem is being discussed, and a reality enters the conversation, it’s dropped.
I’ve just witnessed this, without too much specifics, an actual situation, medical, arose….and it was absolutely unavoidably going to alter the ever evolving and constantly being edited and micromanaged plans pending for the coming days as the women were already accounting for each spare moment the men may have had otherwise, plans to take kids to this and that…..whatever…..then the road block. When discussing it, the women would come right up to the point where men would say, we’ll we can’t do that because we have to do this other thing, and every time they would go silent and one would remark “Jim sure makes good pulled pork” and they would all agree and set to planning the next time, months from now, that Jim could fix pulled pork.
It doesn’t blow over, really, it dies reluctantly.
Shinzaemon:
I’d say your wisdom post-divorce is pretty spot on. I wouldn’t recommend any married man go to joint counseling or marriage counseling. If he needs counseling he should get it alone.
Marriage counseling isn’t shown to be helpful, even if the two are seeing a pastor. She wants counseling because she wants validation from a “neutral” third party. She wants the counselor to affirm that she’s right and the man is wrong. My observation and the reports here are that counseling serves no purpose other than to affirm her and get him to change; and affirm that the marital problems are all HIS fault, not hers.
As for facebook: Athol suggests that if FB is a problem, the man needs to be vigilant against any AMOGing or contact from her exes. If she is talking to exes or old flames, that’s a bad sign. The husband needs to confront it directly and ramp up his own attractiveness. If he wants to keep his marriage, he will have to do this.
On the other hand, if she is determined to rekindle old “friendships”, there’s not too much one can do about this other than to demand that she make a clear choice: either (1) no further contact with your old flames or (2) let me know who your lawyer will be. And we can fight it out in the bedroom, or we can fight it out in the courtroom, but we will not fight it out on facebook.
@ Farm Boy
http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/women-cant-be-self-aware-so-dominate-them/
Again women’s emotions are emotions…they just happen. I mean I’ve seen women cry over the most idiotic things. Trying to inject logic into them is something that happens in a man’s mind.
Fireproof was about a husband that had a pornography addiction, and had anger problems, the “love dare” was written by his dad after his MOM did the love dare on his DAD. The guy wasn’t even being a leader of the house, he didn’t want to talk about Jesus with his dad at first so obviously he wasn’t going to be Christ like for his family. The wife also had problems of her own like the emotional divorce after she said she wanted out and failing for dr. smooth talker.
I think the problem today is that men are still told to be the ones to take the responsibility when something goes wrong, good leaders do that and they fix whatever is broken, the only problem is that now day’s fixing the problem is seen as abuse. I believe back in the midevil period husbands were responsible for their wife’s crime/behavior and it was his responsibility to punish her accordingly just as a parent is liable for the child’s behavior in the sense that it’s their responsibility to rear the child.
Perhaps I’m just biased because Fireproof hit home about the pornography use, and it really showed me, along with other articles on the subject, of how devastating porn can be. That’s just my thoughts on the matter, feel free to de-indoctrinate me and instruct me on the subject of being an alpha. (seriously, pls help, I’ve started to notice how many times I ask my fiancee what she’d wanna do(EQUALITY!) and not making any decisions as the leader)
Overall this is a very good post and shows the futile nature at this time of having any kind of relationship with women. It is the law. all of the talk in the world about this that game etc.etc. the laws says fuck you males and we will kill you if you don’t like it. And that is the bottom line after years of blogging and talk and it will not change until all men know this as the truth. Too many men think it is a matter of women being happy and all is well. There no such thing as toasted ice and will never be the closest we had was the garden of Eden. And thinking we can somehow come up with a way to make toasted ice is fool hardy. Joel and Kathy Davisson are speakers of the truth and should be praised for there is nowhere in society that will tell it like it is the way they have. Even the manosphere still clings to the false hope of possibilities in the atmosphere we have now. It is whats natural and the alternative is horrible. (think of mexico,syria,libya,egypt, combined with men capable of repairing robots armed with nothing to lose all wrapped up into one)
It is about the law. It has to not be legal for this story to be told period. Women will always feel the way they do. If I never ever was exed by a woman or even spoken to again it is fine by me. As long as if same woman decides to hit me I beat the hell out of her and she is arrested for battery. It sounds terrible today but would be normal in a healthy society. As long as it is by law it is nothing will change and no man,father ,son,male child is safe from enslaved death. The conversation must go on for for cultural guidance sake when the laws are gone either the nice way or the headless bodies on the side of the road way.
You are doing good work here Dalrock.
Deti,
I agree, but she can be very secretive and in my experience when you are blue pill you don’t know
until it is too late.
” let me know who your lawyer will be”
That’s gold.
@deti:
Despite the observations by AD and te, I will have to stand by my observation of Catholic and Orthodox congregations in NYC, Boston and DC. Like you, I’m a lapsed Protestant, who wanted out – I hadn’t found the red pill dispenser yet, but I knew something was deeply, irredeemably wrong. Then I went looking for Churches that practiced Christianity as opposed to feminism. And while you won’t find overt Driscolls among their clergy, what I saw of parish life certainly was just what I saw back with the WASPs; rampant divorce with the women welcome right back into the fold, finger-pointing at the men, single mothers taking the Eucharist happily with the blessing and consent of the priests, study circles praising women and heaping blame on men, attempts to hook up divorcées, single mothers, and high-N 30+ “reformed for Jesus” sluts with betas…
Perhaps these Churches talk the talk. But they sure don’t live it. At least Driscoll makes no bones about what he’s selling.
Man if this shit doesn’t scare you away from Marriage and Church bullshit at the same time, nothing will.
I would attribute that to the welfare state. Without that, the less affluent would have less option for divorce. Even the ‘poor’ nowadays are not really living in poverty, in spite of that term being bandied about quite a bit, especially with all the ‘benefits’ (dubious though they are) that single moms get. ‘Decadent culture’ is a good term for it. Everyone expects as a given things that not so long ago were considered luxuries. How many women (or even men, for that matter) would want to ‘make do’ without a car? Even in the city? Yet, one can survive perfectly well (and save a boat load of money over time) without a car.
Must disagree. The welfare state in this country (measured in dollars and cents) is largely for the benefit of the elderly and disabled, for whom marital dissolution is seldom an active consideration.
1. Temporary Aid to Needy Families, the successor to the old AFDC program, had prior to the recent economic unpleasantness about 4,000,000 on the rolls. It has been a far less consequential feature of the slum economy than was AFDC, which had 12,000,000 beneficiaries in 1996. TANF and general relief payments are a support for a modest minority in slums, skid row districts, and trailer parks, but rather remote from the day-to-day reality of the broad mass of wage earners in this country.
2. Food Stamps (SNAP) and federal housing vouchers have eligibility criteria that a large minority of working people do meet, but the sum of expenditure on these programs amounts to about $1,500 per eligible person, or roughly $4,000 per household among the eligible; that sum might make a difference in some marginal cases, but its hard to conceive of the effect being intense.
3. Bar in New York City, public housing has never been of much consequence to the ordinary wage earner and there has been proportionately less and less of it as time has gone on. Even a generation ago, public housing public housing projects did not comprehend more than 2% of all households.
—
For wage earners, the truly important welfare programs are unemployment compensation (which is temporary and was prior to 2009 fairly shot term) and Medicaid. Members of the bourgeoisie who fall on hard times have contingent access to these as well. I would really want to see some numbers before I was all that sure that the differences between the middle class and working people in propensity to draw on these programs was a vector of much consequence in influencing the propensity to divorce.
Wibbins,
My best deprogramming is probably here (especially the table). This is a full series, and there is a specific post in the series on sexual denial as well which touches on the issue. In a nutshell, Paul’s instruction that marital sex is the antidote to the temptation of sexual immorality has been turned on its head, so that now Christians argue that denial of sex is to be used as the way to keep husbands in line, and therefore keep them away from porn. See the Dr. Mohler link in the OP for a detailed example of this insanity. It is there in Fireproof as well.
I’ll do a follow up post in a day or two with a checklist for watching fireproof to show how uncannily it sells the same message as Joel and Kathy. In this sense it is far more dangerous because it is taken so seriously by good faith Christians. That good faith Christians can’t spot the issues also points out the fundamental problem, that this script is pervasive in modern Christian culture but subtle and obscured.
For these people, their children are reflections on themselves. They must go to the best universities, etc. The best way to do that is to stay married, even if they do not like each other.
I do not doubt you would find that, but it is de trop to attribute motives in this way to such a broad mass of people.
Brendan:
You read like you have been reading Edward Banfield. I suspect you have identified the driver of this. The thing is, there is nothing very wrong with muddling along. Who lives in this world but our messy and imperfect selves?
In a nutshell, Paul’s instruction that marital sex is the antidote to the temptation of sexual immorality has been turned on its head, so that now Christians argue that denial of sex is to be used as the way to keep husbands in line, and therefore keep them away from porn. See the Dr. Mohler link in the OP for a detailed example of this insanity.
Albert Mohler advocates using sex as a weapon? I make use of an old examination of conscience composed prior to Vatican II. What you say they are recommending is a matter for the confessional. There is some authoritative literature out there on ‘the marital debt’ which elaborates on the concept.
Art Deco, please see this link:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state
The data comes from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. If I am reading correctly, it shows that a single or divorced woman who is mother to 2 children who earns $29,000 / yr will receive, net of taxes, and various transfer payments from government, a net income equivalent to an earned income of $69,000. But the taxable portion of that is pretty low, so her net income is equivalent to a taxable income that is something well north of $70,000. Thus, in order to out-bid her financial situation, a man would have to earn at least $73,000 or more, and those jobs are not common. Therefore, I believe that there is all too often a financial incentive for single motherhood.
In short, below some income level, it profits women to have babies out of marriage, as well as to frivorce. This mirrors what we see in reality.
Oh Wibbins, so glad you came. No, Fireproof was not about porn or a man’s lack of Christlike behavior. Those things were in the story…..full stop. Fireproof IS porn, divorce porn and the porn of how to control that man. The movie did not show at all how devastating porn can be. It barely even spoke of/to the porn issue. It skewed the morality of a woman divorcing a RELIABLE but flawed (read-normal) man and nearly giving over to temptation to cheat with a better alpha (in her screwed up view).
You cannot see this because you are steeped in the conventional wisdom on evangelical feminism. When you realize that the subject of this post, J and K ministry, is the magnified natural result end game of the direction the men of the church are heading in their attempts to coddle the women, you can then realize that the men writing that and their other movies are just Joel Davisson lite. Porn is a prop. The sexual proclivities men give over to are bad, while the emotional proclivities of women are superior and not to be questioned, because we celebrate feeeeelings round the church.
Dalrock touches the upside down of the church on sex in his comment. Sexual refusal is rampant in churchian couples. If not refusal, rote sex and a smug morality about leaving the lights on. The wife in Fireproof was exemplar. She was needy, unsatisfied with her husbands failure to lead the way the church teaches (which you need to know is all made up, there is no checklist for spiritual leader to be found in the Bible other than just character….there is not a pray together, do family devotionals, all that which you infer embracing), and she was not having sex with him. Woe to the man who them points out hey……she was sinning!. Because cause and effect are valid when its the woman sinning, not the man.
Please read nonstop here and the links, for days
I take issue with the idea that JK speak the truth, but grey may have simply stated that that way meaning something else.
There is certainly not real truth behind their billowing. The truth though, and maybe what he meant, is that they describe the end game in a way that makes its ugliness apparent to most men, and some women. They have done something double brilliant.
Peddlers of simple relational materials prey on womens emotional tendency wo want to feast on that. JK go further and go after a subset of hurting Christian women…..no matter why they are hurting. There are no doubt actually cases they work with where there is a man who is an asshole. Still their prescription is pure evil…..pure….evil.
Grey may have a point about false hope in the atmosphere we have. If you can turn some of the info into a win in your own home, great. Systemic fixes remain elusive. Maybe one day an honest to goodness church would break out, by men, for men. The men would have to be single, or aloof, the wives would not tolerate it and would call his attendance emotional abuse.
Nah, not gonna happen, men wont hang where there are no women. Female proclivity beats male proclivity, again
Dancy writes, “Danceny says:
December 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm
There are a lot of lunatics on the web. You could waste your entire blog ridiculing them. Are these two particularly influential among fundies or something? (I’ve never heard of them, because I don’t move in those circles, because I’m not an idiot.)”
Dear Dancy,
There were a lot of lunatics in Christ’s time, who united to put Christ to death. You could waste your entire life ridiculing them. Or you could “Dancey” around the evil forever, ignoring it and letting it triumph. Glad to see Dalrock has chosen the former, harder path.
Anonymous Reader, I would never use Zerohedge and a source and that figure is nonsense. Public expenditure on Medicaid, the most consequential program for those neither elderly nor disabled, is about $470 bn. A large mass of that is allocated to financing nursing homes. Somewhere ~$280 bn is devoted to medical expenses of the impecunious. Not everyone who is eligible signs up for it. The potential beneficiary population is around about 90,000,000. You are looking at about $3,000 in medical benefits per person (which is only of consequence if her employer does not offer insurance and which are not fungible). SNAP distributes (last I heard) about $89 bn in benefits over a population of about 90,000,000 potential beneficiaries. About $27 bn are distributed in federal housing vouchers to a similar potential beneficiary population (there being a long waiting list for vouchers). Federal subsidies for utility bills amount to about $4 bn. The notion that this will add up to $50,000 in benefits for a divorcee is just bad math.
Empathalogicalism, systemic repair cannot occur until there are enough individuals to support such. While feminism was imposed from the top down, in typical Marxist fashion, the counter must come from the proverbial grassroots. There will for years to come be feminists and White Knights in the opinion-leader class, the way to topple them is by undermining, subtly cutting the earth out from under them rather than an open challenge.
Those people, mostly TradCons, who expect a sudden event such as an election, or a Supreme Court decision, or some other dramatic thing, to sweep away generations of Gramscian cultural Marxism are at best in some kind of groupthink. More likely they are just so cossetted in a cozy cocoon away from the real world, where young women’s cultural norms are set by the likes of Gaga, Taylor Swift, and their mother’s fave Madonna, that they simply have no clue what the “new normal” looks like.
So we are back to where we always were: one man helps another man, one father helps another father, and we all try to cope with the situation, living with the world as it is rather than as it should be. We laugh at the words of women, and watch their actions. Those who would order us to bow down before pedestals, be they feminists, or femininists, or White Knighting tradcons, get nothing but scorn.
One man at a time. That’s how Samizdat worked, in the Communist dicatorships, with writings passed from typewriter to typewriter, a copy made here, a copy made there, one by one. Grand, sweeping, dramatic events only happen after the foundation has been laid down, sometimes for years, decades, even generations, by one man quietly talking with another.
Art Deco, that you would never use that as a source, and that you think it is nonsense…..is neither data nor a reference. Why do people say things like that?
The rest of your post is tangentially related at best. Please do the math and break all that down to lay it beside what he said.
Maybe follow the link and then follow the next link and see that the source you deride is not the actual root source. There is some discretion in how some of the things are valued, to be sure, but the benefits are there.
As a person who grew up in entitlement culture, with a single mom who availed herself to it and as an elderly single women still does, I have at least anecdotal factual data that taking these macro numbers and some population data and doing simple division is not a credible response, again, even if the figures offered by AR’s source are subject to interpretation.
The point he is making is made independent of the particulars, so I have to ask what the motive is for the refutation? Do I recall you claimed to be an ex-govt bureaucrat? Someone above did. If not you, my apology. I ask because I’m trying to understand the overarching point. Do you refute that there is incentive potential in divorce? Because you may be right, in the long run. But there is indeed a lack of immediate consequence for women, and there is at least the allure of the illusion of government stepping in to back fill. That combined with the emotions involved putting anything close to the arithmetic of a family budget way out of the picture leaves his point as valid
AR I agree. The expectation of some event fixing anything is an equal opportunity fallacy of the low information voter though, not just the ignorant constituency among the trad cons but that of the ignorant left as well. That point is not meant to refute yours.
I agree, man helps man, individually or in small groups of those who know.
What I notice, again, is there is no category for the innately conflicted liberal red pill man but one reserved for the trad con. Why? Setting aside the moral debate of left vs right because thats going nowhere, the financial side of the leftest red pill guy, who may well be motivated by rejection of the social side of the tradcon, the financial side necessarily feeds the best in even more tangible ways than any succor offered by automaton tradcon white knights
There’s one small problem with your comment, Mr. Snout In The Public Trough. The source isn’t zerohedge, it’s Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You can see Mr. Alexander’s complete presentation in pdf format here. The chart in question is on page 8.
Please feel free to respond.
Off topic here a little bit….
I’m noticing a decided meme among the manosphere’s critics and erstwhile allies stating essentially the following:
1. The “female imperative” is a figment of men’s imaginations; a boogeyman on which men can blame their sexual and relationship failures..
2. Feminism is a convenient crutch on which men can blame their failures.
3. The manosphere all of the worst attributes of feminism: radical hatred of the opposite sex, scapegoating the opposing sex for all the world’s problems, extreme political and sociological positions on women in general.
4. The manosphere is great at figuring out the shortcomings of women, but pisspoor at figuring out men’s own shortcomings.
5. The manosphere is creating hardened cynics and teeth-gritting ideologues divorced from reality.
I would have to agree that there are some men stuck in that mode. But I would have to ask the manosphere’s detractors what they can offer men who have been stripped of their assets and children in a divorce. What do they have to offer someone like Wibbins who comes here admitting he needs some schooling on alpha traits and that he shouldn’t be asking his fiancee what she wants to do all the time? What help or instruction can they offer men who have failed time and again in their relationships after doing everything their feminized parents, teachers, pastors and other civic and religious authorities told them to do in their dating and relationship lives?
All I see in the above is: “You are all angry and bitter losers who can’t get laid. You need to grow up, man up, suck it up and accept the new reality. You can’t judge me! Take that plank out of your own eye before you try taking the mote out of my eye!”
Those people, mostly TradCons, who expect a sudden event such as an election, or a Supreme Court decision, or some other dramatic thing, to sweep away generations of Gramscian cultural Marxism are at best in some kind of groupthink.
1. There is no such thing as cultural Marxism
2. That line of thought would be very unusual among social conservatives in our time. One of the more heavily invested in political mobilization ca. 1980 was the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his crew. Falwell had retreated to incremental deal-making by 1988 and dissolved his political organization in 1989. James Dobson was never invested in political mobilization: Focus on the Family was devoted to distributing educational material and publishing studies. Deal Hudson was at one time the Catholic publicist most inclined toward political action, but he tended to think of it as more a means of harm avoidance.
Empatho..
Zerohedge is just not a reputable source, and never has been. I have reviewed the federal budget figures myself as well as the New York State budget. The notion of a divorcee racking up $40,000 in government benefits per annum as a matter of routine is just nonsense. It is conceivable if she has an abnormally large family and benefits from temporary programs that ordinarily enroll contextually modest numbers of people. If you have about 4 children (i.e. your antecedent intact household had six people in it and exceeding in size 97% of all American households) and you qualify for TANF, SNAP, housing vouchers, and utility subsidies, it might add up to ~$40,000 in benefits. Most of that would be the TANF payments which would preclude you from being employed, so where are the $29,000 in earnings coming from?. TANF is time-limited, though there are ways for conniving social workers to stop the clock. I think the beneficiary rolls are now larger than they once were, but until recently it only enrolled a grand total of 1.3% of the population. The vast majority of adult women thereupon have never been married. It is a slum program, not one much used by the rank-and-file working class.
Do I recall you claimed to be an ex-govt bureaucrat?
1. No I did not so claim.
2. I was in the civil service at one point.
3. I did not work in the social services apparat, nor for the state labor dept.
If you add Medicaid to the above, you can increase the haul to about $55,000 per annum. This will last as long as your TANF benefits. When the TANF clock runs out the sum falls to about $20,000 per annum.
Art Deco, the numbers appear to come from the Secretary of Public Welfare of the State of Pennsylvania, courtesy of http://www.dow.state.pa.us, are you asserting that they are in error?
Did you examine this graphic:
and note the value of CHIP and childcare? I do not know if CHIP is included under the Pennsylvania Medicaid budget, or if t is a separate line item. Also I’m aware of the waiting lists both for public housing and for Section 8 housing – I’ve had Section 8 recipients as neighbors in various places, and in the last 5 years have personally seen several hundred public housing apartments built in multiple locations, in just one city of 100,000. I doubt that city is unique. The fact that waiting lists exist for various public housing benefits does not reduce the incentive, does it? If a 20 year old woman can’t afford to move out from her mother’s apartment by herself, but has a much better chance to do so as a single mother, even if she has to get on a waiting list, is there an incentive to be a single mother or not? Obviously not all states provide the exact same CHIP benefit that Pennsylvania does, so different areas incentivize single motherhood to different degrees.
But if you are arguing there are no financial incentives to single mothers, I’m going to have to disagree, based upon people I have personally observed, the demographic that I’ve seen in Section 8 housing over the years, the demographic I see in brand new 2 BR public housing apartments, and last but not least the fact that 40% of all births in the US in 2012 were to single women. A bastardy rate that high does not “just happen”, does it? Nor does a divorce rate of 40%, with 60% to 65% of divorces filed by women for that matter.
@Deti
The whole issue that the critics have is that in today’s society almost everything that is advocated is considered extremely sexist.
My whole stance is that is what is considered ‘sexist’ has to be done because to not do so means you putting your head through a noose. The only men that can avoid the noose are the ones that are just so awesome that they transcend the rules.
When the atheists deride the bible as being sexist, they are right. Under today’s definition the bible is a bigoted, sexist book. What the Christian establishment does wrong is that it denies it is sexist and tries to placate the world. So they take a time honored holy book and piss all over it to fit in.
The fact of the matter is that gender roles are for the most part good for the vast majority of people. To throw out all the rules to favor some natural maginas and warpigs is insane. Also no one even follows the rules that they set up for equality in practice.
My main question is are the women even happy under feminism besides a few warpigs? I believe they aren’t. The majority of men certainly aren’t happy. I don’t see why everybody wouldn’t want to jump aboard the whole patriarchy thing especially the WASP women it’s supposed to benefit. Who in their right mind would turn down being treated like a mini Queen, that does a bit of housework while eating bonbons and watching Oprah?
Anonymous Reader
Those people, mostly TradCons, who expect a sudden event such as an election, or a Supreme Court decision, or some other dramatic thing, to sweep away generations of Gramscian cultural Marxism are at best in some kind of groupthink.
Art Deco
1. There is no such thing as cultural Marxism
Really? So Antonio Gramsci never existed, the Frankfurt School never existed, Ted Adorno never existed, Herbert Marcuse never existed, etc.? Are you sure? Or are you rejecting the term as used by Pat Buchanan?
2. That line of thought would be very unusual among social conservatives in our time. One of the more heavily invested in political mobilization ca. 1980 was the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his crew. Falwell had retreated to incremental deal-making by 1988 and dissolved his political organization in 1989. James Dobson was never invested in political mobilization: Focus on the Family was devoted to distributing educational material and publishing studies.
And Dobson never ran for President, is that correct?
Deal Hudson was at one time the Catholic publicist most inclined toward political action, but he tended to think of it as more a means of harm avoidance.
You must be around very much different social / traditional conservatives that I am. Every Presidential election since 1980 I’ve been told was “the election” that would surely cement a Supreme Court that would overturn _Roe_. Every Presidential election since 1980 I’ve been told was “the election” that had the potential to put Real Conservatives in charge of government, where they would roll back the countercultural-communist-hippy bureaucrats who were imposing their atheist ways on the rest of the country. Not by the same people, either.
Pat Robertson, not James Dobson, ran for President nearly 25 years ago. The political mobilization he relied on was that of Falwell and figures who antedated Falwell (e.g. Paul Weyrich). That is the first and last time someone employed within the clerical and media apparat of evangelicalism ran for President, and no one from their Catholic counterparts has done so as yet. There have been candidates who rallied the social conservative vote in the intervening years, but there are candidates who rally all sorts of constituencies. Given that Mike Huckabee had once been a local pastor and Alan Keyes had taken up radio broadcasting, I suppose you could say they had a point of origin in the congregational and media subculture. These are hybrid cases, however. Huckabee had been a working politician for 15 years and Dr. Keyes got his start as a line administrator in the State Department (and both had position papers on a broad range of issues).
Furious Ferret,
Because that would mean that women would have to simply let go of any control. To have control while being malcontent seems better than relinquishing control to increase happiness. A happiness that they really have no conception of and literally cannot imagine.
Your link to the Pennsylvania department of welfare does not work.
What I am asserting is as follows: the dimensions and duration of welfare provision for people who are neither elderly nor disabled tend to be modest and cash benefits tend to be concentrated among a hapless and disorderly slum population, not ordinary working class people. Medicaid is the one program that is an enduring benefit, means tested, and important to a family’s well being.
1. Are there more divorces than there otherwise would be because of Medicaid and SNAP &c? Sure.
2. Is that an important driver of the divorce culture among the wage-earning population? Why would we think so?
Prior to 1996, it was a speculation of R.M. Kaus, Charles Murray and other journalistic critics of the welfare system that dismantling AFDC would have an observable effect on the production of bastard children. As it happened, any effect was too small to be noticed in and among the cultural tide. I suspect the situation with regard to the phenomenon of divorce is also of small dimension.
furious:
Your points are valid as far as they go, but it really wasn’t what I was getting at. These criticisms are coming mostly from within the manosphere and from allies. And I think to a point the criticism is valid: Whining and complaining is beta. Blaming others for one’s own failings and an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge one’s own role in his problems doesn’t help at all. Men HAVE to do this in order to get past square one.
My point was to turn this back to the detractors and ask them: why do you think there are more and more men like this, turning into hardened cynics and blaming women for everything? Could it be that they have something of a point? And why do these detractors expect men to take on self-improvement when there is no incentive? Why are these detractors ignoring that men respond to incentives? What incentivizes them to improve in a society in which the economic pie seems to be shrinking; the women they should be dating and marrying are instead competing against them for jobs, money and resources; and most of the women don’t want them anyway?
The response seems to be “Well, you men need to man up anyway, even if there’s no benefit to doing so.” And the reply right back from men is: WHY? Yes, there DOES need to be something in it for me.
Who in their right mind would turn down being treated like a mini Queen, that does a bit of housework while eating bonbons and watching Oprah?
If I am not mistaken, labor force participation rates among women are fairly similar to those of men, though working hours per week tend to be shorter. Few working-aged women live this way. IIRC, about a third of the workforce in 1957 was female and many at home had quite a brood of kids. This has just never been common.
“what I saw of parish life certainly was just what I saw back with the WASPs; rampant divorce with the women welcome right back into the fold, finger-pointing at the men, single mothers taking the Eucharist happily with the blessing and consent of the priests, study circles praising women and heaping blame on men, attempts to hook up divorcées, single mothers, and high-N 30+ “reformed for Jesus” sluts with betas…”
The smoke of Satan can get into the church…but it can’t take it over. The church has survived and overcome a lot. If it can survive Communism, it can survive feminism.
Look at the core church doctrine. Birth control is not allowed, divorce and remarriage is still adultery, you can receive the Eucharist again if you confess a mortal sin (which would only be in the heart of the confessor…all the priest can do is take the place of Christ and absolve the sin, but God knows the heart), females can not be pastors. The world is a very influential place and that can get into an individual church or diocese especially with a priest or bishop who isn’t a strong leader…but the overall church will not crumble.
The church in Rome and the Pope will never allow birth control. If you don’t believe me read Humane Vitae. A celibate pope predicted what would happen with birth control with amazing accuracy.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
based upon people I have personally observed, the demographic that I’ve seen in Section 8 housing over the years, the demographic I see in brand new 2 BR public housing apartments,
I will not dispute any point that means-tested housing benefits are bad public policy. The question at hand is whether they are much of a driver of divorce. Last I checked, the income threshhold to qualify for federal housing benefits was high enough to comprehend about a third of the population of the United States. The thing is, total budget of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is about $44 bn. That amounts to $440 per theoretical beneficiary or about $1,200 per household per annum. Of course, only a subset actually receive the benefits, so the recipients’ benefit is much higher. The rest do not apply or are sitting in queues for years on end. How many people who win section 8 benefits were ever married?
“The response seems to be “Well, you men need to man up anyway, even if there’s no benefit to doing so.” And the reply right back from men is: WHY? Yes, there DOES need to be something in it for me.”
LOL.
I mean in terms of manning up in being the best man you can be is the right thing to do simply for yourself. You shouldn’t do anything for a woman.
Instead of running away from women, master them. If you run away with your tail between your legs and go MGTOW, then you have conceded. That is unacceptable.
Art Deco,
Participation rates only tell part of the story. Women are concentrated in white collar work. It is with a few exceptions comfortable, physically non-demanding work.
Jobs that both attract women and are physically demanding – like nursing – have a high washout rate. Women typically underestimate the physical effect of shift work and overestimate the relational aspect of the job.
A couple days a week in an air conditioned retail store or office is a fairly cushy gig.
If anyone is interested in how this ‘ministry came about check this out:
http://www.oprah.com/own-unfaithful/Unfaithful-Life-on-the-Razors-Edge
They were featured on an episode of ‘Unfaithful’, a show on the Oprah network. Vile is a good description of these two.
My church certainly wouldn’t kick someone out for doing this kind of thing to their husband, but they don’t kick people out for any reason. I actually think that this is a good thing, as people in sin need to hear God’s word.
@AnonT
To summarize: Your friend married a man who is wholly unsuited to being a husband (assuming what you say about him is correct). This is far more common than the statistical prevalence of such men would predict, because women are attracted to men like that. Think of the complaint about men “thinking with their little head”, and apply it to women. This is something understood by science but not in our culture at large, which creates far greater hardship for women than if we were honest about this. Instead when a woman “thinks with her little head”, we spin some yarn about her following her heart. The expectation that a woman can use the power of feminism to “fix” an unfit husband is what got her into this mess.
You are right in that Joel and Kathy have a solution for this, and as you describe it is to put the wife firmly in the driver’s seat. How do you deal with having married a man not fit for the role of leader? Kick him out of the driver’s seat and take over. Joel and Kathy’s solution to having difficulty forcing a square peg into a round hole is to get a bigger hammer. This is where the power to crush him comes in, which is why they are so blatant about it. The problem is threefold:
1) The Bible still says what it says about headship and submission. It takes herculean hamster gymnastics to rationalize this, and as I presume you know Joel and Kathy have this covered. If not, Empath and some others here can point you to scriptural rationalizations of theirs which would be hysterical if they weren’t selling them as real. If you are a Christian, you can’t simply turn your back on the Bible like this. I understand that there will be areas of interpretation where honest people disagree, but this simply isn’t one of them.
2) It turns out the Bible is right, which shouldn’t come as any surprise if you consider the source (and I don’t mean the Apostle Paul, etc). There is a massive hubris to assuming that God, the architect of the whole deal, mis-engineered marriage, and this kind of hubris comes with a profound cost of human suffering. Your friend’s marriage is now predicated on crushing her husband and keeping him crushed. She may not say this to you, but I can guarantee you this makes her miserable. Wives want a husband who is the leader of the family, her rock to lean on when her emotions storm. She has taken on the role of the husband, so in a very important sense she has no husband. Even here, she can’t take the pleasure in the role of being a husband that a man can, because she isn’t a man. Sexually she won’t be attracted to him, and we know from her choosing an alpha to marry that she has a fairly high need for alpha to feel attraction. This leaves her with lifetime sexual options of cheating (sin), denying him sex (sin), or having sex with a man who is unattractive to the point of being borderline or outright repulsive to her.
3) She is dooming her children to a world of dysfunction (not unlike what she is already experiencing) by modeling this as Christian marriage to them. Rinse, lather, repeat.
So brilliant job Joel and Kathy. You figured out God was wrong and taught women how to make a man who is unfit for Christian marriage stick around as a broken lapdog. Now we have a bullet proof prescription for unending generations of broken hearts, broken homes, and human misery.
Women make poor relationship choices? Surely not…
@Art Deco and Anon Reader,
I have only skimmed your exchange on the financial incentives for single mothers, so I apologize in advance if I’m misunderstanding. However, I think there are two separate issues. Art Deco seems to be arguing that when you look at the reality of the lifestyle government assistance ultimately offers, it is a terribly bad deal. Anon Reader seems to be arguing that the incentives themselves are extremely tempting, especially for people with low long time horizon. Women absolutely respond to incentives when it comes to out of wedlock childbirth and divorce (babymamahood standard, or babymamahood classic, choose your flavor). What makes this confusing is they can be very irrational in their assessment of the incentives. For example, it is absolutely foolish for women to expect (statistically) to end up with a better husband following divorce. I’ve covered this in great deal. However, this doesn’t mean that the expectation of marrying a better man isn’t a driving factor in frivolous divorce. It absolutely is.
Participation rates only tell part of the story. Women are concentrated in white collar work. It is with a few exceptions comfortable, physically non-demanding work.
So what? The assertion was that women are sitting at home watching television and eating candy. You can find women who do that, but the labor force statistics refute the notion that the comparative idleness of the female population is much of a social problem or cause for irritation.
I have had a romp through the Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review. About 56% of the posts in the labor market are “physically non-demanding”. Most people of any description are not pouring concrete. About 12% of the posts are in trades which require physical vigor (usually or contingently) but where women are common if not predominant (food service, nursing, the rag trade, cleaning and laundry).
Jobs that both attract women and are physically demanding – like nursing – have a high washout rate.
So you say. They wash out and are replace by….other women.
Women typically underestimate the physical effect of shift work and overestimate the relational aspect of the job.
Thanks for the tutorial in occupational psychology.
A couple days a week in an air conditioned retail store or office is a fairly cushy gig.
Enjoyed by most men and women working.
To continue on the issue of cultural Marxism, I choose two prominent items from the recent political campaign, Sandra Fluke’s demand for “free” contraception, and the “Julia” cartoon. In both of these examples, women want resources provided to them at no cost to themselves, for personal benefit. These demands are deemed to be “fair” because both Fluke and “Julia” are “in need” of these resources. It is not at all difficult to see that this is a manifestation of the following maxim:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
and that happens to be one of Karl Marx’s (in)famous thoughts from the 1870’s. Except, of course, thanks to the Feminist version of Marxism, which explicitly sees and analyzes the world in the standard “Oppressor – Oppressed” dichotomy, this slogan has been rewritten thus:
From each, according to his ability, to each according to her need
which happens to sum up quite a lot of political change for the last 30 years. The Bradley amendment, VAWA, re-interpretation of Title IX, and so forth. Underlying all of this, including anti-Family Court, is the notion of men as the Oppressor class, and women as the Oppressed class, a way of thinking that is directly traceable to Karl Marx, father of Marxism. And it is no accident that this way of thinking has been embedded into the US culture via multiple avenues, such as the infotainment industry and academia, following the plans laid out by Antonio Gramsci, i.e. his “long march through the institutions”.
To dismiss the idea of cultural Marxism as nonexistent, or to bend the idea grossly out of shape, is to essentially ignore a century and a half of documented history and philosophy.
To summarize: Your friend married a man who is wholly unsuited to being a husband (assuming what you say about him is correct).
Dalrock, some people go through cycles of improvement and decay in the course of their adult lives. He is certainly unsuitable at this moment. That does not speak to the situation at the time he married nor does it speak to the situation five years from now (though past is commonly prologue). Seen it up close and personal.
Meanwhile, here’s what one of our erstwhile “allies” is up to:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-tale-of-two-massacres.html
Factually challenged (because he takes one as representative of all) and insulting.
Just thought a few here might want to know.
[D: Having a different opinion doesn’t make one a traitor.]
Dear “Anonymous Reader”:
Really? So Antonio Gramsci never existed, the Frankfurt School never existed, Ted Adorno never existed, Herbert Marcuse never existed, etc.? Are you sure? Or are you rejecting the term as used by Pat Buchanan?
Can you quote either Gramsci or Adorno endorsing “cultural Marxism”? Since I know in advance that you can not, why don’t you give a brief synopsis as to what you think the term means, together with examples of its contemporary relevance.
I have _Prison Notebooks_ (Gramsci) and damn near everything translated into English that’s ever been available by Adorno, from _Negative Dialectics_ and _Dialectic of Enlightenment_ through to _Aesthetic Theory_ and _Critique of Instrumental Reason_ (which he ghost-edited for Horkheimer). I also have everything Herbert Marcuse authored in my bookshelf as well, so feel free to drop some references to him as well (he’s apparently a MRA boogeyman). We can talk about Lukács too, if you’d like.
The reality is that all these people you’re talking about not only never promoted anything called “cultural Marxism”, but none of them agreed with the others, and none of them really got a foothold on the culture at all. The people you ought to be concerned with, if you’re into conspiracy theories, are guys on the right like Kristol and Strauss, who basically took a Trotskyist revision of Marxism and took over the American Republican Party with it. The Tea Party types are the ideological children of theirs. (The Tea Party is an absolute Marxist-Leninist abstraction, right down to the theory that the common man is being “oppressed” and other such stuff).
The Frankfurt School and Uncle Tony (Gramsci) never held such sway. Unless you hunt up someone like my own bad self, who wrote a thesis or dissertation on these 20th century utopian dreamers, you’re not likely to find anyone who even knows who they are.
Best, Boxer
Art Deco seems to be arguing that when you look at the reality of the lifestyle government assistance ultimately offers, it is a terribly bad deal.
We could benefit from restructuring how an ethic of common provision is expressed by excising or containing perverse incentives. ‘Tis a question for another day. My precise argument is that filing behavior is likely to be fairly insensitive to the presence of such programs. The observable clientele of TANF is not drawn from the ranks from the ranks of divorcees, housing subsidies have long queues, unemployment compensation is temporary (and of contingent utility), and the value of food and utility subsidies is modest. I am sure it affects behavior on the margins. I am sure that a society which has such a social safety net has a different behavior pattern re the durability of marriage vows than one that does not. Recall the original question: what is it that is driving the distinction in behavior between wage-earners and the bourgeoisie. Except for Medicaid, the broad mass of wage earners generally live their working lives with scarcely more contact with the social safety net than do their salaried peers. They live in ranch houses or unsubvened apartments, pay for their groceries with their earnings, pay their gas and electric bills the same way, and have medical insurance through their employer. Now, the degree of subvention in retirement is a good deal greater for retired wage earners than for retired proprietors or salarymen, but geezers are not driving the divorce statistics. You get to the lower ranks of the working class and yes a distinction emerges. That is also the class in society where families have not been forming properly; modest number of divorces because few husbands, many baby daddies.
Dalrock, it could be that you are correct, and that I and Art Deco are essentially “talking past each other”. It appears that Art Deco is assuming that all women are equally future-time oriented and have equal levels of impulse control. The steady trickle of articles that we are seeing from 40-something unmarried women, the well known change in women’s attitudes towards marriage as the transition from 22 year old carousel rider to 29 year old approaching “the wall”, and other items from the popular culture seems to be a growing body of evidence on this score.
Following your reasoning, it seems that you would have to argue there is no incentive for women to divorce – that cash and prizes in the form of houses, cars and chil-imony are no real substitute for a husband, and since divorced women are often unhappy and live at a lower financial level, therefore all the divorce must be the product of something else, not the economics. Yet we know from research that Dalrock has cited that women who have decided to divorce make calculated decisions that are specifically intended to gain custody of the children, because that’s where the money (resources) will go. So i ask you: do you assert there is no , none, not any financial incentive for women to commit divorce in the modern US legal system?
Returning to the micro, and what incentives lead to…
I’ve listened to a 20-something unmarried woman with a 5 year old daughter who lives in public housing and grocery shops with an EBT card, talking about how her life isn’t what she wanted when she was 18, fresh out of high school and champing at the bit to get out of her mother’s house. But in all the elliptical meanderings about “that guy” and “the other guy” and her dog (Don’t tell! Not supposed to be here!) and her friends, never once does she “own” her crucial decisions. That could be because she doesn’t see them. Maybe there wasn’t some great moment when she consciously made a choice, it all “just happened” to her; which means it was the accretion of all the small decisions made, first by her mother, and later by her.
Art Deco, she doesn’t like the way she’s living. But she seems all but unable to imagine any other.
And when she’s asked what she would do if she didn’t have EBT anymore, or had to move out of her apartment, she shrugs. The idea of a world in which those guarantees of her basic needs do not exist is totally impossible for her to even contemplate. It’s like street lights, they are just “there” on the corner, a public good for those who need them.
(For the record, I suggested to her that she take an aptitude test and consider some sort of skilled work in the medical world, such as physical therapy, that she could learn to do at a community college. As gently as possible, I suggested that she was not likely to succeed in a 4-year college curriculum. )
Women absolutely respond to incentives when it comes to out of wedlock childbirth and divorce (babymamahood standard, or babymamahood classic, choose your flavor). What makes this confusing is they can be very irrational in their assessment of the incentives.
Just want to reiterate that after 1996 the population on the AFDC/TANF rolls declined by two-thirds as benefits were term limited. In some states (i.e. Wisconsin) the decline was on the order of 90%. A good thing, generally, but not one accompanied by observable change in the sequence of marriage and child-bearing.
There’s one small problem with your comment, Mr. Snout In The Public Trough.
What brought that on? Which public trough? When? I am not drawing any benefits and never have.
The source isn’t zerohedge, it’s Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You can see Mr. Alexander’s complete presentation in pdf format here. The chart in question is on page 8.
The purpose of the chart is to illustrate some of the problems of means-testing by the use of a hypothetical. The hypothetical posits the woman is receiving $15,000 in ‘child-care’ benefits and includes the earned-income tax credit, which we have not been under discussion. There is in New York a program for subsidized day care, but it is nowhere near that generous. Again, my method is to look at actual expenditures over the potential client population. I do not think highly atypical examples are driving broad behavior patterns.
It appears that Art Deco is assuming that all women are equally future-time oriented and have equal levels of impulse control.
Uhhh, no. I said I doubted when looking at the population of women filing divorce suits that the regime in public benefits was a strong vector influencing their decisions. Obviously, women make calculations about their economic welfare before and after. The sources of their welfare are their own earnings, their husband’s earnings, divvied up assets, help from relatives, and contingent access to public benefits. The question at hand is the contribution the last makes.
Boxer, an awful lot of cultural criticism in the US seems to have drawn on the likes of Gramsci, Adorno and others, and much of that cultural criticism pushed in the direction we are now finding ourselves: an ever increasingly powerful state that demolishes all social organizations save itself, through endless robbing-peter-to-pay-paul “social justice” schemes, Ponzi pension systems, outright vote-buying and so forth. While all leftists are more than ready to leap at each other’s throats over all manner of minutae, the left has shown a remarkable consistency in its desire for a state of effectively unlimited power and authority. And the “oppressor-oppressed” dichotomy is firmly embedded in US social structure, both legal and cultural. Not always in so many words, but certainly in practice.
You have the advantage of me in terms of sheer mass of books and research. While I have made the attempt to read Trotsky’s biography of Stalin more than once, I have not succeeded in ever finishing it (not for the same reason Trotsky never finished writing it, of course). So I am not going to write any theses on any of those people, any more than I’d want to write a biography of Saloth Sar, or Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin, for that matter. I’ve learned more than enough about “people’s revolutions” over the years to be fairly well satisfied just where such utopian dreams lead.
So I’ll concede the field of that line of inquiry, as I am not about to take the time to do the argument justice. I will not retreat from the position that Marxist analysis and social criticism, in various forms, is the dominant way of thinking in many parts of academia, in most of the US Federal government “social welfare” departments, and in some court cases. The “oppressor-oppressed” line is too obvious, and too embedded, to be ignored or swept under the rug as “not mattering”.
8oxer says:
The reality is that all these people you’re talking about not only never promoted anything called “cultural Marxism”, but none of them agreed with the others, and none of them really got a foothold on the culture at all.
Rudi Dutschke and his “long march through the institutions” are not a figment of the imagination. He took his cue from Gramsci and the Frankfurt school, and I doubt they would have opposed such an approach.
Kristol and Strauss, who basically took a Trotskyist revision of Marxism and took over the American Republican Party with it.
So this wouldn’t be cultural Marxism then? Or does it only exist when people you don’t like utilize it?
Dear Anon:
I will not retreat from the position that Marxist analysis and social criticism, in various forms, is the dominant way of thinking in many parts of academia, in most of the US Federal government “social welfare” departments, and in some court cases.
I don’t want anyone to retreat from social criticism, as I think the world needs much, much more of it, not less. A thousand “Dalrock’s blog” type media outlets more would not be enough. I do hope that you and others will be more effective in constructing these critical theories, though. Calling something “Marxist” and hoping that the reader will understand some underlying meaning will do much to attract a certain type of fan (a reactionary who is probably now in his 50s, and remembers the scaremongering of the cold war).
The only real Marxists I know of currently are a small group of Protestant Christian writers in Europe. Like the Frankfurt School, they’re long on dreams and short on action. I’m sure from their perspective they’re doing the right things. There are post-Marxists running around, who promote almost everything except what you’re talking about (read Habermas’ essays on Communicative Rationality, for example. He’s the last surviving member of the old Frankfurt School, and he writes articles supportive of the Roman Catholic church and such).
http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666
Anyway, just some random thoughts. Repeating for emphasis: I don’t want anyone to quit criticising the status quo. I’d just like our critiques to be pointed and salient.
Best, Boxer
Brendan said:
“The key about them is that (1) it is a pain in the ass of a process, because unlike the no-fault situation in the civil aspect of the divorce, to get an annulment you need to dissect and exhume the marriage, testify and so on, and that’s a pain in the ass for most people and (2) it’s time and energy consuming as compared with the civil divorce side of things. ”
This really isn’t a pain in the ass anymore, its easier than getting a divorce. First, I have known women to describe this process as a “healing one” because it essentially absolves them of any wrong doing, and second it isn’t that hard, a little bit of paper work (they’ll give you a “church attorney” to help you, they don’t necessarily take any testimony at all, the paperwork (I’ve seen it) presumes the marriage was not legitimate in the form of the questions it asks and if someone “didn’t understand what marriage is” they get a pass because the marriage was never formed (Never mind how binding other oaths are that people rarely understand such as military).
The reason most women don’t bother with it, is because they don’t need to. The church won’t hold them accountable.
taterearl says:
“There really is only two religions that still operate from the patriarchy perspective.
The Catholic Church and Islam. Protestant churches quickly corrupted themselves when they allowed birth control.”
Not true in any way that matters.
Words mean nothing, it is actions that matter and the catholic church is no friend of men. They may say they don’t allow birth control, yet their people practice it, they may say they are against divorce, yet their people practice it. Time and time again I have heard different catholic priests say that “women are the spiritual head of the household”
Not protestants. Catholic Priests.
They teach that, they encourage women to believe that they are the most important part of the family, that they really are the head in what matters with God.
This and your comments that the catholic church will survive are wishful thinking on your part.
Nothing in this world lasts forever. Nothing. Not civilizations, not cultures, not religions.
The catholic church is absolutely corrupt now and Marxist in its dealings.
It didn’t survive communism, it survived in communist countries, because religion grows stronger in persecution. This slow rot has been gnawing at it for centuries and this isn’t persecution, it is indolence, and over confidence, corruption covered with a sense that it will always survive.
The Romans with all their temples thought their Gods would last, they were every bit as patriarchal (perhaps more so at the beginning) Their women didn’t wear make-up or Jewelry, the dressed discretely, the father had absolute power over kith and kin, and now their religion is nothing but tales. The Zoroastrians once saw their religion flourish during the Persian Empire, now only a handful follow it.
Step outside your identity with the church and look at it for what it is and realize its fate.
Now let’s look at the rest of the story. Men take the great majority of the dangerous, nasty physical jobs. These jobs pay better, because few people want to (or have the capability) to do them. Men get injured and die on the job at a rate 10x that of women.
Many of the jobs I have had were in that category. It showed me the entitlement mentality of women when I worked in the computer chip industry. A woman in HR complained that us men ‘on the floor’ were making more money than she was. Here I was in full isolation gear, working with hazardous chemicals (ever work with hydroflouric acid?) where one mistake or accident could maim or kill me, and she felt it was unfair that she was paid less to sit in an office and type.
It was a lesson I have seen repeated at every job I’ve held since then. Nuclear power, battery assembly, even in the prison staff the women want as much or more to be comfortable, safe and with predictable hours. Complaints, lawsuits, the whole 9 yards because women weren’t paid equally. Women still only make 80% of what men do! IMHO, many are grossly overpaid.
The incentive issue for frivorcing women is quite simple, it needs zero in depth analysis, and could be solved by a simple fiat.
If she files, hubby is out and visiting kids
If he files hubby is out and visiting the kids
A prominent family lawyer in one of the top 5 population cities, a man practicing for 35 plus years then, and charging 500/hr. told me that he receives calls from women who filed, as final date approaches, wanting to extend the drama because they suddenly are insecure about the future. This is often after a couple years or more of temporary orders etc that held finances under strict control, which doesn’t just mean where the money comes from, it means who fields the bills.
The consequences are immediate for men. Period. Simply by making the filer of a divorce that didnt include proven adultery, physical abuse, addiction….whatever things like that….by making the filer move out and visit the kids, the rate would plummet instantly. Never ever gonna happen.
All the debate about the decimals of financial incentive seems rather pointless.
Boxer, excellent point that Marxism flies straight over the head of those who were not at least 10 in 1985. It seems like some old men worrying the conversation over dominoes or something. Im 50 so yea, I can see that. Even if apt, it lacks cultural efficacy.
Deti: Marriage counseling isn’t shown to be helpful, even if the two are seeing a pastor. She wants counseling because she wants validation from a “neutral” third party. She wants the counselor to affirm that she’s right and the man is wrong. My observation and the reports here are that counseling serves no purpose other than to affirm her and get him to change; and affirm that the marital problems are all HIS fault, not hers.
+100
I have seen multiple friends and relatives go through various types of ‘marriage counseling.’ I cannot recall a case where it was initiated by the man, or where the counselor did not take the woman’s side and place everything on the man. And it did not matter whether the counselor was a man or woman. I would also estimate that 80-90% of cases ended in divorce rape for the man.
If your wife (or LTR girlfriend) starts saying that you need to go to relationship counseling or worse – springs a counseling session on you, start making plans for your divorce (or just dump her then and there). Ironically, that may be the only thing that will save the relationship, should that still be an attractive option.
Dalrock wrote:
This is what I will be eager to read. It is easy for your average Christian, I think/hope, to see that Joel and Kathy are way off base and rather strange. It is much harder to understand how femDOM the practice of our faith has become, especially as it relates to family life, even among those who are considered the most conservative. I had a copy of the Love Dare and the movie Courageous, as well as a subscription to the Focus on the Family magazine, sitting right on my coffee table last spring when I became a regular reader here. I knew something seemed wrong, but I couldn’t quite see what it was. It’s hard to see why it’s wrong when you are being fed a steady diet of this sort of thing with no corrections coming from the pulpit.
Art Deco
I said I doubted when looking at the population of women filing divorce suits that the regime in public benefits was a strong vector influencing their decisions. Obviously, women make calculations about their economic welfare before and after. The sources of their welfare are their own earnings, their husband’s earnings, divvied up assets, help from relatives, and contingent access to public benefits. The question at hand is the contribution the last makes.
That’s going to depend on the income level of the family prior to detonation. The higher the income, the more weight will be given to family resources, right? Lower income families by definition will have fewer assets to divvy up, and therefore post-detonation economics will have to include extra-family sources. The 35 year old call-center supervisor who detonates her marriage and kicks her 38 year old truck driving husband out of the trailer in order to “find herself” is not going to make the same calculations as Muffy in her nice Long Island house when she’s tired of BIff, the Wall Street accountant, surely.
So yes, your argument does see to boil down to how much future-time orientation women have, and it appears that you are assuming Sally Jane is just as likely to sit down with a calculator and rationally total up such things as the resale value of the trailer and cars, her expected earnings at the call center, how much she can squeeze out of a truck driver in support, whether she will meet the cutoff level for EBT or not, etc. just as Muffy pours over the family 401K statements, bank statements, brokerage statements, assessed property value of the house, etc. while considering whether to divorce or not.
But the whole “Eat, Betray, Leave” mindset militates…what? “I want what I want when I want it, and I deserve it” has been taught to a couple of generations of women. Thus it seems quite possible that there may be an assumption of provisioning in excess of the reality, both in terms of family resources and the state. Since when does a woman intent on detonating her marriage let mere trifles like reality get in the way of her future good time?
Again from Deti:
1. The “female imperative” is a figment of men’s imaginations; a boogeyman on which men can blame their sexual and relationship failures..
2. Feminism is a convenient crutch on which men can blame their failures.
3. The manosphere all of the worst attributes of feminism: radical hatred of the opposite sex, scapegoating the opposing sex for all the world’s problems, extreme political and sociological positions on women in general.
4. The manosphere is great at figuring out the shortcomings of women, but pisspoor at figuring out men’s own shortcomings.
5. The manosphere is creating hardened cynics and teeth-gritting ideologues divorced from reality.
All I see in the above is: “You are all angry and bitter losers who can’t get laid.
Yep, points 1 to 5 above all translate to the default femininist put-down that, “you’re just angry because you can’t get laid.”
This is why a working knowledge of game is important, so that you can just laugh at the bitter harridan while playfully teasing her better looking friend/little sister/etc. in front of her.
Statistics show that marriage counseling leads to divorce.
“Statistics show that marriage counseling leads to divorce.”
This is very true. They’ll try to spin this as the couple “didn’t come in soon enough”
If you’re going to counseling, you’re already halfway to the courthouse.
Deti
All I see in the above is: “You are all angry and bitter losers who can’t get laid.
BC
Yep, points 1 to 5 above all translate to the default femininist put-down that, “you’re just angry because you can’t get laid.”
Note that this critique comes not only from feminists, but from traditional conservative women as well. However, suppose that a man learns Game? What do those TradCons say and do when men demonstrate, via Game, that they can get laid? Ask Joseph of Jackson and his students.
Hmm. Well. Well, well, well. Suddenly the shriek is no longer about “bitter losers who can’t get laid”, now it’s a wail of fear that PUA’s are out of control, and Someone Should Do Something.
So what we have here is not a failure to communicate. What we have here is a desire to control men. Feminist, femininist, traditional woman – they all want to control men, for their own benefit. Behold, the Feminine Imperative…AWALT.
“Simply by making the filer of a divorce that didnt include proven adultery, physical abuse, addiction….whatever things like that….by making the filer move out and visit the kids, the rate would plummet instantly. Never ever gonna happen.”
By simply returning to the old deal where the children belonged to the father in marriage (and divorce) and the women out of wedlock would drop the divorce rate by 70% or more.
End child support for out of wedlock births (and since the father has the children in divorce it isn’t really necessary there except when a father actually elects to abandon his children) and I posit that baby mamaisnm would plummet as well.
Since none of this is acceptable by our current culture by either side, this means that everything will continue to slide until the sytem breaks down completely.
The “female imperative” is a figment of men’s imaginations; a boogeyman on which men can blame their sexual and relationship failures..
From the turn of the last century:
While the behaviour of the men on the Titanic represented to the popular imagination the ‘natural’ order confirmed by the sea, Inez Milholland was a symbol of the increasingly unnatural order of things on land. Aged eighteen, she had made four militant suffrage speeches on a soap box in Hyde Park and paraded the streets of London with a banner emblazoned with ‘Votes for Women’. In 1911, Milholland appeared in barely disguised form as the passionate heroine of Isaac Stevenson’s novel, An American Suffragette. Her presence at the inquiry today was a reminder of the ‘Votes or Boats’ debate which had been ignited by the Titanic disaster: women in the lifeboats had refused to return to rescue the men whose gallantry they had been only too pleased to accept on the sinking ship. ‘What do women want?’, the newspapers asked. It seemed that chivalry at sea was considered chauvinism on land. ‘I suggest, henceforth,’ said a man from St Louis, ‘when a woman talks women’s rights, she be answered with the word Titanic, nothing more – just Titanic. ‘The heroism of the men on the Titanic,’ wrote the Baltimore Sun, shows ‘that women can appeal to a higher law than that of the ballot for justice, consideration and protection.’ A writer calling himself ‘Mere Man’ asked if ‘the suffragette would have stood on that deck for woman’s rights or for woman’s privileges?’ 8 Miss Milholland had come as the friend of Marconi, but she also wanted to hear for herself what an anti-suffrage journal
Wilson, Frances (2011-10-18). How to Survive the Titanic (Kindle Locations 2252-2254). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.
8oxer
The only real Marxists I know of currently are a small group of Protestant Christian writers in Europe. Like the Frankfurt School, they’re long on dreams and short on action. I’m sure from their perspective they’re doing the right things.
Oh, dear, I see the looming presence of a Scotsman, but not a True one. So the North Koreans are not “real Marxists”, to pick one example? SIgh. Boxer, I’m not going to descend into the endless mire of what a “real Marxist” is. My copy of the Manifesto is not yet worn out, but do I really have to drag it off the book shelf and go through the action items point by point? True, “labor battalions” are not as common as in some places and times of the 20th century, but the abstract notion that all human labor is the property of the state, to be harnessed as the state sees fit, hardly seems to be limited only to a handful of Europeans. If Sandra Fluke and her sisters “need” contraception, then your pocket and mine – money being a form of labor – must be tapped for their benefit, yes? And if that happens to offend our personal beliefs, well, so what? “Labor will be conscripted to serve the needs of the state”, full stop, end of story.
Perhaps the Marxists you know of in Europe do not need to be long on action, because most of the things they might want done are already in force, one way or another, just not with the particular window dressing, lace doily covering that they want?
@Ras Al Ghul
Not surprising, because that is exactly how they advertise it. A priest at Patheos wrote back in October* about how a “deacon preach” got out of hand and someone made the parishioners uncomfortable about divorce by quoting the Gospel:
Fortunately he was able to step in and place it all in Catholic perspective. Divorce is normal now, but it needs the healing salve the church can apply in the form of annulment. The problem isn’t rampant divorce, it is failing to follow through with the proper forms:
*H/T Zippy Catholic and I believe a reader brought this same link to my attention prior to that.
Dear “Anon”:
Thank you for your sarcastic reply. I can’t help but notice that after you proposed a thesis on “cultural Marxism” and immediately thereafter refused outright to define it, you’re accusing *me* of sophistry. (I’m chuckling, but it’s not unexpected).
Oh, dear, I see the looming presence of a Scotsman, but not a True one. So the North Koreans are not “real Marxists”, to pick one example?
Actually, the North Koreans are most insistent that they are not “Marxists” (real or otherwise). Kim Il-Sung’s Juche ideal was proclaimed to be something organic to the Korean people. Grace Lee’s exegesis is interesting. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal3/korea1.pdf
Either there are no Marxists, or everyone’s a Marxist; and you don’t know which, since you won’t define the term (and at this point I’m not asking for a concrete definition, just what you mean when you say it, and you won’t even step out on that limb).
Now I’ll wait for the inevitable denunciations that I’m a Marxist myself, simply for asking a few questions.
Regards, Boxer
Divorce is unfortunately a reality in our world. I told the congregation that I know this reality first hand, as my own parents went through such an experience. But the divorce for my parents wasn’t the end of the story. Through the gentle encouragement of a kind priest my parents went through the annulment process. It was probably the most healing experience that could have happened to my family.
“I see you have an intact family. I can heal that for you.”
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-single-strongest-predictor-you-will-38240/
And here I thought that the Catholic Church was supposed to be pro-life…
@Anon Reader
I’m not sure this is really aimed at me but in context it appears to be so I’ll answer. Of course there is.
Unrelated, but I’m working on a post proving that people who buy lottery tickets don’t do so out of financial motivation. When you break down the numbers there is simply no way to support such a fanciful claim. I can’t explain why people really do buy them, but we can safely rule out an expectation of financial gain.
@Art Deco
I did a “Peter Pan” post a while back and linked to a whole slew of charts on earnings by demographics that I made. One thing I later found digging a bit further is back in the late 1990s far fewer people had zero earnings than we see now (maybe I’ll throw the follow on charts up for a short post). Over the years I strongly suspect that what was accomplished in 1996 has been entirely or largely undone. The letters of the alphabet are almost certainly different, but the end result is the same.
Art Deco
Pat Robertson, not James Dobson, ran for President nearly 25 years ago. The political mobilization he relied on was that of Falwell and figures who antedated Falwell (e.g. Paul Weyrich). That is the first and last time someone employed within the clerical and media apparat of evangelicalism ran for President, and no one from their Catholic counterparts has done so as yet.
Thank you for the correction, I am annoyed to have confused Robertson with Dobson.
Accepting all other facts as stipulated, nothing in your text contradicts my assertion that there are people who (a) identify as “traditional conservative” and/or “social conservative” who (b) insist that some Big Event such as an election, a Supreme Court appointment, enactment of the “right” legislation, etc. is all that we need to fix what they see as national problems. It’s the top-down mindset that leads to people calling for yet another “March on Washington” by their own group to prove that, gosh darn it, Time for a Change is upon us. I tend to see this mindset more in aging Boomers than in younger people, but it is not just limited to the soon to be Social Securitized set.
I obviously disagree with it. The cultural momentum is running against it now, for a start. See my reply to Empathalogicalism for the rest of my position.
I don’t know who Joel and Kathy are, but it’s inspiring to see comedy writing of such high quality making a comeback.
Skittles Uber Alles
Dear Night Sky Radio:
I don’t know who Joel and Kathy are, but it’s inspiring to see comedy writing of such high quality making a comeback.
I find their ministry simultaneously hilarious and depressing.
Most interesting was Empathologism’s takedown, which pointed out their physical types. He seems to be out of shape and overweight, dressed sorta dumpily. She’s old and saggy, but has a slight breast pout (h/t heartiste) in her photo which suggests that she has a high opinion of her ability to attract men sexually. A legend in her own mind, as many women are.
He probably thinks that he’s living a life of sacrifice and service, not taking care of himself, and takes pride in the fact that he neglects his physical condition and wardrobe to help his princess “have it all”. It’s bizarre to see these characters try to reconcile their (admittedly not uncommon, but unsavory) relationship dynamic to the canon of the Christian tradition.
Best, Boxer
@Art Deco
Agreed. I was stipulating the hopeless frame of her argument: “Look at these brute husbands who will destroy their families if wives aren’t firmly in control.” OK, but if that is the case he isn’t fit to be a husband, so she shouldn’t have married him. To be honest, this is something which should frighten women, but it should frighten them prior to marriage (when picking a husband), which biblically is when they have the most active opportunity to address it. But of course this simply won’t do, because her tingle directed her past the crowd of boring loyal dudes and sniffed out Mr. Baddass Excitement. Contrary to Dr. Mohler and Joel and Kathy, a woman’s vagina isn’t a bloodhound for godly men. My point was that the best argument for Joel and Kathy is in “fixing” just this sort of “hopeless” situation, but that even here it is an absolute disaster. The Bible doesn’t get this stuff wrong, and trying to “fix” it so that it is safe to marry alpha mcbadboy is a sure fire recipe for generations of misery. The sooner we face this, the sooner we can help young women from avoiding the fate of this woman’s friend (and her children).
These women remind me a lot of the way muslims negotiate.
@sunshinemary
By thoroughly rooting out the source of all this femdom in modern christian culture we hope to stop it from arising again.
8oxer
Thank you for your sarcastic reply. I can’t help but notice that after you proposed a thesis on “cultural Marxism” and immediately thereafter refused outright to define it, you’re accusing *me* of sophistry. (I’m chuckling, but it’s not unexpected).
Where did I refuse outright to define anything? I have neglected to hop to the task you demanded I perform, but do not recall refusing to do so. Could you be so kind as to point out to me the text in which I refused?
I wrote:
Oh, dear, I see the looming presence of a Scotsman, but not a True one. So the North Koreans are not “real Marxists”, to pick one example?
8oxer
Actually, the North Koreans are most insistent that they are not “Marxists” (real or otherwise). Kim Il-Sung’s Juche ideal was proclaimed to be something organic to the Korean people. Grace Lee’s exegesis is interesting. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal3/korea1.pdf
I’m aware of Juche, and yet in my opinion the North Korean state is a realization of Stalinism. From the centrally planned economy, to the unending military preparation, to the extensive secret police state, modern North Korea resembles the Soviet Union of the 1930’s very strongly. Do you wish to argue that Stalinism was not a product of Marxist-Leninist thinking? Or are you going to hang your hat on labels, on words, while dismissing actions and the results of those words as not being really important?
Perhaps that is our real difference. I do not focus any more so much on labels (words) as I do on policy (actions). If a zek sentenced to the Kolyma camps in 1936 could talk with a current inmate of the North Korean gulag, would there be all that much difference between what they had to say? Would somehow there be some dramatic difference between forced labor under juche and forced labor under socialism in one country? Would a Ukranian farmer struggling to keep his family alive under collectivization find his life all that different from a North Korean farmer living in the modern equivalent? If a man has been sent to forced labor for possession of a Bible, does it matter what language the book is written in?
When everything belongs to the state, when there exists nothing outside of the state, when any opposition to the state is criminal, does it matter what the labels are? Really? Does it really matter, to the actual human seeking to survive in such a system whether his jailers are “Fascist” or “Anti-Fascist”, or “Juche”, or “True Followers Social Justice”, or some other title?
Either there are no Marxists, or everyone’s a Marxist;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
and you don’t know which, since you won’t define the term (and at this point I’m not asking for a concrete definition, just what you mean when you say it, and you won’t even step out on that limb).
As I’m using the term, cultural Marxism initially was a style of critique or thinking that arose in the post WWII years in which Marxist analysis techniques such as dialectical materialism was applied to social and cultural structures. This was hot stuff in the academic world of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It can be seen in diverse areas, feminism being one, race being another. At the heart of Marxism is the “oppressor – oppressed” bifurcation, and this has become firmly embedded into US society, easily demonstrated in such things as VAWA-inspired mandatory arrest. Since domestic violence is defined as something men (oppressors) do to women (oppressed) it makes sense in Marxist thinking to arrest the man in any domestic dispute, regardless of any facts on the ground. There are a plethora of other examples, and there’s no point to adding them at this time.
@Anon Reader
So i ask you: do you assert there is no , none, not any financial incentive for women to commit divorce in the modern US legal system?
Dalrock
I’m not sure this is really aimed at me but in context it appears to be so I’ll answer. Of course there is.
I wrote carelessly. It was a question intended for Art Deco. You know, and I know that you know, that there are financial incentives for women to commit divorce theft; if you’ve done nothing else with this site, Dalrock, you’ve demonstrated it isn’t just “the whispers” (feel free to insert link) that drive divorce in the US.
Dear Anon:
At this point I’m assuming you’re not really reading what I’m saying. I want to be careful and not “talk at” you. I’m also going to skip over the attempted ad hominems and personalization to get to the end, which is marginally relevant to my original query.
As I’m using the term, cultural Marxism initially was a style of critique or thinking that arose in the post WWII years in which Marxist analysis techniques such as dialectical materialism was applied to social and cultural structures.
Using big words is a way to seem impressive, but those big words strung together in that particular way makes no sense. The term dialectical materialism is only relevant when talking about economics and history. One can not apply them to “social and cultural structures”.
I’ve seen stuff like this from people who cite really poor translations of Althusser, so it’s not just you. Even so, I’d like to know, in plain language, exactly what you mean when you typed this up.
This was hot stuff in the academic world of the 1960′s and 1970′s. It can be seen in diverse areas, feminism being one, race being another. At the heart of Marxism is the “oppressor – oppressed” bifurcation, and this has become firmly embedded into US society
Earlier you claimed to have Marx at hand. Can you cite anything in any volume of Capital, or post a link to Marx on, say, marxists dot org, where he conflates class with race and sex?
easily demonstrated in such things as VAWA-inspired mandatory arrest. Since domestic violence is defined as something men (oppressors) do to women (oppressed) it makes sense in Marxist thinking to arrest the man in any domestic dispute, regardless of any facts on the ground
Really? Where did old Uncle Karl lay the groundwork for VAWA or mandatory arrests in domestic disputes?
There are a plethora of other examples, and there’s no point to adding them at this time.
No problem. Let’s start with these examples. You claim they’re easily demonstrated. Please cite Marx and we’ll go from there.
Best, Boxer
@tweel on January 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm —
I bet you meant hydroFLUORIC acid — it was a key plot element in an old Star Trek element featuring a strange creature called a Horta, IIRC.
Definitely something you don’t want to mess with, though.
Sorry Dalrock,
I’ve been a big fan of yours for a while, but now I will never read your blog again. You’ve made a HUGE mistake here. You’ve attempted to parody something that despite being written in complete seriousness, actually sounds more like a parody than your parody of the non-parody.
That just won’t do.
You make a lot of good points, but if you are going to try your hand at parody, I think you gotta focus on stuff that isn’t completely reprehensible crazy talk. This one post featured more crazy than I can handle in one sitting. As I probably won’t be able to stomach food for a week now, I don’t think that I’ll be able to visit your page again.
Remember, you can out-crazy crazy.
Thanks,
C.T. West
Sorry, I meant to write, “you can’t out-crazy crazy.”
@8oxer, @anonymous_reader, @dalrock
This is getting off-topic, so I crave our kind host’s indulgence as a n00b.
May I suggest to all the following article, in an attempt to return to the topic of the thread, proper.
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
@22-28
You are certainly welcome to leave in a huff, but I have no idea what you are getting at.
Or are you parodying other commenters who have recently left in a huff?
@Dalrock
I’m trying to be funny.
In truth, however, it was pretty unnerving reading the quotations. While your commentary was spot on, helpful and very perceptive, the source article alone is a cause for heartache. Your ability to translate the advice offered to women in the quoted article is a real service, but the article itself is frustrating to read all on its own, and the combination just makes me want to pull out my hair. I simply find it mind-blowing that there could be people like this out there, people capable of writing something that demonstrates such a sincere disconnect with the reality of the situation.
For example, suggesting that men are commonly taking advantage of domestic assault laws is so ridiculous that I wonder if those doing the writing even believe what they are putting into print. Sure, some man may have occasionally benefited from such laws, but it should be clear to any objective observer that men almost always get the short end of the stick with mandatory arrest laws and such.
By all means, keep doing what you are doing. Someone needs to. Because as upsetting as the original article is, your comment give words to the feelings of “what the hell” reactions many of us are having in our heads. While your analysis is like pouring vinegar on a cut, it needs to be done.
When I read something like the article that you have quoted here, there is a big part of me that desperately wishes that I’ve misunderstood and that this is all just a joke I’m not understanding.
[D: Ah, thanks! Sorry to have misunderstood, but I’m glad I was wrong.]
Dear Grey Whiskers:
This is getting off-topic, so I crave our kind host’s indulgence as a n00b… [and] suggest to all the following article, in an attempt to return to the topic of the thread, proper.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I come to Dalrock to laugh at kooky pseudo-Christians and feminist nutjobs. Not to talk politics. Thanks to anon for the discussion re: Marx & the Frankfurters (queue up an image of Adorno in costume, dancing to *the time warp*).
Regards, Boxer
It always comes to the threatpoint.
This is exactly why a guy should have his assets protected by a trust,or incorporation,or under someone elses name.
So when she says
“I’m gonna call the pigs have you thrown out on your ass,” you can say
“That is fine with me,you’re not getting another cent,good luck paying the mortgage.”
If you’re married do not own your home free and clear.
Either have an underwater mortgage,or have it in a trust with yourself as CEO,or rent.
Take the payment out of divorce and her “new found power” is fucking gone,gone gone.
Dear Free Bird:
Either have an underwater mortgage,or have it in a trust with yourself as CEO,or rent.
To be clear, I’m not an attorney; but where I’m at, it’s not uncommon for judges to “equitably divide marital property” in ways that still leave the (nearly always male) “primary breadwinner” responsible for the female’s upkeep.
In case of prenup, the judge can “honor” the agreement, in which the wife agreed that she would leave the property to the husband, by ordering the husband to buy a new home for the wife, and stipulating that it must be of the same value as the home that he is keeping. One fellow here had inherited a home from his mom and dad; and he ended up losing it anyway, because he simply could not afford to abide by this looney order from the mangina judge without selling it for the down payment on ex-wife’s new court ordered house.
In the case of the underwater mortgage, the judge is free (at least here where I live) to order the husband to keep making the payments on the home regardless, and move out anyway, and this is very common.
I do not know how it would work with a trust, I think that’s probably a better tactic than these others; but I’d hope any man would go to a decent divorce attorney long before getting married and getting some pro advice relevant to his local area. The rules of the divorce courts are quite variable.
I also know stories of women who leave the state and surprise their husbands with divorce proceedings in faraway places (Nevada is often popular) where the laws are more favorable to the female, so local advice might not always work.
It’s a mighty cruel world out there, and sometimes “doing the right thing” just doesn’t pay.
Protect yourself from the whims of the wymz by visiting John Dias’ website….if its still up, its been years since I checked
“There really is only two religions that still operate from the patriarchy perspective.
The Catholic Church and Islam. Protestant churches quickly corrupted themselves when they allowed birth control.”
The Catholic Church here in Croatia considers its most sacred heroine Severina, a woman who has filmed a porn video (in which she cheats on her fiance) and has recently had a child out of wedlock, whose immensely rich but Beta father she has dumped a few months after giving birth. The priest said that the child can easily be baptized without its father, because she says that he is not following the Christ’s word properly.
Just a note. Being against condoms and abortions doesn’t mean being against feminism.
@8oxer —
People can can the precepts of Marxism / Leninism to heart, and attempt to carry out their goals of undermining the West in order to prepare the way for, or to help bring about, the Glorious Communist FutureTM, even if their methods, or the institutions they attack or subvert, have not been mentioned explicitly by any of the original Communists. Second, there is such a thing as “useful idiots” — those who, for motivations they consider to be their own, act — even if unwittingly so, to foment unrest, and carry out Communist goals (intermediate ones). Many of the feminists who jumped on the bandwagon belong to the later group; as are (for example) people who agitated for the ‘rights’ of the incurably mentally ill, with the net result that there has been a great increase in mass killings in the United States, almost *all* by deranged young men — the notable exception being Ft. Hood, where Maj. Hassan had been promoted despite handing out business cards which read “SoA” for “Soldier of Allah” and even giving powerpoint presentations urging jihad as a duty. And nonetheless, with every further breakdown in society, every further calamity, the call is not “hey, let’s undo the policy change which just opened a new Pandora’s box” but instead “let’s take away even MORE freedom from the innocent masses, in order to gain more totalitarian control in the name of promising security which is never factually delivered. And let’s invent specious sociopolitical bogey-men to focus the anger of the populace while we’re at it.” Case in point (speaking gun violence) — there were about 500 firearms-related murders in Chicago last year, despite Cook County having some of the strictest anti-gun-laws in the nation. Most of the murders were among black man ages 18-29. I know, I know, “racism and poverty” right? Riddle me this, Batman. What was the murder rate in the 1930s, when we were in the midst of the Great Depression, and not only were Jim Crow laws in effect, but when in the late 1920s, the KKK had staged a full march of 20,000 Klansmen through Washington DC (hoods and all) as a statement of political power? Right. Much lower. The real causes of the current wave of gun violence are the dissolution of the family (thank you, Lyndon Johnson!) and drugs (thank you hippies!), both ancillary to the pet causes of the left.
The difficulty is, society exhibits non-negligible hysteresis — since the condition of society is not what (as they call it in Thermodynamics” a “State Function” — since it doesn’t just matter where we are, but how we GOT here — just changing the laws back will not solve the problems, since people’s attitudes change over time to reflect the laws, as do their habits and expectations.
One must conclude that Communism has revealed itself to be positively diabolical, or Luciferian: I can think of no other human philosophy which has appealed to so many otherwise intelligent, sincere, well-meaning people, and yet which has been so unerringly and devastatingly *wrong*: not only wrong in failing to achieve its goals of a utopia on Earth, but wrong in the sense that every major state which has claimed to subscribe to Communist goals, or has aspired to implement them, has without exception turned into a torture state, with everything from secret police, arrest and arbitrary detainment without trial, drastic declines in the mass standard of living, and having to keep people *in* the country by main force, whether by cement walls and electrified fences, or shootings; and even that not keeping people from trying to escape, by sea in leaky rafts if necessary. From the forced starvation of millions in the Ukraine, to the point where mothers ate their newborn children, to Eastern Germany, where there were warehouses of personal items of every citizen (to enable better tracking by dogs if necessary), to Red China where people who offended minor party officials were beheaded, and their families forced to sleep in bed with the corpse, nothing in human history has compared to the regularity of atrocities — across time, across, cultures, across languages — committed by those purporting to act in the name of Marx. And nowhere have their been more heartfelt apologists, then among the so-called “intelligentsia” in the West. As Gandalf said, “In all the wars with the Dark Tower, treason has ever been our greatest foe.”
Nice try at sophistry. It simply doesn’t matter if you’ve read the original academic works in the original languages: the rest of us have read the works of their hands in the language of cruelty, torture, and death. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Nice try, though.
For contemporary evangelical churchianity, the Feminine Imperative IS the holy spirit. Defy the Holy Imperative and you risk hell fire and damnation both on in this life and the one thereafter.
I’m a little disappointed that no one has mentioned 2 Tim 3
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
“When you marry you’re not just getting a boss. You’re getting two. You’re getting the law, the State, as a silent second spouse. And since it’s the law, this bigamy is legal.”
– Jed H. Abraham (From Courtship to Courtroom)
Since this bigamy is not only legal but inescapable and thus mandatory, xtian churches only perform bigamist weddings these days!
Dear Grey Whiskers:
I thought you just objected to talking about this, accusing me of being a distracting “forum spy” (LOL) in the process? And now, when the matter is closed, you write a long diatribe about how it doesn’t matter that I actually, like, *know* the material. You “feel” the connection in your heart, so your feelings trump reality.
Nice try at sophistry. It simply doesn’t matter if you’ve read the original academic works in the original languages: the rest of us have read the works of their hands in the language of cruelty, torture, and death. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Nice try, though.
Who says men don’t have rationalization hamsters?
Regards, Boxer
it would seem the feminist imperative is now self-aware, acting of its own volition.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/02/sperm-donor-fights-attempts-to-force-him-to-pay-child-support-to-lesbian-couple/
it would seem the feminist imperative is now self-aware, acting of its own volition.
Sounds like a plot for a Star Trek “Holideck Malfunction” episode.
Catholic annulment is misunderstood by most Catholics, let alone people outside the church. The main thing to understand is that a “declaration of nullity” (the actual name) does not end a marriage; it is a declaration that the marriage never existed due to some impediment. What matters is the situation at the time of the ceremony and the acts leading up to it, not what came after. If the marriage was valid when the vows were spoken, it can’t “become” invalid later.
So some annulments are super-easy, because some things always make the sacrament invalid. If the couple turn out to be brother and sister, or one of them was already married, or one of them was not willing to procreate, then the marriage was clearly null. All you have to do is produce the proof and your case will sail right through. In my own case, I was a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation — a clear impediment to validity, though I didn’t know it at the time and no one bothered to point it out — so my case took about as long as it took me to fill out the paperwork and someone to read it and stamp it. (Paradoxically, the most difficult annulments are often for those who were not Catholic when they married, because the Church doesn’t hold non-Catholics to as high a standard for validity.)
Where it gets harder is when the marriage appears to have been valid at the time of the wedding, and then the relationship goes sour and people start looking for a reason to declare it was null. Sometimes you have people who have gone on to remarry (civilly) and start new families, then they want to come back to the Church and repent and raise their kids in the faith, and the one thing they can’t dispense with in the confessional in minutes is that old marriage. So naturally the Church tries to accommodate them as much as possible, probably going too far in some cases.
Say you have a couple who got married in the Church, everything seemed to be in order, no one knew of any impediments, and everything seemed fine. After a few years, he starts beating her, and she starts beating the kids. He starts drinking heavily and loses his job, so they end up in shelters. She turns to prostitution for spending money, gets pregnant, and has an abortion without telling him. He gets accused of molesting their oldest daughter. Various court orders assure they cannot be together as a family again. Everything that can go wrong does.
Here’s the thing: none of that would be grounds for annulment, because it happened after the wedding. But an investigator might say, “Ok, were there any signs before the wedding that pointed to these things? Did he ever get violent then? Did she have a reputation for promiscuity then? Any previous abortions or molestation?” Basically, can we trace the current behavior back to something pre-wedding that, had people seen it then, could have been grounds for stopping the wedding. Often they can come up with something, because people pretty much are who they are and don’t turn into someone new after marriage — the blinders just tend to come off. So if things are really bad after the marriage, there were probably problems beforehand that everyone overlooked. And yet, a lot of annulments are still denied, because if something like that can’t be found, you’re stuck.
@Rollo Tomassi
Joel and Kathy tap into this sentiment as well in their explanation of Help-Meet. This kind of hard core rationalization is difficult to believe, so I encourage readers to click on the link and read for themselves. In a nutshell however, they explain that Help-Meet actually means something very similar to the Holy Spirit:
Above it was asked why even bother with these folks; it was suggested that what they are saying is so obviously crazy no one would take them seriously. Except of course for several of the women on the thread at Christian forums. Here is an excerpt from MaidForHim’s response to this level of crazy talk:
When cavymom pointed out it would be better to read the Bible and quoted Ephesians 5:21-33 (even if her choice of bolding is a bit suspect), Talitha responded with:
Also don’t forget that reader AnonT knows a woman who went to Joel and Kathy for help a few years ago and implemented their advice (and continues to do so).
It is VERY interesting seeing all the different battles against the evils of feminism in a variety of social circles.
The problem with “just reading the Bible” is that people (particularly men, on this subject) come to the Bible with so many preconceived notions and mistaken ideas about what it says, based on generations of bad teaching
So now we have a “living bible” just like a “living constitution”. God protect us from hamsters and liberals.
on the topic of Joel and Kathy, shouldn’t we have some betting pool on how long it is before she is outed for an affair?
We could even spice it up by speculating which sort of guy she gets with (Mr Big? Harley McBadboy? Country music guy?)
Kristol and Strauss, who basically took a Trotskyist revision of Marxism and took over the American Republican Party with it.
This is lunacy.
Ah! So it’s more than just the Holy Spirit moving. When a woman rebukes her husband she’s actually “channeling” for God himself.
So essentially modern evangelism is feminine shamanism. I think I got it now.
A bit OT but Boundless is has a chivalry post on its blog. If some of the commenters could help the conversation….
freebird says:
“It always comes to the threatpoint.
This is exactly why a guy should have his assets protected by a trust,or incorporation,or under someone elses name.
So when she says
“I’m gonna call the pigs have you thrown out on your ass,” you can say
“That is fine with me,you’re not getting another cent,good luck paying the mortgage.”
If you’re married do not own your home free and clear.
Either have an underwater mortgage,or have it in a trust with yourself as CEO,or rent.
Take the payment out of divorce and her “new found power” is fucking gone,gone gone.”
If they think you’re hiding things, they can still nail you. The Courts are well aware of these attempts to hide assets. It is not income, but economic benefits the judges use for alimony and child support.
If you only travel for work, but it is always tropical, that’s economic benefit that can be factored in. Anything that benefits you, free rent, is usable. Anything in a corporation is usable for calculating child support and alimony.
Don’t be lulled into a sense you can escape these things by being clever.
Ras Al Ghul
you are a smart man there is no legal way for a man to protect himself even the constitution of the United States is not good enough. Most marriages and the faith in blue pill ingeneral comes from the delusional belief that the constitution is actually valid. Murder suicides come from the realization of that fact. (too much red pill on a faith ful bluepill)
Rollo
Ah! So it’s more than just the Holy Spirit moving. When a woman rebukes her husband she’s actually “channeling” for God himself.
So essentially modern evangelism is feminine shamanism. I think I got it now.
Hmm. Then that makes “failure to pedestalize” even more serious. It’s rejection of God, right?
So “getting in touch with the feminine” (is that passe’, or is it still a happening thing?) is therefore by definition “getting in touch with God”, and none of that boring old Bible stuff to mess with, either.
At first read I’m inclined to think that Joel and Kathy Davisson are doing the world a favor by making this insane but predictable endpoint of “Christian feminism” so explicit. But the problem is that my inclination rests on the notion that the common man still possesses a modicum of common sense and an ability to perceive raving insanity playing out right in front of him. Hans Christian Anderson (The Emperor’s New Clothes) begs to differ.
“Ah! So it’s more than just the Holy Spirit moving. When a woman rebukes her husband she’s actually “channeling” for God himself.”
She is channeling a god. That god usually takes the form of a serpent.
Dear Grey Ghost & Ras Al Ghul:
You are both right.
The best gift any man can give to his brother on the announcement of his engagement is a trip down to the family courts, to sit in the pews and watch the proceedings for about an hour. Every poor schlub who is getting raked over the coals in there once believed he was marrying the perfect woman.
Once you actually go and do this, and watch the farce as it unfolds in all its Kafkaesque glory, you realize how utterly useless the legal system is in meting out “justice” in the context of the family. Even if some brother *thinks* he knows how bad things are, he still needs to go sit in on some sessions. Even more fun are the “emergency orders” proceedings (in my area these are completely separate from the divorce trials).
Samuel Solomon wrote ” shouldn’t we have some betting pool on how long it is before she is outed for an affair?
We could even spice it up by speculating which sort of guy she gets with (Mr Big? Harley McBadboy? Country music guy?)”
My bet is she hooks up w/ a gal.
The ex parte “partay”
@Boxer
Kindofa “scared straight” program for first time marriage proposal offenders? lol
Off topic again….
I find it interesting to note that as of January 2, 2012 at about 2:00 pm central time, the second- top post on this blog is “Advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry.” originally posted on April 26, 2011.
A post almost 2 years old, about how a woman in her 30s ought to go about finding a husband.
That ought to tell us something about the state of affairs in the good old US of A.
@Samuel Solomon
When will Kathy be outed with another affair?
Look at the picture in Empath’s post.
See Kathy showing lots of skin. See Kathy with a far away look in her eyes. Athol Kay and Roissy would say, ‘Ovulation! And Joel is not in her headspace.’
Now let’s look at Joel. He’s turned his back on her. He has a don’t give a shit alpha arm cross, a twinkle in his eyes, and a shit eating grin. I think he’s getting lots of Good-Christian-Cheating-MILF on the side. After all he’s such a good Christian husband, channeling the holy spirit, and being the sort of husband Jesus wants Good-Christian-Cheating-MILFs to have. I am sure he is willing to offer a sympathetic hand to wives who are suffering because their husbands drove them to have an affair. (Roissy would call it kino.)
Joel and Kathy will not out each other, because they have a good ministry/career/scam going. Look again at the picture in Empath’s post. They just aren’t that into each other, but need each other for professional purposes.
I wondered right away if AnonT was a J and K operative. I’ve seen them discussed on blogs before and it isn’t usually very long at all before someone shows up to defend them. It happened at CMD, too. I’ve also seen bloggers say they felt like they were under spiritual attack after taking down J and K; I have said a prayer for you and your family’s safety and well-being, D.
This quote from ChristianForums:
is very depressing to read. We can’t read the Bible and get it? What ever happened to all of Scripture being God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work?
Sometimes I think I overestimate the discernment of many of my fellow Believers.
Dear Sunshine Mary:
We can’t read the Bible and get it?
Of course not, silly. We need skilled gurus — such as Joel and Kathy — to interpret the meanings for us. Don’t you know anything?
What ever happened to all of Scripture being God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work?
Next you’ll be wanting to start thinking for yourself. The audacity! It sounds like you’ve been reading Karl Marx.
Look, it’s really very simple. Just pay Joel and Kathy to do your thinking for you. They’re always right anyway, so it’s a lot easier than studying literature and scripture on your own and making your own decisions. They’ll tell you how to treat your husband and other family members, and they’ll micromanage your relationships. You’ll never be happier!
I see a similar pattern even among less abrasively noxious counselors.
Take the common “each person will have to work on their own things” principle. This is quickly followed up with “you can’t talk about the other person AT ALL.” Your average chump will go along with this under the assumption that it seems fair enough. But what if the dude’s wife is simply bullying him with the threat of a frivolous divorce? And what if the guy completely understands this…? If he tries to level with the counselor on this and say, “hey… I’d feel a whole lot better about this process if there wasn’t a loaded gun *pointing at my own children here*” then the counselor will unload:
1) The husband is obviously “too proud” and wants to put responsibility for all the problems on the wife. (The question cannot be entertained, hence the direct attack against the husband’s character.)
2) Also… “you’re breaking the rules by talking about her; you can only work on you.”
3) Finally… the husband must be twisting reality: there’s filters in his brain preventing him from seeing things correctly.
So at the same moment that the counselor is chiding the husband for not “manning up” and being a good “leader”, he is in the same breath cutting him down, redirecting him away from the real problem, and undermining his confidence in his senses and his ability to discern reality.
The “fairness” axioms through which counselors tend to view relationship problems require them to have the men check their brains at the door. That’s why it so often ends up being a sham. Their irrational methods melt away in the presence of the slightest amount of common sense masculine frame.
SSM, its amazing no operatives have invaded here. They always did battle with me at CF…..always. I encountered them also sending out sellers (they call them helpers) to post testimonies on random forums where Christians post.
To say its a cult is to by silly with the obvious.
I admit, I have listened to their video’s and know their spiel about pretty much all of the scripture that can be used for relational guidance. The God Hates Divorce and run it through the Joel-ster (egads) and see what extrudes. You will be shocked. Watch as they present to a seminar group and his typical evangelical arrogance posture and inflection, which sadly does not just infect marriage ministers but many a general preacher as well, that swagger and know it all tenor….its incredibly off putting, then add the marriage aspect and its intolerable.
Empath, in my opinion it’s a style adopted from the tent-preachers, that Jimmy Swaggart was fond of when he was on TV in the 1980’s. To me, it just sends a very clear message – this man is hiding something with his swagger and arrogance. Something personal…
Now, that could be prejudice on my part. However, Swaggart is not the only Holy Joe I’ve seen turn out to have some personal issues. To me there is a pattern, and it is clear.
I don’t think we can “read the Bible and just get it” a lot of the time. We all have blind spots and the nature of blind spots is that it’s a lot easier to see others’ than our own. That doesn’t mean we should look to charlatans like Joel and Kathy to do our thinking for us, but we are lucky to be able to consult the writings of the early church fathers (and don’t forget to thank the Catholic Church for your Bibles).
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
I will confess this to all i went to a marriage counselor early in the marrige maybe 10 11 years ago. I went in there and took over. I was pissed off about the whole thing and i looked at the couseller and was schooling her about taking care of business. I to my best rememberance I will quote the question that ended the sesion with my wife announcing “let’s go”. my question was ……” Do you think a serious mutha fucka that is handling his business should be taking shit from some goddamn bitch?” I maybe off in the exact wording but that was how it came off. We didn’t even have time to write her a check. Didn’t cost us a dime. It is funny thinking back because this is before I even heard of the manosphere. Seeing things with todays eyes I think my wife was looking for affirmation of stupid shit and nothing more. She now has a BA degree and a teaching career that I have coached her thru on leadership skills. (only time she truely listens to me). In my heart all I truely wanted from marriage was kids and i got three that I coulded have drawn up better with the latest auto cad program. Couseling is bullshit you are better off becoming and alcoholic getting a second job or just taking time off to be with the kids. Stop worrying about the relationship with the wfe and enjoy the kids you never had a wife by law to start with. Get a friend network learn how to live as a criminal, make money off the books, need pussy get some on the side. (there is a way of doing that with causing to much truoble. I haven’t found the need to do that yet because I’m really enjoying my kids now.) For some reason the old lady just behaves better when you quit trying to be good to her.
Something finally snapped in me while reading the above post — the last, faintest thread of belief in state sanctioned marriage, or rather, slavery-under-color-of-matrimony-law. Joel and Kathy have finally killed the last traces of my belief in it.
To be sure, I have been aware for some time about the wickedly unfair legal power that a divorcing woman has over an innocent man. What’s different this time, what finally made me flip, is that Joel and Kathy openly advocate abusing this legal power in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ no less (!!!!!), and willl give moral cover so that women can pretend to be Christians while doing so., The legal measures Joel and Kathy advocate,can only be justified in the rare case of actual physical danger, but instead they advocating its abuse as the ultimate NAGGING weapon, either to change him into the wife’s false image of what a Christian man should be, or to try to browbeat him into meeting those aching deep emotional needs that most men and a few wise women could tell you, can only be met by God Himself. I foresee that many, many decent men will have their lives destroyed as a result of Joel and Kathy’s “ministry”.
Like Dalrock, I have a good marriage. But, I have known for some time, that I dodged a bullet. And, the inherited tradition of a marriage license held a strong pull…. til today. Effective today, if by some tragedy I found myself single again, while still young enough to care about females, I will NEVER marry again in the eyes of the law. I would get married sacramentally only.
And thus shall I advise my 3 sons. when they are old enough to understand.
This deserves highlighting:
Boxer: “The best gift any man can give to his brother on the announcement of his engagement is a trip down to the family courts, to sit in the pews and watch the proceedings for about an hour. Every poor schlub who is getting raked over the coals in there once believed he was marrying the perfect woman.
Once you actually go and do this, and watch the farce as it unfolds in all its Kafkaesque glory, you realize how utterly useless the legal system is in meting out “justice” in the context of the family. Even if some brother *thinks* he knows how bad things are, he still needs to go sit in on some sessions. Even more fun are the “emergency orders” proceedings (in my area these are completely separate from the divorce trials).”
Almost everyone who tries to introduce the Red Pill to others ends up running into resistance – serious resistance. It is nearly impossible to unplug someone who does not want to be unplugged, and most people are truly happier plugged-in, at least until they get raped by the system/feminism. But even then most just dive right back in.
I think that doing as Boxer suggests above is a near optimal solution. Speak about it – warn them gently about how things really work – and then show it to them in all it’s ugliness. If they become thoughtful and start asking questions, give them the knowledge and advice that you would want someone to give you, without trying to poison the well too much. With a little forewarning, knowledge and effort, it is possible to tilt things significantly in one’s own favor, even should a nasty situation arise in the future.
However, if they can sit through a couple of hours and still deny everything, then they cannot be saved at present, and it is best to just leave things be, wish him luck, and not to say anything further. Move on and don’t waste further time and energy losing a friend/relative.
@Sunshinemary
It is now finished and scheduled for auto publication tomorrow morning. I didn’t think this could be possible, but working through the details shocked even me. Anyway, I had some fun with it and I think you will find it informative as well as entertaining.
For a virtual/poor man’s version of what 8oxer is describing I suggest the Seattle Weekly expose Ripped Appart W.F. Price linked to some time back and I referenced in A case for anger. I don’t wish to talk men out of marriage, but I wish to educate them as well as possible and help steer them away from women who aren’t fit to marry*. The rest is up to them. They are the ones who will bear the risk, and they are the ones who will reap the rewards.
*As a firm believer in the profound benefits of true (lifelong) marriage I mourn the fact that for so many men this necessarily will mean they have to forgo the option to marry and have their own family.
@Dalrock
And one of the reasons that no-one outside the church is listening to what the churches have to say on same sex marriage is because the church have given up on the traditional definistion of marriage, as a union or one man and one woman for the whole of their natural lives, as well as all the other ‘difficult’ parts of Scripture.
Pingback: How Fireproof lowers the boom. | Dalrock
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/lowering-the-boom/#comment-65396
I’d like to add my experience to the to Brendan’s comment above regarding the U.S. Catholic Church’s defense of marriage. If one were only to read the Church’s teachings on the subject, notably cancon law, one would come to the conclusion that there is no greater defender of the sacrament. In practice I have found it to fall short.
1. The RCC does not acknowledge a civil divorce as affecting in any way the sacramental marriage related thereto. Put simply divorced Catholics are no less married the day of their decree than the day before. What is relevant is that the RCC in the U.S. will not entertain an annulment petition until after the civil divorce is final (more later on this).
2. The canons of the Church dictate that absent a few narrow reasons, the spouses have an obligation to maintain the conjugal life (not just living under the same roof) – and are admonished not to sever such living without approval from the bishop or local ordinary unless waiting for such dispensation would prove dangerous. I was told in my own case (by my pastor and my archbishop) that ‘we don’t do that anymore’ when I asked for their intercession in my wife’s demand for a separation.
3. In part the problem with #2 above is that the Church leadership is largely and I believe willfully ignorant of the machinations of the civil divorce industry and how unjustly it treats men and by extension, their children. Note: The Church technically allows for a civil divorce to protect and provide for the innocent party(ies) including the children, but the canon law in this area seems to rest on enforcing the concept of an apporval to separate.
4. Yes, the wife still collects fabulous cash and prizes in civil divorce court.
5. The most hurtful part of it all is the cavalier attitude regarding annulments, which have exploded since Vatican II. The vast majority of these are issued under the aegis of canon 1095 (defective consent); Robert Vasoli, a Catholic sociologist who defended against his wife’s attempt to have their marriage annulled, documented the travesty of the U.S. tribunal system in his book “What God Has Joined…”. Essentially annulments have come to be used as pastoral aids to return the lost to the flock despite repeated calls from the Pope (JP II and Benedict XVI) to the U.S. bishops to address the problem.
6. Other than a more conservative interpretation of the stated rules there are three procedural changes the U.S. RCC could institute to protect the sacrament: a) enforce the canon regarding separation (even before civil divorce) b) require that the annulment decision be made prior to the civil divorce (to avoid the chilling effects of the civil divorce process) and c) most importantly – stop participating in the charade that is state-sanctioned marriage (it does nothing whatsoever to strengthen the sacrament and actually puts the presumed head of the family at great peril.
To answer the implication, no I am not a J & K operative. I am actually an atheist, so no shilling for Christian ministries for me. I have read manosphere blogs for the last few years because as a twenty-something girl I hope to find a really good husband, so I’m trying to improve myself. I read feminist blogs, too, because I want to have as many perspectives as I can.
“Your friend’s marriage is now predicated on crushing her husband and keeping him crushed. She may not say this to you, but I can guarantee you this makes her miserable. Wives want a husband who is the leader of the family, her rock to lean on when her emotions storm. She has taken on the role of the husband, so in a very important sense she has no husband. Even here, she can’t take the pleasure in the role of being a husband that a man can, because she isn’t a man. Sexually she won’t be attracted to him, and we know from her choosing an alpha to marry that she has a fairly high need for alpha to feel attraction. This leaves her with lifetime sexual options of cheating (sin), denying him sex (sin), or having sex with a man who is unattractive to the point of being borderline or outright repulsive to her.”
Yes, she is absolutely not happy about being unable to lean on him. When they met she came from a very traumatic childhood and he seemed safe and sweet, so she fell in love. But please remember, she is *not* the one denying him sex, HE is denying her. He also came from a traumatic background and it’s had terrible effects on them both in terms of healthy emotions and ability to navigate life in general.
“3) She is dooming her children to a world of dysfunction (not unlike what she is already experiencing) by modeling this as Christian marriage to them. Rinse, lather, repeat.”
True. Would it be better, however, for her to continue tip-toeing around their father, allowing them to not only be verbally and emotionally abused but to see their mother aiding and abetting that treatment of them and her? She is in a bad situation and is trying to do her best now. Her husband also is trying. Thus, they are still married. If she had tried to do the perfect submissive wife thing she would have ended up like his mother, bitter and silent and joyless, and he would have ended up like his father, randomly cruel to anyone in his way, constantly sniping at his wife, and much more miserable than he is at the moment.
“So brilliant job Joel and Kathy. You figured out God was wrong and taught women how to make a man who is unfit for Christian marriage stick around as a broken lapdog. Now we have a bullet proof prescription for unending generations of broken hearts, broken homes, and human misery.”
She is not making him stick around. The point of my post is that my friend considers herself a feminist AND BECAUSE OF THAT is fighting for her marriage. PLUS if the marriage fails she will not be a burden on her husband’s income BECAUSE of her feminist beliefs.
Oh and her example, both good and bad, really helped me avoid falling into a similar relationship. I literally had people telling me I was too picky and to give the guy another chance, which I *desperately* wanted to. Blaming her and people like her for getting into a bad situation when (I think) she was in her teens and not being able to see all the possible ramifications and red flags in the guy who made her feel safe doesn’t do anything constructive. She specifically chose him *because* he seemed like good husband and father material. The difference between her and my situation is that I had many loving people around me so I got out with heartbreak but no kids.
Anyway, back to J and K D., I only know what I’ve heard her say about them. I tend to be skeptical of *anyone* giving relationship advice, including here, because people are so complicated. I’m just trying to get different perspectives and avoid black and white thinking.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/lowering-the-boom/#comment-65428
Uh, pretty much they are all wolves in hiding.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/lowering-the-boom/#comment-65508
Preach on, brother.
@AnonT
Forget about blaming her for a moment, it isn’t the real issue. What I’m saying is the instructions say you can only put a round peg in the hole. According to your description her husband is a square peg, and of course along come Joel and Kathy with a hammer to make it all work. It won’t work, and pretending that this is biblical marriage is a disaster. The only kind thing to do is to be really clear how the instructions work, and not to fudge on what kind of peg is suitable. The Bible does have instruction for women like your friend, but it isn’t to break out the hammer. It is an extremely difficult spot that she is in (based on what you describe), but rewriting the Bible won’t make it better.
For your own sake and that of your future children, please take a look at this.
@8oxer on January 2, 2013 at 10:12 am
I thought you just objected to talking about this, accusing me of being a distracting “forum spy” (LOL) in the process? And now, when the matter is closed, you write a long diatribe about how it doesn’t matter that I actually, like, *know* the material. You “feel” the connection in your heart, so your feelings trump reality.
Well, at least you went through the motions of *skimming* my post. It’s a start. The post wasn’t about my feelings, but to avoid the endless quibbling over definitions. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” — those who have claimed to be inspired by Marx have tried to screw things up. From all appearances, they’ve done well.
Who says men don’t have rationalization hamsters?
Communists have rationalization hamsters which put the womyn of sites like Jezebel to shame…it would be better not to give them even inadvertent cover.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of male-female relations as endorsed by segments of Churchian culture…
The hamster is what makes the appearance that the woman is tip toeing around and the man is volatile. This is the quintessential description of the emotionally abusive husband. And it may exist in tiny TINY numbers, but its not likely.
Read REALLY read Gottman’s research on couple dynamics. Buried in it are good scientific refutations of the claims being made about the marriage in question. I cannot and will not deign to insist that I know anything about a particular marriage. i will assert with confidence that the template laid out is perfectly painted by the numbers of the churchian wife victim and future frivorcee.
Usually the harder she tries to put a veneer of gentleness and submission the worse it is, because real submission isnt whats implied in the description, quiet mousy meek behavior has nothing descriptively accurate in it. Its a parody, and its DONE as if its being parodied, Its done with conditional expectations and much passive aggressive manipulative dynamics designed to elicit almost undetectable force, like the weak force in nature, inexplicable for able to be felt. Its effect is to strap weights on the mans back and tell him to hurry up.
The marriage described is right out of weekend to remember and all those ministry marriage retreats and the marriage can be stabilized by threat-point only because the women is genuinely unaware of what she is doing, like the fish is unaware it is wet.
Dalrock:
Firstly, warm greetings. I have read your work and am greatly impressed and feel far less troubled, having encountered my share of marital difficulty as a Christian man.
As I read this post, I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Matt 19:8:
“Moses gave you divorce because your hearts were hard…”
while it was said to the Pharisees, it is entirely appropriate for the modern woman and the apathetic church. This is because all 3 of those parties – Pharisee, woman and church – substitute a relative law above the command of Scripture.
Thanks for the insight.
@ AnonT:
“Yes, she is absolutely not happy about being unable to lean on him. When they met she came from a very traumatic childhood and he seemed safe and sweet, so she fell in love. But please remember, she is *not* the one denying him sex, HE is denying her. He also came from a traumatic background and it’s had terrible effects on them both in terms of healthy emotions and ability to navigate life in general.”
The best that can be hoped for from your perspective, AnonT, is to look at your friend’s experience as a life lesson. Your friend made a poor choice in a husband. She married an alpha. I believe alphas can make decent husbands with lifestyle changes, but alphas find this hard to do and so are not the best choice as husband material. Worse, she married a man who is completely unsuited to married life, mostly because he doesn’t really want to be a husband. And even worse still, he simply isn’t compatible with her.
The more you discuss their backgrounds, his lack of suitability is clear — she should never have selected him as a husband. She has her own issues which makes me question how much of this is his doing and how much is hers. It also gives me pause about her suitability as a wife. Both of them should have worked out their own issues before marrying. Since they didn’t, they will have to make the best of it.
“Blaming her and people like her for getting into a bad situation when (I think) she was in her teens and not being able to see all the possible ramifications and red flags in the guy who made her feel safe doesn’t do anything constructive.”
I wouldn’t call it “blaming”, I’d call it laying out the facts and the consequences of her decisions, and setting out her life as a cautionary tale. No one can see all possible ramifications, but you can see the red flags. Truth is, your friend saw an alpha who tingled her and turned her on sexually. Her hamster rationalized this as “hot studly man = good husband = love = dutiful father.” Instead of making rational decisions about the man to marry, she listened to other parts of her body rather than her brain. Now married to him and allowing him to father her children, she is tied to him for the rest of her life, even if their marriage fails.
Want to know alpha “red flags”? There’s really only one important one:
— he makes you feel so good and yummy inside, without giving you any promises or commitment. There is something about him to which you’re inexplicably drawn, even though you don’t know a whole lot about him. You simply MUST have this man.
Here are the more mechanical ones.
–you see him approach five or six other women at the bar before he approaches you.
–he doesn’t give straight answers to straightforward questions.
–he waits 2 or 3 days before responding to a text or voice message.
–he is intentionally obscure about his past, his job, his family or other things about his life.
–he isnt’ truthful about his sex life.
–he presses hard for P in V sex as early as possible.
–he refuses to spend money on a woman until after she has sex with him.
–he employs “principle of least interest”, i.e. he makes clear the relationship is far less important to him than it is to the woman.
@greyghost
“never had a wife by law to start with”
Brilliantly said, today, if you marry you’re not marrying a woman, you’re marrying theft & kidnapping & stealing your home at the end of a gun
That is all essentially a woman is today
Criminal behaviour & Theft, begging for handouts, the very essence of a so called backward modern woman
A marriage is about power first & foremost, if you dont have the power to say no to a woman, or kick her out of your house
You are NOT married to your wife
Your are enslaved to a government & its marxist values of abortion & murder
You are married to a woman where anything is justified, as long as it involves theft & kidnapping of men & their homes for cash prizes, while scummy civil servants & cops get their pig snouts in the trough
Remember women are emotional
An emotion has no real sense of justice or ethics, or fairness, or concern for the greater good of man
Morality & ethics & slut shaming, allow a woman to feel some sort of shame & responsibility for their bullshit & emotional hamster warblings
Promiscuity & slut culture, erodes a womans sense of morality & ethics
Enabling the rise of the deranged delusional crack pot women we’re seeing today, like walsh
This basically enables hordes of women to poison & warp the remaining sane women
This has got to such epidemic proportions, thanks to the slut walks, ie. the lesbian led feminists, we see corporations like Joel & Kathy springing up to exploit the deranged woman without morality or slut shaming to keep her sane
I have been reading this website with a great deal of interest. Good job guys! I have broken cover for the first time because I have been reading on this marriage forum (talkaboutmarriage.com) and have come across women like this one: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/64563-another-update-advice-needed.html
What a long list of demands for this poor husband. In other posts, this woman talks about divorcing her husband if he doesn’t shape up and send her texts or read poetry to her! If she was my daughter, I would give her a spanking, and perhaps that is what she really needs. I wish her husband was there so I could tell him so.
“Deranged delusional crack pot women” … this is one of them.
Pingback: The Deification of Wives | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Untethered | Dalrock
Pingback: Lowering the boom, a testamonial. | Dalrock
Pingback: More good stuff ripped off from around the manosphere « Random Xpat Rantings
From the moment I wake up to the moment I fall asleep, I think of how much richer life would be with a good woman and family. Unfortunately, the above example and the very limited successful marriages I am aware of has led me to shun most women with deep sadness. I am not about to marry a girl who is verbally, emotionally and physically abusive because she’s unhappy. In this society, if you are not groveling at her feet, then you are the abusive husband and she has every right to scorn you. My fear is that the Dark Triad of personality disorders is so prevalent in this society that I within minutes of meeting someone could see she’s not a good girl (tramp stamp, obsession with status, bad father/mother relationships, etc.)
I still hold a shred of hope that I will be able to find someone decent and have an awesome life together. I will use what tools I have at my disposal (rock-solid prenup) and the Catholic annulment conditions (e.g. A serious lack of the discretion at consent concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be given) to financially and spiritually insulate myself. Until then, I will continue to live my life (GMOW) and enjoy my thirties.
As a Christian(well technically Catholic with Judeo leanings) who read the Bible since I was a little guy I can confidently say those gals are going to hell. Personally, it may be fun to ridicule these individual morons, but it might be useful to use these morons to shame Christian organizations in repentance or atleast use it to make them take a stand against this nonsense. I doubt most of this stuff is on their radar.
Pingback: BD #6 – Making Sure The Wife Feels Loved. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: No room for headship here. | Dalrock
There are turbulent times in a marriage when either or both partners feel less confident. What these two manipulators are doing, namely instilling the mindset of a wargame (i.e. “The Prisoner’s Dillema”), into the minds of wives at these times can only be described as pure evil!!
Pingback: A Woman Wants A King, Not A Peasant | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: So You Want Me To Man-Up and Marry That Slut? | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: How Porn and my Wife Ruined my Marriage | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: The wake-up call. | Dalrock
Pingback: the Revision Division
Pingback: Fireproof in Five Minutes. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Meet your new master: Her feelings | Dalrock
Pingback: Unhappy? Make your husband put a deposit into Dr. Harley’s Bank. | Dalrock
Pingback: FotF and Dr. Hegstrom: Check your male privilege. | Dalrock
Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock
Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 2). | Dalrock
Pingback: Happy Wife, Happy Life | Modern Grit
Pingback: The Pygmalion Project vs. Shared Enterprises | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Marriage Counseling System | Cultures at War