My wife and I watched a movie titled Joshua a while back (plot spoiler alert). We ended up fast forwarding the second half of the film just to see how it ended, but the first half was both fascinating and painful. The movie is about a husband and father who is trying to keep his family together in the face of constant disruption from his clinically depressed wife and their sociopath nine year old son.
What was so striking to me was how normal the movie portrayed a husband having to placate an emotionally unstable wife. She was a one woman disaster, and her husband was constantly trying to find ways to resolve the problems she created without provoking her. She wouldn’t care for their newborn daughter, and she flew into a rage when others tried to fill in the gaps. In one sense this shouldn’t surprise me, because what the movie portrayed is our current legal climate. The husband/father can be ejected from the home at any time and for any (or no) reason by the wife/mother. When the boss is crazy, there isn’t much the helper can do.
I was curious if I was alone in reading the movie as portraying the placating husband/crazy wife dynamic as normal. The plot summary on wiki doesn’t even mention the mother as a source of problems, only as a victim of the son; the dynamic was so normal it didn’t merit mentioning. The reviewer for the New York Times however did notice the fact that the husband was constantly having to placate an emotional and less than sane wife, calling the movie a highly effective family drama cloaked in the stale tropes of the demon-seed thriller. The review zeroes in on this at the end with:
But it’s Sam Rockwell’s spectacular turn as the harried paterfamilias that simultaneously binds the film and pushes its boundaries. Whether coddling his character’s doped-up wife or reaching out to his wacky son, Mr. Rockwell is never less than convincing as a stressed-out dad whose life is slowly disintegrating.
This dynamic between the coddling husband and the crazy wife is so compelling you could easily re cut the movie to take out the son as the fundamental source of conflict. In fact, you could leave in the early scenes with the son and in psychological thriller form temporarily mislead the audience into suspecting he might be a sociopath and the source of the problems. Such a film would be compelling, as the NY Times reviewer seems to agree. Imagine an entire movie where the protagonist husband constantly has to tiptoe around his crazy wife to somehow care for the children while avoiding provoking his ever-provoked wife. Oh, and he also needs to hold down his high stress job on Wall Street too. While such a movie would not pass the censors in our current culture, it would describe a family dynamic far more common than the “demon seed” plotline that bored the reviewer for the Times.
I thought of the movie again when reading a comment by the always excellent Social Pathologist:
…you’d be quite surprised just how many women find child rearing to being psychologically difficult, to the point of involuntary psychiatric disease. One of the things that “blew me away” when I starting working as a family physician is the significant toll on psychiatric health that children bring, especially to women.
While as a physician he is understandably focused on helping the patient he is treating, the question that came to my mind was what about the husband who has to deal with an emotionally unstable wife who has the power to destroy the family at any moment? No one is taking her finger off the nuclear button. In fact, a husband convincing an emotionally unstable wife that she is unstable is widely seen as a form of abuse.
This is serious business, because not only is our family law system designed to empower wives and mothers (crazy or otherwise) at the expense of husbands and fathers, but crazy is sold to women as a form of empowerment. Cartoons regularly show young girls using emotional outbursts as a form of power, and the message to adult women is the same. Feminism in many ways is the celebration of the power of emotional outbursts to change the world.
This message that crazy gets you power (and that more power is what women need) isn’t limited to secular feminists. Modern Christians have embraced this idea to an astonishing extent. Are you feeling dissatisfied with your marriage/husband? Why not take a trip down crazy lane? It is sure to solve your problem. If you don’t already know how to put crazy to work in your own life, try an emotional temper tantrum involving loading the kids in the car and threatening to break up the family if you don’t get your way. Or if that isn’t your preferred brand of crazy, try lining up expensive china on the mantle and breaking it with a hammer.
Making all of this worse is the near universal assumption that divorce and the ensuing process is a just punishment for men. Dr. Helen had a post a while back about a man who was regularly thrown in jail due to his inability to pay exorbitant amounts of alimony and child support:
“When I tell people what’s happened to me these last two years they say, ‘Your story can’t possibly be true, and you must be in court because you beat your wife,’” Schochet said.
The message to husbands is find a way to keep her happy, and if you can’t you deserve what is coming to you. But what happens when the woman isn’t just using crazy the way society tells her to use it, as a pragmatic tool to gain power? What if she isn’t driving the crazy, and instead the crazy is driving her?
Unfortunately there is no legal process to distinguish between wives who are using crazy pragmatically, and those who aren’t playing crazy. The Good Men Project posted an article back in August titled What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You? The author recounted being arrested after his wife brutally assaulted him in a successful ploy to gain an upper hand in their divorce:
She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”
Even though she beat him, all the wife had to do was say the magic words and he ended up being arrested and unable to see his children:
The two officers escorting me to and from the hospital and then to central booking didn’t have any advice when I asked what I should have done. “Sorry, man.”
…
Thirty hours later I stood in front of a judge and had a county prosecutor argue against me: “His wife is afraid of him. She said he…”
Released on my own recognizance; order of protection outlaws me from contacting her or my kids for a year.
The thing to remember is this isn’t the failure of a system designed to protect men and women. This is the system working as designed. This is the whole point of the Good Men article; what should he have done differently given a violent and unstable wife? The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him. If a wife gets unhappy and either beats her husband or he ends up in jail due to unpayable child support or alimony, then he obviously had it coming.
Aside from keeping her happy, a husband with an emotionally unstable wife needs to focus on avoiding the domestic violence machinery. Web MD quotes an expert from a domestic violence hotline for men in their article Help for Battered Men:
We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.
Interesting timing. Facing a contempt hearing this Friday for failure to pay child support. In a rational, reasonable, just system, I’d be confident about the factual defense I’m presenting. In the actual system, however, it remains to be seen.
Dalrock, along these same lines, have you seen this story?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ron-carpenters-confession-of-wifes-illness-adultery-prompts-prayers-debate-over-privacy-106691/
This message that crazy gets you power (and that more power is what women need) isn’t limited to secular feminists. Modern Christians have embraced this idea to an astonishing extent. Are you feeling dissatisfied with your marriage/husband? Why not take a trip down crazy lane? It is sure to solve your problem.
It bears endless repeating that both secularists and churchians who advocate this tactic are tools of the State, Lenin’s “useful idiots” in advancing the State’s quest to destroy what little remains of the nuclear family, this being the biggest challenger to the State’s otherwise unquestioned authoriteh.
Dalrock,
Exactly. The cops know they are doing wrong as agents of government enforcing the law, but they need their paychecks so they are not permitted to think or reason.
When I said on another Christian forum that men need to live with women (in sin) a while BEFORE they marry them (to find what it is like to live with these women FIRST) to protect themslevs from marrying a woman who is BPD (as these Dictator wives clearly are) a clear, calm response, I got from one female poster sent chills down my spine:
She’s right.
100 years ago, we didn’t call women who were BPD Borderline or “People of the Lie” as Scott Peck did. We said they were possessed by the Devil. The Catholic Church even has a Rite of Excorsism for these people. But in the end, these Fatal Attraction bunny boilers… its all just par for the course for a society that tolerates the fact that women lack moral agency.
Sorry Dalrock. It is what it is.
1. Domestic violence is gender neutral. The 1970’s feminists successfully addressed a few forms of DV, but the fact remains that men are physically and emotionally battered too, both by male and female significant others. I’ve known a few battered men, and women battered by female significant others, and so does my local abused women’s shelter.
2. Because of the success of the feminists, most courts and support programs (ie, the supervised visitation non-profit I volunteer for) often use terms like “male-batterer” and “Female victim”. At times, one doesn’t remember that “male” can stand on its own as a descriptive noun. This is in spite of the fact that more than 2/3 of all child abuse and neglect come from a female adult. My local DV court judge told me that fully 1/4 of the defendants in his court were female. Still, DV is locally shown as a “male batterer, female victim” issue.
3. My grandmother said, “It takes two to tango” (maybe it was “Two to tangle?”). That is the story here. I’ve seen, first hand, women whose “stuff” is so powerful that they engage in abusive relationships with a succession of men with no previous abuse history (I performed the funeral for one such person). The psychological dynamics of abusive relationships demand that both adult parties get treatment, and both be held accountable. Sadly, when you label someone a “victim” you give them permission to avoid treatment — indeed, you reward them for being “unlucky” or “making a bad choice.”
4. The last example, of 2 doors, is a key. Yes, I’ve seen this one first -hand: the couple was trained to let one or both walk away, the one partner blocked the door, then yelled “Abuse” when moved aside (fairly gently). Did I mention this was a psychological dynamic with 2 “guilty” players?
If crazy does lend power, and Doing the Right Thing is not enough to save you (since there seems to be nothing a man can do in these circumstances), then men aught to take a little bit of that crazy power back. Men must make sure they don’t land in jail for no reason.
Cases such as this are, IMO, one of the factors in the higher suicide rate among divorcing /divorced men.
And I would be remiss to not remember Allen Wells on this thread.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/suicides/Allen_Wells/key_page.htm
“this isn’t the failure of a system designed to protect men and women. This is the system working as designed. This is the whole point of the Good Men article; what should he have done differently given a violent and unstable wife? The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy”
I can’t help but wonder if this is what it was like to be black about a hundred years ago. Better not get too uppity, or someone will detonate you and there won’t be anything you can do about it.
Zykos
“Men must make sure they don’t land in jail for no reason.”
“If im going to be treated as a criminal, mind as well be one” ::Proceeds to make the crime fit the punishment::
I feel this way too and i think it should be an option but a poor one and one I would avoid.
“Satan is here. This whole planet is his.”
Martin Luther referred to the world as “the Devil’s Inn.” And this was, oh, over 500 years ago?
Just another example of how our world is the devil’s playground.
Zykos
“Men must make sure they don’t land in jail for no reason.”
“If im going to be treated as a criminal, mind as well be one” ::Proceeds to make the crime fit the punishment::
I feel this way too and i think it should be an option but a poor one and one I would avoid.
To paraphrase the old saw: “in for a dime, in for a dollar.”
Yes, exactly. I’ve noticed this hysteria and verbalizations about violence on feminist websites many times. If someone disagrees with them, they just…disintegrate. They write out violent fantasies, post GIFs of people smashing their computers, and begin swearing incoherently. I’ve wondered about this bizarre violent emotionalism, not understanding it. Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. And how awful to live with someone who behaves like that in real life.
Another excellent but depressing post.
Technology to the rescue!
http://www.amazon.com/Spy-Pen-Camera-Executive-BallPoint/dp/B00DQ91FC4/ref=pd_sim_sbs_p_5
Video and audio are hard to beat. “Who are you going to believe? Her, or your lying eyes and ears?”
The long term psychological acid that a mentally unsound woman brings on a man reminds of the “interrogation” scenes in Zero Dark Thirty. The emotional pathologies seem to always manifest themselves as anger and implacable rage. And for some reason, men seem to make themselves responsible for their wive’s psychosis, as he could somehow make it all better by just being a better man. For sure, society would never require a woman to stay with a man who manifest mental illness through anger and rage (such a soldier with PTSD). He would be sent first to divorce court and then to jail for back alimony before anyone ever thought about giving the man counseling or some other support. No, counseling is only for women.
Anoher great Dalrock post that reminds once again not to marry…thank you My life is peaceful….
@innocentbystanderboston:
If this is true and I believe it is, then Christianity is done for. Satan is here. This whole planet is his. We are living in his Hell. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for turning our back on God and Christ.
I reject such dire hopelessness. I have argued that what we are dealing with today is not much different than what the apostle Paul dealt with in his day. This, too, shall pass.
http://westernwoes.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/what-happened-to-marriage/
RedPillPaul,
It is a very poor choice, and I would avoid it as well, but when the only other choices are cooperation and suicide, it’s hard to make a case against it. Suicide, as shown by the growing statistics, does absolutely nothing and is completely ignored by the population and lawmakers. In cold truth, if your life is going away, is it not better to make it mean something?
More movies (some interesting keywords…): http://www.imdb.com/find?q=wife&s=kw
Also, had a conversation recently about this and “gaslighting” came up. I start to wonder if “one man’s concern is another man’s abuse.” The funny thing is, if something bad does happen, the husband is skewered for not being a mind-reader.
Wow Dalrock you just posted to the world where murder suicides and court room violence comes from. Basically it looks like the only solution is to consider yourself already dead and pour some flammable liquid on the wife and light her up.
This article you posted up should be on a reading list for every man and boy at age 12.
Been there done that with a crazy wife. Been free now for 20 years and it saved my sanity and probably my life. It was so bad a counselor made it a point to make sure there was no gun in the home because he was afraid she would use it to shoot me.
I remember way back when, back when I was married to the ex, we get in some doozies of arguments. You might say 3-4 out of 7 nights a week, with once a week going up a notch to what I describe below.
You see, how my week would go depended a lot on if her friends or her mother had been over that day getting her all torqued up about how she didn’t need me, and I was taking advantage of her by “forcing” her to be a stay at home wife and mom to our then two young kids, while I went off to the office every day and “had fun.” How I was holding her back from her ‘real life’ by getting her pregnant and derailing all her potential.
(I’m not making any of that up. Seriously. For real. That happened, a lot. Yes, I thought WTF? are you talking about as well.)
But anyway, she’d go on these tirades which would often escalate into screaming tirades about why I was the worst husband in the world, etc. etc. etc. You know the score – nothing to do with the subject at hand – just got unleashed on in that uniquely female way they have.
Now, I’m not real proud of it, but eventually I’d lose my temper after a half hour or so of this with her yelling, the kids screaming, my cell phone ringing with one more “emergency” call from the office, so I’d tell her to shut up!
Sometimes I’d even do something super violent like slam my hand down on the kitchen table to emphasize my displeasure with being treated like a dick in my own home, by my ‘wife’, in front of my kids, when I was plenty tired from work, and hadn’t eaten all day except for the shite I had to eat from the boss and unruly clients for ten hours. Or I’d try to get away from her by going out in the garage and smoking a cigar. The smoke works to keep shrewish wives, mosquitoes and other pests away.
Of course, I know now that even though she might of called me a piece of crap at the top of her lungs in front of my kids, I understand today, having read enough Jizzebell articles, that I was an “abuser” and stifling her right to communicate to me her feelings in her own way was wrong of me and abusive, and probably a product of rape culture or something.
If I got riled to that point, invariably her next move was to get right up in my face as if she was squaring off to fist fight. I’d laugh and tell to get away from me, and then she’d always, always, start yelling at me to hit her. “Hit me!, Hit me! Go ahead I f’ing dare you! I’ll get you arrested and you’ll never see your kids again.”
I really did suspect that this whole tactic was an idea put forth by her mom, who was/is a big feministing man-hater. No joke. Serious. It would not be at all beyond the realm of high likelihood that they had that conversation “Well hon, just get him to hit you and then you’ll have his ass and everything he owns.” “Oh, mom, you’re the best! I’ll do it tonight!”
Well, I never laid a hand on her in that way, (heck I hardly got to touch her at all, but apparently a lot of other dudes did – lol – another story, another time) but still, I gotta tell you, in my mind at the time, and even looking back today, this all just struck me as plain crazy, frankly bizarre behavior. I guess when a woman’s guts are just so full of burning hate for you these things will happen.
Can’t say I blame her. I mean I was always doing stuff to her like buying a house, being the sole breadwinner, buying her a car and paying for her fluffy degree, and watching the kids while she “studied” even though I just put a crummy day at the office. I mean, I’m ashamed to say, that sometimes I’d come home from work and have the balls to ask her “What’s the plan for dinner?”
I know that doing this was also very wrong of me and I am sorry. My goodness, to think that I put expectations on someone to that degree. No person should have to bear the burden of going to the grocery store or making some hamburgers without the assistance of a nanny or maid. I was a jerk, but I’m trying to reform my ways and I’m practicing how to better treat women, one single mom at a time. (Another, ‘nother story for other times.)
Well, anyway, I guess when you treat a woman like that, she’ll do just about anything to get rid of your useless ass. Learn the lesson boys. Don’t ever do abusive things like I did. Especially don’t keep her in a new car every two-three years. Wow! That really pisses them off!
Yeah. I know. Hypergamy doesn’t care, but you’d at least think she would have been smart enough to figure out where the roof over her head and her meals were coming from. Guess not. Lol.
She was full of love. And now she’s gone. Whew.
Voice for Men has a project going on…”In his own words”….
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/in-his-own-words-mother-or-monster/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=in-his-own-words-mother-or-monster
I truly believe that God made man to not be alone, and that He did create woman to be our helpmate. This is why that we as men must be very selective and discerning when choosing a partner for our covenant in marriage. I truly believe that there are very few women here in the US that are capable of fulfilling the role of helpmate in the way that God intended, and I have gone outside the US and have selected a girl from a 3rd World Country, and I have found someone who that is more like the women of the Greatest Generation and before. My personal advice is to think a little “outside the box” and select a real woman from a 3rd World Country.
No one is taking her finger off the nuclear button. In fact, a husband convincing an emotionally unstable wife that she is unstable is widely seen as a form of abuse.
Someone mentioned up-thread that this has much to do with male suicide. Dalrock’s comment is potent and real, the conclusion about suicide follows quite reasonably.
Im going to add that this is where much/most of what is called domestic abuse actually comes from. Dalrock mentions his attempting to calm her histrionics can be construed as abuse, and that is true, but it is even worse. Knowing that, he is put upon with the utmost frustration whereby he knows he has, almost of not always, a perfect logical forensic case, in other words he is right in his argument(s). Yet her pathological ability (nothing positive about that) to take him down blind alleys of discourse and to present him with the equivalent of being impeached on the stand is maddening, until he snaps. Most of this means he simply yells….then she cries….then he is a verbal abuser. Worst case is he snaps and actually does physically assault her. Its sacrilege to mention that she has some level of culpability, he knows this as well. If he tells friends or family she is nuts, they will placate him. If he tells them he screamed or he struck her…he is done as far as they are concerned, a pariah.
You cannot box men in this way. Men would make war on other men if they comported this way. yet it is presented as a man’s burden, an obligation, to tolerate this kind of bullshit.
Checking Netflix…
If you are going to jail anyway and if we know women are attracted to violent men, the logical conclusion is to defend oneself, violently.
I don’t understand men getting beaten up by women. It isn’t logical.
So, this all begs the question:
Why are modern women so crazy?
Is it because of feminism or were we always this way? Women do have higher rates of mental illness than men, and we have the monthly instability as well, so has it always been the case that so many women have been so emotionally out of control? Or is this a response to the modern feministic life?
@ssm
It’s the pill. Pumping hormones into a creation perfected by God/evolution=fail.
And aging. Consider the energy level of a 25yr old raising 3 children vs a 35 yr old performing the same child rearing.
And bad choice from feminist doctrine.
I see this all the time in my nursing classes. Mid 30 yr old, debt+useless degree. Now working as an LNA and going to nursing school (microbiology, a&p, etc) for second degree. Two children, no husband trying to pick up 25 yr old men while competing against 18 yr olds. All the while pumping the body full of hormones and a bad diet because she’s always busy.
I don’t understand men getting beaten up by women. It isn’t logical.
Men will hurl themselves into a river or in front of a speeding truck to save children. Putting up with physical harm, in order to protect children, is a feature not a bug. A feature some will exploit. How far can exploitation go?
Please read this email from over 20 years ago (1991):
http://www.fathersforlife.org/suicides/Allen_Wells/wives_abusing_husbands.htm
Excerpt:
There is always a line beyond which any sane person will not go. The abusive mentality finds that line and crosses it. With me, it was my son. She started grabbing my son whenever she wanted to beat me. She would hold him screaming in my face with one hand while she pounded me with the other. How can you possibly respond to this?
Farther than you can imagine…
Pingback: Don’t Date Batshit Insane | Something Fishy
I’ll just leave this here:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/03/the-meaning-of-sacrifice/
Bad news. “Always” is the correct answer. Some may blame the Pill but doing that neglects the historical evidence of epidemic hysterias sweeping through female populations from time to time for hundreds of years past. Millennia, even. The particular manifestation of the hysterical behavior characteristic of each epidemic differs somewhat from epidemic to epidemic but irrational behavior and emotional drama are consistently found.
@ssm:
Why are modern women so crazy?
I think there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.
Example: men in the church get constantly harped on about porn. This is a good thing, I think, because many of them struggle with it. At least the enemy is identified, and their standing is clear. Repent and receive forgiveness! Men need a feeling of security too, but they can’t get it from a woman or another man. Understanding their place in the sight of God is what gives them strength when they might otherwise cower.
Women, though…who calls women out on anything? How then shall they repent of the sin no one will even acknowledge, let alone point out?
I think women have a greater hunger for this sort of absolution. I think it’s (part of) why they like men, and why they generally attend church in greater numbers.
For a gender that leans on higher authority, our atheistic egalitarian age becomes a frightening place.
@ SSM
The shortest, truest answer is: feelings.
They’re volatile. When women are told to trust their heart(s) they become feral and you know the ending of this story.
When women were told duty et al is more important than their feelings you had stable society.
Shariah law works.
The underlying issue is attachment to relationships or things. The answer to a crazy wife/gf is to simply walk away. You can always start another family, even if you have to move to a foreign country first. Once I let my partners know how I felt about their crazies, 90% of their problems disappeared.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=830504
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=830525
Every day, something new… or is it?
Shariah law works.
I think that is dependent on the genetics of the population in which it holds.
“you’d be quite surprised just how many women find child rearing to being psychologically difficult”
Actually its women who’re so psychologically mentally ill & unfit to have children, as well as the massive absence of a husband who’s used as nothing more then a walking wallet by the wife, using her vagina to leech off her husband like a blood thirsty leech
Which causes the child to create massive psychiatric stress
If women used their own cash & savings & ensured the husband didnt have to work for 5 years, or so, so they can raise the children together, none of this would happen
Then again women are too retarded too think of something that logical & common sense, not to mention a pack bloodthirsty leeches & parasites, & basically too lazy to stand on their own two feet …
Enjoy your make work, useless jobs & attaching your vagina’s to your husbands, you bloodthirsty leeches … cum dumpster diving chicks
Looked at the imdb page for Joshua. I see the wife was played by Vera Farmiga. She was in the tv series Bates Motel as Norman Bates’ mother, and she is all sorts of crazy. She obviously has some sort of Cluster B personality disorder (borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial)
Obviously someone was impressed by her craziness in Joshua.
The average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal – two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes… Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security… One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.
One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands – a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. He represents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.
Here we have a sufficient explanation of the general superiority of bachelors, so often noted by students of mankind – a superiority so marked that it is difficult, in all history, to find six first-rate philosophers who were married men. The bachelor’s very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex – in other words, of his greater approximation to the clear-headedness of the enemy sex. He is able to defeat the enterprise of women because he brings to the business an equipment almost comparable to their own. Herbert Spencer, until he was fifty, was ferociously harassed by women of all sorts. Among others, George Eliot tried very desperately to marry him. But after he had made it plain, over a long series of years, that he was prepared to resist marriage to the full extent of his military and naval power, the girls dropped off one by one, and so his last decades were full of peace and he got a great deal of very important work done.
H.L. Mencken on Husbands and Bachelors
He was a satirist, by the way.
Pingback: An Example Of How Women Create Laws To Destroy Marriage … | Rejecting Modern Women
Miserman,
I actually remember a comment I saw on a BPD blog where the woman in question was explaining to the male troll why BPD women act the way they do towards the men in their lives that they are supposed to love (how they can excuse their behavior.) She said something along the lines of “…that is not even about you. This is all us finding something to do. We go nuts just to shake things up. We do it to make the relationship more interesting. We get bored so that is what we do.”
That makes sense given that the BPD is perfectly aware of what they are doing and choosing to cause all that mahem anyway, simply because they can. The thought that they shouldn’t be doing it isn’t relevant.
I love this…
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/borderline-personality-disorder-sick-or-just-crazy-asshole/
Gentlemen, live with your girl friends before you marry them. God will understand. You are not going to know if she is BPD simply by dating or courting her. EVER! Not unless her parents tell you straight up that their daughter is BPD (and in my case, they try to bribe you with a dowry to marry their BPD daughter anyway.) The BPD is far to cunning, far to clever and calculating to be blessed out for what they are just by you taking her to a dinner and a movie once a week.
And (as Paul Elam put) you want your “losses” that you will have to “chalk up” to be minimal. Live with them until (6 months in) they go nutso. They can’t keep up the charade if you live with her. Eventually her instincts, her chemical imbalance, her belief that she has LESS IN LIFE than what she is entitled, and her lack of moral agency will get the best of her. She gets a restraining order and you have to move out, big deal. No alimony, child support, community property, or credit cards of hers you need to pay. This would be the least possible “loss.”
Gentlemen, for you who were married to these “dictators” and you watched as she ruined your life on this planet, I am so sorry. 😦
Short of getting fat/old/ugly, having a child is one of the factors that will lower a woman’s SMV/MMV the most, and even inside a marriage this is important, because hypergamy. Add to that the fact that many husbands go full-beta parenting mode, and you have the potential for one mightily unhappy hamster, especially since she cannot rationalize her feelings because “kids are supposed to be bundles of joy that bring families together and make you happy.”
Also, @tweell:
Don’t fool yourself. 8-9 times out of 10, the courts and protective services will still take the woman’s word/side. And confiscate the recording and charge you with illegal wiretapping without consent, or something of the like.
“I don’t understand men getting beaten up by women. It isn’t logical.”
Quite easy to explain.
Women have / are allowed to assault men without retaliation.
And the sad thing is that if you did this and ended up in prison or even on death row, you would get much more female attention and likely even more sex than if you just kept on trying to play by the rules and “Do the Right Thing.”
As others have noted, the feelings/irrationality has always been there. It is just out in the open now because not only are there no consequences, but said behavior is rewarded.
@@tweell:
Video and audio are hard to beat. “Who are you going to believe? Her, or your lying eyes and ears?”
@BC: Don’t fool yourself. 8-9 times out of 10, the courts and protective services will still take the woman’s word/side. And confiscate the recording and charge you with illegal wiretapping without consent, or something of the like.
Sadly, you may be right. At the very least, give a copy of the recording to your lawyer, and store another copy on an internet server in a different jurisdiction. Don’t stop at one recording – show a pattern of behavior.
Then think carefully about what you are going to do with the recordings. Consult a lawyer. If you are proactive, rather than responding to her own lawsuit, you can choose how and where to fight. A doctor is more likely than a femcunt judge to declare a woman insane. I know only two fathers who have sole custody of their kids, and in both cases it was because the mother was insane.
Micha Elyi says:
Bad news. “Always” is the correct answer.
Yeah, you bet me to it (as have several others).
It’s more obviously now because the three pillars (legal, social convention, religious) all blame the husband if the wife is unhappy, even if she’s nuts.
And – it’s also more obvious because American men are major wimps when it comes to their wives. It leaves them without guidance and rudderless, a ship bobbing like a cork in the ocean. And then the storm hits.
Nothing new. Refer to Edward Rochester – not quite 200 years ago – and that coming from a woman.
sunshinemary says: So, this all begs the question: Why are modern women so crazy?
Unrealistic expectations.
The feminist version of what a woman’s life should be is so detached from reality, that when that reality sinks in women lose it.
When she finds out her career won’t be all about long lunches and hobnobbing with celebrities, but rather involves working at a big-box retailer she has to vent her frustration against someone.
When she realizes she will have to cut back spending and live on a budget–FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE–because her husband only makes “good” money instead of being a millionaire, well again she has to vent her frustration.
Few (if any) women’s live go according to the feminist mantra, which means they are disappointed in their lives. And it can’t be the mantra. They’ve heard it all their lives, so it must be true. The problem must be something else; someone that got involved in her life, screwed it up, and prevented her from reaching fulfillment by achieving the feminist mantra/dream. Who could that be? There’s only one candidate: the husband. So all of her frustration for not achieving the feminist dream is directed against her husband.
“We go nuts just to shake things up. We do it to make the relationship more interesting. We get bored so that is what we do.”
Eve was bored in the Garden too.
I always wonder why men like these sorts of women. Case in point, last Friday night my beautiful (but crazy) friend asked me to go to dinner with her and her latest man. She was yelling at him in the restaurant, calling him stupid, and lost her mind on him when he didn’t have the directions to the play we were supposed to attend afterwards. I would never act like that in a million years, and am pretty good looking girl (but no fake boobs or plastic surgery like my beautiful friend), but I’ve not had a date in 10 months. She does this sort of thing to every guy, and they’re stumbling all over themselves buying her engagement rings, dinner, drinks, etc. I don’t know what’s wrong with people these days. It seems like all of the good people have been brainwashed into thinking someone crazy and mean makes a great girlfriend/boyfriend. I see this on both sides–male & female.
“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper* fit for him.”
*helper meaning helping you two achieve the highest of highs…or a very good help on the way to mutual destruction.
“Why are modern women so crazy?”
They choose to be….oh wait they don’t have agency on their emotions either.
I suppose everyone has seen or at least heard of the ending to the greatest feminist movie of all time: Thelma & Louise.
I can never remember which one was the Republicans and which was the Democrats. I mean — spoiler alert — as they drove (faux heroically) off the cliff hand in hand.
25% of women may be on anti-depressants, but the additional 10-15% who are truly crazy stay far far away from help. Some of the tipoffs can be that she has no close female friends, lacks the ability to be happy, and has neurotic needs.
I think it’s more than a coincidence that men had to start inventing the entire field of psychology right around the time women started getting liberated.
T&L couples are everywhere once you start seeing them!
“Imagine an entire movie where the protagonist husband constantly has to tiptoe around his crazy wife to somehow care for the children while avoiding provoking his ever-provoked wife.”
Don’t have to imagine it. Been there, done that, got the legal bill, but also full custody. For my money, this is the norm, not the exception. You go grrrls!
SSM: “Why are women so crazy?”
Women have always been crazy. It is simply that they no longer have any incentive to keep that crazy in check; and men have no mechanisms by which to keep it in check.
@Rollo
Briffault’s law is like gravity. Women can’t seem to comprehend this (or they do and they don’t want that cat out of the bag)…but men will literally turn to ghosts if you have nothing to provide them.
@MarcusD
I know it’s a red pill manosphere shibboleth, but what Mencken was doing there was demolishing the notion of “women are hypergamous” IME. Perhaps in mind, but not in action or actuality. And their abilities in this arena are much debilitated and degraded from a century ago.
I’ve yet to meet a woman who couldn’t have done much better. Maybe one.
It’s plausible that one of the reasons patriarchy was originally a successful invention was to fix that bug, to impose hypergamy of women, which they hate and want to overthrow so they can crazily go T&L. Several threads back I linked to HLM’s section on women as martyrs where he addresses this.
Men used to have ways to keep the crazy in check.
I’m reminded of the scene in which Fredo’s wife is drunk at a a Vegas casino the Corleone family owned. She is berating Fredo and openly flirting with another man. One of the family musclemen tells Fredo “Michael says that if you don’t take care of this, I’m gonna hafta. What do you want me to do?” Fredo looks with a mixture of disdain and helplessness and says “You better take care of it.” Fredo watches helplessly as his family’s goon drags his wife kicking and screaming off the dance floor, with her shouting epithets and insults at Fredo’s manhood.
Everyone, male and female, knows what’s going on and why it’s being done. Back then a woman, especially a married woman, simply does not act this way; and if she does, there will be consequences for it. If husband drags her off the dance floor, he’ll probably take her back to the hotel room, throw her onto a bed, lock her in the room with a glass of water and a strong cup of coffee, and tell her to sleep it off. If she’s really nasty about it and she tries to fight him physically, his size and strength means he can return it to her tenfold – if he has to. And if he has to, there wasn’t a minister, cop, social worker or judge that was going to do shit about it. She was a drunk harlot slut in public, and if he gave her a bloody lip from returning a smack or bruises on her forearms from dragging her off the dance floor, she probably deserved it.
Fredo’s wife is what today’s crazy woman is. Except there is no family muscle to enforce decorous conduct, even in private. A husband cannot put his hands on his wife without her consent, EVER. If he drags her from public to private because she’s acting like a drunk slut or is literally mentally ill and having a public nervous breakdown, and she is in any way injured, even if he was subduing her physical attacks and had to overpower her to do it, he will be in a world of hurt. He’ll be kicked out of church; sued for money damages, divorced, deemed a threat to his children, and Child Protective Services will get involved. He’ll lose his children, his life savings, and his reputation – all because he’s been rendered impotent to control his stupid/crazy/drunk/ill wife.
That movie scene is in “The Godfather Part II”.
LC says:
I always wonder why men like these sorts of women. …… It seems like all of the good people have been brainwashed into thinking someone crazy and mean makes a great girlfriend/boyfriend. I see this on both sides–male & female.
The reasons are quite different. Women gravitate towards the bad boy because they’re ‘free’ of any guidance and restrictions on potential mates. Western men, on the other hand, are raised with such low self esteem – because they are male – they define themselves on whether or not they have a woman and will thus lower their standards to ensure they have a woman – any woman, instead of seeing women as a complement to their lives.
The first sign is bitchiness. It’s at that point a woman should be dumped. That would preclude any violence. But men are taught that bitchiness is part of the you-go grrrlll, aggressiveness which “normal” women are supposed to exhibit.
Craziness used to be controlled with discipline.
Now discipline is labeled as abuse. I’d rather be abused with discipline than craziness…discipline has a good reason for it, craziness has absouletly no reason.
Hell. I’ve heard and/or read reports on these boards of elementary school children saying to their parents words to the effect of “if you spank me, I’ll tell my teachers that you beat me, and then you’ll get reported to Child Protective Services”.
Or “If you spank me, I’ll call the police.”
Or “All I have to do is call the police and tell them you abused me.”
Regarding SSM’s question about why modern women are so crazy.
I don’t think you can blame the monthly visitor. By the time a woman is 20 (and especially 30 and beyond), said woman has had many monthly visitors (alright, guys, don’t take that out of context :-)) So shouldn’t she know the drill by now? Yes, hormones make you extra-emotional. Which is why I watch what I say and try not to make important decisions during that time. I mean, get with the program already!
I think some of it has to do with entitlement. As you’ve said SSM, someone disagrees with these women they can’t take it. No one says no to them. They can’t take rejection.
Carnivore:
Yes, men go to crazy women because the men have such LSE that they want a woman, any woman.
What goes along with that is that the crazy brings the sexy. The crazy woman is usually quite sexually unrestrained and unrestricted. These are women willing to do anything sexually, anywhere, anytime, with just about anyone. Rick James’ “Superfreak” isn’t a song about a weird woman, you know.
And the crazy wild hot monkey sex is usually how the batshit crazy woman gets and keeps the men in her life. She knows very well the sexual power she holds, and uses it to her advantage. She also knows very well that if she has one of her crazy episodes, she can hit, kick, smack, push , shove and otherwise physically abuse her man with complete impunity. She knows that her man cannot respond in kind. She uses this to her advantage as well.
@deti
I think this is why women think they are better than men. Because they have the power to get what they want through crazy and men don’t.
Hm, how presumptuous of me to think, that there cannot be a worthy person in all the world who could, in good conduct, tell anyone to get married under such conditions.
Figured out a way to determine if a woman is a keeper or not. Just give her the address of Dalrock’s blog, send her on her way and wait for the call the next day. If it comes and she gives you lip or it doesn’t come at all, move on. If the call comes and she’s actually much more sympathetic to a man’s plight, then, move on to phase two…
If her head explodes, one down, 4 billion to go.
@ deti
I was thinking about this morning and reached a similar conclusion to what you’ve just written. Women have probably always been a bit more emotionally unstable than men, but social constraints combined with the threat of real consequences kept it in check to some degree. There is a reason why so many movies from the forties and fifties show a hysterical female getting bitch-slapped back to reality by the male lead.
What’s interesting, though, is there have never been much in the way of legal sanctions on crazy female behavior. As you noted, the nearest male relative dealt with it and there was no need to involved the police. It was the same mostly for domestic violence committed by men; it was dealt with in the family and was only a problem if there was no other male relative to enforce consequences on the abusive man.
Then in the seventies, domestic violence laws were enacted to deal with those abusive men who weren’t being dealt with by other male relatives. The problem is that the DV laws went so far overboard over the next forty years that now there is no possibility of men keeping female craziness in check (and I’m not talking about beating her; I just mean what you said about locking a crazy woman in a room with a glass of water until she calms down).
But – and here is the problem – we have continued to have no legal sanctions on women’s crazy/violent behavior. That has created a really dangerous situation. The solution is either one of these:
1. Go back to the old system where men had the right to manage their own women’s behavior (barring extreme violence of course), with no legal sanctions on either crazy female behavior or the appropriate male response.
or
2. Change the current system so that legally both sexes are held accountable under the law for acting right, with no smashing of china and no violence or hysteria.
Women may think we want #2, but I think we will be sorry if it comes to that because we seem to have less self control and are more hysterical (on average) than men.
The big question: will men as a group ever be able to get to the point where they don’t try to save women from the consequences of their actions and choices? I have my doubts.
I think biblical marriage is a beautiful think that benefits everyone involved and stabilizes society. But I could not in good conscience recommend that any man marry at this time.
Apparently men should just suck this shit up and any other abuse, disrespect, betrayal that a woman throws his way for the good of the children, then claim the soft spongey moral high ground
Regarding men being called out in church, while some of it is required the thing to do would be to call men out in men only settings and call women out on women only settings. That way neither is torn down/ lowered in fromt of the other
But since the church and most most Christian men hate masculinity the point is to tear down and lower men in front of women and kids
Brian said You see, how my week would go depended a lot on if her friends or her mother had been over that day getting her all torqued up about how she didn’t need me, and I was taking advantage of her by “forcing” her to be a stay at home wife and mom to our then two young kids, while I went off to the office every day and “had fun.” How I was holding her back from her ‘real life’ by getting her pregnant and derailing all her potential.
Been there, done that myself. I’d like to believe that there’s a special place in hell for women who enable the strife and dysfunction in other women’s marriages. Incidentally, I’m convinced that most women who do this do it because they’re either 1) jealous of the other woman’s marriage and want to see it destroyed, or 2) they’re just sick, evil bitches living meaningless, empty lives and who get gina tingles from causing trouble.
Oops, let me rephrase a key sentence in my last post:
“I’m convinced that most women who do this do it because…
I certainly didn’t mean to convey the idea that most women are out to destroy other women’s marriages.
[D: Fixed.]
@IBB,
“Gentlemen, live with your girl friends before you marry them. God will understand.”
And if you find your girlfriend or fiancé is BPD should the guy break it off and move out? (Sounds like male oriented Serial Monogamy.)
You are advocating sin.
The One said I don’t understand men getting beaten up by women. It isn’t logical.
Two reasons, closely related, why men allow themselves to get beaten up by women:
1. Most have been conditioned, since infancy, to never, EVER, under any circumstances whatsoever hit a woman. Ever – even if she’s a dangerous, bat-shit-crazy homicidal maniac who is about to chop him up with an axe.
2. Men know instinctively that if they fight back against a woman physically, they stand an excellent chance of permanently maiming or killing her. A man’s instinct to fight back in self-defense means applying the maximum amount of physical violence necessary to incapacitate an opponent. Men fight other men this way, and since most men are of roughly comparable physiological characteristics and proportions, this usually means knocking the other man senseless. Women, however, are built differently, without the rugged physique of men. What would be a “knockout blow” to a man could be a fatal blow to a woman.
In the past, when relative sanity ruled western civilization, there was rarely ever a reason for a man to exercise physical violence against a woman in self-defense. Thus the stigma attached to a man assaulting a woman. Today, OTOH, we have increasing numbers of women thinking that “equality”, “freedom,” and “grrrl power” confers upon them a physical strength comparable to that of a man, giving them a false sense of security that primes the hamster to rationalize a fight with a man. They also know that they have to ancient chivalrous code on their side, something that has not “changed with the times.” THIS is why things are so heavily stacked against any man in a confrontation with a woman.
SSM asks Why are modern women so crazy?
Because modern men have collectively abdicated their responsibility to keep women’s worst impulses in check. “Feminism” as an ideology and behavior has power today only because men have allowed it to have such power.
You see, I hate this idea of male collective so called ‘abdication’ that you and others seem to sprout off about. Show how any normal male had any possible power at all to stop what has happened to women….
Women need to keep their own impulses in check. No man need marry a child.
The video was in reply to SSM’s question, “Why are modern women so crazy?”
They’re vitamin H deficient.
“The BPD is far to cunning, far to clever and calculating to be blessed out for what they are just by you taking her to a dinner and a movie once a week.”
Yeah but if you get married by just seeing what she does on a date…that’s being woefully unprepared. And from some stories I’ve read the crazy will come out on a date (Captain Capitalism had a nightmare date story about her crazy coming out while she was in a moving car)
BPD can’t hide things once an engagement comes…or you start talking about what you would do when it comes to finances, children, or basically have wants and demands of your own. BPDs want everything for themselves on an extreme and crazy level.
I think it’s great! No more charades, this is women. Marry them at your own peril.
Hell, give them oral sex at your own peril…
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/photo-public-sex-act-rape-woman-article-1.1487092
You’ve been warned; and they’ve also given you the greatest reason in all of history to avoid taking responsibility for them… please, don’t be an Adam. When she gives you the fruit, say ‘no thanks’ and hand it back and tell her to finish it…
Women need to keep their own impulses in check. No man need marry a child.
I agree with this, actually. Of course the marital hierarchy is in place for a reason and inherent in that (Scripture makes it clear) is that being a husband requires a bit of wife management.
It shouldn’t be perpetual and the man she be able to leave town on business and trust his wife to hold down the fort, manage money, be faithful, etc. But we are the weaker vessel and sometimes we need to be managed accordingly.
I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that my husband’s leadership goes a long way to keeping me accountable for following my emotional ups and downs. Just knowing that it’s not going to work gives me pause and inspires me to think of a better way to proceed. And this all takes place without him having to do or say anything.The foundation has been laid. Our marriages and families have shaky foundations.
We live in a culture where no one wants to carry the weight required. Mothers don’t want to do the hard work of training their children. Men don’t want to have to deal with the realities of keeping their woman in check. It should be easy, right? As if life has ever been thus.
Fortunately, God is still willing to guide and reprove the man who will let him mold him into what he is supposed to be.
Men don’t want to have to deal with the realities of keeping their woman in check.
With this I disagree. Most men absolutely want to do whatever is necessary to keep the worst impulses of their woman “in check.” However, most aren’t prepared to go to jail for doing so, which is what increasingly awaits any man who tries.
Bee,
Yes. Imeediately. Dump her and don’t look back, cut your losses. Paul Elam was right.
Well that is one way to put it.
I know. (sigh) I know I am. But I also understand women, particularly the BPD woman. I have searched the Bible from beginning to end. God does not discuss what a man is supposed to do in the case of having a wife who is an emotional basketcase, the “crazy dictator.” Its not there outside telling her she MUST submit (which of course, the BPD would never do.) So you need to know if she was born with the brain-bits set out of place BEFORE you marry and breed with her. Best you live with her first and pray to God for His forgiveness.
In this one thing (given all of man’s infernal laws that I believe were set in place by turning our back to God and listening to Satan) God will understand. How could He not? What else can a man do Bee?
FH said You see, I hate this idea of male collective so called ‘abdication’ that you and others seem to sprout off about. Show how any normal male had any possible power at all to stop what has happened to women….
Reread what I wrote. I used the term “collective” for a reason.
Yes, ‘collectively’ as in all men together have abdicated their responsibility rather than stating the truth, that is; a certain number of highly placed men and women put into place a set of laws that disenfranchise normal men with the threat and use of law that they have not the means to confront…
@all
I took my first pill on gandarusa today. i bought a one month supply which will give me about 3 months of birth control. ill keep u all posted.
Not sure about living with them before marring them, but don’t marry. Don’t make a contract with her and the state. Make your vow to each other and to God and don’t go a courting the government. She will have much less leverage
The first dose of the red pill I ever got was a package called The Marriage Savior, which I paid a ridiculous amount of money for, but it had red pill knowledge I still haven’t seen anywhere else after two years following the manosphere.
He taught that it is generally good to give your woman the freedom to experience her emotions, but when her emotions are getting out of hand, or when she is having an emotional outburst at an unsuitable time, then he teaches the concept of Playful Dominance. Basically, this is like you would do with a out of control child. With a cheerful mood, you distract her, and gain control of her attention, and dominate her by taking control of the frame. Then, (critical step) you fuck her. He teaches that fucking her defuses and releases all of the emotional energy that she has built up within her. He says the best tool a man has for controlling his wife’s behavior is hanging between his legs.
Note: He also teaches the need to establish Leadership in the family that delivers good results, and to show Balls in the relationship. These things are necessary to build attraction, such that Playful Dominance can work. Leadership, Balls, and Playful Dominance are the three pillars of his system for establishing and maintaining attraction and order in the marriage.
As an alternative to Playful Dominance, you can spank her. If a man starts spanking his woman early in the relationship, when she still wants him, and will not call the cops, he can establish control. In other words, he starts by spanking her over a mild outburst, and establishes a pattern of control, and therefore she never reaches the point of throwing the frying pan through the window.
Of course, while spanking has its place, it still seems harsh and mean, and over the long term, a woman might resent the harsh authority even if it keeps her successfully under control. It is necessary to establish happy and fun times to counterbalance the painful discipline. In contrast, playful dominance is enjoyable by the woman, and achieves the same result.
Both approaches require the man to have an iron frame, and most men have difficulty even achieving this frame of mind, but I think it is doable after the red pill has had a few years to settle in to one’s psyche. Of course, it is easier to implement this approach from the start of a relationship, and dump the girl if it doesn’t seem to be working. If a man is already stuck with an out of control crazy wife, then it is much harder for him to man up and learn how to bring her under control, and if she is too crazy, it may just be too late.
Writing the last paragraph reminded me that the Marriage Savior author also teaches that a man has to be willing to walk out if the wife won’t shape up. Leadership, Balls, and Playful Dominance work better with a good dose of Dread.
Besides…how long is it you live together before the government sneaks in with “common law marriage”.
That idea will quickly be a bad one if the government decides to change the time period on a whim.
Wait… Don’t most states already have palimony laws on the books? Attempts to circumvent government involvement in one’s long term live in relationship cannot be accomplished simply by skipping the marriage license. Especially if there are children involved.
Elspeth,
I think that might be after some significant amount of time (like 7 years of living together.) That is what legally separates an actual state-sanctioned “marriage” from “cohabitation.” Oh, and I never advocated for having children out of wedlock. I am only saying it might be a good idea for a man (particularly a man with assets and a lot of things he has to LOSE) to live with his would-be-wife for a year or two just to make sure she isn’t batf%ck BPD crazy before he says “I Do” and really puts his life in jeapordy.
Here in NC you are in the clear. There is no recognition for common law marriages and all a man owes would be child support. You have to make sure you sign no legal documents jointly and a few other things I cannot recall at the moment. 80 miles away in SC & not so much. My route also lets you bleed the government dry with welfare. Which I think is important for people to start doing. We should no longer be having small families so the govt can fund other peoples larger families.
For how long Ton, they seem to be able to make laws as they go and then backdate them to simply clear those hurdles…
Ton,
Growing up on the East Coast (and now living on the community-property West Coast) I believe the concept of “Common Law Marriage” was exclusively a West Coast/Prospector kind of thing. And I think it came about in the mid to late 19th century because people were moving West either to set up farms or prospect for gold and if they wanted to get married, there was no clergy or JP to marry them. So very young men and women (say no older than even 15) might go off and set up farm on piece of land or start panning for gold and they would just say “…yeah we are married…” and well, they would be. No piece of paper. Waiting around for a member of the clergy or even a Justice of the Peace to say they were legally bound to each other (for God and country) just wasn’t going to happen, there was too much work to do out West and they didn’t have time to wait.
Palimony is a little bit different. As far as I understand this, this was a purely feminist driven thing about extracting wealth from men who were wise enough NOT to get married to the gold-diggers. So palimony laws went into effect to say that men still needed to make women (they lived with) financially whole should they no longer be living together (for whatever reason.) I don’t know which of our 50 states enforce these palimony laws (I can’t think it would be many) nor do I know how LONG the two must live together before those laws “kick-in” and even if they did, the concept of men and women “cohabitating” (even in an intimate sense, not a platonic one) to the point where he is financially responsible for her, is entirely subjective. He’s going to have a legal case to get out of giving her money (this has happened many times with many miilonaires) whereas if they were legally married, he would have NO case to escape her wrath.
The Lee Marvin case in the 1970s showed how difficult it is to win these cases. Even more recently, the ultimate alpha male MGTOW Bill Maher won his case…
http://www.eonline.com/news/48746/bill-maher-cries-con
She’s sued for $9 million in palimony. Didn’t get a cent. And this is the bluest-of-blue states, feminist and community-property-state California.
SSM, how do you reason what you say here with the current blog post on your blog?
Quote from here.
Quote from your own blog.
You’ve answered the very question here that you proposed on your own blog…
Quite simply, the answer to the question posed on your blog is ‘NO’.
IBB this article is not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
Who knows FH? We can only deal with how things are now and for the now. Who knows space aliens may land in the next hour and change everything.
Thats my point more or less IBB but you did a better job filling out the details. Nothing is risk free
AR,
For the United States, it makes “sense” in the Prospector/Farm/Rancher aspect of the West Coast. From your wiki…
For our purposes, those states/territories were all “West” when there wasn’t much clergy or JP around to marry people, but plenty of land for farming or gold mining.
Yea, goes back to the idea that you cannot live your life in constant fear. Do what you can to mitigate the risk and then dig down and deal with it.
“I think biblical marriage is a beautiful think that benefits everyone involved and stabilizes society. But I could not in good conscience recommend that any man marry at this time.”
I’m sure Rollo is going to keep that line in the archive.
Ton,
Or in the next 10 hours, the Federal government can cease paying interest on the US Savings Bonds they sold to the free market. The treasury has got to pick and choose who gets the tax money coming in if Congress (correctly) says they can’t keep borrowing (got to send those checks to the single moms, but I don’t get my Savings Bond interest.)
That would TRULY change everything. 😛
PuzzledTraveller says:
October 15, 2013 at 9:00 pm
While the details of PT’s account vary slightly from my own, I can say that I understand the theme quite well.
Kudos to him for sharing – what really struck home is the idea that men in our situation do occasionally say things we shouldn’t once we’ve been backed into a corner and have put up with the ingratitude (at minimum) and more likely outright contempt. None of that is ever seen as provocation, though, as men are assumed, as Dalrock points out by way of the reference to the Duluth power wheel, as the only ones having power and therefore the only ones capable of abuse.
In an earlier time, 95% of the couples where one party claimed to being emotionally or psychologically abused by the other would have been chastised to grow up and get over it for the sake of themselves, their children and society. No more, unless it’s the man claiming such abuse. If it’s a woman, the man is presumed guilty (and offering exculpatory evidence is actually evidence of abuse – see the Duluth model) and the only acceptable remedy is unequivocal surrender on the man’s part, putatively to save his marriage. My guess is that very few marriages ever survive once the power wheel graphic has been introduced.
Ton,
Exactly. Nothing is risk free. I love marriage and I would recommend it, but I also recommend living together (at least for a short while) because you simply have to KNOW if she (or he) are BPD. You MUST have access to that information before you say “I Do” because the risks here are so great. That is why I make my reccomendation, to mitigate RISK.
Its as Sunshine Mary said, she can’t in good conscience recommend marriage at this time. She can say that because I can’t see that she would EVER recommend living in sin that I would.
sunshinemary says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Women are not any crazier today than they’ve ever been, but the environment in which they operate is far more accommodating of their craziness than ever before. Women’s emotionalism is regarded today as a feature as opposed to the flaw that it was in previous generations.
When you are in this situation you must understand you are way way way downstream in a bad situation. I refer you back to a previous Dalrock post :
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/rotating-polyandry-and-its-enforcers/
And I highly recommend you read the original essay by F Roger Devlin.
Rotating Polyandry and its Enforcers
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rotating.pdf
Often that woman is pushing you into making a decision she cannot make for herself, defying you into giving her the justification, the mechanism, the excuse to do something she cannot do herself.
Before the whole “Minter Affair” started, I was onto a particular vein of thought about this exact topic. And what it consists of a combination of F Roger Devlin and what Rollo refers as Genuine Desire.
And I refer to this quote by Tony Boselli who was probably one of the most aggressive offensive tackles ever to play pro football. He believed that you should “take it to” the defensive player and no longer continue to be reactive as a blocker. And his quote was:
“Where is it written that the offensive player has to take crap off of the defensive player?”
And where is it written that we, as men, have to take crap off of women in order to keep her from dynamiting the marriage. If she has her eye on the plunger, then by all means let her at it.
Statistically, and when you read the Devlin essay, you will understand why, it is a bad bet for you as a man to continue to stand in the fire, to try to hold the situation together. And time is the most valuable asset you have, far more valuable then some house, some economic situation, and to wait, to delay, to defer the inevitable is foolish on your part, foolish. The longer you wait, the worse the situation will be for you.
My thought is that being a bitch is the natural state of women, being disagreeable, being difficult. And the only reason she isn’t is that there is something that she wants that is there to be gained.
You need to accept that evo psych predicts this 4 year cycle of polyandry and yes, there are women that suppress the effect that it has on them, and they do so exactly because of reasons documented on this site, primarily that there is no better alternative to you THAT IS AVAILABLE TO HER. And even if she makes a conscious decision to stay, her subconscious may not accept that decision and often the basis of this “madness” is the subconscious not accepting her conscious decision.
Rollo speaks of Genuine Desire and it is a downward path for most men after marriage. The sheer act of marrying her diminishes the Genuine Desire she has for you. And that Genuine Desire is a factor of attraction, status, and provisioning. And she is unable subconsciously to determine where any of these three end and the other begins.
There is a flap going on right now where a Jezebel writer has slammed Roosh over his Denmark book and Roosh has responded. And the general theme is that socialism and nanny states can counter Game and the tendency of women to respond to “alpha” traits. And this, to me, is an outright assertion by women that provisioning is so intrinsic in women, that if the state provides provisioning then the whole attraction paradigm is changed and women respond less to “alpha traits” (which is bullshit, at least in terms of true masculine traits outside of social constructed ones like money)
Now I state the provisioning is a factor of Genuine Desire and it is a function of the woman’s perception of her financial situation. If she sees alternatives to you in provisioning, even if that provisioning is through you as assets are ripped from you by the state, then you can bet that she will react to polyandry in manners that are described in this post.
One of the earliest things I read in the manopshere was on UMan, Mentu’s site, written in a comment, and the writer proposed this notion of the Hierarchy of Abuse, that began with nagging and insults, escalated through various levels, including public insults and belittling of you, physical assault and domestic violence, all the way up to her plotting with her new lover to kill you.
If she ventures down this path, then you can be assured the cause of it is a loss in Genuine Desire and you would be fool to not assume that polyandry or hypergamy is at play. If she cannot be bothered to defend her situation by being agreeable, then you can bet she no longer values it and you. And you can also bet that if you allow it, if you tolerate it, then it will escalate up the hierarchy until she ultimately gets what she wants. This week had an article about Orthodox Rabbis that would call in goons to use cattle prods to elicit a “get” from orthodox men where they gave consent to a divorce and allowing the woman to act on her polyandry.
And I refer you to Tony Boselli, and you take no crap from her, from Day 1, fuck, from minute 1.
And to the cardinal rule of the manosphere, “Never listen to what she says; watch what she does.”
And you watch and you monitor that Genuine Desire: (1) How cooperative is she about sex (2) How wet is her vagina (3) Is she putting in the effort in her comportment to be agreeable, to be punctual, to be considerate, to invest today in insuring that there is a tomorrow a tomorrow with you.
If she is not, then you resort to Dread,
http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/dread/
And if dread doesn’t work, then shit is too far gone. The precursors of polyandry are already at play. And you get the fuck out. I don’t give a fuck how much you stand to loose, there is gonna be a better day, you mark my word. I am living testimony that you can loose everything and end up happier, with a better life, and for sure, a better woman.
Because the means to not becoming a victim of female domestic violence is:
Judicious and rapid application of the term “NEXT” because you are aware that polyandry is the base nature of women and the whole culture supports them, celebrates them, and enforces her desire for it.
rmaxgenactivepua says:
October 16, 2013 at 1:42 am
I wouldn’t find it surprising at all. Childrearing was incredibly difficult for my now ex-wife. She could not handle the conflict involved in the process and as a result, gave in too easily. We have all paid the price for it as time has passed.
One of the main contributors to this phenomenon is the lie that fewer children are the answer. Parents think that by only having 1 or 2 kids they’ll be able to parent them better, but they end up parenting them worse. If you have a larger family, say even 4 kids, the kids have to learn how to grow up because there is no way the parents can cover for them as in the case of a 2-child family. In a larger family, unless there are twins, etc., the older children will also learn responsibility much faster as they’ll be pressed into service out of necessity.
Curiously, none of the usual he-man Traditional Conservatives have shown on this thread. If ever a topic was made for the True Conservative, this surely is it. Where are all the experts on the manly art of leading a wife? Where are all the wise TC’s who have strongly implied they have All The Answers to family difficulties? Who will take the URL and go post at the Good Mangina Project how obvious this man’s mistake was: all he needed to do was read the correct Bible quotes, such as Ephesians 5, to his wife and all would have been well in a trice.
Where are the TradCons, the all-knowing wise who can quote every minute variation on Bible law? It’s kind of as if they are walking down a road, see a man who has literally been beaten and robbed lying bleeding in the ditch, and….and….they hurry on their way to church.
Curious, isn’t it?
I don’t doubt manginas will be here shortly AR. This place is infested with them
@ SSM:
“As you noted, the nearest male relative dealt with it and there was no need to involved the police. It was the same mostly for domestic violence committed by men; it was dealt with in the family and was only a problem if there was no other male relative to enforce consequences on the abusive man.
“Then in the seventies, domestic violence laws were enacted to deal with those abusive men who weren’t being dealt with by other male relatives. The problem is that the DV laws went so far overboard ***”
Yes. As to the first paragraph, while women had consequences for acting crazy or slutty or bitchy; men had consequences for beating up their wives too. Recall in “The Godfather”, the white-knighting Sonny beating up his sister Connie’s husband for his abusing Connie.
Maybe a better example of how men enforced this was in Goodfellas; where Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) goes to Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) after it’s revealed that Henry is cheating on his wife Karen. Karen went to Jimmy complaining about Henry’s philandering and shirking his fatherly and husbandly obligations. Jimmy goes to Henry and pulls him aside and essentially says “Look. Nobody’s saying you can’t do what you want. But Karen’s coming over to my house and telling me about you tomcatting around and you’re never home. We can’t have this. You gotta go home and make things right with Karen and you gotta take care of your kids. “
Or the men of the community coming alongside a young man who has knocked up his girlfriend; and telling him essentially “You just became a man. You’re going to be a father, and you’re going to make an honest woman out of her. You want to be a man and f**k your girlfriend? You just made her your wife. Congratulations.” Cue red-faced pregnant girl’s dad breaking out the .20 gauge and getting the local justice of the peace on the phone asking when the wedding can happen.
deti,
It’s funny you should bring up Goodfellas. One of my favorite movies. I was watching it the other day thinking about Henry and Karen’s marriage. Henry is definitely an alpha guy when they are dating (he’s throwing money at everyone, gets in to all the exclusive events, a smooth talker, can get out of anything, etc.) and of course she falls for him when she probably would have been happier marrying the guy that lived across the street she had known her whole life.
And after they marry, Karen’s mother is on her about Henry staying out so late and not calling.
Bottom line, others are in their relationship making sure it leads to marriage and a family. I’m sure Karen’s father and Paulie had a conversation with Henry about dating Karen. I mean, when you’re in the mob and have a somewhat secretive lifestyle, you can’t let everyone in. And it’s not like each of them (or the woman in particular) could just next the other and wait for someone better to come along. Explains why Karen stays with Henry for as long as she does. They have children together and it would not have been socially acceptable for her to leave him. The social conventions that kept them together no longer exist or are so weak that they are not enforceable.
Hopeful,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120124215136AAO3Gja
According to the book, Karen Friedman was not interested in Steve. Steve was her “beta orbiter” so to speak. He was just her “friend” because he just didn’t do it for her. (To be honest, I don’t know how someone with a 1963 Corvette could possibly be “beta” but whatever?) And apparently, one day when she refused her “friend’s” sexual advances, that is when he assulted her (grabbed her and yelled at her.) So of course, Henry Hill pistol whipped him in front of his friends.
Now in the book (not the movie) Steve and his friends called the cops after Henry beat the crap out of him. Henry Hill was arrested for battering Steve. And the only reason why there was no conviction was because they couldn’t locate Henry’s pistol. The fact that Steve had a broken nose and there were two other witnesses was not enough for the DA to prosecute (which I find rather upsurd) but it is what it is.
Bottom line, Karen was not going to be happy with Steve as her husband. He was just her “beta orbiter” and that is all he was ever going to be for her. She would have been better off NOT marrying alpha Henry OR beta Steve and marrying someone else.
SSM said What’s interesting, though, is there have never been much in the way of legal sanctions on crazy female behavior.
Yep. Whenever I need to remind myself of this depressing fact, I just drop by here: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107553/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_33
The problem that I had with this movie is that Judith Light didn’t play the role over-the-top enough. She really needed to be MORE BPD to pull this off, to make her actions believable. But the make up/make out sessions afterwards where she was SOOOOO SOOORRRRY for hitting Strauss “…please honey, I’ll NEVER do it AGAIN!!!”, that is probably pretty accurate. And Strauss had the best line in the movie…
“If I hit my wife after she hits me, does that make me a man?” Good question.
Obviously, when she attacks one of the kids he goes bonkers and they both wind up in the hospital. Any of us would have done that if we were in the situation. Obviously, if this happens in real life and even the most feminazi DA that ever lived (a feminist that lives in a world that refuses on pure principle to believe that a woman could ever batter a man) would know that she would have no case against him (particularly if his daughter would be his number one witness) as no jury would ever convict him of anything. And there would only be a case against her if he pressed charges, and I’m not sure any husband who is supposed to love his wife, would do that. Men would just find a way (someway) in the legal system to get his kids away from his wife from now until forever.
IBB,
I see what you are saying. Would Steve have cheated on Karen, developed a coke addiction and spent time in prison? Who knows, Steve could have had his own bad habits, but wouldn’t Karen’s parents have kept her away from the then fledgling feminism and influenced her to stay with her husband no matter which man she married?
Hopeful,
I think that is a false narrative. Allow me to reframe your point to explain my point.
Karen was a reform Jew and about as far from a feminist as feminism could get. When he gives her cash to go shopping, she goes down on her knees and gives him a blowjob. She tells her husband that she is scared that he will go to prison (basically admitting that she is incomplete without him.) When she finds out that her husband is stepping out on her, she goes after the other woman. LOL! She stalks Henry’s girlfriend at her apartment. Instead of filing for divorce from Henry for his adultry, she pulls a gun on him and basically tells him “You will f-ck ONLY me!” When he goes to jail, she not only doesn’t divorce him, she submits. She brings in illegal contraband into prison that he can sell/trade to keep his lifestyle at what he feels is appropriate. And the instant he gets out, she picks him up and (alpha male that Henry is) he instantly moves his family OUT of the Section-8 apartment in which they were living. And she even started helping him deal the coke at one point. And when Henry goes into Witness Protection, she submits again goes with him.
Karen had the majority of the Old Testament/Torah down (the submissive wife) and acted accordingly. Thats not to say she was without fault, for some of her faults were legion. But mostly, she did EXACTLY as Henry told her, did whatever he said, submitted completely.
Feminism relies on government to have the power of force to get what it needs from the world. Karen had absolutely no use for government. She resented government. Government arrested her husband for attempted murder and took away his earning power (and their lifestyle) while dealing drugs. She liked the gangster lifestyle that Henry gave her which was wrong, but certainly understandable.
The evangelical rebranding of the red pill has begun:
http://www.vice.com/read/christians-are-trying-to-convert-you-with-mixtapes-and-aztec-shirts
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/health/love-psychology-book/index.html
I heard an interview on ‘Christian’ radio last month. Some women who wrote a book on caring for toddlers. Listening to her describe raising a toddler it sounded for all the world like she had PTSD from the experience.
Its no wonder no one wants to have more than 1 or 2 kids and better than 25% of all women are drugged up for depression.
To me, most of this problem can be chocked up to bad parenting strategies due to the disastrous modern approaches (wholely anti-biblical). All too often parents have less backbone than their kids. Socio-sexually, too few husbands have the guts to dictate to mom how it shall be done. Though society has woosified many to the point they can’t do the job themselves either.
RE :
“innocentbystanderboston says:
October 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Dalrock,
The two officers escorting me to and from the hospital and then to central booking didn’t have any advice when I asked what I should have done. “Sorry, man.”
Exactly. The cops know they are doing wrong as agents of government enforcing the law, but they need their paychecks so they are not permitted to think or reason.”
These cops are completely wrong!!!!!
Full Stop!!!!
The law is clear, the arrest MUST be based on the evidence; if he is wounded and she is not, she goes to jail…period!.
I am not naive, I’m well aware of the feminist pressure to bash men in DV incidents, but this is a pure case of police malpractice. I hope this guy sues the living crap out of the cops and demands a false report charge be brought against the wife, and if she acted on advice from a lawyer, an ARDC complaint should be filed against tat shyster!
A civil action against the cop would also be in order for malicious prosecution…unlike criminal law, in civil court a mere preponderance is the guilt threshold (read 51%).
Anonymous Reader
This topic is too rough for the traditional bible quote types. This requires cold blooded hardness. I just watched Side Effects and I like how the Doctor handled that bitch character. While he was trying to help her he was a chump. When he was kicking her ass things were different.
@Buck
This would be the case if this were a misapplication of the intended system. The rogue operators (in this case the police) would be held accountable by the rest of the system. The DA and/or the judge would put an end to the wrong. But the reality is the system isn’t really designed to treat men and women the same. It is designed to appear fair while being as biased against men/fathers as it can get away with. Ask any family law attorney.
This isn’t to say he shouldn’t try your suggestions if he finds legal counsel that he trusts who advise him to do so, but it is important to be honest about the system we really have, not what the brochure makes it out to be.
Sorry
its
ADRC…attorney disciplinary review committee
I guarantee you, if you try to get mental help for your wife, you will be told something like this: If YOU take tranquilizers, your wife’s problems will go away!
Many men have reported this over the years.
Davejr says:
October 15, 2013 at 9:11 pm ON FINDING A WIFE IN THE THIRD WORLD: AMEN, BROTHER!!! I write this in my little Third World village paradise.
One warning. If possible, keep them there. In about two years, they become Americanized. Personality types of women are on the same distribution curve in all societies at all times. It is how the society treats the personality types that produces the results.
A woman thousands of miles from her family will act differently than a woman whose mother and father and brothers and sisters watch every move she makes.
Also, women not raised with total impunity for anything they want to do, do not internalize the worst of behaviors, even if they have the tendency.
My nephew and his wife lived in the US for several years. I was talking to the wife about AW and how crazy they are. She agreed. But, I told her when Mexican women move there, they become crazy, too. She volunteered, “It takes about two or three years.”
On palimony, I know one state which considers you married instantly, if you hold yourself out as married, or permit a woman to say so publicly without your objection. You could be sued for property settlement and alimony by a bar slut you never saw before, if she jokes you are married and you do not object.
This post is excellent, and I predict that it, and the comment thread, will become a classic. Things are being sorted out at a VERY important level. Thanks to all.
Which state?
Wasn’t it your mexican wife that put horns on you?
Buck
A civil action against the cop would also be in order for malicious prosecution…unlike criminal law, in civil court a mere preponderance is the guilt threshold (read 51%).
With what money will he hire an attorney? Suggest you read the original article – his ex cleaned out all joint liquid assets on the way to the airport with the children.
Also suggest you read the Duluth protocol that Dalrock I believe linked to. In states with mandatory arrest as part of DV calls, there is a checklist to determine who goes to jail. It could be shortened considerably from “taller” ” has more money”, etc. to just read “Men”.
I’m sure in your jurisdiction, Buck, this story might well have been different. Don’t assume everyone does The Job the same way that you do.
I might be a little more sanguine about this, but if you have your life torn apart, you need to prioritize your targets. Imagine a judge found with a note nailed through his sternum because he decided to play white knight in black robes. The boys in blue want to be white knights? They do not go home to their families if they are going to be destroying other peoples’. Once the system feels the cost of these laws, they will react. Put the police on notice that unjust acts will receive extrajudicial responses. Inform judges that if they cannot provide justice, it will be taken and handled by those who take justice into their own hands.
The Shadowed Knight
That’s how the Muslims do it. No body says shit to the Muslims.
When SSM posts this comment: “So true. Tragedy of our modern times. Poor Christian men, doomed to doctrinally ordained sexless eunuchs. Tsk, tsk,..”
When RT posts this comment: “He just hates marriage! How dare he advocate men be fornicators and suggest pre/non marital sex as an option!”
: )
A woman thousands of miles from her family will act differently than a woman whose mother and father and brothers and sisters watch every move she makes.
Having traveled a fair amount abroad, I can say that this is almost certainly true – I’ve noticed women behave in very “permissive” ways while away from family and friends, but upon returning home they play up the cues of “sexual exclusivity.” I thought it strange the first few times I observed it, but it seems to make sense, now (Cf. http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/homeschooled-and-sheltered-what-a-shame).
As I’ve said a few times since this story got play… if the law is going to treat you like a criminal for doing the right thing, then there is no downside to simply being the criminal, because you’re presumed to be a wife-beater either way, you might as well beat your wife when she deserves it.
If that man in the story had instead simply gotten some knockout hits in on that woman’s face, he would still be treated like a wife beater by the law. But at the very least he’s not faced with the crushing realization that he’s completely innocent but treated like a criminal anyway. If a Judge is going to judge me a wife beater, then I at least want the memory of my fist going through the face of crazy.
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/10/10/the-decline-of-misbehavior/
Biblical marriage is absolutely possible and rewarding, even in the modern wasteland. You have to pick the right woman and be a manly husband — and cross your fingers.
“I can’t help but wonder if this is what it was like to be black about a hundred years ago. Better not get too uppity, or someone will detonate you and there won’t be anything you can do about it.”
Not too good of an analogy, though I hear it from time to time, that “now you know what it’s like.” Northerners didn’t care how big you got, as long as you didn’t get too close, while it were the Southerners who didn’t care how close you got, as long as you didn’t get too big, so hop a train north if success was your bag. True, 100 years ago blacks had to deal with capricious white society, but they didn’t join in and lay it on each other, too. Imagine 100 years ago that black legislators enacted Jim Crow and segregation laws, that black police officers enforced those laws against fellow blacks, and that blacks lynched blacks who got too uppity and challenged the white power structure. All a white had to do is say he/she felt threatened and unsafe around one, and the other blacks would “deal” with the alleged threat as an isolated parish. Also throw in blacks in general shunning and villainizing other blacks who 1) challenged whites or the culture of the white overclass, or 2) broke the laws and mores and blew off the Jim Crow culture. Now throw in a black majority screaming Not All Whites Are Like That whenever racism got mentioned, and “white knighting” to better please the whites. Then it will better resemble current gender politics. It isn’t feminists enforcing feminism against men, it’s 100% a case of male muscle backing up the feminism crazy, and that’s what makes it totally not like ethnic oppression.
@Dalrock
Great article Mr.D!
@deti & IBB
You guys have great taste in Movies and books.Those Mob movies are may favorites also.I know a few Mobsters……Jewish Mobsters.I have known them all my life.The ironic thing that I see with them is that they have GREAT wives.I will be the first guy to tell you to stay away from Jewish women.I have never been to explain it,as why they have such great wives? It is not fear or intimidation due to their husband’s line of employment as I know these guys would never raise a hand to their wives.But,they are GREAT housewives and they have very well adjusted kids.Maybe we are in the wrong line or work?…..L*
“Craziness used to be controlled with discipline.
Now discipline is labeled as abuse.”
Bingo!
@Buck
These cops are completely wrong!!!!!
I saw a similar situation happen to a friend of mine about 5 years ago.One of his “booty calls” went over to his condo.She got liquored up,started to break things,punch kick him etc.He called the Cops to get this “crazy women out of my house”! Two Wimmin Cops showed up and he got arrested in his own home and she was told to leave…….WTF? I really despise Wimmin Cops.They look so stupid dressing like a man and trying to act like a man….L*
@Crowhill: the closest thing to biblical marriage nowadays is a long term relationship where the woman doesn’t live with you, but sees you and has sex with you daily.
@Mark: Yet another good reason not to allow females to disgrace your home. Stopping by for breakfast and coffee is occasionally OK, but booty calls and spending the night are certainly not.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~siow/332/waite.pdf
A strange game; the only winning move is not to play.
Of particular interest: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=uclr
From the above link: “While no-fault divorce was not a product of the women’s movement, certainly many feminists supported it based on the notion of equality and increased status of
women it reflects”
“Contemporary individuals search for a marital partner with whom they can share a “deep emotional and spiritual connection” and with whom they “can communicate about [their] deepest feelings.” These high expectations inevitably lead to disappointment and dissatisfaction. When expectations are not met, individuals feel a conviction that they should not be forced to remain in a relationship with someone with whom they do not have a bond of love, regardless of fault. Modern marriage’s focus on personal fulfillment understandably sets the tone for demanding release when such fulfillment is not met.”
And, from an alternative universe:
“In particular, Lenore Weitzman, in her influential sociological study, argued that no-fault divorce had harmed women by tipping the bargaining power to men.”
“Moreover, the feminist argument that rejects no-fault divorce because it deprives women of bargaining power with regard to the financial incidents of divorce fails to recognize the modern reality that women, and by extension primary caregivers, are increasingly the parties who are at fault or who initiate the divorce.157 No longer tied to marital status for social legitimacy, unhappy women are leaving marriages nearly as often as men. Weitzman acknowledges that caregivers only receive alimony under fault divorce when they are innocent, but assumes that they usually are.158 Yet, women are at fault or instigate divorce proceedings in modern times at an increasing rate. Recent studies suggest that women are equally likely to commit adultery as men are. Accordingly, given their increasing lack of innocence and desire to leave marriages, women suffer from the same need to bargain as men.”
Rollo, it’s interesting isn’t it? I merely conveyed a simple truth. That nobody in good conduct can advise marriage. To do so is to show your colours; and those colours would be evil. Anyone who advises marriage now, whilst knowing the truth of the laws, is not your friend.
Yep to FH’ s statement above. Electing to marry has to be the dumbest and most risky legal decision a man can make
TSK, how can you get men to take direct action when many lobby do nothing about a wife’s betrayal? If they accept that, clearly they have no sense of action or personal honor. Besides I doubt it would take those kind of actions. Everything would change in 10 years if enough men refused to vote to convict men when they have jury duty; and if enough men bog down the cops and court system by ignoring the metric shit ton of stupid laws on the books, and if enough men decided to deprive the govt of tax dollars by working for cash, bartering etc as they can while adding as much to the over all cost of the govt as they can…. the system would give under its own weight.
Men speak up so little I had contempt of court time for telling the judge alimony was slavery and I refused to call him by any tittle. He said no one had every displayed my level of arrogance in his court before. How many men did he enslave and how few spoke up?
It will never happen though. Men simply lack the will for action of any sorts and apparently enjoy their lot in life. Hell, the must enjoy getting run down in church in front of their families too. It’s disgusting what worms men have become.
I know why the state is purposely destroying marriage…but I would suggest that men don’t even attempt it.
If we are all going to be enslaved by the government in the end…do it on your own terms, not hers.
It will never happen though. Men simply lack the will for action of any sorts and apparently enjoy their lot in life. Hell, the must enjoy getting run down in church in front of their families too. It’s disgusting what worms men have become.
Never say ‘never’. The problem is, your average man has too much to lose materially. When the leviathan strikes an individual man, he is isolated and alone, for the most part. The cultural and religious sense of justice – real justice – has been destroyed in society and propagandized out of men. Justice is, after all, a male virtue.
It will come, but will take a significant societal collapse for it to happen. The key is the purse, since the purse is what enables feminism. Every new program (Medicare Part D, Obamacare, etc.) which will send the deficit skyrocketing and every kick-the-can-down-the-road event (yesterday’s Republican collapse) which is not a solution brings that collapse ever closer.
I wouldn’t place money on it
@A Man For All Seasons says:
“The first dose of the red pill I ever got was a package called The Marriage Savior, which I paid a ridiculous amount of money for, but it had red pill knowledge I still haven’t seen anywhere else after two years following the manosphere.”
Did this system save your marriage?
Is “playful dominance” different from “cocky funny”?
If determining fault in a divorce leaves women at a disadvantage, perhaps there’s a reason for it….
Every time I read people blaming no-fault divorce for the current divorce explosion I feel I have to speak up yet again. The divorce explosion started with the tender years doctrine in the 1800s. Fault divorce, once women knew they would get the kids, held no dread. Once women got the kids then they had to be supported or the kids would suffer (can’t have that), so alimony became widespread. Fault divorce resulted in such twisting of reality to give the women advantage that it became to ridiculous to continue. Men were almost always found at fault in fault divorce cases. If they weren’t then the facts would be changed until they were. No fault divorce just codified the de facto jurisprudence of the times and our times. Once you decide that the woman will get the kids then marriage is a travesty. Men entered into marriage trading the proceeds of their labor and all their worldly goods in exchange for the proceeds of the woman’s reproductive labor. Men owned the proceeds, the children, because they had paid for them with their whole lives. Now marriage is an illusory promise. From Wikipedia:
In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce. This is in contrast with a contract, which is a promise that courts will enforce. A promise may be illusory for a number of reasons. In common law countries this usually results from failure or lack of consideration (see also consideration under English law).
Illusory promises are so named because they merely hold the illusion of contract. For example, a promise of the form, “I will give you ten dollars if I feel like it,” is purely illusory and will not be enforced as a contract.
We all know that in marriage today all that the woman is promising is that she will stay married to you if she feels like it. Hence it is no longer an enforceable contract and any male that enters into it is an idiot. I will admit here that under this rule I am an idiot several times over.
@Mikediver
It’s an illusionary promise on the side of the man’s rights and benefits, an adhesion contract on the side of his obligations and responsibilities.
Idiot doesn’t begin to describe it. This is evidently women’s ideal man, someone as silly stupid as they are.
Women that want men to enter marriage are not silly stupid. Completly one sided, and oblivious to anyone or anything except their own interests, or perhaps just evil, but not silly stupid.
@Mikediver,
“Every time I read people blaming no-fault divorce for the current divorce explosion I feel I have to speak up yet again. The divorce explosion started with the tender years doctrine in the 1800s. Fault divorce, once women knew they would get the kids, held no dread. Once women got the kids then they had to be supported or the kids would suffer (can’t have that), so alimony became widespread.”
Good insight, Thank you.
P.S. – You’re correct that the overthrow of patriarchal systems started way back, but one of the main planks of 2nd wave feminism was that marriage was the institution which most oppressed women; easy exit and their right to do whatever they wanted was necessary for their liberation.
Perhaps the original impetus for no-fault was not particularly feminist, but they quickly took to it and took it over to convert it into the man-fault system which has been built over the last several decades.
Ton said It will never happen though. Men simply lack the will for action of any sorts and apparently enjoy their lot in life. Hell, the must enjoy getting run down in church in front of their families too. It’s disgusting what worms men have become.
I think that this is true only because men, collectively, aren’t yet feeling enough pain. To use an admittedly imperfect analogy: keep winding that clock too tight, creating tension on the springs that’s unsustainable and that creates metal fatigue. It won’t be very long before those springs snap apart, sending flying shrapnel in all directions.
Pingback: Normalizing Female Dysfunction
@Carnivore,
The politicians (both parties) WANT the system to collapse so they can exercise absolute control over the masses. The truly wealthy will remain wealthy and will be unaffected.
“We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”
I can confirm this. I saw it on quite a few police reports when I was part of the DV grinding wheel.
Greyghost says: “Wow Dalrock you just posted to the world where murder suicides and court room violence comes from.”
The vast majority of suicides occur within 24 hours of an intimate partner conflict. (About 87% of them). You are absolutely on the right track with this assessment.
Joe says:
October 17, 2013 at 2:24 pm
“The politicians (both parties) WANT the system to collapse so they can exercise absolute control over the masses. The truly wealthy will remain wealthy and will be unaffected.”
They are delusional if they think they can contain and control the collapse of western civilization. They have made it very clear that the reach of the government (whoever is running it) is world wide. So there is no where to run, despite setting up bolt holes.
What they really are is hoping the system continues til they die because they have no choice in the matter. You can’t keep the masses satisfied with the status quo, they always want more, it is a viscious cycle. They end it, violence erupts everywhere. They can maintain power for now for passing giving away the farm, they cannot undo any of this without serious harm.
Unless society has a massive internal shift with game and human sexual dynamics returning a realistic view, this cannot end.
What you are seeing with the “dark enlightenment” will not keep the sysem for unltimately failing, but you will see shifts in behavior by men both toward more violence and more MGTOW or minimizing thei contributions to society (like Captain Capitalism). And you will see men beome fearless.
A man without hope is a man without fear.
One more thing to add to Ras Al Ghul post. the US due to its 2nd amendment is awash in fire arms. Also the individual states have political ruling classes that may not wish to be subjugated by the Ivy league elite. So any number of things can occur. There may not be a guarantee the military will be fully on one side or the other. I have said before in other places that the combat arms are filled with heterosexual white males. The boogie man himself that will be used to kill people fighting for their freedom so that their masters can continue to abuse them and blame the worlds problems on them. It will be interesting to see the homophobe, sexist, racist, rapist etc. fight for the people that call them that and prosecute them daily evidence or not for the same.
There are millions of weapons out in the American public. More weapons than all police and soldiers added up. This is why the NSA is spying on every one. And why the government is behaving with such a brutal police manor. With cell phones every where police are recorded openly violating the law and abusing people constantly.
Ton, it is 2013, not 1879. It is time for you to grow up and stop acting like a bull ape. Though I must admit you do it very well and with a certain flair.
You are one of the few men here who isn’t intelligent enough to understand: A REAL MAN DOES WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROTECT HIS CHILDREN. YES, EVEN WEAR HORNS, IF THAT IS YOUR CHILDISH VIEW OF THINGS.
Your view is: MAN! BANG! WIFE! OOG! MUST! KILL! BOTH!
I supplied no-fee counseling to an estimated 1600 men. I helped some of them get custody who otherwise would not have done so. I was thiinking about it. Those kids grew up in good father-headed homes, and are now close to their 30’s. And, are almost always productive, happy citizens.
Unlike the unfortunate wretches whose fathers were removed from their lives. Some of them will never again see daylight. Many are dead. And, so are many of the fathers who lost their kids. While I knew no men personally who comitteed suicide (no one I counseled was ever identified as dead from suicide, in ten years of counseling) I knew of them in other organizations. I never knew a man who committed suicide because his wife committed adultery. Not one.
But, the men who lost their kids did it a lot.
But, I have already explained this in great detail, haven’t I? It is your intelligence that is the problem, not my inability to explain things to you.
######
Now, some legal information. Not as an attorney, but as a legal researcher. I learned a lot about the law and the courts while I was counseling men. That was the only way I could help them was to teach them exactly what would happen in court.
Men have such misinformed ideas. The bull apes never listened. They would just say, “Wal, I’ll just talk to the judge.” With no idea that is it illegal for a man to talk to the judge without the woman’s lawyer present. If he tried to talk to the judge, the judge would in most cases one time tell him to be quiet. And, if he persists, the baliff will be instructed to take him to jail until the next scheduled hearing in his case, period.
As far as anonymity on the Web, very few people are ever anonymous. Just “not yet disclosed.”
For example, if a person started a bullying campaign against a knowledgeable legal researcher, every time he posted something the bully made a nasty, insulting remark, that legal researcher probably knows how to file a suit in Federal court, without an attorney. it’s called pro se.
And, when he did, he could then petition the court for a court order to the internet service to disclose the identitiy of the person to be sued.
And, once identified, then file suit against that individual.
So far most of you know this stuff. The bad part is ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. You don’t have to have a good case. Some courts will allow you to countersue for false prosecution. Others will not. I will let you figure out which one is Federal Court.
There are plenty of businesses and government agencies who will ‘punish’ people by filing suit in Federal court, usually clear across the country from where he lives, just to make the cost go up.
Suppose someone, anyone files a false and malicious suit against you. It normally costs you around $30,000 or more just to properly answer the suit, even if it has no merit at all.
Then, the person who filed the case against you drops the case. You just got punished like $30,000. As I said above, there are agencies and organizations which often do things like this, for legal use of your First Amendment rights, to shut you up.
Now in some courts, you can countersue for false prosecution. That can cost you another $50,000 and there is no guarantee you will win..
UK law at time did not allow truth to always be used as a defense in a libel or slander suit. I don’t know current law, nor am I able to write in any depth on the law as it used to be. In the US, truth can be used as a defense. But, that defense is not free.
Greyghost, interesting posting. A while back when the government had allegedly ordered like 7 billion bullets, a gun expert I know told me there are believed to be at least 20 billion bullets currently in private hands in the US. He said he knows of a man who personally owns over 100,000 rounds of military grade bullets.
I asked him what is the life expectancy of a bullet. He said miitary style metal cases bullets from WWII are still usable.
I have no personal knowledge, so if someone does and disagrees, feel free to chime in.
The military will back whoever pays them. They have kids to feed and wives to buy off. I mean bills to pay. The u.s. military has never failed to fire on citizens. Not once that I am aware of. Striking miners, vets looking for their service bonus, hippies on collage campuses, they open fire.
Perhaps if more men were bull apes instead of worms we would not be in this mess. Nothing you have posted has backed up your ridiculous claim you’d meet me a midnight or what not. Pussies always want to use words. Your words have done nothing useful on scale. You faced no actual physical danger. I am not the smartest fella here, I don’t much care for the rambling of fools but I am also one of the few with working man parts. You know the kind you should be respectful to in the real world and likely the kind of man who banged your wife. How did his dick taste? How many times do you kiss her or go down on her after he just came in her? Did you like the taste? Did you like being a cuckold? Is that why you did nothing?
Ammo last basically forever if stored correctly. Military grade ammo means it’s well sealed for storage, and slightly over pressured. Otherwise it’s semi low grade mass produced product.
More examples:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=831085
@IBB,
“Gentlemen, live with your girl friends before you marry them. God will understand.”
And if you find your girlfriend or fiancé is BPD should the guy break it off and move out? (Sounds like male oriented Serial Monogamy.)
You are advocating sin.
No, this is common sense…..and if it is a sin, I would rather commit it than regret it later in the divorce….I have no sympathy for weak men. ie what you might call a beta.
@Stallywood
Unfortunately, even though it may appear to be common-sense to have a ‘trial marriage’, statistics reveal that those who cohabit first have the greater likelihood of Divorce. If a woman is keen to cohabit first, then you have a woman who is neither certain nor committed. In other words Cohabitation is in some sense qualitatively different to marriage (all women say so) and is thus essentially promiscuity – short time love, as the Thais say. There is no guarantee of a successful marriage, but cohabitation is a form of opt-out.
It is also the case that a woman who has had a failed trial marriage is that much less marriageable – because although it is not marriage it is a failure of commitment – so why should any guy take the risk. She will have a lower MMV; probably lowered by as much as the lowered MMV of a woman who has been divorced.
Of course it worked for Kate Middleton – so far.
I have to agree with Anon71.
When a man has children, his entire worldview changes.
When my wife was threatening to blow it all up, I remember thinking two things immediately.
1. Oh my God this shit is more important to her than her own children.
2. I have to keep her from destroying everything, if for no reason other than to protect my kids.
Deti is right. This stuff is more important to her than her own kids. Unbelievable (to me), but true.
Ah, yes, Ton again. You mentioned the man who banged my wife. I have said several times there was no real solid evidence anyone banged her. It was a possibiilty. One that I did not pursue because I cared more for my kids than for her, and it was easier to protect them from maternal custody if I was not sure. You reframed the issue to suit your own agenda, which is to show your superiority to other men. If is very common in the men’s movement and the reason nothing has been achieved by any means other than opting out of the system by millions.
I was going to let this drop for the benefit of the blog. But, you won’t. You commented on The Horn in Mexico. I have been visiting here and living here for 30 years. NEVER HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THE HORN IN REGARDS TO FEMALE ADULTERY. Talking about the horn means you are blaming men for female misconduct, which is asinine.
And, I have associated closely with people of the lowest and highest social classes in both city and rural areas of Mexico. And, there has been enough female adultery to see the trends.
It would seem you must be Puerto Rican. They worry a lot about being cuckolded. Some kind of strange cultural issue. Although some Italians also have that strange attitude. And, I suppose those Gypsies in Europe.
Here in Mexico men who discover their wives had affairs do one of two things. They beat her half senseless, then leave and let her worry about feeding the kids. Or, they wander off and let her worry about feeding the kids, without beating her up first. Nobody gets in the man’s face and talks about the horn at all. Talking about the horn is making the man at fault for his wife’s behavior and they know better here. Men do not attack other men 24/7 then wonder why they are treated as they are.
Oh, let me add. when he does beat the crap out of her, if she survives, normally no one calls the cops. Justice has been done, and now the hard part for her, feeding the kids is in her future.
And, since women know what is coming at them if they mess around, they are much less likely to mess around.
Where you come from they believe the man is at fault if his wife screws around, right? The modern MRM has rejected that base canard. Churchianity believes it; we don’t. Women mess around because they are morally weak, period.
You also made some comments about how much you do, and how the rest of us just talk. Hohoho hahaha heeheehee. I spent my 10,000 hours of activism over ten years, very public. It included visiting our state governor in his office at his invitation. It involved counseling over 1,600 men, including suicide counseling. It involved several hundreds of op-eds, very militant, including 90 to our local newspaper over 15 years. I picketed the court house. I held public meetings from time to time.
So far your only visible actions have been personal attacks on other men. But, maybe you simply haven’t got around to listing all you have done, and I am not going to say you haven’t done anything.
I will say over the last 35 years men who heavily attack other men have almost always never actually done anything themselves. The personality characteristics of a do-er is totally different from an attack-er. And, you are very clearly an attack-er.
I am going to restate what Ton is all irate about. I said once, and Opus and Ton brought it to this blog, that early in my 38 year marriage, one summer my wife acted strangely. During marital relations, she acted as if she were far away. She still performed well, but acted strange. I suspected it may have involved an affair. Though in those days I was unaware that an emotional affair can appear similar to a physical affair.
A real man will do anything to protect his kids from harm. You men with no kids may not know that or believe it. But, billions of men have acted that way over the milenia.
If you kid falls in the river, you go in, too, even if you know it means your death. If your kid is trapped in a house fire, you go in even if you know you are going to die. If that kid dies, you want him to die in your arms.
Most kids will never die in the river, nor in a house fire. There are worse things than maternal custody that CAN happen to a kid, but for most kids, the worst thing that WILL happen to them is maternal custody. For all practical purposes once a kid hits maternal custody his future is over.
I realize the most ignorant of men believe that if a man really acts like a man, when he learns his wife is having an affair, he will somehow win custody. Nonsense. The courts ruled in the US two generations ago that adultery is not the court’s business, nor her husbands, unless somehow it puts the kids in danger. Like running off for the weekend with a lover and leaving the kids alone. Or, letting an abuser care for those kids.
I well knew my kids weren’t going to live long or well under maternal custody, and I also well knew that no matter what I did, if I did anything, they were going to end up in maternal custody.
So, I chose to not worry about it. Unlike Ton, I do not view it as my sin, but hers. If there is a judgment day, she will be punished for it; I will not.
The one thing is I did as a direct result become a militant activist and did the things Ton wants us to believe he has done, but neglects to tell us about.
Starting in 1984, I started preaching DON’T GET MARRIED in the US. No man should ever marry where he might have to make the decision I felt I had to make.
And, to date, my message is the same. DO NOT GET MARRIED IN THE ANGLOSPHERE. Better yet, GET THE HELL OUT. HAVING KIDS IN THE ANGLOSPHERE IS CHILD ABUSE.
Many women have always ignored male adultery. I have talked to such women over the years, and they always admit they are doing it for the kids, who are often close to their father. Are women better men than we are? In some cases, yes.
I am going to repeat. If your wife commits adultery, and you are not willing to overlook it to protect your kids from automatic maternal custody, you are a common cur.
I realize that is a dramatic change from the Neandertal views which men have tradiionally held. But, our laws and social structures have changed, and what worked for milenia no longer works. It takes time for men to realize the changes, just as it took us all time to understand about the red pill.
Let me add that this is all temporary. SEX AND CULTURE, the 1934 book from UK which documented that a society’s structure is totally based on the sexual liberty women have, described a Greek state which changed its structure every couple hundred years based on what the women were doing.
At one point the nobility were very strictly regulated on female sexual conduct, and the nobility ruled the nation. Later, the nobility lost its sexual regulation, the business people developed strong sexual regulation and took over the society.
The US is near its maximum 250 year life expectancy, and recent events show the end is nigh. The new civilization will almost certainly be patriachal in nature. Not guaranteed, but probable.
there is always a vague possibiity that women themselves will swallow the red pill and choose to pressure other women to give up domination. Anne Coulter has said she would gladly give up her right to vote if all other women had to give it up, too. I forget her exact wording, but she said women can’t handle the complexities of government.
“Many women have always ignored male adultery. I have talked to such women over the years, and they always admit they are doing it for the kids, who are often close to their father. Are women better men than we are? In some cases, yes.”
In my opinion, before Marriage 2.0. married women ignored male adultery for the following reasons or a combination thereof:
1. From a practical standpoint, there wasn’t anything they could do about it. Sure, they could divorce; but they knew they and their children would suffer.
2. They needed their husbands’ income, his presence (if not always physical; then his spiritual/influential presence) and his physical protection.
3. They understood male nature. If wife didn’t really want to have sex with him anymore, she couldn’t say that she cared all that much that he met that need elsewhere. If she was attracted to him; she understood how desirable he was. She didn’t like it, but she knew he was attractive – and it gave her status as the woman who “got” him and the woman he stayed with. Either way, a wife married to a cheater understood that even if he was cheating, she was still “number one”. He’s doing it for the physical release, not the emotional attachment. She was entitled to the money and the support.
In marriage 1.0, a man could simply divorce a cuckolding wife by letting her take her clothes, and dropping her back off at her dad’s house. The kids stayed with him. She got no alimony, no child support, no nothing. Except for the kids; it was as if they had never been married. And there was not one. Single. Thing she could do about it.
Today, under Marriage 2.0, a man can still divorce a cuckolding wife, but it’s more complicated. She will get the kids, hefty child support and alimony for a year or two. She will probably get the house. Husband will pay his attorney fees and hers too. This is so even if H has all the ground for divorce and the divorce is 100% wife’s fault. You can have her on film with the local college football team running train on her. She can confess multiple adulterous affairs in open court. Doesn’t matter one bit. She will still walk away with cash and prizes. It will still deplete and waste the marital assets, to the severe detriment of the children.
That is why the man will do what it takes to protect his kids. Because at the end of the day, there’s not a damn thing a married man with children can do about this, if he loves his kids.
You protect your kids number one. But I’m not calling the cops on a man beating his wife to death. “look kids see that man beating that lady with the crow bar? He just found out one of his kids is not his and that lady is his slut wife”
It was also an unwritten rule and custom that a married man who tomcatted around was expected to be discreet. He was expected not to broadcast it or make a big show of it. He was not seen in public or in polite company with his mistress(es). He did not acknowledge his mistresses publicly; and they did not acknowledge him. When the affair ended, it was to be handled quickly and quietly. And love or emotional displays were not to be tolerated; because these affairs were understood to be temporary. It was going to come to an end at some point; the only issue is when and how.
Above all, the philanderer was expected never, ever to bring public shame on his wife and children. If he was getting his rocks off with hookers or other women, he was expected to do it quietly.
Opus,
This is true in-so-far as the way you are measuring the data. But if you look at the data more closely, you might reveal an absolute certainty that people tend to miss.
If you live with her first and you find that she is pregnant quite often you wind up marrying her when you otherwise might not. (There is a reason why you are living with her and not married to her. The pregnancy trumps that.) If you discount all the shotgun-living-together-to-married-marriages that were a result of her getting pregnant while you two were living together, I think you might find the divorce rate drops dramatically, lower than the traditional model I might add.
So if you are living with her don’t get her pregnant. Do not trust that she is taking her pills because (if she wants to get married more than you do) she wont be. There is an incentive on her part to “oops, I forgot” to take a pill.
Living with someone before you get married is kind of like hiring someone contract-to-perm. You aren’t certain yet if you want to make them a fulltime employee. You don’t know for sure if they are a good fit BUT you have a shit load of work to be done and you need to throw bodies at it. So you bring people on contract-to-perm. If they do good work, that is better than any interview. You have already qualified them, they cut over to fulltime employee. If they do crappy work, wait until the contract ends and just show them the door, no muss, no fuss, no unemployment filing.
Not a good thing for a man to love his kids. The men most abused and in pain in the west today are men that love their kids. Want to die by cop, love your kids.
You didn’t stay because of the kids, you stayed becuase you lack pride, honor and balls. 30+ years later and you still have the whore with you. That’s not for the kids.
Not have I said a man wins custody. You’re rambling about shit I never mentioned & now you’re back tracking on her infidelity
A man knows he’s living right when pussies call you bull ape and curr
@IBB
As a matter of principle I would no more care to work on a Temp basis (with a view to being hired full-time if I can prove myself) than I would want to be tried out by a prospective wife. I would have thought that that was what courting was all about – so far as work is concerned they have my C.V.
I am thus with Doctor Johnson who was of the opinion that marriage should be arranged by The Lord Chancellor without reference to the wishes of either party. Indian arranged marriages seem to work pretty well. There are of course in life no guarantees, but it is best to go with ones gut instincts I feel.
I am a born again virgin and have never had the misfortune of an oops pregnancy. I am an Orphan; the male line dies with me.
Ton,
On these blogs, I take a lot of criticism. People are always asking me specific questions about my home life and my relationship with my wife (perhaps to be critical later?) You will never see me be critical of anyone else’s home life or marriage. That is really none of my business.
That said, there is some level of inappropriate behavior that a married man will tolerate from his wife that would prevent him from leaving her should they have children together. For every man, this level of tolerance is different. But there is some level of tolerance. For some men, they would tolerate it if their wife worshipped in what he might regard a false church. For other men, they would tolerate it if she insisted that her mother live in the house (and you can’t stand her mother.) And for some, they might tolerate some level of adultry.
You will note Ton, I used the word tolerance. I did NOT use the word acceptance. They are different. I may tolerate the fact that two men live next door together, sodomize each other every night. I might tolerate that behavior, but I will never accept it. Such as it is with this inappropriate behavior that a man tolerates fro his wife (he does not accept it, he simply lives with it.)
I don’t know 71’s circumstances. But I do know what it means to have kids and to want to do everything for them. I understand how that feels, understand that I am simply NOT willing to blow everything up partially because I know what that would do to my children but mostly because I honor my VOWS. Far be it for me to sit there and condemn his reasoning process. He has to live with his wife and the mother of his children, I don’t.
IBB, regarding cohabitation. Wouldn’t any woman who agrees to an arrangement like that automatically be disqualified for marriage? I mean, if she agrees to cohabit, hasn’t she done it before? Wouldn’t the true Christian woman you all seek not agree to cohabitation? I’m just trying to see how that would help a man vet a potential woman for marriage.
Opus,
What if you are the one doing the “trying-out” not her?
Hypothetical, you meet a lovely lady that you truly love. You really love her. She is charming, intelligent, smiles all the time, gets along with all your friends, you two share the same political opinions, it just works. You feel complete around her. Alas she has a small problem. She owes $57,000 on her student loans and another $23,000 on her credit cards. SHe has no assets to speak of, nothing of value, but she has a closet full of shoes. Prior to meeting you, this woman lived for the day.
You have assets to lose. You don’t mind marrying a woman with zero assets. But you are not all that enthused about marrying a woman with a $80,000 anti-dowry. So you and her have a little talk.
(you) “You really owe $80K in student loans and credit cards?”
(her smiling) “Yup, and that number keeps going up.”
(you) “You mean…”
(her) “Yes, I am deeper in debt each day.”
(you) “So you aren’t even working on paying it ff?”
(her) “Oh I gave up on that years ago. With the cost of my apartment, the phone bill, cable tv, car lease payment, electric bill, heating bill… I just don’t earn enough money to pay for the bare minimum of my lifestyle.”
(you) “So what are you going to do?”
(her giggling) “Probably just a bankruptcy. I mean, why not?”
(you) “But you can’t bankrupt away student loan debt.”
(her) “Then I guess I just don’t worry about it. It’s not my problem since I don’t make enough money to solve it. My monthly expenses mean that with my limited earning power, I will never be able to pay anything more than the bare interest payments on my debt.”
So now, a light bulb goes off in your head. You offer to have her come and live with you rent and utilities free in your home, kind of like an into marriage. Afterall it doesn’t cost you anything extra, anything more that you are already paying but it does free up the majority of her limited income to pay off all the debt that she needlessly accumulated.
You love her but you hate her debt. You need her to show you that she is functionally capable of earning a marriage with you as a result of what she did in her own life. Living together offers her that opportunity.
Hopeful,
See above.
@IBB
I have carefully considered your example. The woman sounds like a nightmare. As St Paul says, the flesh is weak, but I trust that I would not succumb. That woman has in my view ruled herself out as marriageable. If that is the best I can do I should stay single, and I would be better to try shaking the woman tree for other fruit. Every woman should provide a Dowry and not an Anti-Dowry.
I trust you are not interested in this woman. 😉
I’m with Opus on this one. That doesn’t sound ideal at all for a man.
Opus,
Fortunately, God is all knowing and all seeing (His argument with the Angels involving God’s initial misunderstanding of what was happening in Sodom and whether or not there was even one life there worth saving, notwithstanding.) God, in His infinate wisdom and Christ fulfilling His law said to man, stay away from Usury. I could quote all the many Bible verses on this but we both have Google. I just gave a perfect example of what Usury does to man (and woman) in causing us to give a second thought to what we might otherwise be a “no brainer.” My above example (that you carefully considered) is (unfortuantely) not all that unusual. Opus, having known women for quite a while (and seeing the cost of higher education) my example is par for the course in today’s society. Kudos to you for not “succumbing.” You can stay away form the Anti-Dowries. But you are probably not going to be getting any Dowries.
Lately, it appears most of the men I know who have been recently been getting married, have been doing so knowing that they have to make her “whole” on her Anti-Dowry. Living together with a man that loves her awards her the unique opportunity to free herself of the negative wealth created by her poor choices in a way that living alone will forever prevent. Far be it for me to hold a man accountable for acting in this “fiendish” sinful way. I can certainly empathyze. We are trading her sin (Usury) for his sin (Fornication) to the better for all involved no matter the eventual outcome. This is where I was with my fiancée #2.
Lol IBB, your own points disqualify such woman for marriage. If she can bankrupt herself without so much as a second thought, she can bankrupt you, or kids and any future you might have had with another woman.
Fornication before marriage rules her out, her reckless expenditure and wastefulness rules her out. If a woman cannot keep her expenditure down and her legs closed till marriage, the marriage is wasted on her.
@IBB
I suspected as much and I am relieved that you did not proceed further. My observation is that women have a tendency to become spendthrifts shortly after marrying – or so my married friends complain – despite being so careful before.
Of course it was not always thus. For my British generation, tertiary education was free at the point of entry, and most students were male. Now, (but not in Scotland) because we are broke, tuition fees, loaned by Her Majesties Treasury are payable. Now, most students are female and many take more than one course. They thus have massive student debts, and that is compounded by the fact that salaries are not as high here as in America. HMT however agree that unless and until the person earns sufficient they need pay back nothing at all. I suspect in time HMT will be writing off large sums of money. We are, in England, in uncharted waters.
In Britain there are (courtesy of things like the Married Women’s Property Act 1882) the possibility that the Family Courts will treat cohabitation – and less – as de facto marriage, and thus a trial marriage may tell you whether you should continue living together but it won’t protect you from the woman seeking financial recompense. There is nothing new in this as you can see from the date of the oddly titled (as it is mostly used by the unmarried including persons of the same sex) Act I mentioned.
The moral must therefore be, when in doubt, don’t.
FH,
Yes true.
But all of that can (and often does) happen, even if there is no “history” or financial irresponsibility on her part.
Opus,
Welp, here in the United States, it was never this way. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, which means that not only to the brightest get to go to college, everyone does. You just have to pay for it. (A fluke of birth where you didn’t inherit the brilliant IQ of your parents does not disqualify you from higher education.)
Now the “smarties” tend to do things that Captain Capitalism recommends (live at home, get your associate’s degree on the cheap at Community College paying as you go, and in finishing up, get your STEM bachelor’s degree from a local university, continuing education style, paying as you go) and graduate with no debt. Sure, you might have to hold on to your burger flipping job for a while as you might not find a professional job for a year or more, but you have no debt. You have no real urgency or pressure to pay off any bills because you haven’t yet accumulated any. You are “clean.”
Problem is girls don’t want to do that. Its too hard. Its too much work to stay “clean” of the debt. And because anyone and everyone can get student loans (since they are entirely unbankruptable, ie: no risk to the banks) what we have here in the United States is millions and millions of women (age 25 to 35) never married, with $50+K or more of unbankruptable student loan debt on their pointless, general studies degrees that they earned.
And they are husband hunting with their Anti-Dowries.
That is basically where we are in the States as of right now. Those are what our bachelors have to marry (if they aren’t going to marry a single mom.) Tough choices. But that is what the world of reality has left us. I thank God I don’t have to worry about that. And I will not allow my daughter to saddle herself with any Anti-Dowry.
IBB
This is what a man does when he settles. No woman today is marriage worthy. It looks like you made the best choice in the world for yourself. That is as good as it will get for any man. As a red pill guy with my values I would be a single dad PUA. Surrogate for my children game and sluts for my dick and gandarusa for my well being. That is the best choice to make today. That is me.
@IBB
Feminists usually forget (when complaining that there was in the past more male than female education) that education is neither free nor cheap. It made sense to train those most likely to pursue a career (i.e. work non-stop for fifty years); it still does. Even within my life-time many studied by way of Correspondence Course (i.e. in the evening after a full days work). Going to University (Holiday Camp) for three or more years, may from a lifestyle point of view be a waste of time and money. In addition to all the other matters that make women unmarriageable debt is to be added to that list.
As women acquire the degrees that put them in the way of desirable men, their doing so makes them less marriageable, yet men are motivated to marry those of the same class, and that usually means further education. It is an impossible bind, but (if you recall my falling-out with the CEO of my local council) encouraging women to pursue Utopian dreams of being the next Einstein is a cruelty to women. I told him so for which I was accused of being offensive. Who is the real Misogynist there?
Innocentbystanderboston, you’ve described my personal situation to a T. I love her and want to marry her, but I’m not marrying into debt. I bought a condo to live in, slightly earlier than I might have wanted, in part so that she could live with me with minimal expense and get her debts squared away while her body can still produce a baby. If she can’t get her life in order with virtually no expenses, and do this while she’s still young enough to get pregnant, then she’s got nobody to blame but herself — and I want to give her every possible chance to get married and have a child, because that’s what human beings desire: to have children and continue their line. It’s a close thing, but she’s on pace to do it: I sure hope she can.
Opus,
Here in the United States, the girls who are Mona Lisa Smiling have been doing do for more than 150 years….
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304415/
…pretty much since the Industrial Revolution in these United States, we have had women attending university to pursue their MRS degree. Consider what Susan Patton said to every Princeton girl just six months ago….
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13058/
Yes Opus, she went there. She went exactly where EVERYONE WENT long before feminism’s “you go girrllll” came along because the best and brightest knew that if they wanted their daughters married to promising men, send them to university and DON’T saddle them with any Anti-Dowry.
Of course for the feminist, that is insulting to women but it is what it is. The pursuit of the MRS degree is decidely un-feminst. My only consternation with it is two fold:
#1) in the United States, slots for students at the most elite universities are finite and if your sole goal is husband hunting and not working, you end up hurting our overall economy.
#2) We have massive amounts of financial aid in the United States and if you are working on your MRS degree on my tax dollars with no intention of ever working outside the home, you are stealing from me and every other tax payer.
It still happens. I’d argue it never stopped happening (and feminists knowlingly do this themselves) they just would never ADMIT that they are doing it. I think PRIDE gets in the way of admitting to reality. So although the average feminist might be secretly working on her MRS degree, she still criticizes and belittles women for doing so in public. That way she gains status for her achievements on the cheap. And if she should be so unlucky as to NOT get married (not catch a man), then she can further entrench herself on feminst dogma saying the MRS degree is entirely unworthy.
Kyo,
Thank you. 🙂
Quite the feeling when someone who have never met, nor will ever meet, can perfectly describe your own personal situation simply by looking at their own past experiences. There is nothing new under the sun.
Kudos to you sir. You are helping her by forcing her to help herself. By removing all her previous living expenses, you have freed up an enormous amount of her own personal income to attack her self-inflicted debt.
Now, watch out for the following:
#1) an increase in the amount of clothes and shoes in the house
#2) more magazine subsciptions (particularly People, Cosmo, and Ladies Home Journal)
#3) a greater willingness to take much more elaborate vacations… “…no I don’t want to drive to Florida this year and have another $500 vacation, lets fly to Jamaica and spend $2000….”
#4) a desire to “upgrade” her Honda Civic lease
#5) more “lunches out” during the week. If possible Kyo, pack her lunch for her the day before she goes to the office to FORCE HER not to eat out. You may have to be the parent as she lacks moral agency
What I recommend is that you guys find another couple (or two couples) and spend time with them on the weekends, take turns cooking meals. This is something she can look forward to and plan and it will NOT cost her money, (just the cost of food, and cooking a home is cheap.) You have to keep her mind occupied with things that do not cost her money and if you have to sit on top of her and watch her sign that $1000 check to Visa (even if the minimum payment is just $150) then do it. Even if she cries saying that there are so many other things she wants to do with that $1000, she still has to do it. Make sure nothing gets in the way of bill paying day.
I am not quite sure when America became Industrial (after us) but I am aware that a large proportion of undergraduates were female even before WW2 (amazing what one observes from old Lucille Ball movies).
Opus,
You guys were 1850. We were 1865-1870 (just at the end of our civil war.) We were 15 to 20 years behind you on the Industrial Revolution simply because we had more land for agriculture, there was less need for industry.
With the Industrial Revolution children went from being a investment in the family (future workers on the family farm) to a financial sink for the families. Families got smallers, very much so. And the only way people could make a living is going back to the cities where there were plants and factories. Sending the kids to work (as what happened in the US and UK, some as young as 12) all of a sudden changed the financial dynamics of the family and kids were wealth creators once again.
The concept of the MRS degree came about because it was higher education that created enough expertise to be able to work professionally in the Industrial Revolution. The smart women just wanted to be NEAR the smart guys in hopes that they could catch a man.
I believe you will find that the origins of the Industrial Revolution somewhat predated your 1850 date – its origins were the 1780s and fully up and running by the 1830s.
I disagree with that idea. Ms. Toxic-Debt can go live with her parents for free rent and board while she pays off the debts she ran up. After her debt is paid and she’s accumulated a proper dowry then maybe she’s shown she “is functionally capable of earning a marriage with you”. Emotionally capable is a whole ‘nuther matter. But better that she go all BPD on her parents instead of with some guy she’s living in sin with. What’s more, some distance will help you get over that bad case of One-itis that’s clouding your judgment.
Bottom line: you want to avoid marrying (or cohabiting with) “the crazy dictator” and you want to avoid Ms. Toxic-Debt marrying your money (or always wondering if that’s what she really did*) rather than marrying you.
*Marrying in order to get out of a jam impairs the “free consent of the will” that is required for a sacramental marriage. Cohabiting before marriage could do it too. Be forewarned, getting into a glide path toward a wedding under such circumstances means you’re going to the altar with her having already established grounds for annulment. In other words, you had a pretty ceremony but you might have been actors in fine costumes on a movie set as far as marriage is concerned.
Micha,
Hate to play Devil’s Advocate but what if her parents are dead or (worse) they retired to Arizona or Florida? They are gone, retired to the professional jobless Sun Belt. They are out of here (spending their social security check on diesel fuel as they roam the country in their RV) you think they want to set up roots anywhere so that their daughter can live with them as she pays down her school/shoe debt?
Doubt it.
Ideally, your scenario works. I agree with it. This is what I would recommend. But in reality, the parents are gone on to other things. They are not about letting 32 year old spoiled daughter move back home when the home has been sold to pay for the 40 foot Prevost Bus motor home. If she could have, odds are, she would have.
Opus,
I’ll buy 1830 as opposed to 1850. But I’m not buying 1780. How can you possibly have an Industrial Revolution prior to Puffing Billy?
@IBB
I am afraid I am correct. You are clearly unaware of Richard Arkwright and James Watt.
IBB:
I have an undergrad degree in History, just FTR. I think you are talking about the American South, while Opus is talking about the UK. The Industrial Revolution started in the UK, by all accounts, and it started in the 1780s. One might make the argument that the industrial revolution didn’t come to the Southern U.S. until the TVA brought electricity to everyman in the 1940s; but this is a spectral thing.
Hope this helps.
Boxer
Just an addendum: Check out James Watt (the inventor of the steam engine, and the dude after whom the unit is named). He’s the fella that is usually credited with kicking off the revolution. Pretty interesting 🙂
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsteamengine.htm
I just looked up James Watt. I agree totally there is no Industrial Revolution wihout him. I suppose you could have a factory with a steam engine but I just can’t see how you can have an industrial revolution without the steam locomotive engine. You are literally “…putting the industrial revolution before the horse.” It came after. There is no way horses = industrial revolution. Impossible. You could never move enough product (cheaply) from A to B (in a short enough timeframe) with horses. Saying the IR started with Watt is like saying the information age started with the Abacus.
I guess it doesn’t really matter what the date is, what you and I are arguing is purely subjective. I understand your point (you gave us the steam engine, much thanks for that) but without rail….. ew, you weren’t there yet. There is just no way….
Boxer and Opus,
You have to give me rail. Please. Give me that much (historically) for IR. I’ll go 1830, but not 1780. I mean maybe your books say 1780, but please? Really? You really believe that? Horses needs to sleep (can’t run 24 hours the way a locomotive can) and you would need so much “horsepower” (as James Watt said) to move enough product from A to B, it just can’t happen.
And even steam power boats, they are still at the mercy of weather whereas locomotives can generally push right through.
@IBB
Heaven knows what they teach school children in Massachusetts, but what I wrote is known by every body in Great Britain, indeed as recently as this summer I was looking at some of the beautiful and beautifully constructed engines constructed by Watt in our Science Museum.
America invented the Telephone, I conceed, but almost everything else was invented in GB. To just continue with the Ts: Telescope, Television and Tardis are all ours.
Hi IBB:
The books I read don’t mention rail as much as urbanization (the movement of people from the countryside to large cities), the mechanization of agriculture (think the cotton gin) which precipitated that movement, and the mass production of dry goods (clothes, shoes, etc.) with things like the cotton gin. Of course you’re right that rail was part of it. Many scholars talk about the second, third, etc. revolutions and break this down into ever smaller pieces, but I learned it as a general process that began with people congregating in cities and taking factory jobs rather than living their whole lives on a farm. With the concentration of people came a concentration of the intellect, which made further advances possible, all snowball like…
Best, Boxer
Hi Opus:
Neither Anton van Luweenhoek (telescope/microscope) nor Philo T Farnsworth (television) were from GB. 🙂
That’s my hi-story, and I’m sticking to it!
Best, Boxer
@IBB
I think things may be a little more comprehensible to you if I explain that England is networked by a system of Canals. Does America have Canals?
@Boxer
The Telescope was invented in the 1570s by Leonard Digges. The Television was invented (as every schoolboy knows) by John Logie Baird (smarter than the average Baird).
Opus,
Well what we were taught in Massachusetts is that your nation was the first to have the Industrial Revolution because your nation had the greatest concentration of population (on the Earth) in London and yours was the first to have the railroad.
No railroad, no Industrial Revolution. Horses just. Don’t. Do it.
So although Watt get everything going with the steam engine, until there was a Puffing Billy pushing product from A to B, no Industrial Revolution. Maybe not 1850 or even 1830, but no earlier than 1820. Come on now.
I grant you all the discoveries, the most important of which may have been the RADAR (thank you so very much for that, saved all our lived in the 1940s.) But I don’t care how many factories you said you had in 1780, horses weren’t getting the goods to where they needed to be (on time) for it to qualify as a “revolution.”
Opus,
A few. And our most famous one is a cancer cluster and government boondoggle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
Dalrock,
This just occured to me.
Not only did this move pass the censors in our current culture, it went on to win some Academy Awards and made a whole lot of money, $356 million to be exact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Beauty_(film)
This movie was a perfect example of the manosphere. Crazy Wife gives the protagonist a “threatpoint” in their bedroom when he catches her in a logic box. Crazy Wife has no use for her husband and has an affair with a man she truly respects simply because he makes more money. Crazy Wife only starts to feel attraction to her husband again after he stops being beta and reclaims his alpha manhood at the burger joint. He goes full “Game” on his crazy wife (and sadly, his daughter’s BFF who wasn’t really even her F) and finally has it all together (when he makes a moral decision not to take the young girl’s virginity from her) until the gay guy kills him for fear that protagonist will tell the world what he is.
@IBB
Are you not familiar with Blake’s 1804 poem Jerusalem and that famous line about ‘Dark Satanic Mills’? What (if you are) did you think he was writing about?
It seems history is written by the Victor which is perhaps why (after 1776) you have a very strange view of English history.
Anyway, our discoveries proceed unabated, as we have now discovered The God Particle. Well done Peter Higgs!
I don’t really know who did what first. I do read a lot of old English novels, and at one time a lot of people in the country were making money by running looms in their houses. Then, cloth factories were made with big power looms, which forced people to work in those factories. There was a lot of suffering as people were no longer able to make enough to feed their families well.
And, yes, people including young people were forced to work long strenuous hours to keep the machines running.
Note that being forced to work in factories may have been the beginning of separation of men from their families.
I also know that different countries have different views of the same issues.
For example, who in the US has not heard of the brave Davy Crockett and his fellow heroes who fought to the death at the Alamo. (FYI, Alamo means cottonwood tree.)
Alas, a few years ago, a Mexican officer’s diary was found in which he reported they surrendered, and were taken out and summarily shot. Based on what happened at Goliad, I believe his version.
And, Mexico believes the Irish battallion at Churubusco also fought to the death. This was an Irish battallion in the US army which defected when they realized they were fighting against a Catholic nation. (Or so goes the theory. My theory is they defected when they saw the Mexican girls’ eyes. I base this on photos of my own Irish ancestors which tells me what they expected to marry if they didn’t defect. Blechh!) During the US invasion of Mexico City, they were trapped in a convent at Churubusco. The Mexican history says they also fought to the death.
But at the time a US news reported produced a drawing of the gallows on which they were hanged after surrendering.
Some talk here about cohabitation. In Mexico, all legal marriages can only be performed by a government marriage registrar. This came about when Benito Juarez was president in the Lincoln era. He was angry at the Catholic Church, because his first law case involved a priest who maimed an old man. The court ruled the priest was immune from punishment because he was a priest.
When Juarez became president, he took away that immunity. The priests responded by stopping, I’m not sure, maybe marriages and death registration, something like that. So, he took marriages away from them. But,the poor people could not pay the usual fat fee for government services, so they simply set up house keeping. It is called Free Union, and is much like Old Testament marriages were.
The difference between Free Union and Shacking Up is the Free Union couple believes it is married, and shack-ups do not.So does the family and so do the friends. A woman told me half the couples she knows are Free Union.
And, the couple refer to each other as husband and wife, or “my man” and “my woman”.
Honestly done, they do make a commitment to each other, as opposed to our shacking up which in most cases clearly does not involve a commitment. I have no idea what the “divorce rate” is for Free Union.
In the unlikely event I outlive my wife, I fully expect to live in Free Union with a woman who has small children. Seriously. And, yes, if I can still get it up, that is not hard to do. There are many pregnant, abandoned women, and widows with small kids. Not all women want an older man, but maybe 5% will. And, there is more envy than stigmatization from other women if the man has money by local standards.
Yes, if you come to Mexico, you can get a much younger women to live in Free Union. I ask a personal favor, though. I happen to like Mexican women in general. Please, please, if you live in free union with a decent Mexican woman, treat her as if she is really your wife. It is very low and very cruel to make her think you are married, and you think you are only shacking up. Don’t leave her unless you have grounds for divorce, even if that is not needed because the government is not involved with your marriage.
A clarification and an apology to anyone who did not understand a comment I posted.
Someone implied I had called him a cur. I did not. He has no kids, has stated no intention of ever having kids.
I concur with his decison on this. And, ditto for anyone else who chooses not to have kids in a place where they can be placed in maternal custody with no misbehavior on the father’s part. That is an excellent decision.
My comment was, I think, very clearly directed at someone who had kids and would allow them to be placed in maternal custody over personal ego problems. I thought I said this very plainly. If it did not come across that way, I must apologize for poor writing. I love kids and I cannot respect anyone who would let his own kids suffer the abuse of maternal custody if he had a choice. Even a demeaning choice.
His argument with the Angels involving God’s initial misunderstanding of what was happening in Sodom and whether or not there was even one life there worth saving, notwithstanding
Was it perhaps just rhetoric and not ignorance?
However on the bull ape comment, that one I stand by. Not directed at that one individual as singled out from other bull apes.
Many years ago we people who actually did something instead of just talking about it realized most men today, MRA/FRA, actually act like bull apes in action.
Stop and think what bull apes do. Mostly, they try to kill each other in hopes of being alpha bull with all the chicks for himself while the lessesr bulls wank.
Any cooperation? No. Any tolerance for anyone with a different view of things? No. Just fight fight fight and accomplish nothing as a group.
If anyone actually does anything he becomes the primary target of the other bull apes who never do anything but fight among themselves. He must be destroyed!
And, in most cases they succeed. Where is Glenn Sacks, for example?
Bzzzt! 😉
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarnsworth.htm
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/10/23 | Free Northerner
Bzzzt! You’re both wrong. My landsman, Paul Nipkow, invented the core idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow
Oh, but wait, Scotty Alexander Bain, hit upon transmitting images electronically in the 1840’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain_%28inventor%29
Let’s face it – brilliant inventors, with hard work, step-by-step over the years handed us this technology. Let me qualify that – brilliant, white, male inventors.
I must be correct. The first publicly viewable television service (broadcast from Ally Pally – as we call it – and where I sat Law exams) courtesy of the BBC, was 1936 (I seem to recall). Don’t tell me America knew all about Television but couldn’t be bothered to broadcast. So that’s another first, along with The World Wide Web.
I thought I might be picked up on Tardis. Look, its there but somewhat broken down, so its stuck outside Earl’s Court Tube Station. Don’t believe me ? Go to Google Maps. Look for the blue Police Box outside the station and click the double chevron. You will observe that it really is larger on the inside than on the out. Google can’t be mistaken can they.
The divorce industry handles the fallout.
My econs knowledge is kinda rusty. There’s always an optimum level of martial dissatisfaction, while taking into consideration the effect on the economy as a whole. Can’t have too many unhapppy couples not showing up for work.
Remember Doomed Harlot? Was she a lawyer? The whole idea of “selling divorce” means there’s a divorce industry which makes money out of discord.
The legal industry is one which makes money when people are having conflicts. Wouldn’t be surprised if some of the conflicts were artificially created by the legal industy mules. When there’s no demand for divorce lawyers, create the demand!
It’d be great if someone can rewrite modern day movies and novels and replace the attitudes with traditional ones.
People would be able to learn a great deal.
As in create fan fictions, changing only the feminist/equalist parts, keeping everything else as similar as possible. Some events will have to be altered, but it is no big deal.
” The movie is about a husband and father who is trying to keep his family together in the face of constant disruption from his clinically depressed wife and their sociopath nine year old son.”
Ugg. I can’t stand American films and shows. They always portray family life as adversarial. Husband against wife. Kids against parents. I almost think its a conspiracy to get people to act that way so that Big Pharma can stay in business.
And the way they portray pregnancy and childbirth, breast feeding and infant care is just horrendous.
Hey. We’re raising money to help the Marine in that Good Men Project article with his legal fees. Would you help us spread the word? 11 months and he’s still fighting criminal charges because his wife cried “victim.” http://bit.ly/helpvet
Thanks.
Pingback: Way ahead of you | Dalrock
Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Dalrock
Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall