In the discussion of a recent post the history of the term “threat point” came up. While I’ve used the term and explained how the family courts are being deliberately used to destabilize marriages for feminist ends, I can’t take credit for originating the term. The term itself if part of Game Theory*.
When social scientists study marriage one of the things they are very interested in is how intact marriages are impacted by government working to make divorce both easier and more attractive for women. The well known feminist goal of our divorce/child support revolution is the opportunity for women to “leave bad marriages”. But the goal in incenting women to divorce isn’t just to encourage them to leave marriages when they are unhappy. There is another fundamental objective, and that is to improve marriage by destabilizing marriages. This may sound absurd at first reading, but if you consider it a bit you will see that it is actually conventional wisdom. The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay. Giving wives authority over their husbands is seen as not just good for the wife herself, but for the family and society as a whole.
I’ve given examples of how the concept is used in academic studies previously, but you can observe the same thing with regard to Child Support in the working paper The Effect of Child Support Enforcement on Bargaining Power Among Married and Cohabiting Couples:
This paper examines the relationship between child support enforcement and bargaining power among married and cohabiting couples. A simple economic bargaining model predicts that living in a state with stricter child support enforcement increases the bargaining power of married mothers, who can more credibly threaten divorce.
The perspective of the study regarding women threatening divorce is the mainstream view, the perspective of both feminists and conservatives; women threatening divorce is good (emphasis mine):
…child support enforcement policies may also have a beneficial impact on households with two parents by increasing the bargaining power of mothers.
The paper explains the mechanics of child support encouraging mothers to threaten to leave the father of their children:
In Figure 1, the mother’s threat point is her external utility level…, the utility level at which she is indifferent between the status quo and carrying out her threat to end the relationship. For mothers threatening to leave the father, child support enforcement increases her external utility level… such that she will choose to carry out her threat unless he takes less leisure and consumes less at her expense.
While the paper’s basic use of Game Theory for married parents is sound, it is extremely poorly thought out regarding unmarried cohabiting parents. It bizarrely asserts that stricter child support enforcement can give unmarried cohabiting fathers a bargaining advantage over unmarried cohabiting mothers because the father can threaten to marry the mother against her will if she doesn’t do as he wishes (emphasis mine):
Our theory for cohabiting mothers predicts that these mothers can be better off or worse off in strict enforcement states. They will be worse off if the fathers want to get married and the mothers do not; in this case, cohabiting fathers will have more bargaining power. Cohabiting mothers will be better off in strict states if they are threatening to leave the relationship because enforcement provides them with a greater probability of receiving child support, and thus a more credible threat.
What matters here though is not the poor thought process of the authors of the paper regarding unmarried parents, but the embrace of women threatening to take a man’s children away as a tool to make the world a better place.
It is important to remember that the premise that threats of wife-initiated divorce and taking children away from their fathers makes intact families better isn’t limited to academics and policy makers, or even just to feminists. The idea that wives threatening divorce makes marriages better and is good for society is all but universal. This is why if you ask your Christian friends to recommend a movie about marriage, they are all but guaranteed to enthusiastically suggest a movie not about biblical marriage, but a celebration of the awesome power of the threatpoint.
All of this is essential to understand when considering calls to reform the family court. The vast majority of people not only see no fault divorce and child support as beneficial because they allow women to leave if they are unhappy honoring their vows, the vast majority of people also are deeply invested in the idea that women threatening divorce makes marriage much better. This doesn’t mean reforms are impossible, but it means that any proposed reform which would significantly reduce the incentive for most women to divorce will be met with fierce resistance not just from feminists but from conservatives too. However, at least some modern Christians and conservatives have adopted this favorable view of destabilizing marriage without truly considering it. The bad news is this view is nearly universal, but the good news is it is indefensible for anyone who believes in traditional marriage. A good number of those who embrace putting a cash bounty on fathers do so only because they have never considered how foolish and destructive this is.
*Game Theory is from economics, and not to be confused with Game and female attraction. Think John Nash of A Beautiful Mind, not Roissy of Pretty Lies.
I also use Game Theory when practicing Game.
The situation is the wife can break all her vows, but the husband is still on the hook as if the marriage was still intact.
The quickest reform is for any no-fault divorce, the person initiating the divorce loses all custody, support, etc. If the marriage is indeed that bad, let them walk away – but only with the clothes on their back, but everything is ended and closed.
Currently “no-fault” divorce is kick the man out with just the clothes on his back and turns him into a debt slave.
In any case, Divorce is condemned in all four gospels in red lettering. Any Christian cannot advocate divorce (and from over 1880 years ago, the papal encyclical Arcanum deals with Christian Marriage and the consequences of easy divorce in detail).
“A good number of those who embrace putting a cash bounty on fathers do so only because they have never considered how foolish and destructive this is.”
Not only don’t they consider this, they deny it. The legend of the father (often abusive) leaving the family (Springsteen’s Hungry Heart) is still widely accepted as truth. With that mindset, they wan’t wives to have more power to keep the husband in check.
The divorce explosion that hit the US church in the 1970s caused a panic among leadership, and they reacted to the situation as though it were always husbands leaving w/o cause; while wives only left w/ cause (that being they were unhappy). The reaction by church leaders to this phenomenon has been an unmitigated disaster.
It’s an interesting study in human nature, not least our ability to ignore the obvious in favor of what we believe.
This, and the previous post “As expected” are why I stated in the comments of “More ominous than a strike” that it is going to take much longer and require things to get much worse before any real hope of getting better. Given that feminism is integrally intertwined with socialism/statism, the current social order will need to undergo radically changes, likely through external means (i.e., greater depression, widespread and destructive war, etc.), before any change is more substantial than the usual three steps forward toward the abyss, one or two steps back.
1. An introduction to game theory can be found here.
2. tz2026, Arcanum is from AD 1880, not 1880 years ago!
Another good post about divorce and the effects on children.
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/goodbye-blue-sky.html
#1 reason for divorce….boredom.
@tz2026
This may be the answer, but there is a generally held misconception that the intent of embracing easy divorce begins and ends with an assumption that divorce will happen either way, so we may as well be pragmatic about it and allow all parties to move on. The reality is there is this huge but unspoken investment in reworking marriage via encouraging wives to threaten divorce. This is why Protestant churches are so eager to look the other way and even encourage women to collect their cash and prizes after divorcing, and why the Catholic church fired up the annulment mill in response to the American explosion in divorces. The threat of wives to divorce must be as the paper calmly explains credible, and therefore divorced women must be rewarded with cash, prizes, and the expectation of remarriage to a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman.
Until/unless we acknowledge the larger aim of “divorce reform”, we can’t begin to address the problem. Bringing the issue to the surface will be very uncomfortable for everyone, but once we do we can sort out those who followed this evil plan without considering it and those who are truly invested in the evil plan.
Another major issue with the wife’s threatpoint is that it encourages, even requires, the husband to generate a threatpoint of his own. This can take the form of the husband engaging in extramarital affairs, overtly or covertly. The husband can also go scorched earth, and threaten to consume the marital assets in a nasty, costly, protracted and contentious divorce.
Or on occasion, men simply commit suicide and refuse to live under draconian alimony and child support orders.
These are the kinds of things that happen when a man decides he has nothing left to lose.
“there is a generally held misconception that the intent of embracing easy divorce begins and ends with an assumption that divorce will happen either way, so we may as well be pragmatic about it and allow all parties to move on. The reality is there is this huge but unspoken investment in reworking marriage via encouraging wives to threaten divorce. This is why Protestant churches are so eager to look the other way and even encourage women to collect their cash and prizes after divorcing, and why the Catholic church fired up the annulment mill in response to the American explosion in divorces.”
The reason for “reworking marriages via encouraging wives to threaten divorce” is grounded on a presumption and false theology that women are “better”, “more moral”, “more family-oriented”, and “more spiritual” than men. There are pervasive notions in American churches that women are the ones who want marriage and families far more than men do; that women are doing most of the work to keep families going; and that a husband’s financial contributions are the only important ones he makes to his family.
The whole thing suffers from the apex fallacy. Society’s laws are written with the erroneous supposition that men are apex-acting males who rampage through life taking what they want.
@Earl, following up on Hawaiian libertarian’s apropos term, maybe we can call eat-don’t-pray-leave women like Ms. Erikson WARWmonger, where WARW is “Women Are Really Wonderful.”
Observe what does happen when the system fails fathers.
“Another major issue with the wife’s threatpoint is that it encourages, even requires, the husband to generate a threatpoint of his own.”
Another response is to mix MGTOW into the marriage by avoiding the acquisition of kids, assets, and other bargaining chips to be used against him in a divorce.
I’d like to point out that your statements are true only for specific definitions of “conservative”.
Fantastic. I wish you would consider a guest post at my place giving your opinion regarding: what do we tell little ones (below say, 15) now?
I suppose some people missed this aspect of divorce as threat….that it ostensibly improves marriage by improving men. I’ve seen it explicitly stated as such at Christian Forums, used by women there as an objection to anything that limited Christian women’s ability to divorce. I cannot speak to the views of secular women. I would assume though that this phenomenon is less overt in secular circles because there, they do not have the church so openly backing the benefit of fixing men. Its a fatalistic view that pastors and Christian leaders may not even realize as fatalistic.
“Yea, its bad men are getting hosed in the courts but dadgummit we keep pouring hot coals on these men and they STILL keep mucking up their marriages. Lets be thankful the legal regime is there is we’d have even worse familial destruction”
Here I’d even go so far as to isolate this to Christian conservative types more so than just conservative types. IOW Id say most Christian conservatives and maybe some conservatives, instead of Christians and conservatives.
Divorce was illegal in Ireland until the late 1990s. It was illegal in Malta until 2 or 3 years ago. Both countries changed due to the influence of political correctness, but neither were the third world hellholes where women are slaves that feminists would have you believe a divorceless country would be.
I’d like to point out that your statements are true only for specific definitions of “conservative”.
I wish this was true. It may be true that NACALT, but thats no more valid an objection than NAWALT is. Its not really a function of the type of conservative. The plague is lose in every variant. In Christian circles, there is not a sect fundamentalist enough to inoculate against this….or, if there are…they are out here enough to actually be cult like, nothing even remotely widely dispersed.
What is said can not be unsaid. Any threat of divorce undermines the marriage as surely as sawing on a log makes it weaker.
“Or on occasion, men simply commit suicide and refuse to live under draconian alimony and child support orders.”
Deti- I wish I had the time to research and write a paper on this (as it relates to divorce laws specifically). The number two (preventable–not static) predictor of suicide behind “prior attempts” is a current/ongoing conflict with significant other.
Dalrock,
Men repond to incentives. The “threatpoint” has gradually been stopping men from marrying. I have noticed this over the last 20+ years.
Looking at the data that you have showed me the age of the first marriage has been steadily increasing. If you really look at the data deeply, the easiest way to understand this is men (although unknowingly) are tending to GTOW. They are afraid of divorce, they should be. They don’t want to marry under threatpoint.
Dalrock wehave kids. We want them married. We want grandkids. We have to find a way to destroy the threatpoint. Or we are all f-cked….
This can take the form of the husband engaging in extramarital affairs, overtly or covertly
That’s not his threatpoint in action, its still hers. This facilitates hers. The financial blowout is perhaps a threatpoint he has, but even that is neutered by family law unless the guy is very crafty. If a guy did this, yes, assets would be depleted, but he would be imputed and on the hook anyway. It leaves suicide as the only real threatpoint, and even THAT works in her favor because she has no empathy for the man or the kids or they wouldnt be in the mass in the first place.
The number two (preventable–not static) predictor of suicide behind “prior attempts” is a current/ongoing conflict with significant other.
Be sure to include that women attempt suicide and it ends up benefiting them, men kill themselves.
@deti,
the game theory the threat point is a multidimensional point, corresponding to the relative payoffs that each (both, for two) of the players get in the absence of cooperation. The total sum of the threat point payoffs is always suboptimal, i.e. some degree of cooperation is required to do better than the threat point. Third party interventions can move the threat point around, but the end result is merely that the rules of the game changed: cooperation would still be required after intervention to get optimal payoffs.
The negative feedback mechanisms and nonlinear payoffs you suggest (exultation in scorched earth retribution, for example) make the optimality of total payoff completely moot. Which is kinda the purpose, I guess. But I think it’s roughly equivalent of a familiar implementation of the sour grapes fallacy: “You can’t fire me because I quit!”
The “social conservative” female superiority view seems steeped in this idea that “women civilize men”. See this post for some background on the idea: http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2013/09/men-civilize-women-not-other-way-around.html
It’s utterly absurd given the results of single motherhood and criminality.
Empath,
I have seen how this threat fails. Woman says she is divorcing dad. Dad says he’ll kill himself. Wife says to husband she doesn’t care but checks the old life insurance policies to make sure that she is still beneficiary.
Dalrock,this is a nice smoking gun. I’ve long suspected that the White Knighting tendencies displayed by far too many conservatives, tradition or social, is rooted in gynocentrism or even gynosupremacy. The former makes sense only in pre-industrial cultures, the latter is simply madness – but it is a result of the equalitarian fallacy.
However, at least some modern Christians and conservatives have adopted this favorable view of destabilizing marriage without truly considering it.
The problem is easy to describe, difficult to solve: demanding that people do more than mouth words, that their actions be in harmony with their words. Talking the talk is not enough, they must walk the walk. Consider how long it takes to convince a single self-labeled “traditional conservative” man online to stop White Knighting in comment boxes. How much longer to persuade him to not do the same in the larger reality, for the frivorcee in his church? How much longer still for him to stop White Knighting for a young, pretty carousel rider?
Now, how much longer still for a 30-something “not haaapy” woman contemplating frivorce?
It’s not trivial, this problem of showing the truth to men who really can’t see it. I know a 50-ish man who is intelligent, has multiple degrees, is a serious churchgoing man who has done some very good statistical analysis on issues totally separate from his work. A published author, in some minor fields. He flatly refuses to believe that frivorce happens. Majority of divorces are filed by women? Must be something their husbands did. High risk of suicide among men being divorced? Must be their guilty conscience, remorseful for what they, the men did. Men in jail due to overly high imputed income? Contemptible “deadbeat dads” who refuse to “do right” by their children. VAWA? Only a wife beater would fear that. Etc.
And if I were to present Jenny Erickson’s writings to him, he’d acknowledge that, well, sure, one bad woman has clearly done wrong, but…NAWALT. Nothing penetrates his air tight assurance that divorce is something bad men cause, and saintly women must persevere through. I don’t know if there’s something in his own family history, or what. But he’s intelligent, socially conservative, active in his church, and cannot be swayed by facts. I’m certain there are many, many more like him out there.
Aquinas Dad
I’d like to point out that your statements are true only for specific definitions of “conservative”.
Sure, NACALT. That’s not a new thought. Get the annullment machine shut down, and it will be easier to take that claim seriously. Until then…not so much.
“The number two (preventable–not static) predictor of suicide behind “prior attempts” is a current/ongoing conflict with significant other.”
Unfortunate but relevant news article to this point from boxing day.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Father-Throw-Son-3-Year-Old-Off-Roof-Death-Manhattan-High-Rise-Plunge-Fall-237141481.html
Notice that they separated in August but father had only seen his son twice since then. Even if there was something unstable about the guy (although mom did allow unsupervised visit), taking away his main reason to live is only going to him more unstable. Default 50/50 custody would have given him hope and a reason to live.
Also seems like reported narcissism/solipsism in the mother. No grief for someone she was married to. No empathy for her son’s loss of life. It’s all about her i.e.:”This was his sick way to take Kirill away from me.”
I wasn’t sure if you’d had a look at this yet Dal:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/marriage-may-not-be-silver-bullet-poverty-study-says-2D11863554
I found it interesting how the ‘study’ presumes women should marry primarily to improve their socioeconomic status as facilitated by the men who ‘happen’ to impregnate them. In fact nowhere in the article or the studies is any concern about men’s interests alluded to. It’s as if all pretense of love or emotional investment in marriage is now useless and it’s been reduced to a contractual agreement with the specific intent of bettering a woman economically.
@Anon Reader
True, but prior to my posts on the topic, have you seen this aspect of the problem addressed? I certainly haven’t. It is difficult to solve when you know it is going on, but impossible to solve if you think the problem is something else. Pointing out the nature of the problem doesn’t make it more difficult to solve, it makes it easier to solve. Basically we have a 40+ year history of trying to solve the wrong problem. Understanding that is a huge breakthrough, even though it doesn’t mean we can expect to immediately turn things around.
“Majority of divorces are filed by women? Must be something their husbands did. High risk of suicide among men being divorced? Must be their guilty conscience, remorseful for what they, the men did. Men in jail due to overly high imputed income? Contemptible “deadbeat dads” who refuse to “do right” by their children. VAWA? Only a wife beater would fear that. Etc.”
“Nothing penetrates his air tight assurance that divorce is something bad men cause, and saintly women must persevere through.”
These are Catechisms 2983.4 and 2983.5 respectively, of all US graduate schools of mental health. I used to have to recite them every morning.
What else is missed, is that by the time the threatpoint is invoked, most woman are already divorced in their minds, never once letting their partner know that they are leaving. Look at Jenny Erikson, she was going to “surprise” her husband! not try to work out the problems. So in reality, their is no threatpoint, just scorched earth.
As an aside, in the early part of my marriage, the wife and I would have some good barn burners, which ultimately ended with her screaming she wanted a divorce. The first couple of times it shook me, but after awhile, it lost its’ power. I would quite often beat her to the punch and calm down and say, “you want a divorce right?” Of course this would drive her to another stratosphere of anger, and the fight would be done. Later I got into the habit of telling her that if we divorced, she would end up doing the same thing, just with a different guy. That life is about overcoming our problems, not running away from them. Don’t really know if this helped but have not heard the D word from her for some years now.
If the primary goal for the men behind the curtain is to make the state ever increasing…the threatpoints aren’t going away until the state in its current form goes away. Even then it will take 2 if not 3 generations to wipe out the brainwashing.
Birth control, abortion, no fault divorce…the unholy trinity. Makes the government much more than any one man can take on.
In case you are wondering if there has been another time in history where women’s unrestrained hypergamy doomed mankind…read this.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206&version=NASB
And what did it take to fix that situation?
IBB
Dalrock wehave kids. We want them married. We want grandkids. We have to find a way to destroy the threatpoint. Or we are all f-cked….
You should be aware that encouraging your daughter to be promsicuous from age 20 to age 25, as you clearly stated in the previous thread, won’t have any beneficial effect on marriage or grandchildren. It should be obvious, but apparently you don’t “do” cause and effect very well.
Empath:
Yes, the husband threatpoints are not very strong. If the purpose is to put the thumbscrews to the wife by saying, in effect, “Comply or I will cheat on you” or “Comply or I will consume the marital assets and shame you to the ends of the earth”, it’s not very potent. But the hope is to put the parties at best into a Mexican standoff.
In a lot of ways it’s shameful men have to even consider generating their own version of a threatpoint. In years past it was a sufficient male threatpoint that a woman would be impoverished and severely shamed for being divorced. Decades ago the only way a woman could get divorced is through adultery, permanent abandonment; or real violent physical abuse.
The male threatpoint requires a man to act immorally by cheating. Or, he must act surreptitiously and craftily by meticulously planning asset placement and ownership. The truly masculine way to do this would be to tell her to shut up and turn her over your knee, Julian O’Dea style. But this is the only way to impose a threatpoint on a rebellious wife in a system which penalizes true masculine conduct.
A man telling his wife to shut up and then threatening “the back of his hand” in the United States would find himself arrested, frogmarched out of his house, and slapped with a restraining order if he even threatened anything like that.
AR,
No sir. You are thinking too deeply on this. It is very simple.
The White Knighting support for threatpoint on the part of conservatives (conservative men specifically) is in the fundamental belief that their daughters might marry a f-cking @sshole that beats their daughters to near death. That is the ROOT of the White Kinght support of threatpoint, the conservative support of no-fault-divorce. She can get out at ANY MOMENT, no muss, no fuss.
Dads assume that any young man that will marry his daughter, that guy is an abuser. With threatpoint, conservative dads are more confident that their daughters have more leverage to keep the abusive @sshole in check.
It has nothing to do with gynocentrism or even gynosupremacy. It has to do with distrust of young men. I will note as a father of daughter(s), I do not share in this distrustful thinking. I just understand it. So don’t fly off the handle.
I want threatpoint GONE. If you want threatpoint gone (if the manosphere wants it gone) the only way you are going to get conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Bill OReily on your side (for them to start affecting public opinion which in turn affects politics which in turn affects the laws), is to make the dads of daughters who ASSUME THE WORST of other men to stop assuming that. Good luck with that one.
Consider how long it takes to convince a single self-labeled “traditional conservative” man online to stop White Knighting in comment boxes.
Ah, the reverse problem. There can be an over reaction as well that alienates natural allies. My user name was conservativation when I first posted here and it didn’t matter what I said there were certain posters that would not relent hat i was a white knight. My views have not changed. I was and am strident. So I would backpedal a little when I say sure NACALT is not a sufficient defense at all, and that no brand of conservative is immune, but purely unscientifically I THINK NACALT is empirically better than NAWALT.
The third party interventions (e.g. the state via laws etc) mean that there is another player in the game, and therefore there is some kind of payoff for that player. The game has opened up. Can the third party be forced into cooperating with both, or rather one of the two players (e.g. husband), especially if its actions have been exclusively cooperating with the other (e.g. wife)? What is the appropriate combining of the third-party payoff with the other two players’ payoff? The tax decrease of mgtow is, clearly, one aspect previously discussed. Can a fourth party be yoked into the game as a countermeasure? What is an example of a fourth party? Is it another state?
Jf:
“The negative feedback mechanisms and nonlinear payoffs you suggest (exultation in scorched earth retribution, for example) make the optimality of total payoff completely moot.”
It’s not exultation, and it’s not retribution per se. Scorched earth capitalizes on deprivation of resources, and shame. Scorched earth essentially says there won’t be anything to divide when the dust settles because the lawyers will take it all. It says “If you’re going to take me down financially, we’re all going down, including you and the kids. If I will live in poverty and lack; then we all will. I will attempt expatriation.”
It capitalizes on two things women hate: Shame and judgment. It says “I’ll publicize far and wide your infidelities, failures and cruelties; I’ll hold your feet to the fire at church and lobby for your excommunication and public shaming.” This last part of course relies on a woman feeling shame; which seems to be diminishing of late.
It’s about applying pressure; not about revenge fantasies.
Dalrock
True, but prior to my posts on the topic, have you seen this aspect of the problem addressed? I certainly haven’t. It is difficult to solve when you know it is going on, but impossible to solve if you think the problem is something else.
I completely agree with this. The first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge it exists, and as you’ve amply documented for far too many people both in and out of churches, the “problem” is that “men need fixing”. I’m merely observing that even a man of above average intelligence, who is an abstract thinker capable of doing independent research, can be impervious to facts. There is, it appears, an emotional investment in the underlying premise of “good” women and “bad” men that cannot be swayed by reason, logic, facts, etc. and I suspect that a theological appeal would quickly run down any of several rabbit trails consisting of “Oh, that translation / interpretation / reading is not the proper one”. A meta-argument over how to interpret Ephesians 5 or 1 Peter 3 would just prolong things even more.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m saying we should choose carefully who to have this discussion with. Recall how Joeseph of Jackson got thrown out of his church? I think it likely the same would happen if that church’s leadership were challenged on the topic of divorce & its effects.
IBB
is in the fundamental belief that their daughters might marry a f-cking @sshole that beats their daughters to near death. That is the ROOT of the White Kinght support of threatpoint, the conservative support of no-fault-divorce. She can get out at ANY MOMENT, no muss, no fuss.
No sir. That he has a daughter may add to it, but in no possible way is it limited or even correlated to having daughters….for Christian men. Its a twisted scriptural view that informs them, not concern for any particular woman. Its evangelical feminism in men….period.
@IBB
You are switching between the claimed support of no fault divorce and the more insidious one. You start with:
This is fundamentally different than what you very quickly follow on with:
Stevenson and Wolfers explain the distinction in their paper on the topic:
This isn’t about protecting daughters from abusive husbands, it is about making it safe for daughters to marry the abusive man who gives her the tingles.
there WERE, not WAS….my Appalachian vernacular came out in my post above
This isn’t about protecting daughters from abusive husbands, it is about making it safe for daughters to marry the abusive man who gives her the tingles.
Eh, maybe yes, but not for daughters….for women in general. They ought to be FREE to choose, and we, the church, the law, social norms, etc will keep the guardrails in place. Abusive thugs get reformed….see, win win.
It seems most people are scared of human nature…both the conservatives and liberals. Bad things happen…sometimes it might be to your daughter (never mind the fact she might have brought it upon herself)
So as a knee jerk reaction no fault was put into place. So for the small chance of a bad thing happening such as abuse…a much larger likelihood of something worse is happening where women divorce men for any old reason.
IBB
The White Knighting support for threatpoint on the part of conservatives (conservative men specifically) is in the fundamental belief that their daughters might marry a f-cking @sshole that beats their daughters to near death. That is the ROOT of the White Kinght support of threatpoint, the conservative support of no-fault-divorce. She can get out at ANY MOMENT, no muss, no fuss.
Nah, it’s far more than that. It’s an entire mindset of “men bad, women good”, and it is indeed gynocentric (women as the most important part of society) at the very least. It’s the kind of mindset that says, oh, things like this:
That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)
Yeah. That’s a good example, right there, of gynocentrism. More choices for young women, followed by more responsibilities (implied “man up and marry that slut!”) for men.
It’s about applying pressure
If it worked for you, great. I would not recommend it. You give a woman way too much credit assuming that threat will get through to her.
Ive shared before, when i was embroiled in the divorce (that never happened ultimately), I was worse than broke, but owned some businesses that would eventually have big equity, land, buildings, etc. The wife could not get her mind around that. I recall sitting at the first mediation about 11 years ago, they had hired a forensic accountant. The very first comment her lawyer made as we were seated was golden. She tapped the pile of papers that were the accounting report and said, “well….looks like we picked a bad time to divorce this man” All this info was plain, black and white, it took a lawyer and a forensic accountant to even scratch the surface of her stubborn view that it would all be fine.
It was worth being broke to see that.
Dalrock,
The problem is, those aren’t too separate things. You are making the wrong assumption that dad KNOWS if the boy is or isn’t an @sshole before he marries her!
The White Knighting support for threatpoint on the part of conservatives (conservative men specifically) is in the fundamental belief that their daughters might marry a f-cking @sshole that beats their daughters to near death. The fact that he is or isn’t an @sshole is not something that dad knows just yet. He hasn’t hit his daughter yet. All dad knows is that daughter gets gina and butt tingles when she is around him. He has beaten her yet….
….BUT the White Knighting conservative dad still wants threatpoint just incase HE DOES.
@deti,
One player’s signaling of intent to reduce total payoff cannot produce any pressure to cooperate unless the other player believes that the one player is getting something out of it. Hence, inevitably, for there to be the pressure that you posit, then the other player must be made to believe that the scorched earth player IS going to be exulting, or some other kind of positive payoff for that player.
In a nutshell:
The situation is the wife can break all her vows, but the husband is still on the hook as if the marriage was still intact.
Currently “no-fault” divorce is kick the man out with just the clothes on his back and turns him into a debt slave.
So….we need more male-centric incentives.
“The problem is, those aren’t too separate things. You are making the wrong assumption that dad KNOWS if the boy is or isn’t an @sshole before he marries her!”
This is problem to be solved at the front end, (hint, hint–courtship) not after the fact.
“It says “I’ll publicize far and wide your infidelities, failures and cruelties; I’ll hold your feet to the fire at church and lobby for your excommunication and public shaming.” This last part of course relies on a woman feeling shame; which seems to be diminishing of late. ”
Their lack of discretion when it comes to your business has diminished completely. Men still seem to want to protect ladies from their terrible attributes. That needs to stop…because the threat of exposing her is a good weapon to have.
All’s fair in love and war…she want to reveal my sins, then she loses discretion rights and I’m going to reveal hers.
The “cash and prizes” of divorce are a part of socialism/statism alongside other expropriation of the productive class’s (i.e., men’s) output and assets for “welfare” purposes that overwhelmingly benefit single women with children. This also feeds into the “charity” orientation of traditional and Christian conservatives, which makes it extremely deep-seated as it is one of the few places where both conservatives and liberals agree in effect, if not in details.
There will be no major overhaul of this threat point redistribution as long as socialism/statism is in effect. The only solution is to starve the beast and its parasites until they feel enough pain to force a change or wither and die from lack of sustenance.
IBB you may be foisting your own mental tug-a-war about daughters onto everyone else here. Dalrock’s comment in no way implied that the man had foreknowledge of her having an abusive boyfriend or particular risk of meeting one. Its a general thing, it permeates the collective church, ask men of any age, with kids or without, married, divorced or single, the vast majority share this belief that women need the right to “not get stuck in a bad marriage”….and they don’t even mean beatings, they will come up with anything to rationalize their own daughters divorce when she needs it. That doesn’t set their attitude in general conversation.
Ive written of a family member (female 31 years old) who divorced her husband and took off with a 19 year old airman and married him immediately. The narrative is that the husband was abusive because he worked too much. They never had that thought at all until the girl decided to bolt. They are trad con Christians and would defend ANY woman’s right to escape a bad marriage.
Earl
It seems most people are scared of human nature…both the conservatives and liberals. Bad things happen…sometimes it might be to your daughter (never mind the fact she might have brought it upon herself)
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is a denial that human nature even exists. The “blank slate” notion, that genes play no role in human behavior at all, only experience matters. The extreme “nurture” side of the “nature vs. nurture” debate. There are people posting here who probably believe in the “blank slate”.
So if one believes in blank slateism, then surely men and women are totally interchangeable, and there’s no problem that can’t be fixed with enough sessions on a therapy couch coupled with finely tuned psychotropic drugs…oh, look, it’s the modern world.
I don’t really know what the debate was like back in the 60’s leading up to Ronald Reagan’s signing of the first men’s-fault divorce law in 1969. Maybe it was Hollywood and financial elites arguing for amicable divorce,with an undercurrent of “choice”. Maybe it was all about “freeing” women from oppressive life, from the “problem with no name”. I do recall the “loveless marriage” defense from the 1980’s, usually from cultural liberals; how awful to make people remain together when their love is gone, etc. for some Hollywood definition of “love”.
I’m pretty sure that whatever benefits were predicted for men’s-fault divorce back in those days have not yet shown up, and likely aren’t going to appear. The terrible effects of divorce are all around us, yet outside of a few sites like this one, polite society tiptoes around the mess, pretending either it doesn’t exist, or it “just happened”, like some meteorite fell from the sky and started rolling around, blowing up marriages.
@C.P.
“Another response is to mix MGTOW into the marriage by avoiding the acquisition of kids, assets, and other bargaining chips to be used against him in a divorce.”
I do think there are elements of that being baked-in by some men, though like most of these things it is likely limited to men with options. The problem with this approach is that without kids, mutual assets (even synergy in terms of cost-of-living, buying power, economic “security” – assuming that w/o kids she is fully employed) as a “benefit” of marriage , it begs the question: why bother getting married? The only remaining value in marriage is for children.
As discussed over at Hawaiian Libertarian, divorce is War. And my take is that people work backward from divorce in terms of how marriage is vested in their hearts and minds. The threatpoint for women is their own baked-in finger-on-the-button, backed by the State. Sure, men can attempt at a M.A.D. posture as well, but we can see that this kind of arms race is merely propagating the same war that is divorce, only in smaller moves, more subtle measures, and slower pace. Marriage is the cold war phase, fought through those proxy power struggles and other disruptions spawned from resting the finger for too long on such a powerful weapon. All while “society” tickles her hypergamy and solipsism – telling her how happy and entertained she should be…
I agree with IBB above, the male threatpoint has moved even further back from the divorce war. And wisely so. The male position is: why enter a war you have already lost, aka don’t fight a war you can’t win. The male threatppoint “victory”, essentially scuttling the ship, is hardly worth it. The real threat is one of withdrawal. Its largely a resource (economic) war, so if the man refuses to enter the field with his assets (present and future), there are no spoils of war, the threatpoint is null.
The problem is most men still want children – and wives, really. So this is only relevant on the margins, but those margins can move the needle once enough of the UMC college girls run through the wall w/o the status of the husband. But I’m not so optimistic. If husbands stop showing up, the message (the State) will merely find new ways to devalue them, the position of husband. OOW births will continue to rise, continue to erode fatherhood as something other than just biology. Women will have kids with or without the man once they get the new message that it is ok – empowering, honorable to have kids as an unmarried, professional woman. The tide rises from beneath.
I think the real change can only happen through greater pain than that. And as Dalrock points out, the threatpoint, the mechanisms, weaponry and politics of that cold war of marriage are “normal”, in fact preferred. It will take a massive battle of attrition on both sides before it unwinds. It is perhaps good news that it has begun already, so now it is just a matter of, how long?
PS. Never fight a land war in Asia.
@Anon Reader
Excellent.
Yes. We won’t be able to get through to all, or perhaps even most. These ideas are deeply held, and there is a long history of denial getting in the way. Understanding the issue being denied makes it easier for us to try to get past the denial, to bring it to the surface for examination, but there are no guarantees here. Also, the risks are real. When people are so emotionally invested in something approaching them with logic tends to result in them lashing out against you personally. The better your logic and the more absurd their emotional position, the more this tends to be the case.
I just don’t want to lose sight of the positive aspect of this. Now we will be better prepared to engage in the exchange (or know when to exercise the better part of valor), because we understand enough about what is very often driving the other side. The real discussion is not about divorce (because of course they hate it being as pro marriage as they are), but about headship and the use of threatened divorce to overturn it.
Our strength is logic and the facts, while theirs is emotion and denial. In order to get to a position to bring our strengths to bear we have to be ready to carefully smoke out their emotion past the denial. We need to start with psychology to get to where we can switch to reason. We also need to be prepared to allow them to move to reason without succumbing to the temptation to punish them for their previously irrational position once they acknowledge it as such.
Until/unless we acknowledge the larger aim of “divorce reform”, we can’t begin to address the problem. Bringing the issue to the surface will be very uncomfortable for everyone, but once we do we can sort out those who followed this evil plan without considering it and those who are truly invested in the evil plan.
So it appears there may be two dominant motives, and three basic reasons that people support this travesty. One reason is because they believe women are basically good and men are basically bad, another because of the revenue it generates for the system and/or the women, and another due to both reasons sighted above,
It also appears that many just accept female empowerment as the norm with out truly understanding the feminist imperative or the money involved and see nothing wrong at all in spite of the world crumbling around them.
If anything the belief is that women have the right to be haaaapy. Not to avoid beatings….but simply to be haaaapy. Nothing makes tradcon christian men squirm like an unhaaaapy woman.
They can fill in the blanks later, making it abuse, adultery in the mind because he used to take the bra section of the paper to the bathroom like Ben Stiller did to prepare for his date with whatshername, and that’s porn dontcha know, he controlled the TV remote too much, he didn’t listen enough, whatever.
I cannot believe you would assign such a narrow and extreme cause to such a widespread opinion issue.
Yep. Follow the money.
Hey Scott,
Explain very EXACTLY how “courtship” (hint-hint) can bless out a would be domestic violence head case who hasn’t harmed a woman in his life BEFORE he gets to marry said woman? I would love to hear this. Because that is what conservative fathers are going to want.
I am just trying to play devil’s advocate. I don’t believe for one second that all men are abusers. That is silly. I just understand why conservative men get behind threatpoint. If we want it gone (and I want it gone) we have to provide a very full-proof method of making sure that their daughters KNOW (for sure) before she marries a man that he will not hit her, if we want government to take away the threatpoint of no-fault-divorce. That is what needs to happen.
@Denihilist,
Agree & Amplify really works, right? I’m a-larnin’.
IBB, if anything its women who go to the ridiculous extreme case of physical abuse when they defend no fault divorce. If a man takes that tact, he got the idea from a woman and is following her lead mindlessly. he is not logically invested in the idea. Even trad con Christian men will, under the right circumstances, agree that using the extreme of beating is fallacious.
we have to provide a very full-proof method of making sure that their daughters KNOW (for sure) before she marries a man that he will not hit her, if we want government to take away the threatpoint of no-fault-divorce. That is what needs to happen.
Um, gee, well, how about raising your daughters not to be shrews that make their men want to hit them? That and letting son-in-laws know very clearly that there will be hell to pay, country style, if they raised their hands against their wives seemed to work fairly well for a few millenia or so.
Re: devil’s advocate. I don’t believe it. I do not believe fathers have moved from the previous default position of enforcers of shotgun marriage to some current position of enforcers of shotgun divorce. I think the whole problem is that fathers do not currently get to enforce anything.
Hmm. The certainty of zero total payoff may be the only way to truly incorporate outcome independence in game theory. But again, making a game moot for only one player does not eliminate payoffs for other players.
@IBB
“If we want it gone (and I want it gone) we have to provide a very full-proof method of making sure that their daughters KNOW (for sure) before she marries a man that he will not hit her, if we want government to take away the threatpoint of no-fault-divorce. That is what needs to happen.”
Who is really going to argue that no-fault divorce is required to get a woman out of a violent marriage? Divorce in that situation was always possible under at-fault divorce, was it not? Failing divorce, the man (or woman) doing the abusing would be in jail.
Empath,
Correct. Vagina monologues.
Yes perhaps.
That is possibly valid. AR is right when he said it is this men = bad, women = good, thinking that needs to change.
Hm, if women want and need such a threat point, marriage is not want they want. They want a slave.
Women choose abusive men, again and again and again. This threat point doesn’t work against abusive men, it works against good, hard working betas. It is therefore noted that women only have such a threat point if the husband’s have something to lose, i.e. wealth, children or reputation. However, I really don’t get how such a thing can be said to be ‘fair’ by the promoters of such a ‘threat point’. Such as threat point allows the woman unilateral power to literally use the State resources to screw a man out of everything. No man can actually fight or protect himself from that. You haven’t given her a ‘threat point’, you’ve given her complete and utter power. Such power is only found in master/slave relationships.
Draggin,
Yes and no.
Prior to no-fault-divorce, the occasional slap (by him or her) against the spouse, was not sufficent grounds for divorce. It was subjective. It was up to the judge to grant the divorce. Many judges were reluctant to do so with a single “slap.” In some cases, if you wanted an “at-fault” divorce, you had to show that one party was in jeapordy of certain death from domestic abuse, like repeated visits to the hospital.
Now, it really isn’t up to the judge, not with a no-fault-divorce LAW. It is objective. The law is the law. He just presides over the divorce and settles alimony/child support if one party wants out for any reason (or no reason.) That reason could be a single slap. And most dads of daughters would agree, they don’t feel their daughters are ever deserving of that slap from anyone (least of all, her husband.)
No-fault-divorce law and its threatpoint turned something subjective into something objective.
@BC
“That and letting son-in-laws know very clearly that there will be hell to pay, country style, if they raised their hands against their wives seemed to work fairly well for a few millenia or so.”
My wife is a Filipina. She told me that when she grew up in the Philippines, wife abuse was pretty rare. Most Filipinas come from fairly large extended families. If a husband beat his wife, her father, brothers, cousins, etc. would come and beat the crap out of him. Even the husband’s family didn’t raise a fuss about it because it was understood that wife abuse wasn’t tolerated or excused. That’s just the way things were. Personally, I find that civilized.
Dalrock
We also need to be prepared to allow them to move to reason without succumbing to the temptation to punish them for their previously irrational position once they acknowledge it as such.
Aw, nuts. You had to go and point that out. Spoilsport…
The only true reform is to revoke no-fault divorce. Any accusations of infidelity or physical abuse should have to be proven to the same degree as criminal assault. In my area, at least from what I have seen, if the wife is unfaithful, photographic evidence of the act is required, even if she plans to marry the other guy right after her divorce is final, and the judge knows it. In one case that I am aware, the judge apologized to the unfaithful wife for delaying the divorce finalization because she had planned to marry her boyfriend immediately following. This was done in front of the husband, who was losing custody of one of his children and only left with the clothes on his back.
If no proof can be made, then, no divorce, no cash and prizes. Husband still has access to the home and children as much as the wife. Assets still belong to him as much as the wife under the laws of the state. No marrying the boyfriend or girlfriend, as the case may be.
As it stands now, divorce for a woman is akin to saying, “I am not happy with the debt that I owe on my house, and therefore, I want out of the contract to pay off the house. But I get to keep the house.”
IBB, women slap men all the time. Continual abuse was a requirement of ‘fault’ divorce because most people can slap anyone after being provoked. ‘Fault’ divorce is the only fair measure, everything else is a farce. Marriage is a farce, the whole world is currently a farce, it’s upside down, left is right. It’s a massive con game from beginning to end.
The financial blowout is perhaps a threatpoint he has, but even that is neutered by family law unless the guy is very crafty. If a guy did this, yes, assets would be depleted, but he would be imputed and on the hook anyway.
Don’t forget the “going Galt” (a.k.a. “going ghost”) option.
Granted, this is, for all practical purposes, one step below committing suicide. It is a man’s act of simply walking away from everything – his wife, his job, his home, all of his possessions except what he can carry, even his children. He makes himself a nomad, an outcast, a rootless wanderer, living a hand-to-mouth existence. While one could justifiably call it “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face,” for many men it is the lesser of three evil alternatives (the other two being living as a gelded slave under Pax Feminista or taking his own life).
Larry,
That is the way it should be. That is the way it was here in the United States when the church had more power.
No lawyers.
No police.
No judges.
No divorce.
No loss of kids.
No loss of employment.
But we want to believe that in the first world, that we are more sophisticated than the Philipenes and that our ways provide a more comprehensive set of protections for women that the family and the church never could.
Why? They’ve used and continue to use, with full knowledge, a threat point that can only be described as beyond the pale of human decency. It would be the same us giving the man ultimate power to do as he pleases and if the wife misspeaks, abuse her, rape her and then throw her to the curb or kill her.
For heaven’s sake Dalrock, these policies lead to men killing themselves, being imprisoned with no recourse, their children are alienated from them and the children’s lives ultimately ruined by not having a loving father. You really want to let them just go…
Slave, ghost, or death…as options in a divorce.
I’d argue those are the three options EVERY man has in this life. Thank goodness for an afterlife…otherwise this would be a pitiful existence.
“Another response is to mix MGTOW into the marriage by avoiding the acquisition of kids, assets, and other bargaining chips to be used against him in a divorce.”
I do think there are elements of that being baked-in by some men, though like most of these things it is likely limited to men with options. The problem with this approach is that without kids, mutual assets (even synergy in terms of cost-of-living, buying power, economic “security” – assuming that w/o kids she is fully employed) as a “benefit” of marriage , it begs the question: why bother getting married? The only remaining value in marriage is for children.
Indeed. But your train of thought assumes the man was red pill prior to marriage, and made an informed choice. A man that marries while blue pill may become red pill aware as the marriage deteriorates and he casts a wider and wider net for answers to what’s going on.
But even if he’s blue pill, that isn’t quite the same thing as stupid. When a blue pill husband realizes the marriage is in trouble, and is lucky enough not to have already have put up the cash and prizes for his wife to claim, he’s may realize it’s not in his best interest to provide them. It’s obvious to blue pills (or it was to me) that women are provided incentive to divorce. What blue pills don’t understand (or at least, I didn’t) was what the incentives were for women to stay married.
So, when a man changes from blue pill to red pill while married, and his wife is unwilling to submit to him, MGTOW is likely to be part of his response.
“The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay. Giving wives authority over their husbands is seen as not just good for the wife herself, but for the family and society as a whole.”
Well see, the institution of monogamous marriage itself is a threat: have sex with only me for life or else I am going to leave and you will face societal as well as spiritual damnation. You cannot divorce threat from marriage because that is precisely what the institution was created to be – for both parties. Libertarians see it as similar to taxes.
And you shouldn’t make any distinction between conservatives and feminists. They are not separate groups but overlapping ones. There are many conservative feminists and feministic conservatives. In fact the original feminist movement was comprised of extremely proper, socially conservative ladies.
@IBB: “No-fault-divorce law and its threatpoint turned something subjective into something objective.”
I think you meant to say that no-fault-divorce law and its threatpoint turned something subjective into something “automatic”
Granting a divorce is not objective anymore at all. The reasons women (and men) give as grounds for no-fault divorce no longer need to be based in fact and logic. Otherwise, we would not have coined the term frivorce.
feministhater covered the abuse requirement point. Judges would not grant divorce on one slap because they knew it was not in the family’s or society’s best interest to do so and that the consequences of divorce were much greater than a single slap delivered for whatever reason. The judge probably objectively weighed the evidence and decided someone was better off taking the slap rather than the decrease in lifestyle that divorce would bring. That is the objective (rational) long-term decision rather than the subjective (emotional) short-term decision.
Don’t forget, the laws are written gender neutral and so can be a detriment to your daughter as well. If she is the one that gives one slap to her husband, she could find herself under a restraining order and divorced. Men are waking up and using the system the way women have. Black knighting is on the rise, especially as fathers learn what they need to do to be able to see their kids post-divorce.
Anonymous Reader,
Use of an acronym does not invalidate a point.
IBB’s basic point — that support for this is based on a protective impulse of fathers vis-a-vis their daughters — is correct, whether that is primarily based on physical abuse threats or other more general “wanting my princess to be happy” type of thing. The same reason underlies the ubiquitous support for the current life script of college -> work -> grad/travel -> work some more -> marry late 20s/around 30. It’s protective, as in “what is she going to do if no man comes along” or “what if she finds herself divorced and needs to support herself and her children” type of thing. It all flows from paternal desires to protect. It’s only natural that men would prefer their own kin blood daughters to the mass of men — that, in my view, is the fundamental principle that has always been the strongest driver of support by men for *some* of feminism (i.e., no-fault, c/s regime, VAWA, education/career/travel, etc.).
Draggin,
Agreed.
This is perfect, (emphasis on the most perfect part, mine.)
Thank you Novaseeker. This more than anything most perfectly describes my dislike of MGTOW.
What does your daughter do if no man comes along? There is nothing red pill or blue pill about that, now is there dads?
Manospherian dads of daughters are torn. We ate the red pill and understand (perfectly) MGTOW. We totally get it. Laws in this country suck for men. But if we have daughters, we hate MGTOW. I want grandkids. I’m greedy. And I don’t want to Enjoy the Decline.
It is all based on the greatest happiness principle. Some people marry and stay married, but some are divorced, and thus get another chance at happiness. Of those divorced and remarried, some are happy and remain married, whilst others divorce – and so it goes on. The interest of any children always come second to the principle of whether the couple are happy.
What the proponents of the 1973 Divorce Reform Act (in England) failed to appreciate was that women are hypergamous; that overall, unhappy marriages become happy; and that men by reason of the fact that they are men do not tend to abandon their wives no matter how tiresome their wives may be (the worst they do is play away).
The trouble with Benthamite liberalism is that men are not the same as women, yet the liberal can never see any difference between any two things no matter how disparate. I have to say that Christians seemed to understand human nature far better than modern secularists.
“What does your daughter do if no man comes along? There is nothing red pill or blue pill about that, now is there dads?”
Is that fear I sense? Perhaps your daughters could be feminine….that would put them above their peers easily.
“Manospherian dads of daughters are torn. We ate the red pill and understand (perfectly) MGTOW. We totally get it. Laws in this country suck for men.But if we have daughters, we hate MGTOW. I want grandkids. I’m greedy. And I don’t want to Enjoy the Decline.”
As somebody one said….Quit taking things personally, it isn’t all about you.
Sucks for your daughters…but I’m sure they’ll find somebody they can take to the cleaners once the boredom sets in.
As somebody one said….Quit taking things personally, it isn’t all about you.
NAWALT
Aquinas Dad
Anonymous Reader,
Use of an acronym does not invalidate a point.
“Some” and “all” are not synonyms. Your “point” has been trotted out before and found wanting.
Again I say, shut down the annulment machine, then you’ll have a more valid point. For now, 30% of Roman Catholic marriages end in divorce, and $500 plus shopping for the right bishop enables a woman to remarry. Don’t complain to me about these facts, take it up with your church. If you dare.
IBB
This more than anything most perfectly describes my dislike of MGTOW.
Well, sure, because it might limit your daughter’s “right” to have whatever she wants. And that’s what Western civilization is all about, isn’t it? Giving women what they want, when they want it.
What does your daughter do if no man comes along? There is nothing red pill or blue pill about that, now is there dads?
To you, I’m sure there is no difference. Other men likely don’t see it that way.
Manospherian dads of daughters are torn. We ate the red pill and understand (perfectly) MGTOW. We totally get it. Laws in this country suck for men.
No, you don’t understand MGTOW, if you did then you would not hate it. You are torn likely because you want to keep as much “blue pill” around as makes you comfortable. That means you are still processing the truth.
But if we have daughters, we hate MGTOW. I want grandkids. I’m greedy. And I don’t want to Enjoy the Decline.
So tell your daughter to be as big a slut as she wants to be, and that you’ll always be ready to raise any bastard children she has. There, now, all your problems can be solved, if you think about it.
Still have that problem with cause and effect, IBB. I wonder why that is?
I have 5 sons and the oldest, at least, wants to marry young and start a family early. And I certainly don’t want any of them to become grass eaters regardless of their marital plans.
Traditional courtship and engagement was designed to dodge a lot of these bullets….
“What does your daughter do if no man comes along?”
I’ll tell you…but you probably already are aware of this…
Daddy gets to foot the bill on them for the rest of their lives…either the physical one or the government.
“what is she going to do if no man comes along”
3 choices:
1. Cock carousel
2. Lesbianism
3. Celibacy
Now by cc that doesn’t mean a different man every weekend, but a new relationship every 3-4 years. Serial monogamy. Women are not opposed to this and in fact see it as ideal. Not a shabby deal for men either as we get our variety fix spaced out over time.
Aquinas Dad
I have 5 sons and the oldest, at least, wants to marry young and start a family early.
And how many daughters?
1. Cock carousel
2. Lesbianism
3. Celibacy
Heh…slave, death, or ghost…just like men.
“But if we have daughters, we hate MGTOW.”
You hate MGTOW only if high quality potential sons-in-law go their own way. You love MGTOW if unattractive losers and slackers are going their own way.
Opus
The trouble with Benthamite liberalism is that men are not the same as women, yet the liberal can never see any difference between any two things no matter how disparate.
Yes, very much. This goes further than utilitarianism, though, it’s embedded into some schools of psychology (IMO “behaviorism” is one example, but I could be wrong), clearly in the US it’s well entrenched in K-12 schooling, and so forth, and so on.
Proposing reality – that men and women are different in many real, tangible, discernible ways – is rather like suggesting heliocentrism 500 years ago, so far as many “liberal minded” folk are concerned. It’s “hate speech” in some quarters…
Anonymous Reader,
My wife and I only have sons
AR,
The difference between your posts and Novaseeker’s posts (interpretting my posts), are legion.
Let me clue you in on something, I have absolutely no idea if Novaseeker admires or dislikes my points. All I know is that Novaseeker understands them. Novaseeker described them properly in very few words. That is good dialogue.
You (OTOH) I don’t think you understand the points I am making. I try to stay on topic. And you attack my family. I assume it is because you are hurting. If that is the case, you have my sympathies. What I will not do is get down into the mud with you.
Let me try and put this as clearly as possible: we want society to eat red pills. We want society to see the world for what it is and see the damage that has been done to it by way of feminism. We don’t even begin to get to that point until we understand (fully) why people continue to chew on blue pills. This isn’t me against you AR. We have a common enemy and it is feminsm. But if you want to beat the otherside, you must first understand them (understand what motivates them) and redirect that. You are not going to accomplish that by suggesting that my children breed bastards. YMMV.
Nothing makes tradcon christian men squirm like an unhaaaapy woman.
If anything the belief is that women have the right to be haaaapy
Yes, I over looked this and probably more.
I cannot believe you would assign such a narrow and extreme cause to such a widespread opinion issue.
No, I’m still working this out from the point of view of the post, which I agree with.
And there is still the feminist motive:
To obtain the perceived best for women (themselves) at the expense of everyone else. I don’t think secular feminists really care if women are happy.
“the current life script of college -> work -> grad/travel -> work some more -> marry late 20s/around 30. It’s protective, as in “what is she going to do if no man comes along” or “what if she finds herself divorced and needs to support herself and her children” type of thing.”
I believe you are correct in that they “feel” they are protecting their daughter in this way, but
all they are really doing is laying the foundation for WGTOW (women going their own way) as their default position. They are gravely increasing the risk that their daughter will ride the cock carousel until the inevitable catter walling occurs. What father, knowing the risks and consequences, really thinks that this is best for their daughter? This is not protection; it is abdication of their responsibility of teaching their daughter to do a good job of mate selection and being a good wife.
Doesn’t the increasing age of marriage for women as advocated by fathers and society indicate that they unconsciously realize that marriage since no-fault divorce is actually riskier for women now? Assume that fathers want their daughters to gain the long-term benefits of marriage. If they felt they needed no-fault divorce to reduce the risk, then we should have seen the age at marriage decrease as the risk of being stuck in a “wrong choice” marriage went down. After all, if the benefit now comes at lower cost, then the decision to gain the benefit should logically come sooner rather than later.
I’m guessing that fathers are afraid that they have not done a good enough job in teaching their daughters, partially because they lack authority these days and are afraid that most ways of promoting good decision making as discussed in the manosphere are seen as controlling by everyone else. These fathers are therefore encouraging their daughters to defer the decision making/risk taking of marriage to assuage their own guilt of inadequate teaching and judgement. This also allows them to ultimately pass the responsibility of the daughter’s lack of knowledge and poor choices onto the daughter herself.
” If we want it gone (and I want it gone) we have to provide a very full-proof method of making sure that their daughters KNOW (for sure) before she marries a man that he will not hit her”
If fool-proof is the standard, than it is an unreasonable one “conservative” dads have. They are acting like women, who believe there is a risk-free world to be had with just the right amount of controls and laws.
Empathalogism,
“Nothing makes tradcon christian men squirm like an unhaaaapy woman”
I disagree. I would agree with,
“Nothing makes some men squirm like a complaining woman”
IBB wails:
what is she going to do if no man comes along
That’s a curiously passive way to think of the issue. I assume that you’ve read this site’s previous postings, and that you are aware of Dalrock’s well reasoned argument to the effect of : “IF a man or woman wants to get married, THEN they should make the search for a mate their top priority”.
If you truly want your daughter to be married, IBB, then you need to be aware of the differences between men and women. I think you have a real problem with this. You do not seem to fully grasp that a degree, career track, 5 years of “experience” and so forth are not what marriage minded men look for in a wife. Perhaps you should spend some time reading Elspeth’s site and SSM’s site, also grerps site, in order to come to some understanding of what a good wife can look like, and then extract a few key lessons that you can provide to your daughter.
From what I see, a 20 year old woman who has never been sexed, who can cook basic meals, who can do basic jobs of work that need to be done without grumbling too much, who are not contentious (i.e. do not pick fights nor yell at other family members) and who presents herself to the world in a feminine manner – that woman should not have to look very long to find a man willing to marry her.
I note that you have never, ever suggested any of the above as “pluses” for women. Instead, you seem to be wedded to the standard modern narrative that Deti described. Why is that?
@innocentbystanderboston: pushing that protective script on your daughters is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By taking precautions “in case no man comes along”, you’re effectively decreasing the chances of a man coming along and putting a ring on it. Our ancestors have figured out the solution: a) marry her young b) to a person you approve of. But that of course is prioritizing her long-term happiness over her short-term whims, and that’s how the threatpoint came to be. It’s useless to hate on MGTOW just as it is useless to hate on feminist academics who would want to make your daughters miserable. The culprits are *male* legislators who allowed it to pass, which is just a facet of them handing control over to the whims of women. The end result is that, unfortunately, it is only through the current and next generation of women suffering though celibacy and childlessness that the system has any hope at changing. You want grandkids, so did the generations of men before you, and that’s exactly why we are where we are now. And MGTOW also want kids, just not at the expense of their life and freedom.
Aquinas Dad
Anonymous Reader,
My wife and I only have sons
Ah.
Then, with no disrespect intended, you do not see the world quite the same way that others do, such as IBB and others with daughters. Nor do you see the world the same way Earl does, despite being co-religionists, because you aren’t single and 30-something.
Frankly, I hope that neither you nor your sons ever do come to see the world the way some men do – frivorce is not limited to the Protestant or secular men, you know.
IBB, you got some ‘splainin to do:
Here’s the results of the Gender Analyzer on IBB’s blog: “We guess http://innocentbystandersblog.wordpress.com/ is written by a woman (59%), however it’s quite gender neutral.”
Here’s the results of a couple of comments on this thread, run through the Gender Guesser:
Genre: Informal
Female = 1017
Male = 817
Difference = -200; 44.54%
Verdict: Weak FEMALE
You’re trying really hard to write as if you are a man, but you just can’t help your gender from coming through in your prose. lozlzolzolzolzolzolzolzol
Scott,
See that is the whole point. WIth “threatpoint”, right now they already HAVE control because their daughtrs have the law. That level of control most certainly isn’t right, but they aren’t going to vote to change it if to do so means take on some risk for their daughters. That isn’t going to happen.
They have NO risks now. Their daughters get the cash and prizes if they pick wrong. Why would they choose otherwise?
“And MGTOW also want kids, just not at the expense of their life and freedom.”
MGTOW is largely comprised of men who don’t want kids on one end and those who may want them but are unable to make women desirous of having their babies. I don’t think IBB has anything to “hate” them for. The first group are quality men who will provide his daughter with the 3-4 year short term serial monogamy that women naturally desire, and the second group aren’t even on anybody’s radar.
“I note that you have never, ever suggested any of the above as “pluses” for women.”
Who wants to take a guess as to if his daughters possess these qualities? If they did…they would be married.
So in other words, “destroy the village to save it”. Niiiiice.…
Anonymous Reader,
Undeniably true, especially since I am an odder fish yet – an adult convert and a theologian!
I certainly am aware of the dangers of divorce and even abandonment – I am painfully aware that Catholics in a modern secular Democracy can certainly end up divorced. I try to point out that I speak from the position of a man with sons, one of whom is seeking a wife, to avoid confusion.
AR and zykos,
My first encounter with IBB was about this exact issue – his thoughts on a young man that was interested in a traditional wife. It was very illustrative.
IBB
You (OTOH) I don’t think you understand the points I am making. I try to stay on topic.
I can read and understand the simple sentences that you right, even when you drift far away from the basic topic, as you do on a regular basis. You do not seem to actually understand that words mean things, nor do you understand cause and effect.
And you attack my family. I assume it is because you are hurting. If that is the case, you have my sympathies. What I will not do is get down into the mud with you.
Once again, you take things personally. On the previous thread you made an astoundingly foolish statement about what women in their 20’s should do, and I have pointed out just how bad an idea you have. Rather than examine your thoughts, you defend the undefendable. Either you can’t understand the difference between a statement of fact and a prescription of a course of action, or you have some deep emotional issue that is involved. Either way, you are on record as urging women to be promiscuous from age 20 to age 25. There is no question about that, the words are clear. When I ask you “Is this what you want for your daughter” I am attempting to bring home to you the meaning of your words, in order that you can see your error.
So far, you cling to your error like a drowning man grabs something floating. Why?
Let me try and put this as clearly as possible: we want society to eat red pills.
Who’s “we”, here?
We want society to see the world for what it is and see the damage that has been done to it by way of feminism. We don’t even begin to get to that point until we understand (fully) why people continue to chew on blue pills.
You should be asking yourself why you insist on that handful of blue pills, IBB.
This isn’t me against you AR. We have a common enemy and it is feminsm.
Your prescription for women in their 20’s is pure 3rd stage “sex positive” feminism, IBB.
Why can’t you see that?
But if you want to beat the otherside, you must first understand them (understand what motivates them) and redirect that. You are not going to accomplish that by suggesting that my children breed bastards. YMMV.
I’m not attempting to beat feminism by suggesting that your daughter breed bastards. I’m bringing home to you a “solution” to your greedy desire for a young woman to bear grandchildren and “experience” as many cocks as she wants while she plays at a career.
I’m pointing out the glaring inconsistency in your own words. You want fried ice, IBB. Why is that?
My first encounter with IBB was about this exact issue – his thoughts on a young man that was interested in a traditional wife. It was very illustrative.
That’s because SHE is doing a poor job of pretending to be a HE.
It would be helpful to me if there were a very brief way to describe the idea of threat point to women and explain why it is a bad thing and not a good thing. What would be a 3-4 sentences summary of this post that I could memorize and drop into conversations during my Women’s Bible Study group?
It wouldn’t solve the problem, but at least it might get Christian women to understand that it is a problem.
zykos,
I suppose that would be the case if that is what I was doing. It isn’t.
Aquinas Dad
“Nothing makes some men squirm like a complaining woman”
Agree, completely. I began reading Proverbs last years in part because of quotes Anonymous Age 68 (now 71) posted in various places over the years. It’s interesting to point out to churchgoing men who refer to “The Proverbial Woman” that there are several different kinds of women referenced in Proverbs and several are very bad. So far the few times I have done this, I get a startled look or a blank stare. Because all they know is the woman in 31. Somehow, all the rest are swept under the rug.
There is an example for the man Aquinas Dad describes:
“A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike..” 27:15
I’ve been camping. The dripdripdrip of water on a tent is something one must learn to ignore, rather than cater to.
SSM,
The existance OF the “threatpoint” is enough of a legal and financial incentive for honest, sincere,Christ loving, hardworking men, to remove themselves from the marriage marketplace.
IBB and Kay Hymowitz are both old school conservative dinosaurs. They want men to man up so they can have grandchildren. They can have grandchildren without men manning up. The short term 3-4 year serial monogamy model is the future. The future is now. Those desirous of grandchildren will get plenty of time with them. Its not called babysitting or daycare when they’re your own blood. Enjoy!
@ssm
Women having the choice to divorce at whim is not good for the long-term viability of their marriages as it gives the woman absolute power to make and act on poor decisions. Her husband is already predisposed to keep the peace. The added threat of loss of emotional bonding partner, loss of children, and loss of income, causes him to abdicate all decision making to her, whether she realizes it or not.
A common example of this is the wife spending them into bankruptcy while he is helpless to control the financial hemorrhage, short of cutting off her access to the funds completely. He doesn’t do this because of the threat of divorce.
IBB:
You should find men for your daughter to date. Select some young eligible men of decent character and redpill/glasses aware; and introduce them to your daughter.
You should also tell your daughter flat out you will not bless her marrying any man you don’t approve of. You won’t bless it and you won’t pay for the wedding.
If you’re so worried about your daughter finding decent men to marry; pick some out and do the introduction. Make clear your opinions about it if she dates douchebags. And if she decides to marry a douchebag and make kids with him; she’s on her own. No money. No support.
Women are not “more moral”. They aren’t more spiritual; and they don’t want families or marriage more than men do. Since you’re her father, and she’s young and immature, you might be able to help her along just a bit by doing a bit of selecting for her; and advising her of the consequences of failure to see it your way.
Tough love. It’s what character is made of.
“Women are not “more moral”. They aren’t more spiritual; and they don’t want families or marriage more than men do.”
At this point they want it less. Its us men who are slow on the uptake. Give us a few years and we’ll all happily give them want they want – 3-4 year short term relationship proposals. This model works in our favor too.
Mary,
If I understand your request, how about
“To a man the concept that a wife may at any time unilaterally decide to divorce and n\almost automatically gain custody of the children and significant monetary support is, to men, very similar to the threat of social services taking a woman’s children, placing them into foster care where the woman is forbidden contact and putting her in prison. Using threats of divorce on a husband is emotionally the same as threatening a woman with social services – but more likely to happen”
Is that it?
Good advice, deti. Should IBB do this after her daughters are past the age of 25 and already got their “fun” out of the way?
SSM
It would be helpful to me if there were a very brief way to describe the idea of threat point to women and explain why it is a bad thing and not a good thing. What would be a 3-4 sentences summary of this post that I could memorize and drop into conversations during my Women’s Bible Study group?
I’ve demonstrated before on this blog how poor I am as a reader of the Bible. However, I believe that you yourself have quoted from Genesis 3 : … thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. …. Would you agree that within a strict, Bible-based perspective the entire collection of laws, customs, attitudes, etc. that makes up the “threat point” can ultimately be boiled down to one thing: giving women the ability to control men, to rule them?
If you agree, well, there you go. All you have to do is spell out the implications that flow from one Bible verse. Let’s see, that’s several years of Dalrock’s blog, quite a few postings from your blog, some of Elspeths blog, some of Laura Grace Robbin’s blog, some of the Spearhead…simple, right?
Right. Simple.
“Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war.”
—Karl von Clausewitz
Anonymous Reader,
I prefer Prov 30:20 “Such is also the way of an adulterous woman, who eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: I have done no evil.”
Draggin
A common example of this is the wife spending them into bankruptcy while he is helpless to control the financial hemorrhage, short of cutting off her access to the funds completely. He doesn’t do this because of the threat of divorce.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy can be followed by several years of tension, culminating in divorce. So even attempting to control the spending still can be followed by a detonated marriage. I know this from observing the course of a friend’s marriage, and yeah, he’s paying child support for some years to come to his spendthrift wife.
Anonymous Reader,
I think that husband goes to my parish!
deti,
This is excellent, dare I say OUTSTANDING advice for ALL fathers of daughters. I would say it is almost perfect as it is pretty much Biblical. I can’t see anything wrong with it.
One small problem though, the fathers don’t follow through on THEIR “threatpoint.”
It is one thing to offer such outstanding advice such as this. It is another thing altogether if that advice is ignored. This is a big problem that detox centers have with the families of those they are treating, they have the “intervention” and offer the “threatpoint” of disowning the family member if he or she does not get help, but family members (out of weak love) don’t often follow through on their threat. They continue to take care of their own.
We see this all around us, grand parents taking in the bastards their daughters gave them so she could continue to go out and party. It has become so common place now that it is (sadly) as part of the fabric of society. The grand parents rationalize this “enabling” by saying that they don’t want the grandchildren to suffer the consequences of the irrational choices their parents made.
Novaseeker, its too tedious a debate to really carry on with (at least for me), but I still strongly disagree that the motive is daughters. My view does not preclude the motive being daughters. It does however say that the daughters angle is not the macro cause of this belief set among Christian conservatives.
That narrow cause fails to explain far too many scenarios for it to be so widely applicable.
The grand parents rationalize this “enabling” by saying that they don’t want the grandchildren to suffer the consequences of the irrational choices their parents made
And that is the right and righteous choice in that case. Bathwater…out. Baby….safe inside by the fire.
“One small problem though, the fathers don’t follow through on THEIR “threatpoint.” ”
Here we are (sort of) in agreement. At my site, (I don’t get many comments, but I get way more emails for some reason) I get a lot of grief about “the blessing.” It comes from moms. They are VASTLY more concerned with “alienating” and “driving away” their daughters with this kind of hard line. I suspect the dads, down deep inside, know this is an effective way to ensure accountability (to the pre-determined potential spouse standard) but their wives probably will not shut up about how they don’t want to hurt princess’ feelings.
As others have pointed out (Novaseeker very directly) it is not just the openly immoral behavior that is hindering women being more/most suitable for marriage it is the Thoroughly Modern Girl’s Path of college; establish career; then start to look for a husband. We can all see what this cycle leads to
Scott,
The father needs to lead, then, doesn’t he? I know, I know – but that is the issue; leadership.
Of course not.
And you are right. As a result, no follow through.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy can be followed by several years of tension, culminating in divorce. So even attempting to control the spending still can be followed by a detonated marriage. I know this from observing the course of a friend’s marriage, and yeah, he’s paying child support for some years to come to his spendthrift wife.
But chapter 7 DURING the divorce can do miracles. I know a guy very very well, he is benefactor to a large inheritance. Owns the lions share of a several hundred million dollar company. Wife was flat busted with illegal drug use, texts of photos of her genitals to lists of men, and receipts of similar photos back….off the wall stuff. She began, during the divorce, to blow through insane amounts of money, 30,000+ per month routinely with bursts of 100,000 here and there….the only way he got her to stop was to file chapter 7. It brought the opposition to the table to finally settle the thing. It cost him dearly, but had it not been for the filing, it could have cost him everything. he ended up hospitalized due to malnutrition and exhaustion, lost 70 pounds, etc. Only after chapter 7 did he feel like he was not sombuddeez biatch.
“Scott,
The father needs to lead, then, doesn’t he? I know, I know – but that is the issue; leadership”
Which, in essence is a return to the theatpoint. If you try to lead in your own home, you are in danger.
No SSM there is not a succinct way to explain it. Some fraction of women know it and like it, another fraction know it and lament it, and the rest are unable to think properly….period.
Nothing makes some men squirm like a complaining woman
True Acquinas, but its not either or. Perhaps squirm was a bad word choice on my part. The man squirms at encountering the complaining woman. Like a rock in the shoe. He springs to action to get the rock out.
A man springs to action at encountering the unhappy woman as a moral imperative.
“As others have pointed out (Novaseeker very directly) it is not just the openly immoral behavior that is hindering women being more/most suitable for marriage it is the Thoroughly Modern Girl’s Path of college; establish career; then start to look for a husband. We can all see what this cycle leads to”
Conservatives with the lowest divorce rate in the country. They are social liberals when it comes to others and social and financial conservatives when it comes to their own families, hence a considerably lower divorce rate than other less educated, less affluent demographics.
These are the Hymowitzes as opposed to the Leykises.
Empathologism,
But the fact of response is not nearly as critical as the type of response. My father taught me something that has served me well,
“It is not ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’ it is ‘the whining bearing gets replaced'”
Justice demands that we give people what is ude to them, positive or negative.
“ I get a lot of grief about “the blessing.” It comes from moms. They are VASTLY more concerned with “alienating” and “driving away” their daughters with this kind of hard line.”
Well, which is it, Princess?
Are you a StrongIndependentWoman ™, able and fully empowered to make your own decisions; or not?
If you’re so StrongIndependent, then you don’t need my blessing. You’re smart, you’re “empowered” and you’ve got your own “construct”.
So you won’t need my help when Harley McBadboy decides he wants some strange and leaves you high and dry to pay the bills.
You won’t need my help when F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer walks out and can’t support you and your kids.
Guess the mindblowing, knee melting sex wasn’t quite enough, was it?
But hey, Poopsie, you’re StrongIndependent. You can handle it.
So why, praytell, dearie, are you here asking for my checkboo…. Er, blessing?
I would add to what Nova said. It’s not merely the desire of UMC (or MC) dads to protect their daughters. There is also the (arguably deeper) issue of pride. Daddy wants to be PROUD of his little princess, and that pride is in large part determined by what the ambient culture rewards with status.
So, he is proud of her fancy college, her graduate degrees, her chic little apartment in the city, her job, her career, the whole thing. Even nominally conservative dads would be horrified—not proud at all—if princess got married at 22. That is so embarrassing to have to explain to one’s law partners and on the charity dinner circuit! It’s like she dropped out of the UMC. These people fear very little more than they fear what I call “loss of caste.”
I don’t know her or anything, but look at the example of Kelly Evans. Very hot chick currently on CNBC. Stared out as a print reporter with the WSJ (itself a hard job to get). She probably does not make a lot of money, but the conventional status she derives is HUGE. I will bet a case of wine that her father BEAMS with pride every time he talks about her to anyone. And he would not be able to hide his shame were she married with two kids.
This will be a hard issue to crack. Societal collapse or decline will take care of it eventually. I am not sure anything else will.
Deit-
Nice. Although, you realize that if most men in American marriages had that conversation with their daughter in front of mom, she would give him the raised eyebrow “look” with one hand on the “dad eject” button, right?
No, you don’t get it. If you got it, you’d be happy that the MGTOW are staying out of your daughters’ way so they can find marriage-minded and childbearing-minded men more easily.
If you got it, you’d be encouraging your daughters to marry early and get started on those grandkids. If you got it, you’d already know that the current system already gives them far more power than they need to get out of any theoretically “abusive” marriage they might stumble into despite your guidance, and that they’d be better off if they didn’t even realize the extent of that power. If you got it, you’d know that the worst thing your daughters can do for their future marital happiness and the well-being and happiness of your grandchildren is to spend a few years playing the field and “experimenting,” so you’d try to prevent that instead of shrugging it off as a force of nature that their future husbands will just have to deal with.
Unless you care more about having grandkids than that your grandkids have fathers, that is. Not casting aspersions at you personally, but I think some grandparents are just as happy to see the in-law parent (usually the father) kicked out of the picture, so they can have more time with and control over the grandkids themselves.
Rollo Tomassi says:
“I found it interesting how the ‘study’ presumes women should marry primarily to improve their socioeconomic status as facilitated by the men who ‘happen’ to impregnate them. In fact nowhere in the article or the studies is any concern about men’s interests alluded to. It’s as if all pretense of love or emotional investment in marriage is now useless and it’s been reduced to a contractual agreement with the specific intent of bettering a woman economically.”
At least its more honest and frankly closer to traditional marriage which was a contract of goods for services.
As for the male threat point it exists but men are too cowardly in general to engage in it:
“I will not pay if divorced. I will destroy my business and will not work and I will go to jail on the taxpayers dime”
or the more extreme. I will kill you and burn everything to the ground.
“Even nominally conservative dads would be horrified—not proud at all—if princess got married at 22”
I *want* to argue, but I see this far too often in person. I’ve probably repeated too often how I struggle with this attitude from mothers and fathers in a devout Latin Mass Catholic community
It’s a lot easier to do what’s necessary as a dad AFTER the divorce. Just sayin.
3 sentence summary. A threatpoint, the mutually worse outcome expected without cooperation, should be a reasonable starting point for negotiations, since the outcome with cooperation should be mutually better than the threatpoint. But if the threatpoint has been moved towards one party’s benefit at the expense of the other party, then the one party has less incentive to negotiate i.e. less motive to cooperate. This is the case now with divorce laws, which have been written to provide much less incentive for the leaving party to negotiate.
A man springs to action at encountering the unhappy woman as a moral imperative.
We want to fix things. My experience with men in the church has shown that there is this idea that woman can do no wrong. And I think this is why normally rational men can make irrational decisions when it comes to holding woman accountable for frivorce and other sins.
So, anecdotally, here is something else.
A while back I had occasion to do some research on an event from the early 1950s. A treasure trove of info was in the old NY Herald Tribune, the NYT’s broadsheet competition until it closed in (I believe) 1966. The Trib was what the WSJ is today, or close enough, that is THE voice of Establishment Republican opinion.
It had nothing to do with what I was researching but since all the papers at the NYPL are now on microfilm reels I often had to scroll past page after page of other stuff to get at what I wanted. The Trib had an extensive “society” page, focusing on the Northeast but also covering the elites of various places around the country. A big part of the society page was the wedding page.
Well, first, the girls were sure cute then and very slim and well dressed. That aside, all of them—I mean, like 95%–were getting married well under 25. The script was, Buffy graduates from Brearly, goes off to one of the Seven Sisters, has her debut at the Plaza in December of her frosh year at age 18, snags some guy a year or two (or three) older from an all-male Ivy or perhaps a guy already working, gets engaged before she graduates, and married the following summer.
Every single wedding page was filled with this and almost nothing else. Now, yes, that was the elite, but the elites always set the tone. And image the ginormous difference between that and what our elite do.
Or, just see the original “Father of the Bride” (1950). I think the Liz Taylor character is supposed to be 20. It’s not even clear if she has gone to college at all. In the remake (1991), the daughter is a go-getter college graduate career girl, just back from some “fun time” in Europe. In both the original, the time from meeting to wedding is three months, but in the original this is not considered an issue at all, whereas in the remake, it’s considered scandalous. How can they rush things so insanely?
In Christian circles, there is not a sect fundamentalist enough to inoculate against this….or, if there are…they are out here enough to actually be cult like, nothing even remotely widely dispersed.
IMHO Christians that actually believe and teach what is actually written in the Bible are more and more being considered cult like due to the churchian mainstream moving further and further away from the truth.
Also, as we’ve discussed before, small families play into this. The man with no sons, or even 1 or 2, is much more likely to push his daughters in the direction of career and financial achievement, shifting the wishes a man naturally has for sons onto them. There’s even a perfectly rational selfish motive, even if he doesn’t realize it: if he doesn’t have a few sons to support him in his old age, he’ll need his daughters to be able to.
The people I know with several kids, both boys and girls, seem much more likely to encourage their girls to be feminine and to pursue traditionally feminine roles. If you have plenty of boys to fill the male roles, it only makes sense that you’d want your girls to do girl things — for variety if nothing else.
There’s also the fact (as we can see in IBB’s comments, but it’s everywhere) that people expect very little in a son-in-law today. In times past, a man might look forward to getting a new son-in-law, for help on the farm or to bring him into the family business. Now, probably partly because people give their daughters so little guidance, and partly because men are so denigrated in general, a new son-in-law is often seen as a nuisance at best and a danger at worst. If she’s already capable of bringing home the bacon, all a son-in-law brings is sperm and another set of grandparents to compete for the kids’ attention.
I think small family size played a role originally a in rearranging Dads’ priorities. But now it’s so baked into the cake that it’s not even thought of any more. These days four is considered a big family, more than four REALLY big (I know only a handful of these) and even then the dads still want to be PROUD of their girls above all.
They do want the SiL eventually, and the grandkids, and they do care about the quality of the SiL (partly because that affects the quality of the grandkids, partly so that they can brag about him to, or at least not be embarassed). But they want this ONLY at the “proper” time, which is not when princess is 22, or even 25, but 28 at the earliest.
@Cautious
“But your train of thought assumes the man was red pill prior to marriage, and made an informed choice.”
Yes, that is a good point. But we also can’t assume that awareness of the rigged game means Red Pill. There are plenty of men who may not be red pill, but are aware that the marriage game is stacked against him. Red Pill awareness doesn’t have to be a comprehensive flip-of-the-switch. We see this in “dating” as well. Indeed there are MGTOW who are probably passive beta at best, but there are varying degrees of GTOW and varying degrees of men who are withdrawing from the SMP or extracting only what they want/need (primarily sex) who are not yet “awake” but certainly see/feel that something is wrong and are altering their choices accordingly.
But indeed you are correct as it relates to inside the marriage. And the “informed choice” aspect can definitely wilt away quickly for those less-desirable blue-pill men who find themselves with that woman who (finally) pays attention to them and have the knee-jerk reaction to lock-it-down. This is where women, in their own delay of marriage, are hurting themselves further by subordinating marriage (devaluing) in favor of their own pursuits, which not only sends many messages to men about the value and essence of marriage but also allows more time for those men to develop, to (hopefully – ideally) move up that SMV curve, or otherwise build awareness of the truth. Thanks for your thoughts.
Keenan –
“At this point they want it less. Its us men who are slow on the uptake. Give us a few years and we’ll all happily give them want they want – 3-4 year short term relationship proposals. This model works in our favor too.”
Spot on. I too see a world where you may have produced children with more then one woman. After all variety is the spice of life. Funny thing about spice though, it tastes great as it enters your mouth, but to recollect that sensation is nigh impossible.
Re: daughters, and taking things personally. I feel it’s time to overshare. My 43 yr old daughter, the nice one, has always sought my advice/guidance, and has tended to follow it (“You’re right dad, I need new tires!”) in areas other than relationships: she rode the carousel and treated her many men very well for almost a couple of decades and then retired to catladyhood about ten years ago. She has kept saying she has remained a believer and is fixing to be almost ready to start to commence to go back to church, but she keeps none of the holiness precepts our church teaches. In total contrast my 38 yr old daughter, the mean one, vociferously rejects everything I say and everything I stand for in all areas (“I’ll never get new tires, just because you said I should!”), except for relationships. Despite saying she would never get married (because she saw what happened from the divorce of her mother and me), she got married, like we did, at age 20, to the first and only boyfriend she ever had, a very nice man who adores her and who can’t understand why she treats him so very poorly. Despite saying she is against religion and will never return to church, she keeps most of the holiness precepts (and then gets angered when people mistake her for a believer).
@Cail Corishev, very good point about small families and gender roles. As a homework assignment, probably a thesis topic, probably the third or fourth this week, is it the smallness of families that CAUSES expectations that a daughter will not settle down until 28? Or is the expectation that she will not settle down that causes small families?
“There’s also the fact (as we can see in IBB’s comments, but it’s everywhere) that people expect very little in a son-in-law today. In times past, a man might look forward to getting a new son-in-law, for help on the farm or to bring him into the family business. Now, probably partly because people give their daughters so little guidance, and partly because men are so denigrated in general, a new son-in-law is often seen as a nuisance at best and a danger at worst. If she’s already capable of bringing home the bacon, all a son-in-law brings is sperm and another set of grandparents to compete for the kids’ attention.”
Man, this is good stuff. Kind of reads like every dating–>engagement–>wedding story I know. I still think this can be addressed in the mean time. (The “mean time” being–while we wait for either a return to sanity in the marriage/divorce/DV court system or the society collapses). I know it sounds crazy, but I can see, after a lifetime of growing up under my roof, my own daugther knowing what is expected, the purpose(s) of marriage, bibilcal submission/the proper configuration, that an old fashioned courtship will happen. Raising the expectation now–with no real option for something less will matter.
I realize I have to fight back my own ingrained tendency to encourage college, graduate school, having “fun” first, “wait until you are 30” (which, yes, the standard “conservative” dad tells his daughter). But my wife is (at least right now) in agreement–early is better. An interruption in college education is OK, and may even be ideal. “Daddy’s home! Lets let him put his feet up and bring him a drink” is the norm.
But who is rasing the man who will come to me with a plan for the future? Who will ask me what I am looking for her? Who has stayed out of the PUA/MGTOW world? I am concerned about it, but I believe he will show up at my door one day.
The ties of bondage are somehow obscured from view when they are cinched tight on a man my his ex-wife. Until men recognize fully that the DIRECT ties of bondage are held firm by the State, it is unlikely we will see a meaningful change.
This whole system is contrived to keep MEN, the productive class, producing. How much productivity is going to come from some woman holding a useless (blank)-ology degree?
I only expect to see meaningful change in my lifetime as a result of some sustained crisis. You can see the truth in a crisis. Men produce via heavy lifting, and women need to support them in that cause.
Women can make riduculous boasts because so much energy is presently expended to prop them up. What happens when those props are removed (either willingly, accidentally, or circumstantially)? The house of cards FALLS!
Peak Oil is real. An energy crisis awaits in the next 7 years. Once that crisis comes home to roost, the truth will be known.
@SSM
From a Christian perspective this is all about headship. Christians either accept the biblical teaching on marriage or they are in rebellion against it. The vast majority are currently in rebellion against it, and experience some combination of shame, terror and revulsion at the thought of it. The threatpoint is just a tool to assault headship, to assault the biblical view of marriage (and closely related Christian service and love). It is merely a symptom of the actual disease. If you are looking for a Bible verse to share, I would suggest 1 Pet 3:1-6. After the anger/fainting spell subsides, you can start to get at the heart of the issue. One tool I’ve written about recently is when Christians tell you that verse can’t possibly mean what it says, point out that they love the verse when dressed in drag.
But who is raising the man who will come to me with a plan for the future?
Sounds like you and Aquinas Dad should talk. 😉
@deti
Or on occasion, men simply commit suicide and refuse to live under draconian alimony and child support orders.
Which makes me wonder about the move to legalize assisted suicide, and over-the-counter suicide kits.
@Dalrock
Just to nitpick: “wife initiated” should be “wife-initiated”
[D: Fixed. Thanks.]
“Sounds like you and Aquinas Dad should talk. ”
Agreed! That’s the whole purpose of my site! (Sorry about the plug, Dalrock).
@Smithborough
Comparison with Malta is a good idea. Using it as an example of what a divorceless society looks like (first-world, too), may help the argument against divorce.
Peak Oil is real. An energy crisis awaits in the next 7 years. Once that crisis comes home to roost, the truth will be known.
Not…Do you read consumption reports? Do you track oil and fuels inventories, reserves, new technologies, etc. ?
Peak oil is real……is actually a true statement in an absolute sense. Its one of those things that a few hundred or thousand years from now, if we are still around, someone will read in one of those time capsules and say SEE, those millennial dudes were ORACLES.
Relax. Unlike revenue in the Federal government, our grand kids will have oil, if they are not stupid enough to eliminate its use by fiat.
/derail
nit-pick-er
As an aside……
I could have puked at last year’s Oscars when Ann Hathaway won Best Actress for Les Miserables; not that I didn’t like her portrayal of the charcter…..it was her acceptance speech that sucked.
Her acceptance speech included the standard feminst nod, that ‘we must ensure that the suffering of those like Fantine are never to be repeated’….or something very close to that statement.
First of all, Fantine is a fictional character…….but let’s give credit where credit is due. Jean Valjean is the hero of the story, and the one who mopped up after Fantine’s mess. He raised her bastard child as his own, and suffered much in keeping her safe.
How about a little appreciation for the men holding up the foundation of the house!
@Anonymous Reader
Okay, second paragraph above is my response. I somehow managed to mess up the formatting.
@Anonymous Reader
It’s not trivial, this problem of showing the truth to men who really can’t see it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect#Polarization_of_opinion
“The “backfire effect” is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.”
Those boffins.
” … such that she will choose to carry out her threat unless he takes less leisure and consumes less at her expense …”
What is that? How does .. I don’t even
Is he a gigolo?
@ Empath…..
Actually, I do look at oil consumption, inventories etc. Sounds like you are pinning your hopes on shale oil/gas.
Conventional oil is on the decline, and badly so. This euphoric optimism about shale oil/gas is pure bullshit. The depletion rates are horrific, most wells giving up in 36 months or less.
Do you think the U.S. of A. declares wars all over the Middle East for the sake of democracy? Going to an awful lot of trouble to control oil supplies for a country bragging it will be energy independent in the next 5 years.
Enjoy the next 7 years…..reality will impose it’s truth on all in that timeframe.
One further though occasioned by the contrast between Kelly Evans et al and the girls on the NYHTrib wedding page.
Back then, daddy’s little girl did not need a job or a fancy education (a BA from an all-women’s college would do) to have status. She had status simply because of who she was. Then she got more status from making a suitable marriage, setting up a proper home, and having children. Her parents were plenty proud of her just for all that. And she was proud of herself.
All this was upended in the name of fairness and “meritocracy.” Perhaps the old system was truly unjust. Not quite a hereditary aristocracy, but in the odor of it. However, the expectation/promise was that the new system would be totally fair.
This is not the place to go into all the various problems that have arisen with the rise of “meritocracy.” But suffice it to say, there were many unintended consequences. And one of them was that, when automatic birth-right status was taken away, the elites had to find a substitute. There is always a pecking order among humans. Take away one metric, they will find another.
So, “good blood, good bone” Social Register status was nuked, something had to replace it. And that turned out to be the new script: elite college, prestige career, some form of adventure/travel, time in the big city, etc. The Ivies in particular were completely reorganized from being finishing schools for the old elite to recruitment and training depots for the new “meritocratic” elite. You could make an argument that the Ivies were in fact more drivers of the change than followers.
In any event, few of the people who oversaw the vast transformation of American society in the 50s and 60s saw this particular consequence in advance. That is, they did foresee and favor the replacement of birthright status with “merit” derived status. But they didn’t foresee, I don’t think, the consequences for mating and marriage.
I also am married to a Filipina. I have come to believe based on my experience with the sole remaining nation on earth where divorce is not legal that it is the only option. If you want marriage to exist long term, then divorce has to go, period. My wife has made it clear that divorce will not happen under any circumstances. infidelity is her concern not violence, but even that wiill not result in divorce. The threat point is that in case of infidelity the first time will be the last time as she will remove the ability for the second round.
I have a friend that is long term married to another Filipina. They have two teenage daughters. Their marriage is not good. The wife has no respect for her husband and treats him horribly. I would not put up with it. When they contemplated divorce a couple of years ago she confided that even after divorce she could never have sex with anyone but her current husband. This is the biblical marriage and divorce in a nutshell. Divorce in her mind, even after many years in the US, is still more like long term separation. If you divorce and have sex with another it is adultery. The only way I see to make this a cultural norm, as it must be for marriage to continue, is to remove the divorce from the options on the table.
The narrative is that the husband was abusive because he worked too much. They never had that thought at all until the girl decided to bolt. They are trad con Christians and would defend ANY woman’s right to escape a bad marriage.
I too have seen the ‘abuse’ claim play out and argued in several forms. In one case I know a woman who frivorced her husband claiming that he was verbally abusive. Her girl friends of course took the ‘you go girl’ route. I flat out told her that him being a grouch (he was missing a disc) is not grounds, and that real abuse is a good reason to separate, not divorce. I also told her that she needed to go back to her husband.
She chose to commit adultery instead. She never came back. They always leave at some point because they don’t want to be held accountable for their sins. Another sad thing is they usually take three or four others with them.
As an encouragement, I want to say that there were other Christian men who saw it the way I did. They were willing that the woman be held accountable for her sins. Though few we exist. And we are growing in number.
BTW they are staying together for the benefit of the children. Kind of a quaint old fashioned idea that marriage is about and for the children, and not the happiness of the two adults that agreed to enter into the insitution.
” .. illegal in Ireland until the late 1990s. It was illegal in Malta until 2 or 3 years ago.”
Oddly enough were part of the British Empire right into the last century. So 46 and 48 (or is it 59? hard to say) years after independence both (succumbed to the imperative/availed themselves of the rights the Brits had had for donkey’s years).
Subbed
Subbed????
Larry,
If a husband beat his wife, her father, brothers, cousins, etc. would come and beat the crap out of him. Even the husband’s family didn’t raise a fuss about it because it was understood that wife abuse wasn’t tolerated or excused.
That is the way it should be. That is the way it was here in the United States when the church had more power.
—
I imagine the reason you don’t see it anymore is not because we think we’re too sophisticated for it, but because there’s too much of a risk of collateral damage.
If I had a group of men coming to kick my ass, I’d shoot to kill and claim self defense in court. Maybe I hit an innocent or two in the process and face manslaughter charges for them even if I get off on the self defense killings. Wife’s family loses some members, I go to jail, no winners.
Or I shoot a few, they kill me, then they face manslaughter charges.
Maybe wife is a BPD drama queen, claims a beating to get attention, I take a beating for nothing, my family is incensed and wants payback. That happened quite often back then as well, smaller versions of the Hatfields and the McCoys (unsure of the spellings).
“I also am married to a Filipina. I have come to believe based on my experience with the sole remaining nation on earth where divorce is not legal that it is the only option. If you want marriage to exist long term, then divorce has to go, period. ”
Not one single American would marry under such a law.
@MikeDiver
“My wife has made it clear that divorce will not happen under any circumstances. infidelity is her concern not violence, but even that wiill not result in divorce. The threat point is that in case of infidelity the first time will be the last time as she will remove the ability for the second round. ”
My wife and I have been married for decades. We met in college in the US. She told me in no uncertain terms that if I cheated on her, she would divorce me after performing that little operation you allude to. I know she’d do it, too. I’ve never been tempted to cheat in all those years, not because of the threat (promise), but because that’s not the kind of man that I am.
@IBB
My wife and I raised two sons. We have four young grandchildren. Three of them are boys (aged 9, 7, and 5) and one girl (9). I do worry a great deal about what kind of future they’re going to face in 10-15 years when they’re young adults. Two of the kids (the oldest and youngest boys) live in a very stable, loving family. The other two have divorced parents who’ve made a real mess of things. All of them live over 1000 miles from us.
Before they can become men, the boys must first get through school where many teachers likely see them as defective girls. All of them the future created by a government that believes it’s OK to borrow $600 billion to $1 trillion a year every year to buy votes instead of making the hard choices and face a society that’s coming unglued. I’m at least as worried about what kind of future my grandsons will have as my granddaughter.
Larry,
@ Larry,
Sounds like your family typifies the 50% divorce rate culture (no malice intended).
It is a sad state of affairs.
What does the world look like where singledom works its way down from the 50 plus crowd to the 20-somethings?
Honestly, what is in the present system to incentivize a man to marry?
My son is barely a teenager, so I have concerns for his well-being. Realtionships have become a crapshoot where the house takes all on ONE bet gone bad.
Sigh…..enjoy the decline.
Not one single American would marry under such a law.
What about the Americans who immigrate to that country and marry under the law? You could argue they’re still Americans until they get their equivalent of a green card. Why are you trolling like this when it’s pretty clear that most of the people on this thread, excluding yourself, do want to marry under such a law?
@Dalrock
Another great article! I believe that this quote from your post sums up everything..
“”The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay.””
I am very late on this. This article is why and how married men find their way to MRA blogs. I would not recommend marriage to any man. Surrogacy, birth control pills (male) and pump and dump.
Stay on it Dalrock.
@IBB
“”The “threatpoint” has gradually been stopping men from marrying. I have noticed this over the last 20+ years””
You are about the same age as myself.I have noticed this also.The majority of MGTOW’s that I know are in cognizant of the fact that they are “going their own way”…..I have had to point this out to many male(and female) friends of mine……What is there in “marriage” for men?…Alimony,child support,legal bills…etc…etc….
” I have come to believe based on my experience with the sole remaining nation on earth where divorce is not legal that it is the only option.”
I had no idea the Phillipines is the only nation where divorce isn’t legal. Has the brave New World Order been informed of this…or is a bunch of Pacific Islands considered beneath the elitists?
@Deti
“”Or on occasion, men simply commit suicide and refuse to live under draconian alimony and child support orders.””
Yes!…..and what a sad state of affairs this is!
@Rollo
The actual data in the brief by Williams for the CCF shows that STAYING married is the silver bullet for poverty, and the grand conclusion is that the reason GETTING married doesn’t work is because people get divorced.
“Keenan McGregor says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
“I also am married to a Filipina. I have come to believe based on my experience with the sole remaining nation on earth where divorce is not legal that it is the only option. If you want marriage to exist long term, then divorce has to go, period. ”
Not one single American would marry under such a law.”
If they would not get married under such a law then perhaps they should not get married under any law. If you are entering into marriage and taking a lifetime vow with no intent to fullfuill that vow, then it is not the law or marriage that is at fault.
Three questions (amongst many) that need to be answered:
1. What are the situations in which threatpoint actually benefits women, and how common are they?
(If the concern is physical abuse, haven’t the police been shown to be more than obliging?)
2. Do men, who are abusive or have abusive tendencies, respond to threatpoint?
3. Does threatpoint create men that women aren’t attracted to?
—
Overall, under the availability heuristic, the suggestion that men tend towards abusiveness has become a “big lie” used to justify any range of things.
—
Si vis pacem, para bellum?
@Anonymous Reader
The “blank slate” notion, that genes play no role in human behavior at all, only experience matters.
I’ve always wondered why liberals are so ready to support that notion what with the “born this way” slogan being spoken simultaneously.
—-
@Anonymous Reader
I do recall the “loveless marriage” defense from the 1980′s, usually from cultural liberals
I know of a large Catholic family where all the children have birthdays over a 20 day spread. I was curious as to why that would be, and decided to subtract nine months from the average of the birthdays. What date was closest to the result? The husband’s birthday.
Catholic bishops back when divorce was potentially going to be legalized said very little. They bought the abuse argument. They bought the “rare and necessary” argument, as well. Ironically, that started the cascade of problems, in my opinion.
“Marissa says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Not one single American would marry under such a law.
What about the Americans who immigrate to that country and marry under the law? You could argue they’re still Americans until they get their equivalent of a green card. Why are you trolling like this when it’s pretty clear that most of the people on this thread, excluding yourself, do want to marry under such a law?”
The conventional wisdom is that many of the men expatriating to the Philippines fully intend to stay single for the remainder of their lives. Few to none (that I am aware of) keep to this intention. They all get married to a loving Filipina wife in the first two years. It is cliche it is so common.
I’m not a father, so please excuse my callousness here but it seems to me that children would be better off if, after bring divorced and having his kids taken away, the father simply entrusted his kids to the Lord, and then left the country to never pay child support. But that may be a variation of the one guy who refuses to steal during a riot. He did the right thing, but it made no difference.
@innocentbystanderboston
before she marries a man that he will not hit her, if we want government to take away the threatpoint of no-fault-divorce
The irony is that there is parity in terms of domestic abuse, e.g. female-to-male violence is as common as male-to-female violence. See, for example:
Koller, Jürgen. ““The ecological fallacy”(Dutton 1994) revised.” Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 5.3 (2013): 156-166.
Findings – The data analysed in this paper support Dutton’s conclusions in the context of female perpetrated violence within heterosexual intimate partnerships, female sexual offense, child abuse and bullying, violence in female same-sex relationships, and gender stereotypes.
—
In contrast: http://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/domesticviolence/files/Evan_Stark_Article_Coercive_Control.pdf
(Notice the sentence: “after I finished my social work training”)
@Aquinas Dad
I *want* to argue, but I see this far too often in person. I’ve probably repeated too often how I struggle with this attitude from mothers and fathers in a devout Latin Mass Catholic community
So feminism has reached there, too? Uggh.
“@Larry J says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:04 pm
My wife and I have been married for decades. We met in college in the US. She told me in no uncertain terms that if I cheated on her, she would divorce me after performing that little operation you allude to. I know she’d do it, too. I’ve never been tempted to cheat in all those years, not because of the threat (promise), but because that’s not the kind of man that I am.”
My wife asked me early on if I could be trusted in the Philippines on my own. My reply was not only no, but hell no. She has made sure that I am never out and about on my own in the Philippines. I am glad to hear that you are an oak, but (to quote Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) a man has to know his limitations. For me I may want to stay on the narrow path, but I am weak when it comes to the many women that will flirt with me in the Philippines. Better not to be put in the path of temptation.
I see Deti mentioned suicide. That threat point is used on the military men all of the time. The next big equalizer will be sexual assault. Same thing is used in the work place with the one way enforced harassment laws. The number one cause of military suicide is the psychological trauma of a young man literally volunteering his life for his country and that still not being a enough for his country not to hate him. Elephant in the room the military will dance around.
Actually, I do look at oil consumption, inventories etc. Sounds like you are pinning your hopes on shale oil/gas.
No. I am pinning hopes on the fundamental transformation of the petrochemical industry via that route, which has essentially already happened with 69 billion bucks being spent on the gulf coast alone on new olefin crackers and plastics plants etc. Plus, gas is energy at a fraction of the per MM BTU cost of oil. It replaces oil demand. It lets more oil refinery space volume be occupied by making fuels. It takes petchem and plastic emphasis off oil.
Gasoline consumption is at a stand still now that India China and Brazil are not sucking it up with double digit economies. New shale gas is buried across Europe and Russia. This matters. Its there.
But I’m not “pinning hopes on shale gas”. We simply will not run out of oil in seven years. Its a pointless debate. Check back in 7 years. My livelihood depends on it, not just my lifestyle as an American. I was a peak oil guy for awhile.
A lot of daughters want their fathers’ ble$$ing$ on their marriage.
Marcus, those are really good questions that you posed. I would like to give my humble thoughts on them:
1. What are the situations in which threatpoint actually benefits women, and how common are they?
(If the concern is physical abuse, haven’t the police been shown to be more than obliging?)
It is impossible to get meaningful stats on this now that the definition of abuse is so wide. I will say that prior to the 1980s, the police used to be unobliging about dealing with situations where a man was beating the crap out his wife (sadly, I saw it first hand) but now they are quick to remove him. But what percentage of all “DV” incidents really involve a husband beating up his wife? I would guess not very many. So the effect of a threatpoint on that is probably small overall.
2. Do men, who are abusive or have abusive tendencies, respond to threat point?
I would say no. I would say that men who are truly abusive tend not to think through the consequences of their actions in the heat of the moment. I am currently praying for someone who is in a marriage that is troubled in this way; the fact that she has had to call the police on him once for a violent attack does not seem to have changed his behavior much at all.
3. Does threatpoint create men that women aren’t attracted to?
Yes. That is just my opinion, but yes. The vast majority of men are not violent abusers and the existence of this kind of femDOM threatpoint implicitly turns the husband into the wife’s bitch unless she makes an effort to resist the message of the surrounding culture and the church.
My thanks to those who tried to summarize the idea of threatpoint and the underlying issues for me.
@Casey
Women can make riduculous boasts because so much energy is presently expended to prop them up.
http://i1.pudelekx.pl/28fddca60d19044d7517d606b06d0911d3803792/92e18299f9af5bb14df3bb4d2643727e_original-jpg
@Empath
I am not saying the world will be out of oil in 7 years. I am saying that peak oil was 2005 and shale cannot take its place longterm due to rapid depletion rates.
It is an excellent show being put on though. Most of these individual fracking wells are negative NPV returns.
If oil is $40 a barrel in 7 years then we will know you were right
if oil is $200 a barrel in 7 years then we will know I was right.
@Tam the Bam
This is all about power wives wield over their husbands. It is a blanket form of power so the wife can use it however she wants. In some papers they look for evidence that wives use this power to tame abusive men. In this paper they are looking for evidence that wives use this power to make their husbands work harder (take less leisure) and also to move more spending to her. Modern Christians want wives to use the power to force their husband to into “servant leadership” and to force them to be more “romantic”.
I had no idea the Phillipines is the only nation where divorce isn’t legal. Has the brave New World Order been informed of this…or is a bunch of Pacific Islands considered beneath the elitists?
If they don’t already know, please don’t tell them. Joking aside, there does appear to be a ‘progressive’ change occurring in the Philippines. Some ‘abuse’ laws are being considered, and you can clearly see differences between the generations in regards to acceptable morality.
@MarcusD
What the change in the laws has done is create a blanket shift in power from the husband to the wife. This isn’t something that only comes up at certain times, it is always there, like a giant magnetic field. The threat is ever present. If you watch you will notice this is a constant theme in movies, etc, especially content aimed at women. Keeping this in mind, and given how difficult it is to use threats to “tame” abusive men, to the extent that it helps with the small percentage of men who are inclined to abuse this shows how much of a power imbalance has been applied across all marriages. All husbands are being crushed as if they were abusers, because this is the nature of the tool being used. The two papers I’ve seen which looked at the issue of abuse with regard to the threat point of divorce/family court are here and here.
“What the change in the laws has done is create a blanket shift in power from the husband to the wife. This isn’t something that only comes up at certain times, it is always there, like a giant magnetic field. The threat is ever present”
Are you suggesting that previously the threat was directed toward and borne by the wife?
Dalrock,
Could you imagine a Lifetime made-for-tv-movie where a great looking, tall, childless, never married medical doctor, moves into a neighborhood of women living in the homes that are being paid for by their frivorced ex-husbands, and each ex-wife in the neighborhood is throwing themselves at this man? And to no avail? He smiles at them, is sociable with all of them, (maybe even agrees to go to dinner with on or more of them) but over the period of the movie, never once does he propose marriage. Talk around the neighborhood is that he MUST be gay, why else? And only at the end, at the end of this romantic movie, the Nicolette Sherridan of Wassila Lane has him cougar pinned on her couch in her house and she demands to know why he hasn’t asked her (or any of them) for their hands in marriage? And he responds…
Luke 16:18
…followed by….
I have too many assets to lose. No fault divorce has turned me into a perminant bachelor for all my days on this planet and I had a vacsectomy. So you still want to go get that pizza?
“servant leadership”
Sounds very much like “leading from behind”
Are you suggesting that previously the threat was directed toward and borne my the wife?
Was there a threat?
The number one cause of military suicide is the psychological trauma of a young man literally volunteering his life for his country and that still not being a enough for his country not to hate him
Can you say more about this?
“The number one cause of military suicide is the psychological trauma of a young man literally volunteering his life for his country and that still not being a enough for his country not to hate him. Elephant in the room the military will dance around.”
Why wouldn’t they dance around it? They need those fools from the lower classes to swallow the kool-aid about education and career at the military’s (tax payers) expense, with a spattering of faux patriotism on top. They don’t enter the military out of a stirring in their souls to “sacrifice for my country”. They overwhelmingly come from the disadvantaged stratas of our society and need money. This isn’t to poo poo their contributions. I feel sorry for them that they can’t get past the intoxicating effects of the kool aid, until they come home in body bags, crippled or with PTSD.
“Was there a threat?”
That’s what I’m asking. Dalrock specifically mentioned a “shift in power”. What power?
“What about the Americans who immigrate to that country and marry under the law? You could argue they’re still Americans until they get their equivalent of a green card. Why are you trolling like this when it’s pretty clear that most of the people on this thread, excluding yourself, do want to marry under such a law?”
I’m not aware that most people on this thread even want to marry, what to speak of under such a law. I’m willing to concede that maybe I’m wrong.
“The conventional wisdom is that many of the men expatriating to the Philippines fully intend to stay single for the remainder of their lives. Few to none (that I am aware of) keep to this intention. They all get married to a loving Filipina wife in the first two years. It is cliche it is so common.”
Right but they return to the States to live and work. They don’t stay over there.
Dalrock
What the change in the laws has done is create a blanket shift in power from the husband to the wife. This isn’t something that only comes up at certain times, it is always there, like a giant magnetic field. The threat is ever present. If you watch you will notice this is a constant theme in movies, etc, especially content aimed at women.
As a child I watched “It Happened One Night” with my parents. Recently I found a DVD of it. I do not believe this movie could be made today in Hollywood, and if it were made by an indy outfit there would be no distribution for it. If nothing else, the use of grapefruit would be totally unacceptable – “violence towards women”, “misogyny”, etc.
This was a very popular movie when it was made, and it was a staple on old movie TV stations for years. The same can be said, maybe moreso, of “McLintock” from the 1960’s. Back in the 1980’s I once listened to an interview with a female “expert” on “violence against women” who claimed with a totally straight face “John Wayne spanked a woman in every one of his movies. Every one!” and that was part of a larger “culture of violence” that menaced women.
I keep expanding my “Women’s Week” movie list. Now I must add “It Happened One Night” to the rest: “The Quiet Man”, “Kiss Me, Kate”, “McLintock” and “The Maltese Falcon”.
If you want marriage to exist long term, then divorce has to go, period. ”
Not one single American would marry under such a law.
I absolutely would. Most of my close friends would too. It used to be you had to have a very good reason to divorce in this country.
“My wife asked me early on if I could be trusted in the Philippines on my own. My reply was not only no, but hell no. She has made sure that I am never out and about on my own in the Philippines. I am glad to hear that you are an oak, but (to quote Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) a man has to know his limitations. For me I may want to stay on the narrow path, but I am weak when it comes to the many women that will flirt with me in the Philippines. Better not to be put in the path of temptation.”
We thought Filipinas tolerate infidelity as long as their husbands don’t rub it in their faces. Don’t ask, don’t tell type of policy. Now you tell us they threat point castration?
Right but they return to the States to live and work. They don’t stay over there.
Some do but many don’t. Quite a few guys retire over there.
Military life is not as glamorous as you think. It is very restrictive in some ways in other ways you will have so much camaraderie One can sincerely proud of what they do and who they are. Those emotional intangibles are extremely powerful and important. Those are being removed with political correctness. It started with integrating women and now with the homosexuals. Think of the young men joining the marines and wanting to be 0300 marine infantrymen only to be used as a prop for some cunts story about being the first female infantryman. All the while being constantly reminded that you are a racist sexist homophobic abuser. A military man’s family is not a source of comfort or support at all. It is all legal burden and everyone is entitled to your pay. I have sat and talked with an MP at MCAS Tustin California he pointed at that house where the wife would have the MP’s kick him out and they would watch her boyfriend come over. Very common story. It doesn’t take a deployment to a combat zone to cause the stress and disillusionment that can bring suicide. It helps it along when a blue pill man tries to live up to a lie.
@Keenan McGregor
No. There is a natural balance of power, and government and cultural intervention is working to redistribute power from husbands to wives.
“No. There is a natural balance of power”
Egalitarianism?
“Some do but many don’t. Quite a few guys retire over there.”
But retain US citizenship, right?
But retain US citizenship, right?
That’s a good question. I never thought to ask. My guess would be yes, but I could be wrong. If losing their citizenship would effect their retirement funds, I would think they would retain their citizenship. If not, they may switch so as not to have to continuously renew their visas. I’ll have to ask at the next gathering.
@SSM, Dalrock
Thanks for the responses. I’ll have to investigate further on the matter.
@innocentbystanderboston
“Subbed” means that I have nothing to contribute to the discussion, but I want to keep track of it via e-mail.
I hope that helps.
Filipinas tolerate infidelity as long as their husbands don’t rub it in their faces. Don’t ask, don’t tell type of policy. Now you tell us they threat point castration?
For the most part I get the impression that they tolerate it in the sense that they won’t end the marriage over it, but there is often another price to pay. My wife has made the same threat to me. I don’t think she was serious though, but I’m not a player anyhow.
I’ve heard stories of other types of retaliations. Some were against the husband and some were against the woman he cheated with. Sometimes a male family member will punch the offending husband. Mostly the couple fights, the woman cries and they eventually patch it up.
I wouldn’t worry about getting your crank cut off. The only guys that want to marry that cheat on their wives are the ones that have wives that don’t fuck them.
“The reasons for this are obvious – women are the much scarcer reproductive resource”
This means, of course, that once women are beyond their reproductive years – say 30? – they are worthless and should not be supported.
Since men created/discovered/invented everything (women who did are statistical outliers) then men, in that sense, are more important than women.
This is what happens when Evo-Psych concepts are applied to things they should not be applied to.
Has anyone read:
http://www.amazon.com/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/0684863170
—
If so, your thoughts?
Also, does anyone know of a (real) conservative Christian trained in neurobiology/neuroscience?
If so, leave me a note on my blog. Thanks.
Dear Dalrock & Keenan:
Keenan asks:
Dalrock responds:
One doesn’t need to dig through historical records to see the balance of power, as it existed in a more stable era. Pop cultural artifacts illustrate it quite well.
An easy example is the protagonist in the Mario Puzo novel entitled *The Godfather*. In the book, the protagonist’s sister marries poorly, to a cad and a player. Sister’s husband cheats openly and beats sister up when she objects. She complains to her family. Her father (the head of an organized crime family) refuses to intervene, largely because she didn’t follow his good advice to marry a nice boy, and insisted on marrying her badboy boyfriend.
The refusal of the father to punish the husband for his bad behavior has the effect of empowering her husband to escalate his unpleasantness. When the female starts showing bruises and being physically injured, the father relents, and sends his son (the woman’s brother) to beat the husband’s ass. In the subtext, the husband is later killed, and the allusion is that this happened after a relapse of husband’s psychopathology.
The violence inherent in the book is exaggerated for effect (it’s a novel, you know, and it has to be entertaining), but the sentiments seem authentic.
In a healthier era, women were expected to follow their father’s advice as to who to marry. Men are more reliable judges of the character of other men. When women fail to heed the advice of their fathers in this regard, they often suffer for it later. Women also have plenty of people who will intervene if there is an actual reason for intervention. No one wants his sister being beaten up by her husband, or catching AIDS from her husband, because he’s a violent cad. The consequence of modernity is atomization, and all these helpful familial bonds are much more fragile now. The state’s intervention in the family life of the individual might be played off as well-intentioned, but it is at best incompetent and usually destructive.
Boxer
Keenan McGregor says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:48 pm
>>“No. There is a natural balance of power”
>>Egalitarianism?
>>“Some do but many don’t. Quite a few guys retire over there.”
>>But retain US citizenship, right?
Too many postings to wait to answer this until I have read them all.
I have no idea why you asked that question. Well, actually I do. We are becoming Stalinist America and many people think if you live in other nations you must give up everything. Your citizenship; your pensions; your Social Security check.
But, the problem with giving up citizenship is the US government makes it very hard. You can’t just fill out a paper. You have to make an appointment and pay taxes to the total of all property owned anywhere on the planet, even if you made that money outside the US. Someone also told me in some countries the waiting list to renounce citizehship extends out years in the future.
There are thousands of people who want to give up their citizenship and the US won’t let them, by making it hard.
Someone commented about wanting to give up citizenship to avoid having to get new visas every few years. Mexico, as well as other nations, offers Mexican nationality. And, I don’t believe after you get it, that you have to show a U.S. passport any more. I could be wrong, but I think it’s that way. I say that because I have a son who has double nationality. When he is in Mexico, it is actually a serious crime to show his U.S. passport, which makes me believe he could let the U.S. passport expire without penalty if he had a way to support himself in Mexico.
He got that dual nationality because his mom, my wife, is Mexican. And, he applied for it.
Marcus,
Yes, I read “A Return to Modesty” many years ago. A good read. It is one of the books that got me away from feminism and also why I try to keep the tone of my blog modest.
Re: Multiple Nationality…
The only roadblock I know of is departing from, or transiting through, the USA, to any other country aside Mexico, on a Mexican passport. American customs agents will prohibit someone born in the USA to leave the USA on a non-USA passport, unless he’s going to the issuing country, without an official certificate of renunciation.
I don’t know about Mexico, but many nations (Canada and the UK are two such) which allow the applicant to leave his birthplace blank on the passports they issue. Technically this is for people born in places like Jerusalem, who don’t want hassles with Arab countries or Israel, etc. That could be a viable cover story, though I can’t say for certain.
Boxer
@Marcus,
Shalit’s book is reviewed by Dr. Roger Devlin here:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch1/devlin_shalit.htm
“I will go even further and point out that when the wife wields this much unnatural power over the husband, it often makes it impossible for her to be attracted to him.
I mean, how much of an attractive, dominant, teasing vibe can a man employ if he is under a sword of damocles like this, at all times?
It almost seems like the law is designed to encourage female infidelity, in a way that can be blamed on the wrong party (the husband).”
Almost . . .
Boxer, frankly I doubt me son would see not being able to enter the US as a problem. He is much more disenchanted with the US than I am. Planes go almost everywhere from Mexico, or so I believe.
Scott (beginning of the thread) wanted to know about research mental health and divorce. Already done: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891411/
Re: the apex fallacy again. The idea that the average man EVER had a lot of individual power over his wife is absolutely ludicrous. But it is believed and promoted by the one group that is susceptible to the apex fallacy, namely women, specially women talking with women, in groups of women. I have a gut knowledge that the apex fallacy, as promulgated by groups of women, is the entire reason behind the moving of the threatpoint and the blanket shift as described by Dalrock.
Marcus,
Yes. I have also met Wendy Shalit at one of her book signings.
For a then 23 year old author, it was a good book. After mentioning she would be in my area, I was encouraged to meet Wendy by posters at another blog that I joined back in 1999.
Wendy Shalit is a typical self-centered, gynocentric feminist, as Devlin clearly demonstrates in the article linked to by Bee.
Note that the article is nine (9) years old and contains a boatload of androsphere truth.
It is very quotable. Perhaps this one is the best, on the topic of modern women:
Children who insist on having everything their own way eventually learn that no one wants to play with them anymore; women who follow Wendy Shalit’s advice of “waiting and keeping their standards high” may find that the wait lasts all the way to menopause.
I have no doubt IBB was pleased to meet her.
This is very true. Many U.S. expats are, quite rightly, scared shitless about the exit tax audit and now FACTA. Many have resigned themselves to naturalizing, if they have not already done so, and then never setting foot on U.S. soil again. It did not used to be this way, but biometrics, data sharing and massive processing capacity have changed everything.
Unless you enter or transit U.S. territory, no.
Remember the dramatic stories of people escaping communism during the cold war. Now it is the US government.
Pingback: Child support and the threat point. | Truth and...
Read this a few moments ago:
Law professor and anti-revenge porn campaigner Mary Anne Franks believes that this kind of abuse is symptomatic of that which women the world over repeatedly face. She explains: “Like other forms of domestic violence and sexual abuse, revenge porn sends the message that it is acceptable to punish women and girls simply for displeasing men—a truly backward and repressive idea. A society that fails to deter and punish this conduct fails to fulfil basic principles of equality.”
From: http://news.yahoo.com/sexting-gets-ugly-104500608–politics.html
Amusing: http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/agonies-of-the-left/
A lot of daughters want their fathers’ ble$$ing$ on their marriage.
When we got married, my father paid for nothing. He even wore one of his own suits to give me away. And yes, he could have afforded to foot the bill.
His position was that since I was acting unilaterally, we could finance it ourselves. So we did. It was super cheap as far as weddings go.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but there are states where custodial parents are allowed to petition the judge to extend child support payments through college for full time students under age 22.
Given that we have a law in place that allows parents to carry health coverage on their young adult children, it is not much of a stretch to imagine child support extending past age 18 as a matter of course. (in FL it’s actually age 18 or H.S. graduation date)
In fact, Elspeth, that is becoming “as a matter of course” in many states already.
@Mikediver
“My wife asked me early on if I could be trusted in the Philippines on my own. My reply was not only no, but hell no. She has made sure that I am never out and about on my own in the Philippines.”
My wife and I live in the US. We met in an American university where she was a foreign student. I’ve never been to the Philippines but would like to go. She’s afraid that something bad would happen to me there because I don’t know the language(s) and can’t blend into the crowd. Perhaps things are better now. She was there under the Marcos dictatorship and when terrorism was pretty bad. She lost some relatives to terrorism and crime.
As for other women, my wife and I have always had a policy of “look but don’t touch.” It makes for a lot of laughter, especially when she catches me looking. I gave my word to her during my wedding vows that I would foresake all others and always try to be a man of my word. I thank God that I didn’t marry any of the American women I dated before meeting her. She isn’t perfect and neither am I but overall we’ve been good for one another. We started out with nothing and built a good life together, both of us working hard (engineer and nurse) and saving because we have no pension. Should I outlive my wife, there’s almost no way I’d ever consider getting married again. I have too much to lose to risk marriage again.
I’m a recent reader of some of the manosphere blogs, coming here from Dr. Helen. It saddens me greatly to hear the pain so many men are going through in the marriage market but especially after being put through the grinder in a divorce. It isn’t pity but a genuine sadness for what they’re going through. I lay awake at night wondering what kind of future my grandchildren will have. They’re inheriting a nation massively in debt, bleak job prospects, and a rotting culture. I think their generation will come to curse all our names for the mess we’re leaving them. We didn’t even make the mess but what can we do to stop it?
@Casey
“If oil is $40 a barrel in 7 years then we will know you were right
if oil is $200 a barrel in 7 years then we will know I was right.”
Do keep in mind that the international price of oil is set in US dollars. With quantative easing (making money out of nothing), the real value of dollars is declining. That is one factor in the high price of oil. However, as the price of oil rises, more marginal fields become economically viable. The known reserves of oil are still very high and are actually increasing with more exploration. However, most if not all of that newly discovered oil will cost more than $40 a barrel. You can go back to the 1920s and find predictions on a regular basis about the world running out of oil. They’ve proven about as accurate as when Bill Gates said that 640K of RAM was all anyone would ever need or when the world market for computers was predicted to be seven machines. As Niels Bohr and Yogi Berra both stated, “Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.”
@Keenan McGregor
“Why wouldn’t they dance around it? They need those fools from the lower classes to swallow the kool-aid about education and career at the military’s (tax payers) expense, with a spattering of faux patriotism on top. They don’t enter the military out of a stirring in their souls to “sacrifice for my country”. They overwhelmingly come from the disadvantaged stratas of our society and need money.”
I take from that comment that you have not served in the military and likely don’t know anyone who is in the military. The enlistment statistics show that you’re very wrong in your assumptions.
http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/who-serves-in-the-u-s-military-mapping-enlisted-troops-and-officers
According to the report (p. 13), “both active-duty enlisted troops and officers come disproportionately from high income neighborhoods—a trend that has increased since 9/11”. As can be seen from the chart on the left, only 11% of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest 1/5 (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods. Also contrary to popular perceptions, U.S. military enlisted troops are not poorly educated. In fact, American soldiers are significantly more likely to have a high school diploma than their civilian peers: only 1.4% of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, compared to 20.8% of the general male population in the age range between 18 and 24. Moreover, 95% of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree.
Source: http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/who-serves-in-the-u-s-military-mapping-enlisted-troops-and-officers#ixzz2puEi7Yt8
empathologism says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:14 pm
“Peak Oil is real. An energy crisis awaits in the next 7 years. Once that crisis comes home to roost, the truth will be known.”
“Not…Do you read consumption reports? Do you track oil and fuels inventories, reserves, new technologies, etc. ?
Relax. Unlike revenue in the Federal government, our grand kids will have oil, if they are not stupid enough to eliminate its use by fiat.”
Actually, Peak Oil is coming on faster than most people have any idea. The horizontal drilling/shale fracturing “bonanza” is only going to have ended up buying a few years’ worth of time, NOT the scores of decades’ worth that nonoilfield-science types often presume. Even the Saudi Arabian gov’t is panicking over their country’s oil depletion rates.
Oh, and I’m a geologist who works in the oil industry for a living.
The “balance of power” that used to exist in marriage wasn’t a 50/50 egalitarian thing. It meant that husband and wife had different kinds of power which balanced each other in a healthy way. The husband had the overt physical and financial power which would be visible from outside the relationship. But the wife had her own more subtle kinds of power; and ultimately, if she kept her husband happy, she could get what she wanted as long as he didn’t think it was a bad idea. Think back to those 50s family shows where the husband was in charge; but if the wife wanted a new sofa, she cooked his favorite meal, cleaned the house really well, brought him his pipe and a drink after supper, batted her eyes at him, banged him silly (off camera), and got a new sofa. Who really has the power, the man on the throne or the person he adores? Depends how you look at it.
The problem now is that the husband’s power has been taken away and given to his wife, and replaced with nothing. She still has the same power of feminine wiles over him (if she chooses to use them and knows how, which many women don’t today), but now she also controls his money and doesn’t have to fear any physical discipline. She has control in every way, just as all the people who think women are more moral think it should be.
(By the way, by “physical” power I’m not talking about beatings or real abuse. I’m talking about spanking or the kind of slap that people back then would have thought reasonable and necessary when a woman was getting rebellious.)
May I recommend (in support of Cail Corbishev) Xenophon’s Oeconomicus – about a man and his younger bride and the arrangement as to what is his and her sphere of activity – for a good idea of why ‘equalist marriage’ is not how marriage should work. Equalism is not the same as mutual care.
Well, interesting thing about the Oeconomicus. It appears that the marriage decribed there did not work out so well:
http://veritaslounge.com/2013/06/08/xenophons-wisdom/#comment-649
@Cail Corishev
I don’t buy that an important tool for headship was threats of a spanking. I know this was occasionally featured in movies, but the examples I can think of had an aspect of comic relief, and then just as now movies were looking for ways to be unusual without offending the cultural sensibilities. An incredibly alpha man like John Wayne ultimately tiring of a woman acting like a small child and eventually spanking her as if she was one doesn’t mean that husbands spanking their wives was commonplace. Moreover, a beta husband with a wife in rebellion who tried this would have very different results. While he is physically stronger than her, he won’t manage this (without her tacit consent) without getting scratched, bit, etc in the process. So there are two kinds of theater clouding this issue. The first is formal theater (the 50s shows and movies). The second was the (rare) theater of a wife shit testing a very alpha husband and pretending to hate it when he put her over his knee.
” @Keenan McGregor January 8, 2014 at 6:23 pm
“The conventional wisdom is that many of the men expatriating to the Philippines fully intend to stay single for the remainder of their lives. Few to none (that I am aware of) keep to this intention. They all get married to a loving Filipina wife in the first two years. It is cliche it is so common.”
Right but they return to the States to live and work. They don’t stay over there.”
The cases I am talking about are the men who have expatriated, and are living permanently (at least that is their intent) in the Philippines. So, no, they eo not bring these women back to the US. Hard as it may be for many here to believe these women mostly want to stay close to their families in their own country. Leaving friends, family, and everything that is familiar in order to marry a western guy does involve sacrifice on the woman’s part.
“@Keenan McGregor January 8, 2014 at 6:29 pm
We thought Filipinas tolerate infidelity as long as their husbands don’t rub it in their faces. Don’t ask, don’t tell type of policy. Now you tell us they threat point castration?”
This belief follows along with the submissive Asian woman myth. There is no such thing. Asian woman rule their homes with an iron fist. Ask any Asian American guy about how their home was run during their childhood. Asian women, in my experience, are not tolerant of infidelity, at all. A little known statistic illustrates my point; Thailand has the highest number of penis reattachment surgeries of any country in the world. The Philippines cannot be far behind. The situation is so stereotypical in Thailand that men joke when out for a few drinks after work that they better get home or the wife will be feeding the ducks. You see to avoid the possibility of reattaching the penis the women have started to feed the severed member to the ducks.
The reason there is the submissive Asian woman myth is because Asian women for the most part do not hate their men. Western women observe the lack of combative warfare as being submissive. To the average western feminist if you are not grinding a man into the dirt, you are letting him get the upper hand, and that is just not acceptable. They have no concept of a complimentary and cooperative relationship between men and women. Men on the other hand seem to like it.
@JDG January 8, 2014 at 7:05 pm
But retain US citizenship, right?
That’s a good question. I never thought to ask. My guess would be yes, but I could be wrong. If losing their citizenship would affect their retirement funds, I would think they would retain their citizenship. If not, they may switch so as not to have to continuously renew their visas. I’ll have to ask at the next gathering.”
If you are a retiree you can get a retirement visa that has to be renewed every year for a very minimal fee. You only have to be over 50 or 55 (I can’t remember) and have a guaranteed income of something like $1,000 per month to get this visa. If you are married to a Philippines citizen, then you can get a green card immediately and have all rights of a citizen except voting. If you are like me, married to a Philippine citizen in the US, prior to emigrating you can apply for the green card up to 6 months prior to going to the Philippines and have the green card before you leave the US. To become a Philippine citizen is very hard. You have to stay for many years in the Philippines and never leave for any reason. Even a few days in Hong Kong resets the clock. I know of no one who has bothered.
I’m not aware that most people on this thread even want to marry, what to speak of under such a law.
I’m aware there are people like greyghost, Ton and Mark who do not want to marry and with good reason. But I’m curious, since I’ve made an assumption based on the many thread comments I’ve read here, that most of the posters here do want to be married, especially if divorce law is changed. There are problems with just divorce law changing, such as universal suffrage still existing, but I think it would at least change some people’s minds (though there is always the possibility it could be re-legalized).
I should ask to clear it up: Dalrock posters, if divorce was outlawed tomorrow, would you want to marry?
Dalrock.
Never has a film brought about such a conflict of absolute bi-polar emotions (strongly positive and strongly negative) from feminist groups, that this one…
“@Larry J January 9, 2014 at 6:55 am
You can go back to the 1920s and find predictions on a regular basis about the world running out of oil. They’ve proven about as accurate as when Bill Gates said that 640K of RAM was all anyone would ever need or when the world market for computers was predicted to be seven machines. As Niels Bohr and Yogi Berra both stated, “Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.””
I was an engineering student in the mid 70s. I was studying nuclear engineering with a minor in alternative energy. At that point they were predicting peak oil in the mid 1980s and running out of coal by the mid 1990s. I also remember the same idoits predicting global climate change; a new ice age was predicted to be imminent.
I may have overemphasized that. I just meant that a wife pre-1950 knew that her husband was stronger than her and could overpower and hurt her if she pushed him far enough. Not that it happened regularly or that she lived in fear, but it was part of the reality. Even if he never raised a hand to her, she knew he could. And that was only part of his power, not necessarily the main part. We’ve heard plenty of red-pill women admit that the fact that their husbands could hurt them (even if they never do) is both sexy and reassuring to them.
Nowadays the reality for the average woman is that A) she’s watched enough Action Girl movies to think she could go toe-to-toe with a man, and B) she knows she can call in the cavalry if he threatens her in any way.
I agree that the old days were like being in a cage with a gentle lion. You were fine as long as you didn’t poke him with a sharp stick. So wifes did not push their husbands to the breaking point, because they knew there were negative consequences for them if they did. Now it is like the wife has a shield of invulnerability, and has been taught that poking the lion with the sharp stick is good fun, and her right. The enraged lion knows about the shield but eventually attacks anyway when he can no longer stand the torment. When he does, the shield crushes him, and the woman moves on to the next caged lion for her sport.
>>I should ask to clear it up: Dalrock posters, if divorce was outlawed tomorrow, would you want to marry?
Marissa, that is a common name here in Mexico. I have been married since 1975. If I become a widow, which is only about 50% probable, I would never marry again. Especially to an AW in any case.
AW are damaged goods. Changing divorce law sounds like a good idea, but women would just use false DV charges, or false sex abuse charges in any case. Marital rape laws will still mean over 22% of married men will have no sex at all, and can do nothing about it.
Affirmative action discrimination laws will still see highly qualified men in the not even looking for a job any more lines while incompetent women get paid over $100,000 a year for do nothing jobs.
American women are the nastiest women on the planet. I know tourism employees in Mexico, and they tell me what they see from AW tourists is even worse than what I told them. Yet, AW think they are perfect and the finest dearies on the planet, and that they are victimized at every moment of their lives.
No rational person will marry in the US SOLELY because they have changed divorce laws. Divorce may be where the worst harm to men occurs, but there is a lot of other harm done.
And, in Mexico and other countries, it is not necessary to marrry before the law. They use the Old Testament marriage system, in which people simply enter the same bed and are considered married, and consider themselves married. A friend says half the couples she knows are in that category. Marriage should be a sacrament, not a slave registration.
The USA is totally infested with feminist, anti-male evil, and cannot possibly be fixed. The only solution is to take it down, most likely in a very painful manner, such as happened to every other major civilization in history,for the same reasons, and start over. There is sufficient history on this so we know what is going to happen. I almost suspect it would be a mercy killing if a gigantic asterioid hit the geographical center of the Continental USA.
I don’t think women have ever really been in fear of physical punishment from their husbands. Not to any great degree. The Scriptural description of woman as the “weaker vessel” is firmly entrenched in American life.
This isn’t some new thing that just took place as feminism began to influence public policy. The percentage of men who considered corporal punishment a legitimate reaction to a rebellious wife must have been very small. Boys are taught not to hit a girl from a very young age.
A mercy killing; I like that term. I am also afraid Anonymous age 71 is correct. As a patriotic veteran and father of children and grandfater of others, I wish this were not true. I fear greatly for my sons if they stay in the US. Nothing good is headed thier way. I am preparing my exit, and I am trying to convince my sons to exit with me.
Cail,
This is best as a one-on-one conversation between a pastor and woman who is about to be married for the first time (or better yet, a man who is marrying off his daughter.) Problem is, women today are not like SSM, they hold on to their identity too much. They don’t get what marriage is supposed to be, they only want Marriage 2.0 or none at all….
(Dad to daughter) “Submit to your husband, in all things, obey him. Vote the way he tells you to. Work a job if he tells you to. Stay at home if he tells you to. Don’t make a large purchase without his permission. Do exactly what he tells you to in your bedroom together. Worship God and Christ in the church that he tells you to.”
(Daughter to dad) “Oh YUCK! No I am NOT going to do THAT!”
(Dad) “Why not?”
(Daughter) “He’s not my boss!”
(Dad) “Then why are you marrying him?”
(Daughter) “Because I love him and want to spend the rest of my life with him.”
(Dad) “If you love him and want to spend the rest of your life with him, then make him your boss.”
(Daughters) “No dad, we are equals. Equals!”
(Dad) “So when there is conflict in the home between these equals, who makes the final decision?”
(Daughter) “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean?”
(Dad) “You guys need to buy a new car. You can only afford one and can’t get another for about 5 years. He picks something you hate. You picks something he hates. Who wins?”
(Daughter know starting to really thing) “We’ll pick something else I guess, in between.”
(Dad) “A compromise. So neither of you gets what you want. He offers other cars, you hate them all, the ones you offer he hates them, so who wins?”
(Daughter) “Its not going to be like that.”
(Dad) “You move to a new town and are choosing churches. You church hop a little. One Pastor he likes, but you hate him. The other Pastor you love, but he hates her. Which church do you attend? Who wins?”
(Daughter) “Daddy why are you being like this? Why are you creating problems where there aren’t any?”
(Dad) “What do you think marriage is? Young lady, you are consenting to be his property. He owns you. Your body is his property. He has pride of ownership and he will take care of you best if you submit to his ownership. If you love this man and want to spend the rest of your life with him, why wouldn’t you submit to him in all things?”
(Daughter) “Because I am my OWN WOMAN!!!!! I have RIGHTS!!! I am a WHOLE PERSON!!!!! He does not own me I am NOT his or any man’s slave! I can’t BELIEVE you would say this to me, your own daughter!”
(Dad) “If you are so focused on your rights, that you are a whole person, don’t marry this man. Afterall, you are whole, your words, right?”
(Daughter) “Right!”
(Dad) “Okay you are whole. So what do you need him for?”
(Daughter) “I don’t need him, I want him.”
(Dad) “You want him now because he has something you want. After you get it, you wont want him anymore. You aren’t ready for marriage. I wont be paying for this wedding because it is not blessed. You refuse to give up your self for this man, refuse to obey, I don’t call this a marriage. I guess you’ll have to elope.”
(Daughter) “Mom!!!!!!”
And so it goes….
The other Pastor you love, but he hates her.
Why are they considering a church with a female pastor? I agree that they’re doomed.
In reply to Elspeth, no, it was never common and it was never not against the law. It was kept mostly as a private issue when it did occur, and the family dealt with it based on the merits of the case. Women in general did not push men over the edge where they would act counter to their cultural conditioning. So it didn’t happen often.
Women abuse men physically as much, or more, than men abuse women physically. And that does not even touch the huge imbalance in verbal and psychological abuse women heap on men. I like the quote from one source that said, considering the amount of abuse the typical American woman gives her husband I am amazed that only some 6% resort to DV. Human beings can be violent. Both women and men are human beings. So, both can be violent.
When questioned by researchers in recent studies violent abusive women are asked why they did it when they knew the guy was bigger and stronger and could retaliate. They answer that they knew for an absolute certainty that he could and would do nothing to them. The issue is when a shield of invulnerability is granted to one sex, the other can be abused at whim. It is a question of power, and always has been. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am afraid that American women of this generation are corrupted absolutely, and there is no hope for recovery until the entire generation passes away (if ever).
Elspeth,
Because daddy knows daughter.
The kind of “touhgh love” talk that I gave, this ficticious little story, is probably not all that out of the ordinary for a red pill dad talking to his now all grown up blue pill daughter who wants to get married, loves the idea of marriage, but only wants marriage on her terms. The real trouble is, how many dads can really play “tough love” and not give their daughters what they want? I would say almost none. I would have a very hard time being that kind of a prick, but if they’re doomed????
71, I agree entirely with your statements; if I were a man, I wouldn’t marry either and especially not to an American woman. I’m not looking for sympathy, but it is exceedingly difficult to find female friends in real life (not on the internet). I would never in my life say to another woman’s face that I think she shouldn’t be allowed to vote–and other controversial sentiments–so these relationships are mostly shallow.
My disagreement with Keenan MacGregor (Christians for Christ!?) was that there are people on this thread who do seem to want to be married, especially if a law outlawing divorce were in place. My assumption looks more and more wrong. I’ll add 2 more (you and Mikediver) to the “Not one single American would marry under such a law” side. So it’s 5 “no marriage even if divorce is outlawed” and 0 “yes to marriage if divorce is outlawed”.
@Elspeth, you are right. It has never, contrary to many others’ claims on both sides, never been typical for a man to beat his wife. And call me old fashioned but my son learned at a very young (preschool) age about the true physical difference between boys and girls (clothed): boys he can hit back, girls he can’t.
You may have heard the expression “to go Old Testament on you”, meaning smiting etc. But even in the Old Testament, the prescribed solution to a brawling and contentious wife did not involve smiting her.
Marissa, you misunderstand my point. I am an American. I married a Filipina under the no divorce law (in the Philippines). I stated that many (almost all) single American men who emigrate to the Philippines have no problem marrying under the no divorce law. Men tend to take their vows seriously, and have no problem not having the get out of marriage free card that American women insist they have to have.
Marissa,
This is why I love Ann Coulter.
She’s brave….
BTW, I had the tough love talk with my daughter that recently married. She called several weeks before the wedding and said she was wavering about taking his last name, out of loyalty to our family name. I told her that if she was not willing to go that far, then maybe she was not ready for marriage. She quickly decided that taking her husband’s name was the way to go.
@ Everyone
My comment about peak oil seems to have brought out the FOR and AGAINST crowd quite strongly.
Let’s back up for a second, and see if we can agree on the intent I had in making that peak oil comment.
Oil is the material that makes the economic engine turn. It also allows mankind to do more work, easily. It has allowed mankind to tame the world (for better or worse) and make it an easier place to live. Just about any nitwit can survive in the current construct where real life skills have been made nearly obsolete.
Women for thousands of years minded their place. It wasn’t until men tamed the world that women could make such retarded boasts about equality. Men & Women couldn’t be more different if you sat down and tried to reverse engineer them as such.
IF the world falls on truly hard times (however so caused) then feminism will die a quick, painless death.
As I said in my first comment, I wasn’t talking about “beating.” If a woman started screeching at her husband, he might slap her once, the way people do in the movies to stop someone who’s getting hysterical, and he didn’t fear that he would get arrested for it. But remember that we’re talking about threat-points here, not day-to-day activity. Today, the fact that a woman can divorce her husband and take his kids and his income reduces his power in the relationship. That threat-point exists even if she never mentions divorce, even if she’s blissfully happy — the potential is still there and affects the balance of power. Likewise, the fact that women used to know that pushing a man far enough could get a violent response affected the balance of power, even in relationships where the man never so much as raised his voice.
When someone has power over you — even if he shows no sign of using that power — it affects how you act toward him.
Cail Corishev
The “balance of power” that used to exist in marriage wasn’t a 50/50 egalitarian thing. It meant that husband and wife had different kinds of power which balanced each other in a healthy way. The husband had the overt physical and financial power which would be visible from outside the relationship. But the wife had her own more subtle kinds of power; and ultimately, if she kept her husband happy, she could get what she wanted as long as he didn’t think it was a bad idea.
This describes the relationship between my maternal grandparents almost perfectly. As a child I witnessed their 50th wedding anniversary.
The problem now is that the husband’s power has been taken away and given to his wife, and replaced with nothing.
Zed once aptly described this as “gimme TWO STICKS” vs. the traditional “carrot and stick” approach. Another way to put it would be the classic demotivational slogan, “The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves”.
But remember, the only problem is “how to fix men”…
@Mikediver
To be even more clear as to what this is about, it is that women in the past didn’t have a legal process in place to make it safe for them to abuse their husbands. I’ve shared examples of questions on Yahoo answers where the wife is convinced her husband is an abuser after he struck back to stop her from beating him with a hot frying pan. I also linked to the domestic violence article in WebMD which cautions husbands to not allow their wives to maneuver them into a room without an exit because women will corner a man and berate him until he feels he has to leave or is at risk of lashing out, and when he tries to leave (and she physically blocks his way) if he brushes past her he is deemed an abuser.
It is very frustrating that wives not being allowed to abuse their husbands is framed as husbands threatening violence if wives don’t behave. It isn’t true.
We do not need petroleum except in the short term. There is an incredible amount of natural gas, and a lot of science to show natural gas is a natural thing in our planet, not produced from something else as was once thought.
Also, as science develops there will be more and more energy produced without coal or oil or even natural gas. We are just starting to develop other sources, which at this time are not economically feasible, but which must be worked on for long term development purposes.
Doing anything to artificially reduce use of oil means stopping the relatively strong economy which funds research in other areas of energy. This was documented back in the early 70’s when we had a short term energy crisis.
Now see, I don’t feel even remotely free to try and attack my husband with impunity. Intellectually, I know I could lash out physically, take the slap, and call the cops. Assuming he didn’t call them on me first.
However, we have a family and a home that would be destroyed if I did something like that. It would be utterly foolish of me.
Not to mention my family of origin; where the response would be unequivocally, ‘You hit him? You’re lucky all you got was a slap.”
Yay Luke! “Actually, Peak Oil is coming on faster than most people have any idea. The horizontal drilling/shale fracturing “bonanza” is only going to have ended up buying a few years’ worth of time, NOT the scores of decades’ worth that nonoilfield-science types often presume.”
Peak Horse! Bring it on. A job I am actually not too shabby at, for once 🙂
I’d be just as pleased with Peak Coal (without the need to chuck actual men down t’pit, I hope), and even Peak Sail.
Or even Peak Fusion, which is my hunch for what actually happens when the next resource war between advanced economies drags its overdue arse into the ring. Top STEM betas are gonna be sought and traded like elephant ivory in the race to pin it down. Not necessarily voluntarily; uh oh, chongo.
“.. we have a family and a home that would be destroyed if I did something like that. It would be utterly foolish of me.”
Oh dear SSM, you wanna get out more. Have you any idea how few women give a flying french fancy about that? It’s part of the attraction. Teh Dramaz!!11!!
Let me put it this way: my father and grandfathers are/were very mild-mannered men. They didn’t spank their kids except reluctantly when they felt it was absolutely necessary, and I’ve never seen any sign that they ever struck their wives or that their wives ever feared that they would.
And yet, they were human, and as such did have tempers and limits. They had all been in fights as boys and served in the military, so they knew how to hurt a person. They had the strength that comes from a lifetime of farming, and could have hurt their wives badly if they’d wanted to, without trying hard.
Now, again, I’m not saying they ever used that threat to keep their wives in line, or that their wives tiptoed around them because of it. I’d bet they didn’t. But when you know someone can easily hurt you, you act differently around him. I’ve only been around a few men who I knew were stronger and tougher than me, and it certainly affected how I saw them. I didn’t kiss their asses, and I didn’t cringe in fear when they came around, but I was aware of it. I have to think women are aware of it too, and that it has some effect on how they treat men.
So if my mom and grandmothers had been taught from birth that they didn’t ever have to worry about that because any man who even looked at them funny could be prosecuted, I assume it would have had some effect on the balance of power in their marriages. Perhaps not a fatal effect, because their husbands still would have had other ways to remain dominant and command their respect. But it wouldn’t have been the same balance. That’s all I was getting at.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but there are states where custodial parents are allowed to petition the judge to extend child support payments through college for full time students under age 22.
Given that “adultolesence” is the current societal norm, this isn’t the least bit surprising. I’m waiting for the next generation of laws that extend child support to a lifelong obligation for Dad, until either he or or his offspring croak first (given the number of “senior” parents still carrying oxygen-thieving adultolescent offspring [or their bastard children], one could argue that is already in place, de facto).
Elspeth, 1/9/14, 11:24 am:
Once again, you show yourself to be an outlier. Most women are trained nowadays that it’s OK to hit men, OK to hit or strike or abuse their husbands, because, well, they’re men and they can take it.
Most men are trained that they are never to put their hands on any woman, anytime, anywhere, even in self-defense. Most men are trained that there is never any excuse to strike a woman, even in self-defense and even when her physical attack is imminent. Men are trained that you must simply stand there and let her strike you.
In HBO’s “Girls” Lena Dunham’s character (Hannah) is financially supported (to some extent) in Manhattan. Her folks live in CT and they sorta pay her Manhattan rent because… well…. serving coffee doesn’t pay that much.
I can put my daughter on my health insurance to age 26. I think the ACA mandates that actually.
Pingback: The Damocles’ Sword of Divorce
@Cail
I think what you are trying to say is it is basic psychology to look to bigger/stronger people for leadership. I believe this is recognized from studies noting that taller men are more likely to be selected for management roles, for example. This basic dynamic is more pronounced between men and women, and feminists rage against the fact that women very often look to men for leadership. But I really believe that you are conflating the way feminists have sought to counteract this natural tendency (by making men so low in status that it is legally sanctioned to use aggression against them) and frame this as men previously being allowed to use threats of violence to lead their wives. You are swallowing the feminist frame here, much to the delight of any feminist reading.
@ feeriker
I am waiting for child support to become a ‘generational’ obligation, such that if we can’t get the money out of the FATHER…..we’ll take it from the GRANDFATHER if he has assets.
Clearly Grampa is at fault too, given he sired this deadbeat Dad.
It would matter not to the courts how draconian such a law would be to an innocent person.
The feminist imperative has spoken, and it has said THOU SHALT PAY!
@ Dalrock & Cail
I believe this is simple ‘respect’ for authority we are discussing.
When you walk into your boss’ office, you will behave differently than if your staff walked into your office.
There is a hierarchy in the corporate structure, and it demands respect.
There is a hierarchy in the family structure too, and it used to demand respect as:
God
Father
Mother
Children
It has been restructed by feminists as:
Mother
State
Children
God
Fathers are not even in the hierarchy. They are somewhere off to the side, as raw materials.
” If we want it gone (and I want it gone) we have to provide a very full-proof method of making sure that their daughters KNOW (for sure) before she marries a man that he will not hit her”
Good. Men shouldn’t marry until there a very full-proof method that they will not be divorced is provided. Tell your daughters to enjoy the cats. Remind them to fatten up so their cats have something to eat when they die until someone finally gives a rat’s ass about what happened to them.
That’s not what I meant, so I’m sorry it’s coming across that way. Regardless of what feminists have done today, I just think that a man’s natural physical dominance — its existence, not its usage or threats thereof — used to be part of his side of the balance of power.
If feminists jump on that and say, “See, men used to beat their women into submission, so we had to stop them!” that’s too bad, but it’s not what I’m saying at all. I suspect that there’s far more violence in both directions today (we know that unmarried couples have more abuse cases than married ones, for instance), thanks to the balance of power being upset.
If a man takes his wife’s abuse for years because he knows he’s not allowed to fight back, and then one day he explodes and beats her to death, there’s a good chance that wouldn’t have happened a century ago because she never would have started pushing him that hard in the first place. Not because men were “allowed to use threats of violence” back then, but because women didn’t have the state on their tag team to jump in if they went too far. I’m saying that husbands generally didn’t threaten violence, because women hadn’t been trained out of what every boy learns by six years old on the playground: pick on someone your own size.
Women for thousands of years minded their place. It wasn’t until men tamed the world that women could make such retarded boasts about equality. Men & Women couldn’t be more different if you sat down and tried to reverse engineer them as such.
See discussion of “decadence”: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
Sigh.
1) Anyone with some actual background in petroleum considers natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons to together constitute petroleum.
2) There is not much reason to believe that nuclear fusion will save us. (The research is not doing well; electricity (all fusion power would mainly directly produce) can’t fill fuel tanks; and, it doesn’t include the thousands and thousands of absolutely critical precursor chemicals that petroleum does.)
3) Need for substitutes does NOT necessarily equate to finding them in time, however dire the need.
4) Abiotic sources of hydrocarbons of molecular weight above methane are largely absent in the Earth today, and those are the ones we mainly need.
Useful oil and gas are quickly running out, with no real substitutes in sight, and with the relative ack of O & G likely to lead to the death within a rather short time of the bulk of people living in the West.
@ Luke,
At least you and I are on the same page re: peak oil.
I’m sure people who cannot conform to that new reality (lack of O&G) will perish. Those that are left will engage in much more labour intensive farming….much like 200 years ago.
Women will very quickly learn that we are NOT equals. We have differing skillsets, designed to be deployed differently. Both important, but different.
When survivial becomes the issue, women will be oh too happy to pass the authority yoke to the man charged with providing that survival.
If life becomes harder (and I believe it will) then the feminist movement will become a footnote in the history pages. Folklore as the years pass.
In the early 80’s, when I began my 10 years of public activism, a state legislator from the town where our State university was located proposed a law which said at the moment of divorce a man’s LIFETIME INCOME would be divided between all the members of the family.
That is, a man; a woman and two kids, 3/4 of his lifetime income belonged to the other people, and only 1/4 of his lifetime income would be his. Cute, huh?
Need I say it would not be paid to the offspring even when they became adults, but to the mother for life. First to help her raise the kids, then to compensate her for having raised them. (Hey, stupid, we aren’t asking you to raise them for us, so why should we have to pay you for life for something we’d gladly do ourselves?) Lifetime alimony is just another modern name for what she proposed in the 80’s, to make it more platable to the female voters.
i wrote an op-ed to the big newspaper in the state capitol, quoting issue and page of MS. magazine (then the publication of N.O.W.) that made that a talking point for all good feminists, and congratulating her on her obedience to the feminist coven leaders.
A lobbyist I knew told me later that a male legislator went trotting out to buy that issue of MS. magazine, all the men looked at it, and she got heckled something terrible. The topic was dropped for the time. One of my biggest albeit easiest victories.
But, you see, evil feminists never give up. They just re-frame and come back at it from a different direction, while men mostly sit around on anonymous boards, and fight with each other. That is why there is lifetime alimony in some states. And, also why we have no rights.
There is only one original goal of the feminists as reported on MS. magazine and other places, that has made no real progress.
The evil fiends said that 90% of all men must be exterminated because men have no real value and contaminate the planet.
They have not canceled that action item. They are just waiting for the right time and conditions to implement it. Just as Hitler waited for WWII to fully implement death camps for Jews.
GTHO. If you cannot, then arm yourself if it means moving to a gun state.
From time to time some highly superior person will announce he is not a coward and is not running away. He is going to stay and fight. One of my SIL’s, the idiot one, told me that once. Note he has never, ever fought. One time he went to Washington, D.C, and wandered around anonymously in the midst of 100,000 men. True bravery has never been known. [/sarcasm]
Those with this attitide have never expatted. It takes much more courage to leave your only home and go to a different culture. In fact, fear is the most common reason for men NOT to expat.
In fact, I wait for the first person who has ever called me a coward for GTHO, to actually fight at all, even public protest. Talk, talk!
>>Useful oil and gas are quickly running out,
Yes, oil and gas will run out just abou the exact minute the polar caps are all melted and NYC is buried in the ocean. This is not a place to claim this Bravo Sierra.
And, where did you get your geology graduate degree (I have one), petroleum engineering degree, and/or have worked where in the oil industry geographically? (I’ve worked on 5 continents and in 10+ U.S. states.)
You’re not another guy with a high school or liberal arts “degree” (who’s never worked in the oil industry, especially not in a brain job, i.e., not as a trucker) that thinks he knows more about a field than people with actual serious background in it, are you?
Before I retired an older man told me a story.; He hailed from a small Midwestern town. This alleged incident occurred, probably in the 40’s or 50’s.
A man was sitting in a bar drinking a beer after work when his wife came boiling in and told him to get on home. He replied nicely enough that he would, just as soon as he finished the beer he had in his hand.
She ran over, and stomped her high heel right in the middle of his shoe, breaking a bone in there. He was off work for several weeks until it healed.
Her mother became curious and started asking questions. She found out her lovely daughter had been pounding on him for a very long time.
She drove over to the daughter’s house and knocked on the door. When her daughter answered the door, she grabbed her long hair in her hand and wrapped it around like a rope, and pulled her head down to a comfortable location. Comfortable for the mom.
Then, she proceeded to pummel the snot out of her, to the degree that when she let go, her daughter fell to the ground,
She told her, “I tried to raise you right, but I missed something and came over to fix it. You learned that a man cannot hit a woman, but you missed the part that a woman is also not supposed to hit a man. If I ever hear of you laying a hand on him again, I will be back.”
I really don’t know if this tale is true. But, I will say life in the small rural towns was very different. And, it is certainly possible that in the 40’s and 50’s an old mother would have done something like that. So, I chose to believe it.
Luke, we have had enough men on here who claim super expertise on a topic, then decree no one else can have an opinion. There are plenty of ‘petroleum’ experts who keep repeating we are NOT running out of this stuff soon, and that the known reserves are higher than at any time in history.. I will tell you frankly that I do not believe you, period. So, stop pontificating.
The professional liars with their political agendas who have also been pushing the bogus end of the world climate change hoax also quote their big and impressive degrees as being more important than the truth. Give it up. It is our planet, too, not just yours.
A mans’ board is not a place for a person to claim no one else can have an opinion because of his big degree.
Anonymous, I’ll ask you one more time:
Do you have ANY background in the science of petroleum, or are you just going by the words of other people whose POVs you like?
“Anonymous age 71 @ January 9, 2014 at 2:33 pm ”
A big part of the problem with women today is that older women have stopped guiding, advising, and controlling younger women. As a result the lives of the younger women are train wrecks. Remember that women do not, and never have, taken anything a man says seriously. At this point we have several generations of women that have never known an older woman that took them by the hand and pointed out the unpleasant realities of life. The old time advise of mothers and grandmothers about the woman that thinks she is too good for men may be right, but is more often left, and the guidance to avoid the thugs and cads no matter how much the gina tingles, have been absent from our culture for too long. My MIL in the Philippines is worth her weight in gold. She has given advise to my wife that has made her grow up and become a good wife. She does not sugar coat anything, nor does she pull her punches. If you act like a bitch she will call you on the carpet for it, no matter who you are.
Ask me Luke you sensationalistic poseur. he who hath the hyperbole hath his head where he makes his own methane.
Yea, got the degree, work in the energy and petchem field 30 years….so what…..I do not expect that to sway men like Anon 71, unless, over time, in multimple topics, I may have happened to demonstrate to him that Im not subject to flipping Polar Vortex -ish histrionics.
That someone even imagined to start this topic in the context of this blog post comments is already a pale or doubt. Its peacocking. Go lobby the government, or help your neighbors turn their SUVs into plow shares if you wanna help. Throw out theories here if you wanna get some weird boost….harness than boost and your energy needs are covered.
I don’t care if yours is bigger than mine. Put the damn ruler away junior.
@ Anonymous age 71
We are all entitled to our point of view.
What we are NOT entitled to is a re-writing of facts, lest we become women ourselves.
Hubbert’s oil peak was accurately predicted WAY back in the 1950’s nailing peak oil production as the 1970s for US domestic oil AND 2000s for global oil production. We are currently playing the back 9 on the golf course known as ‘global oil’.
Oil production falls off rapidly post-peak. It will make itself known by the year 2020; and explicitly known before the year 2030….when daily output will be 50% of 2005’s peak.
@ Empath
You know what…..sure, let’s drop this peak oil topic.
For fuck’s sake anyway……all I was tyring to demonstrate is that feminism is a construct of easy times. A straw man easily blown away when/if times get difficult.
Whether it be peak oil, or an economic armageddon…..hard times will right what is wrong with women. Of course, we (men) will get to shoulder that bullshit too.
Off topic (oil) for the oil experts…
If we can “frack” it in South Dakota (I guess we couldn’t do that two decades ago, I don’t know) and maybe we can even extract it from coal (I think the Nazis did that in WWII), what other methods of oil “production” are there other than just sucking it out of the ground? And if there are other technologies, maybe they can keep finding more and MORE ways of oil “production” and maybe we’ll never hit Peak Oil?
There is no winning this argument, as i said yesterday. The gurus of peak oil can explain away these facts.
US Oil production
1980 8,597,000 bbls per day
2006 5,087,000
2012 6,488,000
World Oil Production
1980 59,557,000 bbls per day
2006 73, 267,000
2012 75,575,000
1972 was peak production in the U.S. BECAUSE WE HAD A FREAKING EMBARGO!!!!!!!!!!!!
That odd thing caused a spike in ’79 again.
No global peak was hit in 2000.
This is well and well condensate.
If you want to debate what there is in terms of sulfur bearing crude and sweet crude and what the ground from which the crude comes from and whether Sponge Bob and Patrick are gay, g’head Luke
Yes Casey, feminism is that indeed, and folks here have zero issue with the fact that a day of reckoning may be coming. We just haven’t gone all Rick Grimes yet on what the cause will be.
Luke, I forgot to mention, my CV includes being told by a clerk at American eagle Outfitters, while buying my 17 yer old some cloths, that I reminded him of Walter White. Yer move Jesse
IBB, google Peak Oil, and read what those “experts” say. read a summary of the book(s). It was car-meggedon.
We have sufficient reason to buy prefab bunkers as it is. Better get’em before the thermoplastic feed stock dries up and we are carrying groceries in those silly woven filthy cloth bags.
Research Sasol.
There is even production of oil from algae now, so…
Sasol, South African Petchem company with operations globally, building a 3 billion dollar ethylene cracker in South Louisiana as we speak, manufacturers of Maleic Anhydride in Europe.
Eastman have been gasifying coal and using it in lieu of oil based (naphtha) feeds for making olefins for years. Chinese use coal tar based slurries to get aromatic chemicals like benzene a great deal. every one of these increments SAVES oil for use as fuel. The dilemma “food for chemicals” is a well known one, the dilemma “plastics vs energy” not so much. All these advances put energy back in the kettle while allowing the plastics to be made via other routes.
@ Empath
Rick Grimes…..The Walking Dead…..clever.
Agreed….I have no idea what the catalyst will be to punctuate the end of feminism.
I find myself wishing for an event that will turn feminism on it’s fat ass. Manosphere blogging is far too slow to have the desired impact.
Imagine there once could have been “peak wood” for heating. “Peak whale oil” for burning.
No one would assert that oil is infinite. But its demand is stable even with logarithmic population growth, because of lower consumption, higher CAFE, better insulation, and alternative fuels.
I’m not sure what the agenda of the peak oil folks even is. Some are wild eyed environmentalists, others and pro some other form of energy and would like to urge its proliferation, still others just want attention.
How did we get distracted from child support threatpoint to future petroleum production? Maybe the chuck-it-all doomsday portion of mgtow? Anyway we are in exactly as much danger of running out of easily extractable oil in the next few decades as we are in danger of running out of Velveeta.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-14/2014-outlook-gulf-of-mexico-oil-patch-gushes-again
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/01/07/kraft-warns-velveeta-shortage/
If you really want some more, then we’ll just exert ourselves a little harder to get some more.
Longer term, centuries, if you really really want some more, then we’ll just make some more. Even assuming no new technology development at all, we already have several centuries worth of known coal deposits in CONUS. If we really decide to let the STEM guys loose and give them the resources they want, the Azolla Event alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
deposited on the order of ten thousand times as much carbon as in worldwide proven oil reserves in a portion of the Arctic basin. Only willpower, and maybe derring-do, is lacking. Money guys tend to be wasteful cowards, unfortunately.
Im fracking dropping this. I am sorry to have been drawn in. Instead of someone else puting a ruler away, I had gotten mine out. maybe good to delete the entire series of irrelevant comments and say sorry Dalrock
Can we drop the whole oil discussion and get back to something a little less controversial?
Former Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer said in an interview that space aliens exist.
* There are at least 80 species on the Earth today.
* They are working with the US Air Force.
* When visiting Las Vegas, they dress like nuns so they will blend in with the local populace.
I thought they’d all gone home. After the OWS groups dismantled I haven’t seen any.
I’ll call it “juxtaposition”:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/08/andrew-coyne-failing-laws-against-prostitution-and-other-old-taboos-not-a-sign-of-societys-moral-degradation-quite-the-opposite/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/09/san-diego-prostitution-ring-spanned-46-cities-in-23-states-prosecutors-say-victims-branded-with-tattooed-bar-codes/
Marcus,
That bit on the San Diego protitution ring in 46 cities, forget the state of California. If they transported the women over state lines (trafficed them the way you traffic drugs) the Feds can nail them on the Mann Act! LOL!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
@Empath
I’m pretty sure they are 99% human.
They bred with people???????????
I KNEW there was stuff happening in those filthy sleeping bags
Speaking of Occupy, this is the last news item I found on Stacey Hessler.
http://nypost.com/2012/10/28/after-ditching-her-family-occupy-mom-snags-85k-in-divorce/
Anonymous Reader says:
January 9, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Why am I not surprised?
Actually I am.
“The children will be under primary care of their father,” state the settlement papers the couple jointly submitted.
She must have really gone over the deep end.
So is that what it takes for a woman to lose custody of her kids? Be a member of Occupy Wall Street?
I guess first & foremost the system wants to take care of itself.
Woman can create no end of grief for their husbands……but take a stand against the fianancial system and suddenly Dad as primary caregiver is OK.
Dalrock,
I keep coming into your recent articles at around 300 comments. Anyway … the last one on “as expected” I’d got going on a comment like this and it just got overlong, but I’m going to try at it again and do my best to keep it brief … it’s 80% question, 20% comment, and if you are sharing, I want to understand where you are on this as it affects the flavor of how someone should understand your writing and your angle.
Generally following manosphere conventional wisdom, I broadly take away four concepts of “what shall be done?”
One is to wait out the decline, or the fall, or the apocalypse, or whatever. You have the Cap’n Capitalism basically counseling to accept it as foregone and inevitable and to find a way to get used to it, Heartiste ideating and provoking it, Stardusk predicting and hoping and urging for it.
Another – more in the AVfM vein, goes along with MGTOW/marriage-strike, but more towards the end of a genuine humanist vision which accepts a lot of the outcomes of modernity, but takes exception to the ascent of identity-based ideology like feminism.
Another is to actually combat the culture, as if to beat back or take back the superculture. To counter the modern superculture with a traditionalist alternative.
Last is to build subcultures that observe different mores.
Me personally – I dismiss the first on many bases not worth getting into – that’s not the same as giving it a 0% chance of happening – I just don’t view it as something that should be taken seriously. The second is the high road, uphill and excruciatingly hard, but not unfeasible. The third I give 0% chance of success, but I don’t dismiss it like I do the first. The last I consider imminently reasonable and a method with ample success examples from history.
The third – fighting the superculture to take it back with traditionalism – needs to be taken seriously because, for example – even though it has 0% chance of success, many people are traditional, so it automatically gets a hearing in the public discourse. It’s a view that considers the public culture, the superculture, and the common culture, subject to a specific worldview.
That is why I think, incidentally, that you are one of the sites in Manboobz crosshairs. You should be off limits to him, just the same way as for example an ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn or an Amish community in Pennsylvania is off limits. They are off limits because they aren’t trying to take back the superculture. They are traditionalist, but they simply co-exist with the superculture and individuals enjoy free agency to leave and join as they please.
You become a target when you make the superculture the target.
So my question – is that really your angle? Do you think the answer here is to apply chemotherapy to the superculture, kill off the modernity cancer and leave intact the traditionalism that remains behind, so to speak?
Before you answer: you don’t have to answer. I think your analysis and critique are enough and if answering distracts from your analysis and critique then don’t feel obliged. But if you do have an angle and you want to share, please clarify. Certainly if the aim is not to take back the superculture for traditionalism … then no one has any business criticizing you. You are representing a subculture affirming its right to exist and its validity as an alternative way of life and no one has any more business saying anything wrong with that than they do saying people shouldn’t be Amish or orthodox Jews. On the other hand – if the superculture is the target – that is also valid – you may validly target that, but then the counter-critique is also valid (not saying it’s right, just saying it’s valid).
Still went long – sorry. Hope it’s a meaningful thought-engagement though.
Wow, Dalrock, how do you manage to piece so many cogent topics so seemlessly, brilliant writing.
Marriage as status marker
Serial Monogamy
Women delaying marriage
Poor provider signals
Failure to launch
Women getting sub optimal marriages
Roll back
Threat points
Threat point clearly shows that the cathedral is interested in maximum male output but it is obvious that have overreached and are in danger of killing the golden goose for many a woman.
@lgrobins, Bee, IBB
Thanks for your replies. I’ve added it to my list of books to read.
Dalrock, I found this Churchianity “view” on adultery and thought you’d find it interesting:
http://www.familylegacyministries.org/Marriage%20Help%207.htm
[D: Thank you. I think that is from Joel and Kathy Davisson.]
MarcusD.,
Yes, unfortunately. Of course, many people in the Catholic Latin Mass community are ‘coming back’ and often it is attitudes about what is best for our children that take anyone the longest to examine
Bluedog,
I have a different outlook, one that infuriates a lot of people on all sides. What is it?
Social conservatives have already won, just not yet.
Check out the books ‘The Empty Cradle’, ‘Fewer’, “What to Expect When No One is Expecting’ and especially ‘Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?’.
Loooooong story short the First Demographic Transition reached its peak with the Boomers and, well, ended. Now the Second Demographic Transition is beginning and the world will start changing very rapidly relatively soon.
The children of social conservatives are more likely than ever to remain conservative; the children of social liberals are less likely than ever to remain socially liberal. The more liberal you are the fewer kids you have and vice-versa. Human population is probably peaked *right now* and will begin to drop, and sharply, within my own lifetime.
@Aquinas Dad,
heh. Maybe – “demography is destiny” and I’ve heard assessments along these lines – they aren’t without some counter-critique but I get the gist, hadn’t head of those books though, I’ll check them out.
A few sticks in the spokes of that thinking that have some purchase with me: “social conservatism” doesn’t seem to be what people think it is. We see a lot of that critique here. For example, there’s “social conservatism” and then there’s Jenny Erikson. I notice a lot of Jenny Eriksons (not all of whom are women, by the way). It’s one reason I’ve never been especially susceptible to conservative self-assumptions of greater personal moral quality. Virtue and vice – seems to me – cuts cleanly across ideology, just tends to express in different ways.
So to me the project needn’t and probably shouldn’t be ideological – it should be about character building, agnostic to ideology.
The other aspect about “children of social liberals” being lesser in number and being less likely to stay liberal … I have seen anecdotes of this, but I’m not sure the data holds up well. I also think the complete dis-array of economic liberalism combined with the excellent organization of identity politics liberalism is a confounding variable. If economic liberalism got its sh*t together and if identity politics liberalism crosses its peak … I suspect a lot of folks even here would find themselves driving in their neighborhood one day, looking at all the houses and people working, and realize:
Everyone is working – that is how we live – working is our way of life. We are all labor. None of us have enough capital to be capitalists. If the capital left – and it is free to – we are all doomed. The only thing we have is each other.
It’s a different liberalism. People have forgotten who they are. Re-arrange the chips and I’m not sure the kids eschewing their parents’ outmoded or disarrayed liberalism will make the same choices. Oh, and don’t even get me started on Cap’n Capitalism’s perception that liberals do a poor job educating their kids. K and R strategies. The liberal’s kids … I genuinely think it’s a case of conservative parents with heads firmly in ground. The truth is just too terrible to face.
All to say – maybe, but there’s some sticks in those spokes.
What is the scariest part of those books is that they are non-fiction. The only thing that gives me hope there is that the most Christian continue to reproduce themselves.
P D James wrote a frightening Dystopian book about something similar to what we are seeing (just on a grander scale) called “The Children of Men” where people simply fail utterly to reproduce. Earth becomes a planet of complete and total inrertility. All that is left is empty and abandoned schools, middle aged people pushing around baby carriages with porcelin dolls in them, and miserable grandchildless old people commiting suicide.
AD is correct about all of this. I figure by 2030, the world will probably bump up (maybe) another billion or so (most of that growth in sub Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, and the parts of South East Asia not named Singapore) and then start a steady continuous decline back to about 4.5 to 5 billion by 2100, the majority of those losses in Europe, Russia, China, Canada, and Australia.
We’ll see continous flow of immigrants from destitute Islamic nations into capital rich and infrastructure rich Western nations that steadily depopulate themselves. Everything that is happening is predestined Biblically.
Bluedog
You can drive through Austria and see
all the houses and people working,
During the depth of the recession i read an English language paper while in Vienna where they were hysterical that 300,000 folks were out of work. It was 3.75%. Seems great, IS actually pretty cool.
Cannot and will not ever happen here. Not only is it what you rightly call the identity politics of the left that would preclude that, it IS the indentity(ies) of the population and the lack of cohesive culture that preclude it. It is impossible. I don’t care what form of ideologically derived economic system you support.
The reason it works there is homogeneous culture, language, and meaningful borders as far as immigration goes. People want to work. So, they do. If people want to work, that bends the ideology of the economic system perhaps in a direction you’d find more comfortable.
Our problem at this point has little to do with left or right or even the totally innovative and unique bluedogism.
Bluedog, no one is off limits for attack by Manbooby feminists in the long run. Because the ideology of feminism won’t allow it. Orthodox Jews in New York and Amish in various places starting with Pennsylvania are not being attacked for now, because there are other, easier, targets to go after. In the longer run, they’ll come under scrutiny by one or more branches of feminism.
Because “live and let live” is not a feminist concept. As much as I dislike using pop culture references in a serious discussion, Feminism, Inc. is like the Borg from one of the Star Trek series. There can not be any long term truce. Either surrender and be assimilated, or be endlessly attacked, those are the two choices ultimately.
There is nothing that can be done by Dalrock short of capitulation to feminism that would take him out of the gaze of the manboobies, because by articulating anti feminist ideas, Dalrock and others offer an alternate lifestyle to Feminism, Inc. And there can be no alternative to the Borg…it isn’t allowed.
This is richly ironic to me, as early 2nd stage feminist writers stressed “diversity” and “alternative” thinking as good things. Clearly thinking differently is only good when it is feminist thinking. This is yet another indicator of the Marxist nature of feminism, by the way.
Of course, you persist in your 20th century thinking, that any change in society requires a Movement, with a Manifesto and a Program, and a Leader or Leaders that are the Vanguard, etc. This is an error. However, you must correct it yourself, I’m afraid I don’t have time or inclination to do so.
@Anonymous Reader,
re: “There is nothing that can be done by Dalrock short of capitulation to feminism that would take him out of the gaze of the manboobies, because by articulating anti feminist ideas, Dalrock and others offer an alternate lifestyle to Feminism, Inc. And there can be no alternative to the Borg…it isn’t allowed.”
Hey I get you, but I disagree. I follow these things pretty closely. You would have to follow it, really , really closely to see what I mean, but if you did you’d see there is a kind of refereeing taking place.
It results in two truth-statements that are true simultaneously. One is that you are right, there is a borg-like all-must-be-assimilated ethos among some … I get that, it’s there, that’s true.
But it isn’t given free-reign everywhere. The mainstream left will typically cut that off at its heels so for example – you have to pay close attention to the nuance, but from the New Republic to the American Prospect to the Nation (notice we aren’t talking Jezebel, different animal there) you would see allowance made for traditional subcultures and it’s easy to miss, because its an absence, but you see an absence of criticism for that.
What it is, is an ethos – one a lot of folks here disagree with – but it’s worth paying attention to so you understand it. In a word: multi-culturalism.
Multi-culturalism allows for traditional cultures, when they exist as subcultures that freely let people come and go. Multi-culturalism gets up in a tiff when one culture wants to make its culture identity the central cultural identity. I’m not taking a position – here anyway – on whether that’s good or bad or right or wrong, but if you pay attention you’ll see the contours at work on the left where these things are worked out.
@empathologism,
Ha. Are you my step-dad writing under a pseudonym?
re: “the population and the lack of cohesive culture that preclude it. It is impossible. I don’t care what form of ideologically derived economic system you support.”
I have seen this argued many times. We won’t settle the argument but I will point out one thing.
In the post-war period, especially in German-speaking countries, there was a development of economic thinking that tried to come west to the U.S. but it was stopped hard in its tracks and never took root here.
It was called “ordoliberalism” and here it is in a nutshell.
Everyone behaves (or else).
Capitalists (that is: people with capital) … you behave by investing your capital in such a way that keeps the economy humming along and people working and you pay your taxes.
Labor (that is: people without enough capital to not work) … you behave by working.
If you don’t behave … you do not eat. You do not eat in Frankfurt, you do not eat in Munich, you do not eat in Cologne. It is everyone’s responsibility to see that the system hums along, and works. That sometimes means capitalists pay taxes they don’t like or keep underperforming industries going while we transition to something else, and it may also mean laborers go 10 years without a raise (happened recently in Germany and basically is why Germany has been outperforming so many other economies).
I know that many strongly believe the lack of cultural cohesiveness in the U.S. somehow makes that model impossible here. Maybe, but I’m not convinced.
IBB,
I remember getting a copy of ‘Children of Men’, reading it and thinking ‘its about time’.
We’ll see about population growth and where it comes from, if it does. All of Asia has been below replacement for some time and the gender imbalances are getting pretty steep; Sub-Saharan Africa is murky because many of the nations reporting the highest levels of fertility get aid from the UN based on – how high their fertility levels are. Niger in particular may be self-reporting for cash….
Bluedog,
I don’t know what flavor of social conservatives you know, but most of the ones I know are social conservatives because of the sinfulness of man (including themselves) not because they are ‘better’.
@ Anonymous Reader
A.R. said:
“Feminism, Inc. is like the Borg from one of the Star Trek series. There can not be any long term truce. Either surrender and be assimilated, or be endlessly attacked, those are the two choices ultimately.”
You said it brother.
The feminist movement is a facist movement. For all the lip service paid to ‘fairness’ & ‘equality’, it is anything but those things. The Borg reference is actually an apt comparison.
bluedog,
No to ALL of this. The mainstream left will never EVER hold feminists accountable for constantly trying to force borglike assimilation. This will never happen because the feminists are some of the most vocal and powerful parts of the mainstream left.
AD,
I know the movie is never as good as the book, but the movie was just ridiculous. It completely missed by a mile, the whole hopelessness the author was trying to portray. Moreover, there were no firearms in the book, just hopelessness. When Hollywood gets its hands on something in seems like it must find a way to put guns and explosions in it, or it wont film it.
It comes from here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
2.1 is sub-zer replacement. These countries are way over that… and way Islamic.
1 Niger 7.19
2 Guinea-Bissau7.07
3 Afghanistan 7.07
4 Burundi 6.80
5 Liberia 6.77
6 DR Congo 6.70
7 East Timor 6.53
8 Mali 6.52
etc…
AD,
Wow, just wow.
I guess that makes sense, that doesn’t surprise me.
IBB,
I’m describing what I’ve actually been watching, in practice, for years, so “never EVER” excludes like the last three decades I guess?
Feminism is deeply rooted in the left, I’m not disputing that, including the “assimilate” form, but I’m parlaying to all of you folks that your perception of the noun, “left”, is insufficient to describe what’s really going on.
AD,
“social conservatives because of the sinfulness of man”.
If you replaced the world “social conservatives” with “conservative Christian” I might be there with you, but as long as you are sticking with “social conservatives” and the rest of that statement, I’d have to say my experience has zero overlap with yours.
Does that take into account infant mortality?
Oh look its another socon who doesn’t believe us. Im shocked. SHOCKED!
@IBB
As Joshua points out, those numbers reflect births. A more important consideration is the number of those births that reach adulthood. Several of those countries also have not only high infant mortality rates but serious wars underway. I’ve read reports of 5 million killed in the Congo alone.
@AD
“The children of social conservatives are more likely than ever to remain conservative; the children of social liberals are less likely than ever to remain socially liberal. The more liberal you are the fewer kids you have and vice-versa. Human population is probably peaked *right now* and will begin to drop, and sharply, within my own lifetime.”
I think that’s one of the reasons why liberals will fight to the last child to keep their stranglehold on education at all levels. They know that conservatives as a group are having more children than liberals with abortion being one of the reasons. However, if they can indoctrinate enough children, they can turn them into liberals. Or, they can give them such poor educations that the kids won’t be able to think for themselves.
Larry J,
Thus, Liberals hate home schooling with a passion.
Bluedog,
‘Christian Conservative’ should be a subset of ‘Social conservative’.
Larry
I understand and agree. I also assume (maybe incorrectly) that AIDS continues to ravage African populations. Maybe that has changed in the last 10 years, I don’t know.
But you only need a 2.1 births per woman to “break even” and that includes a percentage for infant mortality.
If you don’t behave … you do not eat. You do not eat in Frankfurt, you do not eat in Munich, you do not eat in Cologne. It is everyone’s responsibility to see that the system hums along, and works. That sometimes means capitalists pay taxes they don’t like or keep underperforming industries going while we transition to something else, and it may also mean laborers go 10 years without a raise (happened recently in Germany and basically is why Germany has been outperforming so many other economies).
None of this refutes my point……son
how good has that “replacement level” worked for the last 5 centuries in Africa?
Sadly lots of socons also detest home schooling. When we were homeschooling our kids some of the most strident negatives were from friends in our cohort on the ideology spectrum. It rolls through the mind, then off the tongue like silicon soaked silk…..”but what about the social aspects?”
Some people are parrots
Why the hell would aliens want to come to our planet? I’d imagine if they did they’d take one look around and return home asap.
Fracking comes with its own downside. Solar and wind power for automobiles is the way to go and we already have the technology to make it happen large scale. The fact that it hasn’t happened is because we are wed to a particular type of scarcity based money system. But we’ll switch over just before things get really bad. There will be no collapse. The powers that be are just going to stretch out our current system as long as they can and as long as it will last. Then at the last minute they’ll pretend they invented some new technology that will free us from oil when they’ve had it all along but withheld it and we the masses believed it didn’t exist and could not happen. For the young ones that might live long enough to see this happen, remember my words.
“But it isn’t given free-reign everywhere. The mainstream left will typically cut that off at its heels so for example – you have to pay close attention to the nuance, but from the New Republic to the American Prospect to the Nation (notice we aren’t talking Jezebel, different animal there) you would see allowance made for traditional subcultures and it’s easy to miss, because its an absence, but you see an absence of criticism for that.
What it is, is an ethos – one a lot of folks here disagree with – but it’s worth paying attention to so you understand it. In a word: multi-culturalism.
Multi-culturalism allows for traditional cultures, when they exist as subcultures that freely let people come and go. Multi-culturalism gets up in a tiff when one culture wants to make its culture identity the central cultural identity. I’m not taking a position – here anyway – on whether that’s good or bad or right or wrong, but if you pay attention you’ll see the contours at work on the left where these things are worked out.”
I agree with this and its pretty much my own personal policy, “Multi-culturalism allows for traditional cultures, when they exist as subcultures that freely let people come and go. Multi-culturalism gets up in a tiff when one culture wants to make its culture identity the central cultural identity.”
I’ve encountered many anti-multi culturalists who are anti only because they want their particular subculture to be the mono-culture.
@Keenan McGregor says: “Why the hell would aliens want to come to our planet? I’d imagine if they did they’d take one look around and return home asap.”
For the strong, independent women! They’ll never figure out “To Serve Man” is a cookbook, because (1) they don’t know what cooking is, much less a cookbook and (2) they would never open a book with that title anyways.
Of course the modern alien title would be something like “It Takes a Universe to Raise a Planet” where raise would have the double meaning (same pronunciation as raze).
“According to the report (p. 13), “both active-duty enlisted troops and officers come disproportionately from high income neighborhoods—a trend that has increased since 9/11”. As can be seen from the chart on the left, only 11% of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest 1/5 (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods. Also contrary to popular perceptions, U.S. military enlisted troops are not poorly educated. In fact, American soldiers are significantly more likely to have a high school diploma than their civilian peers: only 1.4% of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, compared to 20.8% of the general male population in the age range between 18 and 24. Moreover, 95% of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree.”
Larry J, I stand by what I said. By the way, when I made the statement I was not envisioning the recruits from ” the poorest 1/5 (quintile) of neighborhoods”. Many of those kids end up dead or in jail by 20 anyway, but rather recruits from lower middle class neighborhoods where after high school graduation they are just listless and floating around between jobs at fast food restaurants. The number of baby daddies from this group are astounding. I really think all branches of the military should institute a strict either married or childless policy. It looks incredibly low class for our troops to have baby mamas back home. Wife or nothing at all is the only acceptable image for us overseas where we are “spreading democracy” amongst marriage and family oriented cultures. Those people think our culture is a joke, and they are right.
@Bluedog find Theo Adorno.
“Sadly lots of socons also detest home schooling. When we were homeschooling our kids some of the most strident negatives were from friends in our cohort on the ideology spectrum. It rolls through the mind, then off the tongue like silicon soaked silk…..”but what about the social aspects?”
Homeschooling and its reputation has evolved considerably over the last decade. Previously it was the domain of obscure religious cults and back to earth hippies, with a majority of homeschool text books published by the former. Now its practically mainstream with ordinary secular suburbanites jumping on the bandwagon.
Keenan McGregor says: “Solar and wind power for automobiles is the way to go and we already have the technology to make it happen large scale.”
No. This is not a political or financial problem, it’s an engineering problem. To have energy on demand, you must first have the capability, at the point of use, either to generate it on demand or retrieve it on demand. Solar and wind intrinsically can’t provide on-demand generation and have nothing at all to do with on-demand retrieval.
@innocentbystanderboston January 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm
“Larry
As Joshua points out, those numbers reflect births. A more important consideration is the number of those births that reach adulthood. Several of those countries also have not only high infant mortality rates but serious wars underway. I’ve read reports of 5 million killed in the Congo alone.
I understand and agree. I also assume (maybe incorrectly) that AIDS continues to ravage African populations. Maybe that has changed in the last 10 years, I don’t know.
But you only need a 2.1 births per woman to “break even” and that includes a percentage for infant mortality.”
The 2.1 break even rate is for advanced mostly western nations with excellent health care and low infant mortality rates. A country like Mali needs a much higher TFR just to maintain the population. It really takes a country by country evaluation. Most demographers say we are near the peak world population now nd that the decline will start shortly and be very steep. Google “Demographic Winter”. It is informative but very depressing.
“Most demographers say we are near the peak world population now nd that the decline will start shortly and be very steep. Google “Demographic Winter”. It is informative but very depressing.”
What is so depressing about a decrease in overall global population?
The logical next step up from home schooling is a private sector “One Room Schoolhouse”
Picture one certified teacher and 12 neighborhood students.You get lots of individual attention with zero adminstrative costs. The teacher is directly reponsible to the parents.
galloper6, already happening. Its called a homeschool co-op.
@Keenan McGregor says: “Solar and wind power for automobiles is the way to go and we already have the technology to make it happen large scale.”
I find it humorous to hear people talk about green technologies (solar, wind, thermal) are cutting edge technologies. People talked about them as cutting edge technologies in the 1960’s, and that was 50 years ago.
In fact, there’s a pretty good argument running around that there has been no new technology invented since the 1960’s. We’ve simply been refining and improving old, 1960’s technology.
Think about your cell phone. Every bit of technology existed 50 years ago. Integrated circuits, circuits boards, wireless communications, LCD screens (1964), computers, software, digital storage of data–all of it existed. Now we’ve greatly refined and improved that 1960’s technology, but that doesn’t change the fact that doesn’t change the fact that the poster boy for modern technology (the smart phone) is simply souped-up 50 year old technology.
Which brings us to green energy (wind, solar, and thermal). These are also 50 year old technologies which people have been refining and improving for the past 50 years. But, unlike the cell phone’s technology (which has improved at a breakneck speed), wind and solar energy has moved forward at a relative snail’s pace. And it’s not for lack of trying, but it looks like–no matter how we refine and improve it–the technology isn’t up to the job. It’s going to take a major technological breakthrough to make this work.
Unfortunately, those breakthroughs don’t come along often. You can’t place you bets on making a once in a lifetime breakthrough (like the semiconductor).
There is nothing secret or hidden about the alternative energy sources. The PTB are not in some giant conspiracy to keep us trapped in oil. The problem is that as long as oil is so cheap none of the alternatives are economically viable. I have had the argument with both left wingers and right wingers for years that oil is just too damn cheap. If you sell hits of heroin for $1 you will have a hard time convincing junkies to stop using. Also expect the number of junkies to increase and the number of overdose deaths to increase. Of course at $1 a hit, crime as a result of addiction will go down.
I worked in nuclear energy for 20 years hoping for the second coming of the good times of the 70s. Then I GTFO, retooled my technical training a smidge, and shifted to financial services. Nuclear power is the only option to generate on demand that also has cost structure close to fossil fuel options (gas turbine generators have replaced oil everywhere possible in the US.) This is politically unpalatable at the moment. Uranium is fairly common all over the Earth, and can be converted to Plutonium in breeder reactors that produce almost as much fuel as they burn. Fusion so far is still a distant dream. That is not to say it might not happen someday.
I am in favor of solar and wind where ever and to the extent it is possible. The costs are still prohibitive and that does not even get into the energy storage systems needed to make the power available smoothly over time. There are hard physical limits to the amount of solar radiation impinging on the surface of the Earth that can be converted to usable power. If we go into space and then microwave it back to receptors on Earth that has one problem; the microwave feed to the power receptor is also called a death ray. Think about the 007 movie “Die Another Day”.
“I find it humorous to hear people talk about green technologies (solar, wind, thermal) are cutting edge technologies. People talked about them as cutting edge technologies in the 1960′s, and that was 50 years ago.
In fact, there’s a pretty good argument running around that there has been no new technology invented since the 1960′s. We’ve simply been refining and improving old, 1960′s technology.”
Did I say “cutting edge”. Reread my comment. We’ve had the tech for it for a long time. They’ll package it and sell it to us as “new technology” at the last minute.
@Keenan McGregor
You can stand by what you said all you want. You’re entitled to your opinion just the same as everyone else. You’re not entitled to your own facts. I served in the military for 13 years and have worked alongside them for many more years. Your description is inaccurate of the vast majority of military people. They come from broad swaths of the American population. Just like any large group of people, you’ll find some who are bad actors or who get into trouble. They’re just as human as anyone else. Have you spent any time in uniform yourself? How many active duty military personnel do you know personally? On what basis do you form your opinion? Those are sincere questions, by the way, and not meant as a personal attack.
All of this stems from the desire on the part of feminists & their allies to “fix” men. I’m going to post the following observation on both the “as expected” thread and this thread, because I believe it is interesting.
Premise: humans are blank slates, all that they know is what they are taught.
Therefore, a human who does not behave in the manner that is expected of
them either has not been trained in correct behavior, and must be trained or
retrained, or is disobeying. Disobeying humans must be corrected. Correction
should first consist of explaining the expected behavior, and also explaining
the punishment for that behavior. Some humans will deliberately disobey.
They are called “bad”, because their behavior is anti social and deliberately
disobedient. Further disobedience must be punished. Punishments should
start off as light as possible, but must always be dealt out. Truly stubborn
bad people who consistently refuse to act as they are required to must
be punished very sternly, if need be by removing them from general society.
Premise: men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies.
Therefore, men who do not act like women are not behaving in the expected
manner. They are either untrained, or they are disobedient. Men who persist
in not acting like women are clearly “bad men”. They must be corrected at
every turning, and punished when they persist in their bad behavior. This is
called “fixing men”, because only when men act like women are they truly
good men.
Thus we see that the fundamental premise of feminism, the “blank slate” notion that men and women are exactly the same, underlies many, many topics within the androsphere. Because men are actually supposed to behave like women – we are punished for being “bad men” when really the objection is we are doing a lousy job of being women.
Keenan McGregor @ January 10, 2014 at 2:39 pm
“What is so depressing about a decrease in overall global population?”
Falling population will mean lots of trouble. The first domino will be the housing market. Think of 2008 only with no possible increase in demand for existing stock ever, then the mortgage lenders crash. Then the construction companies fail, and the aging work force is now the unemployed work force. Meanwhile the stock market crashes because long term stock market trends have always followed the growth or shrinkage in the 20 to 45 year old demographic. Companies do not produce and grow just because; they respond to demand. As demand for all good s goes down companies fail. And don’t forget farming will also crash and burn as demand goes down.
In the long term after population stabilizes, if it does, then all these problems will pass. While going through this period will cause upheaval such as the world has never seen. The other aspect is depicted in “Mouse Utopia”, a documentary on an experiment done in the 50s or 60s that showed a mouse Eden where the population peaked and then declined until all the mice were dead. It is entirely possible that this may be a natural process for all species and we have just now reached the end of the growth phase and are now headed to extinction. See what I mean about depressing?
@Keenan McGregor says: “Did I say “cutting edge”. Reread my comment. We’ve had the tech for it for a long time. They’ll package it and sell it to us as “new technology” at the last minute.”
My point is we’ve had these alternative energy technologies (solar and wind) around for 50 years, and they’ve gone almost nowhere. The reason is that the technological base they are built upon is not up to the task. We will never be able to refine or improve these technologies enough to get the job done on a mass scale. It will take a major technological breakthrough to make solar or wind work. Old or new technology, you can’t package something at the last minute if it won’t work. The technology base solar and wind are built on simply isn’t up to the job.
Fossil, nuclear, and hydro are the only practical methods we have for producing energy at the moment. And once again, all of those are at least 50 years old.
8-to-12,
GPS existed in 1964? Voice recognition existed in 1964? Hand held, photographic, image digitization existed in 1964?
called “The Children of Men” where people simply fail utterly to reproduce.
Cf. Japan. I still don’t know what to make of it. It just seems surprising that if you have millions of people in a city, more than 35% would be in some form of romantic relationship (human, not robot).
—
Oh look its another socon who doesn’t believe us. Im shocked. SHOCKED!
Backfire effect.
—
Thus, Liberals hate home schooling with a passion.
No, not quite. See Table 9 (pg 30): http://www.csus.edu/indiv/h/howellj/papers/homeschooling_howellsheran.pdf
—
Homeschooling was discussed a bit in the comments here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/feminists-are-ugly/
Mike,
I grant you all of that.
But a TFR of 7 births per woman (or whatever incredibly high number they have in Mali without me looking it up) is going to be much higher than break even.
@IBB
GPS existed in 1964? Voice recognition existed in 1964? Hand held, photographic, image digitization existed in 1964?
Technologies not required for a cellphone. I think 8-to-12 was being more rhetorical than referring to your phone particularly.
Also worth a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY
Corollary to my above observation: note that men who feminists most like fall into two categories, either scalzied manboobs or badboy alphas. The former group do a good enough job of behaving like women, but…hypergamy betrays the ideology in the second case.
Observation: No branch of feminism deals with female hypergamy. It can’t because that violates the blank slate, interchangeable, premise.
I know what to make of it. They need Christ.
Before (absent Christ) they had the emperor and empire. That’s gone in a Hiroshima bomb. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, they had big business and money. That ended in a Tokyo Real Estate bubble bursting in 1990. Then they had a two-decade long recession of old people working longer and longer to service a national debt that is double their GDP. So, right now, they have nothing to live for….. literally.
Japan is an entire nation of homogenous people who have so lost the will to live, they have instead opted to all GTOW.
I’m sure Marcus, but that doesn’t change the fact that things that were merely dreams in 1964 have become all too common place realities in 2014 thanks almost entirely to technology. And we are all richer for it.
” I served in the military for 13 years and have worked alongside them for many more years. Your description is inaccurate of the vast majority of military people. They come from broad swaths of the American population. Just like any large group of people, you’ll find some who are bad actors or who get into trouble.”
And not a small segment of the broad swaths is lower middle class. High school, no college They’re looking to the military for college education, that’s the point. Their (often single) parents might be employed in lower or middle management of a Walmart, Costco, Sam’s Club or other retail establishment. They often grow up in rented homes. I’m not saying these are bad people at all. Half my friends and some of my family fit snuggly into this demographic. They see the military as a great opportunity for advancement. That’s how its sold to them.
Most estimates for Japan say that about 70% of the unmarried males in their 20s and 30s are herbivores. That is the term of art used to describe men that have completely removed themselves from any romantic involvement with females. Note that the Japanese economy has been in a deflationary period for most fo the past 20 years.
@IBB said: “GPS existed in 1964? Voice recognition existed in 1964? Hand held, photographic, image digitization existed in 1964?”
According to wikipedia, modern GPS systems are based on “ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.”
The first communications satellite (Telstar) was launched in 1962. Telstar communicated with ground based devices.
There is the underlying technology of the modern GPS.
The first touch tone phone was introduced in 1963. It produced a set of sounds that controlled a distant computer (automatic telephone switches are at a type of computer, that’s why AT&T was at the forefront of some many computing breakthroughs like the semiconductor and the Unix OS). The computer took some action based on the sound it recongized.
There’s the underlying technology of voice recognition.
The first digital photograph was made in 1957.
Data (including sound and video) has been stored in digital format since computers were invented. AT&T was digitally encrypting transmissions on it’s network in 1943!
So yea, the technology underlying everything you listed existed in 1964. Have we refined and improved that technology. Yes we have, but all we’ve done is refine and improve it.
From an article on Forbes speaking to asset protection:
Recent cases have recognized the power of courts to require debtors to bring their money back to the U.S. through what are known as “repatriation orders”. If the debtor does not comply with a repatriation order, a court may issue a bench warrant for contempt of court and hold you in contempt (and in jail) until the money does come back, or for many years. The record? It is 14 years in jail served by former corporate lawyer H. Beatty Chadwick who refused to repatriate money from overseas to pay alimony to his ex-wife.
In prison for 14 years for giving the judge the bird. Thus, if you’re going to put your assets outside the US and refuse to pay your ex, you needs also remove yourself from the US lest you end up in prison for years.
“Recent cases have recognized the power of courts to require debtors to bring their money back to the U.S. through what are known as “repatriation orders”. If the debtor does not comply with a repatriation order, a court may issue a bench warrant for contempt of court and hold you in contempt (and in jail) until the money does come back, or for many years. The record? It is 14 years in jail served by former corporate lawyer H. Beatty Chadwick who refused to repatriate money from overseas to pay alimony to his ex-wife.”
I know someone who this happened to. He was ordered to return to the States and he avoided it for as long as he could. When he did come back police were at the airport waiting and he spent the night in jail. True story. For a few years he had to live out of a used car while he worked day and night to pay his wife alimony and child support. He’s still paying and now she and the courts are trying to make his new wife pay as well. He was foolish enough to marry in a foreign country and have kids by a new wife and bring her here. He basically left her in her own country in the middle of the night and when she woke up and found him gone, she also hired people to find out where he was and she insisted on joining him in the States. So now he’s paying off back child support and alimony for the first wife (an immigrant), though all the kids are adults now, and in addition to that paying for second wife, second mortgage and second set of kids. He’s not a hot alpha player either. He’s a computer nerd. Makes sense. I don’t think very many hot alpha players would find themselves in such a situation. There’s much more to the story but this is the most relevant part, though the rest of it gets even weirder.
Actually, I was NOT trying to be rhetorical.
Breakthroughs like the semiconductor, magnetic imaging, nuclear power, and the computer that transform an area of technology and eventually cause a huge leap forward are few and far between. As much as we like to think 2014 is so ultra advanced, it’s built on a refinement of older technology.
The reason a low budget TV show like “Star Trek” could envision a future with hand held communications devices and computers with voice recognition so easily is that the basis of that technology already existed in the 1960’s. They were extra poling into the future based on current technology.
My point in bringing this up is that it will take a major technological breakthrough to make solar and wind practical. Think about what the discovery of germs did to medicine. It completely revolutionized it. It will take a technological discovery of that magnitude to make either solar or wind practical. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but technological discoveries that big don’t happen often.
Live Fearlessly,
re: “Theodor W. Adorno” … so I am going to assume that you don’t mean by this that there is any relationship at all between Adorno and ordoliberalism because other than a common country there’s like, nothing, there there.
As to the generalities of the Frankfurt School I’ve made my position on that known.
Fruitless.
You know there’s the Atlas Society, formerly the Objectivist Society. I oppose it in both its forms, but that’s not important. What is important is ‘so what’?
Some people, organized, had or have some ideas. And stuff. And things. It happens. Won’t stop happening. By itself it is fruitless, taken as “knowledge” of some cabal pulling the strings, its hubris.
“You know there’s the Atlas Society, formerly the Objectivist Society.”
Same as the Ayn Rand Institute today? They are very pro-Israel and argue for all libertarians becoming so as well, unsuccessfully I might add.
There is no technological breakthrough that will eliminate the physical laws of thermodynamics. Some things are impossible. Start to accept that much of what you think is just a genious invetor away is never going to happen. NEVER.
I have a daughter and do hate fear etc mgtow. I also have a son, who is more important to the family. It will be him who carries on the family name.
Everything IBB posts is from a liberal perspective. Which doesn’t make him particularly rare around here. He is just more ridiculous because of his self delusion he is some how a traditionalist/ conservative.
Ill just leave this here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/10/divorced_dad_leaves_clues_to_his_desperation/
Ton, what did I do this time?
I find it fascinating that people who spend weeks on determining how a “threatpoint” influences the balance of power in a relationship, because penis, excuse me, distribution of power when push comes to shove, waste no time at all contemplating why anyone would want to enter a lobsided contract such as this.
Anyhow, @ Legion:
Exactly.
I would not do it on those terms and I am not exactly your dream son in law.
Why anyone who would be would sign up the way things being what they are is beyond me.
Re: liberals
“Liberal Man” by Jeremy Taylor
Feminism creates a non-existent enemy. In the same way that Hitler’s Germany held out Jews as the enemy, feminists hold out men as the enemy. Fascism demands an oppressor to incite victimhood. Feminism maliciously and vindictively creates victimhood through the myth of male oppression. Your only worth to a woman is in what you can provide to them. Women want what they want when they want it. Hell hath no wrath…
The following is my post to “Psychology Today”. I sometimes go by the name of FullyAwake. I switch my name around after I get blocked from popular sites. The below is an argument I had with a feminist on why women want what they want when they want it. The feminist in question wanted to know what kind of society I desired (with specifics):
Submitted by FullyAwake on July 26, 2013 – 10:36am.
There are around 900,000 divorces in the US each year (that number has held every year for several decades). The marriage rate is now at a 100 year low. Nearly half of all children born today are fatherless. Middle class wealth, in large part, is shrinking due to the destruction of the family. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. According to the stats, most spouses engage in extra marital affairs. The welfare system has been stretched beyond its breaking point. Grey divorce is skyrocketing. Female perpetrated crime is skyrocketing. It’s almost normal now to have an incurable STD.
What kind of society I want is irrelevant. What I see wrong with society is irrelevant. What I want won’t change the destructive, cancerous forces that infected our society decades ago. The only thing that matters is the current reality.
What “I need” is to be aware of the ever increasing dangers that “marriage and family” represent to my wellbeing and to protect myself accordingly. Divorce represents more of a risk to my wellbeing than being involved in a serious automobile accident. Divorce represents more of a risk to my wellbeing than being bitten by a man-eating shark. Divorce represents more of a risk to my wellbeing than walking my dog after dark in questionable locales. Divorce is one of the top five most miserable, life altering experiences. Many will tell you that divorce is a more miserable experience than losing a close family member to death.
Divorce and infidelity lead to massive mental healthcare costs, higher crime, lower productivity, severe depression and suicide. The $$$ costs of divorce on society are staggering. Thanks to no-fault divorce, lawyers and those of your ilk (feminists) are cleaning up financially. Those who would abuse divorce for financial or otherwise selfish gain are ever present and ever growing. Feminism is at the heart of most societal ills.
Why would I bother listing out what kind of society I want? Why list out for you what I see wrong with society when you’ll undoubtedly refute everything I written with your default feminist talking points and further distortions of history? Will that change your thinking? Tis far better and far wiser for me to accept and acknowledge reality and adapt in a way that ensures my life won’t be destroyed by the big D. Why bother with an attempt at changing the minds of others when a mountain of data already exists that overwhelmingly contradicts their ideology? You don’t argue with those that refuse to accept reality. Instead, you wait for that reality to hit home at a deeply personal level.
“You did not actually answer my question. You simply stated how you will “resist” the fair and equal society envisioned by feminists.” I’m not naive enough to believe that feminists envision a fair and equal society. That kind of BS won’t work with me. That’s a great line you have there, but this is one guy that ain’t falling for it. If what you say were true, there would not be so many articles touting the so called ‘fall of men’ – written by your fellow feminists. If what you say were true, feminists would be fighting the so called ‘fall of men’. If what you say were true, then why are groups that advocate specifically for men shouted down and shamed when attempting to speak on college campuses? Do feminists give these speakers equal rights or do they instead attempt to force their silence?
I’m not resisting a fair and equal society. I do however reject the notion that feminists are after a fair and equal society. When I think of feminism, the image that first comes to mind is a swastika. Feminism is a destructive force that has only harmed society.
8to12 says: January 10, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Yes, green energy is crap until it doesn’t need subsidies. Solar energy industry has had subsidies, that I know of, since the early 70’s and a neighbor were set it up on their roof. Useless stuff then and still useless now.
The Erikson Saga continues:
Last week:
This week:
Stay tuned for next week.
Juxtaposition suits it well.
More from CAF:
Marriage confusion
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=851214
Annulments so easily granted…
All those peak oil proponents sound so much like the cracked AGW supporters. For both parties, it’s a religion of their own, the god they substituted for God.
Back on topic … there’s a demographic mini-baby boom to hit in the 20’s. But rather suspect it’ll be too late to save us from the next financial crisis. In the meantime, we’re stuck with the child support environment which is not likely to change until the crisis hits in full force. I see the younger generation men in my family turning into MGTOW’s… that is the damage being done. I fear for their little sisters.
Ton
You should invite Leif Erikson there over to the house for a month or so. I’ll send a couple hundred bucks and a bottle of “Jack” to help out. We have got to see if we can change this guy’s tweets. If for no reason than just to show off our leadership and training skills.
LOL, thanks for that vote of confidence my friend.
Step one would be stop praying like that. Nothing is a bigger waste of time then groveling like a beaten child wanting his blanket back.
Fair certain that a dose of Tontosterone would be lethal to the average church going fool like Leif.
@MarcusD,
Did you notice that he still follows his wife (Jenny Erikson) on Twitter, but she no longer follows him? Someone said women can be cold like they never knew you.
Worst weeks of his life? Probably got the news that he would be spending the next 40 years paying alimony for his 10 year marriage.
On a side note, apparently he is in the computer industry. He follows “InetlliJ IDEA” which is a software tool used to code Java programs. You’d have to be a bit on the techie/nerdy side to even know what that is, much less follow it.
I hope Lief Erickson knows guys out there are rooting for him.
Dalrock…
The threatpoint will soon be extended from wives to girlfriends. Read up on ‘revenge porn’ laws. Ostensibly, these laws are written to protect women from having unauthorized photos/videos of themselves posted on the internet. (Nevermind that these photos are often not their property, but I digress). However, these revenge porn laws create a whole new can of worms for men to deal with. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Guy takes playful/suggestive photo with girlfriend. Not overtly sexual, but could easily be construed as sexual. Let’s say that it’s a selfie-type picture of the two of them laying in bed together one morning. “Aww, that’s a good one”. She Facebooks/Instagrams the picture from his phone.
In a world of revenge-porn laws, from this moment on in the relationship, she has threatpoint over him. For you see, if she wanted, she could have him locked up (for up to five years, per the California version of the law) and possibly labeled a sex offender. All she has to do is file a police report claiming that he uploaded this ‘sexual’ picture to the internet without her consent, and it’s an open/shut case. His word versus hers (and we know what that means in an American court of law).
Whatever our generation thinks of it, we must understand that young people these days engage in these photo-exchanging/sharing behaviors. It is ‘normal’ to them. Probably millions of young people have photos of themselves or ex-lovers in their possession. Revenge porn laws, regardless of how they are currently written and publicly presented, will gradually evolve into a genuine threatpoint among the young and unmarried.
Feminists will never be satisfied with a system that requires them to actually MARRY in order to enjoy the benefits of threatpoint. They will continue to find new ways to bestow its benefits upon the unmarried, just as they’ve already done with workplace laws and domestic violence laws.
It won’t be long before you start to read a story here and there about seemingly decent 20-year-old boys were locked up over a photo of his ex-girlfriend that “somehow” appeared on the internet after their acrimonious break-up. And young men everywhere will get the message, loud and clear: SHE can follow her heart and do as she pleases, but she will not be held to account for her behavior. You will. Get used to it.
Great posting, TooCoolToFool. Absolutely great.
I have also written, and expect to repeat it whenever relevant, that maternal custody, while not the worst thing that can happen to a child, is the worst thing that will happen to most kids. So, while you are avoiding divorce, you are also saving kids from maternal custody.
At some point, every divorced brother I know of describes the “wife goggles” (™ Dalrock) falling off, and seeing the lumpy old fat broad for who she really is.
Jenny Erikson is nobody to cry over. Concentrate on your daughters and forget the skank. You dodged a bullet getting rid of her while you still have some good years left.
This is a special message from Jenny Erikson to all the single brothers who read and participate in the Dalrock blog:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/166703/the_5_types_of_guys
When are you Peter Pan manboys going to SACK UP and show this GREAT CATCH what she really and truly deserves? (I mean, really, and truly!)
She is tired of dating normal guys. She needs a REAL MAN to show her what masculinity is all about.
So, here is your chance to land a date with this prize catch of a woman. The lucky man who manages to land a relationship with this aging spinster gets the lucky bonus of helping raise her two girls. Now, over you go to The Stir, and watch your manners. She is a princess and a real lady, and she’ll only settle for the best.
Regards, Boxer
@8to12
She’s still following him. I mean, she’s following nearly every other person…
I’ve also noticed that his Twitter bio is gone.
I’m going to have to tweet this Leif guy and invite him here. I opened up the account in an effort to warn J cutler not to fuck that chick he broke up with. next thing you know she was knocked the hell up like she was taking fertility pills. I’ll see if I can figure this out.
Grey Ghost:
I’ve been following Leif for weeks now. I was proud to be blocked by his bitch ex-wife, along with several other Dalrock playas, right after the story broke. Go over and show him some love. He’s got oneitis. We’ve all been there (at least I have, back in the day).
Boxer
Any of you ladies have an x-rated selfie to pussy whup this beta chump. How the hell do you actually pick somebody out and tweet them
Looks like I figured out how to send a tweet
Yea, invite Leif here. In time he might thank the inviter.
Boxer:
I left Jenny a message over there. I bet it will not make it out of moderation. I was honest with her…
Re: 5 types of guys. She left out Statler and Waldorf.
In case you were wondering how man-hating the courts are:
http://newsone.com/2827524/clifford-hall-dad-jailed-for-overpaying-child-support/?obref=obinsite
Another article from James Taranto: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303433304579304493099001588
Barbarossaa takes down the pseudo-Christian Marc Driscoll:
http://barbarossaa-male-sovereignty.blogspot.com
“Anonymous age 71 says: Great posting, TooCoolToFool. Absolutely great.”
All “isms” start out with the best of intentions. Then, upon reaching their apex, they become corrupt, over-reaching, over-bearing, oppressive, hypocritical and ultimately, tyrannical. Catastrophic destruction from within always follows. Same story, different day. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. All nations fall.
In this same vein was the destruction of tens of millions of lives, hopes and dreams when the job, housing and stock markets crashed. The blind belief in unrestrained free markets, or capitalism, led to the destruction of an economy. Many don’t understand that it was our own congress working in collusion with Wall Street lobbyists and the fed that brought about the collapse. The combination of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, NAFTA and the WTO, which all came into being between 1993 – 2000, created the financial tsunami that destroyed countless lives (and created a new, small, elite handful of multimillionaires and billionaires). Glass–Steagall, which was put in place after the great depression to prevent casino style gambling between banks and investments houses, was eliminated by some of the aforementioned legislation, which left the vast majority of savers and investors in the hands of wolves and thieves. NAFTA and the WTO shipped middle class jobs overseas.
I mention all the above to point out a parallel of consequences. Feminism and progressivism jumped the shark. The progressive movement has wrought insurmountable damage upon society. This is the way of unrestrained isms. Unrestrained feminism and progressivism is to middle class wealth what that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (and all of the other aforementioned legislation) was to middle class wealth. The only reason we haven’t yet reached the circumstances engulfing Japan is because we import cheap labor (through immigration/worker visas). The insanity of it all as that we do this counter the destruction wrought by our own government, financial leaders and progressive ideals. What’s more, today, there’s virtually no difference between progressives and conservatives. Watching them battle one another is the equivalent of watching a professional wrestling match. It just ain’t real, folks. Behind the scenes, our congress members, from both sides of the aisle, are clinking champagne glasses, laughing at the sheeple and are toasting their own, rising wealth.
To fundamentally transform American society, you must destroy it from within. The family is the cornerstone of a healthy society. Fundamental transformation follows the destruction of the family. Such are the beliefs of Marxists.
Let’s see….. I could introduce some 30+ year old chick to the joys or raw, unfiltered masculinity, or continue to introduce my 23 year old girl the joys….. let’s see…. wrong side of 30, or 23 year old D cups…
@Farm Boy:
‘”servant leadership”
Sounds very much like “leading from behind”’
Let’s re-brand that term. I suggest “submitted leader” with the admonishment that the only submission a husband is permitted to practice is submission to Christ. Any submission of husband to wife is strictly prohibited.
No trace of leading from behind there, except from behind Christ. Q.E.D.
MarcusD says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:10 am
Indeed. The official teaching of the RCC is that a failed marriage is not supposed to be considered prima facie evidence of nullity, but in practice, that’s exactly what is amounts to.
Don’t forget that men have threat points too. When faced with the slavery threat, remember that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Preparation is required however. DO NOT HAVE A 401K (USA) OR RRSP (Canada). Do not accumulate assets. Do not have things that can be taken from you. I have heard stories of a kind of underground railroad for divorced men; help with changing your identity and fleeing the country.
The male threat point is to burn it down. Quit your job, leave nothing, and disappear. Take debtors prison if you must. But do not be the slave of an evil woman who is the servant of Satan.
My new stance is that all men are innocent. Until the courts want to determine fault, then men have committed no fault.
I don’t even have kids, but until men and their children have the right to live under the same roof full time, (unless fault has been proven) then I am an enemy of this country. I have patriotism for God and my family, but not my country. This country can burn in hell, and i will not lift one finger to help them.
My wife knows that if she were to frivorce me she would get nothing. I would go to debtors prison before supporting that kind of thing. She isn’t from here though and her culture is very much against divorce. I know that’s not a guarantee, but I can see the difference in her attitude from the attitudes of women not from her culture.
Even more important is that we pray together daily and read the Bible / pray nightly. We’re not perfect, but we know that God is living and active in our lives and we will be held accountable for our misdeeds. The enemy is seeking someone to devour. That’s another reason to seek safety in numbers and not forsake the fellowship. The more fellow believers encouraging and praying for you the better. Prayer really makes a difference. I have seen it over and over again.
It is important though to find mature Christians who don’t compromise with the world to fellowship with. For we battle against dark forces. This is where it gets even more difficult because so many have been compromised. But God is faithful and will help us if we trust in Him and love Him. That means doing what He says and not following those who pander to Jezebel.
@8to12: I hope Lief Erickson knows guys out there are rooting for him.
Yes, he knows.
Infidelity is the theme of some of the latest posts on CAF:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=851547
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=851538
And, commitment…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=851602
Somewhat off-topic, but… Jenny Erikson’s latest on The Stir:
“The 5 Types of Guys You’re Stuck Dating After Divorce,” 3 Jan 2014
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/166703/the_5_types_of_guys
“9 Things I Didn’t Expect About Getting a Divorce,” 3 Jan 2014
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/166627/9_things_i_didnt_expect
You can’t make this up.
@Anonymous,
“A Budding Friendship: Now that we don’t have to live with each other anymore, maybe we really can be friendly instead of barely tolerating one another. Hope springs eternal, right?”
I have a theory Leif got the better end of the deal here, as Ms Erikson keeps hinting ever-so-gently she wants him back.
If only poor Leif would go and ____ Ten Other Women, Lift More, and Next Her, we’d be reading on The Stir about their impending reconciliation.
Jenny Erikson in her blog said: “A Budding Friendship: Now that we (my ex-husband and myself) don’t have to live with each other anymore, maybe we really can be friendly instead of barely tolerating one another. Hope springs eternal, right?”
This is an attempt to rationalize away the damage she did by not sticking to her vows. If they are still friends after the divorce, then what she did can’t really be that bad.
Without exception the divorced women with young children that I know think their children are doing “great” — including my ex. The truth is that they see and hear what they want to see and hear and no more. There is a profound sadness in my children that I pray they can get over in time. Although it is manifesting itself in problems with friends and at school, my ex wife refuses to see it. My 12 year old son is in therapy for gosh sakes but “they are doing great” according to her. “So much better than I thought they would be doing” etc.
I want to punch someone when I see my 4 year old daughter so sad and puzzled by the situation; when I see my 9 year old son, who was so full of joy, now so somber; when I see my seven year old son so confused and angry.
I hate this evil situation but the only thing I can do is to be resolved to pull something good out of it.
Advice from people of good will is always welcome and appreciated.
Apparently delusion is what spring eternal in women.
Do what your 9 year old, your 7 year old, and your 4 year old wants, reconcile with your wife. Tell her its not too late. And you aren’t doing this for you or for her. Its not about you or her. Its about your kids….
…this way, you won’t want to punch someone anymore.
Re: advice, but maybe not the goodest will. A man latches when he falls in love and it is difficult for his woman to get him to fall out of love no matter how hard she tries, and after he falls out of love he will never fall back in love with her no matter how hard he tries. His woman’s contempt and backstabbing was designed to kill his love, and it worked eventually. Women may be …. different …. but for a man there is no resurrection of love, not the romantic in love stuff. If she has had another man then Biblically you cannot, in general, reconcile as in go back to being a regular married couple. She should be “put away”, either in a convent, or the loony bin, or in an apartment alone with cats. Interestingly enough, most such women put themselves away quite early.
My ex had an affair. I worked hard to swallow my pride and reconcile for the kids. A year later I caught her trying to arrange another. I was still willing to reconcile if she was willing to do the heavy lifting but she filed for divorce instead. She will never reconcile because I have nothing she wants. She has a secure stream of income from me and her other men to keep her from getting lonely.
It’s over for good. Not a thing I can do about that. So…. I still want to punch someone.
@HawkandRock, I find emotionally moving on works best (and, yes, this is very difficult to do with your own kids). You just have to accept they are cursed with a bad mother.
Could be worse, they could have a bad father.
You should be glad and very grateful that you got rid of her so cheaply. It sounds like all this was her decision, and you did all you could. You’re blameless in the matter.
This is some deep red pill stuff, so I don’t expect most here to like it, but… Imagine if you were married to this woman 100 years ago. It would have been on you to go to court and prove that she had been unfaithful, before you’d have been able to be done with her. That was very difficult, and most men didn’t bother. They lived lives of *quiet desperation* while their wives banged various neighbors, and they were forced to foot the bill for all her children, some or most of which were not biologically yours. Your only real alternatives back then were either murder, or running away and starting over in some distant clime.
So, you have to give her some money and pay her to go away. In return you get the peace of knowing that you don’t have to live with a cheating ‘ho, and the ability to find a new wife who is more suitable to the task if you so choose. This is a very great gift and you shouldn’t take it for granted. Wish her well in the trashy hookup culture, forget her as far as possible, and make your life a beautiful thing.
Best, Boxer
HawkandRock says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:01 am
Prayers for you. Never expect your ex-wife to acknowledge the damage suffered by your children as a result of the divorce. As other posters have intimated, she has to rationalize it by claiming that a) they’re doing fine or b) as bad as they may be doing it’s better than being in a loveless marriage. When it becomes obvious that they’re not fine, even by her misguided and self-serving standards, she’ll move on to rationalization b. When they continue to not be fine, she’ll move further down that path and exaggerate and even fabricate a litany of your abusive behaviors so as to salve her own malformed conscience. In other words – it will get worse for you.
Do your best to make the best life you can for your kids. It is hard – I know personally. I got killed financially in my divorce and still face constant berating from my ex for not spending more money on my sons than I already do.
Don’t punch anyone.
Re: affair. A huge percentage of married women’s affairs are for the purpose of ending the marriage. My ex had an affair after nine years of marriage with I think the first good looking guy who ever made a serious pass at her. As soon as she moved out and told him she would be his, two weeks later he didn’t want her any more and she was devastated. There was definitely no overlap between him and me. I held out the possibility of her slinking back home with her tail between her legs and moving into a separate bedroom, forever probably, but she refused to be humbled.
Re: reconciliation with first man after she has a second man. It is called abomination under any circumstances (Deut 24:3-4), even if she never had sex outside of marriage. There is a point of no return.
Prayers to you Hawk.
Its like one of the worst questions a grown boy could ever ask his dad if he is thinking about getting married:
Our country is on the Road to Perdition.
He wants to punch somebody. I guess I would to if I was Hawk.
If I were you Hawk, every single time you go see the judge in child support proceedings (what is it, once a year?), petition for full custody (hell, you would be entitled to child support.) Dont even tell your wife or her attorney that you will do this, just do right then. Tell the judge you are afraid that any one of your ex-wife’s boyfriends might be sleeping over and molesting your kids whom you must provide for and protect. Tell the judge that you believe your kids lives are in danger with their mother because of her boyfriends. I would be hring a private investigator right now to be hanging around the house to get pictures of all the men she has visiting her. Use those photographs as evidence.
Put her on the defensive in the courtroom and attack her lifestyle because the Judge’s sole deicision should ONLY ever be in what is in the best interest of the children. (Obviously, the best interest of the children would be no divorce, but no-fault is the law so the Judge couldn’t stop that.) The Judge has the power to give you full custody if she continues to behave this way, just keep your nose clean and focus solely on your kids the moral breakdown of your wife’s character. If the Judge says no, just listen to the verdict, turn around, walk out of the courtroom with your head held high, and do it all over again next year, same situation. Never give your wife an inch.
I know this is awful, absolutely terrible. But you didn’t bring this about, she did. So your concern should only be for your children, not her reputation.
OT
I have a new post on the nature of free will, the Marxist view on free will and the larger implications to society. This is one of my best blog posts yet.
I would be really honored if Dalrock and others from this site would give me your feedback on my post. As Marxist culture continues to progress, I believe that defending free will and agency would become necessary.
Pingback: Winning the lottery. | Dalrock
Power corrupts and women have too much power. The corruption leads to bad behavior and bad decisions. It leads to selfishness, narcissism, and ruin.
The goal of mutually assured destruction is to discourage war and encourage cooperation and compromise because the costs to both sides are so devastating. Well…what happens if only one side has nukes and the other does not…a giant radioactive crater where a family used to be. She probably didn’t stop for a second to consider that her kids would be caught in the blast as well.
There were ‘threat points’ against women in the past, not specifically from men, but from the environment. Women didn’t have their own money and property, there weren’t excessive welfare safety nets, the world was harsh and survival was an issue, etc. There were also social forces that exerted pressure on families to stay together (divorce laws, religion, family pressure, etc.). I would guess that a lot of grandmas and grandpas that have been married for 50+ years didn’t just stay together solely because they were so in love.
Re: one-sided nukes. Where are our feminist Rosenbergs?
—–
Her details “Single mom. I like guns and pink and the beach and God (in no particular order).”
Relationship: Divorced
Have kids: Yes, and they live at home (2)
—–
Let’s count the untruths (or why not call them lies): 1) Single mom (she’s not single) 2) “I like…God” (just not well enough to follow his rules) 3) Divorced (the correct option here is “currently separated” 4) Yes, and they live at home (the correct option here is “yes, and they sometimes live at home”)
Also unusual is that most 31 year old American women would be looking for someone ages 29 to 36, and she is looking for 35 to 45. Very odd.
Most striking, though, is the change from “God, family, politics, wine, in that order” to “guns…pink…the beach…God, in no particular order.”
What I have found to be true is that if, for example, a lawyer has to brag on his sign or his card about “honesty” and “integrity” it is because he is trying to fool you into thinking he has some, when he does not (hence his felt need to advertise that he does). When I see “God, family, politics, wine, in that order,” I get the feeling that this is a similar situation. The actual order, though, is more likely the reverse of the one advertised. It is another case of look at what they do, not what they say.
If there is any humility coming at the end of this story, it appears it will only come after a series of rather hard knocks, which will no doubt come but probably not soon enough for her to want to reconcile while reconciling is still possible.
Incorrigible. And lying your way through life. What a great example for the kids. Wonder when her conscience will finally kick in. No sign yet.
Carlos says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“Her details “Single mom. I like guns and pink and the beach and God (in no particular order).”
Also unusual is that most 31 year old American women would be looking for someone ages 29 to 36, and she is looking for 35 to 45. Very odd.”
Easily explained. She could simply have figured that guys a bit older are more likely to have higher income and/or lower sex drive. More likely, though, is she’s either a gross fatty or warpig-ugly, and has to go for men she figures will have lower standards, as ones her age will skip right past her just on the basis of her age.
I remember when I started public activism around 1984. Any men’s organization was torn up with quarreling and fighting in every manner.
Thirty years have passed. Our legal status has continued to evaporate, and there is lots of big talk about what we should do. We aren’t going to do anything, except millions of men are avoiding marriage. (That is actually the only big plus.) And, even then other men deny this, and insist most men will marry the minute they get a chance. Quarrel; bicker, quarrel.
Right now, it’s so bad if your wife punches you in the nose, you are going to jail. And, if you face a completely false sex abuse charge, you can’t even use the truth to defend yourself. IF you lose your job, you go to jail.
But that’s okay. What is really important that we permit no one to say anything we disagree with, ever. Gotta’ suppress free speech if they disagree with us, right? That is more important than political activism…
Can it get worse? Yes, it certainly can. The original goal of feminists was to kill 90% of all men. The only goal they haven’t met. And, unless something interferes, such as total economic collapse, it is only a matter of time until the pogrom starts.
And, it will be other men who drag you off to the gas chambers. And. other men in the same cattle car will be cursing you and blaming you for their fate.
So, please continue the constant quarreling just as it was 30 years ago.
@IBB
“And you aren’t doing this for you or for her. Its not about you or her. Its about your kids”
This is a comforting lie. The bond between husband and wife is supposed to be even stronger than the one between parent and child. But during a divorce, the wife and all too often the husband play up the parent-child bond while the husband-wife bond is being discarded. I suspect this betrays something that has been going on all along, since maybe even before the wedding vows are exchanged, just nobody was conscious of it until the marriage hit rough seas.
This attitude contributes to the breakdown, IBB, because it accommodates it. Here is one place where agree & amplify is not helpful.
I should also add that my recently deceased father for all his faults, and there were many, always made it clear to me that his relationship with my mother unquestionably came before his relationship with me and my siblings. I am deeply grateful for his good example.
My ex had an affair. I worked hard to swallow my pride and reconcile for the kids. A year later I caught her trying to arrange another. I was still willing to reconcile if she was willing to do the heavy lifting but she filed for divorce instead. She will never reconcile because I have nothing she wants. She has a secure stream of income from me and her other men to keep her from getting lonely.
It’s over for good.
Sorry to hear of this. I think you’ve done the best you could have done, in a bad circumstance.
When women have affairs, the marriage is almost always over — very, very few marriages reoiver from a wife’s affair(s). Most people think this is because men are less forgiving in this area, but the actual reason is that for a woman to have an affair she basically has to be done with the husband, romantically/sexually, period. Unlike men, who in most cases have an affair to experience “something on the side”, for women most of the time an affair is to experience “a substitution for husband” — in other words, the “love/sex” box inside them is emptied of the husband, who is in LJBF zone, and filled with the lover. For the husband to get back into the love/sex box is even harder than for the typical beta orbiter to leave the LJBF zone because in the case of an H, the man has actually been there before and the woman has definitively ejected him — they almost never, ever will place that man back in that space ever again.
This is why it is typical that a wife who is having an affair has no interest in reconciling. They want to replace the H, not reconcile with him. They’re done with thinking of H “that way”, and want a new lover for that part of their lives. They don’t ever want to have sex with H, really, again. Sometimes they get to this point immediately, and sometimes it comes to them over the course of time (i.e., they try to reconcile and then find that they just can’t because it feels “icky” to them, like having sex with their brother or something). Trying to reconcile for an extended period of time, which many of us try to do (I tried to do that, too, for 18 months or so) just makes her gradually more contemptful — it doesn’t generally increase attraction or regenerate it. Regenerating attraction in these cases is almost always a long-shot, anyway, really.
Best you can do is focus on the kids and seeing them as much as you can. Damage mitigation mode at this point. Makes you very angry, yes — go to the gym and work out the anger there. Good luck in this difficult time.
The perverseness of women is that if you want to reconcile, the best way is as game would tell you, is to move on. I have seen women try to reconcile after an affair once the man shuts them down completely and moves on especially when things didn’t turn out like the woman thought it would. There is no hunky millionaire. The man they slept with doesn’t really want them permanently (and why would he really)
Of course, as one person pointed out, once a man no longer loves a woman, he no longer loves her.
A man in love can over look and forgive more that any sane rational man would, but once a man is no longer in love, all those things he tolerated become intolerable. Just as a man trying to reconcile finds it impossible, if a woman decided to reconcile at that point the man usually laughs.
Leif will eventually get at that point and in some ways he appears to have kept his cool in the face of everything relatively speaking.
Right now if they are playing at being friends, it won’t last. It can’t. Friends don’t betray each other like that and eventually Leif will realize they are not friends, are not capable of being friends and never were friends.
And yes, Leif got the better end of this, most men do. The women think the man will be devastated for ever (I think that’s part of what fuels the nasty divorces, they want the man to suffer and he isn’t suffering enough).
And as Dave in Hawaii’s recent posts point out eventually the kids have to pick a side in order to survive emotionally. The mom may poison the well, but I have known many people that the mom tried to do that, and once they moved out of her influence or the kids become teenager, amazingly the relationship with the father gets reborn and the relationship with the mother withers.
Ras Al Ghul is right. If Leif really wanted to reconcile, assuming Jenny isn’t lying and hasn’t done the deed yet, the ONLY effective procedure would be for him to fall out of love with her and to start treating her like she she wants to be treated i.e. like a naughty girl. He should be coldly judgemental without giving an inch, and his ONLY communications with her, which he must demand she beg from him, should be constant judgment without letup.
Please. I would bet big dollars Jenny did the deed long before she announced she “just wasn’t happy any longer”. She’s about as unimpeachable a source for *anything* as those sleazy GOP political hacks she was bunking with last election.
I know a lot of you all aren’t going to like what I’m going to say here, but it doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter the sex of the marital partner either. If your husband or wife leaves and announces s/he is divorcing you, it’s history. Sure, you could take them back, but it isn’t worth it and they’re not worth it. If they were, they wouldn’t have wasted your time and money with the stunt in the first place. This is doubly true in the case of kids. No decent person would behave like this when they have little children. Normal people put their stupid indulgences aside when they have little girls and try to behave themselves until those girls grow up. Only white trash would break up their marriage with their kids at that age, and that’s exactly what Jenny is.
Leif made a critical error in judgment the first time. I’m hoping he ignores this loser and moves on, either alone, or to a younger, hotter, tighter woman with better moral values. Jenny wasn’t worth his time in the first place. She got incredibly lucky to have that man (a good man and father, who busts his ass for her and her kids) and she blew it. She is doubly unworthy now.
Regards, Boxer
unwobblingpivot says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Not sure if the idea of the primacy of the spousal relationship is on the various lists of questions to ask prospective wives, but it should be.
If a potential mate does not agree that the relationship between the husband and wife is the central one in a family – run.
Ras Al Ghul says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Good point about the lunacy of nurturing friendship with someone who destroyed your life (or tried to) for no reason at all. Some level of decorum is necessary to protect the kids fom further fallout, but it’s mostly just sought as cover by the nukng party (read: woman) to salve her conscience.
Re: “Only white trash would break up their marriage with their kids at that age” then the majority of women are now white trash. I’m not disputing that assessment, merely pointing out that the term white trash now encompasses more than it did, apparently.
Dear jf12:
It’s my opinion, and I’m sticking with it. Part of my definition of white trash is the inability to delay gratification, and breaking up your family when your two little girls are barely out of diapers is a particularly stark illustration of this character flaw.
I know people who have waited until the kids are grown to get divorced. If you absolutely must break your vows and go back to ride the cock carousel, then this is the bare minimum of decency. It’s bad enough that you don’t respect your husband, or yourself, but people who do this prove they don’t give a shit even about their own helpless offspring.
Regards, Boxer
@hurting:
“Not sure if the idea of the primacy of the spousal relationship is on the various lists of questions to ask prospective wives, but it should be.
If a potential mate does not agree that the relationship between the husband and wife is the central one in a family – run.”
A man can have this attitude and keep it. Do not underestimate the powerful effect giving birth has on a woman. She can have your attitude during the courtship/interview stage, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way.
I have firmly come to believe that birthing babies and nurturing them is a moral hazard for a woman. Her ability to justify herself as the superior parent is enabled by these good actions. How can husbands mitigate this and correct for it? I don’t currently have the answer, but I believe this elusive answer will be critical to holding a marriage together.
If she is operating out of a place of respectful submission, that may be the antidote right there.
Women have never been able to delay gratification. Never ever. That is why they vote Democrat and vote for government spending on entitlements, they don’t give a damn where the money comes from they just want stuff now. But with the Patriarchy, the man sets the level of spending she has to keep her from screwing herself (and her whole family.) WIth the Patriarchy gone, women are just reverting to their existing ferrel nature.
That’s bullshit. So many others have made the point (better than I could) that I’m not going to waste space on Dalrock blog repeating them. Go over to the blogs of Sunshine Mary, Laura Grace Robbins, or many others to see salient examples of the contrary.
Your mantra of “women do not have moral agency” is a blanket excuse for women to do whatever they want, nullifying any critical analysis in advance.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer, you just NAWALTed me. Why did you do that?
As a group, women have never ever been able to delay gratification. That is all that matters.
Dear IBB:
Using words like “never” in the context of broad generalities is very sloppy thinking. If you were in my class you wouldn’t get anything more substantive than a C on this response.
Perhaps many women act like they can’t delay gratification because they have, historically, had so many white knights to rush in and fix the problems they create, excusing them of responsibility as they go… Just a thought.
Regards, Boxer
Well I’m not in your class so get off your high horse. You just irrationally NAWALTed me. You wont be grading me.
Women do not delay gratification because women do not have moral agency. End of story. If you want to blame that on white knights, go for it. Believe whatever you want. But my original point still stands.
Dear IBB:
No it doesn’t. Here’s proof to the contrary, which took me all of five seconds to find…
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com
Why is this woman delaying gratification, refusing to mainline heroin, fuck strangers, and hold up the corner liquor store?
Regards, Boxer
I don’t care boxer. If she is great, go marry her. Stop googling and swallow your damn pride.
Women have moral agency, but it seems like it can be measured on a scale, like IQ, instead of a binary yes/no. Women’s moral IQ is simply much lower than men’s moral IQ. In terms of actual IQ, woman gathers around the mean, which is why they’re good at low-level office drone jobs. Drones work for the hive, follow directions well, and don’t engage in a lot of productively creative thought–they’re a bit of a hive mind–in morality too. But we’re not just like animals that simply need to be trained a certain way (though we do need that). Women can understand and act on moral precepts (unlike animals), they just need a strong structure with powerful consequences for immoral acts in place to keep them in line. A little further down the line, requiring more training and structure, are children–at a certain age, 2 or 3(?), they gain moral agency too.
(Yes, I’m aware humans fall under the animal category in the sciences; I don’t see how that’s relevant on a Christian blog.)
The way I look at it Marissa is not from a mathematical standpoint, more from a logical one. And what is my logic path when determining moral agency?
Without someone in authority (used to be God and husbands or fathers, now it is “the state”) forcing women to behave a certain way that is moral, do women generally make the correct decision of their own free will? I would argue that they generally do not. And that rule of thumb has served me well.
The way I looked at it Marissa (before I got married) just to save me heartache and frustration, I just assumed every single woman I met would automatically owe 5 figures on her credit cards, would automatically be way over on her car lease millage, would automatically be renting an apartment they could not afford or would be living at home and still had no assets to show for her efforts. I was right every single time, even a woman who made $100L as a CTO in 2000 (she didn’t have a pot to piss in.) No delay of gratification, no moral agency.
Most people do not behave in a way that is moral without someone in authority (hence, kings, government, laws). Clearly almost every human being requires a political authority (on earth) and a spiritual authority (on both earth and in heaven) to act morally. Are men not moral agents because they require the law and God to keep them in line?
God -> Man -> Woman -> Child -> Animal
In this representation, man is the moral authority over woman. But woman still has moral agency to act right or wrong. Just as the child has moral agency (to an extent) to act right or wrong under the purview of woman (and man and God). Is man not a moral agent because he is under the authority of God?
Using your words, “Without someone in authority (…God…) forcing [men] to behave a certain way that is moral, do [men] generally make the correct decision of their own free will?”
Clearly he does not make the correct moral decision without God’s authority keeping him accountable. Requiring an authority to keep one behaving morally does not strip one of moral agency.
Do children have (limited) moral agency? That is, can they determine what is right and wrong, and act in a moral way by choice?
I don’t really understand your delayed gratification anecdote. If your logic is that those who are poor at delayed gratification lack moral agency, then nearly the entire continent of Africa lacks moral agency.
A modest proposal: as useful as the acronym NAWALT can be, we need some others to keep our discussions from driving into a ditch.
Here’s two more for your consideration:
VNMALT = virtually no men are like that
OAWWDT = only a woman would do that
Gives us a larger palette from which to paint with broad strokes, which isn’t always necessarily a bad thing. (See what I did there?)
As for IBB’s current beef, his argument would hold water if VNMALT or OAWWDT held true regarding instant gratification.
But we all have to admit there are plenty of cases where men are not practiced at delayed gratification. So the universal nature of IBB’s argument is not as valid as he’d like us to believe.
“If your logic is that those who are poor at delayed gratification lack moral agency, then nearly the entire continent of Africa lacks moral agency.”
BING!! Point proven!
Of course one could argue my last point boils down to “Men do it, too”, which means we need to be ready to refute that charge when there *is* a big disparity between the number of women and the number of men engaging in a specific behavior or displaying a certain trait.
Also, compliments to Marissa on her points, which (unlike mine) stuck with the angle of moral agency.
Unforunately Marissa, this is more the case now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century when much of Africa was under the Colonial rule of Great Britian.
End of story….Believe whatever you want. But my original point still stands….I don’t care boxer. If she is great, go marry her. Stop googling and swallow your damn pride.
Incredible. I’ve never known a man to talk that way. More than a few women, though! When they do start talking that way, I dump ’em quick. The craziest ones start talking this way before we can even arrange a date. No wonder she’s alone. No wonder she’s mad. Selenna, is that you? Kristie? Unbelievable!
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
unwobblingpivot says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:37 am
Thoroughly agree with your observation that it would likely be very difficult to know if a woman who claimed to believe (prior to marriage and childbirth) in the primacy of the spousal relationship, hence my recommendation to find out beforehand. If she doesn’t even pay the idea lip service prior to the lifechanging events, she’s definitely not going to change her mind afterwards.
Unfortunately I speak from experience. There were very obvious (well, NOW they’re very obvious anyway) danger signs that I did not properly assess prior to my marriage.
One very practical way to solidify the belief is by having a large family. Lotsa kids puts the lie to ‘mother as superior parent and can do it on her own and I just need the beta for provisioning’ like the larger families of yesteryear. This may not be sufficient in and of itself, but it would seem ot be a good start.
unwobbling pivot regarding what the center of the family should be:
A man can have this attitude and keep it. Do not underestimate the powerful effect giving birth has on a woman. She can have your attitude during the courtship/interview stage, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way.
This is unquestionably true. If nothing else, the powerful flood of hormones involved in pregnancy and childbirth has effects upon the physical structure of her brain. It is in fact inevitable that a woman will place her infant child at the center of her universe, regardless of one’s point of view on the origin of humans.
It is up to the man (husband, in the context of this blog) to counteract this.
I have firmly come to believe that birthing babies and nurturing them is a moral hazard for a woman. Her ability to justify herself as the superior parent is enabled by these good actions. How can husbands mitigate this and correct for it? I don’t currently have the answer, but I believe this elusive answer will be critical to holding a marriage together.
If she is operating out of a place of respectful submission, that may be the antidote right there.
For a mother to maintain a mindset of respectful submission would be golden, because it is possible to lead a woman who is willing to follow, than one fighting and rebelling. Even so, men who are new fathers need to maintain their frame of leadership, rather than fall into betaization, because the latter path leads to submission and supplication on his part.
A woman who goes into rebellion, contentiousness, etc. is a more difficult proposition, because she won’t willingly follow. Game can be used to manage in this case because Game bypasses the frontal lobes and “talks” to more primitive parts of the brain. But do not confuse “management” with “leading”. Management minimizes damage, but does not necessarily lead to harmony or good times.
A woman who falls into depression post partum is another problem. Even if she’s trying to loyally follow, the sheer sadness of depression leads to anhedonia, a state where nothing brings pleasure. There are a number of things that can be done, but were I taking care of a woman in that state I would begin with vitamins, herbal preparations, etc. and then move on to SAMe as well as other things, because a nursing mother has no business taking SSRI’s.
Also note that the effects of raising children can manifest in different ways once the youngest is able to take care of itself to some degree. If she’s “married” to her children, then the temptation to dispense with whats-his-name gets most acute when the youngest child is around 4 to 5 years of age. Game can be used to manage at this point as well.
Part of maintaining frame on the part of the husband is simple yet difficult: take her out to dinner before the child is 6 months old (before 3 months if possible). Secure the most competent baby sitter possible, if no relatives (Grandma is ideal) are available then a very competent college aged woman will do. Do not expect her to enjoy the evening all that much, let her call back to the house to check on the child once (but no more), do not expect her to be the same “date” she was prior to children. This is an exercise, basically, in reminding her that marriage existed prior to children and she should conduct herself such that the marriage continues after the children leave. She’s married to her husband, not her child(ren) or her job (if any).
It is my opinion that any man with a pregnant wife should be studying Game in order to learn what his wife really is like, and to be prepared for various changes in her psyche. Even the least feminine of women will become a different person under the influence of a boatload of estrogen.
Also there needs to be some alone time for a married couple with the children not in the house. Either the children go to spend the night away, or the man and wife go away and leave someone caring for the children, but it is a requirement. Because she needs to be physically reminded that she has another role than “mommy”.
The man must maintain a strong frame during these “nights off”, he must not allow her to natter on about The Children, he must not allow her to complain about her job, they must converse like adults on topics of interest to both of them. They must try to act as they did Before Children (BC), and step out of the frame of “Mom and Dad”. The central focus must be on their relationship, not on all the peripherals.
To allow a family to become child-centered is the first step to many forms of divorce, in my opinion, because as noted above it allows the woman to see herself as the superior parent, as The Mom Whose Word Is Final and by default that includes everyone in the house. Thus the order becomes MOM -> Everyone Else, and if a man is not careful he may find himself betaized and responding more like a boy to his mommy than a man to his wife. This gives rise to all manner of problems, most notably her losing attraction for him and the sexual frustration he can expect as a result.
IBB
I don’t care boxer. If she is great, go marry her. Stop googling and swallow your damn pride.
Oh, the irony…
Dear IBB:
I assumed LGR was married already, and even if she weren’t, I doubt a woman like that would kick it with the likes of Brother Boxer. I’m honest enough to admit that I have a problem delaying gratification, and my weaknesses are specific to certain areas that presuppose me to make a piss-poor husband (and likely not much of a father, either).
With that out of the way, you still haven’t answered my question. How do you explain all the examples of well-disciplined, principled and decent females in your life? How about in history and literature? You claim to be a Christian… Is the author of your religious texts lying when he talks about Jesus’ mother Mary, for example? She wasn’t a skank-ho single mom (despite the best efforts of Mark Driscoll to re-read the text in a way that rehabilitates all the wayward females of his congregation).
Take Care,
Boxer
Not quite. While it may be true for a majority, it is not universally true.
Re: “A woman who goes into rebellion, contentiousness, etc. is a more difficult proposition, because she won’t willingly follow.” Is that supposed to narrow it down?
AR
It is in fact inevitable that a woman will place her infant child at the center of her universe
MarcusD
Not quite. While it may be true for a majority, it is not universally true.
I’m not from Missouri, but “show me” is often my motto.
jf12
Re: “A woman who goes into rebellion, contentiousness, etc. is a more difficult proposition, because she won’t willingly follow.” Is that supposed to narrow it down?
Yes, although in the modern world it does not narrow it down very much. I have personally seen a woman who was following her husband before, during and after pregnancy, in her actions. Churchgoing people in a conservative denomination. Rare, but exists. And I recall when the first child was born, that child became for a time the center of her universe.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/15 | Free Northerner
“Good point about the lunacy of nurturing friendship with someone who destroyed your life (or tried to) for no reason at all. Some level of decorum is necessary to protect the kids fom further fallout, but it’s mostly just sought as cover by the nukng party (read: woman) to salve her conscience.”
There is another side of this, which never ceases to amaze me. The women appear to honestly think of the man they betrayed as their “best friend” and then are stunned that their “best friend” wants nothing to do with them anymore.
This may be that once they put the man in the “friend box” as Nova describes, they some how think the man should know he’s in that box and accept it.
The woman acts betrayed when the man acts in his rational self interest and cuts the woman out of his life.
“Well I’m not in your class so get off your high horse. You just irrationally NAWALTed me. You wont be grading me.
Women do not delay gratification because women do not have moral agency. End of story. If you want to blame that on white knights, go for it. Believe whatever you want. But my original point still stands.”
The author just presented the most horrifying, and most difficult to accept facet of female psychology. They are not better. Given the same power, wealth, and status, women will become the substance your worst nightmares.
Letting go of illusions, enchantments and false beliefs is so very hard. I guess that’s why the most important lessons in life must be learned the hard way.
It is because we are so gullible, while at the same time powerful and noble, that women, without remorse or compassion, use us.
Anonymous age 71: “Great posting, TooCoolToFool. Absolutely great.”
Dear Sir,
After reading all you’ve written, I hold you in the same, high regard. One day, after all has been said and done, we’ll meet up for a beer and debate with great spirit and candor the merits of all we’ve written.
I look forward to that day, Sir. I have gained so much wisdom from your words. Cheers!
A reader of the manosphere, an average man with good social standing, one day gets sick of the feminine imperative and its social narrative, decides to make a stand.
He stays single, gets all his legal ducks in a row, saves up ~$20,000 and heads to The Rotunda Clinic. He completes the necessary steps to conceive a child, obtains 100% parental rights, and returns to America (or Canada perhaps).
After not too long, he begins to receive attention from co-workers, friends, and extended family. News of the responsible, successful, single male parent spreads through the community and reaches the ears of the local news, as well as a few local feminist groups.
Prepared for the fall-out such as Clyde in Law Abiding Citizen, he parries all comments and concerns with pre-digested statistics, knowledge of law, precedents, wisdom from blogs such as this one, and presents them in full public view.
By candidly sharing his views and prerogative, or alternatively choosing to reject personal questions in the public eye, our man very subtly spits in the face of, and rips myriad holes in the fabric of the feminine prioritized society we live in.
He goes on to happily and successfully raises his child autonomously (or with a maid/daycare), all without threat of divorce, chailmony, loss of parental rights, etc.
Further implications are left to the imagination.
Our man in this example may find he receives such strong (male) support, that he is inspired to work towards reversing one sided policies in public office for the greater good.
Or he might not be bothered to give a fuck.
Perhaps I’ve learned to play the game.. the old lady makes more $$ than I do! Of course, this does not ensure I won’t be paying. However, if it ever came to the big D (she would have to initiate.. I take my vows very seriously) I am also adept at playing very dirty pool.
I think this may be pointless as I am undoubtedly an anomalous data point, but I would like to raise what I personally feel to be a severe shortcoming in the general framework of the discussion of how to restore the sanctity of marriage.
First, my disqualifications so people that do not wish to consider my point may be relieved of the obligation. I am fundamentally averse to rape, or any use of coercion to induce a woman to cooperate sexually. The thought, let alone the experience, of trying to engage in sexual congress with an unwilling woman does not help me to become sexually aroused. I believe that this is an instinctual pattern that exists to some degree in most humans, because of the high degree of emotional transference of a woman’s feelings for her sex partners to her children that occurs in humans. In other words, given the vulnerability of children to being neglected or abandoned, coercive sex with unreceptive women is not a highly viable sexual strategy for men that have received biological signals of sexual receptivity from women generally. Because I have never felt that women generally found me physically unattractive, it is natural for me to instinctively regard a woman’s desire for sex as a reasonable precondition of my own biological investment.
Additionally, I am in the category of the population who benefit most from high investment in nurturing and training children after birth. That is to say, if my children are raised properly rather than poorly, I can expect them to show major advantages in intelligence and physical fitness, because they will inherit my high genetic potential for both qualities. Thus any of my children that are born in a context where I have major input into their upbringing are likely to realize substantial gains compared to children who are similarly genetically endowed but deprived of my continued investment soon after conception. Thus it is instinctively natural for me to prefer a long-term, committed relationship with a woman with whom I intend to procreate.
The above factors are essentially related, because it is probable that my experience of being generally attractive to women is a result of my possession of phenotype traits which definitely indicate the genetic traits on which they are based. But another major factor is only tenuously related to either. I believe that the modern global civilization is essentially unsustainable and is headed for a major collapse resulting in a precipitous decline in living standards (and surviving population) within my lifetime. This has significant implications for the general type of woman which I find attractive. Whereas in the context of a healthy civilization which could be expected to outlast my own generation, I would be very open to women of the “nurturing” type, in light of the actual circumstances I am forced to regard lack of ability to survive the downfall of civilization as unattractive.
Entering the second round of disqualifications, in case anyone still thinks I might have something valuable to say on the subject, I personally do not see any fundamental ethical difference between deception and resorting to direct violence. This is a recognized deviation from human norms of behavior, almost no humans ever reflexively react to their own engagement in deceptive behavior as being equivalent to using violence (though many humans will find them morally equivalent upon experiencing them from others). Whether this is because I have a very low physiological response to using violence or a high response to engaging in deception is not formally tested, and while my own internal experience is that I have a very low reflexive reaction to engaging in violence most people that know me assert that I must have an unusually high reflexive aversion to engaging in deception. This is because I take pains to avoid engaging in either, but it is my internal experience that I do this for ethical rather than reflexive reasons.
Whether driven by ethics or reflexes, the implications of this equivalence in the way I respond to the possibility of obtaining sexual cooperation by means of deception is that seems almost as obnoxious a proposition as rape. While I find an unwilling woman sexually repugnant at a more visceral level which would interfere in actual physical congress, the possibly only intellectual distaste I feel for the process of obtaining sexual cooperation by dint of deception is still more than sufficient to prevent me from ever consciously using it during the phase of seduction which is less physiologically intense than intercourse. Thus I have never, in my entire life, lied to a woman in an attempt to gain her sexual cooperation. It goes without saying that I have never carried through an entire seduction based on deception.
Further, I have regarded the eventual downfall of the modern global civilization as essentially inevitable for more than a decade now, and thus have placed a primary value on a high level of survival skills and innate physical capacity for self-defensive violence compared to typical nurturing capacity. This does not mean that I have any less interest in a woman’s fundamental capability as a mother, both in biological fertility and willingness to nurture her children (particularly if they happen to be my children as well). In other words, for a woman to be highly physically attractive to me, she has to be as feminine as the women I would find attractive in a stable society, and in addition to that also show the capacity to survive what logic tells me is now inevitable given the unsustainable nature of the present civilization.
It is worth emphasizing that none of these criteria materially diminish my instinctive standards for a relationship in which I’m willing to make a procreative investment. I want all that, and I want to put a ring on it (though I recognize that, all other criteria being satisfied, not being married would not be an absolute barrier by any means, it is merely a preference).
The upshot is that far more women have expressed an interest in a relationship with me than can ultimately meet my standards for a procreative partnership (though I do have a number of positive non-procreative relationships with women). Because I both instinctively and intellectual understand procreation as the main purpose of sex, and the biological basis of all other aspects of sex and sexuality, this means that I am currently an Omega male (albeit one that loves and highly respects women, and is generally loved and respected by them in turn). If that term doesn’t fit, then perhaps another category could be framed…or one can simply leave me as an anomalous data point. Given that I fully intend to eventually marry, and frankly have no aversion to polygamous marriage if it is economically viable (here using economy in a sense that will retain meaning after the collapse of the dollar and the global financial system) and agreeable to my wives, it is possible that I should claim to be an eventual Alpha or greater Beta. But I do not regard such categorization as being more useful or accurate than accepting the statistical interpretation on the existing facts, and it is probably less useful and accurate than admitting that my situation is highly likely to be almost entirely unique.
If, after considering all the above reasons to ignore my thoughts on the matter, anyone is still interested in knowing them, I will now turn from detailing reasons my opinion can be dismissed to expressing that opinion about civilization, society, and the appropriate threat point to encourage fidelity to the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage.
Related to a previous point, I will posit that the fundamental purpose of all sexual behavior and all major sex differences is to facilitate procreation. To some persons this might seem controversial, but hopefully anyone still reading understands that I have personally committed to act as this premise logically demands (whether you believe my actions effective or not is your own judgement). I refer to a broader view of procreation than is usually employed, because I view the entire process of raising a child to an adulthood patterned on the parents as part of the procreative process, rather than limiting that process to conception and perhaps gestation. Thus, from my perspective, ensuring that my children attain a level of intellectual and physical vigor similar to that of myself and their mother in our prime is as essential an aspect of procreation as is the act leading to conception. Indeed, on examination of a few thought experiments I can say that it is far more so. For instance, if natural conception in vivo were not the best method to ensure the healthy development and maximal potential of my off-spring, I would be willing to entirely forgo that process if it would interfere with reaching the desired outcome (I would be instinctively somewhat displeased, but if having sexual intercourse with their mother would harm my children, I have the rational capacity to subordinate an instinct which does not serve the purpose for which it exists).
Further, if insistence on conceiving children directly genetically related to myself and the woman I choose as a reproductive partner would impair the potential for my children to develop into adults with intellectual and physical abilities essentially commensurate with our own, I would be willing to instead invest my procreative effort into the nurture and upbringing of children conceived with that genetic potential even if they were not directly related to myself. Even if children of that genetic potential were not readily available for adoption (which is likely since most such children are going to be better off with their own genetic parents), I would consider contributing to their development in a non-parental role in preference to seeking opportunities to conceive children that would not have a high probability of similar genetic potential. In point of fact I have done this, helping to raise or nurture children who were not my own rather than using my time and efforts to conceive children of my own, though only on a circumstantial basis. But if my procreative genetic material were to become damaged to a degree which made my conception of genetically gifted children unlikely or highly difficult, I would be willing to permanently forgo conception myself in the interests of my procreative ends.
When looking at sexuality in this larger context of total procreative efforts, it is clear that such things as “emotional bonding between a mother and father” and “expressing love and affection” pursuant to a “sense of familial permanence and stability” fall entirely within the category of activity which ultimately has a firmly procreative purpose. I don’t just want to conceive children and then let them fail to achieve the degree of intellectual and physical growth their genetic heritage would allow. Such would be an essential failure of the procreative process, in my view, only marginally less profound than doing nothing whatsoever to contribute to posterity (and quite possibly more profound, as it is demonstrably the case that badly nurtured children can turn into a significant net detraction from humanity).
A word on my emphasis on intellectual and physical developmental outcomes compared to emotional and spiritual development, I do not neglect the importance of emotional and spiritual development but I see them as existing in service of the ends of greater intellectual and physical development. I enjoy emotions, but I do not entertain them at the expense of my physical or mental health. Conversely, while I regard spirituality as being a goal which is worthy of the sacrifice of intellectual and physical attainments, I believe that there are many false and spiritually destructive philosophies which are best filtered by asking whether a given spiritual pursuit fundamentally (rather than incidentally) requires the denigration of intellect and body. I put physical health on the same grounds as mental health because, while I prefer intellectual development, it is impossible for a given person to badly neglect physical development without suffering from severe diminution of intellect. The experience of a body is itself a great boon to the mind, leaving aside that the mind is substantially dependent on the body, particularly the health of the brain (whether or not one believes that any substantial portion of the mind exists independently of the physical brain).
Therefore, in this more complete understanding of procreation as the entire process of producing adult off-spring which are “like” their parents (genetically simply because genetics are vitally important to phenotype), I find the purpose of marriage to be a means for society (and civilization, which is another matter) to generally assist in procreation. Any innovation or existing behavior towards marriage which does not positively impact procreation does not fulfill the purpose of marriage, even if it is otherwise of interests to society or civilization.
A word on society, civilization, the individual, and the family. I do not regard the needs of the individual relative to marriage, because individuals cannot marry and procreate as a matter of practical limitations on human existence. Even if medical technology existed to allow individuals to procreate successfully without reproductive partners (and this technology does not currently exist and is not going to be developed prior to the imminent collapse of global civilization), the relationship between the parent and child would still supercede individual considerations in matters of procreation. Therefore families of some form, and particularly the relationships between parents and children, take precedence over individual needs, which are relevant to procreation only insofar as impairment of the individuals involved will degrade procreation. Only development of a process of simple replication could materially eliminate the primacy of the family over the individual in matters of procreation. Whether such a process is even theoretically possible for humans is uncertain, scientifically at least (theologically it would seem the usual answer is that it is not).
Society is the complex of human relationships as they affect a given individual. It can in principle be no more extensive than a family living in isolation from all other humans, or even two unrelated persons that will not procreate but act in relation to one another. It has no technological or theoretical prerequisites other than the existence of more than one person and contact between those persons. Nevertheless, there are things that are better and worse for society. That which is detrimental to the survival or communication of individuals with one another is detrimental to society. For example, whacking everyone you see with a rock rapidly impairs either the survival or communication of other humans in relation to you. The more people that are able to survive while in communication with one another, the more robust a society is likely to be. Because procreation is an essential prerequisite for maintaining a healthy population of humans, it is essential to society. Thus all societies must protect the procreative process in order to endure. This means expressing bounds of particular respect for the relationships of parents (both parents) to their children, which functionally requires particular recognition of which persons are involved in reproductive partnerships with others.
Civilization is a particular form of society which consists of a population density sufficient that individual humans will be in regular contact with persons with whom they have limited capacity to form unique personal relationships. If you regularly encounter people from more than about 150 different households, you require civilization in order to reasonably predict non-survival-adverse interactions with some of the people you regularly encounter. Civilization consists of common standards of expected behavior which will apply between persons which do not have personal relationships (whether friendly, familial, or vindictive). Civilization can exist for a short time in a population so small that everyone personally knows everyone else, but it has no essential benefit to society in that case and will atrophy quickly (even if the formal standards of civilization are remembered). Thus civilization requires not only society, but a large and concentrated population. Maintenance of standards for the recognition and treatment of families engaged in procreation is thus as essential as for societies, but further must be formally expressed rather than being entirely based on particular situations (which is a possibility in societies small enough that everyone knows everyone else).
When we speak of laws, threat points for modification of mass statistical behavior, political groups, “gender identity”, finances, or pretty much anything other than personal encounters with specific persons of close acquaintance, we are discussing civilization. Marriage can exist without civilization, all it requires is that society recognize the marriage relationship and refrain from interfering with its procreative purpose. Where society is too small or diffuse to require civilization, marriages can consist of little more than the recognition of everyone which encounters a particular family that a marriage exists and deserves respect. But where population concentration requires members of a family to regularly encounter persons which are not personally known to them, it is necessary that there be formally defined standards of behavior which govern such interactions so that the risk of adverse interactions which would impair successful procreation are minimized. One of the tools of enforcing these standards might be “shaming”, or rather the informal application of social pressure to particular cases, but it is not by such tools that civilization generally enforces standards of behavior which are essential to the continuance of civilization. Particularly in the case of a large civilization, we need to resort to fixed laws which are backed by the willingness of citizens to kill strangers who persistently or flagrantly defy the standards of behavior which are deemed essential to survival of the civilization as a whole.
At that last point I’m sure that some of you (presuming anyone is still reading) balked, even without the overt statement that respect for marriage, as an indispensable aspect of maintaining civilization, is necessarily subject to this more serious category of enforcement. Although I believe the understanding of the necessity of appeal to lethal force in upholding the laws of civilization should have penetrated the “Manosphere” to some degree, it is likely from the tone of discussion that it is only seen as something that does not have direct applicability to sexual behavior. Given that legally enforced respect for marriage is actually more fundamental to the survival of civilization than legal prohibition of homicide, I am not well-equipped to further propound the point that those who act to undermine the procreative process need to be dealt though a law-enforcement paradigm rather than through social pressure absent some reasoned presentation of why exactly protecting marriage isn’t worth killing anyone (particularly those who engage in levels of infidelity and adultery sufficient to seriously undermine the procreation of hundreds or thousands of the next generation). If some such rational justification can be presented, I shall consider refuting it (or accepting it if it is irrefutable), but at present I cannot even imagine what form such a justification might take. I have only ever encountered completely irrational refusals to consider that the sanctity of marriage, as the core of the procreative activity essential to civilization, is worthy of the same kind of legal protection given to, for instance, property ownership.
Having let the black cat out of the bag, I shall immediately and concisely describe my suggested “threat point” for protecting procreative activity in the context of stable, healthy marriages. First, all persons engaging in extramarital sexual activity are to be subject to criminal prosecution, with a penalty of death for those found guilty of the most serious offenses. I will break down particular cases, from less to more serious. If an unmarried couple chooses to present a defense of engagement or intention to marry, they must be legally married by the time of the trial in order to present their defense, and will still be subject to any penalties which would be appropriate for a married couple engaging in similar indecent or lewd conduct, along with any fraud committed by representing themselves as already legally married. But no further penalty will be exacted for not having been legally married if they are otherwise completely qualified to marry. However, such a defense will not be an option for any persons who would be legally prohibited from marrying, whether because prior marriage, consanguinity, or one of the parties being below the age of consent and not having the permission of a legal guardian.
Marriage will be for life, without possibility of divorce. The only cessation of marriage will be legal separation, in which the conventional legal obligations of marriage will be suspended in some degree as dictated by due process, or by death of one spouse leaving the other widowed. Persons that are married but legally separated will not thereby be legally able to “remarry”, except by removal of the legal separation status and restoration of the original marriage.
In all cases where it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that sexual congress occurred, an no defense of intention to marry or of incompetence is possible, the penalty shall be death. The forms of incompetence shall consist of being below the age of consent or severe permanent impairments making meaningful consent impossible. However, where it is demonstrated that the woman could have been situationally incapable of resisting coercive or deceptive representation by the man, she may prove this by serving at the execution of the man for rape and shall be regarded as being an innocent victim. This shall be duly recorded and be a matter of public record.
In other words, every time a woman accuses a man of raping her, she has to be ready to back that assertion by publicly terminating his life if there is sufficient proof that sexual intercourse did occur as alleged. And of course every time a man screws with anyone other than his wife, he risks death at her hands.
Rape within marriage shall only be legally possible where marital rights have been terminated by formal separation. Termination of marital rights shall only be possible when either financial obligations have been completely severed or a violent felony conviction has been obtained.
Draconian? Yes. But I frankly can live with it. And I don’t particularly feel like sharing my planet with anyone that can’t. But perhaps there is room for reasonable deliberation with those who could live with this standard of legal protection of marriage, but would simply rather adopt a less extreme solution to the problem.
I don’t honestly believe there is one, though.
@chunling
You are clearly Kantian rather than Augustinian (and I do not claim to have read everyone of your many paragraphs).
When a woman asks a question, one can either refuse to answer, answer accurately or answer falsely. Whatever you answer, trouble will (in a romantic situation) ensue. Lying is not always as black and white as you seem to believe; neither does one always know what a woman really wants to hear. Rape (as unacceptable as it is rare) is not as serious as you suppose (you are white-knighting) – studies have shown that even in the worst cases a woman will get over the experience within three months of at worst mild depression. Historically, punishment for Rape has varied from treating it as merely a misdemeanor (in the middle-ages) to that of being a capital offence; at present in the west it is saddled between those two extremes.
You are the second person in recent days I have come across on blogs wherein killing men has been espoused in pursuit of a private agenda. I deprecate such views and my reaction on this as on the previous occasion is one of both shock and horror. Others here may of course take a different view.
I would say something about the feminization of men or the refusal to accept harsh realities, but it is not currently necessary given that you do nothing but confirm the point I outlined above.
If you like, you can try to dissect my suggestion as a Swiftian proposal to point out just what is wrong with it. But I will say that, from my own experience, being entirely truthful with women is a powerful technique to create and sustain romantic interest on their part. More pertinently, I’m always bemused by the expression of a disdain for truth as a pillar of argumentation. It seems to me that once you claim that truth is not a viable standard of debate, you cast everything you have to say in rather suspect light.
Your modest proposal is not to my liking. Thanks for the insults.
Two points.
1. Enforcing monogamy by less draconian methods “worked” well enough for much of history. Sure, there was infidelity, but the rules punished it fairly severely, without invoking the death penalty, such that it was sufficiently discouraged without resorting to a kind of reign of terror. It seems an overstretch to execute people for sexual miscues.
2. Your system would feature a lot of dead men at the hands of women. Not a few women would gladly kill a man to be rid of him.
There is presently in England a matter of alleged Rape which has been committed for trial: these are the facts as alleged by the Crown. A (black) man met a woman in a bar and she invited him back to her place for sex. He agreed. They had sex on three occasions, on the last of which he failed to use a condom. She and the prosecution allege that this his failure to use a condom (when she wished him to do so) is Rape. Should this man, if convicted, sacrifice his life at her hands or would that be adding insult to undoubted injury? There are no shortage of cases of this kind, including of course one in Sweden concerning Julian Assange. Frequently the parties are married living together and naked in bed at the time of the alleged Rape.
chunling,
Are you kidding me? tl;dr
Next time, use bullet points. Be succinct.
For what it’s worth, I will mention that I am firmly committed to the Constitutional principal which forbids Ex Post Facto laws. No argument founded on the premise that I am suggesting an Ex Post Facto application of laws that have not yet been made deserves a response.
However, I do honestly believe that a Global Civilization, particularly one reliant on modern technology, requires a far greater reliance on fixed law compared to smaller and less technologically advanced societies. The claim that less draconian methods “worked” well enough for much of history is simply false on the face of it, unless you want to turn back the clock on the technologies which enable modern civilization along with social mores and cultural development. The degradation of the family, and the resulting social failure which is a significant factor in the coming global crisis, were not prevented by the more relaxed standards of marriage law which we inherited from “history”, whether the history of civilizations directly contributing to development of modernity or of various civilizations which failed to contribute to modernity (including quite a few failed civilizations).
On a more personal note, I think that rape is really very wrong, and I personally would like to see all rapists killed. Recognizing the difficulties inherent in establishing what is and is not outright rape of the form that I find viscerally disgusting, I turn additionally to the fact that I do not have any moral or ethical problem with having philanderers and other sexual predators in general killed in my pursuit of justice against rapists. I also believe that the prospect of being forced to kill a lover is as effective a deterrent to the female participant as the danger of execution is to the male in cases where “sluttiness” is a factor. If not so, then certainly the public record of a woman as being willing to betray a former lover to save herself should help send a strong signal to “innocent romantics” that she is not a safe object of affection.
I further note that where the physical evidence indicates that there is no reasonable doubt that the woman did indeed consent to sexual activity outside of marriage, the defense that she was a victim of rape rather than a participant in unlawful sexual activity would not be available. Her options would be marriage or death, the same as for the man, assuming that both were available to legally marry each other.
As I mentioned, I am willing to entertain some less draconian approach as long as it is clear that it could achieve the end of protecting the sanctity of procreative marriage, given the actual biological tendencies of human men and women.
By the way, my intention in posting such a long post is abundantly explained, but I will reinforce it with the following commentary on “tldr”, or Too Long. Didn’t Read.
“Frequently used acronym by lazy, ignorant people in Internet Forums, where their urge to type something exceeds their ability to read something or if they generally lack semantic ability to either comprehend or respond to a post due to underdeveloped brain.”
You really don’t understand that if you place a woman in a position where she is choosing between her and her lover dying and only her lover dying if she alleges rape, that many will choose the latter? It would be normal for a woman to allege rape in these circumstances, the man be damned.
No, these methods are unsound and create unsound incentives.
No method of social control is perfect in eliminating the desired ill behavior. It is always a balance between the desire to control the ill behavior, on the one hand, and the downsides of the means that could be used to completely control behavior (a la 1984) on the other. Your proposal errs far to much on the desire to control the behavior, other impacts be damned. Sorry, not convincing.
chunling,
I don’t think you are going to find much defense for rapists on this blog or anywhere in the manosphere. And in some US states, rape is punsihable by death (not that individual US states execute rapists who rape, but not kill.) That said…
* the death penalty is a state issue, not generally a federal one. They will fry you in Texas for a crime that gets you 20 years in Massachusetts. The manosphere can’t do anything about that
* you want to punish rapists with death? Well, what is “rape?” If she’s drunk and goes home with you and you f-ck her is that rape? Is that death for the man? Is is possible for a man to rape his wife? If he is 19 and she is 17 is that punishable by death?
* As you said we can’t go back and kill rapists already convicted by changing the law now. That said, would you have wanted Mike Tyson killed? How about our recent Heisman Trophy winner, did he deserve to die? How about Kobe Bryant? Obviously the Duke Lacorss players weren’t rapists, but if they had been (wrongfully) convicted because of the rantings of a BPD lunatic stripper, how long after their convictions before you send these boys to the electric chair?
Remember if was you that stated…
…then you are going to have to be advanced. You want to see all rapists killed. Okay fine. Then from an advanced standpoint, fix the law to objectively define “rape” such that men know what to do to avoid it. And while you are at it, define what rape is not. And while you are at it, get all 50 states to buy-in on capital punishment. And if you can’t do that, show how “rape” is always a federal criminal offense (not a state one) and get the FBI arresting these guys in Massachusetts and Vermont.
I’m not trying to bust your balls, but I am asking you to think critically. We don’t walk on egg shells here.
or…
you can create more posts (and type less in each)…
Here is something from what you might consider to be an underdevloped brain, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. You are new in the sandbox. Play nice.
Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Dalrock
Been through all the family wars, made all the mistakes, took notes and made all the observations. What you finally conclude is, she cannot lose, even when she loses…even when she lies. The entire system is rigged for her victory. So much could be said that already has been said, from everyone from Baskerville to Warren Farrell, but in the end I think there is one objective truth everyone can agree on (and women can agree not to care about), we can go back and forth on this or that, CS guidelines (if men had custody 90 percent of the time, we’d have to account to the PENNY where the money went), visitation (where is the “Office of Visitation Enforcement”?), etc.
However, the ultimate truth is, non-custodial parents (almost always men) are required/forced to do and pay for things NO parents in intact families are. Seems simple, but it’s the one truth I’ve found that everyone can agree on or is ok with. I’ve had to pay for ridiculous things and litigate things that no sane judge, court, or “system” would entertain from a set of two parents. Society would laugh at them, but somehow they become legitimized when it’s a poor victim female.
If you took CS out of the equation during and after every divorce, the custody percentages would look a LOT different. You’d have a completely different universe and truly find out who WANTS the children.
MarcusD says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:03 pm
“Has anyone read:
A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue
If so, your thoughts?”
Here is a thorough review of this book and its sequel, written by Roger Devlin (author of the classic red-pill essay “Home Economics”), done better than I possible could:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
The feminine sexual counter-revolution and its limitations
By F. ROGER DEVLIN
What is the threat point when the man dumps the wife? Why isn’t anyone mentioning the 40% of women who, it’s acknowledged, DON’T file for divorce? How is taking away their children and giving them to the husband who abandoned them, and then driving them into poverty by denying them alimony, child support, and housing, going to resemble anything like justice?
Blanket prescriptions for every single case don’t work. Cases need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The only true comment on this thread is that no-fault divorce is an abomination. There is always fault, and as the article pointed out, one party seeking to exploit the other. However, it is not always women, or always men.
The threat point can come from men. There are men who get spousal support because of blind gender-neutral laws. The discussion here needs to be more balanced and grounded in reality, not ideology.
A (woman’s) Voice of Reason said ..
“What is the threat point when the man dumps the wife? Why isn’t anyone mentioning the 40% of women who, it’s acknowledged, DON’T file for divorce? How is taking away their children and giving them to the husband who abandoned them, and then driving them into poverty by denying them alimony, child support, and housing, going to resemble anything like justice?
Blanket prescriptions for every single case don’t work. Cases need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The only true comment on this thread is that no-fault divorce is an abomination. There is always fault, and as the article pointed out, one party seeking to exploit the other. However, it is not always women, or always men.
The threat point can come from men. There are men who get spousal support because of blind gender-neutral laws. The discussion here needs to be more balanced and grounded in reality, not ideology.”
ROFL … good one … nice try … I’m gonna need a doctor after laughing so hard … AwVoR have you considered you are out of touch with reality?
Start here … http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/herbert-purdy-divorce-get-the-judges-out-of-it/
It may be written with a UK flare but … it is highly relevant. Seems fair .. but then again I would’ve gone further.
Voice of Unreason,
I take it you’re new here. The overwhelming percentage of divorces are initiated by women. The overwhelming percentage of such divorces are initiated for frivolous reasons. The overwhelming percentage of parents who receive custody are mothers. The overwhelming percentage of parents sent to debtor’s prison for inability to pay exorbitant child-support payments are men. There are millions of men unknowingly financially supporting children who are not their own due to the perfidy of the mothers – while for women that number is zero. Male victims of statutory rape are forced – under threat of imprisonment – to pay child support to their own rapists when those rapes result in the birth of a child. Here is one story among many where that happened.
Not only that, but children belong with their fathers. Read “The Case for Father Custody” and get back to us after you’ve learned enough about this to form an opinion.
@VOR
Yes, there are men who practice divorce theft. But these cases are statistically quite rare, as the system is designed to be used the other way. The data backs this up. 90% of child support dollars are paid by men to women. You want to talk about the 10% which goes the other way, as if this is proof the system is unbiased. Similarly, father custody is so rare children are as likely to end up with neither parent as they are with just their father. Academics have researched the issue and found that being able reliably steal the biggest asset of the marriage (the children) is why women overwhelmingly file for divorce.
The best way to tell who is committing divorce theft against whom is to look at the timing of divorce. For a woman the best time to commit divorce theft is after having children by while she is still young. This gives her the respectability of having her children in wedlock, child support, and an opportunity to pursue other men while she is most attractive. For men it is later in life. We all know the cliché of the husband who trades his aging wife in for a younger model. She gives him her youth expecting marriage to be for life, and he takes her youth and then detonates the marriage. While the latter certainly occurs, statistically it is women who are driving divorce. You can see this in divorce rates by the age of the wife. As wives approach and then pass middle age, divorce rates fall dramatically. If both sexes were taking their turn we would see a two humped curve of divorce rates as women age. Divorce rates would spike twice, as first women and then later men took their shot at divorce theft. But after the early 20s the curve consistently drops.
But one last reality check is worth including. Look at all forms of women’s entertainment. Women are obsessed with divorce fantasies. Eat Pray Love was a NYT best seller and a blockbuster movie because women love to fantasize about ditching their marriages and finding a new man.
I want to deconstruct some of Voice of Unreason’s specific arguments. She wrote:
What is the threat point when the man dumps the wife? Why isn’t anyone mentioning the 40% of women who, it’s acknowledged, DON’T file for divorce? How is taking away their children and giving them to the husband who abandoned them, and then driving them into poverty by denying them alimony, child support, and housing, going to resemble anything like justice?
One-at-a-time:
What is the threat point when the man dumps the wife? What indeed? A man who leaves a lower-earning wife is going to be forced to pay her a significant portion of the marital assets, and a likely a large portion of his future earnings… even more than he makes based on the false principle of imputed income.
Why isn’t anyone mentioning the 40% of women who, it’s acknowledged, DON’T file for divorce? First of all, half of marriages end in divorce, and about 70% of those are initiated by women, and not all women get married at all, so the percentage of women who DON’T file for divorce is at least 66%. The reason we don’t talk about them much is because those women usually aren’t very problematic. If we just complained about allwomen – rather than the one who abuse the power they have in law and culture – we would be misogynists. We’re not misogynists, so we don’t dwell on that.
How is taking away their children and giving them to the husband who abandoned them, and then driving them into poverty by denying them alimony, child support, and housing, going to resemble anything like justice? As if that happens with any frequency. Show me an example of a husband who abandoned a good wife, then got away with denying her and his children court-ordered support, and I’ll show you 10,000 women who abandoned or ejected good husbands, and used the courts to take their children and get huge sums of money, then denied the fathers access to their children while the courts and police did nothing to enforce her obligations.
Rebuilding the mound that was, can’t believe Dalrock fell for it.. and Lyn too?? Come on guys!
Not falling for it, feministhater, just kicking it over while it’s still small.
I’m sure Dalrock has a better feel for how this works than I do, but every once in a while someone will make a NAWALT / Men-do-it-too / Rebuild the Mound post to some thread that long-since fell off the list of recent posts. I suspect the reason for that is that women are doing searches based on key-words like divorce, or child custody, or remarriage, or stuff like like, and come across these old posts here. They don’t see the whole site over time like we do, but only one or two threads that came up as search results. They read them over without a red-pill understanding and make silly comments like VoR did. It happens all the time.
But most readers don’t comment, and it is useful for the next woman who happens across this thread to see VoR’s statements being crushed, because her reaction would likely be the same. But she won’t write that sort of nonsense because she’s seen the rebuttals to VoR.
How is taking away their children and giving them to the husband who abandoned them, and then driving them into poverty by denying them alimony, child support, and housing, going to resemble anything like justice?
Straw man this is.
Harder you should try.
I really do appreciate all you do darlock. It’s AMAZING, when you search scholarly articles on the this issue the writer is most ALWAYS “puzzled???” He or she cannot grasp the fact that women, across the board are initiating divorce, especially when statistically the rate of “infidelity” in marriage is almost identical. Though most have men committing more adultery than women, HOWEVER, they FAIL to address the fact that men CANNOT divorce a woman for infidelity. I couldn’t, my ex-wife would simply deny it, profusely, but with two twin boys that I loved more than life itself, what was I to do??? I couldn’t divorce her, I’d be in the same exact situation as if I had cheated on her. See, when a man commits adultery, the woman is showered with affection, and sympathy, by the courts, her friends and family, the media, everywhere!
However, a man, well… More often than not it’s him that drove her to it, and he should have bought more flowers, NOT spent so much time at work, the sole reason this woman married him in the first place, for his utility and resources. Does anyone notice how every divorced woman’s story seems the same??? Scumbag man cheats on wife, leaves her for his hot, 20-something mistress, leaves his children, and then… Doesn’t want to pay child support. The woman left to fend for herself is all but forced to sell her body for some bread and milk as she stands on the street corner breast feeding and soliciting prostitution.
But I digress. Social scientists fail to recognize or rather, fail to acknowledge that when a man is abused, cheated on, taken advantage of, sex-starved, he has absolutely NO repercussions. Anything recourse he does have is going to be met with equal or greater intensity on the converse. It’s no mind for a woman to simply take his children, and money and stay at her parents with her family and friends thinking they are protecting her from an abusive, lunatic husband. Every wants to be a “White Knight” it’s a syndrome. Society wants to help the “damsel in distress.”
As a man, if you love your children and value your accumulated wealth, you had better toe the line. There’s absolutely NO alternative, if there is, PLEASE, please, let me know???
Pingback: Is Feminism An Extremist Ideology? | Occident Invicta, The Unconquered West
Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall