The dominant, unchallenged narrative is that men have problems with commitment, while women are naturally inclined to commit for life. Yet the difference between the dominant narrative and reality couldn’t be more stark. Women in the western world are obsessed with fantasies of divorce and ending relationships, for any or no reason at all.
Jennifer McDonald at Slate offers us the latest installment in this shameless obsession with her review of the chick crack book Nobody Is Ever Missing*:
There are days when you awake and want to blow up your relationship. Perhaps things are mildly bad, or perhaps they are horrible, or perhaps there’s nothing for any reasonable human to complain about, but anyhow, something has happened, something has shifted, and in that moment of waking, were you to follow your whims, they would spirit you away to another bed, another city, another life. Sometimes this fantasy swoops in only for a quick spot of tea. Other times it arrives loaded with baggage and settles in for a good long visit, long enough that your discontentedness grows, and you begin acting strangely. You cheat. You…
…inform your other half, who may or may not have seen it coming. Belongings are packed. Excuses are made. “It’s not you, it’s me.”
For those who find this too subtle, as you scroll down the review up pops:
SOMETIMES YOU JUST FEEL LIKE BLOWING UP YOUR MARRIAGE.
There are even helpful shortcuts to facilitate sharing this message of familial destruction with other women on Twitter and Facebook.
Of course it isn’t just the ladies at Slate who pass their days fantasizing about broken homes. This is a staple in women’s entertainment because it is what the audience demands. As just one example, a reviewer on Amazon.com praises the book’s empowering message with a four star review titled “Finding yourself”:
Elyria takes off for New Zealand, without even giving a heads up to her husband. She is seeking, searching, for her truest self, and attempting to unscramble the cognitive dissonance between her outer and inner selves. She senses what she calls the wildebeest in her, caught between two impulses of wanting to be here in love and wanting to walk away like it never happened. Her way of thinking is often circuitous and epigrammatic, such as “…and it seems the wildebeest was what was wrong with me, but I wasn’t entirely sure of what was wrong with the wildebeest.” This strain of opposites and paradox filled out Elyria’s psyche and also made her feel shriveled.
This kind of obsession in all forms of women’s entertainment is now so common that no one notices it. Our denial is so strong that we overlook what the divorce data makes abundantly clear. Women (in general) have serious issues with commitment, to a far greater degree than men (in general) do. Were we to acknowledge this we could save millions of children the pain of growing up with their fathers expelled from the home. Sooner or later we are bound to adjust the narrative to reflect reality. The sooner we do so the better for all involved. It isn’t just men and children who suffer because this pathology is openly encouraged in our culture, but women themselves. Nurturing these obsessive and destructive fantasies is no more healthy or empowering for a woman than a flask of bourbon is to an alcoholic.
*Hat Tip ISA and Pirran.
Pingback: Commitment issues. | Manosphere.com
Sure, divorce is okay. She loses all rights to the kids and alimony. Since he gets the kids, and if she makes enough, she has to give him money. Divorce? Poof. It disappears.
Yep.
I’m here to tell you that charm, good looks, money, humor, wit, and kindness, are enough to drive a millennial girl-woman to my arms (trust me), but not enough to keep here there past about the two year mark on the outside. Well, I mean some of them would have stayed with me, but they were already starting to resent the impositions on their freedom.
I don’t think this is common knowledge in my parent’s generation, but it’s certainly common knowledge in my generation. Women are the choosers, and they’re choosing this. Having grown up liberal and feminist, I didn’t realize what all of the hullabaloo was about until a few years ago when I red-pilled, but now I really think that birth control was the thread which unraveled the whole sweater.
Yes, yes, NAWALT, and all that. (Maybe.)
I don’t really think it was in them from birth, but women are easily convinced to do the most crazy things. This kind of ‘finding thyself’ is pushed to women from an early age when they are impressionable. What a woman doesn’t know won’t hurt him and all that.
The dominant, unchallenged narrative is that men have problems with commitment
Oh yes, we most certainly do. What man wouldn’t have a problem “committing” when he realizes that any “commitment” he makes stands a 50 percent chance – a fucking COIN TOSS– of being broken by the woman he commits to and him then being cleaned out familially (loss of kids), financially, and emotionally.
On second thought, I wouldn’t say it’s common knowledge in my age peers. There’s actually a stark divide between the red and blue-pillers. But it’s more common than in my personal sample of boomers.
Men tend to have “commitment issues” in terms of making the commitment. Women have “commitment issues” in terms of fulfilling it.
Men have problems making commitments—and promises, and threats—because once made, we expect to honor them. We expect everybody else to expect us to honor them. Because of this, we expect the cost to be more than the reward.
Women are easy with commitments—and promises, and threats—because they do not expect to have to honor them, and they expect that few else will expect them to honor them. Because of this, they expect the reward will come with little cost.
A widely held belief exists that women are more romantic and tend to fall in love faster than men. Responses from 172 college students indicated that although both men and women believe that women will fall in love and say “I love you” first in a relationship, men reported falling in love earlier and expressing it earlier than women reported. Analyses also showed no sex differences in attitudinal responses to items about love and romance. These results indicate that women may not be the greater “fools for love” that society assumes and are consistent with the notion that a pragmatic and cautious view of love has adaptive significance for women.
Harrison, Marissa A., and Jennifer C. Shortall. “Women and men in love: who really feels it and says it first?.” The Journal of social psychology 151.6 (2011): 727-736.
—
In other news, I was going through a book today (on gender in language – now I know why gender studies types get paid so little), and apparently the word “lady” is a sexist way to refer to a woman (in all cases).
Thanks for the hat tip. Article in action:
This weekend friend’s sister started packing up stuff. Boyfriend of 10 years/father of her two daughters completely caught off guard. She had “told him” 3 weeks ago she was moving out. The fact he then left the apartment sans coat, phone, and wallet disappearing for 3 days was just collateral damage. Hell, they ended up calling all the ERs and hospitals because they thought he killed himself. His sins were being not that emotionally available and playing video games. But yet, at 34 years old, she just figured out you don’t have kids with someone to change them?? He’s moving back to Montpelier with his parents and she, and the children, to Autun. So they can never have a relationship with their father. Genial !!!
Similar story with my aunt, she said “I’m going to Goodwill, do you want me to take anything?” and that was the last day my uncle ever saw her. After 40 years of marriage. The papers were served the next day.
Dalrock: “The dominant, unchallenged narrative is that men have problems with commitment, while women are naturally inclined to commit for life.”
Funny, I never thought of this with such clarity even though it’s (now I see) incredibly obvious. Ye gods.
I personally know of several guys who are entirely eager to commit for life—and it’s true that many women essentially commit for… what, the day? The afternoon? I recall a blue pill day in which I read a paragraph about how one had to “keep winning your wife over and over, day after day.” I believe the point being made was something like going on a weekly date, but what was really said is she’s doing a performance review every day, buddy.
No need to blame them—I also tell my wife with a wink that we should live biblical lives, so let’s get a couple of concubines. “They could do the laundry for you, honey!” That nearly convinced her.
Women behave like taps- They can be turned on and off at a moments notice. Some are gold plated taps with poisonous water( not really) while most are bloated, over sized ones that let out a trickle (of sh!t). And the operator is a fierce hamster
Hey Dalrock,
Homer notes, “One can’t trust a woman–as soon as a new man comes along, she forgets the old one.”
A lot of your flock came down on Homer and called him a Pagan and dismissed him, alongside the Great Books for Men.
Also, Helen leaves her husband for a pretty boy Paris, which starts the Trojan War.
Too bad that Homer was a Pagan! Had he been a Christian, maybe your flock wouldn’t have deconstructed him more viciously and vehemently than the most extreme feminist.
lzzozozozo
“Sooner or later we are bound to adjust the narrative to reflect reality. The sooner we do so the better for all involved.”
By far the quickest and probably the only real means to change the narrative to reality is to educate single young men to the truth about the narcissistic western female (in general) and her destructive self absorption. Only when women in large numbers are denied marriage and therefore the power to destroy, because they are completely unsuitable for marriage, will we see them women begin to hold themselves to higher standards.
The bar for serious literature must be very low these days. A navel gazing New Zealand travelogue sounds extraordinarily boring. I don’t read anything past the Edwardian era, as I find modern fiction nauseating. Only a wealthy society that hasn’t experienced war, famine, and political unrest could produce an heroine like Elyria. She certainly doesn’t hold a candle to Scott’s Catherine Glover, Trollope’s Mary Thorne, Dickens’s Esther Summerson, or Manzoni’s Lucia Mondella.
but now I really think that birth control was the thread which unraveled the whole sweater.
This could very well be the case, but I think default paternal custody would go a long ways towards re-knitting the sweater.
Could it be that, indeed, Western women are hopelessly damaged?
Red pill information and training for all boys in school. and male pill ends the madness.
Involuntary Childless spinsterhood for as many as possible
The thrill of discovery is huge. It’s pull is strong.
That is why the need for commitment.
No famiy (or group for that matter) can thrive when its members are off to chase the thrill of discovery whenever the need for such thrill arrives.
Commitment at its base is the commitment to stay with it when the thrill turns mundane.
But – nature calls. Why stick with the mundane if the law allows one to chase the thrill whenever the need arrives? Why should anyone care about those left behind in the mundane? The thrill of discovery is all that matters.
At least we are not feeding our young girls to the crocodiles. Yet.
This is what happens in a society that goes godless. Thrills become the god.
A big part of the misconception seems to be that if a woman leaves a relationship, it’s obviously because of the man’s failings and poor commitment. Her unhappyyyness is seen as the litmus test of his (lack of) commitment.
@Virtue: Sounds like you haven’t read Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Man. Go to his site and read what he has to say about NAWALT. Cheers!
earl on July 18, 2014 at 3:57 am:
“This is what happens in a society that goes godless. Thrills become the god.”
I think the term is “tingles”. Tingles are God.
Dalrock, is it possible to contact you offline? I have a book I’d like to give you.
[D: I’ll send you an email.]
I wrote about this years ago:
“A great deal is made of women’s much vaunted ability to commit to another person, but little is said about the nature of this commitment. The ability to commit to something isn’t laudable in itself–it is the ability to FOLLOW THROUGH on one’s commitments that defines the quality of the person, not the ease with which one make a promise. Women fall into “commitment” easily but also SHALLOWLY and OFTEN. They are quick to “fall in love” and just as quick to break up when things don’t suit them or when the going gets rough”
http://minarchyblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/why-wont-men-commit-oh-yeah-because-women-are-ballbusting-shrews-that-steal-your-dreams/
“Elyria takes off for New Zealand, without even giving a heads up to her husband. She is seeking, searching, for her truest self, and attempting to unscramble the cognitive dissonance between her outer and inner selves.”
These days, all it seems like as these women ever talk about is finding themselves through travel and education. But yet most of them just seem as discombobulated afterward as they were before they started their “journey.”
Travel is all well and fun, but do you really need to find yourself halfway around the world when going for a walk in the woods could suffice?
“I recall a blue pill day in which I read a paragraph about how one had to ‘keep winning your wife over and over, day after day.'” – Timber St. James
Sounds exhausting. I’m sure this could be spun as a labor of love, though. But, then again, I’ve never been married….
It’s a scientific fact women retain the DNA of their previous lovers. The bible was being literal wen it stated two become one flesh. I’m starting to think this search to find oneself is real, that women are fragmented from all the foreign DNA. Any non-virgins are essentially non LTR/marriage material.
This is especially prevalent among young women. I’m a young man in his mid 20’s. I have no problem getting dates and grabbing a girls interest. What I have found though is how difficult it is to push things along. Most girls want to laze around in limbo land not quite calling it anything and not making any real commitment to see if this developing relationship could lead to marriage.
I know Walsh did a post recently on manning up and defining your relationship. Walsh is an idiot. These days the problem isn’t the guy wanting to commit and make something work, it’s the girl who just doesn’t care. And why would you when you’re young, pretty, and the options are limitless. Have fun hitting the wall is all I say.
Hey Dalrock, In addition to a lot of your flock coming down on Homer and calling him a Pagan and dismissing him, alongside the Great Books for Men, they also dismissed Moses and Genesis, while falsely teaching that Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses.
Genesis notes that women have a tendency to be attracted to the base serpent, and God dictates that her husband shall rule over her, so as to solve this tendency to want to blow things up.
Also, Moses commanded that she could not commit adultery.
The remarkable thing is that while railing against Moses and Homer and Genesis, your flock is yet shocked to find their wives and daughters straying.
That has always puzzled me. They castigate, impugn, mock, and belittle Homer, Moses, and Genesis, dissing the true FATHERS of civilization, and then are shocked to find their civilization collapsing.
Wolfman: ” Walsh is an idiot. These days the problem isn’t the guy wanting to commit and make something work, it’s the girl who just doesn’t care. And why would you when you’re young, pretty, and the options are limitless”
Exactly. Men want to be in committed relationships (most men). But not the highest value men (<5% social status) and women don't want to actually be held to anything with someone less. They always want an out.
The minute you call the relationship something is the “rubber meats the road” moment for a lot of women.
Even calling something a date or asking for a phone number could be enough to send them running. They do prefer having the relationship on their terms which is mostly limbo and a sort of commitment.
If a woman runs now when I label something…I don’t mind. If they can’t commit to something as small as a date…they won’t commit to something bigger like a marriage.
@Bucho
There was a funny scene in the old show Frasier, where the slutty producer Roz was talking about a phase in her life when she was “finding herself”:
This is comedy, but the reason it is so funny is the dark truth here. When women talk and write about “finding themselves”, this almost always involves finding themselves under a parade of men. This traveling version of the cock carousel is often dressed up as “spiritual” (as in EPL), but this doesn’t change what it really is.
> ” This is a staple in women’s entertainment because it is what the audience demands. ”
To some extent yes, but there is also a top-down, social-engineering aspect of feminism that cannot be denied. The elites own all mainstream media and they DO use it actively to engineer society. They have frequently demonstrated that they are willing to lose ad revenues and bury an interesting story if it does not fit with the narrative, and of course they routinely lie through their teeth in order to twist facts and reframe them into the desired (feminist) narrative. It can also be seen in the many feminist laws that were passed despite having no popular support (even amongst women): absence of shared parenting, abortion etc..
Notwithstanding women’s natural inclinations, feminism is and has always been a top-down movement bankrolled and pushed down on the populace, by the powers that be, in the media, government and academia. Of course, the astute observer would notice that feminism is not the only ideology being put forward: certainly the same could be said about multiculturalism, the gradual loss of our freedoms, etc..
“Elyria takes off for New Zealand, without even giving a heads up to her husband. She is seeking, searching, for her truest self, and attempting to unscramble the cognitive dissonance between her outer and inner selves”
This is the height of narcissism. The belief that there is a “true self” on the “inside” that other people can’t see. The cognitive dissonance comes from other people not perceiving how you want to be perceived, not some existential battle between your inner and outer self.
“Most girls want to laze around in limbo land not quite calling it anything and not making any real commitment to see if this developing relationship could lead to marriage.”
That is a sexual strategy. If there are no labels, she can have plausable deniability if she meets that alpha stud. What, did you think you guys were dating? No, you were just “hanging out”.
@ Dalrock
Oh man, Frasier was a great show! It’s been years since I have seen it, but I can see Niles telling Roz that in his deadpan sort of way.
And yes it is a form of the carousel. Even if it’s not traveling abroad, it’s move to this city this year, only to move cross country next year. Then when that doesn’t work out, it’s move back home and go back to school. And there’s always some dudes that she has met along the way. Whether it leads to anything physical or not, if she looks halfway decent, there are always guys that are willing to “show her a good time.” Thus softening the nerve racking nature of being in unfamiliar surroundings.
I know a girl who is really into traveling to these far off destinations. Supposedly she has a boyfriend that she flies to Philly to see on the weekends if she is not traveling elsewhere on the weekends. Says her boyfriend is not interested in traveling. Methinks there are a lot of holes in the fabric of that relationship.
“ They do prefer having the relationship on their terms which is mostly limbo and a sort of commitment.”
Women want the “relationship” to be whatever they want it to be at that moment. If at this very moment she wants carefree fun, that’s what it is. If she wants sex, then it’s that. If she wants exclusivity and companionship, then that’s what it is.
To a woman, the relationship can never be what the man wants. It is never about his wants, needs, hopes, dreams and desires. It is anathema to her that he might actually want or need or expect something from his relationship with her.
Ultimately this comes down to power. If he asserts commitment, then he will want that from her, which will mean she commits to him, which means a reduction in her power. She wants to continue asserting power in the relationship by being free to leave it at any time.
There’s a lot of resentment over the fact that the current SMP gives men options, just as it gives women options. Men who can’t get a woman can (1) drop out; (2) pay hookers; (3) try to become players; or (4) go their own way (which isn’t the same as dropping out). Game, and integration of attractive traits into one’s life, gives men more options, and with options come relationship power. That is scaring the hell out of a lot of women right now.
After all, 75% of divorces are sought by the wife. So who has commitment issues?
Bucho, one wonders how people knew who they were before airplanes were invented!
“What, did you think you guys were dating? No, you were just “hanging out”.
Basically she puts you in the friend zone when someone better comes along.
Either call it a date and be upfront…or risk being put into playing Calvinball with this gal.
“I know many men in the 50-55 age range, who have enough money to scale back their workload, but still work long hours and taking on major stress for one purpose only : paying exorbitant college costs for their 2-3 daughters to study utterly useless fields. ” – TFH
Probably at the nagging of their own wife as well. Mom wants all these opportunities for her little princesses. Why not wear down pops into agreeing to let them go off to major in women’s lit. Heck, pops has probably been brainwashed by into thinking that no time and money spent in education is wasted…
“Heck, pops has probably been brainwashed by into thinking that no time and money spent in education is wasted…”
Or as some gamma dads have pointed out they want their princesses getting an education so they don’t have to rely on an asshole man.
“But upon a deeper look at the ROI of taxpayer funding of female education, one sees that for every women who does a job that truly adds value in the free market (say, a doctor), there is another who becomes a govt. bureaucrat who actually destroys much more value than the doctor creates.”
It’s actually a lot worse than that. Doctors’ education gets subsidized fairly heavily by the taxpayer since it’s very expensive to train them. Over time, their contributions far outweigh the subsidy. However, female doctors are much less likely to stay in medicine and work far fewer years on average than men in the same fields. Many women love the idea of earning their feminist merit badge for having a powerful career, use taxpayer money to get their education (and bump someone else out of a slot that could have gone to someone who would stay in medicine much longer), then get pregnant drop out to fulfill their real, biological imperative to care for children and never work another day as a doctor.
Obviously some women will stay in medicine, so on the one hand it’s difficult for society to say no to them becoming doctors, and of course we can’t treat people differently just on account of them being different (see complaints about women’s health insurance costs being higher just because of the technicality that they cost the insurance companies a lot more). So we waste valuable resources on training women who will quit as soon as they find a decent husband and have a few kids, rather than just encouraging them to do that in the first place. At least they got to “find themselves” first.
“This kind of obsession in all forms of women’s entertainment is now so common that no one notices it.”
not just women’s entertainment, i just wrote a post on my blog about a woman abandoning her marriage in a kid’s movie. http://zpatriarchy.blogspot.com/2014/07/valka-sucks.html
The funniest part aboot finding yourself, is that it is an inward journey. All you need is a quiet space and a bit of time to locate the quiet voice of God.
Travelling to find oneself? Uh-Huh!
Dalrock, in the link to the study above it claims women are happier after divorce. Intuitivly i would guess this is a very short term phenomenon, or alternately just a self reporting bias. Since we know eat, pray, love doesn’t really work out in most cases how do you account for it?
These days, all it seems like as these women ever talk about is finding themselves through travel and education. But yet most of them just seem as discombobulated afterward as they were before they started their “journey.”
Wherever you go, there you are. Travel is just a distraction that fools you into thinking things are changing while inside everything remains the same. If you are serious about “finding yourself” you can do it in your current circumstances.
Marriage today is like being employed in a right-to-work state – you’ve got a job, but your employer can fire you for anything at any time.
From The Paradox of Commitment:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/29/the-paradox-of-commitment/
The book sounds like a poor man’s Steppenwolf by Hesse, but less philosophical of course.
Regarding the observation on birth control, it, child support generally, and the welfare state are the three legged stool on which the anti-civilization we live in now stand.
I wrote about it here: http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/why-the-left-is-obsessed-with-contraception/
@tfh dont forget that your employer also gets to keep your children
Replace “take” with “make”, “hold” with “keep” and “reservation” with “commitment”.
http://www.youtube.com/share_popup?v=eBzBYJZZGQI
one sees that for every women who does a job that truly adds value in the free market (say, a doctor),
Even when they become doctors they take the position away from a man who will work more hours, use less paid time off, and stay in the field longer.
@Dalrock
Great Post!
“”Women in the western world are obsessed with fantasies of divorce and ending relationships, for any or no reason at all.””
“”This kind of obsession in all forms of women’s entertainment is now so common that no one notices it. “”
I was in the drug/grocery store about 2 hours ago.Standing in line for the checkout I had a chance to view the advertisements on the front pages. Three of them had “relationship” ads…the others were diet. And another was “getting the man”. All these are geared to towards Wimminz!
The other general category of wimminz reading, which appeals to asexual post-menopausal chicks, are the Enquirer/Weekly World News type tabloids.
After chicks are passed the pursuit phase of their lives, they settle into interests like UFOs and Bigfoot. “Elvis Sighted Among Migrant Laborers”, “I Was Saddam Hussein’s Gay Lover” and “Bat Boy Eats Baby!” are among my favorite remembered headlines.
I have to admire the people who come up with this nonsense. I haven’t the energy to lie so creatively.
Boxer
Men don’t have “commitment issues” but we do have a greater reluctance to enter into a relationship where women hold all of the cards – the “traditional” relationship. So while I have women that I’ve been seeing for more than three years, it’s always been on my terms which are admittedly beneficial to me. All of the women tend to be fine with that initially, but as time goes on they want more. So whereas I demand that they be available to me when I want them, I do not reciprocate that, and see several (3 usually), and reserve the right to have as many ONS’s as I can. Most women are okay with that for a while, but then they want more, which I will not provide. So I hear the “commitment issues” non-sense a lot – usually right before I kick them to the curb and bring another one on because I am tired of her whining.
Women are the ones with commitment issues – they always want to rock the boat, usually because they see themselves as getting older and not getting into a relationship which is completely one-sided to benefit them. That will never go away – as long as a man demands that he benefit from the relationships he has with women, they will whine about it. So just accept it, and understand that you will have to replace them. But then, they are aging – so you’ll have to replace them eventually no matter how you look at it. I just like to do it before the “baby rabies” hit… That is when the whining really starts..
@ Rollo
Nailed it.
I’ve wondered for ages now how someone could possibly look at a group of people who are willing to work overtime, boil in mines, freeze in oilfields, literally die for their country and generally do whatever it takes to get the job done and say that they are afraid of commitment. I don’t think that men are afraid of commitment at all. What we have a right to be afraid of is a bad commitment. More and more men are realizing that women are not interested in it. It may have taken years for men to see it but you look at women’s shredding of the family, creation of the ‘starter marriage’, riding the cock carousel etc. to see it but it’s plain as day.
This idea of men and commitment is one of the reasons that women don’t understand mgtow. It’s not that I don’t care about commitment I do deeply but it’s obvious to me that it’s a fool’s errand to be looking for the mythical NAWALT because women don’t give a shit about it. To them it means as long as the man is doing whatever is necessary to fit what they want at that point in their lives.
“Bucho, one wonders how people knew who they were before airplanes were invented!” – The Real Peterman
Ha! With all things considered, those were different times. Back then, there was less idleness. Most people were keeping busy trying to survive and not letting their minds wander. If you made it to the ripe old age of 20 without succumbing to something dreadful like typhoid, then you were doing pretty good. Heck, a walk or buggy ride down the dirt path to the next town over was about as much traveling a lot of the population did. And its not like the pioneers were traveling out west to “find themselves.”
My guess is that if transportation had progressed without the airplane having been invented, you’d find a greater presence of transcontinental railroads. Probably more of something like in Europe. Eventually, these women would more than likely board a train to somewhere else in the states, say NYC or LA. This would probably lead to a different kind of hobo surfacing. Guys who are drifters, but generally have themselves put together better and are more suave than some vagrant. They would ride the rails with the sole purpose of hooking up with these traveling women. It’s not like there would be much to do during a long train ride across the prairies.
May I channel Jerry Seinfeld for a moment? (The classic scene starts at 0:43: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM)
Husband: I don’t understand; we made a commitment. Didn’t we make a commitment?
Wife: Yes, we made a commitment; I just couldn’t keep it.
Husband: But the commitment is what binds us together. That’s why people make commitments.
Wife: I know what a commitment is.
Husband: …I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a loving, devoted wife. You see, you know how to make the commitment, you just don’t know how to keep the commitment. And that’s really the most important part of the commitment: the keeping. Anybody can just make them.
Boxer: “I have to admire the people who come up with this nonsense. I haven’t the energy to lie so creatively.”
Like everything else in the journalism industry, it was hard work until Photoshop came out. Now it’s mostly clip art, a random word jumbler and an Associated Press feed. I have this idea for a parody of the Terminator movies in which Skynet was created to make tabloids instead of war. The computer attempts world conquest by deploying squads of George Clooney impersonators because Elvis no longer has global appeal. The clones take to the streets and brainwash women into mindless crazed hordes by going shirtless. The female mobs crush and loot everything in a desperate attempt to get the impersonator’s attention. The police, military and emergency services are paralyzed because everything they do is meant to benefit the very women rampaging through the streets… and because all of their wives just divorced them an hour ago for a Clooney clone so they need to stay home with the kids. Then Skynet is shocked to discover ugly men have guns and are willing to hurt women because they never do in romance-comedies. (Skynet is also surprised that ugly men exist.) Then, the brainwashed women instantly change loyalties as the Clooney clones are violently mowed down by tatted-up construction workers and gym rats. The climactic scene has warpigs defending the basement server room of the National Enquirer, desperately trying to protect the only reality in which they’re beautiful.
I see a direct-to-video release ended with a couple wheezes on the Sci-Fi Channel. That should be enough to make a profit. If the feminazis protest the movie then I can make a better-budgeted sequel.
@Harp1
I don’t know which study you are referring to, but note that it doesn’t refute (and actually confirms) that women have serious issues with commitment. Nor does it refute the fact that engaging in this obsession is bad for women. One could survey bank robbers and find that they enjoyed spending the loot. This wouldn’t prove that the bank robbers weren’t thieves, nor would it prove that bank robbery is good for people.
As to the question of whether the studies show that women who divorce are happier for it, the problem is that divorcing women have a strong desire to rationalize their choice to break up their family. As laughable as it sounds, much if not all of their moral reasoning in divorcing was that it would make them happy. Admitting that it failed to do so not only makes them a fool, but an immoral one. There are ways to try to get around this problem, and one of them would be to take a longitudinal study where marriage and divorce isn’t the context of the study and look at people’s answers regarding wellbeing. But even here the issue of the woman feeling the need to project a sense of happiness post divorce in general could well creep in, and you would need to look not just a few years later when the delusions of remarrying a better man are still in tact to when reality sets in. This period of delusion can as we have all seen last quite a long time.
The AARP study on late life divorce gives us a partial picture of the reality here, and reinforces how important remarriage is in the “having it all” equation for women. Women who didn’t remarry tended to end up terribly alone, reporting not even getting hugs from the opposite sex (page six):
The women who didn’t remarry also reported a much lower sense of well being than the ones who did remarry (the same was true for the men as well).
Another study which comes to mind but isn’t a perfect match is the University of Chicago lead study of longitudinal data finding that people who divorced were less likely to be in happy marriages five years later than people who remained married. This was true even for unhappy, even quite unhappy marriages. From the executive summary of Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages:
My older brother, has gone through this crap recently. It hurt him bad, so he sought help.
One thing the psychiatrist told him, was that in his practice, 80% of the divorced woman were wanting to get back with their ex’s within 2 – 3 years.
anecdotal,I know.
Dalrock, how do we contact you? Do you have Twitter so I can @ send feminist propaganda for you to investigate? My apologies for the unrelated post. Thank you so much for your service! My thoughts, my views and my overall direction in life has changed so much thanks to your hard work! I am truly grateful!
[D: Welcome. Feel free to drop some links into a post. I can’t guarantee I’ll use it, but I always appreciate it.]
Speaking of using traveling to ride the carousel, I see this on Yahoo. It doesn’t take to long to figure out what is meant by “new friends”….
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/tinder-traveling-how-to-swipe-your-way-to-new-friends-91970209757.html
Regarding happiness, marriage, and women, I have a few charts I made from GSS data:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.com/2014/02/gss-female-happiness-by-marital-status.html
[D: Nice work.]
The problem is that women lack an honor code. They are not bound to fulfill a promise that they made. Their word is only as good as how they feel at a given moment. Society used to enforce a wife to be long suffering to stabilize the family and protect the children., that meme is dead now and women are at the mercy of their own changing emotions.
Soon men will follow suit and what used to be an honorable society will be no more…
Dalrock, have you ever read this book? As a child of divorce I found it interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark/dp/0786886161/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405735172&sr=8-1&keywords=unexpected+legacy+of+divorce
D: Nice work.
Thanks. The charts are part of the foundation for a number of posts that I have in the works.
Everyone seems so shocked, shocked I tell you. However this result is entirely predictable from feminism and women’s liberation.
Women are not naturally monogamous. Polyandry is the optimal state for women. This is even more true than the fact that polygyny is the optimal state for men. Polygyny does have some costs for men, although they are outweighed much of the time by the increased reproductive opportunities. Polyandry costs women nothing. It gains them more access to resources and even possibly better reproductive opportunities via access to better genes.
The evo-psych explanation for monogamy goes like this: there are few winners and many losers in the male struggle for dominance (power and access to resources). This begets polygyny, since it is much better for a woman and her children to be married to a winner with far better access to resources, even if she has to share him with other women, than to a loser with little access to resources. This however is an unstable societal arrangement and thus powerful men realized they would have to compromise in order to stave off societal collapse: they would keep the best women, but ensure that at least most men could get a woman.
This is true as far as it goes. However, monoandry is assumed as the “natural” state of things for women both under polygyny and monogyny, just because it was the case. That’s not true. Monoandry was the case because men had the power to enforce it, with devastating consequences for the woman (sometimes even death), and they would enforce it because they needed to be sure the children they were supporting were actually theirs.
Forget Divorce and Feminism!
This Churchian thinks that the real reason for the destruction of the family is that modern fathers are modeling their behavior on the pagan God Zeus, instead of on Christ!
LOL
http://catholicexchange.com/prodigal-father-benedict-xvi-fathering
This is one of those things I’ve figured out. A key concept is that the monogamy drug is a libido pill for women, such as Lybrido. Follow my thoughts.
Women bond ever-so-well with their babies, and after nursing them tend to have another one within two to three years. This schedule of *having* to transfer affections every few years may be the single most biological-ingrained psychological feature in all human females. And every married man knows that as soon as his wife starts treating him like he is a needy grown baby, then the daily sex will never ever return. “Quit bugging me for affection. You had yours. Now I’m all touched out.”
Up until the sexual revolution, the common assumption was that the woman’s *ubiquitous* loss of libido after the initial rush of sexual interest the first few years of marriage (the honeymoon period) was due to the arrival of the baby. But thanks to birth control hugely increasing the statistics of no-child in the first few years, we know now that the loss of libido happens on schedule anyway: same honeymoon period, with or without a baby. I contend the primary reason for the loss of libido, as I said, is a vestigial effect or echo of the absolute necessity of priming her to be able to transfer her affections to a new baby.
It turns out that the clock starts on the libido-reduction schedule as soon as the couple moves in together and exists in close physical contact for many hours each day. Hence this *required* familiarization points to what is perhaps a secondary reason for the loss of libido: incest avoidance. In fact, most reasearchers believe incest avoidance is the primary factor in women’s *ubiquitous* loss of libido in relationships, but that’s only because they haven’t thought of the baby affection schedule.
I believe that the “novel sperm” drive is tertiary at best, but I could be wrong. There’s no good reason it should only kick in *so* ubiquitously after a few years, and there is no good reason that female should have such a drive to be sowed with wild oats, assuming she was picky in picking good oats to begin with.
One more consideration I’ve been mulling over is the fact of war brides. Captured women need to make a good first impression in order to not be cast away immediately, in order to reproduce. The need for first impressions goes away, however, after the war-monger gets an itchy, uh, trigger finger after a few more years and captures some more war brides.
That Zeus thing is a good example of someone identifying a true problem, but blaming it on the wrong cause, and thus coming up with a useless or harmful solution. Yes, as Pope Benedict said (and this guy then ran with), there is an epidemic of fatherlessness. But it’s not because men are working too hard and ignoring their children. If that was ever typical, it’s 50 years in the past. Nowadays, fathers have to get home and help with the housework and homework because their wives work too, and then they have to haul kid #2 to soccer practice while Mom hauls kid #1 to dance recital. But since he assumes the fatherlessness is caused by men failing to love their families properly, the solution is to shame them and reeducate them — probably with the guidance of their wives (I skimmed a lot of it, but I’d bet $5 that’s in there).
In reality, today’s fatherlessness is caused by mothers kicking fathers out of their children’s lives, and by egalitarian marriages where the man isn’t in charge enough to be a real father. If a man is staying late at work every night, it’s probably because A) he has a big child support/alimony bill to pay, B) he’s trying to please an unhappy wife with more luxuries, or C) he’s so emasculated at home he doesn’t want to go there. So a real solution for today’s fatherlessness would lie in taking headship of the family back away from women, which means legal changes to take away their threat point of divorce and child support. Give men presumptive custody, shame mothers who have illegitimate children, and suddenly there will be lots of fatherhood — and more motherhood along with it.
“I believe that the “novel sperm” drive is tertiary at best, but I could be wrong. There’s no good reason it should only kick in *so* ubiquitously after a few years, and there is no good reason that female should have such a drive to be sowed with wild oats, assuming she was picky in picking good oats to begin with.”
The genetic survival of her offspring is enhanced if there is a new father every four years or so. Her “picking good oats” is not actually picking good genes directly and the possibility that one father carries something and passes it on to his children that turns out to be disadvantageous is muted if there is a new father, or several new fathers.
Most animals have a mating season, human females do not. Most females give off powerful signs of being in heat, human females do not and while there are biological trade offs for this, it is obvious that it has been and is biologically advantageous for the female to hide ovulation in order to procure different genetic material. Part of this is obviously due to the fact that it takes a lot of resources to raise a human child.
With a lot of animals the offspring is functional almost immediately and mature in a year or less, allowing another mating cycle with a different male.
The way the human female gets around this problem is with deception. It needs the resources of the male, but it needs different fathers optimally. So they cuckold. If the rate of cuckoldry for the greatest generation was 16% based on cancer studies, I would guess it is more like 25% now per kid.
Which would explain why physicians and medical ethicists are so panicked by the idea of paternity tests and are actually advocating that it is ethical to lie. If the cuckold rate is now 25% chance per kid, about every other father is a cuckold. Even with the 16% rate, that’s at least one in three men.
It would also explain why most religions are extremely restrictive of women and their contact with none family males.
So yes, there is a strong biological push to trade in the male one way or another.
re: AARP study. Of much relevance is the frequency of older women’s masturbation. Putting some number to itincluding the abstinent from Figure 16, married women and unmarried women masturbate at about the exact same average rate: less than once per month (about 5 times in 6 months for married women, compared to less than 6 times for unmarried women). In sharp contrast, men tend to masturbate more often on average, about 15 times in 6 months for married men, and about 24 times in 6 months for unmarried.
Clearly, the married men are probably getting some of extra relief they need through being married.
@Ras Al Ghul, a needful followup question. Does the *total* grandchild fertilty of a cuckolding woman tend to be higher or lower than a faithful woman? Keep in mind that in addition to pelvic inflammatory disease and many many other fertility problems associated with actual infections that are sexually transmitted, rampantly promiscuous women such as prostitutes tend to develop sperm allergies and other associated fertility issues.
SlargTarg:
They are actually referencing God the father, not christ and its the Old Testament God to boot. I hate to break it to them, but a literal reading of the old testament God imbodies all those “negative characteristics” of Zeus: willful, unpredictable and moody. The old testament God demands human sacrifice twice (once is carried out, twice if you count Jesus, and that’s leaving out all the first born children in Egypt) He is unpredictable, I would say moody, vengeful, angry. Whole groups of people get punsihed for the transgressions of a few.
He lets his children languish as slaves in Egypt for generations, if that isn’t an “absentee father” which they’re decrying, I don’t know what is.
In fact, I would say that this has two characteristics of churchian thinking. First it is just more piling on blaming the fathers. And second its smug, empty God is love and kindness and we’re not like the nasty pagans or muslims but they are lying. God’s love is not unconditional, or there wouldn’t be a Hell, there wouldn’t be people that are “saved.” He may very well offer redemption and love to those who will take it and enter in a relationship with him, but there is a give and take.
The whole idea of unconditional love is a corruption, a get out of jail free card. You can’t love someone that loves you unconditionally because there is no impetus to do so, no need to do so, you don’t respect it, its not valued.
jf12:
We’re not talking rampant promiscuity, probably even an n count smaller than average for this day and age for nonprostitutes because of the societal negatives. Its hard to tell with modern medicine, but then most of modern existence is different than it was for humanity for most of its existence (contraception, antibiotics, plentiful food) but having more than one father ups the survival chances that some of the offspring make it to adulthood, or did.
There were plenty of common diseases that could leave men sterile (like mumps). In close knit communities there were often concentrations of genetic diseases (and back when people lived and died in the same village, those communities were tight genetically) Hemophilia, scykle cell enemia (which had some advantages against malaria, but other disadvantages) Tay- sachs.
A woman cannot directly determine which men might carry those recessive genes, or which she carries, but having more than one mate ups the chances that she won’t end up with all her children have a defect that impairs their chance of reproducing.
If monogamy was better, animals would practice it. They don’t.
God did bring about His judgement in whole sale destruction many times through the centuries, however, the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter was due to him making an oath to God and the keeping of that oath rather than God wanting human sacrifice. It was a terrible oath to make to begin with IMO.
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” Duet 32:39
CAF:
What does it mean for a husband to lead his family?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=897306
Marcus I’m afraid to even click on that link.
@ Numeromancer
“Women are easy with commitments—and promises, and threats—because they do not expect to have to honor them, and they expect that few else will expect them to honor them. Because of this, they expect the reward will come with little cost.”
As evident in Numbers 30!
Numbers 30:1-16 AMP
“[1] AND MOSES said to the heads or leaders of the tribes of Israel, This is the thing which the Lord has commanded: [2] If a man vows a vow to the Lord or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break and profane his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. [3] Also when a woman vows a vow to the Lord and binds herself by a pledge, being in her father’s house in her youth, [4] And her father hears her vow and her pledge with which she has bound herself and he offers no objection, then all her vows shall stand and every pledge with which she has bound herself shall stand. [5] But if her father refuses to allow her to carry out her vow on the day that he hears about it, not any of her vows or of her pledges with which she has bound herself shall stand. And the Lord will forgive her because her father refused to let her carry out her purpose. [6] And if she is married to a husband while her vows are upon her or she has bound herself by a rash utterance [7] And her husband hears of it and holds his peace concerning it on the day that he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her pledge with which she bound herself shall stand. [8] But if her husband refuses to allow her to keep her vow or pledge on the day that he hears of it, then he shall make void and annul her vow which is upon her and the rash utterance of her lips by which she bound herself, and the Lord will forgive her. [9] But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, with which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. [10] And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath [11] And her husband heard it and did not oppose or prohibit her, then all her vows and every pledge with which she bound herself shall stand. [12] But if her husband positively made them void on the day he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her. [13] Every vow and every binding oath to humble or afflict herself, her husband may establish it or her husband may annul it. [14] But if her husband altogether holds his peace concerning the matter with her from day to day, then he establishes and confirms all her vows or all her pledges which are upon her. He establishes them because he said nothing to restrain her on the day he heard of them. [15] But if he shall nullify them after he hears of them, then he shall be responsible for and bear her iniquity. [16] These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter while in her youth in her father’s house.”
JDG,
It may have been a terrible oath, although I think he fully expected an animal to be there first living thing he ran into, not his daughter . . . And God could have punished the oath maker by taking away his victory or in some other way.
But it doesn’t matter, the point stands, God is not some kindly mamby pamby that they want to turn him into.
And the reason for circumcision was a type of sacrifice, the blood and the skin was given to HIm. A token.
Is God unpredictable? “God works in mysterious ways” so the answer is yes.
Willful? Yes.
Moody? I would say He is that too. He may be slow to anger . . .
@ Timber
“I personally know of several guys who are entirely eager to commit for life—and it’s true that many women essentially commit for… what, the day? The afternoon? I recall a blue pill day in which I read a paragraph about how one had to “keep winning your wife over and over, day after day.” I believe the point being made was something like going on a weekly date, but what was really said is she’s doing a performance review every day, buddy.”
I’m conflicted by this!
My parents have always said that they recommend a weekly “date night,” and most Pastors harp on men to give women flowers and chocolate often, but everything I’ve read here suggests that those are just “desirable traits,” but not “attractive traits.” Basically, those are “nice, but mostly unnecessary” behaviors from alpha men, and completely worthless and “desperate/needy” behaviors from beta men.
Seems like this “keep romancing/pursuing/winning your woman every day” nonsense is just another page from the FI book of fitness tests. I would love to hear more Christian red pill thoughts on this topic.
But it doesn’t matter, the point stands, God is not some kindly mamby pamby that they want to turn him into.
Agreed!
I was just pointing out that mosaic law forbade human sacrifice, so what ever the explanation, human sacrifice is not something God condones.
Deut 18:10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering,
@ KMan
“A big part of the misconception seems to be that if a woman leaves a relationship, it’s obviously because of the man’s failings and poor commitment. Her unhappyyyness is seen as the litmus test of his (lack of) commitment.”
Well said.
So many bad things happen when society allows women’s fickle, changing emotions to become the “objective social barometer of all truth,” and the “overruling excuse to abandon all sound logic and reason.”
I honestly can’t wait to watch more women be slapped in the face with the consequences of their own realities, but then I have to keep reminding myself not to rejoice when “my enemy” suffers. That justice has been delayed so long that it is incredibly difficult to let go of!
Part of me questions if the government will even allow women to experience any consequences. At this point, I think they will do anything destructive to men to win more female votes, and the three women from Nowhere, Nebraska who aren’t totally self-obsessed, and genuinely care about men, won’t do anything significant to help change things.
This may be OT but empatological’s blog is now private. What happened?
I was wondering the same thing.
@JDG
Jephthah sacrificing his daughter did not happen:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OpPk4WLBcTM
@Person,
“My parents have always said that they recommend a weekly “date night,” and most Pastors harp on men to give women flowers and chocolate often, but everything I’ve read here suggests that those are just “desirable traits,” but not “attractive traits.” Basically, those are “nice, but mostly unnecessary” behaviors from alpha men, and completely worthless and “desperate/needy” behaviors from beta men.
Seems like this “keep romancing/pursuing/winning your woman every day” nonsense is just another page from the FI book of fitness tests. I would love to hear more Christian red pill thoughts on this topic.”
Those things are beta. Pastors and Christian books emphasize the beta stuff while ignoring the need for alpha stuff. It leads to unbalanced relationships – all beta with no alpha. (Secular marriage books are just as bad as the Christian books.)
Christian wives need, and crave, alpha from their husbands. I am new to the red pill but I have recently been slapping my wife on the butt when I walk by her in the house, forcefully grab her and kiss her dominantly when I enter the house, pose like a bodybuilder flexing my muscles, call or text her from work with what you are going to do in the bedroom that night, snap her butt with the kitchen towel, Agree and Amplify, etc. Cane Caldo calls this the “slow cooker” approach – keep the sexual tension going all day.
My wife is much happier, and less frustrated, since I have added some alpha to the mix. (I still have a lot more to learn.)
Alpha is also needed in confidently making decisions and plans for the family. Don’t be wishy washy and always default to, “whatever you want to do honey.”
Have you seen this classic, Dave from Hawaii?
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
Dal thanks for the response above. Don’t get me wrong I wasn’t trying to contradict your post. I think it’s spot on. I was referencing the link in your last paragraph. Your response helped clarify, and confirm what I thought which is that post divorce women are not as happy as they report. By my observation, and as you have regularly pointed out, the divorce fantasy quickly proves false, but the facade goes on for awhile.
Infowarrior1 that is an interesting take. There are some thought provoking points made. Thank you for the link.
Man sends wife a spreadsheet of all the times she denied him sex
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/sex-spreadsheet-reddit/
Comments on this article are amusing.
@Person
When modern Christians talk about romance, they almost always are talking about what the popular culture has taught them about romance and women’s sexual nature. It isn’t that you shouldn’t love your wife and want her to feel the kinds of feelings they are talking about, it is that they have bought into all of this modern Book of Oprah stuff which is not biblical at all. So don’t feel like when you disobey Oprah that you are disobeying God. Focus on obeying God, and be very suspicious of what the pop culture sells you, especially when it comes in a Christian wrapper.
So yes, it is good to make your wife feel loved and in love. It is good that you want to make her feel that way. What loving Christian husband wouldn’t? But what will make her feel that way? You already know constant flowers, candy, cards, and a regular, planned, date night don’t give her these feelings. If they did, you wouldn’t be here. You would be blissfully picking out the latest arrangement of flowers, etc.
What will make her feel those feelings is if you move more closely towards biblical headship and submission. If you are leading, she will feel safer, more in love, and more attracted to you. Obviously there are multiple ways to lead, but I’m talking about leading with love. This however doesn’t mean leading her where she tells you to lead, as nearly all modern Christians would claim (see Marcus D’s CAF link above).
Also, get the dynamic right and date nights will be fun and exciting and she will be delighted to get the occasional flowers, etc from you. Do it right and chances are your parents will say “See, we told you following our advice would make your marriage so much better!” No need to argue when they do.
So it comes down to:
Do you follow God and the Bible, or modern culture?
Do you use what works (while avoiding sin and following biblical instruction), or what our modern culture wishes worked (and ignore biblical instruction on the roles of husbands and wives)?
Do you give her what she craves in a husband, or what you think she should want in a husband?
You may have already seen one or perhaps all of these, but I’ve expanded on this in the following posts:
Headship Game
Romance 101
If it isn’t fun you probably aren’t doing it right.
She felt unloved
Why Christians need Game
The key with flowers and date nights and all that stuff is that a woman wants them from a man she’s already crazy about. If she’s been tingling for you all day, then bringing her a rose will send her over the moon. But if you bring her flowers because you’ve been “growing apart” and she’s been talking about how she’s unhaaaappy with the relationship, they’ll disgust her. She’ll see it as supplication, an attempt to buy her affections. The more you try to romance her back into love with you, the more she’ll lose respect for you.
So think of those little romantic touches as the cherry on top of the relationship sundae, adding a little something to an already solid foundation. They work best when they’re not needed, when she’s already happy and you want to reward her. If the relationship isn’t already good, they just accentuate the fact.
Boxer a couple of the women over there were selling the “help with the housework = more sex” pitch. And then of course there was the feminist standard: “Men aren’t entitled to sex.”
Of course I would have to ask: “If that is true, then why should men marry at all?” as others did. That men bother with western woman at all is a wonder. And I’m not just talking about the lack of sex. There are so many other reasons not to marry western women that I’m confounded at how many men so foolishly jump in with both feet and big smile.
Look at it this way: if a happy wife asked me what she could cook for her husband on his 40th birthday that would really wow him and make him feel loved, I might recommend some complicated, rich dessert, maybe something involving alcohol and flames, like Bombe Alaska. But if she asked me for a menu of meals she could feed him three times a day to keep him healthy and happy, I’d give her a very different answer heavy on meat and vegetables.
When it comes to relationship advice, too many people in good relationships give the Bombe Alaska answer to people who are starving for nutrition and need the meat and vegetables advice. People in a good relationship already take the meat and vegetables for granted, so they go right to the Bombe Alaska advice because that’s what would enhance their already good relationship. Then the people in the bad relationship eat the Bombe Alaska and wonder why they’re still hungry and unhealthy again the next day.
Boxer, hilarious link. Comments on Disqus appear to be arriving faster than they can be read, but skimming through them I see a lot of the usual hogwash (“If he only did more around the house I’m sure she’d be hot for him”, “If he only gave her a massage” etc.) along with a fair number of men pushing back. Additionally a minority finds her posting the spreadsheet to the net a childish action, creation of the spreadsheet a childish action, etc.
Chalk up another data point for this androsphere truth: an “equalitarian” marriage is a female-led one, even if he’s a chauffeur who is good at pretending to be the driver.
Some readers may find the actual spreadsheet to be sad, others may regard it as comedy gold.
PS: Dalrock, you might consider creating a sidebar with the above links in them, to provide easy access to those articles.
Does anyone ever suggest to them that more sex = help with the housework? Guess not, that would be prostitution or something.
I just saw a video posted on Facebook of a little boy helping his littler sister across a gap in the ledge they were walking on by lying across it so she could walk across him. Very sweet, as far as it goes in that context, but I couldn’t help thinking that all the women cooing over it would react very differently if the roles were reversed.
Boxer a couple of the women over there were selling the “help with the housework = more sex” pitch.
Cail Corishev
Does anyone ever suggest to them that more sex = help with the housework? Guess not, that would be prostitution or something.
Tangentially I’m reminded of the time I (and everyone else) overheard a harangue in a coffee shop. Long story short as the couple entered, she was tearing him a new one for something he’d done earlier, he was looking somewhat hangdog and silent. The best TFH moment was when she yelled “And you keep getting more withdrawn, and I keep getting angrier!“, followed by a pause for breath and then to place her order — naturally she was quite polite to the barrista — after which she did calm down some and the monologue continued at a normal speaking voice over to a table.
It’s not often one is presented with such a neat reversal of cause and effect. So, Ms. GrrlPower, the more you treat him with contempt the more he withdraws from you? Zowie! Who could have ever seen that coming?
RE: The Sex Spreadsheet link….
“I open it up, and it’s a sarcastic diatribe basically saying he won’t miss me for the 10 days I’m gone.”
I laughed out loud when I read this!
Also, where is she going for 10 days? Work or pleasure?
an “equalitarian” marriage is a female-led one, even if he’s a chauffeur who is good at pretending to be the driver.
This is a fact. Someone is in charge whether he knows it or not.
but I couldn’t help thinking that all the women cooing over it would react very differently if the roles were reversed.
There would be poutyfaces and slut marches in protest. I wouldn’t mind if these women would keep their part of the bargain. Instead they want the advantages of patriarchy as well as the adventages of matriarchy. So no deal.
And then of course there was the feminist standard: “Men aren’t entitled to sex.”
Husbands are entitled to sex and sammiches. What else needs to be said?
she was tearing him a new one for something he’d done earlier, he was looking somewhat hangdog and silent.
I don’t get why men put up with this kind of thing. She’s supposed to be his helpmate for crying out loud.
And if you don’t know who’s in charge, it’s not you.
Husbands are entitled to sex and sammiches. What else needs to be said?
And respect / obedience. Which will send the harpies into an even more hysterical fit of rage than the mentioning of sammiches.
Wait, I got it. The three S’s: Husbands are entitled to sex, sammiches, and submission from their wives.
What will their hamsters do with that?
And if you don’t know who’s in charge, it’s not you.
LOL!
So true.
I shouldn’t laugh because it’s really sad when this is the case for men, but it was funny.
@TFH says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:31 am
“But upon a deeper look at the ROI of taxpayer funding of female education, one sees that for every women who does a job that truly adds value in the free market (say, a doctor), there is another who becomes a govt. bureaucrat who actually destroys much more value than the doctor creates.”
Actually, it’s much worse than that.
Men dominate 9/10 of the most remunerative bachelor’s degrees. Women only dominate 1/10 (nursing). By contrast, women dominate 9/10 of the LEAST remunerative bachelor’s degrees, and most of those require direct government employment. I wrote about that here.
http://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2014/02/good-advice-for-girls-wrapped-in.html
As Judgy Bitch (hey, she chose that handle) states, most of the careers women choose are ones in which they do “wifely things”, except that, instead of doing those things for their families for love, they do those things for strangers for money. And no, she wasn’t talking about hookers.
JB also points out that feminists want things to continue along their current path because single women, single mothers and government bureaucrats overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
“A government ‘feminist’ busybody is far more destructive than a woman who is merely a waitress (nothing destructive there).”
Actually, a waitress provides a service for which people pay voluntarily, so she CREATES value. Government bureaucrats mostly provide “services” for which people only pay when they are forced (at gunpoint) to do so, which is why they destroy value. Therefore, a waitress working a minimum wage + tips creates far more value in the economy than the average government bureaucrat working at a (upper?) middle class wage plus benefits.
most of the careers women choose are ones in which they do “wifely things”, except that, instead of doing those things for their families for love, they do those things for strangers for money.
This is another fact.
Saw this today: http://www.donnamoderna.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/gossip/venezia-68-red-carpet-weekend/al-pacino-e-lucila-sola/66668485-1-ita-IT/Al-Pacino-e-Lucila-Sola_su_vertical_dyn.jpg
Wealth and fame seems to work for men…
The three S’s: Husbands are entitled to sex, sammiches, and submission from their wives.
What will their hamsters do with that?
Shit all over it.
Therefore, a waitress working a minimum wage + tips creates far more value in the economy than the average government bureaucrat working at a (upper?) middle class wage plus benefits.
Lois Lerner comes to mind.
When Hillary protested, “What did you want me to do, stay home and bake cookies”? To which my response was, “Yes, the world would be a better place if you did”
Man sends wife a spreadsheet of all the times she denied him sex
I’m stealing this idea. Problem is, I don’t think I have enough primary or backup disk storage space to hold a spreadsheet of that file size.
It leads to unbalanced relationships – all beta with no alpha. (Secular marriage books are just as bad as the Christian books.)
Worse than that, it’s a situation in which all the benefits accrue to the wife while all the sacrifice and costs are borne by the husband.
When Hillary protested, “What did you want me to do, stay home and bake cookies”? To which my response was, “Yes, the world would be a better place if you did”
True, although Bill’s gastrointestinal tract (or that of anyone else unfortunate enough to have food she prepared enter their maw) would be an instance of hell on earth. The thought of “Hitlery” and “food” in the same location at the same time is enough to induce potentially lethal projectile vomiting.
“True, although Bill’s gastrointestinal tract (or that of anyone else unfortunate enough to have food she prepared enter their maw) would be an instance of hell on earth.”
I don’t see a downside to this scenario.
OT,
Engagement rings are barbaric because they are a down payment on a virgin V.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/08/engagement_rings_are_barbaric_partner/
@Farm Boy
I remember seeing another article on that. I don’t think DeBeers likes it.
Funny thing, though, since the women in the comment section didn’t seem interested in giving up the tradition (i.e. falls under female intrasexual competition).
The male insults here are magnanimous. What does a commitment mean to a man? That you can treat her in any possible way and she should “take it?” whether it be: neglect, or he goes off to sleep with other females outside the vow, never giving her compliments or love or attention? Treating her like a submissive slave, barking commands at her rather than making her a life partner? Give me a break… No man would put up with what females put up with for the longest time before they decide to split.
I don’t see a downside to this scenario.
Neither do I, as long as she confines her weaponized “cooking” to her family and extended LibDem friends and acquaintances, in which case it would be an absolute godsend.
Further to my last, I just don’t see it happening anyway. I think Hillary would rather be forced to give Bill blowjobs in public, every day (which would be fitting punishment for him, in public or not) for the rest of her life before she’d agree to set one foot in any kitchen or pick up one single cooking utensil (which she probably wouldn’t be able to distnguish from a vibrator even if she ever saw one).
“Do you really want to eat a cookie baked by HER? It will have glass dust in it, for all you know.”
To misquote Churchill, if she were my wife I’d eat it. In fact I’d consider it a merciful parting of the ways.
Hillary would rather be forced to give Bill blowjobs in public
A tall order indeed, as her walker is not really suited for such.
Besides, that is Monica’s job.
If Hillary Clinton wins the election it will be mainly because she made herself visible… to women. The Republican party should take one out of her book.
Anyway her cookies.probably will be made in her image.
No man would put up with what females put up with for the longest time before they decide to split.
Where are these women that put up with more than a man would for the longest time before deciding to split? The last time I checked too much arguing was cited as the number one reason for divorce, and most divorces were filed by women.
For the last several years I’ve been a part of a church that frequently helps people with problems from homelessness to relationship trouble to terminal illnesses. I’ve met a lot of people this way as we’ve had a 40% turnover most years (much of this due to accountability for sin and adhering to the teachings in scripture). Almost every single woman I know of who divorced her husband (I’ve lost count due to frequency but it’s been a lot) did so for very minor reasons and with selfish intent. Almost every divorce I know of was filed by the woman. Almost every husband involved was hard working and blindsided. The men were not perfect, but not complete jerks either.
You are talking out of the wrong end.
JDG,
I would dare say that she needs some sammich therapy.
Farm Boy I believe you are right, and the more the better. A sammich a day keeps the hamster at bay. This one might need a sammich a minute though.
JDG, Farmboy, and any other mail that feels they have to put down a female,
Why not humiliate me by telling me to make a sandwich? Here’s the deal: what constitutes a minor issue to a male, may in fact, be a major issue to a female. Females walk into relationships assuming that there’s going to be an equal give-and-take, not just power over be submissive to me on his part. There is a very good chance that there has been a long-term issue or request by her that has fallen on deaf ears. Many men see women’s issues as insignificant; therefore, not worthy of any of their time. From my experience in interviewing divorced females, there usually has been an ongoing or ignored issue not addressed or rejected ‘point blank’ by the male- in essence making her invisible, insignificant, and not worthy of any of his effort. So, she begins to feel like she doesn’t matter anymore. If men really think about it, it should come as to no surprise to him, but it is a shock because they ignored her pleas as hysterical and illogical and because they are so different, he didn’t believe her the first time or last she said it. Women wait to see if there’s going to be a change and when there isn’t, she has no alternative but to walk. I have seen plenty of petitions from wives to men who simply didn’t take the wife seriously. Females attempt to connect and to have their men see their side of the story before any kind of attempt to split the relationship up. If they can’t get the man to acknowledge their legitimate needs, they give up. You can’t change anyone, so when man refuses to change, what’s left ? Nothing.
As far as arguments being the greatest breakup reasons of marriage initiated by the female would go along somewhat with what I said above, but the technical term would be: irreconcilable differences.
The reason females claim “irreconcilable differences” is usually because of the children. A wife can’t say that the father of their children are low-down motherfuckers who didn’t give a shit about them, cheated on them, was meaner than a junkyard dog and treated her like a slave and shit under his shoe. No, this is a females ‘polite way’ of saying it in order that the children aren’t shamed or humiliated in the same fashion as she was in the relationship. It’s a female ‘save face’. Some women are so hurt, that they don’t mind saying it (hence the smaller number openly humiliating the father back) but the majority try to protect the children from this sad reality. She feels she is suffered enough and the children don’t need anymore than they’ve already seen. To me, the best thing would be an amicable split and peace between them if the man can’t be what he needs to be in order for her to feel safe, cared for and appreciated.
@Ras Al Ghul:
Indeed, this is the case within Islam, for a reason. Although it is enforced in varying degrees throughout the Ummah–women do whatever they want in Lebanon, but not in Saudi, etc. Generally, women are not trusted to be alone with a man who is not related to her for very good reason.
Also, the entire reality of cuckoldry is exactly what Judaism passes “religio-ethnic” identity through the mother. Most (liberal) Jews and feminists have no idea this due to the possibility that a man’s wife has cheated with another man–meaning, as the saying goes throughout South American culture, as posed by grandparents:
“The child of my daughter, is my grandchild…the child of my son??…(shrugging shoulders with hands palm upwards)…?” This is generally why, particularly in Latin American cultures, oddly (given claims of sexism), the birth of children from the DAUGHTER of a family, is a bigger deal than the birth of a child from the SON of a family (and his wife). Grandchildren from women are more lavished in gifts, caretaking and affection than those from men, because Grandparents, including, Sweet Old Innocent Grandma, NEVER TRUST women, particularly one married to their own son.
As children of men age, they are brought into the family more closely…as long as they start to show traits of the family (particularly dad and grandpa). If you are around Hispanic (and I suspect other more base cultures) you will notice how people attempt to “recognize” similarities between the children of fathers, and grandfathers and uncles, etc…people are unconsciously looking for signals that indeed that 6 month old baby that your sweet, innocent daughter-in-law just had, is indeed from your son’s seed.
Jewish law is an affirmation of that, recognizing that NO MATTER WHAT, if the mother is Jewish, the child is.
Not sure about anyone else, but just as a general observation, as I move into my mid-40s and still hit the gym and so some other guy things, I am finding more and more Red Pillers, even if it be discrete or personally un-recognized, even guys that I thought were semi-Beta, have signaled in conversations that they are essentially Red Pill.
I mention it because today I got taken off guard by a 24-year old, who seemed WAY to knowledgeable of stuff that no “kid” should know or care about (divorce, division of assets, lack of sex after baby, then forever, the way Child Support works (income shares model, percentage, etc). I asked him in a joking way if he had an uncle that got burned or something, which was yes, but he made it clear it was a TOTALITY of seeing various things happen to guys (and their fathers), since he was a teen. It makes sense, you can’t have so many walking wounded, without men noticing the disabled men all around them.
Curious if we will reach a point, from a Game Theory strategy, whereby a subset of women form to discourage OTHER women from divorcing (kinda like discouraging them from whoring because it lowers the price of milk, overall), simply because it’s shifting the strategy of men away from an imbalanced contract, to NO contract with (prospectively) any given woman. A group of women who personally want divorce as an option for THEMSEVLES, but don’t want it to be so ubiquitous as to damage opportunities for their own personal wedding day, marriage, subsequent divorce and cash and prizes. It’s gotten so out of hand that one can picture a reasonably intelligent, good looking woman realizing why even SHE can’t find men who will commit.
I guess not since it would involve too many variables to employ at the macro level–akin to asking others to not eat so much meat, so you could enjoy lamb.
@1kingofkings:
It would help if you listened a little. Just a little.
This is what exactly what manginas, white knights, and “Churchian” pastors tell men: she can treat them in any possible way and they should take it, because it must be their fault.
Neglect? It must be his fault for failing to bring flowers and take her on expensive vacations. Surely she’d pay him lots of attention if he did that.
Sleeping with other men outside the vow? He’s not meeting her emotional needs.
Never giving him compliments? It’s because he’s not worthy of them.
Never giving him love and attention? Surely if he gave love and attention, she’d reciprocate.
Treating him like a submissive slave, barking commands at him? Everyone knows that’s because he needs her to tell him what to do, since he’s incapable of figuring it out on his own.
Brainy One I think you called it right. 1king sounds like a full fledged mangina. At first I though he was a she, but that second post is more akin to worship than empathy.
Notice how effortlessly 1kingofkings sidesteps the plain obsession western women (in general) have with divorce, and reframes this as an issue of men mistreating women. It is impressive. The Slate piece comes right out and says “Sometimes you just feel like blowing up your marriage”, reviewing the latest in an extremely long line of books (and movies, and magazine articles, TV shows, etc) about just that. Women can’t get enough of this stuff, so those marketing to women serve it up. But what are you going to believe? Your lying eyes, or 1kingofkings?
Wow seriously guys, is our language so foreign to you that you can’t even unseratand what I’m trying to tell you? Yikes, no wonder there’s so much divorce. I am a female and brainy one you got everything backwards. Read it again from the female perspective, my God…
1kingofings fix for marriage? Fail every fitness test with flying colors. What would Athol Kay say?
1kinkoffinks? Could you validate me by deep frying some ice?
Ever thought of writing on Sheryl Sandberg (Lean In) and her relationship advice?
Example quotes from her:
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys … But do not marry them.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in-is-full-of-good-intentions-but-rife-with-contradictions/2013/03/01/3380e00e-7f9a-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html)
“date the wrong guy” – stated in a longer talk she gave at a women in computing conference ( http://www.livestream.com/fbtechtalks/video?clipId=pla_e6b1a965-8cc5-4ef9-9ac8-c2048d612e96 ).
And, of course, when it comes to settling down she’s totally not sexist but, in her words, “if you marry a man, marry the right one … If you can marry a woman, that’s better” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/women-should-marry-women-says-facebook-coo/article4099094/)
Why not humiliate me by telling me to make a sandwich?
A little humility goes a long way towards a good thing (character). We all can use a little humility. The problem is that feminists like you have either forgotten this or never learned it to begin with.
Here’s the deal: what constitutes a minor issue to a male, may in fact, be a major issue to a female.
This is well known. So what? Women often think minor things are important. Look around you. Much of the mess you see in this crumbling society is due to politicians catering to what women think is important. How important is it that we pay for birth control with our tax money anyway? How important is it that we have standards lowered so that women can have jobs they are not physically fit for?
Females walk into relationships assuming that there’s going to be an equal give-and-take, not just power over be submissive to me on his part.
Here you are just wrong. Women walk into relationships thinking the man will change for her. She is excited in the beginning but when the excitement wears off she starts looking for reasons to detach. Not to mention that women these days have had multiple partners before they marry. With each partner they become less able to bond with or appreciate the man they finally settle for. You really are driving blind on this one.
There is a very good chance that there has been a long-term issue or request by her that has fallen on deaf ears. Many men see women’s issues as insignificant; therefore, not worthy of any of their time.
This is irrelevant when it comes to keeping your marriage vows, which includes “for better or for worse”. But the fact of the matter is that this is more often an excuse to do what she has already decided she wants to do.
From my experience in interviewing divorced females, there usually has been an ongoing or ignored issue not addressed or rejected ‘point blank’ by the male- in essence making her invisible, insignificant, and not worthy of any of his effort.
Again, this is BS. I have seen enough 1st hand divorces to no that by the time she gets to you she has already detached from her husband and is looking for any reason to leave.
So, she begins to feel like she doesn’t matter anymore. If men really think about it, it should come as to no surprise to him, but it is a shock because they ignored her pleas as hysterical and illogical and because they are so different, he didn’t believe her the first time or last she said it.
More BS. Many divorces are surprise divorces period. There were no ignored or unoticed please for recognition, just plain and simple hyper gamy and rebellion.
Women wait to see if there’s going to be a change and when there isn’t, she has no alternative but to walk.
LOL! Are you serious? It’s when they see that they actually can change him that they want to walk. And there is always an alternative to walking. It’s called keeping your vows.
I have seen plenty of petitions from wives to men who simply didn’t take the wife seriously.
And I have seen plenty of men who not only took their wives seriously (to the point of obedience), and followed your advice to the tee, and got nexted for it.
Females attempt to connect and to have their men see their side of the story before any kind of attempt to split the relationship up.
More BS. They attempt to always be seen as the victim regardless of the situation, and they are very good at it.
If they can’t get the man to acknowledge their legitimate needs, they give up.
More BS. They don’t even know what their legitimate needs are. Instead they have Oprah, Dr. Phil, and people like you to fill their heads with poison.
You can’t change anyone, so when man refuses to change, what’s left ? Nothing.
You got something right here. You can’t change anyone. Yet most women marry thinking that they will do just that. They chose him, they said “I do”, and swore for better or for worse. When things don’t go their way they walk. That’s called unfaithfulness.
You can’t change anyone, but God can. For the unbelieving woman all I can say is repent and turn to Jesus Christ, but for the Christian woman I say the following:
1) Pray for yourself and your husband.
2) Stop listening to worldly people like Oprah, Dr. Phil, and 1king.
3) Read your bible and do what it says, ie: submit to, respect, and obey your husband, make helping him the top priority in your marriage, stop denying him sex, learn to be an efficient homemaker and mother.
As far as arguments being the greatest breakup reasons of marriage initiated by the female would go along somewhat with what I said above, but the technical term would be: irreconcilable differences.
The term itself is a lie from the pit of hell. All differences are reconcilable unless God himself has declared them to be irreconcilable, and God hates divorce.
The reason females claim “irreconcilable differences” is usually because of the children.
A wife can’t say that the father of their children are low-down motherfuckers who didn’t give a shit about them, cheated on them, was meaner than a junkyard dog and treated her like a slave and shit under his shoe. No, this is a females ‘polite way’ of saying it in order that the children aren’t shamed or humiliated in the same fashion as she was in the relationship.
It’s a female ‘save face’. Some women are so hurt, that they don’t mind saying it (hence the smaller number openly humiliating the father back) but the majority try to protect the children from this sad reality.
This is a flat out lie. I have never seen a woman do as you have described above. Not in one of the multitude of divorces I have had the misfortune to having observed. You would think just one would have done this, but no, not even one. Instead I see the victim card played and the man denigrated often, not only in front of his own children, but also in front of anyone else that she believes will sympathize with her.
She feels she is suffered enough and the children don’t need anymore than they’ve already seen. To me, the best thing would be an amicable split and peace between them if the man can’t be what he needs to be in order for her to feel safe, cared for and appreciated.
I have no doubt that she will feel a great many things. And many things will pass through her mind as the hamster wheel turns, but the fact that depriving the children she bore to her husband of a father will set them at a terrible disadvantage in life* will not be among them. Neither will the oath that she swore – “for better for worse, til death do you part.”
* http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
Notice how effortlessly 1kingofkings sidesteps the plain obsession western women (in general) have with divorce, and reframes this as an issue of men mistreating women. It is impressive.
The ole women can do no wrong mantra.
Everyone knows a woman wouldn’t break her marriage vows and nuke her family unless she had a good reason. /off
1kingofings fix for marriage? Fail every fitness test with flying colors. What would Athol Kay say?
This sums it up nicely. Guaranteed to fail. They should call them marriage executioners instead of marriage counselors.
Lots of typos at 1:01 am, but the ideas are there.
On sammiches? Is that code for a happy ending? I’ve really started thinking so lately.
“To me, the best thing would be an amicable split and peace between them if the man can’t be what he needs to be in order for her to feel safe, cared for and appreciated.”
The perfect standard for having 100% control of the decision to divorce while still being able to lay the blame for the divorce completely at the feet of the man.
He couldn’t be what he needed to be to make me happy so there was no choice left but to divorce.
A thing of beauty.
You’ll love this one:
http://minarchyblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/why-wont-men-commit-oh-yeah-because-women-are-ballbusting-shrews-that-steal-your-dreams/#comment-678
(1K)”You can’t change anyone, so when man refuses to change, what’s left ? Nothing.
(JDG) You got something right here. You can’t change anyone. Yet most women marry thinking that they will do just that.”
1King’s not far off the old
“How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?”
“Just zer von, but ze lightbulb must really vant to change”.
Re-education, in a word.
As that old murderer Mao used to harp on, “Make self-criticism!”
“Such sessions could be elaborate, public and frequent, and included denunciations.
Under the Khmer Rouge, the self-criticism sessions were known as rien sot, meaning “religious education.” In Francois Bizot’s memoir ‘The Gate’, he recalled observing the Khmer Rouge engaging in frequent self-criticism to reinforce group cohesion during his imprisonment in rural Cambodia”.
”You can’t change anyone, so when man refuses to change, what’s left ? Nothing.”
It’s easy. The Great American Princess is mediocre at best but her narcissism makes her think she is entitled to the “crème de la crème of male companionship” (as Lori Gottlieb said). After all, these were the guys that she pumped and dumped her and she is told by everybody that she is a special snowflake that deserves the best.
When the biological clock ticks, the Great American Princess settles for Mr. Good Enough with the hopes that she is going to change him with the power of her v*gina so he ends up being the Perfect Man she is entitled to.
When he doesn’t change, what’s left? Nothing. It is impossible for the Great American Princess to accept an imperfect human being. Back to the c*ck carouser.
@1kingofkings
“As far as arguments being the greatest breakup reasons of marriage initiated by the female would go along somewhat with what I said above, but the technical term would be: irreconcilable differences.”
“The reason females claim “irreconcilable differences” is usually because of the children. A wife can’t say that the father of their children are low-down motherfuckers who didn’t give a shit about them, cheated on them, was meaner than a junkyard dog and treated her like a slave and shit under his shoe.”
Have you ever been to a motion court that deals with divorces? Every woman who files for divorce spouts the same hogwash of “irreconcilable differences”. And the person coaching her what to say is the divorce lawyer. It’s like listening to a tape recording suck on repeat every 8 min asking the same questions and getting the same replies. This is to get through the court roll as fast as possible and not to make waves that would cause the judge not grant it. It has nothing to do with her concern for her children as you claim. They are told what to say by the lawyers just like they are told what to believe by the bonobo society of what the reasons are for her so called unhappiness. And when you leave the court room you see her and her female support group make one big joke out of the proceedings and I have even seen the young pretty ones start flirting with the suits.
Your ignorance is dangerous.
Brainy one, JDG, Dalrock, and God is laughing:
Is insult the ‘default’ that you don’t believe females even have enough ability or capacity to think on their own ? How caveman backwards thinking that is …. Dalrock, We not feed off of media or books, but we are living these lives and we’re finally speaking up about them, unlike our mothers and grandmothers, but they’re certainly are cheering us on.
Female’s obsession with divorce? is that what you think this is ? Validation as a manipulative? you may been reading too much conspiracy theory… Or for Tam-bam the reeducation of the Khmer Rouge. To be honest, the “cohesive rehearsing” is more like this Dalrock blog where you all reinforce your own beliefs to yourselves, collectively not admitting that you may be at fault so as to stay cohesive in your stubbornness to view the other side of the story.
Certainly none of you would be reading men going the wrong way being on a Christian blog here now, would you? I guess maybe your name: “God is laughing” should have given me a clue… What’s the lowering comment about hand jobs and happy endings and Samiches… ? Putting females in the category of slaves and sex objects … Don’t you think that’s a bit 1950’s? And you feel that you could have a valid relationship with the other gender with that kind of mentality? And that’s for better or for worse ? There’s no respect there. What purpose does putting females down and lowering them serve for the man? Do you feel like a bigger man now? Is this the kind of femininity you want to force down our throats? pun intended. Maybe you should eat me.
And what the hell is throwing out the catchall term “for better or for worse” when all you’re handing out is worse?? get the f*#^ out here!
I don’t care who you are. Throw out that part of the vow! If you have trouble with health that’s involuntary but the deliberate cheating and sticking your wiener in another female? give me a break!! It is irreconcilable !! Broken- that’s disrespecting the woman -disrespecting your vow -fuck that shit. There is no turning back at that point. There’s no trust ever again. and then think it’s funny and fun and entertainment …And if you think that she loves you because she has to stay for financial reasons after being disrespected and betrayed like that, You’re delusional. She’s stuck. She will hate you forever even though she’ll have to lie to stay for her dependence. We’re talking prison now because she will now hate you but dependent on you because of the children, she will fuck you silently when you’re not looking just to get back at your cruel Thoughtless behavior. Women never sign up for this when they get married. Now their dream is irrevocably broken- it can’t be fixed. She believed they will have a happy loving relationship and family for the rest of their lives. You think dipping the stick is being a man? No more than it is being a woman…keep walking.
When we both treat each other like shit, see how long it lasts? give me a break. Here’s what I’ll do; I’ll abuse you and hold you by the neck down on the ground ( maybe by gunpoint point because your physical strength would prevent me otherwise) and then I want to say to you, “but honey you have to take it because were in this”for better or for worse till death do you part” …see how stupid this sounds? See how long that lasts… Sheesh.
Gee, did you ever look and notice that God divorced Israel ?? wow, what a novel concept? He actually was disappointed and left her …so guess what? divorce is bad, he hates it, but he did it, didn’t he? because of bad behavior!!
Me reframing “women loving divorce” as being mistreated by men? Hmmmmm. Red herring argument. Women want to be married for the rest of their lives and being loved by their prince forever … Didn’t you guys ever see any Disney prince and princess movies growing up? They are all based on the female psyche. Women really do want a prince to love her and save her forever. She does want a hero all of her life. She doesn’t want an asshole that’s going to begin to shit on her and then tell her “that’s the way it is, better like me the way I am.” With maybe a grunt and a fart while sitting on the couch with the remote control belching, “hey bring me a samich and a beer. Ugh, She did not sign up for that program. She signed up for the guy that tried to get her at first and convinced her to marry him, not the nightmare he changed into after he said “I do.”
Wow. how many of you notice that little girls grow up playing house and marriage and all they talk about is having a husband and a family? Any of you males who want to stay in the commitment so much ever Playhouse and talk about marrying one wife when you were 12 ?
Most women dream of a man caring for her, but what happens in reality? They get married and then all of a sudden their once lover turns into a monster nightmare! Like that police song that says, “your servant becomes your master,” because he tricks her into getting married. She marries the trickster assuming he will stay the front he “puts on” to win her affections. If you trick a woman into accepting you as her leader and you’re not like that after you get married, you have every obligation to “fake it” until you die because that’s not the person you showed her she married. She chose that guy. And, yes, this goes both ways, but typically more so the male feels like he can bully the female around Which also leads to her rejecting him. Coincidently, this is also blamed on her and the cycle begins again.
And to I’m nobody… What’s the bitter rhetorical the princess not getting her dream don’t fake it then be yourself and show your sick side so that she decides not to marry you. Everything has its consequences including belittling and lowering a female, why should she want to be with an asshole? Seriously I don’t even know if you guys even hear yourselves! Do that to your boss and see how long of a job…
Oh and not let me let forget hawk and rock: you started out the “right” mate” otherwise she would’ve never married you. When I say, “he can’t be what he needs to be for her.” it’s not some change… it’s something that always was there to begin with !! but he changed to the negative afterwords by laziness and not caring for her properly anymore. it’s the change of stopping the Romance, the care, the effort of nice words a day kind of effort. Somehow that prince she ‘thought’ she married turns into some kind a barking Command center. Not too attractive to females… After a while it begins to feel like a prison camp. Females want to be wanted and cared for, and cherished, not kicked around.
So God divorced Israel and If people are treating each other like shit, it sucks, but it’s the same situation in reverse …so maybe you should take a clue and start acting civilly and respectfully towards your females and marriages. She will stay if you stay the man you were when you attracted her.
But, no, men would rather have the masculinity of the past. Try: entitled men who want to be like their fathers and grandfathers -who were womanizers, abusers and lived like kings ‘upon the heads’ of their women having the power to dehumanize them. That’s the traditional form of masculinity, isn’t it? That’s what you want back, isn’t it ?Somehow men got to live a more human life than a woman. Your mothers and grandmothers never ever had the option to “escape” from poor treatment that women have today. Women who are treated fairly and loved, rarely leave what they grow up dreaming about. Ah, but what do little 12-year-old boys dream about? sex with multiple women …and let’s see …who’s the problem here?
Thanks to fairness factors, the playing field has been leveled a bit. Men are bitter and angry because they can’t be womanizers and have a wife … As with that 12-year-old dream of theirs… They actually have to work at a monogamous relationship and think of someone outside of themselves in order to be successful – the bullying for control is no longer tolerated. she expects to be a partner not slave to be barked at, she’s smarter than that disrespect.
And Cicero, I am not an ignorant one. I’ve lived the life that I speak of… I could write a book .
A Woman doesn’t get married to be bullied, but loved and cared for… No more can a man mistreat a female and expect her to have to stay. Men digging their heels becoming cold and unmoved but who is alerted to his unattractive behavior and he still chooses Purposely is not to be that “romancer” that got her? it does not serve him at all in the world of the other gender. And your EXCUSE is: “for better or for worse?” Do you even hear yourself? Do both parties a favor, Go the jump in a lake. Reform of poor behavior is what God wants.
Now, man actually has to respect his wife and treat her like a partner – another novel concept for a man . why? because her mother told her to respect herself and that she mattered as much as a man, unlike the minds of males today or the past who taught him he’s better than she is … He thinks he’s superior.. Society teaches men to hate females and that they’re inferior to them. Society teachers that we are art objects and decoration and that we have things done to us and we are passive in this process. Today’s females don’t feel that way about themselves. We feel like active participants. We know we matter. Do you Want females to feel inferior, subhuman, and not worthy of being treated properly, with as much respect as you demand yourselves as a human? Men bought into the lie. She will stay, but it’s all conditional upon your treatment towards her.
Tell me boys: why should a female give up her whole life when she can do what you can do: become a career professional out in the world and have respect? Why should she give that up and be dehumanized? Now, I can’t seem to come up with a good reason, but instead she picks you and gives up that part of her life for you and then you turn around and dump on her?? where’s the prince / hero that she married ? no excuses… there’s no advantage to that…I’m sorry.
Try to know, and this is extremely hard for a man to comprehend, not because you’re not intelligent beings, oh you are, but because you refuse to acknowledge the females position because of arrogance. Turn the situation around, if someone treats you poorly, do you want to stick around that person?
What if somebody discounts you, belittles you, trivializes anything you have to say (kind of like make me a sandwich or is that a happy ending?) or puts you down and makes you insignificant or invisible and counting for nothing? All society condones it. listen to the radio and TV, music. But just because society condones it doesn’t mean that it’s right – you know, one time we never wore seat-belts either. Seriously, think about it…women are people. And it’s not too funny when it happens to you, in fact, you guys become infuriated. So how much longer will you continue this behavior towards us and expect us to accept it? It’s not going to be any better. We will not submit under bullying and being treated poorly, we deserve much better than that because we deserve as much respect as you do.
Such total proof men can’t see or move beyond their own experiences on their own movie screens… they can’t step out of themselves and actually think from a female side because females are so insignificant in their eyes, that they don’t even give a shit even when I try and explain it…what happened? A couple of you guys even identified me as a man. Why? I’m turned around into being a man…what the hell ?! And my commentary sounds like a piece out of slate ? For your information, just because you can’t understand another side, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Just because you can’t see gravity doesn’t mean that if you jump off a cliff, you won’t fall.
Instead, Logic might tell you that if you’re hearing something from more than one female or resource, that maybe circumstantial evidence might say something like, “Hey, maybe we should look into this?” Or women are human ? or even better: take a female at her face value ? Garshk gomer is that really something that’s possible ?
Years ago, all men exploited their leadership by saying things like:” “I make the money, so I make the rules.” So is that the masculinity you want to restore ? what if I don’t like the rules ? What if the rules only benefit the male to the disadvantage of the female ? Then, I go make the money and I reject the male… That’s what happens. It’s about fairness. It’s about respect. A new book that came out recently says that women only want to be loved and men want to be respected- well, I agree but I also disagree because women want respect too because inherent within love is respect.
So, you have a choice: you can be a bully and “lord it over” and stay in your entitled self will and believe in your own points-of-view, or you can start looking at the other side with more compassion than that of an assassin.
On sammiches? Is that code for a happy ending?
Sometimes a sammich is just a sammich.
@1kingofkings:
“Females walk into relationships assuming that there’s going to be an equal give-and-take, not just power over be submissive to me on his part.”
Speaking of power, ever hear the saying “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”?
Women have plenty of power. When *they* abuse it, it’s mighty destructive.
Go peddle your papers elsewhere.
Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
If my previous comment needs augmentation, refer here for starters:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/child-support-and-the-threat-point/#comment-105801
(Good comments upthread, too.)
1kings’ rant up there (I won’t claim to have read it all) reminds me of some old Dalrock posts in which he attempted to find an example of a woman doing something so heinous that other women wouldn’t immediately come to her aid. He found examples of women stating plainly that their husbands had done nothing wrong, they were simply blowing up their families based on their own whims. Yet other women, and some men, immediately came to their defense, inventing out of whole cloth reasons why they might have had no choice but to do what they had said in their own words they had no good reason to do.
For your understanding, sir (madam?), no one here is suggesting that men are categorically better than women. You probably have a hard time understanding that because any criticism of women whatsoever sets off your “misogyny” alert.
Let’s break this down briefly. In the 1950’s, women could vote and could work outside the home if they chose, and some did so. They were not compelled to marry. However generally women did marry and stayed home. The divorce rate was a fraction of what it is now. Now ~50% of all marriages end in divorce and 75% of those divorces are initiated by women. So your options are:
1. Men in the 1950’s were far better than men today, and as a result modern women, who are as good or better than 50’s women, can’t stand modern men and must divorce them. This still assumes that the good, modern women are “good” in some sense that does not require them to keep their promises, but the main problem is the lack of evidence, and the fact that if 1950’s men were so great then there wasn’t much point to feminism. Feminists claim that the 50’s were a terrible, oppressive time, and for that to be true you can’t use 50’s men as a better batch than modern men. There’s also the problem that, feminism having been dominant for many decades, modern men are the ones feminism created, so if they’re worse it’s feminism’s fault. So that moves us to:
2. Men are oppressive and evil in general, and women are just more aware of it now. You can argue this if you want, but there’s no real evidence. Women who don’t have a man are far less happy than those that do. Those who work are less happy than those who stay at home. It seems more like a bunch of people learning to be allergic to their only food source. So that brings us to the real answer:
3. Men are mostly the same as they’ve always been, and women are pretty much the same too, as far as their natural tendencies. However, taking away all social constraints on their selfish actions has led them to become far worse than they were in the past. As a result they no longer value commitments they made freely and feel no compunction to be constrained by their own promises or by correct conduct. They are continuously encouraged to behave in this way by, e.g., the above example wherein Dalrock could not find any example of frivolous divorce so extreme that other women wouldn’t defend it. If people will defend your every action, no matter how awful, it’s only natural that you would become very selfish and cruel to other people. Thus, women are trained not to feel bad about betraying the people who trusted them, because they’re women and whatever they do is good.
So here are some questions for you: in your vast experience of divorcing women, how many of them would you say were just blowing up their families due to their own whims? Most people have some reasons for divorce they consider invalid, such as a man divorcing his older wife for a younger, more attractive woman. Did any of the women you saw have what you would consider to be invalid reasons for divorcing? Or is it your contention that if the wife feels unhappy, it’s always the man’s fault, no matter what, and therefore she is always justified? What percentage of the wives would you say are wholly innocent in the divorce? What percentage of the husbands would you say are innocent?
1kinkoffinks is making an excellent display of the flesh. Pure rebellion all the time. If I had to guess at what she is so completely upset about? Female nature. Yes, women can go out and get a job EXACTLY like a man they now have that opportunity, even to the point of being combat marines in the U.S. military. The rub is that they don’t WANT to. And no matter what else happens female agency cannot be acknowledged. Somehow at the bottom at the pile a man is behind the woman’s every motive (and is thus responsible). The cognitive dissonance is beginning to show in the form of crazy and sadly she is incorrigible as she is too big to turn over the knee.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
(Act 9:3-6)
Sadly, I suspect that correction is anathema for those that have fallen into the behavioral sink.
@Farmboy, I guess I don’t understand some guys infatuation with sammiches then. I have about a 5:1 “sammich” to sammich preference ratio. I guess some guys like to eat more than me.
As far as “lowering” I wonder out loud what is “lowering” about a man and his wife taking care of each others needs. I wonder if it is “lowering” to cut and stack firewood or shingle the roof. Why is making a “sammich” apparently the one and only thing that achieves universal condemnation from feminists? I don’t think they want to understand why guys get married, looking at the divorce rates I think we see a solid confirmation of that notion.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(1Co 7:8-11)
KoK – Sounds like you were married to a brutal fella? If so, please realize that your take on men is a bit warped. There are some guys I know who were the exact opposite of what you state.
Were their wives –
Cherished – Yup
Romantic – Yup,
Etc. – Yup
Yet their wives blew the marriage up.
Why? some type of unhappiness. Ennui is my guess. Life is boring and repetitive and sad and sometimes, just plain not fun. But as Moe Norman used to say (great golfer, one of the best that even Tiger has acknowledged), “When I finish my round, I do not think about the bad shots, I concentrate on the good ones. This is because those are the shots that I want to hit every time.”
And that in a teacup is the definition of most good men. We try to focus on what is good in our lives and leave the bad for another day. We take pleasure in the small things, like a cold beer at the end of a hard day. And most of us cherish our marriages and take our joy from them. So when the wife, says something like, “I love you, I am just not in love with you anymore”, (and what the fuck does that mean anyway?????) then blows up our worlds, is it not easy to understand why we, as men, have a far higher rate of suicide? Depression? Violence?
Are all men like this? No
Are most men like this? Yes
Feminism is also a deprived theory, that may work for about 3% of woman. The problem being, is that the vast majority of women are happier in a monotonous, er, monogamous relationship. Fulfilling the acts of service that come naturally to their nature. Feminists, for some reason that I still don’t understand, seem to have to push all women onto their path to assure themselves that they are right. Weird.
My Guru stated that the best path for most woman to enlightenment was the path of devotion. i.e. submissive love.
Whilst the best path for men was through action.
Believe it or not, but the male energy and the female energy are two sides of one coin, but are quite different in their ways. Yet both are walking in the same direction, just on different paths.
Nothing new here is of any substance. Nothing here requires a response. I said everything, I have nothing more to say and to Eidolon who didn’t even bother to read the whole comment before replying ?
Wow, shows your level of arrogance and self-importance. Your questions do not dignify a response, therefore will go unanswered.
There’s no convincing a fool.
Proverbs 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
As per my statement and men’s arrogance, Seriously, if you think there can be progress with relations, I say there’s no hope with you fellas. I Seriously hope the future generations turn out better than you…
My last comment goes to: Denilhist, I agree a woman can be very satisfied in a submissive love, but what happens when her love becomes absent? first three years, great, after that, no way!! Maybe marriage is on its way out… than men can be out of there “monotonous relationships” and be pluralistic (like they believe they are) and women could also be pluralistic. Problem solved. 🙂
@1kingofkings:
Nice rant.
Certainly you have that capacity, which is why we insist you actually take a wee little bit of time to think about the male perspective, not what you self-servingly think it is, but what it actually is.
First you say this…
So, apparently, a woman being asked to do anything for the man is “lowering” to the woman. If he wants sex, the woman is a “sex object”. If he wants help around the house, she’s a “slave”. But, how the tables turn when it comes to the converse…
So she wants and expects a hero, willing to do anything and everything, and that you take is merely her “right”. If he doesn’t measure up to the bar as a hero, than he’s an “asshole that’s going to being to shit on her…”. We never hear about how men who work shit jobs in order to provide for their family and then do house and yard maintenance, etc., are “slaves”, or men who have done a bit better in life are “success objects”. We never hear about how men who risk their lives for their country are “slaves” and “cannon fodder”. We never hear about how men who buy flowers, etc., are “romance objects”. Wonder why that is? It’s because of your completely self-centered approach, in which men exist merely to serve the needs of women.
If you want a hero, then be a hero. Piss or get off the pot.
@1kingofkings
“And Cicero, I am not an ignorant one. I’ve lived the life that I speak of… I could write a book.”
Well now that explains a lot. You are projecting your own personal experiences as valid and righteous and ridiculing the experiences of others as wrong and insignificant compared to yours.
You also love using the word hate don’t you .Why is that?
1 John3:15 “Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.”
What you are doing is trying to justify a woman’s unhappiness as a license to hate.
A woman needs unconditional love and understanding. But have you ever wondered what the 2 unconditional needs are for men? I doubt that you have because what men want is of no importance to you as long as the woman is happy.
And I find it interesting that the only thing that I wrote that got any reaction from you was a reference to your ignorance. Thinking (like a true solipsist) that I was referring to you as a person and not the topic I was talking about. You did not try and counter or refute what I wrote. Thus making my statement about your ignorance of the court procedures and happenings a valid one.
Nothing new here is of any substance. Nothing here requires a response. I said everything, I have nothing more to say and to Eidolon who didn’t even bother to read the whole comment before replying ?
Wow, shows your level of arrogance and self-importance. Your questions do not dignify a response, therefore will go unanswered.
There’s no convincing a fool.
Proverbs 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
As per my statement and men’s arrogance, Seriously, if you think there can be progress with relations, I say there’s no hope with you fellas. I Seriously hope the future generations turn out better than you…
My last response is to Nihilist, women do prosper under a submissive love. But what happens when her love goes absent? It’s great for the three first three years and then … Maybe the answer is marriage is on its way out. Then men will be able to get out of there “monotonous relationships” and be pluralistic (as they say they are) and women will become pluralistic too. Problem solved:)
And we women will forget about you men as our Heroes. We’ll become our own heroes. In that same line, if you want to sandwich, go to a restaurant. you wanted sex, go to a sex worker; otherwise, treat her as your partner not as a lowlife possession. Is nothing wrong with the woman cooking for a man but the way you put them down makes women feel taken for granted! Who Wants to work for that shit? Not me and I can’t think of any other female either who has a shred of self integrity or self-respect.
manginas doubling down since it is getting harder and harder to earn a return per unit of groveling and pedestalization
Indeed. Women had better start rewarding more, like feeding them cookies or something. It is a good investment for the women, as white knight mangina types run fine interference for them. The women would truly miss them if they were to vanish.
So the answer is that there is no female behavior she isn’t prepared to defend. That’s in line with what we’ve seen before. I was kind of hoping for some kind of excuse, or maybe a reference to the woman who shoved her husband off a cliff during their honeymoon or something, but getting upset and refusing to answer a straight question is more what you’d expect a feminist-type to do anyway.
I tried to read some more of that rant, but there wasn’t much coherence in it. I like how there are a million requirements for men but none listed for women, and that all women really want to get married to a handsome prince from childhood (look at Disney movies!) but also they can do whatever men do and men should have to convince them to want to get married. Some solid logic going on there.
Women who don’t have a man are far less happy than those that do. Those who work are less happy than those who stay at home.
This fact stares women in the face, yet they pretend that it is irrelevant.
And to think that this back and forth was triggered by the thought of sammiches.
Don’t you guys see how sexist you are? Why are you calling men manginas? So the lowest form of a putdown towards a man is calling him a female body part? Could not lower a woman any lower. Wow, you guys are incredulous. Who Wants to take your ass seriously? Sheesh.
And as far as work is concerned, if you men aren’t going to be our work, we might as well become doctors and serve the greater humanity. At least there, we’ll get some respect and appreciation… We learn from the best …we can buy our sex and our food …and we will have it all;)
I think unwobblingpivot already hit this pretty well, the state of the current generations and future generations owes it’s resulting attitude towards women largely to the women that reared them. The hand that rocks the cradle must surely bear SOME responsibility, no?
@1kingofkings:
“Here’s what I’ll do; I’ll abuse you and hold you by the neck down on the ground ( maybe by gunpoint point because your physical strength would prevent me otherwise)”
I have begun to suspect that the above is the dark horse in the running to overtake the EPL Divorce Fantasy in the Divorce Fantasy Derby. Let’s call the horse Inferiority Complex Fantasy.
No well-adjusted adult should entertain such a fantasy. To put it in print is taking it to another level altogether. This is the sort of thing that should be left behind in childhood if one wishes to become a mentally and emotionally healthy adult.
I am increasingly taken aback by the viciousness that lurks in many females. I’ve recently seen evidence that it begins as early as puberty.
It comes out typically as “violently irrational” behavior (e.g., vindictiveness), but underneath it appears to have its roots in an “irrationally violent” impulse (see quote above).
Still hypothesizing about it so far….
Yes unwobbinling, Stephen Molyneux recently talked about this violent nature of women and how when the have the chance to be the aggressor they often take advantage of it. His point was that the “hand that rocks the cradle” is often the most violent hand felt by its occupant. And then come the complaints at the resulting males who suffer by degrees of magnitude higher than their XX chromosomed siblings.
Don’t you guys see how sexist you are?
Yes.
Gee Violent responses to societies Normalacy of maligning and delegitimizing women and it’s become violent ? Men continuing to confine women without choices continuing unacceptable behavior towards them and thinking it’s very normal? Gee I wonder why? At some point, when someone’s pushed to their limit, they begin to pushback and if not heard become violent when the balance of power is so abnormal- something changes to create equilibrium. What Do you guys expect? You can continue this power-play acting as if it’s a normal thing and you’re not going to get a pushback? Come on… You claim you’re the logical ones … If so, use it.
So there’s your answer farmboy -you act sexist, you know you’re sexist and then you expect respect back for it? …good luck:)
Eidolon says:
July 20, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Well put. I wish my mind would work more like that.
Why is making a “sammich” apparently the one and only thing that achieves universal condemnation from feminists?
I’m not sure why, but it was easy to pick up on. I find the term “sammich” in the context of a woman making one for a man to be a kind of litmus test for feminism. Not so much to tell if a woman is a feminist (almost all western women are whether they know it or not), but more so to see how deep into the morally bankrupt, reality twisted cesspool of indoctrination she is situated.
In general I find that the deeper she is submerged, the more offensive she will find a suggestion to retire to the kitchen for the purpose of making sammiches.
That’s already happening, due to modern birth control and DNA testing. The only secular reason for monogamy (that I know of) is so a man can be sure his putative children are really his. Without that, it’s all over but the shouting.
Well hurrah for that. Please do. It’s about time you independent women actually lived up to it. You realize of course that means no more special protection granted to you by men. But I’m all for it.
Um, no, it’s a particular form of putdown which is directed at a particular sort of man, unlike the generic “asshole” (which is also a body part) or “prick” (which is a gendered body part). It is the sort of man for whom female approval is paramount, and will prostrate himself and supplicate himself to all women and always take their side, regardless of the actual facts of any case at issue. This is pathetic, and such a man deserves derision. Thus, in this case, using a female body part as a putdown is appropriate.
Hey you go girl. In fact many of you are doing just that; admissions at medical school are about 50% male and 50% female last I checked.
KoK – ” But what happens when her love goes absent?”
Did you mean to say this or when her “lover” goes absent?
Need to know to be able to respond.
@1king
Left to their own devices, women in a society will achieve self destruction. Just look around you for examples. Yes I know you will claim that if anything is wrong it is all the fault of men, but that just won’t do.
As was mentioned up thread, when sane men where in charge, things were better. Divorce rates were lower, children grew up in intact families, crime rates were lower, and even women were happier.
Now, thanks to the implementation of feminist theories via politicians catering to the whims of women, we have societal decay, 50% divorce rates, 40% out of wed lock births, and crime rates that dwarf your favorite decade (the 1950s).
Feminism is ALL about getting the perceived best for women at the expense of everyone else. It was a lie from the beginning and it is a lie today. What you consider derogatory was once thought noble and rewarding. What you call equal choice is just special privileges for adult females.
It is a deceptive ideology that is based on the retelling of history from a fictional vantage point where men (as a group) oppressed women (as a group) when in fact the truth is that women (even women slaves) were a protected class.
Feminists are ugly parasites because feminism is an ugly parasitical ideology that survives (like a parasite) on the backs of others by implementing the following:
a) perpetuating for as long as possible the false narratives it has produced,
b) continuing to produce more false narratives,
c) indoctrinating clueless cohorts through academia and mainstream media,
d) silencing opposition through shaming tactics and intimidation,
d) influencing government policy to pass laws that effectively retain and add female privilege in society while reducing female responsibilities to that society,
and
e) acquiring undeserved revenue from tax payers through government intervention.
If the happiness of women is the end that justifies the means, then by all means encourage them to nuke their families when they feel unhappy. Why not? Rome is already burning, and like you said, there is nothing left (well for those women at least).
You and those like you would do well to learn that we will all reap what we sow, and anyone who puts “happiness” over commitment and responsibility is sowing destruction. They will reap neither the fruits of a committed and responsible life nor happiness.
Now, since you have admitted to being a woman and not a man, quit bothering the men folk and get back in the kitchen and make us some sammiches (not a litmus test this time cause I already know you are off the deep end).
Feminism is ALL about getting the perceived best for women at the expense of everyone else.
True enough. But then, modern women are not happy, so where is the gain?
It is not even a zero-sum game. It is a lose-lose game.
@JDG, my air quotes were sufficiently vague to have been misunderstood:
Sammiches are made in the kitchen. “Sammiches” are made in the bedroom, the kitchen, the car, the living room, the bathroom and anywhere else the mood strikes. As I previously stated I prefer 5 “sammiches” to approximately each sammich. Feminists hate to be perceived in a servile or supporting role, so serving their husband in ANY capacity is automatically a function beneath their dignity and “lowering”. (Newsflash: cleaning out the sewer line, changing the oil and mowing the lawn are not duties of high prestige.) Feminism by lauding the sin nature of women and depositing women on the THRONE in creating a misery on an epic scale in it’s proponents.
The slogan: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” flies squarely into three obvious responses. No duh. Does that mean you will now be responsible for yourself? (Answer: Hell No!) And finally, now that you understand yourself to be a moral agent capable of sitting on the throne of your life (in God’s temple if you are a believer) will you submit to Jesus Christ and let Him take His rightful place there instead of YOU? Now that you acknowledge that you have agency will you relinquish it through the act of repentance and DIE TO SELF? I think we know the answer to that. That is one reason that I don’t believe that their are any Christian feminists.
Christian feminists, promoting the ME FIRST in being the greatest servants in the kingdom.
God is Laughing says:
July 20, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Thank you! Well said.
Farm Boy says:
July 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm
Yes it is lose-lose. Everyone involved loses in one way or another (except those with nothing to loose).
Hands that rock the cradle:
@1kingofkings
“Gee Violent responses to societies Normalacy of maligning and delegitimizing women and it’s become violent ? Men continuing to confine women without choices continuing unacceptable behavior towards them and thinking it’s very normal? Gee I wonder why? At some point, when someone’s pushed to their limit, they begin to pushback and if not heard become violent when the balance of power is so abnormal- something changes to create equilibrium. What Do you guys expect? You can continue this power-play acting as if it’s a normal thing and you’re not going to get a pushback? Come on… You claim you’re the logical ones … If so, use it.”
This is a rhetorical flourish. En garde! You come across as petulant, not as one ready to employ logic. This is almost pure emotional posturing. Rage is unbecoming in either sex, but moreso in the sex that is not routinely looked upon to defend the opposite sex.
Come talk to me when your sex no longer looks to ours reflexively for protection, when if we’re walking down the street at night and the first thing a woman does is put her body between danger and her man. When it happens so often that men can take it for granted, let’s talk, when we’re the ones turning to you. But it won’t happen. Men will always look to protect their women. That’s one of the things you actively look for from us. All the more reason not to provoke us. You want us *on* your side. This is an imbalance of power that I never hear any complaints about.
In all fairness and compassion, 1king, I should acknowledge that you appear to be hurting. I don’t think you will find much solace here: the men here are not cheaters, etc. Lashing out at us doesn’t serve anyone’s best interests. Perhaps a change of venue might be in order.
KoK – just for you
Alright Denihist, you got me on that one. If you’re not married, I’m
Ready for that date:) thanks for making my night. 😉
@Boxer, re: spreadsheet. This commenter was considered unsympatheticand/or abusive: ““Gotta be honest, my guess is that OP has given the same excuses or denied sex a lot and then acted like it hasn’t been denied often,” one commenter wrote.”
Evidently the truth hurts.
My wife explicitly turns me down somewhat more than half the time I explicitly ask, and I ask less than half as often that I would want to because she is implicitly turning me down by being cantankerous and I hate being turned down (it hurts). So I get only about 20% of the sex I would prefer. But my wife has *often* said, to her sisters and others, that she *never* turns me down. Apparently according to her, it only counts as turning down when she wants to have sex but still turns me down. This is how women “think”, to men who need a primer, FYI.
I see 1kingofkings has reemerged from hiding (or confinement) and is off her meds again.
@1KoK, re: “The male insults here are magnanimous.”
You’re welcome?
@ 1kingofkings
“Nothing new here is of any substance. Nothing here requires a response.”
And yet … you keep on responding to what you want to talk about. Are you perhaps looking for some male attention?
“And we women will forget about you men as our Heroes.”
Firstly – Do you now speak for all woman?
Secondly – “Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
“We’ll become our own heroes.”
Well by what you wrote so far one can see the tragedy.
I think the appropriate experiment for people like 1king is this. Let’s say domestic violence incidents have gone up tenfold since the 50’s, and 75% of them are perpetrated by men. When the cops show up, they grab the woman and say “What did you do to make him hit you???”
There is at least as much justification for this attitude as there is for the “if she divorced him he must have made her do it” attitude. I’ve read about studies that indicate 1) that women who get hit have been hit by previous men they were with, and 2) the men that hit them generally haven’t hit anyone before. So there would be equal justification to blame women for getting hit as there is for blaming men for having their wives divorce them. I suspect people like her are only okay with one of these two equivalent things, however.
Hey KoK, glad it helped.
Coming from a Catholic background, it was sensible to travel through Eastern Mysticism. One of the Koan’s that I learned, that has had an huge impact on my life is, “This too shall pass”
Eventually you come closer to the middle path, the path where the 2 sets of footsteps become one.
DeNihilist… thank you for your encouragement:)
@1kingofkings
So it was just some male attention seeking. How quaint.
Come on Cicero, if I’m looking just for Male attention seeking, what are you? the batterer? If I want some male attention, all I have to do is leave my house. lol !!! Seriously, I think it’s a give-and-take conversation, at least it’s supposed to be… But men, you’re tough because you always want to win -it’s always about the win, isn’t it for you guys?
Actually, admissions to med school run over 50% women. You see, 50% of women doctors leave full-time practice within 5 years after starting practice, to stay home with their babies. So, to get 50% doctors in practice, you need more new female students. The problem is the more female students, the fewer doctors in actual practice.
###
I am here to comment on http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/sex-spreadsheet-reddit/ the woman who turned down her husband on 24 of 27 requests for sex over approximately 6 weeks. That is, he only got sex every two weeks. Dang, my wife and I are in our 70’s, and I got it 5 times during those six weeks, and I was pissed-off about it.
I love that page, guys! I was active on DGM (Don’t Get Married) for years until the owner shut down to work in his garden, having graduated from worries about marriage in the USA.
Some years ago, I wrote on DGM that living in Mexico has helped me understand that collectively American Women are clinically insane. I used the standard definition of insane, which is total inability to grasp reality. Most women believe women were historically (and currently) oppressed and subjugated. They also believe that women make less pay for the same work. Etc. Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Any man, blue or red pill, who reads the Spreadsheet page and still believes AW are sane is dumber than a rock. I don’t have to write thousands of words telling men why they should not marry. Simply give them a link to that page!
Over and over, women on that page said no woman is obliged, ever, to give her husband or anyone else sex. And, so did a lot of White Knights. Each and every one of them is nuttier than a fruit cake.
I am old, men. Really old, heh, heh. I can remember how things were before the man-haters deliberately destroyed Marriage 1.0 by developing the concept of marital rape. That became a national campaign around 1985. I know, because I had been working at counseling divorced fathers for around one year, and definitely kept my ears open to the news from the gender war. At that time, I told the local group that any man who married under current law was an idiot. It was another ten years, 1995, before I met my first marriage striker; he was 20, not 24, and he was an excellent young man.
I also associated mostly with women, just as I do today in Mexico. Women were as confused at first as men were. “How can a man rape his own wife? That’s her job to give him sex when he needs it. If a woman doesn’t want to take care of her husband’s sexual needs, she should not have married him.” (NOTE: women in rural Mexico generally still subscribe to that viewpoint. Hint; hint!)
I, unlike AW and Manginas, am well aware of the historical reason women were expected to fill their husband’s needs.
Before we (temporarily) became a wealthy nation, which could afford to pay inefficient women $100,000 a year for do-nothing work, for a woman to have children and care for them, she needed a man to work and give her the money he earned from mostly hard and dangerous work.
Okay, so why would a man work long hours at risk of his life, and give most of the money to a woman for her kids? Without wife and kids, he could go live in the forest and work just enough to survive! He had to have some benefits. Male sexuality was well known. So, the obvious system was he would get sex when he needed it in exchange for his work/money. Without sex, he won’t sign up for a bad deal like that.
Everyone knew that, both men and women. And, this was the way it was for thousands of years (except for the last days of various civilizations which gave women the right to vote.
Women well know when they married, they gave BLANKET CONSENT to sex with the man they married. Until they were legally divorced or separated, he had the legal right to sex, because of that blanket consent.
If he took her in a violent manner, that could legally be assault, and he could be punished for that, (and men were punished for that, contrary to the beliefs of insane AW) but it was not rape. In truth, marital rape was considered to be legally impossible.
A man in my neighborhood one night in the late 60’s jumped his wife while she was asleep. She boasted rather happily to her friends about it, which is how the whole neighborhood heard about it. She said she woke to the most beautiful erotic dream she could imagine. No one even suggested she have him arrested.
Today, women have changed the rules. A man gets absolutely nothing for sharing the results of his work with a fiend and HER kids. Nothing. Except at her whim. Yet he is supposed to be so grateful for the privilege of sacrificing all his personal hopes and dreams to fulfill hers. And, not even get sex.
Anonymous 72 happy to hear sex doesn’t disappear in years in my 70s. Tell me, what you do with a man who’s either addicted to porn or doesn’t have enough for his wife or appears sexless and it’s she who’s defunct of the sex? that’s what happened to me in my marriage and that is a very sad situation 😦
The 60s have liberated females to be free and enjoy their sexuality, so now it’s me who wants it. I’m single again and partly for this reason.
I am now looking for a full time man to have sex with every day of my life (or near so) for the rest of my life, so sometimes things are not always as they appear in subsequent generations …
My wife and I went through a “at least once each day” stint when we were trying on our own to conceive a child (too old for that at the time most likely). It was harder than it would seem to keep up. Enjoyable, but the duty part killed some of the fun.
I would wonder if most older men could keep up to that in practice, without pills of course. Most health plans only pay for 3 to 4 of those a month anyway, if at all….
I am not as old as you seem to indicate and I don’t view that as likely, even if my wife were up for it. The drive does slow down in even those of us who had much more at a younger age. (I am not saying it goes away of course, just that the pressure is much lower.)
@1kingofkings
“Come on Cicero, if I’m looking just for Male attention seeking, what are you? the batterer?”
Hmmm… seems that* hit* a nerve on that one.
Give and take you say. Well then if that is truly the case why don’t you, before you leave your house, answer the following question for me.
What do you think the 2 unconditional needs are for men in a relationship from their partner?
You are missing the point Cicero. The man gives, she takes. That is the give and take most woman want. My wife admits that when I push the issue, though we are still working through that one.
1kings, your attitude would likely kill that likelihood, unless you are really, really hot. Even then the attitude would likely overwhelm the physical beauty, especially since that continually rolls downhill over time.
@BradA
Hahaha yeah. That is what I was trying to highlight to her with the question. I am sure she has no clue what the answer is to it.
Ras Al Ghul… Please consider the following comments:
“…God imbodies all those “negative characteristics” of Zeus: willful, unpredictable and moody… He is unpredictable, I would say moody, vengeful, angry. Whole groups of people get punsihed for the transgressions of a few.”
All of the people in the Old Testament were came into the world by God’s grace; justice would have ended their existence before it began: they would have died in the bowels of Adam if he had died immediately after violating the commandment concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But by grace Adam lived to father children, and all of his descendants owe whatever life they are given solely to God’s grace.
“He lets his children languish as slaves in Egypt for generations, if that isn’t an “absentee father” which they’re decrying, I don’t know what is.” Again, whatever life the children of Israel had in Egypt is by God’s grace; justice would have destroyed them in Adam. Furthermore, unlike all of the other nations, they had the promises of God to comfort them in their hardship, and this too was by grace.
“smug, empty God is love and kindness and we’re not like the nasty pagans or muslims but they are lying. God’s love is not unconditional, or there wouldn’t be a Hell, there wouldn’t be people that are “saved.” He may very well offer redemption and love to those who will take it and enter in a relationship with him, but there is a give and take.”
God is love, and God’s love is effectual; the love of God came into the world as Jesus, the love of God took the punishment that His people deserved for their sins, and the love of God removes their guilt, makes them spiritually alive with an everlasting life.
“The whole idea of unconditional love is a corruption, a get out of jail free card. You can’t love someone that loves you unconditionally because there is no impetus to do so, no need to do so, you don’t respect it, its not valued.”
When the love of God removes the guilt of His people and gives them everlasting spiritual life, it dwells within them and expresses itself as love for God, for others, and even for their enemies.
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
Pingback: Addicted to Choice? | Notes From a Red Pill Girl