There was a problem with the time scaling of the remarriage rate chart in my last post. Here is the fixed version:
I also decided to take another look at the data in the NCFMR paper I used for this post. I created all of the charts below using point estimates I derived from the NCFMR charts with the Engauge Digitizer tool (H/T Inge). I used a different estimation method when creating this chart in the past so some of the estimates are slightly different.
Here is a comparison of men’s remarriage rates in 1990 and 2011 broken down into ten year categories. Note that the over 65 value for 1990 doesn’t match the same value in the chart at the top of the page (16 vs 19). These appear to be different data sources, and some of the difference could be due to my having to estimate the numbers in the chart below. However, the 2011 value for men over 65 below is almost exactly the same as the 2010 value in the chart at the top of the page (13 vs 12).
Here is the same chart for women. Interestingly while men in all age brackets have become less likely to remarry, all of the reduction in remarriage rates for women happened in the younger age brackets. Even for men however the biggest changes happened in the youngest brackets. This reduction in remarriage in the younger age brackets is bad news for women who want to have it all, because nearly two thirds of the women divorcing are under 45.
The next chart lets you compare men’s and women’s remarriage rates across age brackets in the present:
Here you can compare men’s and women’s remarriage rates back in 1990. Note the same crossover as the 2011 chart between the first and second age bracket where men become more likely to remarry than women. This fits nicely with Rollo’s chart on SMV.
Finally, I focused on the 25-54 age brackets and showed the trend for each sex and age category combination from 1990 to 2011:
Pingback: More remarriage rate charts. | Manosphere.com
As I was reading the text and charts, the instant the 2011 remarriage chart was fully on screen I thought “Hah! Rollo’s SMV chart in a piecewise format, what a great find!” and of course you’d already spotted it. From the previous thread recall the claim that in both New Zealand and British Columbia laws have been enacted that enable governent to declare heterosexual couples “married” if they cohabit for some period of time (2 to 3 years), regardless of their own desires in the matter. This brings them into the marriage 2.0 system completely, whether they want it or not.
Wide enactment of that law would cause some changes in the marriage and remarriage rate, perhaps, but it isn’t clear how long that would last. Because just as men have responded to the entire furball of marriage 2.0 by declining to remarry, it is possible and even likely that men would respond to forced marriage by declining to cohabit with a woman for more than a year or so…or perhaps at all.
As your visualization of the available data clearly shows, the current regime of marriage in the US is not really working out as expected. Tinkering around the edges via such things as state-imposed marriage status for cohabiting heterosexual couples won’t solve the problems, either. The solutions required are not politically palatable, so they won’t even be discussed outside of certain parts of the Internet.
So long as there is enough excess capacity in the US economic system, I do not see off hand how these trends reverse at the national level. There are various subcultures within the US, mostly religious, that seek to prevent divorce and other damaging social events inside their own group. Most of them seem to be too new to really have a track record. The Mennonite and Amish Christians and the Orthodox Jewish groups do have something of a track record, but little influence on the larger culture. Perhaps that is the best any group can expect, at this time; “yes, the rest of the world is screwed up, but our people take care of their own”.
AR brings up an interesting point – states are starting to declare that people are married whether they are or not. “Old-fashioned” common law marriage in the U.S. was generally based on the idea that a woman who filled the role of wife was entitled to the legal status and protections of being a wife after a certain amount of time. It was never for the benefit of men.
But now that marriage is such a crappy deal for men, marriage and remarriage rates are in rapid decline. People are still living together either 1) in unregistered marriages or 2) are shacking up, though. But the FI cannot permit large numbers of women to lose that status or protection that used to be reserved for faithful wives, even though it is women who have led the assault on marriage. So governments are starting to treat the unregistered and temporary relationships that women CAN get as marriages for legal purposes, so that modern women – like their counterparts from earlier centuries who lived with men – get the status and protections of wives just by being present and female for a while.
That neatly allows women to dodge the responsibilities that wives took on that earned them wifely status and protection, while laying claim to that status and protection by force of arms (government enforcement).
That must be what they mean when they talk about “male privilege,” right?
It will be interesting to see how these numbers change as governments begin “marrying” people who do not consider themselves to be married based on having the same address. I predict that there will be a case where a man shares a mailing address with a female tenant… but they are not living as man and wife. The woman will have a bastard child and apply for benefits, and the state will go after the guy because he will be declared the legal husband based on cohabitation. The fact that she was his tenant and nothing more with not matter, and the DNA mismatch won’t matter, either, since husbands are almost always legally responsible for the children their wives bear no matter what.
Imagine what would happen to the economy if a lot of people took their savings and put it in their mattress. It would be a bad thing, so we encourage people to put their money in the bank. We don’t have to tar and feather every person who puts their money in their mattress, we just need a system that encourages behavior that helps society as a whole. I.e., saving and investing.
For some reason (in the modern liberal mind) that doesn’t apply to marriage, which is clearly a net good for society. To the liberal, policies that encourage marriage are discriminatory.
@AR,
in Canada the only safe place is Quebec. it was recently upheld that their civil code which does not recognize common law marriage is not discrimination. it is the only place in Canada where you are free to order your household as you see fit. if you want to get married get married if you don’t get married you will never be deemed married.
Something that confused me was how the remarriage rates for men could be so much higher than for women. That could only happen if men were marrying first time wives, which means a much larger number of never married men than never married women.
There is data suggest this is the case from SSA, but I am not convinced that the gap matches the what this data indicates (nearly twice as many divorced men remarry as women). SSA reports that 55-64 year old men (in 2000) were never married at 5.7% whereas never married women in that category was 5.0%
SOURCE: The Never-Married in Old Age: Projections and Concerns for the Near Future
Well, a woman that wants to get remarried (or by extension married) up to about 34 looks like she can do it at the current rates of around a hundred a year per thousand.
Which means there’s enough dumb men out there still willing to marry that this isn’t a full blown crisis for women . . . at the current rate the remarriage rate for 25-34 year old women is dropping though in another 17 years only a third of them will be able to remarry
I think there’s another element to that. A society based on stable marriages is good for the people who live in it, but it imposes obligations on both men and women. Everyone likes the societal benefits, and few people have any problem with men having obligations, but where the problem arises is that society no longer believes that women should have meaningful obligations.
They should be able to render themselves un-marriageable by racking up a high notch count in their teens and 20’s, they should have absolute reproductive freedom and be subsidized if they can’t afford the consequences of their choices, they should be given hiring and promotion preferences despite the fact that most women want to marry up financially, and they want divorce to be unilateral and lucrative for women. Well… society gave them all those things, but people are starting to notice that the societal benefits of marriage are decreasing – men are doing less, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
In order to keep the machine greased and fueled, the state and the society is conferring the obligations of husbands onto all men – including unmarried men – in the form of taxes that men pay disproportionately and the new trend in giving men the responsibilities of husbands whenever a nearby woman has a problem. Even our dim-bulb Vice President thinks that any man should intervene when some skank gets drunk and decides to do a six-way with the basketball team.
Dal, I too made this connection to my SMV graph before I saw the link. Thanks for that.
I think in time that graph will be corroborated with more and more hard data. I see it expressed not just in manosphere observations but in women’s own confessions and hard studies. I have a growing collection of links (including this one now, thanks) to emphasize that I wasn’t pulling this stuff outta my ass or reading tea leaves when I made the graph.
Lyn87
“Old-fashioned” common law marriage in the U.S. was generally based on the idea that a woman who filled the role of wife was entitled to the legal status and protections of being a wife after a certain amount of time. It was never for the benefit of men.
If I remember correctly, at least in the plains states and the West, cohabitation was not enough, the couple also had to “hold themself out as man and wife”. This is not just some idle term, it codified intent. It meant that the homesteaders a day’s ride out of Fort Caspar in Wyoming could consider themselves married even though they didn’t have a territorial license nor had they participated in a ceremony in front of a preacher. Common law marriage (don’t tell certain parties who post here) was likely an expedient for generations on the US frontier.
But the wording & intent also meant that a prostitute living for a while with her pimp in a mining camp up in the mountains wasn’t a common law wife. Just to pick one example, there are others.
IMO the common law marriage law was intended to benefit those people who intended to marry, but circumstances kept them from being able to have a ceremony or, eventually, a license. It was specifically not intended to benefit loose women or caddish men.
The BC / NZ “time’s up! You’re married!” law turns the old law inside out. It’s clearly something that both feminists and tradcons would support, because in some sense it codified “ManUP!” into law. If widely accepted it likely would cause a blip in the charts Dalrock shows above, and then more decline as men wised up to the new dangers of sharing quarters with women.
Pingback: caption id= align= alignleft width= 459 lots… | Honor Dads
AmicusC, can you or other Canucks point to references on this ? Because if BC is not an outlier, if all or most of the other provinces have adopted this “2 years and yer married, har!” law then Canada has started a really interesting experiment. We need to pay close attention to this.
Now I’m wondering how this law can be applied to men living with women, but not necessarily to men living with men; because otherwise, merely having a roomate in college for a couple of years would necessitate homogamy. Yet this seems actionable on the grounds of sexual discrimination, although IANAL and doubly so in Canada.
What is interesting to me is a combination.
The 2011 remarriages chart mimics Rollo’s SMV chart — both men and women are picky and wanting to marry attractive spoues.
Dalrock_images/remarriage_men_women_age_2011.jpg?w=640&h=486
https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/smv_curve1.jpg?w=490&h=240
But the median age of marriage chart follows only women’s preferences about marrying a spouse who is slightly older.
Dalrock_images/medianagemarriage1950to2011.jpg?w=604&h=437
The interpretation is that many men would like to marry a younger woman, but those proposals are either never actually voiced or are refused because she does not find him attractive.
Sometimes I talk about marriage statistics with college students. The adage “Wed a lieutenant to marry a general” often fascinates those young women. It seems a new idea to them, and they respect their grandmother’s wisdom (often more than their mother’s advice).
I suspect that during the next decade we will see younger women marrying more. At least my personal anectdotes suggest they see younger marriage itself as unattractive, not young men. Change will only require dispelling the myth that an attractive spouse is surely waiting for them in their 35-year-old future, or spreading the meme spreads that “the only women that say there are no good men are the women who waited until the good men near their age already married”.
Imagine what would happen if either is compounded by the new meme “Fewer and fewer men will remarry: women who try a ‘starter marriage’ are ruining good men for the rest of us!”
Hm. Why did some links stay links and other turn to graphs? I meant them all to be links!
AR,
here is a story about the quebec case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/common-law-and-married-couples-not-due-same-rights-in-quebec-court-1.1129045)
it has this bit “Other provinces in Canada have provisions for spousal support, but under Quebec laws, partners do not owe each other anything when a common-law union ends”
but essentially the difference between Quebec and everyone else is that Quebec is based on civil law, meaning it has to be in a statute there is really no such thing as “common law” in Quebec. the rest of Canada has that and as such the law can “develop” as cases are heard and the law reflects the changing nature of society. basically every province, cant think of one that doesn’t, has rules about common law (meaning it doesn’t have to be enacted in legislation to be a law) that if you live together for more that 2 -4 years you are married and all the provisions of law related to marriage or the dissolution thereof apply to you.
some provinces have codified common law to abridge the time in the event there is a child of the relationship. the time can be shortened to 6 months – 1 year depending and in Alberta is even more vague as just saying of “some permanence”
“Adult interdependent partner
3(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is the adult interdependent partner of another person if
(a) the person has lived with the other person in a relationship of interdependence
(i) for a continuous period of not less than 3 years, or
(ii) of some permanence, if there is a child of the relationship by birth or adoption,
or
(b) the person has entered into an adult interdependent partner agreement with the other person under section 7.”
my apologies if this comes out formatted terribly.
AR,
I don’t have any major disagreements with your assessment: common law did include intent. My point is that as states and provinces begin declaring marriages based on sharing an address, it will be weaponized against men who merely share living space with a woman if it is in her or the state’s interest to shackle him with the responsibilities of a husband. (He won’t get any significant rights for being a husband of course – because husbands have no real legally-recognized rights to begin with.)
Courts already ignore the wishes of women who don’t want CS from men once the women apply for public aid. If the state can find a man with a connection to the woman or the child, they often go after his paycheck, even if they know that he is the victim of paternity fraud or even rape.
There is no way that innocent men are not going to have their lives ruined by this. It’s getting to the point where the only rational thing for a man to do is just avoid women. That’s bad for everyone, since a society based on marriage is the only kind that creates long-term stability and prosperity.
AR, forgot to mention this has been the lay of the land in Canada for quite some time it is not a recent phenomenon
As a man in his 40s, I can tell you three things that dissuade me from dating, let alone marrying, a divorced 45 year old woman:
1) The Bible (she’s simply still married to the other man), though Instone Brewer raises some challenging thoughts in his book on divorce and remarriage.
2) Divorced women seemed to be either very broken by a bad man or frivorced a decent man. Neither is appealing for LTR
3) Most coldly, but honestly, the 45YO is on the cusp of menopause. I need to be really committed to a woman to take the roulette spin with “the change.” Some women get through it ok. Some women become shrieking harpies and never regain a pleasant demeanor.
So, if I date, it’s younger, never married women. True, they may be carrousel riders, but most divorcees are not only former riders, but also emboldenend by our culture to dominate a relationship. They don’t even have the pretense of “egalitarian” relationships, once they got a taste of how our society tolerates misandry.
@WillBest
Much of this is explained by the fact that women tend to marry men older than them and vice versa. This shows up in several different ways, including there being fewer divorced men in the younger categories than women (because fewer men than women of that age have ever married). It also shows up in older divorced men remarrying younger women (never married, divorced or widowed).
@AR, I live in one of the nine common-law marriage states, and all that I’ve been able to find speaks only of the advantage of being considered married, and here there is no time limit, but they must hold themselves as being married.
@Anchorman, excellent summation.
Lyn87,
+1
While the family structure was easy enough to destroy, the value of marriage to “Society” could not be denied whole hog (yet), so the ideal has been recast by the progs to fit within their totalitarian designs. Call it the end of patriarchy, but it goes further than headship; it is the removal of the individual and his liberty.
What was a union between a man and a woman, providing for stability, safety, productivity, and responsibility through their personal choices and labours has been bastardized into transitory state-sanctioned (enforced) entities complete with illusory rights and perpetual responsibilities defined and granted via the State, for the benefit of the State, as a means to further assert its powers – be it taxation or other exactions, into the deepest and most sacred personal realms.
The marital benefit (and thus his incentive) is no longer about the individual man but about greater State control over the administration of his fungible male utility. Having men yoked to this vehicle is merely a way to annuitize those men who self-select for responsibility. While opting-out of marriage does not exempt a man from the overarching systemic mechanisms of de-facto responsibility and redistribution of his utility, it does afford him a sliver of liberty.
The fact that so many of these men who opt out are apparently content to exercise their remaining liberty via the consumption of sex and goods is indicative of just how tight the totalitarian noose has become. The State only cares about marriage to the extent that the balance of the system might not fully capture his utility.
So it seems to me that the primary incentive and benefits to the individual man and woman who choose to marry have been supplanted by those second order benefits to the community and society at large. We see that even within robust marriages, the State seeks to assert control for the “good of the child”, which is to say the “good of the public” since “it takes a village” and these are really “all our” children.
The State has sought to invert how the benefits flow, to appropriate those private benefits in order to shore-up the growing population of people who no longer possess even the notion of personal worth, ambition, responsibility, or liberty. With the inversion of these benefits it is hard not to see how the incentives might also be inverted for a man who manages to see these things in himself, despite the ongoing efforts to engineer those things out of him.
For me, the decision to marry not only carries great difficulty in finding a worthy and able woman but also a kind of existential risk as it now includes knowingly subverting my individual rights and duties to god, wife, and family to those things determined and enforced by the State. What remains of my liberty is too valuable to deposit with the State for some tertiary benefits subject to the whims of a woman who has been told her entire life that her happiness is paramount.
how they sell it : http://www.penningtons.co.uk/news-publications/latest-news/cohabitation-%E2%80%93-marriage%E2%80%93lite-or-a-new-set-of-rights/
Hmmm…’RIGHTS’…on the surface this sounds good…but the cynical side of me suspects that as marriage rates drop , divorce rates climb and the welfare state struggles with it’s self inflicted wounds..there will be more attempts by government to pronounce people ‘married’ even if they CHOSE to not make a legal,social,financial ,moral or psychological commitment..Why?..MONEY…all these ‘times up you’re married’ cases will need lawyers,judges and government clerks and programs to administer them…they will just widen the net and replaced marriage and divorce with cohabitation and common law cases and clients
@AR, Yes BC is an outlier at this time. All Canadian provinces (except Quebec) have some form of common law relationship status, with varying legal obligations, but BC is the first to make that legally equivalent to marriage. In particular:
“Property division applies to married spouses and to unmarried spouses who have lived in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years.”
I dodged a huge bullet on this one, a few years ago. I’m pretty sure this has never been the case anywhere else. Note the requirement for “marriage-like” relationship. This won’t apply to roommate situations but will apply to homosexual couples.
BC gov web site: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/family-law/
Some other considerations: ‘Want’s’ got nothing to do with it. It’s easy for men to anonymously have a preference for younger women in an online data survey, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into actions that will get him into that situation. “Teens” may be men’s #1 internet porn search, but it doesn’t mean they feel they’re entitled to, or can realize that desire.
There is a social stigmatization for men who actually do date younger than the ‘Half Plus 7’ threshold. Additionally, men are shamed for this preference by post-Wall women in order to preserve these women’s past-prime sexual selection while in SMP competition with the younger women men prefer. Thus men internalize this shame and never attempt to consolidate on younger women.
@ davidvs
You hit on what I saw when Dalrocks uploaded his post a few days ago with all those charts. I’ve been too busy to blog about it yet, although I hope to make time soon. But it seems fairly clear from the data that women, at the very least, have some responsibility for the delay in first marriage rates. Men might also have a role, although it is clear. But clearly women are responsible to some degree.
Sadly marriage used to be a sign of a freedom and liberty.
Both require minimum government interference. To which we have continued to increase at ever expanding rates (e.g. exponentially).
If you take a look at the Castle Doctrines you find that each man was King of his Castle. The government has ex-communicated this doctrine at the federally and at state levels for years.
Being married entitled a man to family, by virtue of his bride, now sullied by government incentives. Socialism / Feminism have long been at the head of the table for special treatment due to its direct link to the destruction of capitalism/freedom/liberty.
Children (male and female) now grow up in this environment of ever increasing government, not knowing what the past culture accomplished and fought for to gain such freedoms and liberties. They in turn exist in this government education system (school teachers’ unions/media/pop-culture/broken families/etc.) and conclude that the answer is more government. Like Darlock said it’s a vicious circle for their children too.
Add the conduct of the current women to these recently gained incentives and we are just starting to see the wind-up (or down) of the decline of all things marriage.
It is the government that is married to the current marriage and divorce economy. They gutted the meaning and definitions of marriage while leaving intact the name. It is nothing more than a trademark now. This farce is the elephant in the room.
Just as other countries have gone down this road we too will enact more laws to maintain women in the driver’s seat of marriage and divorce for years to come. All at the end of gun (i.e. government). Sweden is one country you can look at to see our future. Our government has lots of tread left on these tires.
We now have all the mechanisms in place to really put the screws to ALL american’s (via more loss of freedom’s and liberty’s via federal law) that do not comply. The incentives will come thru forced labor (i.e. taxes / etc) of the single men who choose not to participate in the script.
In the end they will have to build fences and arm border security guards to keep our American men here and from leaving the country. Sorta like the righteous indignation they show when company’s move off-shore legally.
@ Rollo
As someone who has disregarded that shame, I can tell you that there is more to it. Young women often really aren’t all that interested in marriage. I’ve written before about one such young woman- a fairly devout Christian (who I had every reason to believe was a virgin) who not interested in marrying until she was in her late, late 20s.
I know other women who have delayed or postponed marriage. Some just avoid serious LTRs. Others embrace them, but don’t give signals that they want to be married. I know one who has openly voiced to me fear of commitment.
Not that all women are like this. But many, if not most of them, are not interested in marrying young. Those who are interested, and get serious about it, nearly always succeed from my observations.
This is why we need feminism!!!
“society no longer believes that women should have meaningful obligations”
Great post, Lyn.
The REal Peterman
This is why we need feminism!!!
Absolutely.
There is no problem created by feminism that cannot be solved by MOAR FEMINISM!
I read this on the Intertubes, it must be true.
Now, where’s my cowbell?
Good. This diseased institution needs to be put to bed.
Marriage is about taxes, benefits, lawyers, accountants,feminists, counselors, domestic violence whatevers….
When the mass of ticks outweigh the dog, it’s time to put it down.
I’d like to see a chart showing the age of the man and woman who marry, comparing 1960, 1990, and 2010.
I should have said, “I’d like to see three charts…for 1960, 1990, and 2010.”
Donal:
“As someone who has disregarded that shame, I can tell you that there is more to it. Young women often really aren’t all that interested in marriage.”
It goes deeper than that. A woman in her early twenties that I know is a teacher. Attractive, thin, spends every Sunday going to dinner with her family at her grandmothers, goes to church, loves children make this statement:
“Marriage turns love into an obligation. Instead of being with someone because you want to be, you’re with them because you have to be and that’s not love.”
On the one hand she sees marriage as a forever kind of deal because you’re with them because you have to be, but she views marriage as anti-love and doesn’t want to be part of it.
@Ra’s Al Ghul
That’s hamster-speak for “commitment kills the attraction” and this is a girl signaling she needs dread game.
@ Ra’s Al Ghul
Ouch. That woman’s understanding of both love and marriage needs some serious work. Of course, same with most of the young women I know.
It is all very depressing to think about, really.
@ Ra’s Al Ghul
I’ve heard the same thing. Granted, I only dated one in her 20s, but that was her sentiment to a “T”
When someone (Dalrock?) said today’s marriage is really state-endorsed boyfriend/girlfriend, I couldn’t help but recall what she said.
What’s really messed up is that she came from an intact and (presumably) loving household. Mom and dad together for 30+ years.
Yet, she was still absolutely sour on marriage and saw it as, “I could only date this guy for the rest of my life” and not, “We marry for the purpose of becoming one.”
I dodged a huge bullet on this one, a few years ago. I’m pretty sure this has never been the case anywhere else. Note the requirement for “marriage-like” relationship. This won’t apply to roommate situations but will apply to homosexual couples.
Basically if you’re living together and having sex, you’re in a marriage-like relationship.
These kinds of laws were inevitable, I think. There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying. No way.
@Anonymous Reader from October 7, 2014 at 11:00 am:
The old adage comes to mind:
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
@Anon Reader
I can’t imagine a political push to do this, and I’m guessing where it happened in BC and NZ it happened by judicial decree, not via the political process. Feminists may like the idea of soaking men for more money, but they can’t be seen as campaigning to put women in an institution they have defined from the beginning as “trapping” women without the woman actively consenting. No means no feminists! For Trad Cons, the issue is different. They have spent decades ignoring divorce and the carousel, and focused all of their angst on the evils of “living together”. Their whole argument has been that the piece of paper is everything, or as Stanton put it in the title of his book “The ring makes all the difference”.
I don’t see Trad Cons or Feminists advocating for retroactive common law marriage any time soon.
Pingback: Been there, done that, not again | Observing the Decline
Dalrock
I can’t imagine a political push to do this, and I’m guessing where it happened in BC and NZ it happened by judicial decree, not via the political process.
It would be interesting to know how these laws came about. Politics in New Zealand may be a bit strange by US standards.
Feminists may like the idea of soaking men for more money, but they can’t be seen as campaigning to put women in an institution they have defined from the beginning as “trapping” women without the woman actively consenting. No means no feminists!
Don’t be so sure. Just because 2nd stage feminists regarded marriage as a trap, it doesn’t at all follow that 3rd or 4th stage femism will agree. Note that the Alberta law cited above tosses out time limits when a child is involved. “No means no” may not be as powerful as “For the Children!”. And really, it isn’t as if feminism has ever really displayed much in the way of consistency or intellectual coherence.
By forcing marriage on any man cohabiting with a woman who has a child (no matter who the father is) such a law would hand a free detonator button to her to use for cash and prizes when she ceases to be haaaapppy. Forcing some Bad Man to sit under the tip of the sword, the threatpoint. That would seem to me to have great appeal to the aging 2nd stage feminists who now are post menopausal and want grandchildren, as well as to the late 2nd stage / early 3rd stage feminists approaching the Wall. More duties for men, more options for women, what’s not to like from the femniist perspecitve?
For Trad Cons, the issue is different. They have spent decades ignoring divorce and the carousel, and focused all of their angst on the evils of “living together”. Their whole argument has been that the piece of paper is everything, or as Stanton put it in the title of his book “The ring makes all the difference”.
Sure, and this would be a chance for Tradcons to really do something in support of marriage, by making all those Bad Men finally ManUP and marry a slut. Shucks, it’s a slam dunk – more marriages and it’s for the children, I bet I could roll this idea past tradcons and have them on board in a matter of minutes.
I don’t see Trad Cons or Feminists advocating for retroactive common law marriage any time soon.
Not retroactive, nope, but a quiet “for the children” crusade with a 2 to 3 year time window, similar to BC’s? I can see it. I can see feminists bitterly arguing over it but since it benefits women and harms men in the short term, eventually enough coming around to suppport it. Tradcons? Heck, yeah! Punish men, White Knight for women, further degrade marriage in the real world….what tradcon could resist?
Looks like a new expense to the marriage equation is in the works ..
I wonder how much this makes a difference in the decline.
Not retroactive, nope, but a quiet “for the children” crusade with a 2 to 3 year time window, similar to BC’s? I can see it. I can see feminists bitterly arguing over it but since it benefits women and harms men in the short term, eventually enough coming around to suppport it. Tradcons? Heck, yeah! Punish men, White Knight for women, further degrade marriage in the real world….what tradcon could resist?
The arguments I would see in favor of it for conservatives are (1) encourages men to be “responsible” when it comes to women and sex and (2) encourages men to marry because they’re going to be treated like they are married anyway, regardless, and encouraging men to marry and “be responsible” is good thing, for conservatives.
I thought my blockquote would link the article .. it didn’t so ..
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/10/06/cdc-110-million-americans-have-stds-at-any-given-time/
Pingback: Quote Of The Day | Donal Graeme
Novaseeker and the others are correct- Trad Cons would eat that up. Heck, I’ve heard some make that kind of argument before.
@Anon Reader
The thing is, child support is where the real power is already. This is why I don’t understand the whole push to marry in the church but not marry legally, etc. You father a child with a woman and they treat you like you are divorced whether you married or not. The only benefit would be division of assets and alimony. Nothing to sneeze at I know, but really if you have a child she already has you. As far as what is not to like, women won’t like the loss of “freedom”. Right now a carouseller can swing from man to man and then ultimately marry “for the first time”. If she divorces, she is a one time divorcée on her way to having it all. If the state starts counting every guy she shacked up with and then broke up with as a divorce, her first trip down the aisle will be as a multiple divorcée. Women will hate that (even though they would like the cash and prizes).
You might be right. I still think it is a tough argument for them to shift to, especially since they have jettisoned the idea of moral meaning to vows and this has left them strictly celebrating the ceremony and the “intentionality” of marriage. They would have to walk away from this last vestige of marriage and nakedly admit they are all about the cash and prizes and state sanctioning of girlfriend and boyfriend relationships. I just don’t see this, especially since conservatism is about going with the status quo.
Gay marriage will make this even more interesting. As I understand the recent moves by the court, we are looking at it becoming law of the land in a few more years. In the meantime, we will have gays legally marrying in some states anyway. Any rule of de facto marriage would have to be applied equally to gays living together. It would be unfair not to.
Artisanal Toad says:
@Ra’s Al Ghul
“That’s hamster-speak for “commitment kills the attraction” and this is a girl signaling she needs dread game.”
True and its an honest assessment of the situation on the ground. Commitment does kill attraction, its the first step on the downhill slide of a man’s power in the relationship.
Donal:
“Ouch. That woman’s understanding of both love and marriage needs some serious work. Of course, same with most of the young women I know”
The problem Donal, is that her assessment is pragmatic when viewed objectively to the way our society treats love and marriage. Marriage 2.0 does kill love, it was designed to kill love and looking at most marriages, they aren’t loving arrangements. Marriage 1.0 balanced the power between the parties involved, it required commitment from the man and uncontrolled access to her sex.
Restricting sex is one of the key ways women dominate their husbands, and ultimately destroy their relationship.
Anchorman:
That’s the thing about the girl, she is pretty, thin, family oriented, smart enough, works and is anti-marriage. That tune may very well change as she gets older, but even if it does, there’s an inherent resignation to it when it happens. It won’t be an exciting moment, but a cashing in which as I have noted happens rapidly at 29 or so. (Rollo’s epiphany stage). I have watched that play out repeatedly (sometimes with in destructive fashions).
20 years ago, you could hear men say this, the fact that women are saying it does not bode well for marriage.
Novaseeker:
While there will be more an more ways to make men pay indirectly for women (health care taxes, social security, taxes in general) and more and more programs, I don’t think defacto marriage will get much traction through legislation.
Simply because the drive is to give women maximum freedom without consequences, while simultaneously restricting men as much as possible . . .
Now that I think of it, marriage does not place any restrictions, responsibilities, or obligations on women now while restricting men in a number of ways, so you’re right, we’ll probably have this law within two years. It will be interesting to see if the amount of time living together shortens to simple dating relationships over a certain period of time . . .
“Gay marriage will make this even more interesting. As I understand the recent moves by the court, we are looking at it becoming law of the land in a few more years.”
The places where gay marriage becomes legal, marriage rates end up dropping like a stone.
If the marriage rate continues to drop, the “status” of being married might push women into wanting cohabitation to equal marriage soon enough.
I don’t know. While feminism in general is certainly against marriage, there are feminists who get married. I could see feminism coming out with something like “why should men get to treat cohabiting women like wives while the wives get nothing in return?” and pushing for a law like this. It wouldn’t make any less sense than shouting about how strong and independent women are and how they don’t need men, while making men solely responsible for women’s safety.
Retroactive marriage declarations make sense if the goal is atomizing society. It’s a form of class warfare: make any relationship between men and women so threatening that we stop associating with each other.
@Ra’s al Ghul
Declaring cohabitation as equal to marriage has the same effect on the status of marriage. I don’t see American Trad Cons wanting to do this. They like being different for example than Europe, even though in Europe kids are more likely to grow up with their dad in the home. Trad Cons see the formality of the wedding/vows/ring as what makes marriage (and them) morally superior to other forms of serial monogamy. As I wrote above, this is all that is left because they walked away from moral meaning to vows several decades ago when they tacitly approved of no fault divorce. I could be wrong, but I would be quite surprised. Time will tell. But I would still be interested in seeing how it happened in other countries.
@Lyn87
I predict that if men and women are to marry informally in the future they will have separate addresses just to avoid being considered married by the state.
@donalgraeme
What they really are, are tradcon feminists.
Retroactive marriage declarations make sense if the goal is atomizing society. It’s a form of class warfare: make any relationship between men and women so threatening that we stop associating with each other.
Perhaps it is more about collectivizing society. If one destroys marriage and the family, then all sorts of state sponsored institutions can take it’s place.
Dalrock:
“Declaring cohabitation as equal to marriage has the same effect on the status of marriage. I don’t see American Trad Cons wanting to do this.”
But I wasn’t saying they’ll do it at the same time.
Gay marriage becomes legal in all fifty states, I expect the remarriage and marriage rates to be half what they are now in 5 years.
Half.
Look at the marriage rates of Toronto before and after gay marriage.
They’ll push for cohabitation to be marriage in reaction to the impact of gay marriage. Right now, reading those stats, pretty much any woman before the age of 35 can get married or remarried, 10% of divorced (baggage women) per year get remarried between 25 and 35 currently.
Even so more than half of the adults are not currently married in the United States.
When the divorced women between 25-35 have a remarriage rate of 3% a year, and it will get there eventually, the trad cons will cave on this to “preserve the institution” and make what is in practical terms a marriage, a legal marriage “to protect the women and children” from the predations of men.
Farm Boy:
“Perhaps it is more about collectivizing society. If one destroys marriage and the family, then all sorts of state sponsored institutions can take it’s place.”
The federal government has long made it a practice when hiring people to uproot them (even if the same job is nearby) and have them move far from family and friends, and then uproot them some more after a few years by “promoting them” to somewhere else.
It isn’t said, but the idea is obviously that if you have no family and friends, your coworkers will become your friends, and you will devote your loyalty and efforts toward the government.
People want to commit to something in their life, whether it is religion, or family, or a cause.
You destroy all those things and all that’s left is Big Sister.
@Dalrock
The thing is, child support is where the real power is already. This is why I don’t understand the whole push to marry in the church but not marry legally, etc. You father a child with a woman and they treat you like you are divorced whether you married or not.
What about these women that cohabit but have no children? They gave their V so they are entitled to get cash and prizes. The poor girls. They were tricked into cohabiting by these evil, evil men, who wasted their youth and innocence.
Declaring cohabitation as equal to marriage has the same effect on the status of marriage. I don’t see American Trad Cons wanting to do this. They like being different for example than Europe, even though in Europe kids are more likely to grow up with their dad in the home. Trad Cons see the formality of the wedding/vows/ring as what makes marriage (and them) morally superior to other forms of serial monogamy.
I guess it would go the following way. This thing will be not called marriage by TradCons but “receiving the benefits of marriage”.
The poor girl was IN LURRRV. She wanted so much to get married and be an honest woman but the evil, evil man tricked into cohabiting only because she thought it was the first step towards marriage (he fooled the poor girl). In fact, she would have preferred to get married in the first place because she is pure like the snow, but the evil, evil man took advantage of their innocence and naivete.
As a consequence, it is fair she receives an economic compensation for this fraud and exploitation. It was not a marriage but the guy fooled her in order to take all the advantages of marriage so he has to pay the full costs.
Of course, she is a sinner but who is not a sinner? Let’s not cast stones. She has grown up, she has matured, she has accepted Christ and know she is marrying for the first time (because the first time was not a marriage but the guy fooled her).
When my father was a kid in my home country, no man wanted to court a girl who has had a suitor before (“she is touched” was the expression, meaning “she is unmarriageable”). Now serial monogamy (before marriage) is normalized and even the most religious people don’t see anything wrong with that. I think this time it will go the same way.
Once gay couples start divorcing, how are the family courts going to know which party to screw over in the divorce? Will they just go after the one who makes the most money and give default custody of the children to the other? Or maybe whoever files first? If a man has to give his capital, property and future earnings to another man under penalty of incarceration that would kind of pull down the curtain and let everyone see that the divorce industry is really all about promoting peonage, ie. slavery.
Dalrock writes, Right now a carouseller can swing from man to man and then ultimately marry “for the first time”. If she divorces, she is a one time divorcée on her way to having it all. If the state starts counting every guy she shacked up with and then broke up with as a divorce, her first trip down the aisle will be as a multiple divorcée. Women will hate that (even though they would like the cash and prizes).
I see it a little differently. When couples shack up – I’m not talking about unregistered marriages among believers here – the state will declare them to be married only if the woman wants to cash out. If the couple just splits up and goes their separate ways like most cohabiting couples do (with no children), then everything is fine in her world. There would be no divorce, because the relationship was never registered as a marriage. So princess can leave and be a blushing “first-time” bride – no change from now. But… if the woman decides that she wants to be compensated for her time in the relationship, the courts will treat the man as a husband whose wife filed for divorce, which means he gets screwed and she gets paid. Her hamster will still allow her to think of herself as a “first-time” bride since she wasn’t married-and-divorced in her mind, she was in a relationship and got her due when she left.
Anyway, the state isn’t going to start mailing out pre-stamped marriage licenses to cohabiting couples – feminists wouldn’t stand for that – but this gives the state an ironclad legal cause to put responsibilities on men when their live-in girlfriends (or even female tenants) decide to cash out and move on.
TFH writes,
Elsewhere, look for some man who was not married to either lesbians to be hit with ‘child support’ judgments just for being affiliated in some way.
Look no further.
Link didn’t work:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article337100/Judge-rules-that-Kansan-who-provided-sperm-to-lesbian-couple-owes-child-support.html
Look no further
But Lyn87 says is completely correct and much better than I could express it with my broken English.
There is definitely a regression of sorts.
Marriage
Child support after divorce
Child support without marriage
?
It has to be remembered 1985 to 2010 was one of the greatest boons to women in history (due to the baby bust and skewed marriage age sex ratios creating a female shortage) for marring up.
Gen X women will be the first generation (since post WWII) to experience a dearth of marriageable men (due to flat birth rate and sex ratios caused by marriage age difference). These women will want men to pony up if they miss out on their golden parachute (divorce).
In the background there is constant white noise about the ‘costs’ women endure in relationships, more housework, lost earnings, domestic abuse, fertility costs etc. The axiom being established is that women endure ‘lost opportunity costs’ in relationships.
Add to that the talk of ‘consent’ (only in its infancy stage but consent apps are very very interesting) and you can see the FemNazis are trying to move towards the establishment of ‘opportunity costs’ to casual relationships. Lost opportunity is already a Tort and all it will need is one precedent for it to become normative.
@Lyn87
Ok. I see what you mean. It will be interesting to see. This goes against the current Trad Con thinking and momentum though. Right now the big idea is “Intentionality”. No one can say marriage vows have moral meaning, so now the importance of marriage is that it is an intentional relationship choice and commitment. This is true for Stanton of FOTF, Dennis Prager, and the Marriage Project. I might do a post on it later in the week laying it out if I have some time. There really is a large investment in this line of thinking.
Plus, I think the questions of palimony and common law marriage are pretty well established with case law (but I could be wrong).
I can foresee a time when Christians are simply going to opt out of the secular marriage system. They will quietly get married in church, but will not get a secular marriage license. Part of this may be if the government starts putting increased pressure on churches to force them to marry homosexuals, either by providing that if they do not marry homosexuals they cannot marry anyone at all (the risk in my state), or that they will lose their tax status if they do not marry homosexuals. The Catholic church here has already made some noises about considering no longer cooperating with the state in marriages (couples can be married in the church but will also have to go to a county clerk or judge to get a secular marriage)
Considering the implications of enacted laws, it would be prudent not to even have women as flatmates, lest the cohabitation effect kick in and suddenly you are liable to five up half of your assets just for the privilege of housing her.
This may work in men’s favour: The more men who refuse to house some for fear of the law will result in more homeless women, which in turn results in pressure on the State to take action.
Maunalani writes, “The Catholic church here has already made some noises about considering no longer cooperating with the state in marriages (couples can be married in the church but will also have to go to a county clerk or judge to get a secular marriage)”
Some years ago I was stationed overseas in a country where that was the norm. The government did not recognize marriages unless there was a public official involved. Religious couples also had weddings in churches, and did not consider themselves really married until they had done so. That was true of both Catholics and Protestants.
We were friends with an engaged couple (Protestant) and they did the civil ceremony first (if I recall correctly), then they did the church wedding, but only after they did both did they move in together.
I think you’re right about churches losing their tax-exempt status eventually, and I think you’re correct about it being used to coerce the faithful. Nobody has made a serious attempt to end it at the federal level yet. It’s not that there is any shortage of people who want it to end, but it would cause an enormous firestorm and the political tinder is not sufficiently dry for that. That day will come (and far worse), but in the meantime it can be used as a stick to bring churches into line about gay marriage and possibly female clergy. Before we see a blanket removal of tax-exempt status for all churches, we will see it used as a tool of extortion against recalcitrant pastors. Most denominations gave in on female clergy a long time ago with no coercion at all. A lot of those churches will perform gay marriages anyway because they’ve already established that they have rejected the clear teaching of the Bible. Some of those pastors will speak out “in condemnation of condemnation,” so to speak, and be invited to network talk shows to explain why the “haters” are wrong to refuse. The mega-churches, which tend to be doctrinal cesspools, will either go along (to their debasement), or take a stand and pay the price in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some smaller Bible-believing churches will simply close – most small churches have very tight budgets and many would not be able to pay their pastors if they had to pay those taxes. (Despite what a lot of people think; being a pastor of a small church is not going to make you rich. In fact, it will barely make you comfortable, and maybe not even that.) They (the faithful remnant?) are going to have to trust God, and we know from church history that when the church comes under stress and turns to God, big things can happen.
Buckle up – it’s going to be a wild ride.
Anchorman, I would run as far from the woman you mention as I could. She is not good marriage material. My wife did not want to be married when we got married (at least not at first). She believes God told her to not let me go and I believe God told me she was the one for me (and I was quite bull headed), but I believe that dislike of marriage ingrained in her has been a source of a great deal of the conflict in our marriage.
I certainly didn’t see the danger of such an attitude at the time, but I am now convinced it is very dangerous, even from a “godly woman.”
I would ultimately listen to what I saw as a clear word from God no matter what, but I would not recommend someone pursue a wife like that otherwise. Making sure it is really God, not just hormones speaking is very important in that situation.
The fact that the state will declare you married if bad things happen indicates to me that avoid the civil license is a rather weak gesture. It would also deprive a spouse of benefits coverage, in many cases, as well. I don’t think the State has any business being in marriage, but losing out things like health coverage and such could be VERY counterproductive in a truly committed relationship.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/10/08 | Free Northerner
Dalrock, I think the biggest reason why divorced women have a lower remarriage rate is they have a financial disincentive to remarry (if they are collecting alimony.) Seriously, I’ve seen this. I knew a woman who wrote a bit column for a newspaper. She had her own apartment not far from where I lived before I got married. She and I would occassionally get coffee on Sunday and she openly admitted to me that she would ONLY remarry if the earning power of her next husband would surpass the alimony she was already getting from husband number one. He was a medical doctor. I told her flat out that it would probably never happen and she was okay with that, she had her “resources.”
On the topic of keeping the State out of Marriage, frankly, the most likely best course of action is some of the alternate “civil union” setups. The main point, frankly, since keeping the State out is truly impossible, is to prevent the “Cash & Prizes” aspects. Or to utterly & drastically limit them.
This gets complex, you need lawyers and it depends on the State. But, at the current moment, that’s the most logical path for a Man that does find a Woman worth marrying. In Christian speak, it’s about “removing stumbling blocks”. In this case, it’s the major incentives for divorce. Because, frankly, for the last 200+ years, Americans have always had the “just leave town” Divorce option. There’s a reason there is still bigamy laws.
[The original, State Licensed Marriage required a Fault-Based Divorce to end. This was easy to get in certain areas, but, for the most part, it required lawyers & a lot of perjury. Though I think the social stigma carried more preventative weight. The modern “Marriage” carries much of the same penalties, so, for the Christian Man that does want to marry, limiting the assumed “Cash & Prizes” at the beginning adds the only functional level protection that can be provided. Plus, having it all down in contracts prevents the “sudden, common law marriage” attack.]
As for the great stats Dalrock put up (keep up the good work!), just more of the intentions of an evil culture, played out for all to “see” but ignore why they’re happening.
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV): Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe, indeed.
Just had a random thought: maybe it’d be better to just push that “Marriage” is oppressive, but “Benefit & Estate Contracts” are freeing?
That’s really the only play the Churches are going to have, not that they’ll listen for the time being.
There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying.
That has to be the most concise and yet accurate description of the Female Imperative I’ve seen. Bravo.
As soon as the church losses it’s tax exempt status they will be free. They can follow the word of god. They can campaign on political candidates. There is just something about paying your own way that is liberating.
Combine the conversation here with the yes means yes LAW they have in Kalifornia and MGTOW is going to be the only way of life for men. When Hitler’s army moved into Ukraine he was cheered. It will be real interesting to see who fights for the government. White heterosexual family men make up the majority by far of the combat arms of our military. Will the uprising against the government be seen as liberation by those guys? Right before battle the commanders will be past messages on diversity and given requirements for female and minority representation in leadership and high profile positions. In the mean time one of his family has a wife that is bailing on him with the kids.
I find the impact of gay marriage on marriage rates fascinating. First, gays are a tiny percent of the population so why would anyone care what they do (that given, I don’t think they should be able to legally marry).
Second, almost no gays marry even in states where they can. That is the big secret. After a rush of publicized weddings between some gay couples and the occasional lesbians marrying, very few gays marry in states where it is legal. Its shocking how rare it is when I last looked at the data. So, a tiny percent of a small percent of the population is destroying an institution that build a civilization.
But again, why should heterosexual people care what that tiny group does? Why should it impact their plans?
Kevin – “But again, why should heterosexual people care what that tiny group does?”
I actually pondered this question in a Christian context about the time I decided to walk away from my Church. The Christian Church once had a pretty decent stand against Homosexual Marriage but even that has waned. But the real damage has been allowing women to destroy their marriages, their children, their husbands … THEIR OWN FUTURE … and its all OK by the church. In fact they have “divorce care” programs to hold the hands of women, console them, tell them its OK to rape their husbands.
Divorce is a million times worse for the Christian community and yet oppose Gay Marriage. It makes no sense to me. That’s when I realized that the Christian Church I was attending had thrown in the towel opposing the Feminist Imperative and was beyond hope. Subsequent research has told me it wasn’t my church … its pretty much all churches in the US. That is just my opinion … don’t consider me an expert by any means.
“But again, why should heterosexual people care what that tiny group does? Why should it impact their plans?”
They might be tiny, but their influence currently is disproportionate, and they have a huge influence over women as a group.
They influence fashion and art, both areas where women are highly susceptible and what message do they send women about marriage?
That monogamy, sexual loyalty, doesn’t need to be part of it.
And that’s the damage.
It removes the last illusion for any man getting married, he might marry out of love, but to a man love = sexual loyalty from the woman (and for good reason, she sleeps around, not only is there a greater chance of stds and cuckoldry, there’s a greater chance she falls in love with the other guy).
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by getting married for a man in the west, and a lot to lose in terms of economics and obligations on his part.
You take the illusion of that last piece from her and what exactly does he get from marrying a woman?
Not even the illusion of her loyalty and fidelity.
greyghost,
> They can campaign on political candidates.
I am not sure that is as much of a benefit as it may seem. I am leaning toward those who say that involvement in modern elections is counterproductive and reinforces a corrupt system. That would mean church involvement in those could work against good purposes.
Ra’s
> There is absolutely nothing to be gained by getting married for a man in the west, and a lot to lose in terms of economics and obligations on his part.
Absolutely nothing? Not true. Huge risk? You bet. You can still get a faithful wife, it is just not as guaranteed and the system works against it.
It’s a form of class warfare: make any relationship between men and women so threatening that we stop associating with each other.
No. What’s happening is one-sided. It’s not like women are giving up on associating with men because they find it threatening. They don’t find it threatening. Why should they? All laws and social customs are designed to coddle them, and dangerous men are very rare anyway.
Absolutely nothing? Not true.
What is there to be gained that cannot be gained by staying unmarried?
@hoellenhund2
It’s not just women threatening these men though, it’s also men in power, who wish to gain and remain in power, in order to completely change our society. Feminism started as a branch of Marxism (specifically, a branch of Cultural Marxism, devised by the Frankfurt school). The entire point of the movements is to completely tear apart society, and replace it with something else, something “better”.
That said, the modern man, when facing this crisis, if he understands it, is likely going to act in enlightened self interest, and stay single. Personally, I see now as a time of crisis, and see Paul’s advice relevant to another crisis as very relevant.
1 Corinthians 7:25-28
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Not that marriage itself is bad, it’s not. It’s a wonderful thing. But I’m not even sure what we in the west have before us now can even be called marriage.
“Plus, I think the questions of palimony and common law marriage are pretty well established with case law (but I could be wrong).”
Yeah. It depends on the state. Family law decisions are governed by state laws and judicial decisions which can differ from state to state.
Common law marriage originated with “intent” on the part of both parties to the union and a set length of time (usually at least 5 years). Most states originally required the following:
1. Continuous and unbroken cohabitation during the entire prescribed period
2. Express “holding out” of each as the other’s spouse. Had to be express, open, notorious and consistent. It required not only him holding her out as his wife, but her holding him out as her husband.
3. Indicia of marriage: commingling of assets, joint ownership of assets, division of labor for the household, having kids together and supporting the kids. Living together as husband and wife. Taking vacations together, going to church together, being seen in public together. Doing the things that married people do, living like married people do.
4. Sexual congress – they have sex.
Common law marriage fell out of favor because too many of these unions were splitting up and the judges were having to conduct lengthy trials with conflicting evidence to figure out who was “married” and who wasn’t, so the marriage and divorce laws would kick in if there was a “marriage”. So states decided to pass uniform laws saying well, if you’re going to marry, here’s how you do it so that there won’t be issues later and so that the law knows how to treat this relationship.
Now, the return of “common law” marriage has as its basis not so much his intent, but HER intent. The relationship is whatever she wants it to be. Like Nova said, if you’re living with a woman and having sex, the law will now treat you as “married” (if she wants it to) so that she can get paid. The main reason here, I think, is women wanting to avoid getting taken advantage of and preserving the “exchange” nature of the male-female interaction. Women uniformly believe that if they’re giving a man sex, they should “get something” in return from that man. The only men who escape “paying” are dirtbags, because they can’t or won’t.
Now, the return of “common law” marriage has as its basis not so much his intent, but HER intent. The relationship is whatever she wants it to be. Like Nova said, if you’re living with a woman and having sex, the law will now treat you as “married” (if she wants it to) so that she can get paid. The main reason here, I think, is women wanting to avoid getting taken advantage of and preserving the “exchange” nature of the male-female interaction. Women uniformly believe that if they’re giving a man sex, they should “get something” in return from that man. The only men who escape “paying” are dirtbags, because they can’t or won’t.
“That is why I wonder if it is nature itself that wants to correct the adverse selection that let too many manginas reproduce.”
OMG, LOL!
I think you’re right about churches losing their tax-exempt status eventually, and I think you’re correct about it being used to coerce the faithful.
Real New Testament churches don’t seek Caesar’s blessing or permission to operate, so this will only hurt churchian corporate franchises, which aren’t Christian churches anyway. The good news is that the loss of tax exempt status, and resultant wailing and gnashing of teeth that will inevitably follow, will expose these corrupt, poisonous bodies for what they really are (to those remaining souls who are either too dense or too self-deluded to still not see it). That can only be a good thing.
Off topic but relevant to misandry:
I often agree with Ben Shapiro but when it comes to men’s issues he gets it very wrong. He eagerly espouses conservative white knighthood which blames men first and foremost for all problems.
Defending innocent women! Where does one find these innocent women?
Those evil, selfish abandoners! Clearly women have nothing to do with this issue.
Ben can be a pain in the ass for Leftists on most issues but he falls into lockstep with Feminism. As usual, most of the commenters on this article are eluded by the obvious…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/rise-of-the-barbarians/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/rise-barbarians
BrassCat:
Ben Shapiro is like most other men who write for conservative publications such as National Review, Weekly Standard, and the so-called “Online Right”, or conservative leaning political and religious websites. When it comes to sexual conduct, marriage and family, they are TradCons through and through. For men, it’s about no sex outside marriage and being a married drafthorse pulling the marital plow. Divorce and abortion are bad, but they’re bullet-bitingly necessary escape hatches for women in a hostile world full of eeevil men who don’t get married and don’t hitch themselves to a plow.
Men are the problem, because they won’t man up, meaning that men resist marriage and demand that they should “get something” in return for all the work they’re expected to do. They don’t have a right to expect anything from marriage and fatherhood; they’re just expected to do those things because they’re the right things to do. Women just “naturally” do the right things, because all they want is to be wives and mothers, and it’s eeeevil men who are denying women those privileges.
Deti,
You are absolutely right. They pedestalize women more fervently than anyone else. I’m a conservative (or at least I thought I was) but when the issues of divorce, child support, reproductive rights, and any women’s issues arise, I cringe. The TradCons have a mental block.
deti says:
October 8, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Deti nailed the left vs right situation. This is why I am not a conservative, liberal, progressive, or even libertarian. Neither do I view the political landscape left or right anymore. Almost everyone who has anything to lose in the MSM is feminist or tamed to comply with the feminist agenda. “Right” or “left” they are 1st and foremost feminist. Whats worse is that, aside from the church that I attend, the majority of people that I interact with regularly are feminist. What’s really sad is that many of them don’t even know it.
There are God fearing women out there. Yes they are hard to spot, but if you know what to look for you can find us. We are quietly volunteering in organizations. We are not polished in the ways of the world. I am not saying I am perfect, but i have seen how bad feminism has harmed my own family. There is a growing minority of women who want a more simpler traditional society. I would not lose hope in the ability for our culture to become better.
TFH said:
Examples of current pushes are universal pre-K and maternity leave. Both fit the template of benefiting women at the cost of men (on average). A major component of the Affordable Care Act effectively makes men pay for women’s reproductive costs.
I believe people go into politics for power, control, and influence. Never with noble intent. Labels–conservative, liberal, TradCon, etc.–are brand marketing. Charlie Crist, who is running for governor in Florida, was a Republican during his first term as governor. When he lost the office he became an Independent. Now he is a Democrat and trying to make a comeback. If trashing men gets more votes than it loses, don’t doubt that he’ll do it.
JDG says:
I’ve always called myself a conservative but it is a poor fit sometimes when someone (like Ben Shapiro) goes full mangina. Maybe I’ll call myself a ‘non-specified.’
Those unknowing feminists you interact with are practicing what I like to called Everyday Feminism (TM). Has a nice ring to it, like a Martha Stewart brand.
A license is a permission from a competent authority to do something you have no right to do. A marriage license is a special license for the purpose of miscegenation. In Meister v Moore the SCOTUS declared that marriage is a RIGHT and any laws requiring a license are “merely directory.” In other words, nothing more than a polite suggestion.
Why is this important? Because the state, by virtue of getting a license from them to marry, considers themselves a party to the marriage and an equitable partner (meaning they have an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage.). The children are the most valuable assets of the marriage. This is where the inheritance tax comes from. Man and woman marry, they have kids and work hard and perhaps they have some assets. The man dies, all assets accrue to the woman. She dies and the children come forward to inherit. The state says “as the sole remaining party to this marriage, buy me out.” It’s called an inheritance tax. The idea that the state has an equitable interest in the children is where the state gets the authority to require vaccination and compulsory school attendance.
The problem is that the church already drank the kool-aid. I seriously doubt if any single reader of this site actually belongs to a church. In fact, I’m willing to bet that not a single commenter on this blog belongs to a church. How can I say that? It’s easy. While I know there are more, I know of only two churches in the state of Alabama with more than 100 members. Seriously, this is about definitions. I can find yellow-page listings for thousands and thousands of not-for-profit incorporated business entities that provide services of a religious nature, but finding a real church is actually very difficult.
Hale v Henkel is a case that’s been cited over 1600 times. It’s as rock-solid a piece of case law as you can find. “The corporation is the creation of the state…” There is a huge difference between being tax exempt and having a tax exemption. In the first case, a church is exempt from taxation. The second is a privilege given to incorporated not-for-profit business entities that provide services of a religious nature to the general public. Any incorporated church has committed the idolatry of going to the state and claiming the state is their creator and the sole authority over them. This is why the states and the feds can pass laws saying that no political speech can be performed (can’t get a political candidate to speak, can’t endorse political candidates, etc). The creature is required to obey the laws of the creator.
It is blasphemy to claim that Jesus Christ is not the creator of the church, yet virtually every so-called church in the US has gone to the state and incorporated. Why? So they can get involved in commerce. So they can have bank accounts, accept checks and other instruments of commerce. So their pastor can be an employee and thus be protected from wrongful discharge. The legal industry has in interest in this, because the incorporated church must hire a licensed attorney for any litigation the church might be involved in. Best of all, being a corporation means that only the state code concerning corporations means anything. Forget the Bible, forget doctrinal statements. The corporation is the creation of the state and not-for-profit business entities providing services to the general public of a religious nature belongs to the state.
In the same way that a couple places the yoke of the state upon their marriage by getting a license to marry (which they are not required to do) the church has placed itself firmly under the authority of the state by incorporating. When I see commentators like idiotbystanderboston saying “I want to see the piece of paper” and going on and on about why it’s so important, it’s just another indication of a totally ignorant population.
Kris:
thanks for writing. There are unicorns out there, but they’re very, very few and very far between.
TFH
Even worse is how Tradcons place the well-being of women ahead of that of children.
Yes. Consider the Susan Smith case, for example. It’s like something out of an ancient myth; as if ancient myths from Greece and Sumeria and China actually had some connection to humanity.
Go figure.
I recall the reaction to the murderous Andrea Yates, who killed all of her children.Reaction both online at the Houston Chronic site, and on various mailing lists I was reading at the time. Feminists naturally defended her and blamed her husband, and her medical doctor, for her actions. That was no surprise, the nature of feminism had been clear to me since the late 1980’s. What was appalling to me at the time was the White Knighting by those who were politically and socially conservative. Men I knew whom I had previously thought highly of echoed the feminist arguments in a twisted way – the husband “should have known” she might do this, the doctor “should have known” she might do this, and therefore because they did not take action, they were at fault.
The alliance of “strong, independent women” who had no real problem with a woman drowning her babies, toddlers and 7 year old son in a bathtub were standing padded-shoulder-to-shoulder with “Law and order”, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” conservative men. I was stunned.
One expects feminists to rank the universe thus: women -> God – > children -> pets -> men.
At the time it was a surprise to find tradcons pretty much agreeing. I believe that a man has to be carrying around a certain degree of self-loathing or perhaps self-hatred to White Knight for a murdering mother or murdering wife.
“There are God fearing women out there. Yes they are hard to spot, but if you know what to look for you can find us.”
Stop hiding then. Or just piss off.
Anon Reader:
Count me as disgusted and stunned as you were, when the scales finally fell from my eyes in early 2011. It became clear to me.
For tradcons and social conservatives (socons), there is biblical sexual morality, and it applies to everyone, but the consequences and reasons for “sexual sin” are different. The hypocrisy is simply astounding, but it is spouted repeatedly with no irony at all. They insist on “family values” and “personal responsibility”, but stand arm in arm with feminists in claiming essentially that women are either hopelessly immature children incapable of making moral decisions; or simply imbecilic retarded morons.
If a man commits sexual sin, he is bad and deserves all consequences that might befall him. If a woman commits sexual sin it is a man’s fault. He either goaded her into it, tricked her into it, or exploited her desire to be a wife and a mother.
If a man commits a crime, he is bad and must bear the consequences. If a woman commits a crime, it is because her dad, her husband, her boss, or some other man failed her in some way. She was “abused” or “neglected” or “injured” or “damaged”.
A man has a moral duty to marry and support a woman. A woman has the right to receive a marriage proposal and that man’s unending financial support until his death, even if she doesn’t remain married to him.
Divorce is bad, but we need it as an escape hatch. If there is a divorce, it is because he did something to cause it. If he wants a divorce, it’s probably because he’s a bad man who wants to have sex with other women. If she wants a divorce, it’s because he drove her to it.
Abortion is bad, but we need it as an escape hatch. Women have abortions only because (1) an eeevil man impregnated her (probably through “rape”); and (2) an eeeevil man won’t marry her and support the child who might or might not be his. Women wouldn’t be having abortions if men would step up and man up, and either (1) not have sex with her; or (2) marry her.
The male sex drive is evil, immoral, base, perverted, predatory, depraved and criminal. Women don’t have a sex drive. If they do, it is always good, moral, pure, holy, and geared toward family formation.
Men and women sin, but men sin because they’re bad, evil, predatory, depraved and base. Women sin because someone else goaded and tricked them into it.
Men have to be trained and taught, pressed and put into positions of familial responsibility. Once there, men must be continually monitored; their every bit of conduct examined for fidelity, lack of porn consumption, and compliance with Godly dictates. This must be done through “accountability partners”.
Women just naturally grow into moral, family-centered human beings, and are natural wives and moms. At their option, they can attend women’s church meetings, where “Magic Mike” is viewed and “50 Shades of Gray” appears on the book club list; and where Sheila Wray Gregoire says that each woman can decide for herself if consuming such material is sinful.
>
The Brass Cat – Everyday Feminism (TM)
Yes this describes it well. If you have no objections, I think I may borrow this.
Even worse is how Tradcons place the well-being of women ahead of that of children.
That’s because “Tradcons” are typically “right-wing” feminists, and feminism as a whole places the “well being” of women above children, society, and especially men.
JDG
nothing new women have always been that way and there have always been men that think it is good. It is normal for women to place themselves above children. Children are there to give her the protected status of mother.
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
“There are God fearing women out there. Yes they are hard to spot, but if you know what to look for you can find us.”
Stop hiding then. Or just piss off.
I understand hoellenhund2’s frustration because I knew what to look for and still did not find any that met the Biblical criteria for a wife among the single girls that I new. They didn’t even know what a biblical wife should look like. Just mention the word “submission” to most Church going women these days and you’ll see what I mean. Then put it in the context of wives and husbands and you’ll really see what I mean.
Believe me I am frustrated as well. I want to be a mother and wife but I feel that if it doesn’t happen I will just focus on becoming a nutrition educator. Maybe while I focus on myself a God fearing man will enter my life. I pray we all find spouses that will help lead us to heaven.
@ JDG,
I also understand his frustration because I see many wonderful young men around who I fear may not find a great woman to marry.
But Kris is right, nonetheless. In the same way that I would disagree with the statement ‘all men are pigs’, I would also agree that there are decent marriageable women out there.
Deti’s response to Kris was very classy, because (I think) he (it is implied) acknowledges that in principle, she is right, but explains to her that the numbers issue is the problem, i.e. there may be good women around, but there aren’t enough to go around for all the good men that exist, and it is not the notion of an absence of good women that is the problem.
Which is a fair point.
Anyway, in related news, the gender pay gap thing escapes my understanding.
If women typically take time out to have children, raise them, stay at home for other reasons, then surely the gender pay gap is understandable, no? Allowing for equal ability to perform a given job, women actually spend less time at work over a lifetime (in general). Does the gender pay gap take this into consideration?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2785206/It-s-500-000-vagina-tax-Sarah-Silverman-goes-penis-shopping-new-campaign-highlight-gender-pay-gap.html
What is the feminists’ beef about this (correct) status quo?
(Or am I asking the wrong crowd??)
I am not sure what to make of this argument because I am (surely!) missing some fundamentally important point. What IS so wrong about the gender pay inequality?
Or rather, what do the feminists *say* is wrong about the gender pay inequality?
I have never understood what the problem is…
But I feel it is time to understand this issue once and for all.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
There are no good women to marry by law. The majority of women are marriageable when it is in their own selfish interest. As TFH as said before. Father’s custody for the kids, Manditory DNA testing at request by father. and almost over night there will be marriageable women. Same women just different focus of their natural woman tendencies.
By laws of misandry there are no good women. Even the church went churchian by law of misandry and the feminine imperative
Who knew? It’s true, New Zealand really does have 3 year common law marriage. Or as they call it “de facto relationship.” As we’ve seen time and again, a relationship is the new marriage…
http://www.howtolaw.co/division-of-property-when-a-marriage-or-de-facto-relationship-ends-392064
“In the assessing of the different contributions, financial contributions do not rate any more highly than contributions of other kinds, such as caring for children or performing domestic tasks.
There is just one rule for all relationship property – it is all divided equally unless there are extraordinary circumstances that make equal sharing repugnant to justice.”
I was dealing with depression that I am now recovered from. I will be starting college next semester and I am hoping that will help me meet others like me. The problem is I haven’t found men who believe in God and want marriage. I’m working on how I dress and present myself to attract more men towards me. Maybe dressing more feminine and becoming more bubbly will help. I am usually more reserved when people first meet me and I usually wear comfy clothes.
TFH,
Is it as simple as that? That this meme is patently erroneous (and everyone can see that) but no-one is knocking it on the head once and for all, which is why I have been hearing this same meme for years and years?
Why don’t we hear of opposition to it? It seems to me that everyone (even non-feminists) agree with it. For example, the tennis world has caved in and are now paying male and female stars the same even though at Grand Slams men play five sets and women three.
So these chronically dissatisfied feminists want more money for less work. They see nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Their beef is that everyone should be ‘equal’ in terms of pay, but not necessarily ‘equal’ in terms of labour?
Interesting!
Spacetraveller,
There is no wage gap – there probably never has been. Let’s say that the potential workforce is divided into two groups (we’ll call them Group M and Group F): the members of both theoretical groups do the same work to the same level of proficiency, they take the same amount of time off, and they benefit the company equally. Now let’s say that the members of Group F are willing to work for 77% of what the members of Group M are willing to work for. Any business that hired members of Group M before all the members of Group F were employed would lose money. If that was a widespread trend, any business could simply hire exclusively from Group F and drive their competitors out of business in short order.
But that doesn’t happen because the members of Group F do not bring the same value to their employers as the members of Group M do, on average. In fact, it isn’t even close. On average, The members of Group F choose comfortable jobs over high-paying jobs. They gravitate toward jobs that require little or no technical skill. They also gravitate toward jobs that do not entail long hours, or rigid schedules, or danger, or travel, or high levels of stress, or exposure to the elements, or physical labor. Consequently, their time is not as valuable to the average employer. The members of Group M are far more willing to perform those unpleasant, technical, and dangerous tasks, and they can demand a higher price for their time than the people who are doing the jobs that the members of Group F are competing for, many of which could be done by small children or even trained monkeys, if indeed they need to be done at all.
The fact men out-earn women simply means that men are more valuable employees than women are on average.
archerwfisher – excellent link, and the text quoted is the Female Imperative in action re “contribution”.
kris
I was dealing with depression that I am now recovered from.
Congratulations. About a year ago I was reading an email from a friend who went career military, he was taking an early out for various reasons. He told several of us that various things had helped him to finally over come what he called “the black dog” of depression, and wrote “No more all-grey days”. It is a very good thing to be done with, regardless of age.
I will be starting college next semester and I am hoping that will help me meet others like me.
Bear in mind that if you are serious about this, you are part of the counter culture. Therefore you must seek out other members of your counter culture, because the mainstream culture ain’t what you want.
Up thread you assert what appears to be Christian status, I urge you to seek out campus ministries, looking for the one that is the most conservative in a theological sense. It may be sponsored by a different denomination than you belong to, don’t let that stop you. It may not be the biggest ministry group on campus, either. You might have to check out several campus groups to find one that will work for you. Any campus ministry that has women preachers is not worth your time. If you’ve read here for any time, you know why.
College-aged men and women have told me good things about such groups as CRU, some Baptist-supported groups like Challenge, and a conservative group called RUF. These are serious men and women who so far as I can tell are not participating in the carousel – the women aren’t riding, the men aren’t horsies. Not all campuses will have these exact groups, but you should look. If you are in your 20’s and regularly going to a church every week, you are already out of the mainstream and as mentioned above, in the counter culture. Accept this and look for the best fitting group for you on campus.
Kris,
“Maybe dressing more feminine and becoming more bubbly will help.”
The first part is definitely true. The second part ‘depends’.
If you are extrovert, then being ‘bubbly’ may come naturally to you, so let it show. However, if you are introverted, (which I suspect is the case), then ‘bubbly’ may not be a natural state for you. But I think there is still a way to show an upbeat, positive outlook on life. Good news that you are free of depression.
Interesting that you used the word ‘quiet’ in your first comment.
‘Quiet’ may not be ‘bubbly’ but it is still feminine and works well for some men.
I have never been ‘bubbly’ but rather, quiet like you.
My husband is very introverted, (much more than I) and he avoids ‘bubbly’ personalities, I notice.
Being quiet is OK as long as it doesn’t prevent you from warming up to someone you like.
Good luck. I am sure you know that there are many Christian young men around, so hopefully you will meet one of them soon, same as one of them is seeking you.
Lyn87,
Exactly. I agree with you. So why has this myth been perpetuated for so long? It just doesn’t make sense, but no-one is seriously contesting it. So I keep thinking there must be more to the story than I know…
Spacetraveller was typing while I was. “For example, the tennis world has caved in and are now paying male and female stars the same even though at Grand Slams men play five sets and women three.”
True, but that doesn’t even begin to get to how lopsided it is. The difference between elite male athletes and the top female athletes is enormous. If you compare the Olympic records for female track and field events to the records for the same events for U.S. high school boys, the boys win every single one. We’re not talking about world-class athletes here – we’re talking about amateur male children in after school programs beating the best adult professional female athletes in the world – female athletes who have years of training at the best facilities with the best coaches on Earth. And beating them… Every. Single. Time.
There are six Olympic events where women compete directly against men: some of the equestrian events (where the horse is the actual athlete), sailing (where the wind does the work), and mixed bad-mitten, which requires each team to be equally handicapped with one female player. The mixed teams do not play against all-male teams, of course. Simply put, if women had to compete against men in head-to-head athletic competitions, the only women at elite competitions would be spectators.
U.S. High School Boys Track and Field Records:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
Women’s Olympic Track and Field Records:
http://trackandfield.about.com/od/worldrecords/tp/Women-s-world-records.htm
TFH,
Interesting. Thanks for the information.
The question is, what would these feminists do with the extra money they get if their wish for equalisation of pay is fulfilled?
My guess is, no-one would benefit but them alone…making the exercise futile…
If I were sure that they would spend the money on others – children, husbands, etc, then I guess I would be a little appeased. But prior experience of feminists leads me to think otherwise…
Anyhow, how they spend teh money is besides the point… 🙂
Lyn87,
Thanks for the sporting records stats. I hadn’t seen these before, but…
Well, actually, logically, I would expect a fifteen year old boy to beat an adult woman anyday, as he is probably well on his way to adult male level of strength and speed, etc, as he is already well into the stage of puberty.
Which is precisely why it should not be equal pay for male and female athletes.
It just doesn’t make sense!
I am surprised that no one has suggested to Kris a few websites that might help. There are a number of them, but one I would consider starting with is Girls Being Girls:
http://girlsbeinggirls.wordpress.com/
I was dealing with depression that I am now recovered from. I will be starting college next semester and I am hoping that will help me meet others like me.
In college? If you’re either a go with the flow party girl, or a sexually empowered feminiazi I’m sure you will meet many others like you. Otherwise, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
“Once gay couples start divorcing, how are the family courts going to know which party to screw over in the divorce?”
LOL! Maybe they’ll go by who popped the question?
I don’t think we can blame gays for hurting marriage, since it was already wheezing along before. It reminds me of Chris Rock’s joke about how crack didnt ruin the inner city.
The problem is I haven’t found men who believe in God and want marriage.
You probably need to lower your standards (not the biblical ones).
I urge you to seek out campus ministries, looking for the one that is the most conservative in a theological sense.
I’ve yet to encounter a campus ministry that is remotely conservative (in the biblical sense).
Kris, make sure you really examine your own thoughts and internal motivations. My wife would have told you (and I would have agreed) that she was completely against feminism if you asked her a decade ago. I have been seeing more and more of the more subtle influences in the past few years and we are working on those in an ongoing manner.
It is easy to blame everything on feminism, even when it is something else, but many modern Christian women have been more indoctrinated by it than they realize!
JDG,
It would also depend on where she spends her free, non-work time. You have to be where appropriate men are to come across them. I think that is not true in much of today’s society.
Kris,
Don’t do college for more than one semester… you need a husband, not an education. Also, you might be surprised how much “I thought about college but would rather have kids” can increase your desirability. It means no college debt, maximum fertility window, real desire to get married and at least the potential to resist feminism.
“The problem is I haven’t found men who believe in God and want marriage.”
Stop looking on Facebook. (Zing!) Instead, go to your church on Sunday. Look for a big, quiet guy sitting by himself in the back pew, wearing a suit and an expression that says he doesn’t know why he keeps coming to a place that only does Bible studies and childcare. Offer him a bottle of water. Ask his opinion on stuff. It’s about that easy. Be patient if he’s slow to warm up… most Godly single men are used to being invisible.
If you need a backup place, try a gym. Any fit-looking guy there has enough discipline to be worth your time. Screening for Christianity is easy (“what church do you go to?”) and, statistically, you probably need to work off a few pounds yourself.
Meanwhile, dress in modest skirts… long hair, no tattoos… and call every man you meet “sir”.
…
Spacetraveller @ 4:59 pm:
“So why has this myth been perpetuated for so long? It just doesn’t make sense, but no-one is seriously contesting it. So I keep thinking there must be more to the story than I know…”
The part you’re missing is none of our elites care whether a statement is true. If morality is subjective then why tell the truth if the truth doesn’t serve your purpose? It’s like the joke about the Christian golfer… his handicap was honesty.
Feminists cannot make an honest claim that women are underpaid so they don’t bother trying. Most of their political opponents share the same attitude towards morality so demanding accountability would only backfire on them later. That’s why political speeches are so windy… the politician is trying to accomplish his goals without being honest about what they are. The election candidate can’t say “Vote for me, women, and I’ll give you more tax-money bribes than the incumbent!” but he can say “Women are STILL not being paid their “fair share” of wages! I will bring them the “justice” they deserve (wink, wink)”.
And the average, clueless Joe wonders why the candidate keeps being wrong about that statistic.
I’ll just leave this right……..here…..
The Left Storms California’s Bedrooms
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389798/left-storms-californias-bedrooms-jonah-goldberg
—
Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/08/stop-calling-it-marriage-equality/
—
Why Scripps College Doesn’t Want to Hear from George Will
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389776/why-scripps-college-doesnt-want-hear-george-will-charles-c-w-cooke
A prominent conservative political pundit was uninvited from speaking at Scripps College, in a program designed to promote conservative views on campus, because of his conservative views.
JDK,
How is it that you did not suggest to Kris that she learn to enjoy making sammiches for her fella?
“There are God fearing women out there. Yes they are hard to spot, but if you know what to look for you can find us. We are quietly volunteering in organizations. We are not polished in the ways of the world.” Siggghhh…
Kris is protected here by anonymity so I’m going to translate this into what I actually heard’ the minute I read it and anyone is welcome to tell me if they think I’m crazy or likely right.
Self proclaimed “Godly women” are not being noticed, pursued by Christian men because these women are overweight “hard to spot, not polished”. Men are biologically attracted to healthy women “the way of the world” whereas women eating a terrible unhealthy american diet and allowing themselves to become unhealthy and therefore unattractive is presumably justified, after all most women do it. Man Up Son!
*ANY* young woman (godly or unGodly) anywhere with a healthy BMI is easy to spot and likely has male attention and in many cases more male attention than she can handle to the point of deflecting men left and right because her options seem unlimited. Otherwise ordinary women who are reasonably fit have the power of 10 simply because most of their competitors are out of the game, at home eating ice cream. Big problem, wont get fixed.
How is it that you did not suggest to Kris that she learn to enjoy making sammiches for her fella?
Farm Boy she insinuated she was a God Fearing woman, so I just figured…
Still, one should never assume.
Kris, you may need to add sammich making to your tactics along with lowering your non-biblical standards) when searching for a suitable mate.
Smile and be a pleasant person to be around. When you find a guy that gives you the tingle and is not a liberal arts major be a helper. Be a source of soothing comfort and not some nagging obligation. He’ll be wanting to marry you in no time. Behaving as such a woman in todays world will stand out so much you may have more the one guy go after you.
JDG
I’ve yet to encounter a campus ministry that is remotely conservative (in the biblical sense).
Yeah, ok, fine. Taking this young woman at face value, she’s going to some campus. She needs a group of people to be with. Making the perfect the enemy of the good won’t help her. The most conservative in a theological sense is better than many alternatives in terms of her stated goal.
You got a better idea? Post it.
Truth. This is about the best advice one can give a woman in this world. On the downside, be aware that all the other skanks and ho’s will be very threatened by any one woman’s femininity. The most violent responses to ladylike behavior come from other women.
Boxer
You got a better idea? Post it.
AR you seem to be grouchy a lot. Still, here’s my better idea (at least IMO):
College campuses are basically indoctrination centers for leftist (in general) and feminist (specifically) ideology. Even “Christian” colleges. Colleges that haven’t caved to PC and / or feminism are very rare.
Don’t go to college.
A friend of mine, who is quite a ladies man has two rules for the gals, you dont stay more than 3 nights, and your children never enter the house. This is how you defeat the imposed marriage laws that parliament, never passed.
greyghost
How sad and pathetic is it that behaving and not being a nappy hoe-bag has become novel and unique?
An example not far from my house is this “cow” that is now pregnant with her fiancee’s child (the father is still married to another woman), while living with her own cuckolded husband she has yet to divorce. That man has no self-respect, his future is to be buried in child support/alimony endign in prison time; likely for a bastard spawn he didn’t sire.
We require people to take a test and have a license to drive but nothing to breed. I don’t support that kind of measure, but some people make you sorely tempted to reconsider.
There is so much wrong in that single situation, two married people getting engaged, breeding, it is just another example of the state of modern marriage, which is the real American Horror Story.
Charlie Crist, who is running for governor in Florida, was a Republican during his first term as governor. When he lost the office he became an Independent. Now he is a Democrat and trying to make a comeback.
That’s an example of what is known as an “unprincipled whore.” In any sane society, such a person would be shunned. In our society, however, they usually win elections by landslide margins.
Pingback: Driving The Delay | Donal Graeme
Kris,
Among all the dysfunctional and borderline-dysfunctional members of the next younger generation of my family, I have two nieces that are like you. I don’t know what you look like, but both of them are real lookers. Both met good, chaste, Christian men in Campus Crusade for Christ. Both are married and doing well about seven years in. I don’t know much about CCC, but it worked well for them, for whatever that’s worth.
Greyghost wrote, “When you find a guy that gives you the tingle and is not a liberal arts major be a helper.”
I dunno’… I was a liberal arts major and I turned out okay (then again I was the only liberal arts major in my calculus class… I figured that as long as I was getting a degree I might as well get an education). And my wife won Life’s Lottery: at least that’s what I tell her all the time.
You know what was meant by liberal arts major. ha ha ha
Marcus,
I am actually shocked that Scripps invited George Will in the first place. Colleges like that, that wish to expand the diversity of ideas to students with a conservative speaker, are more inclided to invite someone who isn’t remotely conservative (like S.E. Cupp) and then call that person, conservative. George Will scares the crap out of liberals. He scares liberals because ordinary moderates hear what he has to say, they start to think, and become conservatives. I think Bill Maher is still butt hurt from this moment.
If I had to guess, Paul Krugman went to the producers over at ABC and probably told them that he wouldn’ t be doing any more Sunday morning talk shows discussing economics, if George Will was there on the panel to keep him honest about the fact that he knows so little about economics.
JDG
College campuses are basically indoctrination centers for leftist (in general) and feminist (specifically) ideology. Even “Christian” colleges. Colleges that haven’t caved to PC and / or feminism are very rare.
A lot of truth to that, although in some tech fields not completely so. Many Christian colleges are liberal arts schools with a little business school tacked on. Most liberal arts degrees are worthless or nearly so. I guess a history degree coupled with an education degree would allow someone to teach at the high school level, maybe in a private school. Nursing? Med tech? Probably not at a Christian school.
Don’t go to college.
That’s an option, to be sure. Dunno if the Kris person wants to consider that or not.
feeriker,
Its funny because its true.
If a married woman has a child by another man who is not her husband, the husband can be legally responsible for the child even if it is known that it is not biologically his. This is known as the Lord Mansfield Rule. Would it be possible to have a married woman get pregnant by another man and then have the divorce proceedings take longer than nine months so that when the child is born, the woman is still married and her husband is still responsible, even if he filed for divorce as soon as he knew she was pregnant?
That’s an option, to be sure. Dunno if the Kris person wants to consider that or not.
It’s hard to think outside the box. Most folks don’t.
I feel awful and torn…what to do?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913685
conflicted about someone
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913591
When the love is gone in a woman, you’re dead to her (6 pages and counting…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913215
I understand hoellenhund2’s frustration
You can take your pop psychology epsewhere, thank you very much.
The reason I said what I said is that all the evidence we have on this issue is proof that tradcon women never side with anti-feminists against feminists. In fact, they tend to do the opposite. Look up the nonsensical writings of any tradcon mommyblogger on PUAs and MRAs. It’s exactly like the shit you can find on Jezebel and the like.
Tom C asks:
Would it be possible to have a married woman get pregnant by another man and then have the divorce proceedings take longer than nine months so that when the child is born, the woman is still married and her husband is still responsible, even if he filed for divorce as soon as he knew she was pregnant?
It usually doesn’t matter how long the divorce takes – the husband is responsible either way (ah… male privilege…). On the back end, it’s not the timing of the birth that matters, but the timing of the conception. On the front end, if a child is born within nine months of a new marriage the new husband is responsible anyway. But in the case of divorce, if the conception can be dated to the time they were married, then the man who was the husband at that time will generally be considered to have the legal obligations of fatherhood in most states, whether the child is his or not. The number of men who are paying CS for their ex-wives bastard children is staggering. Feminists deny it, the medical profession hides it, and the courts enforce it.
But in the case of divorce, if the conception can be dated to the time they were married, then the man who was the husband at that time will generally be considered to have the legal obligations of fatherhood in most states, whether the child is his or not. The number of men who are paying CS for their ex-wives bastard children is staggering. Feminists deny it, the medical profession hides it, and the courts enforce it.
True.
Some states allow you to rebut the presumption of paternity (not all do, but some do) by filing an objection within a fairly limited period of time, after which the opportunity is closed. The medical profession has ethical rules about not disclosing non-paternity if it comes up in any context other than a test which was done specifically to determine paternity (e.g., blood tests for genetic diseases that reveal non-paternity are pretty much not disclosed). There is definitely a lot of social/legal/ethical support for mandated cuckoldry. More FI stuff, really.
I have no weight issues. I am naturally slim, workout, and eat healthy. I would describe myself as plain even though non family members describe me as pretty. I think my main issue is I need to work on is my presentation. I am usually nervous around people I don’t know. I thought about not going to college but I need to be able to provide for my future family if something happens to my husband. I guess I would describe myself as a modern day Jane Eyre.
You need to be where men you want to connect with are Kris. Being thin puts you high on the list for at least some of us. My wife’s most attractive point (for me) is that she has a thin and nice figure. She won’t be the hottest one in a room, but she still looks nice 26 years later.
I met and engaged with her because we were both involved in a church we both attended. I would not have noticed her otherwise. You need that same interaction.
Things are different now, though not enough that a man can magically know where a quality woman is. He still needs some form of contact.
JDG
It’s hard to think outside the box. Most folks don’t.
Hard to acquire skills and certification without attending some post high school institution, too.
I met a young woman and her fiancee in a social setting, both made no secret of their regular church attendance. He’s getting some technical degree, she works as an ultrasound tech, taking images, a necessary and useful skill. There are no home-school courses in ultrasound tech because of certification requirements. She has a 2-year degree from a community college. There are lots of skilled labor jobs like that. You’re saying that Christian women like Kris should not do those jobs, right? So what should they do?
A wife working fits right in with being a helper to her husband. The whole SAHM thing for the kids was just another social status thing to show other women the kind of man your pussy can get. SAHM take kids to day care now days. They call it mothers day out. Used to be a mother just said ok to the kids going outside to play with other neighborhood kids. Helicopter parenting requires 24/7 observation of the children.
Just work together and stop competing with each other. He’s in charge because he is the one with legal responsibility
@ Kris
Hi Kris. Married with kids older than you are. They aren’t married either.
I think my main issue is I need to work on is my presentation. I am usually nervous around people I don’t know.
Shy is definitely Ok. Please allow me to make some suggestions. Work on your conversational skills and establishing deep rapport through questions. Do this with other women, people you run into everyday, etc. The following deep rapport questions are for a man to ask a woman; some work for both. You can likely figure out some questions to ask a man:
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/great-game-material-deep-rapport-questions-to-create-emotional-connection/
Learn how to flirt if you haven’t already.
Have you developed a social network?
Do you do lead/follow dancing like ballroom or country? That’s a great way to practice submitting to a man and showing your ability to do so. Some men use that as a way to test a woman’s ability to submit. Lead/follow dancing helps to expand your social circle if you lack one.
I thought about not going to college but I need to be able to provide for my future family if something happens to my husband.
Lots of boomers can relate to men losing income through layoffs. Have you considered starting a business? The Proverbs 31 woman is a business woman.
If you want access to college men, there are ways to do that without taking classes. I’m sure you can figure out something.
Have you thought about how you move from where you are to marriage? Meeting a man, getting to know him, flirting, being alone with him, moving into exclusive dating, directing his thoughts towards marriage, etc.? You might want to look at my post about Sexual Macrodynamics on my website if you haven’t done so already.
Best wishes.
The modern college scene has huge problems, but the idea that any college is horrid is just as idiotic as shoving it down everyone’s throat. It is a the check off on almost any job these days.
You can acquire it much more cheaply and without the social aspects of the modern system as well, so it is not all bad.
@ Kris
I forgot to mention the list of things that men like in a wife:
1) Sweet. Sometimes this is harder to do than other times. This means doing nice things for men whom you are around, especially in a social setting. Best mixed with flirting/teasing/humor. You want men to notice you being sweet.
2) Warm. I know you’re shy, but there are ways that a shy girl can show warmth. A sudden, shy smile. A brief touch on the arm. A shy wave. Etc.
3) Long hair. The length may decrease with age, depending on how much time that a woman has spent taking care of it.
4) Skirt or dress, with hose. I like just above the knee. Men see this as a sexy wife look, from what I’ve seen.
5) Slim. This may depend on build and is harder for stocky women. Not more than ten pounds overweight is probably Ok.
That’s my list and what I’ve seen from other men.
You also might consider finding other unicorns and forming your own herd. Then start doing social things as a herd with men.
If you are a unicorn, you still want to avoid giving off the Ice Queen or Nun vibes. You need to explore your emotional responses to attractive men and figure out how to deal with them. Attractive men will make you feel insecure, threatened, etc. and you will need to be able to deal with that without giving off the IQ or Nun vibes.
This discussion reminds me of how Rome attempted to force couples to marry against their will, after the end of the Republic Era.
This is rather strange. Overall she is getting some good stuff
Check this out
Re: Presumption of child’s paternity in mother’s husband at birth:
The funny thing is how feminists and today’s tradcons rely on and twist this patriarchal rule.
The rule was (and still is in most states) that a new mom’s husband sired her child(ren). The rationales behind the rule were purely patriarchal and protective: (1) to protect the children from claims of bastardy. (2) to protect the father/husband’s interest in heirs. (3) to protect the mother from claims of adultery and later impoverishment if the claims of adultery were true.
This rule evolved out of English common law. One of this rule’s bases was that children born to a marriage were the “property” of their father, not their mother. The rationale of that rule being that before children can fend for themselves, their fathers, not their mothers, are best positioned to protect them from a harsh world, teach them about that harsh world, and prepare to send them into it. So if the marriage ended, the presumption was that the children went with Dad, not Mom. The basis was not monetary or material; but rather protective and educative.
This same rule is being now perverted and used to justify cuckoldry, which was never its true intent. Now, the rule is that a responsible man (i.e. a man with assets and a job) must be deemed the father. The rationale is that it is necessary to “attach” a “responsible” man to the child so that he is on the hook to support the child and pay the monies to do so. Note that he’s not being called on to parent , love or educate the child. His only connection to the child is as a source of money – he’s only expected to pay.
That ties in with Dalrock’s description of the current system as a “child support” based one. It also ties in with hollenhund’s description of the alliance between feminists and tradcons – use of old patriarchal rules and customs to support a femcentric system.
hoellenhund2 –
You can take your pop psychology epsewhere, thank you very much.
Pop psychology? You may as well accuse me of being a psych major who voted for our current president and thinks love is something you can fall into (not guilty on all counts).
tradcon women never side with anti-feminists against feminists.
Maybe that’s because most tradcon women ARE feminists.
Kris –
I have no weight issues. I am naturally slim, workout, and eat healthy.</em?
I know my anecdotal input by itself isn't proof of anything, but every woman I know, no matter how ugly, who is under 55 and wants a man gets one. And virtually always she is less attractive then he is.
AR –
You’re saying that Christian women like Kris should not do those jobs, right? So what should they do?
Young Christian women should focus on learning to be good wives and mothers, getting married, staying married, and raising a family. You don’t need a college degree to do that. Just going to college has ruined a multitude of women. If college is a must for some compelling reason, she should be very careful in what she exposes herself to. After she is married it really should be up to her husband. If it isn’t his decision, there is something wrong with the marriage already.
AR what do you think young Christian women should do?
greyghost –
A wife working fits right in with being a helper to her husband.
It can be, but it can also be detrimental to the marriage. Women tend to think less of their husbands when they make as much or more than him. Divorce rates increase as married working women’s wages increase. Also at work a wife will be exposed to higher status men and often under the authority of such men.
On the other hand, she should be contributing to household needs instead of doing face book all day. It’s a fine line IMO.
He’s in charge because he is the one with legal responsibility
I have to disagree. He’s in charge because God said he’s in charge. That should never change because of circumstances (other than being mentally incapacitated I suppose).
Missed another marker. The following paragraph should NOT be in italics:
I know my anecdotal input by itself isn’t proof of anything, but every woman I know, no matter how ugly, who is under 55 and wants a man gets one. And virtually always she is less attractive then he is.
Dalrock could you fix this? Thank you.
Young Christian women should focus on learning to be good wives and mothers, getting married, staying married, and raising a family. You don’t need a college degree to do that.
Suggest you sell that to Kris. I’m not your target market. But you do realize you are saying that women should never work outside of the home?
Suppose no sutiable man ever asks a woman to marry.[1] What should she then do?
[1] Suitable in the sense you have defined abov, i.e. same denomination or very close to it, able to support himself and her and any children monetarily, not a player, and so forth.
This is why the premise and purpose is a helper to her husband. She does what benefits her husband and family not follow a herd written script. So if she goes in with the attitude of being pleasing and helpful to her man then it doesn’t matter what she does. The only thing she needs to please is her husband
Suggest you sell that to Kris. I’m not your target market.
I was answering your question.
But you do realize you are saying that women should never work outside of the home?
How so?
I’m noticing a pattern here.
AR
too much in the way of what needs to be done and not enough why and results. Your righteousness is not how close you follow the script but the faith in your heart. That is how God instructs a woman married to a non believer and where the woman tames the beast shit comes from.
Dalrock, if you would, please give Kris my email.
Kris, I may know someone who would be of mutual interest.
[D: I’ll send it to her if she indicates in the comments that she wants me to mail it to her.]
Yep, no prob.
No pressure, Kris. Just thought I’d be helpful.
Kris: Take the No Pants Challenge. Remove them from your wardrobe. Wear dresses and skirts only. Tights, heels, makeup, and jewelry will be the end of your Plain Jane days.
Being nervous when talking to people you don’t know is a biological safety mechanism. Unless you’re walking down dark alleyways in a foreign place, you can override this switch through practice and by realizing, “I’m not going to get hurt talking to this person. I’ll feel more at ease in two minutes.”
Believe it or not, appearance is tied into the talking issue. Men are attracted to sparkle. Your earrings are not just for decoration; they are lures. There is a reason men are taught to “peacock” (wear an unusual accessory). Its a conversation starter. Give people something to “open” you with, and you might find yourself relieved of some of the pressure of making conversation.
You got lots of great advice here. If you want a good ebook, try Dating Without Drama by Paige Parker. Good luck in love! 🙂
Anonymous Reader @11:55 am:
“Young Christian women should focus on learning to be good wives and mothers, getting married, staying married, and raising a family. You don’t need a college degree to do that.
Suggest you sell that to Kris. I’m not your target market.”
Easily done. What about a college education helps a woman be a better mother? Nothing she can’t read in a book while six months pregnant. Meanwhile, consider this life script: a woman raises kids from age 20-40, THEN gets her college degree (if she wants) and enjoys her midlife with both education and family. That works much better than college/career/debt first then a barren marriage to a Godly man who’s been forced to wait for sex until he’s bitter.
…
“Suppose no suitable man ever asks a woman to marry. What should she then do?”
This is the most man-hating sentence I have ever read on Dalrock’s site. Oh, yes! Don’t trust Godly men to be excited about a young, pretty, debt-free, God-fearing virgin who wants to have his kids! Men aren’t loyal! Marriage is temporary! You need to spend your youth and fertility on a backup plan so you’ll never need to trust a husband! Puke.
Suppose God backs out of substitutionary atonement and decides to not save humanity after all. What should she then do? She should follow a couple extra deities just in case. Christ will understand her Baal-worship is only a backup plan. If he doesn’t then it’s HIS problem, right? Not hers?
Gunner Q says:
October 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Agreed. Well reasoned and well said IMO.
There is nothing that is exclusive to college that helps a women be a wife or a mother these days (if ever), and there is much in college that would be wise to avoid. Even more, few families even consider training for motherhood or to be a helpmate as part of a daughter’s upbringing anymore (at least in western societies).
It is much wiser to marry and bear children when she is young (as her body was designed to do). Count me among those who believe that a woman who thinks she can work full time and be a good mother is deluding herself. I’ve seen the results 1st hand many times over.
And that “no suitable man” question from AR was very surprising because it reminded me of the good ole “well what if a husband tells his wife to rob a bank” approach to arguing against a husband’s authority in marriage.
No, Gunner. The question wasn’t “What if he leaves?”
The question was What if he never shows up in the first place? Or if she’s*gasp* 25 or 26 before he shows up?
If the argument is that women should never work outside the home, then I follow. But a lot of what is espoused here summarily ignores that a significant percentage of good, godly, Christian men prefer a woman with an education (well credentials is probably a better word). Not as a backup plan against him, but as additional security for the family should they need it.
Additionally, there are ways to go about the college thing without shipping your kid off, without incurring debt, and without her being in college until she’s 23. One our girls will be 20 when she finishes in the spring. Two more will be 21.
They all live at home and I have made it clear that any money they earn in the years between now and when a husband shows up needs to be saved so that they can bring a significant amount of money to the marriage, which would go a long way towards insuring that staying home with the children isn’t a great hardship.
There seems to be a concern that it isn’t possible for a woman to be both college educated and prepared to be a wife and mother. Besides the basics of homemaking the best preparation is watching and learning from her mother which is usually accomplished before the college years and before a suitable suitor shows up.
Despite our best intentions and prayers for the ideal, very few of us in America are in situations where there are strong networks of families to up the chances of our children finding mates easily and marrying right away under the ideal circumstances.
It’s raining on the just as well as the unjust.
Suggest you sell that to Kris. I’m not your target market.
JDG
I was answering your question.
Yes, in the larger context of the subdiscussion spun off from the comments by Kris.
That comment was in the context of “woman about to go to college”. I offered
her some advice within that context. You seem to believe you have some sort of
authority over her, but perhaps I’m misreading your text.
Also I’m not your target market, for various reasons, starting with the obvious: I’m not a woman.
But you do realize you are saying that women should never work outside of the home?
JDG
How so?
You seem to be opposed to educating women at all, therefore no skills to work outside the home with. But I’ll ask directly: do you approve or disapprove of married women working outside of their home?
I’m noticing a pattern here.
Interestingly enough, so am I.
greyghost
too much in the way of what needs to be done and not enough why and results.
A woman asked a question regarding college. Maybe she’s a troll but I assume not.
I offered some practical advice based on my own observations, including conversations with college-aged men and women who aren’t participating in the modern carousel. Maybe she’ll take it, maybe she won’t. I”m not her father, or her brother, or her preacher, I do not have any authority over her to order her what to do and what not to do. But if you have that authority, take charge. Do you?
I suspect, based only on what I’ve read in this thread, that Kris might benefit from spending some time at Elspeth’s blog.
Expansion on something I said:
which would go a long way towards insuring that staying home with the children isn’t a great hardship.
It really isn’t that great a hardship for the mother to raise the kids at home if one plans their lifestyle accordingly, and I recognize that. We were broker than broke when my husband summarily decreed that I would be staying home with the children, and things worked out.
But now, as it was even 2o years ago, most men want a more stable and secure setup in place before they switch to one income. And I mean Christian men, devout men. I know many who have their wives work so that they can get into a position to make the switch to her coming home. And a good many of those women despite their deepest desire, never make it home for years.
It is incumbent upon a young Christian woman and her parents to choose a man who is on board with the wife being a full time homemaker. But with that understand that it may take a lot longer to find someone willing to live that way from day one, before children are in the picture.
Kris said this:
“I thought about not going to college but I need to be able to provide for my future family if something happens to my husband.”
Wonderful attitude in a young woman, Kris. Well done.
When you achieve *any* skill that can help your future husband in providing for you all as a family, it’s a good thing.
As Greyghost said, that is part of your role as his helper.
And I also agreed with much of what Elspeth said.
Especially this:
“But a lot of what is espoused here summarily ignores that a significant percentage of good, godly, Christian men prefer a woman with an education (well credentials is probably a better word). Not as a backup plan against him, but as additional security for the family should they need it.”
I think it was indeed you, Elspeth who mentioned a young man a while back, wanting his future wife to go to dental school or something…
I see a lot of this now. It kind of makes sense to me, given the current economic climate.
Note that the role of the woman here is that of HELPER, not competitor.
It is understood that when the children are small, it is appropriate for her to take time off from this role to care for the children, i.e. SAHM. Or perhaps the husband prefers her to be at home even in the absence of children, so they can have home-cooked meals, which is healthier and more wholesome for the couple/family anyway.
But outside of these preferences, I see that many men want a wife who *could* contribute financially, and indeed some wish for their wives to work. This percentage of men, as Elspeth points out is growing with each generation. It is becoming part of ‘what a woman brings to the table’, so I think it is ill-advised to block a girl’s education ‘because she should concentrate on being a wife and mother’.
‘Being a wife and mother’ includes working outside the home, at the husband’s request!
With the right attitude, a girl can still become a great wife and mother even with a degree/college education, I believe.
If her attitude is like Kris’, i.e. whatever I learn at college will someday help my future husband keep his house in order, then it’s great.
If her attitude is, ‘with this degree I don’t need a man’, or ‘I get to kill my own snakes’, then she is setting herself up to be an adversary of her future husband, which does not bode well.
Anyhow, thos are my (currebt) thoughts on this issue.
May need refining/polishing, LOL, but for now, I am sticking with this unless I receive a superior train of thought.
GunnerQ,
Thanks for your thoughts on the gender pay gap. I think you are dead right on what I may have missed. For sure there is a lot of dishonesty about…it is disingenuous of politicians to use these untruths/halftruths to their advantage like this…
AR – You seem to believe you have some sort of
authority over her, but perhaps I’m misreading your text.
Yes you are misreading, and that is the pattern I’m beginning to see in your responses. I don’t fantasize that my beliefs are suppose to somehow be binding on people that I meet on the internet or anywhere else.
I’m not sure why you presume to know what another person is thinking in regards to why they make a given comment, but I’ve noticed that you do it a lot.
You seem to be opposed to educating women at all,
As the norm yes I am. Men need helpmates not competitors. Educated women have a smaller pool to choose from as they tend to marry up and not down. Educated women take jobs that often could / should have went to men. Higher level education for the most part is merely a medium for leftist / feminist indoctrination.
I think a Christian woman should prepare for marriage and raising children rather than squander her optimal child rearing years preparing to compete with men in the job market.
therefore no skills to work outside the home with.
A foolish assumption. I work at a fairly large hospital in which the majority of employees are female. Many of these women do not have or use (if they have) their college degrees. Also, most of the women I know outside of the hospital are employed with out the use of a college degree. To be sure the higher paying jobs usually require a degree, but these usually aren’t the types of degrees that most young women waste their child rearing years to obtain. Furthermore, the helpmate of a Christian man doesn’t need these types of jobs to supplement her husbands income.
And in the cases where the women do get worth while degrees, they are more often less productive, take more time off of work, and leave their fields earlier then the men (wasting valuable resources in training them – especially female physicians).
But I’ll ask directly: do you approve or disapprove of married women working outside of their home?
Neither. The woman should do as her husband directs her. If he wants her working, then she should work, if not she should stay home. Maybe you are assuming that most Christian men want their women to work and therefore women should get college degrees (and maybe not). Maybe this assumption is correct, but I think not. There are, however, a lot of church goers that raise their daughters to prepare for life as a man would, which I find foolish.
I see it time and again, women who want to be like men enabled by men who also want women to be like men.
AR when are you going to answer my question by the way? What do you think Christian women should do to prepare for marriage?
Gunner Q
Easily done. What about a college education helps a woman be a better mother?
Changes the pool of men she’s meeting. Could be for the better, could be for the worse, depending on whom she associates with at college. Hence my suggestions up thread.
Nothing she can’t read in a book while six months pregnant.
Really? Are you sure about that?
Meanwhile, consider this life script: a woman raises kids from age 20-40, THEN gets her college degree (if she wants) and enjoys her midlife with both education and family.
Yes, I believe that I pointed this out both here and other sites multiple times over the last few years. Thanks for agreeing with me.
That works much better than college/career/debt first then a barren marriage to a Godly man who’s been forced to wait for sex until he’s bitter.
False dichotomy.
“Suppose no suitable man ever asks a woman to marry. What should she then do?”
GunnerQ
This is the most man-hating sentence I have ever read on Dalrock’s site.
Then I guess you haven’t been reading here as long as I thought.
Oh, yes! Don’t trust Godly men to be excited about a young, pretty, debt-free, God-fearing virgin who wants to have his kids! Men aren’t loyal! Marriage is temporary! You need to spend your youth and fertility on a backup plan so you’ll never need to trust a husband! Puke.
Strawman argument. You did not bother to read what I wrote, or you dishonestly chose to ignore it in order to have your little emotional tirade. Either way, your’e arguing like a teenager. Suggest you cut it out.
JDG
Agreed. Well reasoned and well said IMO.
Your agreement with logical fallacies and emotional tantrums is noted.
There is nothing that is exclusive to college that helps a women be a wife or a mother
Strawman, again. Why not try replying to what I write, rather than making things up to bash?
these days (if ever), and there is much in college that would be wise to avoid.
As I stated up thread. Good of you to agree with me.
Even more, few families even consider training for motherhood or to be a helpmate as part of a daughter’s upbringing anymore (at least in western societies).
No, no, any woman can learn all that stuff reading a book while she’s 6 months pregmant. Gunner Q wrote it and you agreed.
It is much wiser to marry and bear children when she is young (as her body was designed to do).
Who in this thread has said otherwise?
Count me among those who believe that a woman who thinks she can work full time and be a good mother is deluding herself. I’ve seen the results 1st hand many times over.
I’m counting your strawmen, and so here’s one more.
And that “no suitable man” question from AR was very surprising because it reminded me of the good ole “well what if a husband tells his wife to rob a bank” approach to arguing against a husband’s authority in marriage.
Perhaps you were surprised because you were not thinking very well, or at all.
Instead of making things up, why not deal with the actual words I write? The footnote
to “no suitable man” is still in the comment, even if neither you nor Gunner Q bothered to read it.
AR – You seem to believe you have some sort of
authority over her, but perhaps I’m misreading your text.
JDG
Yes you are misreading, and that is the pattern I’m beginning to see in your responses. I don’t fantasize that my beliefs are suppose to somehow be binding on people that I meet on the internet or anywhere else.
Yet in this very thread you appear to be assuming authority to order others to obey your will.
I’m not sure why you presume to know what another person is thinking in regards to why they make a given comment, but I’ve noticed that you do it a lot.
Projecting much?
You seem to be opposed to educating women at all,</i
JDG
As the norm yes I am.
How far does this go? Basic literacy and numeracy?
Men need helpmates not competitors. Educated women have a smaller pool to choose from as they tend to marry up and not down. Educated women take jobs that often could / should have went to men. Higher level education for the most part is merely a medium for leftist / feminist indoctrination.
Ok. So no women should become nurses, or aides, or even learn how to care for sick people, is that correct? No women should become teachers? Is that correct?
I think a Christian woman should prepare for marriage and raising children rather than squander her optimal child rearing years preparing to compete with men in the job market.
What do you say to Elspeth on this?
therefore no skills to work outside the home with.
A foolish assumption. I work at a fairly large hospital in which the majority of employees are female. Many of these women do not have or use (if they have) their college degrees.
So this hospital doesn’t hire certified medical techs, or RN’s, or other educated people for the various positions required ? Where is this, please?
Also, most of the women I know outside of the hospital are employed with out the use of a college degree.
Ok. Our experience differs, then. Most of the women I know who are working are skilled labor, some returning after several years out of the labor force.
To be sure the higher paying jobs usually require a degree, but these usually aren’t the types of degrees that most young women waste their child rearing years to obtain. Furthermore, the helpmate of a Christian man doesn’t need these types of jobs to supplement her husbands income.
However it might be useful if she has some skills that command a higher return. Such as a 2 year medical tech degree. Or an RN degree. I know of examples of both, one engaged to be married later this year, one possibly marrying next June.
And in the cases where the women do get worth while degrees, they are more often less productive, take more time off of work, and leave their fields earlier then the men (wasting valuable resources in training them – especially female physicians).
I’ll agree with this. However I do not see how it directly applies to the commenter Kris.
But I’ll ask directly: do you approve or disapprove of married women working outside of their home?
Neither. The woman should do as her husband directs her. If he wants her working, then she should work, if not she should stay home.
You’ve just contradicted yourself. You do realize that, don’t you?
Maybe you are assuming that most Christian men want their women to work and therefore women should get college degrees (and maybe not). Maybe this assumption is correct, but I think not.
I’m not assuming very much at all, that seems to be your task. I’m just pointing out some practical facts from the real world of work and money. Why this causes you to engage in logical fallacies I cannot now.
There are, however, a lot of church goers that raise their daughters to prepare for life as a man would, which I find foolish.
There are, and it is.
I see it time and again, women who want to be like men enabled by men who also want women to be like men.
I see this too. I agree with you.
AR when are you going to answer my question by the way? What do you think Christian women should do to prepare for marriage?
Obey their parents, be serious about their religion, make an active search for a husband rather than just wait on God to drop one out of the sky, for a start. Entire books have been written on the topic, frankly I do not have the time to write one myself.
Now, why are you so eager to pick a fight with me?
Anonymous Reader says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:01 am
“JDG
It’s hard to think outside the box. Most folks don’t.
Hard to acquire skills and certification without attending some post high school institution, too.
I met a young woman and her fiancee in a social setting, both made no secret of their regular church attendance. He’s getting some technical degree, she works as an ultrasound tech, taking images, a necessary and useful skill. There are no home-school courses in ultrasound tech because of certification requirements. She has a 2-year degree from a community college. There are lots of skilled labor jobs like that. You’re saying that Christian women like Kris should not do those jobs, right? So what should they do?”
This woman already has one post-high school degree, is pursuing another one, and is not yet married. She’s almost certainly past 20 YO already. Not that I’m saying to drop her current fiance, but IMO she’s hardly following an ideal plan. Better that she had already married, and to a man that was educationally and financially ready to do this. This probably necessitates she married a man older than her by at least 4 years.
Re working wives:
1) there is a nontrivial connection between the more a wife still in her fertile years works at paid jobs outside the house and lowering the number of children she bears. Better her husband bears down more on the job (maybe moonlights for a while, til they’re debt-free) and she starts bearing children earlier (and not stopping sooner to evenly compensate in a feminist fashion, either).
2) Agreed that a wife working outside the home makes her substantially more likely to commit adultery and to divorce her husband. This is even more a risk if her career approaches or exceeds that of her husband in status/pay. (If her husband were to become a SAHF, the odds of her committing adultery or frivorcing him go stratospherically high, so forget that one.)
3) A wife working outside the home without much familial need to do so is often going to be under the authority of another man on the job. This is at least unwise, and possibly unBiblical.
4) If a wife and husband both have careers, it probably will INCREASE the odds (at least double) that they will face disastrous financial trouble at some point. This is due to almost every such couple basing their lifestyle upon two incomes. It is nearly inevitable that no couples will save all of the lesser-earner’s income, which is psychologically understandable. Why stress her (most commonly it’s still the wife with the lesser-paying career) and lower the quality of life of the rest of the family for no immediate payoff, is how most people would feel about it. (Two FT incomes may mean more stuff and more vacations, but also mean fewer more-nutritious home-cooked meals, more sick little kids dumped in daycare,less of kids getting help with homework, forget homeschooling even if the family lives near schools with kids largely from Deliverance, the Congo, Somalia, or Columbia).
5) Lots of teenaged pregnancies are conceived between when the kids get out of school and the first parent arrives home from work. If the kids come straight home from the school (saving only extracurricular stuff like athletics or math/chess club) to a parent already there, guess what kid’s future isn’t blighted. “My 17-YO son, the homeless fugitive” (from the gov’t relentlessly forever chasing after his ass for onerous child support he can never pay off) or “my daughter, the high school dropout unmarriageable trailer park baby momma” have kind of a shitty ring to it, don’t they? Some bad things don’t have a sufficiently high price tag that can be put on them to cover just how bad they are.
6) For anyone who’s worried about a young woman who marries before college warps her mind (Commie/feminist instructors as well as getting a couple of dozen carousel rides), have you never heard of life insurance? If she doesn’t marry an obvious bad-boy, doesn’t frivorce her husband, bears him multiple children whom she cares for well (and doesn’t go “dead-bed” or spend him into bankruptcy), the odds are that the only way she’ll lose her husband is via death. Life insurance is very cheap for the young.
Every problem about women marrying young is solvable. They just have to lose the feminism early enough (as evidenced in their behavior, not just words), and not act as if a dozen years on the carousel is worth 50 years likely to be barren, lonely poverty and ultimately a meaningless life.
I was not clear in point #4 that a dual-career couple has no slack in case of crisis. If hubby gets hurt on the job, and wifey is already working, she can’t go back to work and start bringing in an income that isn’t already spoken for before it gets home.
Oh, and med tech is in a downward spiral for pay lots of places. The gap between it and nursing (above the LPN level!) is wide and getting wider. Better a woman goes after nursing than med tech.
Elspeth, it’s the same thing. Explicit distrust of good men. The Churchians and feminists do everything they can to make godly men fail, then they turn around and say they can’t be trusted… that men NEED a woman to help out or we won’t make it. Godly men can accomplish a lot more than you give them credit for, if they could possibly find any women able to appreciate them for it.
“a significant percentage of good, godly, Christian men prefer a woman with an education (well credentials is probably a better word). Not as a backup plan against him, but as additional security for the family should they need it.”
If it can be used as a backup plan then it IS a backup plan. The rest is hamsterization. If you want to trust your man then burn your bridges. They will only tempt you later.
“…very few of us in America are in situations where there are strong networks of families to up the chances…”
Women don’t need social networks today because they’re free to go where the men are. Take the initiative, smile, be feminine, show respect. If I sound unusually combative here it’s because Christian women have never tried a single time to draw my interest. I can only conclude that women aren’t trying nearly as hard as they say.
There are no men with successful careers in college. If Kris wants to get started on a family then looking elsewhere is a better idea.
Agreed also with advising a young woman who wishes to marry to get rid of the pants.
If a man wearing a dress is a transvestite, then a woman wearing pants…
(And, what mentally-healthy man, presumably the kinds she wants to marry, wants to marry a transvestite?)
If you want to trust your man then burn your bridges. They will only tempt you later.
I agree with this, but for some reason you think I’m saying that a woman needs a job as a backup plan. That’s not what I’m getting at. If the husband wants her to have a job (and a lot of men do) then it isn’t a bridge she’s refusing to burn. It’s her submitting to her husband.
I don’t think most Christian men want their wives to work after they begin having children, but I am thoroughly convinced that the majority expect their wives to work so long as it’s just the two of them.
Ideally they will start having children right away, but if what I see around me is any indication, most couples make a deliberate choice to wait at least a couple of years. Of course, if the woman has used whatever time she has worked before the marriage as a time to save money rather than squander it, then the money has been well spent.
I have three young women at home. Between the four of us (even with cooking, cleaning, homeschooling, etc. there isn’t a ton of work to do that we can’t knock out fairly quickly. And this is with the three of them in school, and one working 25 hours a week.
The idea that there is a whole bunch of domestic labor to engage in just isn’t a reality if you’re not living in a rural environment. And we’re not. Our girls are here most of the time when they aren’t in school, or work (for the one). They aren’t going where the men are because frankly, they don’t know where the men are. And we don’t either. Not really. I had to stop myself from spending way too much time looking around in my church for young men who might be suitable. It was distracting.
The assertion of the supposed ease with which young women can just snap up a faithful, gainfully employed man who wants his wife to stay at home baking bread and having babies from day one continues to leave me incredulous.
Re Kris: It always amazes me when I hear Christian women say they can’t find a guy. My experience is that real Christian women are extremely rare. Maybe the problem is that younger guys can’t recognize the Christian women in the crowd. Us older guys sure can, but at that point a lot of us are taken. Too bad there’s not a better way to differentiate the real diamond from the surrounding “flash.”
This is what I was talking about when I was speaking of following a script vs. following the actual needs of husband and family. A helper an actual wife will do what is needed.
Agreed. Well reasoned and well said IMO.
Your agreement with logical fallacies and emotional tantrums is noted.
If there are fallacies in Gunner’s comment then I am at a lost to see them. Maybe someone with out a chip on their shoulder could chime in and explain them to me.
Even more, few families even consider training for motherhood or to be a helpmate as part of a daughter’s upbringing anymore (at least in western societies).
No, no, any woman can learn all that stuff reading a book while she’s 6 months pregmant. Gunner Q wrote it and you agreed.
What I was referring to usually aren’t learned in a book. How does what you wrote here even make sense here in this context? Also, Gunner is correct in that most anything taught in college can be learned at home while being a wife and mother. You can even get degrees from home now.
It is much wiser to marry and bear children when she is young (as her body was designed to do).
Who in this thread has said otherwise?
Nobody. Why should someone have to say otherwise for me to write this? Couldn’t I have just used this to make my point with out someone having to say otherwise?
Count me among those who believe that a woman who thinks she can work full time and be a good mother is deluding herself. I’ve seen the results 1st hand many times over.
I’m counting your strawmen, and so here’s one more.
Really, how so? So then is your position the feminist one? Do you really believe children do just as well when mommy is at work just like daddie?
My position is no straw man but rather a rallying cry for feminists everywhere, and any fool can see what women working on a large scale has contributed towards deconstructing families in this country.
The footnote to “no suitable man” is still in the comment, even if neither you nor Gunner Q bothered to read it.
The footnote was equally useless in supporting an unrealistic claim that a women matching this woman’s description of herself is going to have trouble finding a suitable mate unless she is shooting too high.
AR I seriously think you are reading too much into what Gunner and I have stated, and you have taken offense where none was meant. You seem to be imputing motives to the writer of what you are reading. This might also explain the other problem I noted in my previous post. I’m not trying to insult you, I just don’t see how else you can so blatantly misconstrue what gunner and I have written while making the accusations you have made.
Yet in this very thread you appear to be assuming authority to order others to obey your will.
You see, this is exactly what I am talking about. Who besides you has this impression? Are you speaking for a majority here? Do you really believe that you know the motives and intentions of my heart? Am I giving the same authority assuming, obedience demanding vibes to other readers or just you?
A foolish assumption. I work at a fairly large hospital in which the majority of employees are female. Many of these women do not have or use (if they have) their college degrees.
So this hospital doesn’t hire certified medical techs, or RN’s, or other educated people for the various positions required ? Where is this, please?
Do you really believe that physician, nurse, and college level tech jobs are the only jobs in a hospital? Have you never heard of Housekeepers, Dietary workers, Laundry techs, Care Aids, OR techs, or Lab techs?
And if most the women you know are working in skilled labor (what ever that is – I presume that you mean it required a college degree) then we definitely have different experiences.
But I’ll ask directly: do you approve or disapprove of married women working outside of their home?
Neither. The woman should do as her husband directs her. If he wants her working, then she should work, if not she should stay home.
You’ve just contradicted yourself. You do realize that, don’t you?
No I didn’t contradict myself, but I am now convinced that in your mind somewhere I must have. Just because I don’t think women in general should go to college and another woman’s husbands wants her to be employed and she should obey him does not mean that I have contradicted myself. It means that her husband and I may have different values.
As a side note, both times above where you stated that you agree with me seems to contract the sarcastic responses where you disagree with me.
Obey their parents, be serious about their religion, make an active search for a husband rather than just wait on God to drop one out of the sky, for a start. …
Thank you for answering my question, although I find the answer somewhat vague.
Now, why are you so eager to pick a fight with me?
Now that’s really funny considering the insults that you managed to fling about during our exchange. Believe it or not, i wasn’t trying to pick a fight with you. I just hate seeing young Christian women needlessly waste the most fertile years in Caesar’s indoctrination centers.
You seemed to take offense to my reply about thinking outside the box, and eventually insinuated that I have been setting up straw men to knock down. I disagree with you and would note that merely claiming that someone’s statement is a straw man doesn’t make it a straw man. You failed to demonstrate how Gunner or myself attacked straw men or how we were committing logical fallacies.
I don’t mind continuing a discussion where we present our view points with out the insults, but we seem to have digressed to trading put downs. I would rather just break off at this point than to continue trying to one up each other with pointless puffery.
I’ll try to not provoke you in the future by not responding to your comments, at least until I can figure out what sets you off.
Blast it! 10 lines in should read like this:
What I was referring to usually isn’t learned in a book.
Elspeth says:
October 9, 2014 at 7:52 pm
“The assertion of the supposed ease with which young women can just snap up a faithful, gainfully employed man who wants his wife to stay at home baking bread and having babies from day one continues to leave me incredulous.”
Once you have daughters old enough that they need to start looking for husbands (18+), if you’d just move to somewhere with a decent economy (not one based on fraud and hot air like DC or NYC), you’d be amazed at how many employed single guys there are there. Anywhere in Alaska or the western 2/5th of North Dakota are good places to start. North Wyoming, Oklahoma, and East Texas would have pretty good odds for them, too.
JDG says:
October 9, 2014 at 8:39 pm
3 lines in should read:
If there are fallacies in Gunner’s comment then I am at a loss to see them.
JDG
If there are fallacies in Gunner’s comment then I am at a lost to see them.
Let’s review. I wrote these two sentences:
“Suppose no suitable man ever asks a woman to marry.[1]What should she then do?”
And I footnoted it in this way:
[1] Suitable in the sense you have defined abov, i.e. same denomination or very close to it, able to support himself and her and any children monetarily, not a player, and so forth.
GunnnarQ quoted this way:
“Suppose no suitable man ever asks a woman to marry.What should she then do?”
Note that he removed the [1] at the end of the first sentence. That way he didn’t have to refer to the footnoted text, and thus he could go this rant:
Gunner Q
This is the most man-hating sentence I have ever read on Dalrock’s site. Oh, yes! Don’t trust Godly men to be excited about a young, pretty, debt-free, God-fearing virgin who wants to have his kids! Men aren’t loyal! Marriage is temporary! You need to spend your youth and fertility on a backup plan so you’ll never need to trust a husband! Puke.
This is a near textbook example of the Strawman fallacy. Rather than deal with my words, he made stuff up, pretended I wrote it and then attacked it. It also appears that Gunner Q deliberately and knowingly chose to omit key text that I wrote, the better to respond to something he made up. Omitting my actual words in order to make up words out of his own head that he could pretend I wrote.
And you find this well said? You don’t see any logical fallacy here, at all, JDG? Or anything else wrong with it?
Luke
This woman already has one post-high school degree, is pursuing another one, and is not yet married. She’s almost certainly past 20 YO already. Not that I’m saying to drop her current fiance, but IMO she’s hardly following an ideal plan.
Who are you referring to?
@ Kris
I’m not sure if you are still reading this, but Elspeth’s blog is another excellent resource. I thought I had mentioned it in an earlier comment, but I guess WordPress ate it. I would definitely check it out if I was you.
I was referring to the couple in this previous post here, AR:
Anonymous Reader says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:01 am
“JDG
It’s hard to think outside the box. Most folks don’t.
Hard to acquire skills and certification without attending some post high school institution, too.
I met a young woman and her fiancee in a social setting, both made no secret of their regular church attendance. He’s getting some technical degree, she works as an ultrasound tech, taking images, a necessary and useful skill. There are no home-school courses in ultrasound tech because of certification requirements. She has a 2-year degree from a community college. There are lots of skilled labor jobs like that. You’re saying that Christian women like Kris should not do those jobs, right? So what should they do?”
@JDG
There is a requirement for all wives to be keepers of the home:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
TIt 2:3
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
AR
“Suppose no suitable man ever asks a woman to marry. What should she then do?”
Gunner’s reply: This is the most man-hating sentence I have ever read on Dalrock’s site. Oh, yes! Don’t trust Godly men to be excited about a young, pretty, debt-free, God-fearing virgin who wants to have his kids! Men aren’t loyal! Marriage is temporary! You need to spend your youth and fertility on a backup plan so you’ll never need to trust a husband! Puke.
verses
“Suppose no suitable man (Suitable in the sense … same denomination or very close to it, able to support himself and her and any children monetarily, not a player, and so forth) ever asks a woman to marry. What should she then do?”
Gunner’s reply: This is the most man-hating sentence I have ever read on Dalrock’s site. Oh, yes! Don’t trust Godly men to be excited about a young, pretty, debt-free, God-fearing virgin who wants to have his kids! Men aren’t loyal! Marriage is temporary! You need to spend your youth and fertility on a backup plan so you’ll never need to trust a husband! Puke.
Granted Gunner came on pretty strong, and the words “most man-hating sentence I have ever read” probably didn’t hit me as hard as they hit you. The impression I got from your responses (in total) is that you think Christian women should prepare for life of competing with men in the work force, just in case.
Gunner took it to the next logical step IMO in pointing out that “just in case” is really just a red herring (one that is often used to blame men by proponents of egalitarianism / feminism). Sorry I don’t see a straw man there, and I have to agree with his premise that Christian women are better off preparing for a future as a wife and mother rather than jumping on the “just in case” band wagon. It really is akin to the feminist “don’t be dependent on men – men can’t be trusted – men’s fault” mantra IMO.
If you weren’t arguing that Christian women need to prepare to compete with men in the work force, then I apologize for having misunderstood your position. If you were, then we just disagree. I can work with that.
infowarrior1 says:
October 10, 2014 at 12:20 am
Thank you infowarrior. Yes I should rely more on the scriptures.
Elspeth,
If you are on top of it (keep the house clean from day to day) cleaning a simple 3-bedroom, 2-bath house (even one with a finished basement) could be done in an hour. You spend most of the time in the kitchen and the bathrooms, you push a vacuum around the house for 15 minutes, and you are done. So yes (with all the electronic resources available to women in homemaking), there just isn’t a lot of domestic labor. Which is the main reason why I have grown to disrespect that kind of labor. I just don’t see it as work. Now I didn’t clean every day, but the last year I lived alone (before I married my wife) I was able to mow an entire acre of grass (on a rider mower), clean 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, a kitchen, and a complete furnished basement of my own home in under 4 hours. That was my Saturday morning before I went to spend my time with friends. Had to get it all done before 11AM and then shower, jump in the car, pick up a case of beer and a pizza. Couldn’t miss noon kickoff with my buds. So the more I looked at homemaking, the more years I spent doing it in less and less time each year, the less and less I respected it.
Its hard for men (even Christian men) who have been singletons for so long, who have lived on their own for so long (who had to work 40+ hours a week AND do their own cooking, cleaning, and laundry) to respect home making. I know I don’t. But that is only because I lived alone so long before marrying. I suppose the younger guys who may still live with their parents (well into their 20s) they haven’t had to wear all the hats yet, maybe. So its possible that they migh respect the housework so much more than I ever could. Which might be why they are saying they want these things.
Now, if you add in (say) 3 very young children, NOW we are talking serious work. This is the homemaking where we are talking a full time job, 40-50 hours of unpaid labor a week….
…right up until the last one is (say) 5. Now they are all in school 30 hours a week. Then (even with the extra laundry and making meals for a medium sized family) we are still only talking maybe 10 hours of work inside the home in a week. That is if you clean it every day. So mom/wife might have a lot of extra time (even with the piano and dance lessons in the evenings.) And if she wants that part-time job (say, bring in a little money to start two of three college funds for the kids and maybe save up for a couple really nice family vacation each year) the Christian husband shouldn’t feel threatened by that. And its not because she isn’t willing to burn her working bridges because she is thinking about leaving you. It is (instead) because maybe she has the time and she knows that your paycheck is covering the mortgage and care payments and food and maybe there isn’t a whole lot left after the bills are paid and she’d like to TREAT YOU to something every once in a while?
Every family is different and (as the family moves along in life) the needs and the wants change, alter, not just for one person in the family but for every member. As long as the wife puts her husband and children first, does whatever her husband says (and if he says its okay for her to work outside the home, then it is okay) then I see no problem with it.
What is the reason why women get so much more attention on facebook?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913945
—
This guy just loves to disturb the hive(mind).
I do find the presumption of bitterness to be ‘refreshing’ as usual.
Elspeth,
Forgot to comment on this. I just submitted without finishing. Yes, there are only so many young single men in church. And its not many. They don’t go anymore. Why would young single Christian men attend Sunday morning coffee hour with churchianity sprinkled in? I know I never got anything from it, and I was a Deacon at age 19.
Honestly, they might want to try on-line dating, like Christian singles dot-com or something or other. A Christian on-line dating site, its really not a bad idea. Your girls can maximize their limited time socializing ONLY with marriage minded young Christian men. But safety first, meet for coffee in a public place (or if possible, meet at church.) And keep meeting in public places until she feels safe and secure enough that he isn’t dangerous.
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 10, 2014 at 1:56 am
“If you are on top of it (keep the house clean from day to day) cleaning a simple 3-bedroom, 2-bath house (even one with a finished basement) could be done in an hour. You spend most of the time in the kitchen and the bathrooms, you push a vacuum around the house for 15 minutes, and you are done.”
That hour won’t even properly clean an oven and area underneath the stovetop.
When I get home from being out of town (I currently work on oil rigs 2000 miles from home for 3+ months at at a time), one of the first things I do is I spend about 3 solid days shopping for, cooking, and freezing (we have two freezers) organic high-nutrition single-ingredient foods for my wife to feed our two toddlers while I’m gone.
” Now they are all in school 30 hours a week.”
More and more, between nearly all the smart women avoiding careers as public or private schoolteachers (not being sarcastic here but accurate), the public schools turning Third World, and now the disaster-in-every-way that is Common Core, good parents need to homeschool their children. This is not just so they will excel (homeschooled kids average 86th percentile of the ones in public schools), but so they’ll get educated (in values as well as academia) worth a squat at all. (Plenty of time at public schools for pep rallies for foo-bah and “why homos are better people than we are and hey maybe you’re one too”, but try and find ones that have all of AP classes in Calculus/ Physics/Chemistry.)
“As long as the wife puts her husband and children first, does whatever her husband says (and if he says its okay for her to work outside the home, then it is okay) then I see no problem with it.”
Really? Despite these issues I listed in an earlier post above?
1) there is a nontrivial connection between the more a wife still in her fertile years works at paid jobs outside the house and lowering the number of children she bears. Better her husband bears down more on the job (maybe moonlights for a while, til they’re debt-free) and she starts bearing children earlier (and not stopping sooner to evenly compensate in a feminist fashion, either).
2) Agreed that a wife working outside the home makes her substantially more likely to commit adultery and to divorce her husband. This is even more a risk if her career approaches or exceeds that of her husband in status/pay. (If her husband were to become a SAHF, the odds of her committing adultery or frivorcing him go stratospherically high, so forget that one.)
3) A wife working outside the home without much familial need to do so is often going to be under the authority of another man on the job. This is at least unwise, and possibly unBiblical.
4) If a wife and husband both have careers, it probably will INCREASE the odds (at least double) that they will face disastrous financial trouble at some point. This is due to almost every such couple basing their lifestyle upon two incomes. It is nearly inevitable that no couples will save all of the lesser-earner’s income, which is psychologically understandable. Why stress her (most commonly it’s still the wife with the lesser-paying career) and lower the quality of life of the rest of the family for no immediate payoff, is how most people would feel about it. (Two FT incomes may mean more stuff and more vacations, but also mean fewer more-nutritious home-cooked meals, more sick little kids dumped in daycare,less of kids getting help with homework, forget homeschooling even if the family lives near schools with kids largely from Deliverance, the Congo, Somalia, or Columbia).
5) Lots of teenaged pregnancies are conceived between when the kids get out of school and the first parent arrives home from work. If the kids come straight home from the school (saving only extracurricular stuff like athletics or math/chess club) to a parent already there, guess what kid’s future isn’t blighted. “My 17-YO son, the homeless fugitive” (from the gov’t relentlessly forever chasing after his ass for onerous child support he can never pay off) or “my daughter, the high school dropout unmarriageable trailer park baby momma” have kind of a shitty ring to it, don’t they? Some bad things don’t have a sufficiently high price tag that can be put on them to cover just how bad they are.
==================================================================
By that reasoning, if it’s “okay” with her husband that she starts making extra dough as an “escort” paid primarily in tips, it would seem okay to you as just a personal choice. Some things are a bad idea (not to mention unbiblical) even if both adult parties to it agree to it.
IBB:
Your disdain for the role of the housewife and your disregard for the clearly written Biblical command for wives to be keepers of the home is duly noted. Again. You’d be surprised how much time is required to deep clean some things. Your characterization of what a homemaker does is quite shallow. Whether or not a woman’s role as a homemaker is of value isn’t your call to make. She is to submit to her husband. Period. If he wants her at home and his children under her care rather than a hirelings, she is to obey and her children are very blessed.
My comments were not meant to bolster your condescending position. My comments were specifically geared toward time spent by young, single, childless women.
Not all children are in school all day. Mine are home educated.
Lots of teenaged pregnancies are conceived between when the kids get out of school and the first parent arrives home from work. If the kids come straight home from the school (saving only extracurricular stuff like athletics or math/chess club) to a parent already there, guess what kid’s future isn’t blighted. “My 17-YO son, the homeless fugitive” (from the gov’t relentlessly forever chasing after his ass for onerous child support he can never pay off) or “my daughter, the high school dropout unmarriageable trailer park baby momma” have kind of a shitty ring to it, don’t they? Some bad things don’t have a sufficiently high price tag that can be put on them to cover just how bad they are.
It’s a matter of perspective.
If your family belongs to the ruling oligarchy or its lackeys, living in some fancy gated community, and your daughter attends some posh, well-funded high school and is on a straight path to some fancy university, a good degree, useful family connections, fancy internships and so on, than yes, it’s practically a horrible tragedy if she gets impregnated at 17 and decides to keep the baby. Her future is squandered, she’ll never have that fancy career etc.
On the other hand, if you’re just a run-of-the-mill citizen, i.e. pretty much a loser living in some craphole neighborhood where NAMs are numerous, you have a shitty job and basically no savings, and your daughter is of mediocre intelligence and beauty, basically a somewhat trashy, dumb flop attending some lame-ass high school, than it doesn’t really matter much if she becomes a single mother or not. Her chances of having a well-paying job and a high-status husband are pretty much zero anyway.
Luke,
I know you were addressing IBB when you said this, but if you don’t mind, may I chip in…
“By that reasoning, if it’s “okay” with her husband that she starts making extra dough as an “escort” paid primarily in tips, it would seem okay to you as just a personal choice. Some things are a bad idea (not to mention unbiblical) even if both adult parties to it agree to it.”
May I respectfully point out that a husband saying to his wife, ‘go and work (in a legitimate job!) a bit so we can make ends meet’ is a far cry from ‘go and ‘escort’ other men. Most people (including you, I suspect) would agree that a woman submitting to the first suggestion is doing a good thing and a woman submitting to the latter is perhaps on shaky ground, precisely because it IS a bad idea what the husband is suggesting she do.
If it is HIS choice that she work a bit and she has the means to do so, (and bear in mind that many young men are choosing educated women (so like Elspeth, I too am stupefied when I keep hearing here that men don’t care about a woman’s job, (they do!), but granted, her looks are still the number one factor, yes – then it is actually the submissive thing for her to do it, especially if the conditions are ideal – eg. no children yet.
I keep my ear to the ground on how young men are responding to the SMP debacle – I have many young cousins and nephews, and some come over to stay and I chat with them about these things. None of these young men will marry a woman with no education. None.
But I still think a young woman should know how to manage a home. To be a potential wife and mother. But her education? She is getting it. Doing both is indeed feasible.
She should not lose her chastity whilst obtaining said education though (of course).
IBB,
I do agree that housework need not take very long, at least not as long as fifty years ago.
Less than an hour per week for cleaning/laundry, etc. No more than an hour per meal (a full 3 course meal twice a day).
But a woman’s presence in the home is more than just housework, as I am sure you appreciate.
But I take your point that it makes the most sense for SAHM to stay home when there are small children to look after, in my personal view.
But then again, some men want their wives to stay home even when the kids are grown (because they can afford it, and he wants to enjoy her cooking skills). The point is, it is nice for a woman to do as her husband wishes, because he is most likely looking at the overall picture of the family finances before he makes a suggestion to her. Agreeing with and doing as he wants promotes harmony and unity in the home.
I owe an apology to Anonymous Reader. I took offense far too quickly and too personally. There are some issues I’m working through and allowing raw emotions onto the forum was out of line.
I will improve.
Less than an hour per week for cleaning/laundry, etc.
Are you kidding me, Spacetraveller?
Less than an hour per week? What size house and what size family are we talking here because I can easily spend a couple hours a day twice a week just doing laundry. Cleaning the fridge every week in advance of shopping for grocery? another 30-45 minutes when done thoroughly. Not counting the time it takes to properly inventory and meal plan in a way that maximizes the budget; another hour.
Meals can be very quickly prepared, yes. But the less convenience food you use, the longer they can tend to take.
Being a homemaker is not terribly hard work, I readily admit that. But it is far from the mindless, useless, non valuable role that IBB makes it out to be.
He seems to have a *thing* about men whose wives do things for them that they can do themselves. Not sure what that’s about. really. A man really should have to work 50 or more hours a week, pay the lion’s share of the bills and still come and do half the housework just because he is capable when his wife (even if she works) rarely pays half the bills.
I think it’s good for women to humble ourselves in service to our man and family.
Ah Elspeth,
No, I wasn’t kidding. I was simply giving an example as to what is possible. For a man living alone as IBB himself illustrates, an hour a week is usual, to spend on housework. For a couple (without children), again this applies.
Clearly for a large family with lots of children/grandparents/maybe an aunt or uncle as well, of course this is a whole different ballgame, as you Americans would say.
I already stated that SAHM makes most sense when there are children (the greater the number of children, other ‘dependents’ eg. elderly parents, the more this makes sense).
In agreeing with IBB that housework *can* take little time, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that it could also be a colossal task. Obviously the size of the household must be taken into account. I would have hoped that this was implied. Sorry if it wasn’t clear enough.
In addition, even if the household is small, I also pointed out to IBB that the mere presence of the woman in the home adds *something* to that home.
A certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ which is hard to define.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to ask YOU to define this for those who are ‘unbelievers’ in the skills of the SAHM?
I think you would be the perfect person to address this issue, given you are actually a SAHM yourself.
I am sometimes at home, but less than a year of this doesn’t count, and our children are not yet born, so I am not the best person to describe this ‘intangible’ thing I speak of. You would know more about this than I, so please, go ahead and explain it. It would be a pleasure to see it better elucidated than my mere imagination.
In many ways, I can understand why feminists are so keen to shake off the image of the SAHM.
They (SAHM) don’t get enough support and are underappreciated.
I think that’s a shame, personally. I think SAHM *is* the way to go for a conscientious couple with small children. (Um, I am considering this myself, LOL).
But I also share the view that a woman can help the family financially when she does not have dependents to care for (small kids, elderly relatives) and if she is suitably qulaified.
I see both arguments…
But in the end, I agree with you that this kind of decision should not be taken unilaterally. This is an example where the husband’s (head of family’s) view matters greatly. In the overwhelming majority of cases, his decision/wish would be the correct one, as opposed to the wife’s (if her decision/wish is different from his). I am sure we both agree on this point, so we are on the same side!
I love your last sentence by the way. I feel exactly the same way.
(Don’t let my indulging of IBB’s point of view distract you, because *some* of what he says is objectively true too).
I don’t believe for one freaking minute that IBB, as a single young man, owned or occupied a 4 BR, 2 BA house on an acre of land and owned a riding mower. A young single man who has no wife and no children has no earthly reason even to think of purchasing such things, let along figure out how to care for them. I call BS.
As to housework…
No, it’s not anywhere near as hard as women would have the world believe, especially in today’s era of technological innovation. If you can’t keep a typical family household in order with 10-15 hours a week of labor (applied as though one were being explicity compensated for it) – you are doing it wrong. There are of course, allowances (and sizable ones) that should be made for the care of children to the point of toddler age, although I am amazed that my house was tidier and more organized when my children were younger than older (pre-divorce).
With the exception of sewing, I have done and continue to do all manner of the other domestic duties in a household (more than my ‘share’ while married; all now that I’m divorced), and I did all of the ‘man’ stuff. Woman are delusional on this point, for the most part.
What women should do with the other waking hours in the week when their husbands and children do not need or want their direct attention is indeed an open question, but whether or not there are a significant number of these hours available for productive activities (e.g., paid employment, meaningful volunteering) is absolutely not.
Hi, thank you for the advice. I looked up the blogs and subscribed to them. I just need to find ways to meet bachelors and attract them. I don’t have much of a social network since I don’t have friends. I just hang out with my family, volunteer and run errands. I just got hired to work at a clothing store and signed up for community college. I don’t have any problem being contacted by email ad1984. Besides church would there be anywhere else to find godly men? I don’t go out very much so I am trying to build a social life from scratch right now.
@ Kris
A good start. I would also check out their blogrolls- you can find more blogs that might help you that out. Over on my blog I have some blogs in my blog roll where you might find good tips or moral support as well.
You show signs of being pro-active, which is a good attitude to have right now.
@ Spacetraveller:
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to ask YOU to define this for those who are ‘unbelievers’ in the skills of the SAHM?
I think you would be the perfect person to address this issue, given you are actually a SAHM yourself.
I’m fairly busy today running to and fro but I want to mull this a bit and include it as a part of my homemaking post on Monday rather than do it here.
As for the rest, you’re absolutely right that some of what IBB says is true for average families. Given that there is a preponderance of families here of greater than average size whose children aren’t away from the house six hours a day (homeschooling adds a whole other dimension), it was worth noting that the quick and easy homemaking is not always quick, though I would never claim that the work is hard, because it isn’t. Tedious at times (same as many marketplace jobs) but not hard.
I must agree with Elspeth that being a homemaker is far more than cleaning (which I must also agree takes more than a few hours to do right!). Its about the organization of the home, the schedule, the decoration, etc. so that everything runs smoothly. The mark of a good homemaker to me is whether or not “home” goes with you on vacation. Can your homemaker make you feel just as much at home at any given point on the globe? Feel safe, cozy, fed, and warm? Being a homemaker has as much to do with the person as it does the tasks.
Great, Elspeth, look forward to your post!
Kate,
“Its about the organization of the home, the schedule, the decoration, etc. so that everything runs smoothly.”
Yes!
I think you are getting ‘warm’ in terms of what I was desperately trying to verbalise but couldn’t find the right vocabulary.
A bachelor could live quite happily on food he cooks himself or buys, no problem.
But there is something special (I believe) about having food cooked for you by a woman who loves you (that you don’t have to pay). And for her to ‘look after’ you and your home in a way that only a woman can.
Kate, your analysis is great, but I am talking about something even less ‘clinical’ than what you describe.
(Maybe I am going ‘soft in the head’, (please excuse the over-sentimentality) but I am certain there is something to what I am declaring here).
🙂
I shall await what Elspeth makes of this in her post…with bated breath…
@Spacetraveller: lol I’m sure there is. A certain “vous ne savez pas ce que.” 🙂
“Besides church would there be anywhere else to find godly men?”
If you want to be aggressive in the husband search then look up some local professional societies and see if you can attend meetings without joining. That’ll pre-screen the men for successful careers, meaning they can afford kids NOW and not maybe in 5 years. This might feel awkward but it brings the highest potential reward, too… finding a godly man right when his career is taking off.
An extreme version of this is looking at something like the annual list of new contractor’s licenses issued by the gov’t, then e-mailing the ones who live closest to ask if they’re single and Christian. Include a couple pictures. Or, send that e-mail to receptionists at engineering companies and request forwarding to the cute/religious guys. They get resumes all the time… why not yours?
I know girls don’t like being assertive like this but the girls before you trashed the old system. You can start a conversation with a man by asking questions, requesting stories or at least smiling and saying “I’m new here. Can I follow you around?” Men respond to that.
Meanwhile, when you’re out in public don’t wear earphones and play with your smartphone. If you aren’t being active then at least be available.
Lol, an hour per week to maintain a house? And do laundry? That is nonsense. I agree that housework needn’t be a huge burden if one has no children and no pets, but one hour/week? Even I spend more time than that on housework, and my home is, ummmm, not scrupulously clean. I am a single woman, no kids at home, one dog and a full-time job.
More like an hour a day
deti,
Earthly reason or not, I didn’t really want to saddle myself with that much responsibility. I didn’t feel like I was given a choice. I was informed many years ago that my parents would be selling a house that was in my family for decades and retiring to Florida. This house had all my memories in it. I didn’t want those to disappear. There was NO WAY I was going to let them sell it to just anyone. So I sold the little townhouse I had, cleaned out all my bank accounts, gave every cent from the sale of my townhome plus all my savings (so they could build their dream house in Florida) and wrote a huge promisary note to my folks, and they gave me the deed. In addition to promsing to cut them a check for $1000 a month (for many years), paying the tax stamp at the registry of deeds, my folks also had free usage of the in-law apartment attached to the house in the summertime.
So… yeah, I had a 4-bedroom house (actually, 5, I didn’t count the den.) The riding lawnmower was 13 years old and a hand-me-down. But now that house was my property and my responsibility and my folks (who basically got to live in two places for the price of one, and no debt) felt like they got the better end of the deal. I knew how to care for that home, I cared for it all my teens and early twenties.
The next time you call someone a liar, I want you to really sit there for just ten seconds and ask yourself just one question: is there any possibility that maybe I don’t understand the whole story and I might just jump to conclusions?
Spacetraveller,
The work is with the little kids. When they are real young, then yes… of course, a full-time job caring for the house and the kids. Its because caring for very small helpless children is a full-time job. And it is nice to have a woman’s presence in the home, I grant you. But in many parts of the country, this is simply not an option for many people. I’d rather not argue the reasons for the economic circumstances for why this is, just trust that it is this way.
I am in my 40s now and almost all of my friends I have had for 20 years or more. Very few of these men ever married and had families of their own (and of those few that did marry, only two had wives that didn’t frivorce them.) The majority of these men are MGTOW not necessarily because they wanted to, but because no woman would ever have them. They had professional careers but they were (for the most part) short, ugly, socially un-cool men. Basically, women never noticed the majority of my buddies. They are still alone, childless.
Of the two wives that didn’t frivorce my friends, they both worked outside the home. They still do. There was never a question about that. I don’t know where you live but the state of Massachusetts is a very expensive state to live in and if you want to be able to raise a family there, it is now almost functionally impossible to do so on a single salary. Salaries are a little higher than the national average but nowhere near what they need to be to support mortgages that large. The houses there are generally $600K McMansions OR (if they are small and cheap) then they are older ranch houses (built in the 1940s, 50s, or 60s) and are in a part of the state that you do NOT want to live in to raise a family. Sure you can get a 3 bedroom 2 bath house in Brockton, Lawrence, Taunton, or Fall River MA for $150K, but one of your neighbors will be dealing crack/meth and the other neighbor rents their house and has no pride of ownership. Their front yard might have lots of broken down cars parked in it with weeds overgrown to the looks of wild kingdom! Yes, its that bad.
So (unless they are willing to make some serious financial sacrifices) the wives work. Even where I am living now, I can’t think of but a handful of households where the family has enough earning power such that the wife can afford to stay home fulltime. And in those households, the wives were extremely hypergamous in their selection of a husband (usually medical doctors or lawyers.) Now I’m sure there are going to be a few people responding as to how wrong I am in my assessment and that’s fine. As I said early, every situation is unique. But far too few women are truly willing to make the kind of financial sacrifices necessary to have the luxury that is staying home full time….
…and that is why I love Elspeth so much. Elspeth is “special.” She is one of the very few women who is willing to do that. 🙂
Elspeth,
What that is about is… even as a very young child, I was expected to do household chores and was taught not ot count on other people. My parents never had to do anything when they were growing up and when they got married they were both in for rude awakenings as they didn’t have the first clue how to get shit done. They did not want that for me. My room had to be clean, that was my responsibility. I never wanted to disappoint my parents. So I did my level best (which was not very good) at keeping it clean. And I didn’t ask for help. A little older and it was my responsibility to sweep up all grass clippings. Older still and I had to shovel all the snow in the driveway and clean the pool. It just kept adding up year after year.
And none of these expectations were made of girls. It was only expected of boys.
Growing up a bit as a young alpha, I had many girl friends but NONE that were selfless enough that they would be willing to do things for me, things that I could do for myself. I was expected to take care of all my own things AND look after HER (whoever she was.) So what this was (for me) was learned behavior. I learned not to expect very much of women, actually expected NOTHING of them. I learned not to count on them, to make sure that I had all my ducks in a row without any contributions from HER. She is never going to have any money. She is always going to be too tired to drive. She is always going to want me to pick her up (not secure enough to ever meet me anywhere even if I am expected to be there for other people.) She is never going to be able to help me move anything. And forget expecting her to be by herself for even 5 seconds at any public gathering. Basically for me, women were just children in need of constant supervision and security. As they were children, they had no moral agency.
Maybe my outlook is a bit dark, cold, sinister… I don’t know. But it protected me. It served me well as a young man. My adult years prior to marriage were very successful ones. I was doing okay until God blessed me with my wife. Obviously when you get married, everything changes. But it is what it is Elspeth. I certainly hope that answers that question.
Kate,
Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha, very good 😀
IBB,
Thanks for your thorough explanation.
I hear you.
As I alluded to above, I have sympathy for both arguments, and I have to say, I am conflicted on this issue a bit.
It gives me comfort to realise that it is not *I* who makes the decision on this one 🙂
I just let go, and I am sure the right decision will be made, without my input.
I like it this way (yes, I know I am a coward) 😛
“I don’t know where you live but the state of Massachusetts is a very expensive state to live in and if you want to be able to raise a family there, it is now almost functionally impossible to do so on a single salary.”
I live in Switzerland (one of the most expensives countries on Earth, apparently, and I believe that, LOL), and moreover I live in a famous ski resort in the Swiss Alps, my town being one of the most expensive towns in Switzerland. Prior to that, I lived in London – a very expensive city to live in.
Let’s just say I *definitely* hear ya, LOL.
Here is the source of my conflict:
Yes, it IS a sacrifice for a woman to stay home full time, because the implication is that the family is relatively poorer (compared to if she were working), so it is a sacrifice for both the man and the woman (and the children of course). That is noble in a way, because this act of dependence on the man is truly ‘natural’ and ergo biblical. So yes, I too have admiration for women like Elspeth.
On the other hand, the Proverbs 31 woman earns money for the household (I think someone mentioned that she was specifically a businesswoman). That too is admirable.
As indeed is the story of your friends’ wives who remain married to their husbands to this day, and work to contribute to the family finances. I see this too as ‘teamwork’ where the husbands have partly delegated ‘breadwinning’ to their wives, and I suppose the wives submit to this with the understanding that they are acting as ‘helpmates’ in this regard, and not as ‘equals’. This is ever so important in a woman’s psyche because of her hypergamous nature. I know this to be true.
This is why I insist that the *attitude* a married woman adopts when it comes to work is oh so important. This is why I admire Kris’ assertion that the reason she is in college is so that she could be of help to her future husband (if he so wishes).
Now if 46% of men these days (according to Dalrock’s graph) want a woman with an education that means half of all men Kris is likely to meet will want her to have this education she is seeking. The implication is that some of those men may well wish that she work, at least for a while, perhaps before their children arrive, as Elspeth suggested…
People’s mileage may vary when it comes to housework. I guess one can do as little or as much as one wants. Who is to judge?
My husband is similar to you – he is self-sufficient in the realm of housework because he too was a bachelor for a long time before he met me. So I never have to do that much, compared to others. I don’t have the issue of (for example) having to pick up his clothes from the floor, etc. which I hear is the bane of so many wives’ lives. So I am lucky in this regard, I guess, not that this would bother me (I expected this in my mental adjustment to marriage, so was surprised that this didn’t happen – at least it hasn’t happened – yet). So maybe I would have this with my children… as payback or something, we shall see!
What I spend most time on is cooking, because he is completely devoid of cooking skills (which fulfills my own wish because I am a great lover of cooking and specifically wanted to be the sole cook in my household. I remember teasing Danny (from 504) that his superlative cooking skills would certainly have turned me off him had I been a ‘candidate’ for him. I think this is a psychological thing with me (seeing as we all seem to be sharing this sort of thing, I volunteer my own here, why not, LOL): my mother is also a great cook, and I now know that you cannot have two cooks in the same house :-). Call it feminine competition…
I absolutely love turning raw ingredients into an edible work of art…alone. I guess the nurturing thing is strong in me. I cherish it.
A few well-meaning friends have suggested that I teach my husband to cook so he is not so dependent on me, but I know I will never be able to pull this off, because a) HE doesn’t want to learn, LOL, and b) *I* don’t want him to learn either. 😛
Selfish, yes (‘but what if you die before him, ST?’ is the favourite argument, to which I reply: ‘in that case God will send him another cooking woman’,) but the point is, it works for us.
I see it works for you (and your household) how you do things too.
That surely is ideal, isn’t it?
I enjoyed this discussion. Thanks so much for your input.
I am looking forward to continuing this on Elspeth’s blog. I should be checking out her blog anyway, for other reasons…
JDG
Granted Gunner came on pretty strong, and the words “most man-hating sentence I have ever read” probably didn’t hit me as hard as they hit you.
No, he made up a falsehood and attributed it to me. That’s a fallacy. If you can’t see that, then you do not understand elementary logic.
The impression I got from your responses (in total) is that you think Christian women should prepare for life of competing with men in the work force, just in case.
If you bothered to read what I write, rather than make up impressions in your head, we might be able to communicate. I’ll start in one more attempt to communicate with you:
Show me where in this thread or any other thread at Dalrock’s I have ever stated what you claim. Take you time. Or admit that you are just making crap up and falsely attributing it to me.
Clear enough?
Luke
I was referring to the couple in this previous post here, AR:
Anonymous Reader says:
October 9, 2014 at 10:01 am
“JDG
It’s hard to think outside the box. Most folks don’t.
Hard to acquire skills and certification without attending some post high school institution, too.
I met a young woman and her fiancee in a social setting, both made no secret of their regular church attendance. He’s getting some technical degree, she works as an ultrasound tech, taking images, a necessary and useful skill. There are no home-school courses in ultrasound tech because of certification requirements. She has a 2-year degree from a community college. There are lots of skilled labor jobs like that. You’re saying that Christian women like Kris should not do those jobs, right? So what should they do?”
So? You claimed that this woman had one degree and was working on another. If you bother to read the text you just quoted, there is nothing to indicate that. Let me explain this so you can understand it:
I know a man. Call him Mr. A. He is completing a tech degree this year.
I know a woman. Call her Miss B. She has a med tech degree already.
Mr. A and Miss B plan to get married in December.
I know another woman, call her Miss C. She completed her RN this year. She may be
planning to marry next June.
Got it? Two different women. No advanced degrees at all.
Luke, read more carefully. That is my suggestion to you this time.
Gunner Q
I owe an apology to Anonymous Reader. I took offense far too quickly and too personally. There are some issues I’m working through and allowing raw emotions onto the forum was out of line.
I will improve.
Apology accepted, no harm, no foul. Consider the whole thing done. Over with.
You are not the first man or the last man to wind up bringing anger onto an androsphere site.
Don’t sweat it, that’s one of the things these places are for.
AR – Clear enough?
Sorry, no not at all.
I didn’t say that you stated “you think Christian women should prepare for life of competing with men in the work force”. I said you gave me the impression that this was your position.
I don’t make things up about people. I may be wrong about a lot of things, but I never deliberately misrepresent someone. If it really matters to you as to how I could get the impression that you were arguing for women to prepare for competition in the workforce, then go back and re-read our previous exchanges. I realize that it is more than possible that I misunderstood you, and you me. If I did misunderstand you, I’ve already apologized for that up thread.
Pingback: Home cooking, Homeschooling, Homemaking (to Homemake or not to Homemake) | Loving in the Ruins
Elspeth, nice post on your blog.
Pingback: Is it robolove or robolust? | Dalrock
Pingback: Not in the picture. | Dalrock
Pingback: The rational response to high divorce rates. | Dalrock
Pingback: John Zmirak is mostly right. | Dalrock