Vox Day warns his readers not to place too much stock in a woman’s stated opinion on divorce when considering her suitability for marriage:
Don’t pay much attention to her asserted opinion of divorce, unless she is convinced it was a good thing. Most women will talk about divorce being A Bad Thing, but that has very little significance with regards to the likelihood of her following her parents’ example.
This is in my opinion good advice, and I offered some thoughts on how to better break through this question in the comments section to Vox’s post. I included this basic advice in a post of my own over four years ago, but I think it is worth calling out again:
One test I would offer is to ask a prospective wife what she would teach your future children about divorce. Would she teach them that “Sometimes marriages just don’t work out”, etc? Or would she teach them that divorce is unacceptable (with depending on your faith perhaps some very selective and well defined exceptions)?
As I’ve written about before, when our daughter was around 4 years old we were at a Thanksgiving dinner and one of the kids there told our daughter his parents were divorced because “sometimes mommies and daddies stop loving each other”. We didn’t know what was up, but our daughter was terrified for several days and kept looking for reassurance that my wife and I still loved each other. Once we found out what had happened we explained that the boy was mistaken, and his mommy was a brat who broke their family because she was unhappy. Once our daughter understood that her home wasn’t at risk for the fate that befell the poor boy she slept fine at nights.
Tell a prospective wife about this story you read on the internet and see how she responds. Specifically, look to see who she instinctively protects when she hears the story. Does she instinctively want to protect the innocent girl, or the guilty woman?
Nothing is foolproof, but this should help cut through the stock BS. It also sets the frame for you to teach your young children from the beginning about the seriousness of marriage. This will not only make it harder for your wife to pull a Jenny Erickson, it will also give your children a strong foundation for lifelong sexual morality.
That’s a good test. It reminds me of a survey that showed most women would choose a good man for their daughter but a not-so-good man for themselves. Asking what people want for their children gets at the truth.
Pingback: A simple test. | Manosphere.com
This test is a practical way to get at the most important thing – what is the potential spouse’s theology of marriage? The BS it cuts through is how someone “feels” about divorce. I don’t care about how anyone feels about divorce. I care what they think God feels about divorce.
We didn’t know what was up, but our daughter was terrified for several days and kept looking for reassurance that my wife and I still loved each other
Women think of children not.
Opposite of what told we were.
It reminds me of a survey that showed most women would choose a good man for their daughter but a not-so-good man for themselves
Tingles wife does need.
Daughters need not.
Quote: “I always like to share with couples Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s quote: “It is not your love that supports your marriage. It is your marriage that supports your love.” Bonhoeffer’s quote is so spot-on. Love is a feeling that can ebb and flow, but a relationship is guided by commitment and that supports love through the peaks and valleys. ”
http://www.stjohnsepiscopalchurch-newmilford.org/sermon-blog/sermon-by-reverand-daniel-mattila-august-10-2014
Like mother like daughter, this holds true from my limited experience. If her mum is divorced its a major red flag even before any questioning begins.
@RichardP 2:29: Quote: “… Love is a feeling that can ebb and flow …”
My thoughts on this quote:
From the time of Greek writing, there are multiple definitions of love. Most of those have to do with one’s response to hormonal prompting. Those definitions exist within marriage – but are not the glue that holds families together for a lifetime.
Love is a verb.
“Greater love hath no man than that he give his life for a friend.” The Bible
Do. Not try.
“If you’re going to love someone, then stand there and do it.” Either Cagney or Lacy, don’t remember which.
What stage is she in these days? I have a hunch that her hunky millionaire handyman is still just over the horizon.
A bit of OT good news…
Breitbart has just published part one of a wide-ranging story covering the divorce strike, MGTOW (in different words), and other problems caused by feminism.
I say this is good news because misandry/mens issues are rarely, if ever, covered by any mainstream media outlets. Breitbart isn’t completely mainstream of course but it gets much more traffic and attention than the manosphere. The fact that such a story could be published there indicates that the water is starting to boil.
The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women and Checking Out of Society HTML link.
Marriage sells,..
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html
…but who’s buying?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-marriage-rates-at-all-time-low-why/
I have a feeling Milo, a gay conservative writer for Breitbart, is involved with the Manosphere, and Roosh in particular. Call it a hunch. And Milo has been covering Gamergate on Breitbart since it began, and many commenters and readers have found their way from Return of Kings to Breitbart lately. Comments on Breitbart have been increasingly Red Pill lately.
The divorce surge is over, because fewer people are getting married to begin with.
It’s hard to get divorced when you aren’t even married.
Re: The Breitbart Sexodus article
Extramarital sex isn’t an option for serious Christians. Godless heathens on the other hand… I’m surprised any of them bother with marriage at all anymore.
My mistake. I meant “marriage strike” not “divorce strike.”
The CBS article uses the overall average numbers for when people are marrying: 26.5 for women and 28.7 for men. When you break it down by education you get a different story.
2010 median age of marriage NO college degree:
men: 28
women: 24
2010 median age of marriage college degree:
men: 30
women: 28
Consider that in 1900 the median age to marry was 26 for men and 22 for women–only a 2 year difference from 2010.
Men have always put off marriage until they were established–both educationally and financially–hence the later age of marriage even in 1900. Given that it takes longer for a man to establish himself today (due to more educational requirements and a poorer economy), it’s not surprising that male college grads are waiting even later to marry.
It’s women with college degrees that are pushing back the median age of women marrying, because they are now following the pattern men have traditionally followed: waiting till they have become established (in their education and careers) before pursuing marriage.
The more interesting stat is how many of these women will never marry, because they have waited too long to get serious about marriage?
Correction:
Consider that in 1900 the median age to marry was 26 for men and 22 for women–only a 2 year difference from 2010 NO COLLEGE DEGREE NUMBERS.
likelihood of her following her parents’ example.
Nothing sets as strong of an example then her parents. If she was raised by a single mother – she will be fun, and always a good time, but never make the mistake of thinking she is anything more than a good time girl. Yes, they will gravitate to men to try to get what they didn’t have growing up – male validation – and say all sorts of things about knowing how horrible it was to not have a father – but invariably heritage exerts itself and she will follow her mother’s example. So the best thing you can do is to use it to your advantage, but never make the mistake of thinking it is anything more than what it is – a good time, for a couple of months (at most)…
‘We didn’t know what was up, but our daughter was terrified for several days and kept looking for reassurance that my wife and I still loved each other.’
Interesting…it wasn’t even her parents and yet divorce caused that reaction. Basically why I keep saying divorce is legalized child abuse.
If I had a nickle for every time I have heard a woman say “Oh, its a good thing” about their divorce I would be a very wealthy man.
Also, there is an argument that extramarital sex is not completely banned by the Bible as taught by most western churches. Apparently the term fornication has changed definitions over the last few centuries. The link below is to an article explaining the position.
http://www.godrules.net/articles/1cor6.htm
Also highly recommend perusing the article index as the author has put many interesting articles on the site.
It amazes me that it is a LOT easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a cell-phone contract. A man would do well to make double-sure any serious girlfriend was FIRMLY on the right side of this issue, since a wife can ruin her husband with very little effort… and far too many have done so. And if she want’s to put in more effort to really tighten the screws, most judges and most churches will actively aid her.
If divorce courts were as hard on women as they are on men there would be a lot less divorce. Shoot, if divorce courts treated someone seeking to get out of a marriage the same way they treat someone trying to get out of a lease agreement on a car, there would be a lot less of it.
Frugal Nerd,
You’re very late to the party. We’ve been over and over and over this – having sex outside of marriage is a sin, and no amount of post-modern rationalization and false “scholarship” is going to make the Bible say otherwise. Full stop.
‘Also, there is an argument that extramarital sex is not completely banned by the Bible as taught by most western churches. Apparently the term fornication has changed definitions over the last few centuries.’
It falls under sexual immorality….porneia. Where one of the definitions is…
1) illicit(unlawful) sexual intercourse
Got your papers to prove who you are conjoined to is your lawful spouse?
But I do agree that sex has become an idol for a lot of people….and that is by far a worse problem.
Godless heathens are easy to come by these days with the church going PC churchian. How is going to Christ with gay clergy and women preachers and lets not forget the female headship thing that is now considered moral
Who
“The divorce surge is over, because fewer people are getting married to begin with.”
—
Msm doesn’t seem to get this… They have it backwards. Divorce rates aren’t rising (yay they’re just hovering around the 50% mark) so why aren’t more people taking the plunge?
Increasingly the only people getting married will be holdouts that still truly believe in the institution and those who come from more traditional cultures… cultures that frown on divorce. Both groups less likely to divorce anyway.
I would hope her template of explaining her feelings divorce would be rooted from something like this…divorce as it is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic church.
‘Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.
Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.’
One more ting. They don’t bother with marriage either any more they just have kids.
Lyn87,
Late to the party? Guilty as charged. Not everyone deals with the same issues in their lives at the same time. Also, I don’t consider using Leviticus chapter 18 as post-modern rationalization as it is a 3,000+ year old book God gave us through Moses.
Earl,
It depends on who is writing the law and what that law says is illicit. God’s law is given in the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 for illicit sexual intercourse) and it does not require a blood sacrifice for any and all forms of extramarital sex. Is extramarital sex foolish? Yes, extremely. The consequences can be very far reaching and damaging which is why Solomon spent a large part of Proverbs explaining many of the ways women can lead men to destruction. However, it is not sinful unless it is adultery, bestiality, homosexuality incest, or being used as a form of worship to any deity as outlined in Leviticus.
My mistake. I meant “marriage strike” not “divorce strike.”
Not too off. Can’t get divorced if you’re not married.
‘The consequences can be very far reaching and damaging which is why Solomon spent a large part of Proverbs explaining many of the ways women can lead men to destruction.’
Well if it walks like a sin (far reaching), talks like a sin (damaging), and acts like a sin (lead men to destruction)…it’s probably a duck.
Frugal Nerd,
I meant “very late” as in the fact that we had this discussion – at great length – just a few weeks ago. Someone else came in peddling the same post-modernist exegesis you’re peddling now. And yes, I’ll stick with “post-modern” because although Leviticus was penned several thousand years ago, the idea that it doesn’t mean what it says is pretty new.
In fact I’m being too generous calling it any kind of exegesis at all. It is actually an example of isogesis – reading the preferred meaning into a text rather than deriving the meaning from the text.
It also sets the frame for you to teach your young children from the beginning about the seriousness of marriage. This will not only make it harder for your wife to pull a Jenny Erickson, it will also give your children a strong foundation for lifelong sexual morality.
+ 1000.
Is any test of a woman’s fidelity useful? From what I’ve been taught, women’s minds are so dynamic that they can honestly believe one thing today and honestly believe the exact opposite in a couple months. Rather than test her current opinion, it might be better to check who’s been putting ideas into her head.
…
Frugal Nerd, didn’t we have this exact debate recently? I recall you had a selective interpretation of Mosaic Law that allows a guy to have sex freely so long as he pretends to be surprised she wasn’t a virgin while finishing up. Or was that the other guy who found a huge loophole in Biblical morality that nobody noticed for 3,000+ years?
“God’s law is given in the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 for illicit sexual intercourse) and it does not require a blood sacrifice for any and all forms of extramarital sex.”
…Because it requires the death penalty instead. (Lev. 20:10) You’re trying to get around the “another man’s wife” bit by taking the Mosaic Law out of the context of ancient Israel, where that would be the phrase to describe any adult woman barring foreign slaves, and transplanting it to modern America where the very concept of marriage is all but dead. This is a splendid example of why God repealed the Mosaic Law.
Christian sexual morality is handled comprehensively by the NT.
The first thing a young fella has to find out about a young ladies family is divorce history. How have the adult role models acted? That’s what she knows. Women lie and disimulate. If there’s divorce in the family, flee! Yes, I know that almost all of the women you meet can’t pass that test. Think about it. Marital theft, plundered…..snowflake will do the same thing to you. BET ON IT.
“sometimes mommies and daddies stop loving each other”
Well that’s only half right. It should read “sometimes mommies stop loving daddies”. Cause that’s been the reality I’ve always seen, for whatever reason mommy gets “unhappy” and nukes the nuclear family.
The only bright-side seems to be when she realizes too late that she screwed up and she’s FAR worse off divorced than she would be married.
Excellent advice. One little addendum… Even if princess’ parents are still married, look very carefully at how her father is treated by her mother and herself.
A man should be spending lots of time with his future father-in-law anyway, if he’s serious about marriage, because he’s a part of the package that any married man will have to deal with for the rest of his life. It shouldn’t be seen as untoward for you to invite your affianced’s dad out to watch the game or to go hunting or something. Be very attentive to the things he says when you’re together. Look at posture and body language, too.
Is father treated well by mother, not just when company is over, but in private also? Does father have the run of the house (except perhaps for the kitchen and maybe mother’s bathroom), or is he shunted off into a dank basement or uninsulated garage for most of his off hours? Does your future wife speak highly of her dad, or does she belittle him when he’s not around?
Bet your ass that this will be you in twenty years (I am seeing this happen with friends now) so pay close attention and use your head. Some families have a proud tradition of respect for parents, and others do not. If you must join a family, opt for the first type.
Boxer
An even safer option:
WRITE YOUR OWN MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Do NOT marry with a State marriage license.
A State marriage license is a three-way, polygamous contract wherein the boy and the girl who want to get married declare themselves to be wards in need of a guardian; the State marriage license marries the boy and the girl to the State, with the State place on top, and any fruit (children) from such an ungodly marriage becomes the property of the State, and this is what gives Social Lady the legal right to come take “your” children away at the first complaint of any snitching neighbor with a beef against you.
Christians have completely lost their history.
Earl: that’s the official doctrine of the Church about divorce. How many Catholics actually believe it or hold to it though? On the one hand, tribunals have been handing out annulments like candy for decades. On the other, catechesis and marriage preparation are so poor that it’s not implausible that so many Catholics are joined in objectively invalid marriages.
. . . it will also give your children a strong foundation for lifelong sexual morality.
Half of one at any rate, more or less.
If I had a nickle for every time I have heard a woman say “Oh, its a good thing” about their divorce I would be a very wealthy man.
Assuming you don’t get divorced – you won’t be that wealthy anymore. 😉
Frugal Nerd’s link is more logical and coherent and biblically supported than the bluster and shaming others have offered on non-marital sex.
You know, looking at her family and what Boxer says about the fate of her father…..I’ve seen it myself. Here’s the real problem. As it says in the bible, a man of thinking ability is hated. So, a young man has to keep his eyes open and his mouth shut. As my father used to say…..EVERYTHING you see means something. Get it wrong, and your gonna be a divorced statistic. From what I’ve seen, churchy folks are just as likely to be unhapppppy as anyone, so be careful. Personally, I’m MGTOW. I had to completely start over at 53. Never again. Dogs are reliable. Women aren’t. They are a product of a feminist-marxist society.
Earl:
“Well, if it walks like a sin (far reaching), talks like a sin (damaging), and acts like a sin (lead men to destruction)…it’s probably a duck.”
By that logic it would be a sin to invest money because loosing the shirt off your back has far reaching and damaging consequences as well. I don’t think Christ would have used a sinful activity as an analogy to the Kingdom of God in the Parable of the Talents.
Lyn87:
I was not party to that discussion as I do not have the time to read the comments section of every Dalrock post, as much as I enjoy reading and contributing to them. I will be looking for that discussion though as I am interested in hearing the counterarguments. That is why I took the statement above about Christians not being allowed to have sex outside of marriage as an opportunity to state my view knowing that the vast majority of Christians on this site are of the opposing view. The only surprises I have had is it took 20 minutes for the opposition to post and I have yet to be called a heretic (the last one can still be corrected 🙂 ).
Gunner Q:
That was not me, however as mentioned above I will look for the discussion to see the arguments made on both sides. As for the part about being surprised she wasn’t a virgin, that is one of the many incorrect arguments used to try to support my position. Fact is, according to Mosaic Law if she was a virgin the man would be liable to pay her dowry even if her father refused to let him marry her. If the man was “surprised she wasn’t a virgin,” then he would have to bring her out and prove she was not a virgin. That is not an easy task, and the man would be guilty of bearing false witness if the signs of virginity were in fact there and answerable to that charge. I agree with you that the aforementioned loophole does not exist. Another example of a false argument I have seen made on this site was that fornication was not banned by the Bible. IIRC it was Earl who correctly labelled that argument as heresy.
As far as the blood sacrifice, it can take the form of either an animal sacrifice on the altar or the death of the sinner. Only certain parts of Mosaic Law were abrigated. Two examples are the blood sacrifices (abrigated by Christ’s death) and the dietary laws (when God told Peter to take and eat unclean animals). Another piece of context within Ancient Israel is when Solomon settled the debate between the two prostitutes as to who’s baby was killed when one rolled over and suffocated one of their two babies during the night by accident. If all extramarital sex was illicit under Mosaic Law then Solomon should have executed both prostitutes and put the surviving baby up for adoption. Solomon didn’t harm either of them. Christ came to fulfil the Law, not replace it in entirety.
I have the utmost respect for anyone who meets God’s ideal standard of total abstinence outside of marriage – but I also believe we should not use the modern English definition of a Biblical term to determine theology when it differs from the Biblical definition given within the Bible itself.
“If I had a nickle for every time I have heard a woman say “Oh, its a good thing” about their divorce I would be a very wealthy man.
Assuming you don’t get divorced – you won’t be that wealthy anymore. ;)”
That’s one reason I’m very glad to still be single at 33. Well said.
jsr opines,
Frugal Nerd’s link is more logical and coherent and biblically supported than the bluster and shaming others have offered on non-marital sex.
You only think so because the rest of us demolished the very same arguments in his link in the discussion of this post in August. A guy who goes by the name of “Monkeywerks” made the same arguments Frugal Nerd is making, and several of us took them apart in excruciating detail: there is no point re-plowing that field here. That thread ran to 900 comments (several dozen of which were about whether or not God really means it when He says that fornication is a sin). So rather than re-hashing the thrashing those argument took in August – we’re just directing him to where he can see the reasons why he’s wrong.
I suggest both you and FN take a look at the biblically supported case against “fornication is fine” in that thread before you render any more premature rulings.
Wow! Really good advice Dalrock… I feel like I tend to justify divorce (based on truly awful circumstances) but you’re right, it’s better to have a firm stance of it being unacceptable. My mom was definitely taught us that it was unacceptable… we even recently had a conversation about the “truly awful circumstances” and she really believes that (Christians) should stick I out… that marriage isn’t supposed to be easy, and sometimes you get a really bad deal… that we’re called to suffer sometimes (because we’re Christians).
I was teaching our son about our family tree recently, it was horrible having to show him various relatives (mostly just aunts, great aunts, and cousins) divorcing (the way I drew it was attaching them together by a line and a heart, when there’d be a divorce, I’d slash through the heart – it was dramatic and really got to him, and I explained how marriage is a lot of work and some people stop working on their growing their love, that you have to be very careful who you decide to marry, etc. I’ve already pointed out how women can act extremely selfish and horrible, and I’ve made it a point to tell him to avoid those kinds of women for marriage (I probably sound like a crazy mom). But my mom did things like that, too. When she was teaching me the story about Joseph she really explained about Potiphar’s wife and their marriage dynamic (she REALLY understood the way men and women interact). She pointed out that Potiphar was a sweet, kind, good man (a modern day “nice guy” right?). He was in a position of power, was more than likely wealthy, and that women like her set their sights on men like him… because they instinctively know these nice men – good men – would endure their behavior. LOL she wanted me to look for a man like that and rescue him from women like her. I love my mom.
Dalrock, I tried to ask this on Vox’s website but it didn’t get through;
Should men who grew up in similar circumstances expect to be held in the same way he mentions? Am I more likely to be a lost cause, or would I just have to work harder than one who was raised stably under both parents?
@Fracture, I’ll butt in with an answer. Anybody (male or female) who grows up without a good model of marriage in the home is, all other things being equal, at greater risk for an awful marriage (and/or divorce). That doesn’t mean you’re a lost cause, but if you want to set yourself up for success, you’ve got a lot of learning (and un-learning) to do.
I grew up with a poor (not awful) model, yet my parents never divorced. The worst part was, they didn’t teach me or my siblings anything about marriage or how to choose a spouse, and that is evident in our poor choices. (Not that I’m blaming everything on my parents; just acknowledging the reality of one generation’s effect on the next.)
In other words, it’s not just children of divorced parents who have greater challenges re: marriage. I’m sure that makes you feel a heck of a lot better. /s
@Dragonfly, yup, lots of excellent lessons hiding in plain sight in well-known Bible stories. Glad to hear your mother recognized them and made use of them, and now you’re doing the same. Awesome.
Re: “really bad deal”, that about describes my situation. Though pretty much hopeless, I’m sticking it out, for several reasons — one of which is to be an example for my children.
Another simple test:
“Do you [generally] agree with the majority of posters at CAF/CF*?”
*Catholic Answers Forum/Christian Forums
@Splashman, I witnessed some bad marriages. They have defined the reasons I wouldn’t want to marry. It’s good when the spouses know how to make it work, but when it doesn’t…
I worry about myself because friends tell me I should marry, but these people don’t tell me how to stay married. And I figure it’s pretty easy not to.
‘By that logic it would be a sin to invest money because loosing the shirt off your back has far reaching and damaging consequences as well. I don’t think Christ would have used a sinful activity as an analogy to the Kingdom of God in the Parable of the Talents.’
What investment is a person making by engaging in fornication?
@Frugal Nerd
“Also, there is an argument that extramarital sex is not completely banned by the Bible as taught by most western churches. Apparently the term fornication has changed definitions over the last few centuries. The link below is to an article explaining the position.
http://www.godrules.net/articles/1cor6.htm”
The argument he makes in that article results in a wrong conclusion. Sex outside of marriage was sin in Israel. He blows off the fact that a man had to make sacrifice for the sin of illicit sex with a woman who was not betrothed. Just because they didn’t kill him for it, does not mean it isn’t sin.
His view of the word porneia is also flawed. He does not take a dim enough view of harlotry and just how serious the acts that constituted that were taken. Porneia is unrepentant sexual immorality. In ancient Israel, that would get you killed.
Dalrock,
This pastor has something to say about divorce – the first 15 minutes or so of this video. Very educational and useful information, for example the etymology of the word ‘divorce’ and why divorce is worse than death. In this regard, he sounds very Catholic, because I know that the Catholic Church sees divorce as a very grave (i.e. ‘mortal’ sin). This is not necessarily so in other denominations of Christianity, it appears to me…
The rest of this sermon is also very enlightening. I would say he is (or was – I am afraid to say he died this year, not sure exactly when – may he rest in Peace) ‘Red Pill’.
JF says:
I agree that it is functionally a three-way contract with the state at the top. It is a license, which means it is literally a permission to be married. A license binds you to certain obligations (established by the state) and is revokable. In my opinion there is something fundamentally wrong with the state being involved in marriage. Since the state and only the state sets the terms of this contract that should rightfully only be the business of the church or family groups, it is like the state telling the church or family groups what to practice.
It’s sort of like how you think you own your private property yet you need a permit from the county to build anything, and what you build has to pass code inspections. So just how private is your private property? And if you have to get permission to do anything with it then are you really the owner? Welcome to Socialism, where the nebulous “common good” is placed above your individual rights.
@The Brass Cat: “So just how private is your private property?”
Only as private as the state will let it be. Your problem is with the definition of “private”.
Take away the state and someone stronger than you will take your property from you, perhaps killing you in the process. That is the lesson of history – then, and even now. The concept of “private property” is meaningless without a state to tell others that it is yours and to defend it for you. If you doubt that, I invite you to consider the concept of “boundaries” – the definition of which is necessary before any property can be decreed private OR public. Who defines the boundaries and enforces the boundaries? Only the biggest badass around. And that is not likely to be you (possible, maybe; but not likely).
Just wondering about this flip side perspective instead of wondering how she views divorce…does she think marriage is for life?
Obviously saying it and doing it are two different things…but her view about marriage is pretty important I would think.
The concept of “private property” is meaningless without a state to tell others that it is yours and to defend it for you.
I am not a complete anarchist, but claiming things can only be defended by “the State” is worshiping the state. It is both stupid and idiotic.
A government can have value, but can only be kept in check with active individual involvement. Part of its value is reinforcing your own defense of your own property, not doing it for you. It may help, but you cannot count on it any more than you can count on someone else doing what you are responsible to do.
Fracture @ 2:33 am:
“I worry about myself because friends tell me I should marry, but these people don’t tell me how to stay married. And I figure it’s pretty easy not to.”
I doubt you would fail at marriage, seeing as you’ve already discovered the Manosphere and are taking the issue more seriously than “everybody is doing it”. Good luck finding a trustworthy girl, though. Just tell your friends you “haven’t found the right one yet” to keep them off your back. God does not require you to marry (1 Cor. 7) so don’t let anybody else push you into it.
“Should men who grew up in similar circumstances expect to be held in the same way he mentions?”
Definitely not. Men need to screen women harder than women screening men because women get everything in a divorce. For them it’s a financially rewarding, encouraged experience; for us, it’s sufficient reason for a suicide watch.
If fatherless men have more divorces then it’s probably due to them being conditioned to accept the Blue Pill and women in charge. I strongly doubt any modern man goes into a marriage thinking divorce would be an acceptable fate… those guys who want an “out” just don’t get married in the first place.
…
“I am not a complete anarchist, but claiming things can only be defended by “the State” is worshiping the state.”
Let’s take a example, Brad. Suppose the fence along your property line collapses during a storm and your neighbor builds a new one five feet into your property. You complain but he says the old fence was in the wrong place and now he’s correcting a mistake. What do you do, if the State has no involvement? Either you let him have the strip of land or you move his fence to where YOU think the property line is… and so it escalates. Taking the dispute to your Protestant pastor won’t work because the other guy is Catholic and neither of you wants to be bound by what the other guy’s spiritual leader decides… as if a spiritual leader is qualified to make decisions about property law in the first place. Hiring a land surveyor won’t work because there’s no official description of your property and he can’t force you or your neighbor to accept his solution anyway.
I suppose we could reinstate the dueling code. The better killer will get his way regardless.
This is a paradox of American gov’t: in order to serve the people, the State must have the power to coerce individuals who, in the aggregate, are the people. We have to give up some of our sovereignty or society doesn’t work. If police can’t enter my property unbidden then neither can they do anything about the meth lab next door.
It used to be round here that the professional arbiters of each clan, overseen by the chief(s) if the dispute was particularly significant (i.e between different kindreds) would agree a median line between certain immovable sighting points in the landscape.
And if a fence was moved slightly, well the answer was to refer to the line-of sight or watercourse and dig a ditch as wide and deep as one pleased, piling the upcast on one’s own side.
The constant possibility of all-out clan warfare kept any desire for literally “pushing the boundaries” very much in check, as it generally resulted not only in the near-total extermination, and often posthumous decapitation and impaling the heads, of not just every losing-side male over 13, but crippling decimation of the “winners”, laying them open to yet more neighbourly predation from onlooking tribes seeing their opportunity.
M.A.D. doctrine, but with swords, HTH
I don’t think there is an effective test that can be done apriori on a woman to determine whether or not she will divorce you. No such test can exist because women are the pragmatic sex, they are the ones most likely to change how they feel for survival purposes, rather than loyalty. Biology has told them this over eons.
Lyn87,
Thanks for the link – I didn’t realize this was that much of a dead horse.
@Brad: “… claiming things can only be defended by “the State” …”
My point was not about worshiping the state. My point was that state is the only organization powerful enough to defend one’s property against the strongest mob that would take it from you. No one can successfully defend themselves against those that are stronger than they are. In theory anyway, no one is stronger than the state. There are finer points about this that could be discussed. I wasn’t aiming at those. I was only aiming at the most obvious: most people behave because they fear the state, not because they fear you or because they love God. And I’m using the term “state” loosely enough that my definition could incorporate what Tam the Bam describes a couple of posts up from here.
I think you are right to a point. This is all a natural occurrence of the growth of human populations. It’s rather a circular action starting with singular humans forming tribes, which progress to give each other protection and rights within the clan, which then grows to encompass land and sovereign states which then includes governments which becomes a separate entity to the people, which then grows to encompass all facets of life. It is at this point that the states stops serving and starts becoming a tyrant, which is what we have now, it’s the natural growth cycle of civilisation, when too much power is given to the state. Eventually, the government grows too big and starts to eat itself and its people; you’ll either then have a revolt or be conquered by others.
It’s a snapshot of humanity and why we will never learn from our mistakes. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As any lawyer will tell you the most viciously fought of cases are those over boundaries – sometimes (and I speak from experience) literally over inches. Boundaries – despite plans – have the real habit of shifting. For those who are operatically inclined: Revenge for the Boundary Wall by Noskowski (1908) and A Village Romeo and Juliet (1907) from Delius deal with the phenomena.
@RichardP,
I’m not suggesting the state doesn’t have a role to play in private property, because a legitimate purpose of the state is law enforcement and hearing civil cases. Our government has employed land surveyors since the very beginning. It’s better than Tam the Bam’s clan warfare. What is so onerous today is that the state tells you what you can do with your property and how you can do it. Yes, it is a matter of boundaries, but the boundaries have been skewed against the private property owner. It’s out of balance.
Sometimes the owners have to do some whacky stuff to compensate for the state’s short-sighted edicts: http://nypost.com/2014/12/07/luxury-bulding-fences-off-rent-stabilized-tenants-terraces/ So now you have people in conflict over poor door/rich door and having their own balconies fenced off.
Jeremy,
“[Women] are the ones most likely to change how they feel for survival purposes“.
Exactly.
Brass Cat,
Typical leftist thinking. Fair is bringing everyone DOWN to the same level.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/12/10 | Free Northerner
Pingback: The Big Deal About Divorce | Amusing Nonsense
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/12/10
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/12/10
Thanks for sharing this story. It sticks with you and is a good way to get to the truth of the matter.
Pingback: Why he won’t hear it. | Dalrock