Do as I say Ward, or I’ll blow up this family!
Chapter 15 of Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards’ book Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Raise a Family, and Other Manly Advice is Marriage is for Keeps: How to Avoid Divorce. Geraghty’s portion of the chapter is a rambling jumble of modern conservative clichés, with most of the content not addressing the question of the chapter. For example, he provides the obligatory wacky anecdote about how he failed miserably as Mr. Mom that time his wife was ill, along with a sudden and perplexing apology that the book isn’t gayer:
You may have noticed this whole book is really, really “heteronormative,” as the social justice warriors say. Look, if you’re gay or lesbian, I hope you’re enjoying this book and I hope life treats you well. I don’t doubt gays and lesbians can be fine parents.
But please refrain from whining that a book about parenting and manhood written by two straight guys doesn’t spend enough time discussing the gay perspective…
This is from chapter 15, not the introduction of the book.
Geraghty offers statistics that most divorces are for reasons other than infidelity, abuse, or addiction. He then offers his personal theory on what is causing the lion’s share of divorce:
…my divorced friends say that fighting rarely resolved an issue. And maybe that was the problem. There are four ways couples respond to conflict: he concedes, she concedes, they compromise, or it gets swept under the rug. That last option might be the easiest, but it’s a short-term solution at best. Each time you sweep a difficult issue under the metaphorical rug of your day-to-day interaction in your marriage, that rug gets a little harder to walk on. Resentments build. Eventually, the issue you’re fighting about stops being the real issue; the real issue becomes your inability to resolve any other issue.
Geraghty explains that the problem of the risk of divorce can be resolved by threats of divorce. More specifically, he argues that a marriage can be improved by the wife threatening to nuke the husband out of the family if she doesn’t get her way (emphasis mine):
The D-word can actually help a marriage full of conflict. It can be a great clarifier. Using the D-word is the DEFCON Two of marriage. (DEFCON is short for defense readiness condition, the alert state for the U.S. armed forces. DEFCON Five is the calmest, DEFCON One is the most severe, basically meaning nuclear war is imminent.) When your spouse uses the D-word, it is a screaming alarm klaxon that asks you just how much you care about whatever it is you’re fighting about at the moment.
Is it worth divorcing your wife over?
Put that starkly, most of the day-to-day problems in a marriage don’t look that bad. If you can back down from that moment, you’ve endured your marital equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. John F. Kennedy’s 1963 point about the basic common links with the Soviets applies to most warring spouses: “We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
Note the weasellyness of the words he uses to blur what he is trying to say.
- He says “your spouse” threatens divorce when he means “your wife”, to make this seem gender neutral, when it clearly is not. He clarifies in the same chapter that he is writing specifically for heterosexual men.
- He says “Is it worth divorcing your wife over?” in reference to the wife threatening to divorce the husband if he doesn’t do as she says. She threatens divorce, and if he doesn’t comply he is implied to be divorcing his wife.
- He says “If you can back down from that moment” when he means “give her whatever she demands”. He already explained that merely stopping the argument is (in his opinion) the root cause of divorce, something threats of divorce will solve.
While Geraghty’s enthusiasm for the threatpoint isn’t surprising, his hypothesis that an ever present threat of divorce makes marriage better by forcing each issue to be resolved is the opposite of what this study found:
Many currently happily married spouses have had extended periods of marital unhappiness, often for quite serious reasons, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work reversals. Why did these marriages survive where other marriages did not? The marital endurance ethic appears to play a big role. Many spouses said that their marriages got happier, not because they and their partner resolved problems but because they stubbornly outlasted them. With time, they told us, many sources of conflict and distress eased. Spouses in this group also generally had a low opinion of the benefits of divorce, as well as friends and family members who supported the importance of staying married.
Moreover, one of the core claims of the book is that by following his advice men will become sexy. Geraghty’s wisdom from his own marriage is that as the husband he must always follow his wife’s lead, lest she divorce him. Follow Geraghty’s example, and you will become a stud, the sexiest man alive! Yet it is painfully obvious that he has absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of sexual attraction for women.
Cam Edwards has his own section in the same chapter, and he opens with a lengthy piece on how the negative impacts of divorce on children are overstated, contradicting Geraghty from earlier in the chapter:
Jim paints a pretty grim picture of the children of divorce: more likely to end up in prison, more likely to end up on a reboot of Teen Mom, and simply more likely to end up messed up than the product of a two parent family…
…I relate [my own] story because I’m not sure I buy the statistics that try to prove that divorce is going to cause irreparable harm to the kids involved. That’s not to say it doesn’t suck, but it’s also not an excuse to destroy your life if your parents end up splitting. Absolutely none of the parents I know who’ve gotten divorced say it was because they just had to get away from the kids, so try not to take it personally if it happens.
It is a very strange and uncompelling argument. First he explains that his own parents’ divorce didn’t negatively impact him, even though a string of counselors kept assuring him that it did. Then he says that after his mom moved him away from his father (from New Jersey to Oklahoma*) he resented his father so much for abandoning him that he refused to speak to him for years:
I actually didn’t talk to my dad for a couple of years after that. With the impeccable logic of a hormonal sixteen-year-old, I decided Dad’s belated gift must mean he didn’t care much about me. That being the case, I was bound and determined not to care much about him.
Next Edwards describes how his wife’s children were harmed by her own divorce and decision to move the children to a distant state*, with his wife’s ex husband as the villain:
Flash forward a few years and I was dealing with another father who was largely absent from the scene. Only this time it wasn’t my dad, it was the biological father of my oldest kids. When my wife and her kids moved from New Jersey to Oklahoma, it’s not like anyone had any expectations that he would be able to come visit on a regular basis. Still, regular phone calls or letters to the kids would have been nice. When a birthday or a holiday would go by with no contact, I would see the looks of disappointment on the faces of my kids. I’d get so angry that I’d write letters to him that I never sent (eventually we wouldn’t even know where to send them). The fact that child support was sporadic (to say the least) didn’t bother me. We could take care of our family without his money. What killed me was seeing my kids go from disappointment that they didn’t hear from their biological father to the resigned expectation that he was going to let them down again. Eventually, on one rare occasion when he called, my daughter declined to talk with him. The next time he called, my son followed his sister’s lead. Their dad never called back.
Edwards then finally gets around to the topic of the chapter, and offers some murky advice on avoiding divorce. Unlike Geraghty, Edwards suggests that an unwillingess to divorce is a key factor to remaining married. However, he then concludes by saying that we shouldn’t judge people who don’t follow his advice:
I understand that not all differences are reconcilable, and most of the friends I’ve had who’ve gone through a divorce tried very hard to make their marriages work. Both my parents married multiple times, and if it weren’t for my wife and her ex splitting up, I would never be the man I am today. I am not here to condemn divorce or people who’ve gotten a divorce (I generally try to tend to the beam in my own eye before worrying about someone else’s mote). All I know is that I’m glad we stuck with it through the hard times. I’m thankful our differences were (and are) not irreconcilable, even if they can still lead to… let’s say spirited debate on occasion. I am truly blessed to have my family, to love them and be loved by them, and I’m mindful of this fact every day.
As is evidently the pattern for the entire book, the chapter ends with What Would Ward Cleaver Do?
Ward had his priorities straight: he kept his focus on his relationship with June and the kids. Work paid for the mortgage, but a marriage and family is forever.
*What are the odds that Edwards would marry a woman who just like his own mother moved her children to Oklahoma, away from their father in New Jersey?
Original housewife image by Tetra Pak (creative commons). Dynamite detonator from this picture by Lilu under WTF Public License (NSFW)
Another cuck who thinks he’s an Alpha,
Zzzzzzzzzz
Oh my that NJ –> OK coincidence is really telling, it seems to me.
With all of the red pill discussion about marriage books, counseling, divorce attorneys, pastoral advice, etc, AND the exponential growth/awareness of the manosphere, I wonder if there is a hidden market opportunity for services. What if a counselor, attorney or pastor indicated in some way he/she was red pill? There are not many, but they are out there. Scott is an example, Dr Helen another. Maybe a graphic on an ad or something.
Same for marriage books. Yes, most publishers put out volumes like Heavy Lifting, but eventually there should be a market demand for the alternative.
#physiognomyisreal
https://www.google.com/search?q=jim+geraghty&safe=strict&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCsa3K7aTSAhVH8CYKHVcICq4Q_AUICSgC&biw=1366&bih=662
While I would like to notify Jim Geraghty on twitter of this thoughtful deconstruction, it appears I’ve been mass blocked by all the National Review crowd.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/pre-emptively-blocked/
Please don’t let the party die. Leave a quick, civil message for Señor Geraghty over there, referring him to this site over here. Tell him ya boy Herbie Marcuse sent him. See what he does.
Boxer
Pingback: Jim Geraghty on the beauty of the threatpoint. | @the_arv
I wonder if they would be willing to offer my artisan quality testicle display cases with each of their book sales.
“Now you too can proudly display your wife’s dominance over her man with this LOVELY testicle display case! Plated in gen-u-win 14 carat gold, it slowly rotates on a battery powered pedestal for a full three sixty degree view. Get the optional marriage licenses display sconce for your wall to complete the set! Order now and get this incredibly detailed lithograph of the actual castration process. Operators are standing by! While supplies last. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery!”
Edward stated: if it weren’t for my wife and her ex splitting up, I would never be the man I am today.
So the thing that made him a “man” was his marriage to a woman who already had children with another man. Now he gets to raise children that aren’t his own and feel self-righteous because their real father can’t be as devoted as he is while living in a different state?
That is some hard-core white knight virtue-signalling.
My guess is that Mr. Edward’s wife indulged her divorcee fantasy thinking she could upgrade, but reality hit her in the face, so she settled for this low-beta provider. He has to pretend to be grateful to her for settling on him, otherwise she is liable to blow-up the family again in search of an even more supplicating beta. I bet their sex life is awesome.
I feel bad for Mr. Edwards and his situation. It’s what’s wrong with Churchian culture in a nutshell. But, it doesn’t give him license to encourage the destruction of other people’s marriages by pedestalizing his wife’s bad example.
Cam Edwards has not blocked anyone, and he’s still available. Seems like a decent (if extremely misguided) fellow. Please head over and say hello!
This train wreck just keeps on getting better and better! Divorced men and a man who married a single mother all over telling the 24 year old man how to get married, be married, turn into a stud. It’s the self-blinded trying to lead the sighted. I am astounded that Cam Edwards has a rationalization hamster strong enough to keep running all the time: he’s perpetuating his own private cycle of abuse, and encouraging young men to take the same beating he took. It really is sad, a little pathetic. Prager, Geraghty, Wilcox, geeze, none of these men know as much as the averag commenter on any of several websites.
If I wanted to learn how to fly a light aircraft, I’d hire an instructor to teach me. I’d want to see his logbook, to see what he knows and how long he’s been flying. Someone who survived a couple of crashes would not be my choice, I would want the “no – crashes” instructor.
The pity is, these losers write books that get bought by parents and counselor and church leaders, then handed to young men for instruction.
Sickening.
”You may have noticed this whole book is really, really “heteronormative,” as the social justice warriors say. Look, if you’re gay or lesbian, I hope you’re enjoying this book and I hope life treats you well. I don’t doubt gays and lesbians can be fine parents”.
Anyone starting his book with this drivel immediately loses my interest. The aforementioned DO NOT MAKE GOOD PARENTS because they, on the whole, turn over relationships at a rate three times higher than ”heteronormatives”. Gay people of both genders have higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse. They have wider ”selections” of sex partners in ”open relationships”. Their ”friends” are also far more promiscuous than conservative, straight parents.Does Geraghty REALLY think this is the right environment for children??
If we have a conservative divorce rate of 35% for heterosexual married couples, gays and lesbians will then CERTAINLY break up their ”family”. Who then gets what and how?
The part with Edwards was easily the most disgusting. That family wasnt ejected by the father. they ejected him. Abandoned him to live half a continent away, and he has to struggle, alone, with nothing, and they expect him to what? Write happy letters? The selfishness of these people is off the charts. Did the precious little daughter and the little prince ever think about how their father is crushed and broken and needs love and support himself? Did this occur to anyone at all?
The only amusing part was reading how the coward Edwards would “write angry letters and never send them”. What a gutless little weasel.
Its obvious he was sucking up to try to take the other mans place. And the gloating in his voice is dripping when he writes how the innocent mans son would no longer speak to his father, what a disgusting, vile man. That boy may have been manipulated by a man hating society into what he did, but he will have serious repentence ahead of him just the same if he wants to avoid Hell.
Jim Geraghty
Good thing the Soviets thought to use their threatpoint during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They realized America was totally hawt afterward, and the relationship has been great ever since.
20/20 vision..
I was talking with Nova offline about this.
I have already taken steps. If you would like to hear more, get my email from Dalrock.
Take care
Bringing up the possibility of divorce when you have a disagreement with your spouse will probably cause them to cave in to your point of view if divorce is abhorrent to them. The problem is that if you are immature enough to try this technique in the first place, you won’t be able to resist the temptation to do it again and again after the technique is successful the first time. The marriage is going to be Hell on earth, as one spouse continually manipulates the other by turning even small and medium-sized issues into my-way-or-the-highway situations. Eventually, the victimized spouse will begin to feel that the marriage is doomed because the other spouse very obviously already has a Plan B ready to go. This leads the victim to put less energy into keeping the marriage alive. In other words, you probably win in the short term with this technique, but by putting divorce on the table, you destroy the trust that is necessary for the marriage to be successful in the long term.
It’s revealing to me that a non-lifter like Geraghty chooses a weightlifting image for his book cover. Like, “Hey you Peter Pans in the weightroom. This here is the REAL weightlifting: fatherhood.” Given that 15 pound loaf of watery fat under his chin, I sense some kind of rivalry with all the vascular stud ‘man boys’ who are silly enough to pursue physicality and health when there are female deities out there to serve. It’s the same sneer towards physical virility that chin-fat Wilcox revealed with his mocking “Six Pack Craig” character.
Edwards says, “The fact that child support was sporadic (to say the least) didn’t bother me. We could take care of our family without his money.” Proud, self-aggrandising so-and-so. If he could take care of his family without the ex-husband’s money, why did he not send the sporadic child support payments back? The poor, beaten-down ex was probably doing his best to make what payments he could.
I don’t know what the child support laws are in the US, but here in Australia, child support is administered by the government’s “Child Support Agency.” In calculating child support, they only compare the one ex’s annual taxable income to the other ex. If your ex is claiming any income at all, you can thank your lucky stars, because the higher the ratio of your income to hers, the more CS you have to pay. The fact that she’s got the kids and has remarried (and remarried up) is of no consequence, because the comparison of incomes is only between yours and hers, not between yours and the new family’s total income. They obviously do it this way because they know that a divorced woman is more likely than a divorced man to remarry up, and the divorced man more likely to remarry down. Again, biased against the divorced man and in favour of the divorced (and likely remarried woman). It’s diabolical.
Not only this, but the CS I am compelled to pay (or else ultimately go to jail) does not even guarantee me access to my own children.
And this worthless piece of work Edwards has the hide to gloat about not needing the ex’s sporadic CS, and yet being butt-hurt that the CS was sporadic. He’s a mongrel.
“When your spouse uses the D-word, it is a screaming alarm klaxon that asks you just how much you care about whatever it is you’re fighting about at the moment.
“Is it worth divorcing your wife over?”
Hold up, here. If SHE is threatening divorce then why is HE the responsible party?
“Do this or I’ll divorce you!”
“I won’t do it.”
“How could you divorce me like that!”
I followed Geraghty as a reporter, but has he only been married once? He moved with his “Wife”(?) to Turkey when she was in placed there as a political or embassy appointment. This would have been 2006-7 range. I don’t remember him having a child during this period. I can’t seem to come up with any answers via GoogleFu, so I feel like something seems odd here that he’s married to a single mother.
I’m glad some of you guys visited the primary source.
He’s a literal cuck, and after reading the whole chapter, I’ve become suspicious that Cam Newton may have banged the woman he’s married to, while she was still married to her kids’ dad. Then perhaps he broke up this good man’s family, and alienated that good man’s children from him after the divorce.
Seriously, read the whole thing, then see if I’m off base. Phrases like “if my wife and her ex hadn’t split up, I wouldn’t be the man I am today” and calling him “the biological father of my older kids” sound just like a first rate scumbag. Really amazing.
I’m glad some of you guys visited the primary source.
He’s a literal cuck, and after reading the whole chapter, I’ve become suspicious that Cam Edwards may have banged the woman he’s married to, while she was still married to her kids’ dad. Then perhaps he broke up this good man’s family, and alienated that good man’s children from him after the divorce.
Seriously, read the whole thing, then see if I’m off base. Phrases like “if my wife and her ex hadn’t split up, I wouldn’t be the man I am today” and calling him “the biological father of my older kids” sound just like a first rate scumbag. Really amazing.
Even Sheryl Sandberg wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘nothing is sexier’ than a man who falsettoes out a “Whatever you say dear” at first sign of dispute then flees to his man-cave. And she’s the one who tried to contend that a man in an apron scrubbing the floor really gets the wife to bite her pinky and double click her mouse.
As Bugs Bunny might say:
As a guy who wrote his grad school thesis on “Strategic Nuclear Deterrence in the Early Cold War,” I think I’m qualified to comment on Jim Geraghty’s nuclear analogy.
It’s crap.
As early as the second term of the Eisenhower Administration the Pentagon figured that a homeland-to-homeland nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union would result in everybody losing. By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis neither side even had to launch their weapons and hope they made it through the enemy defenses – either side could simply setting them off on their own soil to achieve the same net effect: the Northern Hemisphere would be uninhabitable due to radiation. But Jack Kennedy was no Dwight Eisenhower, and he didn’t know if the Soviets had come to the same conclusion. Jack Kennedy may have been a neophyte in with the big boys when it came to foreign policy in general and dealing with the head man in Moscow in particular (not unlike a certain Barrack Hussein Obama more recently), but he knew that he was bluffing. (Pushing boundaries was a major element of his strategy that was reflected in virtually every move he made.) He just wasn’t sure that the reds were as convinced that there could be no winner, which is part of why why he backed down on the issue of the real Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey in exchange for the mostly-theoretical missiles in Cuba (Khrushchev got what he wanted and gave the boy president a way out that allowed him to save face… he was ultimately bluffing, too).
And that’s what’s wrong with the analogy. In a game of “Nuclear Chicken,” both sides are bluffing. In a game of “Divorce Chicken,” the woman may not be.
The big difference between the Cold War nuclear deterrent and a wife’s ability to nuke the marriage is this: in divorce, one side IS the winner… and she’s the winner no matter who initiates the first strike. In every case: she MAY BE bluffing, but he IS bluffing, and unless she’s an idiot, she knows she can destroy him. The current situation is not like 2017 where any attempt by one side to destroy the other results in everyone being destroyed… it’s more like 1947 when only one side has the nuclear option.
And a man can’t even bluff without running afoul of the Duluth Model, since threatening her with divorce is, ipso facto, proof of his abusiveness, and thus justification for her to conduct a preemptive first strike, both in the law and in most churches. So we’ve come back, full circle, to husbands being in subjection to their wives, because it is women who hold institutional power – the literal power of the state is at their beck and call… the only institution with the authority to initiate violence.
The problem with using such a threat becomes readily apparent when the threatened party demonstrates that the threat has no power. When a man turns around and says “you think we should divorce? Perhaps, you are right. I’ll start the paperwork. Look, I’ve already drawn up a budget showing how miserable our lives and our kids’ lives will be afterwards. I wish you the best of luck finding a man to look after you long term; you needn’t worry about a lack of short term sexual partners.” (Seems to have worked on my wife. YMMV.)
Anyone here thing that Geraghty interacts with his cell phone company the way he suggests wives treat husbands? “Yeah, I signed a 2 year contract but maybe I’ll just break that because I’m mad”, think he does that? Or with his mortgage holder, “Yeah, I signed a 20 year note but I might just break that agreement because I’m angry”, heh?
No, of course not. He would not dare. But he’s all fine with women threatening to break wedding vows when they want to win an argument. So now we know what Geraghty really thinks about marriage: it’s shacking up with a piece of paper in a drawer, a contract that can be voided any time the little woman isn’t haaaaaaapy.
So much for the National Review He Man Defenders of Marriage club. Suddenly I have an urge to get one of those pink knit caps the Million Menopausal Marchers wore last month and send one to Geraghty, Prager, Edwards, Wilcox…because that hat fits them. Fits them perfectly.
Meow!
AR,
Excellent point. I didn’t think of it that way, but you’re right: those guys have more respect for a 24-month T-Mobile contract than they do for MARRIAGE VOWS.
With friends like that…
Pingback: Jim Geraghty on the beauty of the threatpoint. | Reaction Times
A few years ago the wife and I were disagreeing about something. I can’t remember what, which only goes to show how meaningless a subject it was. Anyway, I wouldn’t give way and she ended things with, “I’d suggest a divorce but you’d only say ‘yes’.” I was surprised in two ways, one that the “D” word had come up when it wasn’t a “D” worthy disagreement. And two, that she had the foresight to predict my reaction should she ever suggest a divorce seriously. Now that she’d opened Pandora’s Box, I now drop the ‘divorce’ word on her lap whenever the iron lung gets too much work. “If it’ll make it easier for you we can just divorce”, I’ll say. My god it’s like opening window blinds around vampires how quickly it can end a conversation.
Laura,
One of my ex-GFs actually blew up her second marriage this way. Thank goodness she I never made it anywhere close to this point. But you could see it was eventually going to happen. They would have a fight over something small and mundane. Neither side would give an inch. One would threaten divorce, and both would get real quiet. Well that kept happening over and over for the first 7 months of the marriage, until one last time, the divorce threat came out and the other one said… “okay.” They were divorced 11 months into their marriage. But hey, at least they both got to keep their pride?!?!
Is it just me, or do men just generally not write letters? Ii i had kids i would visit them whenever i could, but I’m no letter-writer. And anyway, how does a letter compare to a face-to-face visit?
“… book about parenting and manhood written by two straight guys…”
A man using the non-threatening, adolescent word “guy” is a major tell for cuck mindset. “Guy” is also a favorite of feminists. It means “person gendered as male” instead of “man.”
Do yourselves a favor — replace “guy” with “man” in your speech and writings. You’ll find you stand a little taller, your back a little straighter.
People who hold the threat of divorce over any argument are what is known as emotional blackmailers. That this should be seriously advocated as a sign of a healthy marriage is beyond belief.
2020 vision,
With all of the red pill discussion about marriage books, counseling, divorce attorneys, pastoral advice, etc, AND the exponential growth/awareness of the manosphere, I wonder if there is a hidden market opportunity for services.
I have been saying this for ages. If nothing else, at least create some overpriced crap and sell it to women, making the tiniest of dents in the flow of trillions of dollars from men to women. Red-pill knowledge, if nothing else, should be used in business.
If one wants to be more heroic, then the articles and comments on Dalrock’s alone can be used by someone to create a superb church, as well as an effective marriage-saving practice. One just needs to be a Spartacus who is willing to work under his real name. He may not get the same hate that a Roosh gets, because he is really just following the Bible, and can keep pointing to that.
I mean, where are the various spirits that men (particularly American men are suppose to have) :
“The Business of America is Business”
“Protestant Work Ethic”.
So where is it? All the raw material already exists to become a billion-dollar red-pill, marriage-saving church. Critics (pastorbators and cuckservatives) are already at a point where anything they say just increases recruitment for the red-pill side.
That among all these fine men, there is no entrepreneur yet, is unfortunate.
Lyn87, you nailed it with your description of how Geraghty’s nuclear divorce threat analogy is a whole lot of empty words / cock & bull for the simple fact of its institutionalised one-sidedness in favour of wifey having all the power. Wifey has everything to gain from hitting the nuke button, husband nothing to gain and everything to lose (except maybe escape from the world’s greatest bitch). Husbands are constantly held at the end of the barrel by wifey’s nuclear option / threatpoint.
Again, the woman has all the authority with no responsibility, while the man has no authority with all the responsibility; institutionalised madness.
How is it that Geraghty’s wife is not divorcing him? He must be as repulsive to her as a 600-lb obese female would be to a normal man. Why is he still not destroyed?
I like Geraghty and read a good bit of his newsletters.
He admits being out of the dating scene for years and not understanding what it must be like out there today.
Give him a break. Criticize the book but don’t make wild accusations about who he must be as a person.
@2020 Vision
Yes, it would be nice if men, pastors, books, counselors, et. al., came with one of these…
Let’s try this again…
@Moses,
Seconded. These days, I use “man” when I mean “man”, and “guy” when I don’t.
These are the men we are meant to look to for guidance? They are a bunch of cucks, marrying used up divorced mommies and then taking care of other men’s children. These men don’t have the right to lecture anyone, they are cuckservatives.
I look at it differently. It is quite good that cuckservatives are willing to pick up the tab. The new setup requires three parties.
Pickup artists want to have sex with women.
Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
Cuckservatives get to pay the bills.
Everybody wins! Everyone reaches their full potential, especially the cuckservative who gets to man up, step up, and assist a woman in achieving her goals.
Everybody wins!
What is it that Conservatives like Geraghty and Edwards are trying to conserve? – when they feel the necessity to pay ‘Lip Service’ to Homosexuals both male and female and mock the destruction of another man’s family. A word to the wise Mr Edwards – they are NOT your children and they will doubtless in time let you know that.
OT:
http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/parenthood/dads/to-my-wife-im-sorry-youve-been-set-up-to-fail
Picking up on Moses excellent point, the term guy is very much an Americanism and I noticed when stateside that it is used indiscriminately to refer to persons of both sexes. The words guy and gay are visually and orally very similar and to refer to yourself and your male friend as ‘two straight guys’ thus sounds as if they are protesting too much. Man is much better than guy yet the use of the word Woman when referring to the younger female goes too far in the other direction. Such females should be referred to as girls (to be pronounced ‘gels’) – at least that would be my advice should you wish to avoid embarrassed looks when visiting beyond the great ocean in fact the older the female the more they seem to like being referred to as girls.
Pingback: What they don’t see | American Dad
Personal (on topic) anecdote:
Wife and I got into a heated argument, she not only threatened to divorce me, but credibly threatened to make up lies to get me arrested and charged with abusing our children (knowing how much they meant to me) so I could be denied visitation. I believed her (the psycho).
It was clear that she – – this woman who “loved” me so very much – – had already given great thought about how to harm me to the maximum extent if she wished to do so. I stayed until the children were grown, but the marriage was over in that instant.
Now I’m enjoyed my life with enough after-alimony income to satisfy my dating and hobby expenses, and she’s the miserable upper-fifties stereotypical chubby ex-wife with no sexual market value, who I never have to see or hear from again.
She played checkers, I played chess.
“Guys” is very much an American thing, although if I understand the colloquialisms correctly, it’s not that far removed from “lads” among her Majesty’s subjects when referring to men. (I also remember when “guys” went from being a generic term for males to a generic term for anyone. That happened in the 1980s if I recall the time correctly.)
When referring to males, I think it has something to do with the fact that we are no longer have rites of passage in our culture. Wimminz Lib insists that men must never be unsupervised by women, and anythingyoucandoIcandobetter means that any activity that excludes females is, by definition, misogynistic… or something. You can bet that if men menstruated instead of women, feminists would find some way to be included in that, too.
So now we have chicks in the military (albeit held to vastly lower standards), and even female troops leaders in the Boy Scouts… lest we neglect to condition boys early enough to defer to women in authority: thus training them well for the days when HR harpies, Affirmative Action supervisors, and the women who will become their future ex-wives tell them what to do and how to do it.
As is often proving to be the case, our cultural ancestors knew a great deal more than we give them credit for, and “modern” society has frequently broken the old common-sense rule that one should never tear down a fence until one understands why it was put there in the first place. There used to be such a fence between boyhood and manhood, and it’s not there any more. It doesn’t even matter very much what the rite of passage is, but it needs to be something definitive.
Since my generation never had such a thing (other than the arbitrary transition to legal majority on our 18th birthdays), we were forced to figure it our on our own. Each boy got to decide when he became a man, but that leaves much to be desired, because what rites of passage do is to declare the boy to be a man in the eyes of society.
I’ve struggled for many years with the idea that I am something other than a “guy.” When did I become that creature that society recognizes as a “man” – when PRECISELY? I don’t know. According to tests I took I reached an adult level of cognition at the age of eight. A prodigy, certainly, but a man? Hardly. When I reached puberty? Society doesn’t consider 13-year-olds to be men at that point. When I turned 18? That seems pretty arbitrary… an adult by legal standards only. When I raised my right hand and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Most “guys” never do that at all. When I got married? I was 25 by that point… that seems a little late, but there was no specific point in time before that that makes any more sense. Even as a Lieutenant Colonel with a combat tour more than a decade behind me my default view of myself is still more “guy” than “man,” although the man-o-sphere has helped me to move the needle more than a little.
Feminism robbed us of that, and then they have the gall to criticize “guys” for not being “men.”
Back in the year 2000, I met my ex at at a multi-church singles retreat. She was truely a God fearing woman, AT THE TIME, and we both expressed to each other the FACT that divorce is just not an option for us Christains. My whole life, just the word DIVORCE was the same as a four-letter word, or as blasphemous as using the Lord’s name in vain. At sometime in the past few months, after reading so many articles on “The Threat Point”, I thought back to that day in 2009 when my ex used that word, divorce, in a very unfriendly way, and how I felt. I would compare it with, as if I just found out she committed ADULTERY. Sudden, shocking betrayal. I don’t see any good use of the word divorce. But now days, in the Christian community, its thrown around as a good and useful thing. Absolutely PATHETIC!
OT: Notice how the federal government is now trying to talk men into being fathers: https://www.fatherhood.gov/
P.S. There is no https://www.motherhood.gov/
@ Lyn87 says:
February 23, 2017 at 7:23 am
“Since my generation never had such a thing (other than the arbitrary transition to legal majority on our 18th birthdays), we were forced to figure it our on our own. Each boy got to decide when he became a man, but that leaves much to be desired, because what rites of passage do is to declare the boy to be a man in the eyes of society.”
Had the Eagle Scout title already depreciated that much when you came of age?
@ Lyn87:
“In every case: she MAY BE bluffing, but he IS bluffing, and unless she’s an idiot, she knows she can destroy him. The current situation is not like 2017 where any attempt by one side to destroy the other results in everyone being destroyed… it’s more like 1947 when only one side has the nuclear option.
“And a man can’t even bluff without running afoul of the Duluth Model, since threatening her with divorce is, ipso facto, proof of his abusiveness, and thus justification for her to conduct a preemptive first strike, both in the law and in most churches.”
Continuing on your nuclear strike/MAD metaphor:
In 2017, when a woman threatens divorce, this leaves the man two choices. (1) say nothing, capitulate, and live in submission to the wife under constant threat of divorce (unilateral destruction and lots of collateral damage to the kids); or (2) push the button and fire everything he’s got at her, file for divorce first, and hope to contain the collateral damage as best as he can (mutually assured destruction and probably even worse collateral damage to the kids).
When a woman starts threatening divorce, if you don’t want to live in submission and constant terror, you have no choice but to call her bluff and file. Yes, the kids will be devastated. Yes, it will cause everyone a lot of pain. But the alternative is even worse. You will get NOTHING out of that marriage other than burden and obligation. Your wife has become a terrorist – using fear, manipulation, and the threat of ever-escalating violence and warfare to get what she wants. If you want to live that way, fine; but I don’t know any self-respecting Red Pill man who would.
Stay with her or divorce her – either way, you lose. Either way, your married life is over. Might as well get what you can and walk out with a little self-respect on the way down.
When a woman starts openly talking about divorce, talking about not being married to you anymore, it’s all but over anyway. By the time the words have exited her mouth, she’s already been thinking about it for a long time. She’s already turned over the possibilities in her head, has already talked to a lawyer, has already gotten a “blessing” and “clearance” from her parents and friends, has already laid some groundwork, and probably already has a man in the wings she’s been shtupping or getting ready to shtup. When she starts suggesting divorce or openly mentioning it as an option, she’s already left you. Nothing left to do at that point but file the papers and bring form to that which she has already decided she wants.
It’s revealing to me that a non-lifter like Geraghty chooses a weightlifting image for his book cover. Like, “Hey you Peter Pans in the weightroom. This here is the REAL weightlifting: fatherhood.”
I’m convinced that a lot of this is pure lifelong envy. Geraghty, Wilcucks, etc were always the doughy beta-orbiters at school who were incensed that the girls were banging the Craig 6-Pack bad-boys and not them. Of course, they weren’t so incensed that they’d actually visit any free weights, and nothing’s changed about that.
Now, somehow, because years later, they’ve managed (in some cases) to corral a banged-out single mom from the clearance rack, that they have “beaten the system” and crow about it in books. Ridiculous.
It’s really something to consider how the current system counts on men simply sitting back and continuing to take it, put up with it, and bear up under it. Men are being counted on to pursue women anyway despite “yes means yes” policies and threats of jail time for assertive sexual escalation. Men are being counted on to marry anyway despite the fact that men get next to no benefits from it and carry all the responsibility with none of the attendant authority to get things done.
Men are being counted on to remain married to bitches who won’t have sex with them, mistreat them, lie to them, and withhold affection from them. Men are being counted on to submit when their wives threaten them with divorce. Men are being counted on to view a threat of divorce as an incentive to remain married and as something which will make their marriages better.
And for a long time, men have borne up under it. Men have put up with it. Men did do it. But that worm’s starting to turn.
@anon
Pickup artists want to have sex with women.
Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
Cuckservatives get to pay the bills.
Something like that is going on overall. The good boys are paying for it all. It reminds me of all the rampant volunteering in Africa by first world millenials. I wonder if there are situations where the locals just think; “Well, if you just want to be soooo good then go ahead. We’ll go play soccer and smoke stogies then.”
If beta-cucks want to be so good, so self-sacrificing and so ‘manned up’ then there will be a lot of people ready to take advantage. Our society collapses without it.
A very evil side of me doesn’t want beta servitude/blue pill conditioning to be widely dispelled. Like red pill awareness should be a small, secret society that’s hard to get into. Someone’s got to keep the lights on. It’s enough to make you want to nod and smile when a clown like Geraghty projectile vomits blue pills all over the room. “Yes sir, I can see no other way, sir. No other options at all” (minimalizes, drives Uber and sneaks off to the third world for six months a year)
If the man selects option (2) and pushes the button and decides to send out the nukes, there’s no going back. He can’t recall the nukes. Those ICBMs are out of the silos and the subs and they can’t be put back. He’s just committed himself 100% to global thermonuclear war. He has to see it through all the way to the end. He’s got to take the hits, he’s got to watch the collateral damage happen in slow motion and endless instant replay, and he’s got to live with the couple of years of subsequent nuclear winter and radiation poisoning.
He has no choice but to go all the way to the end with the divorce. There can be no reconciliation, not now, not ever, no matter what she says, does, changes or promises. He has to write the checks, watch his children get slowly destroyed, and then suffer through a couple of years of eating ramen noodles and living in a one bedroom shithole in the bad part of town.
The only solace he can take is that with his wife threatening divorce, he had already lost the war before he ever pushed the button. His decision to opt for (2) was really only self-defense, the only thing he could do with a threat of divorce hanging over his head. The only thing he could do with a wife openly talking about divorce and knowing she probably already has plans in the works.
A woman threatening divorce, openly talking about divorce, is nothing less than a declaration of war. This
“The D-word can actually help a marriage full of conflict. It can be a great clarifier. Using the D-word is the DEFCON Two of marriage.”
Is war. It is not DEFCON 2. It’s DEFCON 1. It’s acknowledgment of open hostilities. It’s roll out the tanks and the infantry and the aircraft carriers, because we are under attack.
Treat it as a declaration of war, because that’s what it is.
Oscar,
Eagle Scouts were thought of highly then, but I wasn’t a Boy Scout, so it’s not anything I gave much thought to. IIRC, Eagle Scouts who join the military get some sort of recognition right off the bat: immediate promotion upon completion of basic training and/or a ribbon, but I was an officer and had not been one, so it didn’t bear much significance for me.
That’s just it, though: there was no society-wide understanding that a boy becomes a man when he becomes an Eagle Scout. Just like with the military, most guys don’t ever do that, so that can’t be it. Nobody says, “You’re not a man until you become an Eagle Scout,” and nobody says, “He’s an Eagle Scout, so he’s a man now.” After all “BOY” is right there in the name of the organization: Boy Scouts of America.
____________________
Reaching majority now is like when you’re in your 20’s and someone calls you “Mister Smith” and it sounds odd to you, so you think, “Mister Smith? No, I’m Bob. Mister Smith is my father.”
We just don’t have any meaningful line between “Bob” and “Mister Smith” any more. Turning 18 doesn’t cut it, since there’s no test for manhood… no action you have to take… no way prove it… no objective reason for society to say, “By your completion of this thing, your tribe acknowledges that you have shown yourself to be a man, and males who have not done so are not considered to be men.”
Every way that men used to do such things has been either discarded or infiltrated by women. Now that even the combat arms are open to women (while hiding the fact that they’re held to far lower standards), there is literally nothing a man may achieve that society is bound to regard as the definitive marker for manhood that women may not attempt (and be allowed to pass regardless of their actual performance). If “man” just means, “Male human who was born more than a certain arbitrary number of Earth’s rotations around the Sun ago,” then it doesn’t mean much. If society needs men – and I think it desperately does – then there ought to be some universally-recognized way for a boy to achieve that status.
thedeti,
Good point about DEFCON 1 versus DEFCON 2. Not many people get to peek behind the curtain on this stuff, but I’m one of those who did. Hell… I was behind the curtain myself for several years. A lot of people thought that the biggest threat was some sort of “Bolt Out Of the Blue” (BOOB… no kidding). In fact, a BOOB was the least likely scenario.
The guys who studied this for a living and devised the DEFCON system understood that a nuclear exchange was not going to just fall from the sky unannounced, but would be the culmination of tensions that escalated over weeks or even months, with everyone being able to see the futility in time to pull back from the brink. Getting ready to fight a global war – even in the age of ICBMs – takes both time and physical preparation… preparation that cannot be hidden from the other side. The technical term is / was “generation of strategic forces.” As the other side went about generating its forces by moving things, calling up reserves, positioning supplies, fueling up rockets that use liquid fuel (we still had those back then), the other side would follow suit and the DEFCON level would rise. The actions one took with increasing DEFCON levels were themselves types of force generation.
When a wife threatens divorce (or to call the cops, in my opinion), you’re at DEFCON 1 and enemy forces are already moving into attack position. The first shots may well have already been fired outside of the primary Area of Operations. In other words, when a wife does what Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards suggest, it’s probably “Go Time.” Men generally know that bluffing when you can’t pay for a call is a dangerous game, but women generally do not ever have to learn that lesson. Giving that sort of leverage to someone who doesn’t understand its power, and encouraging them to use it often even in minor disputes, is a fooling thing to do.
@Lyn87:
TFH was extremely fond of saying Women don’t really understand Cause & Effect. Though they do have a very fine-tuned sense of their power in any given situation. That’s why they wield the D-Bomb they way they do. They all know and on rare occasion mention its reality just as a check on their Husbands. (And a Shit-test.)
The Divorce Disaster is actually a huge cause of the economic problems, and to paper over it they made the Debt Bubbles. All because they gave Women a weapon they shouldn’t have. Since we’re using Nuclear weapon references, it’s the same reason the Israelis bombed Saddam’s Nuclear Reactor.
As others have noted, the phrase “I want a divorce” is equivalent in our society to “you’re under arrest” or “I’m going to sue you” — it’s an event that all men should take seriously and prepare accordingly for.
Amazing that these hucksters like Cam Edwards should suggest this as a sane thing for a woman to do.
Is it just me, or do men just generally not write letters? Ii i had kids i would visit them whenever i could, but I’m no letter-writer. And anyway, how does a letter compare to a face-to-face visit?
Hardly anyone writes letters these days. It is all text/email.
But anyway. My parents got divorced many years ago, in the pre-internet days. For a long time my mom insisted that my dad was a heartless pig who never wrote to me. Found out recently that he did, but my mom intercepted the letters and threw them away without telling me they existed. Just one more manifestation of the toxic, all-consuming rage of the alpha widow…
Don’t forget “I’m going to kidnap your children” as one of the equivalents to a divorce threat. “I’m going to have another man who you don’t know sleeping just down the hallway from your daughter within two months” is another.
Most of the successful men in my life told me to never get married. I used to think I was the only one who listened to them.
@ Lyn87 says:
February 23, 2017 at 8:44 am
“That’s just it, though: there was no society-wide understanding that a boy becomes a man when he becomes an Eagle Scout. Just like with the military, most guys don’t ever do that, so that can’t be it. Nobody says, ‘You’re not a man until you become an Eagle Scout’, and nobody says, ‘He’s an Eagle Scout, so he’s a man now’. After all ‘BOY’ is right there in the name of the organization: Boy Scouts of America.”
It’s impossible to have a “society-wide” right of passage in a country as populous as ours. Your tribe – more specifically, the men of your tribe – decide what the right of passage should be, and our country is far too big to be one tribe.
There ARE rights of passage out there, but they’re only recognized by the tribe that instituted them. I doubt we can change that. I doubt we should even try.
The problem is that there are fewer and fewer viable tribes in which boys can earn honor and become men. As Dalrock has pointed out, that is a deliberate result of feminism and its envy of manly honor.
The Boy Scouts used to be such a tribe. When a BOY Scout became an EAGLE Scout, he earned the honor that – in the eyes of the tribe – made him a man. Unfortunately, The Boy Scouts are no longer a viable tribe. They capitulated to the Left. I’m not saying that I blame them. They stood firm for decades, but finally tapped out under relentless onslaught.
That was a huge victory for the Left. The Boy Scouts were one of the few organizations that specifically set out to grow boys into good men.
The solution is to form new tribes. The problem with that solution is that none of us know exactly how to do that, because most of us never belonged to a tribe, and the few of us that did (or do), belonged to a tribe that was formed long before we were born.
Tribes tend to form organically as a reaction to an exterior threat. Threats are growing, and I have four boys to raise, one of whom is already 14. I need to figure this out, and I could sure use some help.
Oscar-
The solution is to form new tribes. The problem with that solution is that none of us know exactly how to do that, because most of us never belonged to a tribe, and the few of us that did (or do), belonged to a tribe that was formed long before we were born.
Tribes tend to form organically as a reaction to an exterior threat. Threats are growing, and I have four boys to raise, one of whom is already 14. I need to figure this out, and I could sure use some help.
This is something that needs to be approached deliberately and with passion. It cannot be overstated. The institutions (tribes) are scattered to the wind, defeated. It is why I keep using the hashtag #nopresidentcansaveus
Without a way to systematically perpetuate beliefs, values, manhood, etc, it does not matter what happens politically.
Since it’s come up again, why is there a need for a “rite of manhood”? This is something I associate with primitive tribes, who used those rites as a demonstration the kid was strong/brave enough to start hunting wildlife and building rope bridges. But that’s no more a proof of manhood than me demonstrating some C++ skills. Making Eagle Scout is proof you’re an Eagle Scout, nothing more.
“Eighteenth birthday” is a good rite of passage because it’s automatic. That forces society to acknowledge you a man instead of demanding you Man Up to society’s satisfaction.
Another conservative clown that should never ever write a book with Manliness in the title because he has no idea about anything manly. The title should be “How To Be A Mangina”. Why should the man be the one to back down when he knows he is right? Women make choices based on things other than what they should be based on like results. Most women base choices on emotions or if every other woman they know is doing it not on what the actual results will be.
Oscar,
I see your point. As a non-parent I’m not in a position to offer much advice other than to point out that your first stop for guidance should involve prayer – specifically prayer for discernment. Beyond that… we’re both field-grade officers: the military has been in the business of turning boys into men since the Sumerian Empire. Edmund Burke’s “Little Platoons” metaphor may be of some use to you. How does a boy in your little platoon go from being a recruit to being a recognized member?
My ill-formed thoughts would involve you setting goals involving perhaps some combination of body, mind, character, independence, and spirit (versus just chronological age), and letting your sons know that when they meet them that you and your wife will consider them to be men and will treat them as such (although I’m at a loss at to precisely what that would entail). The accomplishment of the final goal probably ought to include some sort of acknowledgement before the rest of the “platoon” and maybe others, such as the boy’s grandparents if that makes sense for you. (I’m kind of flailing on the specifics – As I noted, I don’t have kids and don’t feel qualified to offer anything more than my general thoughts on this.)
My ill-formed thoughts would involve you setting goals involving perhaps some combination of body, mind, character, independence, and spirit (versus just chronological age), and letting your sons know that when they meet them that you and your wife will consider them to be men and will treat them as such (although I’m at a loss at to precisely what that would entail). The accomplishment of the final goal probably ought to include some sort of acknowledgement before the rest of the “platoon” and maybe others, such as the boy’s grandparents if that makes sense for you. (I’m kind of flailing on the specifics – As I noted, I don’t have kids and don’t feel qualified to offer anything more than my general thoughts on this.)
I’ve got two, and in the next few years, God willing, they will be helping me on my ranch once we build everything and move there. Even the littlest one (19months) watches me as I make the rounds–throwing hay bales, watering the animals, working with power tools, etc. You can see the desire in his eyes, even at that age to basically be me.
The template you have provided I think is a good start. But what is lacking today is competition with other boys. We have some Orthodox friends who are thinking about buying property near us and forming a community. Most of them have more children than we do.
Visavis, rites of passage, primitive tribes are useful to a limited extent because they show man at his most basic. But they are still primitive with incredibly truncated understanding.
It’s hard to find a universal rite of passage because it needs to be organic, “here is the threat we face, here are the qualities needed to face that threat”.
Paradoxically I think the strongest initiation can be self initiation. Why should I submit to tribal manhood rituals if they suck (binge drinking, the eternal pursuit of getting laid) or are personally impossible (trying to join the military as an athsmatic or something)? Am I doomed to walk the earth as a boy?
The essence of manliness is virtus, or fortitude.
To baptize the concept.
You are a man when you believe God says you are. All men can express fortitude. Even if others don’t recognize you as a man, with respect; fuck ’em. It takes humility to be honest with yourself about your own virtus. However, if other men make the gateway, it’s something other men can deny you or take away or use as leverage to get an unjust advantage over you.
@Opus
It is not the job of conservatives to conserve anything. The job of the conservatives is to make believe they are the opposition to the innovations created by liberals so these innovations are accepted with minimal fuss. Key words: “Make believe”
The stages of conservatives when it comes to the last insanity defended by the left:
1. Oh my God! X is insane!
2. Of course, I am against X.
3. People who are in favor of X have a point. We have to debate.
4. X can work if you do Y. The problem is not X but Y.
5. “The Conservative Case for X” by Cuckissimus Maximus
7. X is the law of the land so we have to respect that.
6. Of course, I am in favor of X. I am not a Neandhertal.
7. How can you be against X? You are not a real conservative.
What is this process for? It’s to train the people who are against X to accept the innovation. First, they give them a escape valve to complain and whine. The people think they don’t have to create a REAL opposition because they think that conservatives will oppose the innovation. Then, conservatives train this people to accept the innovation little by little.
What conservatives get from that? A job and money, basically. Being the real opposition doesn’t pay. Being the good cop in a “good cop, bad cop” strategy pays. The money comes from the left.
What is this process for? It’s to train the people who are against X to accept the innovation. First, they give them a escape valve to complain and whine. The people think they don’t have to create a REAL opposition because they think that conservatives will oppose the innovation. Then, conservatives train this people to accept the innovation little by little.
What conservatives get from that? A job and money, basically. Being the real opposition doesn’t pay. Being the good cop in a “good cop, bad cop” strategy pays. The money comes from the left.
Yes, that’s correct. It’s the sugar that helps the progressive medicine go down. They actually help the progressives by slowing things down every now and then so that people can take a breather, absorb the recent spate of changes, before the progressives take direct power again and start in on the next round of radical changes. It’s a symbiosis where the conservatives are political cucks, and nothing more.
Any kind of politics outside of the “slow them down” variety is considered fascist from the get-go, so basically there is no permitted alternative to progressivism, either of the fast or the slow variety. Going to the same destination, either way.
Opus -” A word to the wise Mr Edwards – they are NOT your children and they will doubtless in time let you know that.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already heard “You can’t tell me what to do, because you’re not my dad.”
Only a Grade A Loser raises another man’s children.
The more I see of guys (not men) like Geraghty and Edwards trying to sell marriage to young men, the more I find myself wondering if they’re secretly trying to strangle it in the cradle. That Ward Cleaver video was a great example of this; It encouraged men to sign up for service in the institution, for which they would be rewarded with . . . a life of paying mortgages, assuming responsibility for others, and working hard for money that they won’t even be spending on themselves. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of those things, but they’re not a selling point of the institution — they’re part of the price that men pay to participate in it. Dalrock has hit on this before with his evisceration of the notion of a “marriage premium” for men. He pointed out that the extra money married men make actually amounts to a greater sacrifice of their time and effort on behalf of their family’s needs, and that modern society and conservatives in particular refuse to acknowledge this sacrifice on their part. Geraghty, for his part, seems perfectly fine with that in his video when he refuses to knock this kind of disrespect: “I’m not saying that the Ward Cleavers of the world are off limits to criticism or even mockery . . . . Sure, laugh at them, but remember that they are what this world is built on.” He wants to have the benefits of responsible, hardworking married men while also being free to toss a sneer in their direction whenever he feels like it. And now, he wants to emphasize a new benefit to their marriages: the privilege of anticipating your wife’s divorce threats and preemptively devising a strategy of talking her back from the edge so that she doesn’t jump and destroy your life in the process. Well now, what sane man would refuse a payoff like that?
He’s far from being the only hopelessly inept salesman for marriage today. A while back, I found this exchange in a Q & A on Focus on the Family’s Boundless site featuring Andy Crouch, an Ivy Leaguer and the former chief editor of Christianity Today:
“Unapologetically call men to greater risk and sacrifice . . . . ?” Somehow, I suspect that’ll be as effective in convincing men to marry as this (fake) commercial will be in encouraging them to enlist in the United States Navy:
Link for the Boundless interview is here: http://www.boundless.org/blog/five-questions-with-bestselling-author-andy-crouch/
imnobody00- “What is this process for? It’s to train the people who are against X to accept the innovation.”
Spot on.
The fact that the so called “alt right” accepted the degenerate Milo as one of their own speaks volumes to this. Unfortunately for Milo he got overconfident and began to blab about pedophilia and got burned.
“Q: Unwanted singleness among Christian women is becoming more and more normal in the church . . . Do you see any way for us to turn this ship around and rescue a generation of families that we are losing as young men wait indefinitely to get married?”
Proof that these guys are clueless, utterly clueless.
But as Upton Sinclair once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
PokeSalad-“Now, somehow, because years later, they’ve managed (in some cases) to corral a banged-out single mom from the clearance rack, that they have “beaten the system” and crow about it in books. Ridiculous.”
Sadly, other than staying single (and mostly celibate) this is becoming the only viable path for betas. And being like Ward makes you VERY beta.
Replace Ward-like fathers with slaves and see how well the sentence works,
“I’m not saying that the slaves of Egypt are off limits to criticism or even mockery . . . . Sure, laugh at them, but remember that they are what these pyramids are built on.”
Seems to check out okay.
@Darwinian Armenian,
Good points. As if his suggested trump card in marriage (total submission and an abdication of all wants/needs) is some kind of attractive selling point. “Get married and you can have this cool arrow in your quiver. It allows you to avoid divorce. Cool huh?”
Imagine these tradcons having beers;
“….So then she says, she says to me. ‘Do it or I’m divorcing you.'”
“And what did you say?”
“I said, ‘Okay, I’ll do it and anything else that you ever say. Also I’ll never expect sex again.'”
“Ha ha. You showed her.” (high fives all around)
“Way to put her in her place Geraghty. She thought she could get a divorce but you showed her what’s what, attaboy! She didn’t know you could go into a state of total submission and depression, ha ha. That’ll teach her to mess with you. She can’t take away your happiness if you have none. Anti-fragile!”
Oh, the horror!
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html
@ Boxer:
“As others have noted, the phrase “I want a divorce” is equivalent in our society to “you’re under arrest” or “I’m going to sue you” — it’s an event that all men should take seriously and prepare accordingly for.”
Yeah. When a wife says “I want a divorce” or mentions divorce, that’s not a shit test. That’s not her evaluating you for whether you can stand up to her. That’s not a “comfort test” either – her seeking you out to reassure her of the vitality and value of your marriage.
Her mentioning divorce is her suggestion or plan or concrete course of action to dissolve your marriage and have lawyers and judges divide your property, decide the fate of your children, and determine her and your future legal obligations to each other in a “winding up” of your marriage. It is a legal proceeding, not a relationship test. Agree and amplify, amused mastery or cocky funny are not called for. This requires that you get a good lawyer and you go to war.
@ Lyn:
“When a wife threatens divorce (or to call the cops, in my opinion), you’re at DEFCON 1 and enemy forces are already moving into attack position.”
It strikes me that the current situation puts men at 0% or 100%. No compromise, no gray areas, no win-win. Stay and surrender to a terrorist; or go down in mushroom clouds and take everyone else with you. Unconditional surrender or total all out war. When a woman starts talking about divorce or threatening divorce or threatening to call the cops, those two courses of action are his only choices.
Anyone else catch this gem?
if it weren’t for my wife and her ex splitting up, I would never be the man I am today.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch! Lol
“he argues that a marriage can be improved by the wife threatening to nuke the husband out of the family if she doesn’t get her way”
False equivalency doesn’t work here.
Even the Cuban Missile Crisis ended because of negotiation and compromise, regardless of all the saber-rattling, boastful and emotional rhetoric, high stakes and fear of mutual annihilation involved. Ultimately the US moved their missiles out of Turkey, and in exchange for that bold, compromising move by the Americans, Khrushchev, the USSR and Castro’s Cuba finally stood down.
This is not what happens in a marriage where the wife is threatening to leave, take all prisoners (the children), and detonate the family and the life of the husband behind her. There’s no comparison.
From a male perspective, marriage to Western women is a minefield.
Few men ever become redpill aware before walking well into it. They ignore their instincts and the advice of others who see what they are doing.
Some never seen the “Danger: Minefield!” signs at all, and soon find destruction/oblivion.
The minefield itself isn’t doing anything extraordinary on it’s own. It’s just a minefield. And you can’t blame a minefield for not having enough warning signs. Because, well, it’s a goddamned minefield.
Hmm-“Oh, the horror!
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html”
from the link:
“We are protesting patriarchy and sexism, and that this antiquated way of thinking about women exists at all”
Antiquated? When a woman sizes up a beta chump to marry, one of the key criteria is what kind of job he has and how much does he make, because when she frivorces him later he will continue to “provide”, and deadbeat bad boys don’t pay alimony,
if it weren’t for my wife and her ex splitting up, I would never be the man I am today.
Directv: Total Deadbeat Rob Lowe ftw:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rob+lowe+directv+commercials&view=detail&mid=33C385338F70658E40C433C385338F70658E40C4&FORM=VIRE
The other comment I will make is that this destructive tactic – the threat to detonate the marriage and family or else – helps explain the high suicide rates among male divorcees.
Why would a man who sacrificed his youth, monogamy, his life (time, attention) wish to stick around to witness his children be ripped away from him, their minds poisoned, only to see himself slowly destroyed as a perpetual wage slave to finance his ex-wife future, and that of her new boyfriends?
That’s a lot of agony go through – all of it sanctioned and approved by women and men of society, the government, the church headship, corporations, etc.
RPC,
I wonder how happy his wife’s first husband is? (Or do we call him, “The father of Brad’s wife’s kids?”) I suspect that he’s unhappy about his marriage, considering that he doesn’t have a marriage any more (although he may be very happy that she has her ring in Beta-Boy Brad’s nose rather than his).
By the same token, he knows that his ex-wife is now spreading her legs (at least twice a year!) for the guy who gets to see his kids grow up, while he’s stuck sending her money from 1200 miles away under threat of imprisonment if he falls behind.
I mean, let’s face it: the father of Brad’s wife’s kids got married… how well did that work out?
@Lyn87
I wonder whether the father in this case agreed to having his children moved from New Jersey to Oklahoma, or whether he fought a court battle to keep them in New Jersey but lost. It is very unfair that Brad is publicly shaming the father of his step-kids. It isn’t fair to the children, or to the (biological) father who is not a public figure and doesn’t have any way of presenting his side of the story.
Brad seems convinced that he has done a great job raising the step-kids, but every book and article ever written about step-parenting encourages step parents to avoid bad-mouthing the absent biological parent. Most step families aren’t particularly happy. I wonder what the step children will have to say about Brad when they reach adulthood.
Who’s Brad and the stepkids? Do you all mean Cam Edwards and the stepkids? Because I think Brad and Danielle Wilcox have what, 5 kids, and they’re all his, right?
Just trying to follow along.
@Moses
Yes. Saying “you guys” to group that includes women is also weird. “You all” works better.
@Darwinian Arminian
“He’s far from being the only hopelessly inept salesman for marriage today.”
While its true that there’s no shortage of moralizing, religious hucksters even today, the fundamental problem for Geraghty and his friends is that the product/service/experience of marriage should solve some kind of problem for men or provide them value.
Marriage does not do this. It probably never did.
Marriage has always been an obligation, a duty, an accountability, a liability for men to bear. The difference today is that men are not compensated for their investment. Husbands and fathers today receive no societal acknowledgement, respect, let alone any meaningful admiration or deference from his wife, and instead most often experiences open ridicule, hostility, sexlessness and high-probability / high certainty threats to his personal well-being and liberty.
It’s not just that the brand of marriage or the status/prestige that comes with it (being married) is out of style or passe. It’s that the value proposition of marriage – the problems that it portends to solve for men or the experience that it affords to men – is thoroughly non-compelling at best, and a source of growing male revulsion at worst.
Even if he is fortunate enough to marry a unicorn woman who is not only extraordinarily pleasant, happy, sexually generous, a good wife and a good mother of children, that same husband/father still has to contend with a modern western society, political climate, justice system, corporate community, education- and industrial complex that despises him with an unbridled passion.
And the thing is, whether women realize it or not, we’ve reached the point of no return.
Geraghty and friends misunderstand the chronology of events and the cause.
Marriage lost the male customers.
It’s going to be very expensive to convince them to come back.
I will make is that this destructive tactic – the threat to detonate the marriage and family or else – helps explain the high suicide rates among male divorcees.
Somewhat understandable, but definite lack of abundance mentality. Rather than wallow in misery and put a gun to his head, he should go find a younger, hotter, tighter woman. (And, having learned from painful experience, don’t marry the next one because AWALT.)
Pingback: It’s all here – links, vids, and zee hawt chick of the week. – Adam Piggott
The divorce threatpoint is the rough equivalent of bringing a gun to negotiations. The concept of honest relating has long since been abandoned. Sadly at the point a man is facing this, there are rarely any good options.
The painful thing is watching friends take this kind of advice and go full cuck. I have a friend who got sucked into using a counselor who I’m certain is solidly on the Duluth model. He’s been going to sessions one day a week for roughly two years. His soon to be ex-wife stopped going after six months. In a way he lucked out, there’s no long term provisioning being taken, but I assume that’s probably because husband #2 is likely in the works.
He’s aware of this blog, but rejected anything remotely red-pill. I warned him that his passive line of action would cost him his marriage; and it has.
Is there any course of persuasion that has any effect on cucks that are bordering on nuclear? or is that a terminal condition?
Chad,
He’s aware of this blog, but rejected anything remotely red-pill.
Given that that is 2017, my sympathy is limited. Men who are still blue-pill are actively avoiding the red-pill, and hence brought their misfortune onto themselves.
In 2009 one could claim cluelessness. But as of 2017….what the hell have the chosen to spend their Internet time on all these years?
To answer your question : the condition is usually terminal. If was somewhat receptive or at least open when you first brought it up, there was a chance. But when rejection is overt, it is best you don’t bother anymore, for he will see YOU as a ‘misogynist’ and tell others about you (with the goal of what he thinks to be sucking up to women)…
Chad
He’s aware of this blog, but rejected anything remotely red-pill. I warned him that his passive line of action would cost him his marriage; and it has.
Men are the real romantics. When a man is emotionally sold on a relatioship, whether it’s the girl he wants to ask to the prom, or the young woman he wants to marry, or the woman he did marry, he won’t be reasoned out of that position, or not easily anyway. Because he didn’t reason himself into it.
Something unpleasantly dramatic often has to happen to get him to see clearly; spelling out “Susie, please go to the prom with me!” on her front lawn in roses doesn’t work; the Jumbotron marriage proposal at the sporting events fails; the woman he married essentially becomes ‘married’ to someone else emotionally (children, work, etc.). The shock of seeing things as they are, possibly for the first time ever, can be massive – the emotions that go with it will often burn new neural pathways that “get him over” the romantic emotional self-delusion.
tl;dr
Some men cannot see what is in front of them until it is too painful not to. Some of us have to learn the hard way. Emotion is stronger than reason when a man is emotionally invested in a relationship, even if it mainly exists inside his head.
Paradoxically I think the strongest initiation can be self initiation. Why should I submit to tribal manhood rituals if they suck (binge drinking, the eternal pursuit of getting laid) or are personally impossible (trying to join the military as an athsmatic or something)?
Perhaps, but the group initiation is important in that it tells the young men that they have a system and mentors actively watching out for them, and a brotherhood they belong to.
Reading the comments in this thread on rites of passage made me realize why I felt so lost in my teens and early 20s. I was looking for a seal of approval that never materialized. A rite of passage from older men to tell me, “you are competent; you are now responsible for yourself and for others” would have filled that gap. Men are not born, they are forged; the rite is a stamp of inspection and seal of quality.
Working with young men in youth group now, I make it a point to note that they are not boys but young men; yet they do feel inadequate of the word “man”. They recognize it is earned, and a rite of passage would bridge the transition of boy to man.
Now, how to create a rite for a bunch of church kids?
RE: all the initiation-into-manhood rituals.
Passing your eighteenth birthday means you’re an adult, but it doesn’t mean that you’ve demonstrated, before other men, that you are on your way to being-good-at-being-a-man.
This is a good book that might be useful for fathers:
I say fathers because young men who read it will probably find bits of it off-putting and quite at odds with the culture they’ve grown accustomed to. It probably is better for fathers-of-sons (especially nice Christian kids) to dispense such brutal truths gradually.
Boxer
Wtf is wrong w this world??? When Christian men allow their wives to trample all over them this is what happens. Dalrock what do you think is the meaning of this?? (About friend zoning your husband)
Boxer @ 5:55 pm:
“This is a good book that might be useful for fathers:”
It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I let an unrepentant homosexual like Donovan convince me teenage boys should perform for the approval of adult men.
@Adam Man:
I don’t get the first part of that fool’s statement, and the second part is factually wrong.
There are some days where I’m thinking, “Lord, please come back. This place just needs to be cleansed with Fire.”
From the very moment the woman friend zoned her husband she lost God and Jesus. There is no justification for this behavior spiritually. Women think they can get away with so much but disrespecting their husband or divorcing and remarrying are both frowned on – the divorce/remarry condemns both the offending man and woman. Divorce = no remarry and no dates ever.
@ Looking Glass
I think that is saying she has not found her husband yet because she friend zoned the guy while pursuing God.
Humble-bragging she’s single because devotion.
Her hope is her “husband” miraculously escapes friend zone prison to marry her.
@Lyn
The wife’s ex-husband is probably miserable. His wife frivorced him, and then moved away with his children (a common scenario). She wanted to indulge the divorcee fantasy and upgrade, but when reality hit her in the face, had to settle for the beta provider.
Now, Mr. Edwards gets to be the white-knight by “rescuing” the ex-husband’s wife and children. Then, he virtue signals with self-righteous indignation about how the ex-husband never reaches out to the children. Also, to placate his (likely) domineering wife, he adopts the submissive pedestalizing posture; i.e., “You make me a better man!” and all that garbage. This probably gets his sex once month at the most.
This crap is pure, status-whoring gold among Churchian men.
He’s been going to sessions one day a week for roughly two years. His soon to be ex-wife stopped going after six months.
@Chad —
Yep, that is actually a common pattern. What it means is that he agreed that the counseling was about him, not about her or them together. Counseling is pretty much always a bad idea anyway, but this pattern (start together, wife drops out, insists he stays in) is common because counseling, Duluth-full or Duluth-lite (it’s all Duluth in one sense or another) is focused on problematizing the man and changing the man, while removing the woman from the man, either immediately or eventually. It really serves no useful purpose whatsoever other than buying time for the woman to find another branch or at least plan out the divorce thoroughly before she pulls the pin in the grenade.
As for whether it’s terminal? Yes, I’m afraid, under the facts you have described, he’s toast. He likely has internalized all of that crap from the counselor as well which means he’s also toast going forward. Sad time for him, but not everyone can be reached — many are just too recalcitrant to be reached, or too brainwashed, or to frankly frightened of the alternative view of the world to be reached.
@Adam Man
Good Lord (Choke)! But hey, why not? Dalrock’s already written a couple of times about the church using chivalry as a cover for a cuckold fetish, so why wouldn’t the next logical step be wives who friend-zone their husbands in order to be a faithful bride of Christ?
In fact, seeing that just reminded me of something from my youth that until now I’d long since forgotten. I grew up in the church, and one feature of that meant that real rock music radio stations were off limits — so I listened to a lot of “Christian Contemporary Music” instead. One song in particular I now recall: Wes King’s “Another Man,” in which the singer-songwriter uses his music to describe the experience of being . . . cuckolded by Jesus.
I shit you not:
Sad part is, this isn’t even new. The album this song was on debuted back in 1991; I was years away from even being interested in females the first time I heard it played. The manosphere crowd has often accused the church being a beta factory, and guess what? When this is what it produces, it’s hard to say they’re wrong. And when you see stuff like that instagram from “thegodlycouple” and then realize that this kind of sentiment has been part of its message for decades, you really do start to wonder if there is a conscious goal of getting Christian men to accept from a young age that rebellion, neglect and betrayal from their wives and girlfriends is simply going to be what God assigns them as their lot in life.
That also might explain why so many of them have left.
Gunner!- “It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I let an unrepentant homosexual like Donovan convince me teenage boys should perform for the approval of adult men.”
+1000. These deviants pretend to be conservatives, when all they really want is to sodomize our sons.
Dear Gunner & Frank:
I’d ask you guys what it is that you disagreed with in the text, but it’s obvious neither of you have ever read it, and are merely virtue signaling, like a couple of blue haired SJW types. In any event, please see inside text…
I’d think you’d pay more attention to the church fathers. St. Augustine encouraged a pragmatic approach, telling Christians to use the philosophy that furthered the work of the church, even if it originated with heathens and unbelievers.
Full disclosure: I’ve met the author of that book personally, on more than one occasion. We’re not best friends, and we don’t agree about many things, but we respect one another. He’d laugh at this comment, but I don’t. It’s a disgusting thing to say, and reflects poorly upon your own moral character.
In any event, stay tuned to my next book suggestions, which will likely include books by Athol Kay (an outspoken atheist), Camille Paglia (a lesbo) and Alain Badiou (a radical Marxist intellectual). Like Brother Jack, they all have their faults, but they’ve all written pro-marriage, pro-male, pro-fatherhood stuff, and the wise people here will read them judiciously, while you characters pat each other on the back about how progressive you are.
Regards,
Boxer
“…but I don’t. It’s a disgusting thing to say, and reflects poorly upon your own moral character.”
Oh, the hubris.
“Brother Jack.” LOL.
If questioning the motives of gay UPS guys who dream of LARPing as Lord Humunguses of the Cascadian Confederated Conurbation impugns one’s moral charater… I don’t want to be right.
+1000. These deviants pretend to be conservatives, when all they really want is to sodomize our sons.
Full disclosure: I’ve met the author of that book personally, on more than one occasion. We’re not best friends, and we don’t agree about many things, but we respect one another. He’d laugh at this comment, but I don’t. It’s a disgusting thing to say, and reflects poorly upon your own moral character.
Left unsaid: The age of his first homosexual encounter, and the age of the youngest man he had homosexual sex with.
There’s a reason why the word “pederasty” exists.
In any event, stay tuned to my next book suggestions, which will likely include books by Athol Kay (an outspoken atheist), Camille Paglia (a lesbo) and Alain Badiou (a radical Marxist intellectual). Like Brother Jack, they all have their faults, but they’ve all written pro-marriage, pro-male, pro-fatherhood stuff, and the wise people here will read them judiciously, while you characters pat each other on the back about how progressive you are.
A non-Christian promoting non-Christians and their ideas, trying to shame Christians into accepting them. That’s rather progressive and Alinsky of you.
If you were as knowledgeable about Christian theology as you present yourself, you’d know how pointless it is to emphasize the wisdom of your non-Christian sources. Are you deceptive or ignorant?
@Boxer et al.
From the Christian perspective: The problem with looking to someone committed to a pet sin isn’t that he has his faults. It’s that he is unrepentant. That should be an utter non-starter for an earnest Christian.
Robert Herjavec (Shark Tank) contemplated suicide after divorce.
Having a $200M fortune plus the fame of being on TV (that too on a show that amplifies the image of your success) was not enough. The man had it all. Divorce still was an ordeal that made him want to end his life.
Yet these cuckservatives insist that only the man can cause a divorce.
I am baffled as to why Jim Geraghty’s wife does not divorce him, what with his revolting manginatude.
This N.C. billboard is angering drivers, who say it is sexist
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html
I am noticing a couple of things here which I think are specifically American – and thus I thought, to give a little perspective, that it might be helpful were I to mention them.
Firstly: attending counseling is not something that happens much in England and I say that based on my experience in Matrimonial Law where I would specifically ask if that was happening – it never did.
Secondly: America being a large country where people do seem to move vast distances (New Jersey to Oklahoma say – I recall one of your TV movies where that is exactly what happened) it is thus easy to effectively defeat any order for access to children; again this is not something that happens so much in England, provided you marry a local girl, even though distances are so much less, for moving even a hundred miles – your accent will stand out – will make you a fish out of water. I never noticed that either.
Wonder if Edwards ever thought to ask WHY his wife’s children’s father was such a jerk? Written and unsent letters tells a sad story I’m not sure a fictional healthy Edwards would want to tell.
Dear Fellas:
@Sir Hamster
I took screenshots of your false rape accusations (against an innocent man) and sicko pedophile fantasies. Both seem wildly off-topic here, but will make funny fodder on my own blog. I’ve been meaning to devote some time to your psychopathology
If I were you I’d be semi careful about libeling an author on the internet. I’m grateful for your bad judgment and endless demonstrations of immoral, chuckleheaded scumbaggery (I think you’re mildly entertaining) but not everyone will be. There are people in this world who have the lack of humor and the resources to find your pathetic self, and run you through the appropriate legal machinery. Word to the (un) wise.
@Cane Caldo
This sort of legalism collapses in self-contradiction. Can you explain why St. Augustine advocated the reading of the utterly unrepentant Epicurus, Aristotle, Leucippus, et. al.? I assume that a good Catholic can read another Catholic, but how would a good Catholic read a Protestant or Jewish author, knowing that they only have access to lesser confessions?
In any event, if anyone has any quibbles about the actual content of the book (which, contrary to Sir Hamster’s own made-up, projected desires, has nothing to do with being a homosexual or pedophile) it’d be interesting to hear them. I have problems with some of the content toward the end, but on the whole, it’s a very valuable exploration in masculinity.
Regards,
Boxer
@ Scott & SirHamster
The two of you made some great points that parallel my predicament. I’m exploring a couple different options for my boys, but I’m not prepared to discuss them yet, since I’ve only just gotten started. I should’ve begun this process years ago. Now I’m playing catch-up.
I never noticed that either.
This used to be much more the case as recently as 20 years ago. In the interim, there has been a truly massive amount of internal migration in the US (largely from the rust belt and north in general to the sun belt), and so areas in the sun belt in particular are now an accent mix. Rural areas tend to be very accented, whereas big cities much less so due to the influx of northerners.
I think the more salient point about this book is that it was a huge flop.
Amazon lists its sales rank as #620,331.
What was their elevator pitch for this book? “Dear Publisher, we seek to help omegas who are just ambitious enough to rise to the level of lesser beta. It’s gonna be huge!” Geraghty and Edwards couldn’t sell anything to men who naturally date and marry above that level, and most omegas already fall into other camps – 1) herbivores who’ve renounced all dating, or 2) really motivated men who aim for the medium- to greater-beta level.
They are catering to a vanishingly small niche, as their sales figures aptly show.
Anybody know anything about the 1st C. work The Shepherd of Hermas? Apparently, it was a very popular work for Christians (many considered it scripture). In it there is an assertion of a husband’s obligation to take back an adulterous wife on her repentance.
How far back does Churchianity go?
Re: Robert Herjavec.
He remarried a year after that story was published.
Hope springs eternal, even for a handsome billionaire.
@Damn Crackers:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla
Though, when it comes to the common heresies, it’s normally easy to just blame Origen. Mostly as he did the most work to blend Platonism into Christianity, and we’ve been fighting the stupid ever since.
Els,
He remarried a year after that story was published.
So he will go from half his wealth to a quarter of his wealth. What is your point?
The real point is that even a man who had it all was driven to contemplate suicide, which is proof about how bad the divorce industry is. He is rich, famous, and good-looking, yet his Game was weak enough that he was inflicted with divorce. There is maybe nothing, not even better Game, that could have saved his marriage.
That he is remarrying might be foolish, if anything.
Fiddlesticks,
I think the more salient point about this book is that it was a huge flop.
Amazon lists its sales rank as #620,331.
It is more to rationalize their own failure, like a feminist would.
In fact, Geraghty is a ‘male’ version of Sailer’s law of journalism. He is a total omega who married a single mother, yet asserts with a straight face (as opposed to his natural gayface) that such omegatude makes a man a ‘stud’. He asserts this, so it must be true.
He all but admits that he, upon marrying a single mother, receives the threatpoint often. Wishing to transmit that outward and package it as success is Psych 101.
I think there’s a deliberate social engineering end, too. How else do you explain so much feminist pop media that’s made, with the foreknowledge that it will lose tons of money?
Well, we know Geraghty can’t be behind this…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/24/women-appreciate-billboard-in-north-carolina-sparks-protest.html
His version would have no 2nd line.
Boxer @ February 23, 2017 at 10:24 pm:
“Like Brother Jack, they all have their faults, ”
Yes, exactly. I’ll listen to a homosexual on economics and a Marxist on chemistry, but I won’t listen to a homosexual on manhood or a Marxist on government policy.
I’ll listen to a homosexual on economics and a Marxist on chemistry,
I would change that to ‘botany’ or ‘quantum mechanics’ since most homosexuals are left-wing on economic matters.
@Opus
In a negotiated divorce, both parties usually agree to make a good faith effort to remain in the local area until the youngest child graduates from high school, and a clause to this effect will be in the final papers. With a divorce that goes to trial, one or both parties may be arguing that they should receive custody because they are more committed to remaining in the local area (“the child’s psychological home”) than the other spouse. The judge’s final order will restrict both parents from moving out of the area without court permission.
Sometimes, especially among the working poor and lower middle classes, you will see one spouse (more commonly the ex-husband, but not always) agree to allow the children to move out of the area if his child support payments are substantially reduced. Sometimes this is done altruistically to allow the ex-wife who is re-entering the workforce to take a good job in a lower cost of living area, which will mean better housing and schools for the kiddies. The husband is paying less to the wife, but has to pay more in transportation costs to have access to the children.
Occasionally, a man who just isn’t that interested in the kids will allow the ex-wife to move a thousand miles away to get married to a man who will adopt the children and relieve him of his child support obligation. This sounds awful, but it is actually a better deal than the dad of Geraghty’s stepkids is getting. He paid child support at least some of the time, yet he had little or no access to his children, and the children have turned against him. He SHOULD have sent cards and presents and letters, but Mr. & Mrs. Geraghty COULD have offered to waive child support to the extent that the dad was paying for gifts and plane tickets, etc. The Geraghty’s obviously were able to live without the money.
Back in the 60s, a man who married a woman with children ASSUMED that he would be putting food on the table for everybody living under his roof. If the wife’s former husband paid child support, that was gravy. Today’s more complicated arrangements lead to a lot of anger and confusion.
Traumatic events as a catalyst for change:
I’d not be the man I am today without getting divorced as I was content to exist as an adult child who’d not yet matured and grown. YMMV. It still sucked in the worst way.
Counselling:
I had two different female marriage counsellors tell my ex that I was unusually perceptive and self-aware, but it didn’t matter. She was only there going through the motions. Interestingly, I never had to bad mouth her to the kids. All they’ve had to do is to spend time around her, and around me to come to their own conclusions about what happened.
Ex-husbands:
John Ross, author of Unintended Consequences used to write a blog Ross In Range. He wrote once to never date a divorced woman. If you ever meet the ex-husband, most of the time, he’s a pretty good guy, in which case, she frivorced him, and you want nothing to do with that. A small percentage of the time, he’s a psycho. In that case, she has poor decision making skills, and you don’t want any part of that. There does exist a very small minority of cases that don’t fit those two, but they exist so rarely that the rule works.
Rites of passage and manhood:
While understanding they books are fictional, and written by women, in the Little House on the Prairie, Almanzo Wilder goes West to claim a homestead, and is treated as a man because he is behaving as a man. The only test he had to pass was that of taking on the trappings, and responsibilities of manhood.
Cane- “From the Christian perspective: The problem with looking to someone committed to a pet sin isn’t that he has his faults. It’s that he is unrepentant. That should be an utter non-starter for an earnest Christian.”
Exactly, I don’t care how much “good stuff” is in his books. Given who the author is, his material is suspect. There are better and more reliable sources.
Good point, Anon. The immoral generally can’t be trusted on economics, psychology or statecraft because those fields come closer to the corruption of human nature than hard sciences and engineering. The exceptions, like cosmology from astronomy, being amusing for how quickly the likes of Carl Sagan can flip from rational investigator to pagan sun-worshiper. Sometimes mid-paragraph.
“I am baffled as to why Jim Geraghty’s wife does not divorce him, what with his revolting manginatude.”
Probably because he’s a good wallet. And for all we know, she might have bad boy on the side. Which if true, makes his words even more ridiculous.
AFBB.
” I assume that a good Catholic can read another Catholic, but how would a good Catholic read a Protestant or Jewish author, knowing that they only have access to lesser confessions?”
He can read him, but not for theological advice. I’m sorry, going to a homosexual seeking advice on being a father is patently absurd. Being an atheist, I’m sure you don’t get it, and that’s fine.
“Anybody know anything about the 1st C. work The Shepherd of Hermas? Apparently, it was a very popular work for Christians (many considered it scripture). In it there is an assertion of a husband’s obligation to take back an adulterous wife on her repentance.”
Which is why the early Church Fathers unceremoniously tossed it into the trash heap.
“but I won’t listen to a homosexual on manhood”
+1. Should we also listen to feminists on manhood just because their books make some “good points”?
In a negotiated divorce, both parties usually agree to make a good faith effort to remain in the local area until the youngest child graduates from high school, and a clause to this effect will be in the final papers. With a divorce that goes to trial, one or both parties may be arguing that they should receive custody because they are more committed to remaining in the local area (“the child’s psychological home”) than the other spouse. The judge’s final order will restrict both parents from moving out of the area without court permission.
Very hard to get a court to enforce that provision of the order, however. It’s fairly common for custodial spouses to move with the kids and the court basically doesn’t do anything about it at all, when asked. “Change of circumstances” and “best interests of the child” rule the day. My ex moved to Canada for a while, then again to a place here in the US which is a 5 hour drive away, then back here after a few years. Court did nothing when it was informed of this violation of the order.
It’s like visitation orders — they are also very weakly enforced. Courts do not like interfering with what the custodial spouse is doing unless they are objectively damaging the child (documented physical abuse), generally speaking, regardless of what the order says. They do enforce child support in an exacting, ironclad manner, however, you have to give them that.
Someone up there was denigrating Jack Donovan. Say what you will about Donovan the man, but “The Way Of Men” is an excellent book. I highly recommend it.
“Very hard to get a court to enforce that provision of the order, however.
“It’s like visitation orders — they are also very weakly enforced. Courts do not like interfering with what the custodial spouse is doing unless they are objectively damaging the child (documented physical abuse), generally speaking, regardless of what the order says. They do enforce child support in an exacting, ironclad manner, however, you have to give them that.”
Seems to me it’s really all about the very, very wide, almost limitlessly wide, discretion family courts have. It’s almost impossible to overturn something a family court judge does unless the abuse of discretion is so obvious a 12 year old can identify it. And the standard here isn’t just abuse of discretion, it’s “CLEAR abuse of discretion”.
I entirely concur with my learned friend Novaseeker as to the non-enforcement of arrangements for access.
@Laura
England is a small country (about the size of New York State) and thus should a spouse seek to move any great distance that person will perforce be moving outside of the jurisdiction and you cannot take children out of the jurisdiction without the permission of the Court. That is perhaps one reason why the problem is specific to America.
I hate noticing that I have split an infinitive (to effectively defeat) at 05.26 – or for that matter ending a sentence on a weak (or weaker) word such as a preposition. Ugh
“in which the singer-songwriter uses his music to describe the experience of being . . . cuckolded by Jesus.”
Which is unbiblical.
“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him. ” (Gen 2:18)
and
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)
@Novaseeker
I was initially not allowed to move out of “the seven southern counties of California.” About 18 months later, my ex got a court order putting the children into a private school thirty minutes from my apartment, which further restricted my geographic mobility AND my ability to return to the workforce, since we had a crazy day-by-day rotating 50/50 custody schedule, and the non-local private school attendance made after school child care prohibitively expensive. My ex had a much better attorney, and was able to keep his child support at rock bottom due to his alleged low income from self employment while he still had the money somehow for private school. My out-of-state mother paid my rent, and if she had not done so, I would have had to have given up on having substantial custody of the children. I was trapped there for five years with continual trips back to the courthouse for mandatory mediation and court hearings, etc., until the ex ran into legal difficulties unrelated to the divorce and left the country in the middle of the night, leaving no forwarding address. He broke off contact with the children at that point, after years of fighting for full custody.
If I had had a better attorney, I might have gotten a better deal, but it’s always a crap shoot. Different jurisdictions, and even different judges have a big effect on whether or not one of the spouses will be able to take the children out of state. There have also been big swings in opinion on how to handle child custody matters over the years. My original 50/50 custody order was apparently one of the last of that nature in the jurisdiction — a huge percentage of the families involved ended up clogging the courts with re-litigation, so the judges stopped ordering that type of custody. The original theory behind it was that it would force the parents to work together to raise the children. The reality was that this sort of arrangement requires tremendous good will and flexibility, and is only feasible when both parents desire it enough to negotiate for it outside of the courthouse. There have been swings as well in the attitude toward the spouse with primary custody moving the children out of state. Some parents do move the children out of state purely out of spite, but on the other hand life does move on after the divorce, and trapping everybody in the original jurisdiction for up to eighteen years can cause real hardships to one or both parties during that time, as jobs are lost, one or both parties remarry, etc.
re: Donovan, contra Deti and Boxer, I’m with Gunner Q, et al – dismissed the book out of hand based on the author’s degeneracy – may make some good points, and Donovan may be a perfectly observant, talented and intelligent individual otherwise, but the source remains highly suspect and there is no shortage of similar works from repentant sinners
re National Review – slow death after Buckley accelerated and became terminal upon disassociation of Derbyshire, Steyn and Levin
What I have seen and heard is that the custodial mother usually has to do something really really bad in order to either lose custody or not be permitted to move a great distance with the kids. Most of the time, if a custodial mom asserts a change of circumstances like remarriage and her new husband got transferred, that’s approved. Also approved are her job transfers especially if it’s shown she’s being promoted and earning more money. The husband is told “this will reduce your child support obligation; you have no real basis on which to contest the petition to remove the kids…”
Exceptions I’ve heard is that one woman I went to school with married a guy who was going to school with us, but he was from New Hampshire. So she moved there and had 3 kids with him. She got homesick. Wanted to come back to the Midwest. He refused. She cheated on him, in part to get back at him, in part to get out of the marriage. He divorced her. She got the kids. She had a low paying job and could support the kids only with his hefty child support payments. She wanted to move back to the Midwest with the kids. The court said “no” for reasons unknown to me, but knowing what I know about the law and courts, there were 4 likely reasons:
(1) she was at fault for the divorce (technically, fault isn’t supposed to be an issue but family courts will often penalize at fault parties and inject punitive elements into their discretionary decisions);
(2) she couldn’t work a job and care for 3 young minor kids, child care, etc.
(3) she didn’t yet have employment in the Midwest and couldn’t show she had much in the way of employment prospects, and
(4) just plain wouldn’t be fair to the kids’ dad.
The court said “well, you can move if you want. But the kids stay here.” So she stayed in New Hampshire.
A few years later the party girl she was, she got pinched for DUI. Had to call her ex to bail her out. She didn’t have the money to pay the fines and lost her drivers’ license for 6 months. She had to be driven everywhere. She decided to move back to the Midwest with her mother, and had no choice but to relinquish custody back to her ex husband, who currently has primary residential of the kids. She pays no child support, of course.
@ Original Laura:
“I was initially not allowed to move out of “the seven southern counties of California.””
” I was trapped there for five years”
Not true. YOU could move anywhere you wanted. It’s just that if you had done so, you would have been prohibited from taking the children with you.
You were not “trapped” anywhere. You could have moved anywhere YOU wanted. It’s just that the kids would have had to have stayed with your ex husband.
A friend of a friend (FOF) has two girls, and lives in Chicago. His ex remarried a man in the Navy who subsequently took an assignment in Florida. The judge granted her request to move the girls. In further news, he started sleeping with a new gal, and got her pregnant. He’s an idiot.
I know a woman who got divorced in Portland, remarried, and petitioned the court to allow her to take her son to Seattle. The court told her no. AFAIK, she has no problems that would have caused to court to refuse her beyond that it would take the boy away from his life in Portland.
So, it’s a mixed bag.
If there are SOOOO many christian women lacking a marriageable husband I wonder why these pastors don´t endorse polygamy. It seems like it would solve the problem for women. \sarcasm \false innocence
Anon ng:
Yeah, it’s wide discretion. The court is supposed to take all kinds of factors into account, and what comes out will be different depending on certain circumstances absent or present. Just no telling sometimes what a decision like this turns on.
For those participating in the side conversation regarding Jack Donovan’s work, what others, more repentant, authors would you recommend, who have addressed the topic in comparable depth?
Dear Key & Ryder:
I’m always interested in reviewing masculine authors, and I’d dig some leads on new material also. Hit us with some publication data, bro.
Boxer
If there are SOOOO many christian women lacking a marriageable husband I wonder why these pastors don´t endorse polygamy. It seems like it would solve the problem for women. \sarcasm \false innocence
Good one, but this has built-in problems for women also. “I control him”. NO, I control him!” “We’ll just see about that!”
“Mergatroid, are you going to listen to her, OR ME; or that other one?”
@ Boxer:
Including my previous post for context. It was most helpful of you to dodge my question and answer it with lies. You are a deceptive snake, Boxer. You are an intelligent and credentialed man preaching worldly wisdom, who should not be mistaken as a friend to Christians.
You falsely accused me of making false rape accusations and having pedophile fantasies. Those are blatant lies, liar. I pointed out our lack of knowledge on two very relevant personal facts of a homosexual man. Observation of lack in knowledge is not an accusation. The truth is not in you. Repent and seek the Author of Truth.
These particular unknown facts reveal if a particular homosexual was molested as a child, and whether he molested children**. Any homosexual has had homosexual sex by definition. Otherwise, he’d be a chaste man with homosexual attractions but not a homosexual. The reason the word pederasty exists is because many homosexual men have practiced it, and there is strong correlation between being the victim of pederasty and practicing homosexuality.
Your empty bluster about non-existent libel, in addition to weasel words like “seem” and “semi”, are Gamma tells. Secret king defends his kingdom with words and destroys his credibility with his own two hands.
To the Christians here, note well: You see the red pill truth because the Light of the world has given you sight where you once were blind. The foolishness of God is better than the wisdom of this world. Do not follow the blind into the pit. Do not fear bluster and empty lying words, for you have overcome the world.
** There is a loophole in the wording. It should seek the age of the youngest male he has had sex with. A 3rd relevant fact is the number of homosexual sex partners. The size of that number has potential to be eye-opening and shameful.
@deti Of course I could have moved and left the children behind, but I was unwilling to do so. Occasionally you will hear of a man who made a major geographic move to live closer to his ex-wife and his children after the judge allowed the woman to take the kids out of state. Most people are between a rock and a hard place in these situations, though. In my case, it later turned out that at the same time that my husband was convincing the court to refuse to allow the children to move out of state because it was their psychological home, he had rented an apartment in Monaco and had gotten residency and work permits, etc. Once he was awarded full custody, he planned to petition the court to allow him to move overseas. He must have known that it was a risky strategy, but he was a “go-for-broke” kind of a person. Perjury in family court goes unpunished, and parental rights aren’t severed based on bad behavior so his downside risk was minimal, and the upside possibility was that he would be able to fulfill his fantasy of living in Europe.
It’s impossible to know what went on in Jim Geraghty’s wife’s divorce from her first husband, but I’m inclined to feel sorry for the ex-husband, and I hope that as the years go by he can effect a reconciliation with his children. If the worst thing that Jim could say about him was that he was a poor correspondent and didn’t send enough presents, then I don’t think that he deserves to have all contact cut off. I wonder why Jim and his wife didn’t suggest to the kids that Dad’s failure to keep in regular contact might have been due to post-divorce depression? I wonder if Jim and his bride ever set up a specific time each week when Dad could phone the kids? Or maybe, just maybe, it suited Jim and his wife just fine to see Dad gradually lose all contact with his children because it made him look like a rat who didn’t deserve to have a wife and kids in the first place.
My own experience, as well as the experiences of others that I have known, incline me to discourage people from leaving their hometown to get married, or to marry anyone who has strong ties to another part of the country/world. When things go wrong, they go very wrong and living where you have family and friends helps out a lot.
Only part I agree with him on.
What an amazingly fucked up psyche this guy must have. He has unconditionally surrendered any semblance of Frame, not just to his wife, but to women on whole. He sounds like a jilted wife when he goes on about his wife’s ex. I’m sure he thinks his concern for
her“his” kids makes him ‘more of a man’ in his Beta conditioned mind, but I have no doubt his wife is disgusted with his supplicating. This guy is cuckolded in the most thorough sense of the word.He is also what I call a ‘promise keeper’ in that his entire self-image revolves around a Beta Game of being a better man than his ‘old man’ was with his mom.
https://therationalmale.com/2012/11/21/promise-keepers/
He fits this description to the letter, but he takes it a step further and transfers his Beta angst to his wife’s ex. This is the complete surrender to his own powerlessness with women. Marry’s a single mother, projects his White Knight self-righteousness to her former lover, revels in his indenturement and marriage-dread. And then writes about it in the hopes that he’ll “help” other Christina men live a great life and marriage by his example.
Remember all the flack I took for suggesting modern Christianity is a Beta-Farm producing pathetic chumps for the service of entitled ‘Christian’ feminists-who-aren’t-feminist?
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/30/losing-my-religion/
This guy is the textbook example of that farming.
@Rollo-
…if it weren’t for my wife and her ex splitting up, I would never be the man I am today.
As a step-dad myself, I have been mulling over why this sentence crept me out so much. I read it over a few times and had an almost gag-like reflex to it. I have described the situation(s) that led to me being married a second time, and that created the step-dad situation in much more ambiguous terms for everyone. There is nothing “good” about it. The outcome has been ambivalent at best. Everyone involved has had to grapple with those truths, as painful as they are.
You got me a lot closer to figuring it out.
@Lost Patrol
Good one, but this has built-in problems for women also. “I control him”. NO, I control him!” “We’ll just see about that!”
“Mergatroid, are you going to listen to her, OR ME; or that other one?”
And polygamy would be an advantage for men. If wife 1 doesn’t behave you spend the night with wife 2. Repeat as needed.
It´s my personal belief this is why we no longer have polygamy. It removes the control/monopoly women have over sex (this is also why prostitution was made illegal). Since the modern church is a female controlled institution it enforces these doctrines that polygamy,adultary and prostitution are sins, while denying your spouse sex in marriage is not. Convenient, no?
Apparently, Jim never fired a gun until he was passed 40 as well. Jim and Ed look like they have a lot of experience with modern women, not.
Boxer — “Dear Gunner & Frank:
I’d ask you guys what it is that you disagreed with in the text, but it’s obvious neither of you have ever read it, and are merely virtue signaling, like a couple of blue haired SJW types. In any event, please see inside text…”
Toss me onto that blue haired SJW pile then, because I back those two comments up 100 percent. Yes we all have faults and sins and imperfections, and no, a proud and practicing homosexual has no business assuming guidance over boys, intellectual or otherwise. Boxer you are letting your personal bias rule you in this instance. I don’t care if Jack Donovan is nice to you, or if he’s a personable guy, or even if he’s brilliant. These ‘manosphere hero’ types already have led many astray, with many more to follow.
Aside, all pls. continue here in your good works. Still one of the best sites on the web and I praise Father, Son, and their servants for providing it.
You support the accusation, made by Frank K, that the author’s intent in writing the book was to sodomize young boys?
Here’s the comment that you “back up 100%”
These deviants pretend to be conservatives, when all they really want is to sodomize our sons.
That’s called a false rape accusation. I’d expect feminists on Jezebel (or feminists here, like Sir Hamster) to make a false rape accusation against antifeminist authors. I’m surprised to see it here. What part of the New Testament condones this sort of dishonesty, I wonder? Perhaps you can help me understand it, someday. lol
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Rollo:
Really glad you’re commenting on this. Please see below…
When you read the section, did you get the impression (as I did) that Edwards’ funny overcompensation may be motivated by guilt — after possibly banging this woman while she was still married to “the biological father of [his] older kids” (sic)?
It’d really be interesting to talk to him. Unfortunately, both Edwards and Geraghty have so far been too shy to come and defend their thesis here. Maybe you and others could let them know, next time you’re on twitter, that I’m speculating about Edwards’ behavior with his current wife before their marriage. I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong, but the tone and content of that little piece (written by Edwards, not Geraghty) casts serious doubt as to whether he’s morally capable of giving other men advice.
Regards,
Boxer
You’re so invested in your friend that you’d accuse me of rape accusations? I think Boxer needs to run an ego check on Boxer there first, big chief.
I do not assume that Jack Donovan’s intent in writing a book was to rape boys, I said I backed their comments, not their assumptions. You know exactly what I meant but your pride now demands that you scramble to cherrypick reasons to accuse someone else, so as to draw attention away from your own position. Your accusation is noted, as well as the speed at which you descended to it.
Speculating, and based on observation of his commentaries, I’d guess Donovan’s intent with the book was 1) to make a name for himself, i.e., advance his own celebrity; and 2) to generate money. I do not think Donovan’s primary or even secondary intent was to provide wise, healthy, Scripturally-based guidance for boys. You do support Scripture as the primary guide for all conduct and interactions on this planet, don’t you?
That you would so offhandedly accuse me of rape-accusing for daring to disagree with you, while simultaneously painting other disagreeing men as ‘blue haired SJWs’ speaks for itself. I don’t intend to sully this discussion with any more responses to childish tantrum charges. Shame.
@Ryder
For those participating in the side conversation regarding Jack Donovan’s work, what others, more repentant, authors would you recommend, who have addressed the topic in comparable depth?
Not sure if it’s been mentioned here before, but you might try The Church Impotent by Leon Podles. It’s a bit beta at times, and it doesn’t deal specifically with the question of “What makes a man?” but it does provide a pretty good look at how historical Christianity has regarded manhood, and it doesn’t hesitate to call out the modern church on how bad it is at recruiting men and making disciples out of them. I believe it’s out of print, but you can read a free copy in PDF format at the author’s web site: http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm
With that said, I really do have to recommend that you read Donovan’s book — and I say that as a Christian (though one who no longer attends church). He does solid, empirical work showing how humans of varying tribes, religions and races have dealt with the question of what it means to be a man, then shows evidence for why the answers they’ve reached have been fairly consistent from group to group throughout all of history — and why, in his words, “There’s a difference between being a good man, and being good at being a man.” It’s a refreshing switch from church leaders who reduce it to platitudes like “Real Men go to church!” “Real Men respect women!” and “A Real Man isn’t afraid to be vulnerable and open about his feelings!” I can’t imagine that any of those same ministers would be stupid enough to say “The only Beautiful Women are those who are devoutly Christian!” yet they won’t hesitate to tie a man’s sexual status to the behaviors that the church wants out of him. Nearly every modern writer from the church dealing with the question of manhood makes this mistake; Donovan’s book is unique because he manages to bypass it entirely. If believers here want to protest that it’s a largely amoral view that leaves God unmentioned, then reflect that as the sage once said, “All Truth is God’s Truth,” . . . . and in the past He has been known to use sinners to declare it.
Dear Ray:
You wrote that you “back those two comments up 100 percent”. Now you’re upset at me merely posting one of the two comments. But, you still support the false rape accusation Frank K made.
Maybe if you’d quit virtue signaling for a second, you could tell me what, specifically, you find objectionable in the actual text of The Way of Men. I think it’s a valuable book and the content is on topic for Dalrock. I assume you’ve actually read it, haven’t you? You wouldn’t object to something you knew nothing about, right?
Fuck’n lol
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Darwinian Arminian:
Thanks for that review. Ironically, I have some issues with bits of TWOM, most of which appears towards the end of the book. Reading the last three or four chapters is more crass and far more depressing than it needed to be.
If I were a religious Christian or Jew, I’d probably also take issue with TWOM for its total lack of discussion of the aesthetic and the spiritual dimensions of masculinity. That’s a grave lacuna in a book like this; but, maybe the author just ran out of time. It’s possible also that he wanted to appeal to the widest possible audience, and such discussions would have been limiting. I dunno. It would have been nice to have at least as much talk about beauty and religion as there is about the coming road war; but, I’m glad he wrote it, and it’s a great work, despite my critical judgment of its flaws.
Best,
Boxer
Don’t you ever threaten me again. boy. Even indirectly.
Dear ray:
I’m sorry, who is this funny meltdown directed to? What are you babbling about?
Boxer
I had my live-in fiancé once threaten that she would “hit myself in the face, call the cops, and tell them you did it”. At that point I was done. Just the fact that she would even think of doing that…I’m out.
I convinced her to go out of state to see her parents, packed all her crap into her car, and drove it across town to park it at a relative’s house. Then I changed the locks (she was not on the lease). Didn’t let her come back – wasn’t gonna give her the chance to call the cops on me and accuse me of something, She ended up having a breakdown and having to be institutionalized for a bit…she had already told her family that we were getting married, already had a bridal shower, etc.
A couple years later I met my now-wife, who is a NAWALT. We’re happily married for 15 years with two wonderful children. Doing well financially and my wife has been a stay at home mom for the last 12 years. We are happy as clams and both very red pill, and my wife is not only NOT a feminist but very much ANTI feminist.
My ex-fiancé called me out out of the blue a year ago, hadn’t talked to her in almost 20 years. She did marry, but never had kids. Well, she put her hubby in jail a couple times and ruined his life. So he is divorcing her ass. She was frantic on the phone that he is leaving her “high and dry”. She has no job skills to speak of, no income, nowhere to live (her own family disowned her), going into default on her car loan so she will be without a vehicle soon, no friends, etc. And now in her 40’s her SMV is gone (she admitted she got fat, she said she’s “big as a house”), so forget about luring the next blue pill sucker into the honey trap. She said she is considering suicide. I told her to lose my number, and blocked her phone number. Haven’t heard from her since. (Btw, had my wife quietly listening to the whole call on another extension; she got a kick out of it)
Think it’s safe to say I dodged a bullet there. And I look at my beautiful wife, and the great life I provide her, and I think that my ex-fiancé could have had that life. But she screwed herself out of it. Very sad.
Bitchez be crazy.
I’d expect feminists on Jezebel (or feminists here, like Sir Hamster) to make a false rape accusation against antifeminist authors.
Boxer is lying by calling me a feminist, and by claiming I have made false rape accusations.
He is a liar who seeks to worm his way into a position of trust. He does make interesting and thought provoking comments on this blog, but these interactions show how great the chasm is between the redeemed and the unbelievers. Trust liars at your own peril.
Trusting liars to train Christian boys into Christian men? Never.
To the tune of “backpedal up the bullshit river,” SirHamster whines:
Since he apparently forgot the false rape accusation he made, less than 24 hours ago, here it is, in SirHamster’s own words:
Link: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/jim-geraghty-on-the-beauty-of-the-threatpoint/#comment-228759
I merely suggested a book about masculinity. You spewed up your degenerate pedo-fantasies here. Who is being dishonest, again?
What part of the New Testament allows for making up false accusations of pedo-rape, as you have done, right here in print? Maybe you can cite chapter and verse for me. I clearly missed that part of the gospels.
As an aside, part of what Donovan discusses at length in TWOM is the concept of honor. If SirHamster understood that concept, he’d apologize, retract his looney false rape accusation, and move on already. Needless to say, he’d do well to actually read this book himself.
Regards,
Boxer
@Jeff Strand
When your ex-girlfriend threatened to hit herself and blame it on you, was this a bolt out of the blue, or looking back were there other episodes of major league Drama Queen behavior?
In Boxer’s irrational argument, wanting to know those two age numbers is a false rape accusation. He proudly throws the gauntlet on this. I shall humor Boxer’s accusation, briefly.
Perhaps the truthful numbers are 20 and 20. Are those two numbers a rape accusation? No. Does it make my interest in them a rape accusation? No.
Perhaps the numbers are 17 and 30. Is that somehow a rape accusation? Still no.
Perhaps, unfortunately, the numbers are 13 and 13. Is there a rape accusation in there? Even then, with the *possibility* statutory rape was committed (note the uncertainty), wanting to know the numbers is not a rape accusation.
The observation that there is a lack of knowledge regarding a homosexual’s sexual partners is not a rape accusation, let alone a false one. Boxer has lied to everyone here about me, and he has doubled down rather than retracting it. What does Jack Donovan’s book teach on integrity and truthfulness, Boxer?
Yet knowing Boxer is wrong here doesn’t quite explain why this is his hill to die on. Why would he frame my interest in these numbers as progressive and feminist? Why does he equivocate my mention of pederasty as pedophile fantasies? Why are my posts triggering him so?
Have you engaged in homosexual activity, Boxer?
Interesting
Dear Kooky SirHamster:
Of course, I’m a faggot. That must be it. I was a communist, just a couple of weeks ago. Remember that?
Thank you for (yet again) indulging in typical feminist ad hominems.
It’s really hard to believe the level of dishonesty you have so consistently displayed, toward pretty much everyone here, without wondering if you have some other agenda for your behavior. When your every comment on this blog is in an effort do disrupt the conversation, one can reasonably surmise you have some extraneous purpose.
In any event, good convo. True to form! lol
Regards,
Boxer
Some parents do move the children out of state purely out of spite, but on the other hand life does move on after the divorce, and trapping everybody in the original jurisdiction for up to eighteen years can cause real hardships to one or both parties during that time, as jobs are lost, one or both parties remarry, etc.
Yes, that’s true. In my case it was job-related for my ex — not a move with her existing job, but a new job, first in Canada, and then another one in another state here but about 5 hours away. That was a “significant change in circumstance” enough for the court not to interfere with the move. Visits went from twice a week to once every two weeks due to distance, and it was expensive, no credit or reduction in CS (the way my state calculates it, when the pot gets bigger, the kid is owed more CS, so it only marginally changes the calculations, and unless it changes them by more than 15%, there is no cash payment change). Anyway she eventually moved back here, after about 4 years or so of being away, and he’s almost in college now anyway, so we’re nearing the end of the road when it comes to that kind of stuff anyway.
To finish off the two questions Boxers asked of me:
I do not have degenerate pedo-fantasies. You are being dishonest by treating the mention of pederasty, a historical and current homosexual practice, as a pedophile fantasy on my part.
I have not made accusations of pedo-rape, let alone false ones. Those are you own projections upon my words. The wicked flee though no one pursues.
As a non-believer, Boxer, you are completely unqualified to judge me with the Bible. You do not possess the judgment, as you illustrate here. Not that I am sinless and completely in tune with the Bible, it’s just that you need spiritual life to wield the Word of God as a weapon.
You want me to move on? Retract your lies against me, Boxer, including the newest ones about being looney, your demand I need to apologize for non-lies, and the implication I do not understand honor.
Odd enough, I don’t have anything for or against the author Donovan. I would read a homosexual author more critically, but I was mainly reacting to your harsh words against Christians who consider it absolutely disqualifying. Not my position, but it is reasonable to me.
This interaction is convincing me that they are very correct to do so.
Goony SirHamster:
Please feel free to move your pedo-rape/homosexual fantasies to my blog. We’re cluttering this one with nonsense.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/black-propaganda-and-feminism/
Regards,
Boxer
I remember you having a Twitter profile claiming Marxist, but you’d be the best person to clarify your ideology. I don’t particularly care, but it does explain your desire to finely determine if commies must be card-carrying to be called such.
Feminists are of course, known for their anti-communist zealotry and antipathy towards homosexuality, but no, I am not a feminist.
As a faggot, Boxer, how old were you for your first homosexual sex act? How old was your youngest homosexual sex partner?
@ Boxer:
Are you hitting on me? No thanks, not after all those false false rape accusation accusations.
Rugby! Nice to see you around.
@Jeff Strand
When your ex-girlfriend threatened to hit herself and blame it on you, was this a bolt out of the blue, or looking back were there other episodes of major league Drama Queen behavior?
There had been other red flags, but I kept hoping things would get better. I very much wanted it to work and was hoping she would just start acting normal. I finally realized I was kidding myself, but by then we were engaged and shacking up (at her insistence, I didn’t want to live together but she really pushed it)
In hindsight, it’s clear to me now that she suffers from a bad case of BPD (borderline personality disorder). To this day, she’s never even been diagnosed, much less treated for it (and it’s nearly impossible to cure…how does a person do a personality transplant and basically become someone else?)
If you find yourself involved with a BPD’r, all you can do is run for your life. Because these people are compelled by their mental disorder to destroy the lives of those around them, esp those closest to them. They can’t NOT do it. They leave a tremendous trail of wreckage in their wake.
Of course, we were told none of this in school. They warned us to practice safe sex, but never taught us this…even though so many young women suffer from BPD that any young man is virtually guaranteed to date a few. So I tell everyone I know who has sons – when they’re old enough to date, make your sons memorize the symptoms of BPD. Quiz them on it. And impress upon them, that if they’re ever dating a girl who shows those symptoms…run! For your life!
@Gunner Q says:
Since it’s come up again, why is there a need for a “rite of manhood”? … “Eighteenth birthday” is a good rite of passage because it’s automatic.
A rite is beneficial precisely because it is not automatic.
It typically involved a feat that is out of reach of women and young boys (e.g., killing a large predatory animal). The very act of successfully completing the rite shows you are a man—at least in the context of what it took to complete your rite.
Secondly, it gives you a sense of accomplishment. You can look back on the event and know that your status of manhood was a result of your efforts. Having manhood thrust upon you (easy, boys) is so passive. It’s like today’s ubiquitous “everyone wins a prize for competing”. There is nothing to grasp hold of and say, “I did this through the virtue of my own abilities”.
There is also something to be said for the passing of a trial as part of a rite. Life is difficult. Many victories come only through struggle. By applying mastery of your skills and mental toughness (e.g., overcoming fear) you show yourself worthy of trust in future difficult endeavors.
Ideally, a rite of passage should provide proving grounds for male character. It should allow them to return to their friends and family and say, “I have proved I have the physical strength to provide and protect, and the mental strength to overcome my fear.”
I heard that George Takei came out of the pedo closet today on the Howard Stern show. No, he didn’t advocate sodomizing boys (he’s too smart for that), instead, much like Milo did, he talked about how he was sodomized as a minor and how it was a positive experience.
I predict that there will be a deluge of homosexuals coming out of the pedo closet, which won’t be surprising, as both closets are really the same one. Just wait, soon NAMBLA will be welcomed back with open arms to the many homosexual events and parades that are now taken for granted.
I am reminded of an anecdote. I was in downtown Denver, parking my car to attend Comic Con with my kids at the convention center. That same day there was a “gay pride” parade and at the pay lot where I parked my there was a group of men also parking their car. They were there to attend the parade. The way they were dressed, which openly flaunted their crass sexuality (some were almost nude). and which would have resulted in them being barred entry into the Comic Con (yes, there is dress code) contradicted the oft repeated canard that “they are just like us”
They are nothing like us. Seeking wisdom from them is foolish at best. I was dismayed that “conservatives” paid heed to Milo. Yes, he is good at trash talking feminists, and it can even be amusing to watch him tear down a feminist in an argument. But in the end his true colors came out. Much like Takei, he thought that talking about pedophilia was now “safe”, at least as long as he only talked about being on the receiving end. He thought wrong.
Boxer, SirHamster, and whoever else – You have stated your respective cases on your areas of disagreement. Further comments on the topic are now devolving into name calling, and have ceased to be productive. I suggest you agree to disagree, bury the hatchet, and move on. It’s really not helpful to the rest of us to watch you hurl barbs at one another. If you really want to continue the argument, please do it somewhere else.
Mr. Boxer,
I’ve only been reading (lurking on) this blog for about 6 moths. But in that time, I have found the majority of your comments to be insightful and well-written. I value your participation on this blog, and hope it continues. HOWEVER, in this case I believe you are wrong, and I’d like to briefly try to explain why.
When I was younger, I was much more inclined to consider ideas as separate, independent entities, and to evaluate the validity or lack of validity of those ideas solely based on logic, reason, research, etc. As I have aged, I’ve become less willing to do that. I’ve come to believe that context matters, and source matters. It’s foolhardy to attempt to divorce ideas from their source and context.
When a homosexual writes a book about masculinity, the context and source cause me to question any good ideas or “truth” the book may contain. The well is poisoned. Even though the water tastes good, and I can’t detect any poison in it, it’s still poisoned. In fact, the less I am able to detect the poison, the more dangerous that poison becomes. If I were to read Jack Donovan’s book, I would probably encounter ideas that make sense to me, and that I might be inclined to accept as true. I’d like to think that I would be able to sift out truth from error. To accept the truth and discard the error. But I’m not confident in my ability to do that with 100 percent accuracy. So, I choose to avoid reading “The Way of Men”. I avoid it not because of homophobia, and not because of hysterical religious moralizing. I avoid it because the source and context cause me to suspect that the well has been poisoned.
Similarly, I would refuse to read a book on femininity written by a bull dyke lesbian. And I would recommend that others, especially women, avoid reading it.
And isn’t this EXACTLY what Dalrock and others are discussing in this post? Aren’t we saying that context and source matter? Aren’t we saying that Geraghty and Edward’s beta-tude and cuckold status call into question any “truths” they might propose? Now obviously not everything they say will be false. I doubt anyone would write a book filled with 100 percent falsehood. That would be stupid. The way you get people to accept falsehood is to mix it in with truth. I appreciate Dalrock (and others) for doing the hard work of sifting out the error and making it visible to us. MANY thanks.
Opus says:”England is a small country (about the size of New York State) and thus should a spouse seek to move any great distance that person will perforce be moving outside of the jurisdiction and you cannot take children out of the jurisdiction without the permission of the Court.”
True, your overselling it as you’d be as well as save your money. Ever heard of a court in the UK rule against the woman moving anywhere in the world ? Me neither (yet) and I was advised as such. We could put on blocks on the airport, but essentially its a lost cause, its a delaying tactic only, she will win (period).
Remember the father from England who was recently told his girls can move to Australia and he should be happy with Skype access.
Skype access visitation, I know guys who would be happy with that. I know guys who travel 9 hrs to be turned away on court mandated visitation. She laughs in his face, the court is a paper tiger at best, an enabler at worst.
Ryder says:
February 24, 2017 at 12:32 pm
“For those participating in the side conversation regarding Jack Donovan’s work, what others, more repentant, authors would you recommend, who have addressed the topic in comparable depth?”
Try Rich Zubaty’s excellent book on surviving the feminization of America (approximate title of first edition; second and better edition is “What Men Know That Women Don’t”)). He’s read Donovan, and found him early but partially flawed. He particularly covers the topic of the manhood rite.
@minesweeper
The question is not whether the adult can move abroad but whether the adult can move one or more minor’s in his or her care overseas. Europe unlike America is a conglomeration of different countries speaking different languages so whereas an American might move fifteen hundred miles to Oklahoma form New Jersey with little culture shock (I presume) the same cannot be said for moving from England to say The Czech Republic (which is only a bout five hundred miles) and should one go further afield one would be outside the first world. For these two reasons I suggest the problem is more likely to be specifically American. The Commonwealth (Australia and New Zealand and Canada) are more similar but there is no guarantee the emigrant will obtain a suitable visa. The Judiciary are more than happy to grant ex parte injunctions where it appears that children are going to be removed from the jurisdiction whether by a male or by a female. Happens all the time at least often enough not to be uncommon.
@Opus,”The question is not whether the adult can move abroad but whether the adult can move one or more minor’s in his or her care overseas. ”
I agree, this was the situ I faced, my ex wanted to move from UK to Auz with our kid to be with some guy she had recently met online (insane i know but thats bpd for you), was told by lawyers we can block the move, but its just a delaying tactic, she will win regardless. The only difference is time + £X0k money lost for both.
my point being that uk law seems far less able to permanently intervene for the needs of the child if this will overrule the wants of the mother.
Dear Mountain Man:
So, SirHamster, you don’t care about truth; and you rely upon gossip about authors to choose your reading material, rather than content. That’s hardly a minority opinion here, and you’re welcome to keep it.
You just contradicted yourself, so you’re wrong either way.
When a critical article appears on Dalrock, it doesn’t criticize the appearance or lifestyle of the author of the source. It deals solely with the propositions in the original book or essay, written by the feminist. There are people here in the cheap seats who will laugh at appearances and possible personal faggotry, and I’m among them; but the original articles on this blog almost never do this. It’s all about content.
Hope This Helps,
Boxer
Thanks for this one. I’ve never read it, and it looks great.
Boxer
Boxer, what is with the Porter Rockwell avatar? You like murderers?
Dear Boxer,
You seem to have confused me with SirHamster. We are not the same person. And even though I responded to you very charitably, you chose to reply to me with the same invective you previously directed at him. I expected better of you.
So, SirHamster, you don’t care about truth;
Again, I’m not SirHamster. But I DO care very much about truth. When someone makes truth claims or propositional statement about the nature of reality, I have an obligation to accurately evaluate those claims before accepting them as true. Source and context are integral to that evaluation, and I will not apologize for considering them. Of course, source and context are rarely the only things to consider. But to exclude them from your evaluative tool belt is extremely foolish, even dangerous.
and you rely upon gossip about authors to choose your reading material, rather than content.
Excellent point. I had never heard of Jack Donovan or his book before this thread, and I uncritically accepted statements made by others about him. That was wrong, and I’ll try to be more careful in the future. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
You just contradicted yourself, so you’re wrong either way.
I don’t see the contradiction. Perhaps, since you are confusing me with SirHamster, I may have contradicted something HE said. But I fail to see any internal contradiction in my post. If there is contradiction in my post, I’m open to you explaining it to me.
When a critical article appears on Dalrock, it doesn’t criticize the appearance or lifestyle of the author of the source. It deals solely with the propositions in the original book or essay, written by the feminist. There are people here in the cheap seats who will laugh at appearances and possible personal faggotry, and I’m among them; but the original articles on this blog almost never do this. It’s all about content.
You are correct, and that’s one of the things I appreciate about Dalrock. Content matters very much, and evaluating content using logic and reason, ….and for the Christian, scripture …., is very important and valuable. My point is simply that source and context can also be helpful in evaluating content. In another discussion, I suspect you would agree with that point. But in this case, your desire to defend Jack Donovan may be preventing you from admitting it.
Up thread, a few others were engaging in crude, uncharitable, defamatory name calling and hyperbole directed towards Mr. Donovan. You are right to oppose that. I get it. But please don’t lump me in with them.
Hope This Helps
Yes, it does. Thank you.
Mountain Man (not SirHamster)
Dear IBB:
Sorta surprised to see you joining into the girly dogpile here, since you’ve so often been the subject of such things.
I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man — specifically as it is illustrated with my tribe.
Regards,
Boxer (Everyone’s fave secretly-gay, secretly-jewish, secretly-communist Dalrock poaster)
Mountain Man:
I didn’t confuse you with anyone. It was a metaphor.
I wouldn’t defend the author. He doesn’t really need me to defend him.
I’m defending the work. I’ll continue to do so, because the work is worth defending.
You’re welcome to raise legitimate issues over at my own blog, if you’d like; but I’m not going to keep repeating myself here; where others are trying to raise issues that haven’t already been discussed to death.
Best,
Boxer
@minesweeper
i agree with what you say and am sorry that happened to you.
@opus, cheers, she didnt make it though, I had a friend intervene on my behalf 🙂 thankfully I get to see my kid regularly as we still live nearby.
Luke
Try Rich Zubaty’s excellent book on surviving the feminization of America (approximate title of first edition; second and better edition is “What Men Know That Women Don’t”)). He’s read Donovan, and found him early but partially flawed. He particularly covers the topic of the manhood rite.
Quick search turned up what is supposed to be quotes excerpted from his book. I have not read them all.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/zubaty.html
Fair enough.
Carry on.
@Mountain Man
Ceased to be productive for what? Boxer has accused me of harboring pedophile fantasies and being a progressive feminist. He has lied about me and what I actually said.
My calling him a liar is not mere name calling and schoolyard taunting. It is an observation that he does not love the truth and is untrustworthy.
There is nothing to agree to disagree with here. Would you agree to disagree with someone who called you a pedophile? “Sure, let’s leave it at that” Would you be comfortable to leave that accusation hanging?
In my interaction with Boxer in this thread, have I lied about anything, Mountain Man? If I have not respected the truth with my words, I will correct it.
Has Boxer retracted anything? I’ve seen you on Vox Day’s blogs. Is Boxer engaging in rhetoric, or dialectic?
When he treats you as me, one he accuses of being a feminist with false-rape accusations and pedophile fantasies – is that comparison appealing to reason or emotion? (note that he was also calling you a sock puppet of me)
Boxer is trying to shame all Christians here into accepting a homosexual author as an authority on masculinity. If we fail to accept the worldly wisdom of his nomination, he will call us progressive and feminist and look down upon us from his moral high ground. Are we who are Christian so easily swayed by disapproval?
Note who else Boxer boasts of being wise authorities to accept: “In any event, stay tuned to my next book suggestions, which will likely include books by Athol Kay (an outspoken atheist), Camille Paglia (a lesbo) and Alain Badiou (a radical Marxist intellectual). “
Atheists, lesbians, radical Marxists. Boxer is a fan of the deviant and subversive. That is his right, but it is Christian discernment to recognize them for what they are. If you can learn something from them, good. If you prefer non-deviant sources, also good. But do not fear Boxer shaming, because Boxer approval points have no weight in the final judgment.
Mark MacIntyre @ February 24, 2017 at 9:08 pm
“Ideally, a rite of passage should provide proving grounds for male character. It should allow them to return to their friends and family and say, “I have proved I have the physical strength to provide and protect, and the mental strength to overcome my fear.””
That’s fine as far as it goes, but a man doesn’t need a rite to know that he himself is a man. The true purpose of the kind of rite you describe is to force SOCIETY to accept HIM as a PEER. Society must be forced to do this because your enslavement would be very profitable.
Why else did Prager reach all the way back to fictitious Ward Cleaver, if not to hold up an impossible standard? Any lesser standard, you would meet it and then demand his approval… and he would lose power over you. Why does Geraghty try to convince you divorce threats are healthy? Because he’s breaking you to your collar. Then there’s all the secular predators who thrive on young men: banksters offering student loans, Princess Daddies signaling virtue, Sodomites, employers with insane demands. These people will never accept you as their equal until they are forced to, and possibly not even then, hoping for the day they can slip your collar back on.
You are a real man when you provide for yourself. No welfare, no crutches, no excuses, no safety nets, no special treatment. The burden is not on you to prove this to society; the burden is on society to respect you when you do this. Therefore, an ideal rite of passage would be a father saying, “You’re trying hard and showing promise; I’d like you for a son-in-law, my heir.” The mind boggles why fathers stopped doing this.
Until then, here’s a practical rite of passage: Flick-You money. That will also force The Powers That Be to treat with you as an equal.
…
Jeff Strand @ February 24, 2017 at 5:14 pm:
“I convinced her to go out of state to see her parents, packed all her crap into her car, and drove it across town to park it at a relative’s house. Then I changed the locks (she was not on the lease). Didn’t let her come back – wasn’t gonna give her the chance to call the cops on me and accuse me of something.”
Awesomely done. Achievement unlocked: My Way or the Highway.
OT: Notice how the federal government is now trying to talk men into being fathers: https://www.fatherhood.gov/
And why is the father plaiting the hair of his daughter? That does not strike me as a manly thing to do, actually. Moreover, women are better at those things anyhow.
The site could have shown the man playing with his kids, or even spending time with his whole family, wife included. Instead they chose to show the picture of a cuck who was doing a traditional female task. Yuck!
SirHamster and Boxer,
I am not sure what is in each of your craws, but I am definitely skimming past your posts now when I see it is in the same thread. That means going on and on has little value SirHamster. You have made your point, several times.
And I thought I was persistent!
@Darwinian Arminian
I agree that “The Church Impotent” is excellent, though, as you point out, it’s more of a diagnosis than a cure. Still, I’ve found it especially useful for discussing these issues with clergy, who tend to be so immersed in the fruits of Bridal Mysticism that it’s difficult to engage on the topic without grounding it’s roots in a before and after view of church history. Poodles helps provide that context.
@Luke
Thank you for the recommendation! I had not heard of Zubaty, but I just ordered his book.
@key
Can you please recommend some alternatives to Jack Donovan?
Looks like Jim Geraghty’s latest offering is the notion that IT’S OKAY, DEMOGRAPHY AIN’T DESTINY AFTER ALL!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445316/demography-not-destiny-democrats-theory-debunked
Telling line: “In other words, that “emerging Democratic majority” won’t be emerging in most parts of the country for a long, long time.”
IMAGINE MY SHOCK: an incompetent cuck who prefers to wait out the replacement of his own people while taking the least effective (and most personally remunerative) action possible also writes books on how to cringe properly when women demand it.
Pingback: Just Give In | Spawny's Space
Pingback: Boxer & His Stable of Kooks – v5k2c2
Pingback: An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars
Pingback: Tucker Carlson’s dangerous wedge. | Dalrock
Pingback: You better do as she says, or she’ll take away your kids. | Dalrock