Reader getalonghome asks regarding women who punish with their presence:
“Yet the concept is so illogical and foreign to men’s thinking that few men will recognize it.” I don’t recognize it, either. I know you don’t make things up, but I’m having a hard time with this. What kind of detestable creature is this?
…Again, what kind of woman is that? I know none like this!
Women who do this are all around us, you just have to know how to spot them. The thing to keep in mind is very few women who do this are aware of it. When my wife originally asked other women how they handled the impulse, every woman she asked said they had no idea what she was talking about. Yet my wife had witnessed many of these women doing exactly the same thing.
While the woman in smartphones ruin everything was surprisingly open about her desire to make her husband miserable, this isn’t what you will normally observe. Such women almost never come out and state that they want to make their husbands miserable. What they say is:
My husband never wants to spend any time with me!
When women complain to you in this way*, gently ask them if they make it a point to be sweet and nice to be around when they are with their husband. The reaction you will get will either be a look of pure hatred for challenging a sacred birthright of the sisterhood, or a look of sudden perplexity, as the woman tries to understand not only why she expects her husband to want to be around her when she is being a bitch, but why something this obvious never dawned on her before**. However, most women will fall into the former category, so be prepared for a look of unbridled hate.
Assuming the woman is interested in solving the problem, the solution my wife has found is to simply resist the urge and get busy doing something else for a short period of time, after which the urge tends to rapidly go away. Even better, by doing this over time, the frequency and severity the urge will also diminish.
*There is a similar common complaint “My husband never has time for me!” or “My husband is so boring and lazy all he wants to do is sleep when he gets home from his third job! He so selfish, he never has time for me!” In that case the woman in question almost certainly spent the previous 30 min bragging about her conspicuous consumption in the form of automobiles, travel, housing, and name brands/fashion. In this scenario the hate inspiring Titus 2 question is “Have you considered trading down in house/car/fashion/etc, or getting a job so your husband doesn’t have to work so many hours?”
**This isn’t logical, but when the desire to drive the husband away is accomplished the wife tends to feel a deep sense of loss/abandonment. The complaint is as heartfelt as it is absurd.
In that case the woman in question almost certainly spent the previous 30 min bragging about her conspicuous consumption in the form of automobiles, travel, housing, and name brands/fashion. In this scenario the hate inspiring Titus 2 question is “Have you considered trading down in house/car/fashion/etc, or getting a job so your husband doesn’t have to work so many hours?”
This requires a level of cause-effect understanding that we know is far beyond the ability of most women (and many manginas and cuckservatives).
Given how much female obesity has risen, and the tendency for this to happen after marriage (ensuring that the husband endures a fatocalypse), such women should be known as ‘Big Punishers’.
It’s wives’ human nature as described in Genesis and Proverbs and the NT.
They have to resist the temptation to be contentious and rebellious and discontent.
Pingback: Spotting the presence punisher in the wild. | @the_arv
Relevant: https://youtu.be/vPUZyTXERtw
This explains a lot. I *do* know women who say this, and they also are extremely critical of their husbands when the poor guys do try to be around them. And it’s normal for a woman to want her man’s attention from time to time. I sure do. But I don’t demand it. If you have to ask for it, you’re doing it wrong. My mama raised me better than that, anyway. I thank God for that woman. She’s a near-perfect (hey, nobody’s perfect) role model for a Christian wife. One in a million. Or, apparently, many millions. Something tells me your wife is another. 😀
We women tend to think of ourselves as nice. If we’re doing something mean, there must be a really good reason for it, so it’s justified! Furthermore, our feeling/action/speech is really the only appropriate feeling/action/speech!
Sometimes short-circuiting this foolish process can be as simple as repeating “Don’t be a jerk. Don’t be a jerk. Don’t be a jerk.” Sometimes making sure I’m not hungry, thirsty, or tired will help. Or, yes, occupying myself until the feelings have passed. Prayer is good, but I must be careful not to ask for the wrong thing.
It does get less difficult with practice. The feelings recede from their looming, ominous appearance of Reality and appear in a more correct perspective. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever regretted failing to pick a fight or assign blame, and this makes it easier to tell myself in the moment that acting in X manner would NOT be right, kind, or wise.
This is all very interesting. I have been on the receiving end of two wives, now ex-wives, who wanted to make me miserable with their presence. They succeeded spectacularly. What confuses me is why is this a natural tendency of many women. Can someone answer that, please?
Still don’t get why she wants him to be miserable, though. That would just feel like failing to me.
And yes, I know you explained it already. It’s just…so…unreasonable!
@ Heidi
I’m not sure I really understand what you’re saying, especially the middle and last paragraphs. Men have feelings, wants, needs, and emotions too. The true Christian, man or woman, simply processes them differently to the heathen. The primary difference is that the Christian’s desire is to see that their behaviour is honourable, and is a display of the glory of God; their behaviour glorifies God. I certainly do find that no matter how a heathen tries to conceal their inner state of being, their behaviour betrays them; they betray themselves; they’re like an open book. Really, notwithstanding succumbing to Satan’s temptations, as a true Christian, you shouldn’t be doing “something mean” to start with.
It’s all about being the boss. Even in kindergarten all the little girls already want to boss around all the little boys. If you can make someone miserable, and he has to take it, then you have established that you are the boss. Bossy womynz are the 11th plague.
@Snowy
She is describing first recognizing, then resisting temptation. This is exactly what she should do.
@Snowy
Yes, you’re quite right that a Christian oughtn’t be doing mean things. Unfortunately, I still have impulses to do or say mean things, and I think that some of my sinful thinking runs along typically female lines. (Certainly, I could be wrong, but the type of rationalization I was trying to describe doesn’t seem to be practiced as much by men.) None of this excuses my wrong thoughts and actions, of course, but I would be foolish to pretend that these impulses don’t exist and must be dealt with. Thinking that I am a “nice person” is a deadly error.
okrahead
If you can make someone miserable, and he has to take it, then you have established that you are the boss.
The flip side: if you can’t make someone miserable you might not be the boss. If you do make some miserable but he wont’ take it, you might not be the boss. It’s just andother form of fitness testing. The usual ways of dealing with fitness tests apply for men. It’s interesting to read of women who claim to actually try to control themselves. Frankly, I’m skeptical, and would never count on a woman’s self control when it comes to temper or other bad behavior. Too many rewards in the modern world reinforcing
bitch queensstrong, independent woman behavior.Word for women who lurk: there is such a thing as “fitness testing to destruction”. You can be Little Miss Bossy long enough, loud enough, and mean enough that he just doesn’t want to be around any more. Period. The juice is not worth the squeeze. He’d done, all done with you.
That doesn’t have to mean divorce. It can just mean he checks out from the marriage, permanently. His attention is never on her, beyond the absolute minimum, he provides in a mechanical fashion as for a pet or an invalid, and spends as little time with her as possible. If you know what to look for, you can see couples like this in many, places, including churches.There is a cure but it is never applied: it requires the woman to humble herself, and far too many women prize their pride above everything else. Yes, churchgoers, everything else. To paraphrase Milton, there are women who would rather reign in a Hell of their own making than submit and gain a slice of paradise.
Don’t fool yourself with your female “always one more chance” adaptability. Women don’t close doors quite the way men do. The last minute of Gone with the Wind is worth watching, because Rhett ain’t coming back, ever. He has spoken.
Thanks for that. I just couldn’t quite see what Heidi was saying, but I see now that what you are describing is resisting the devil’s temptation. It is the process I go through too.
James 4:7 KJV:
[7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Interesting how the submitting to God comes first.
@ Anonymous Reader
True. Do you think that women face more and greater temptations in this world than do men? I think they possibly do. If only they knew how to deal with those temptations, by following God’s instructions on how to do so.
Do you think that women face more and greater temptations in this world than do men?
No idea. Women’s brains are sufficiently different from men that a comparison is possibly without meaning. Men cannot be “war brides”, for example. Most men do not take any pleasure in really hurting women close to them, but the reverse is readily visible: women who use everything they know about a man to tear him down can be found without a lot of work, if one knows what to look for. The temptations are similar, but different. In Bible terms, the “sin of Adam” and the “sin of Eve” are not the same.
Cetainly the rewards for the average woman to behave badly are there, at least in the short run.
@Anonymous Reader
Well said. I have heard church men say things like “she has her own life” (then implied but not stated) “and I have mine”. This is always after the kids are gone, and it is an eye opener. She has overplayed her hand.
@Lost Patrol
I’m probably a bit more attuned to this lately due to another grey divorce in my social cirlcle in the last year. One can never know from the outside what the issues are, but without getting into details my guess is she was more married to their children for 20+ years than she was to him, and he took it and took it as a dutiful betaized AFC, because of his duty to their children. Now that the last child is well into college, that duty is done. Apparently so is he. She’s probably bewildered,maybe even a tiny bit sorry, but too late. It’s one of the 30% where he files.
They are both average people with average looks and average interests, so she won’t be getting remarried at 50+ and if he does there’s no way of knowing what he’ll get into. He could be a gold mine if he’s not careful. It is quite possible that marriage could have been saved if he had learned some Game 10 years or even 5 or maybe even 3 year ago. He’s very blue pill, though, and stubbornly so.
Bottom line: a man can only take so much contempt for so many decades before he’s fed up.
Pingback: Her Status | Spawny's Space
Pingback: Spotting the presence punisher in the wild. | Reaction Times
@ Okrahead:
It’s all about being the boss. Even in kindergarten all the little girls already want to boss around all the little boys. If you can make someone miserable, and he has to take it, then you have established that you are the boss. Bossy womynz are the 11th plague.
I suspect that in many cases it’s more a form of acting up: “Does he love me enough to put up with me even when I’m a total bitch?” It’s not at all dissimilar to when teenagers do something they know will drive their parents up the wall.
@ Snowy:
True. Do you think that women face more and greater temptations in this world than do men? I think they possibly do. If only they knew how to deal with those temptations, by following God’s instructions on how to do so.
I don’t know about the world in general, but in the modern west I certainly think they do, largely because feminism gives them an easy way to rationalise sinning.
@AR
He’s very blue pill, though, and stubbornly so.
A stubbornly blue pill man is usually the last to think he can file, or that he rates anything other than what he’s got right now. Must be an interesting story, if the full tale were ever known. Some women remain their father’s daughter more than their husband’s wife, no matter how many years go by. Must be the same with some being mothers more than wives and mothers.
Lost Patrol,
I had heard that you can judge how a woman will treat her husband by how she treats her father. I thought I was fine then, since my wife still loves her father, but it didn’t work out that way. My wife went back to her dad (of sorts), while leaving me. (She is not living near him, moving close to her mom instead.) She kind of fits your statement of never really leaving her father, even after many years.
Looks like birth control destroys the ability of women to have empathy:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pill-can-kill-womens-sense-of-emotional-connection-study?utm_content=buffer24e28&utm_medium=social&utm_source=lifesitenews%2Btwitter&utm_campaign=buffer
So folks this may be a major contributing factor for modern malaise.
when the desire to drive the husband away is accomplished the wife tends to feel a deep sense of loss/abandonment.
My ex did this, becoming unnecessarily nasty and selfish, with me withdrawing, right before she called it quits. Now she says she feels like she’s in a bad dream, waiting to wake up from it. When I talk to her now I can sense the regret, for what exactly I don’t know, but I do know her ego will never admit she might have fucked up.
Some women remain their father’s daughter more than their husband’s wife, no matter how many years go by.
She did this, also. She expected me to treat her in the exact same fashion her father did. I know for a fact on several occasions I would tell her to do something, and she would immediately call her dad, “making sure” it was the right thing to do. Blue Pill dads can really screw up their daughters big time.
@Billy S
Did her father take her to a purity ball? If so that explains the dynamic.
So it seems many wives will want to spend every moment you are home next to you, demanding your full attention. Even if they aren’t being actually bossy or mean, I can see how that just becomes exhausting. And bluepilled advice actually says they are doing the right thing, and its wrong for the husband to want to spend time by himself (other than a pre-negotiated half hour here or there). Ha, this sort of reminds me of how some cults are supposed to brainwash people, just never letting you have a moment to yourself. Although if the unconscious intent it to brainwash their husbands into submission, it seems to usually have the opposite result.
BillyS
“I had heard that you can judge how a woman will treat her husband by how she treats her father.”
In my observation, you can judge how a woman will treat her husband by seeing how her mother treats her father.
They have to resist the temptation to be contentious and rebellious and discontent.
The only way to effectively do this is to create a situation where they suffer so horribly as to realize how good they had it. God has a way of taking things away from ungrateful people in order to show them how blessed they were until they decide to take it all for granted. Ask my ex-wife about this…
She’s probably bewildered, maybe even a tiny bit sorry…
Bewildered, most certainly. Inability to grasp obvious cause and effect leads inevitably to this.
“Sorry?” As in “regret for doing something sinful?” Nope. Not a chance. Any “sorrow” she feels is just regret for the fact that she’s suffering consequences for her behavior. This describes my ex to a T, a woman who delighted in “baiting the bear” until the bear got fed up with nonsense and chased her out of the cave.
… but too late. It’s one of the 30% where he files.
More specifically, he’s one of the 50% of that remaining 30% (or 20%, depending on whose statistics you believe) who file because her behavior left him no choice and was making his life unbearable. Thus, women are actually responsible for 80 to 90 percent of divorces.
It’s interesting to read of women who claim to actually try to control themselves. Frankly, I’m skeptical, and would never count on a woman’s self control when it comes to temper or other bad behavior.
Human civilization throughout most of history was justifiably just as skeptical and constrained women’s behavior accordingly.
The last minute of Gone with the Wind is worth watching, because Rhett ain’t coming back, ever. He has spoken.
Truer words never spoken. I sometimes wonder if the film codes of the day hadn’t been so rigid if Rhett would have dropped the word “damn” in favor of one considerably stronger, modified by an aviation gerund and a noun-turned-adjective describing a feral rodent.
Human civilization throughout most of history was justifiably just as skeptical and constrained women’s behavior accordingly.
Yes. That every successful civilization, Western and Eastern, whether before Christ, in the first millennium, or the second, came to the same conclusion, is extremely telling.
The extent to which unrestricted female nature is precisely opposed to any and all pillars of a free and prosperous civilization can scarcely be overstated.
@BillyS: Almost sounds as if you and I were married to the same woman.
getalonghome: Still don’t get why she wants him to be miserable
I’m guessing it’s a case of misery loves company.
If a woman is miserable, she’s angry if others don’t share her misery. How dare her husband be content when she’s not? How dare he be happier than she is? It’s not fair!
I’m guessing that happy women don’t feel a need to make their husbands unhappy.
okrahead: If you can make someone miserable, and he has to take it, then you have established that you are the boss.
That’s straight out of 1984. O’Brien tells Winston that the Party is only interested in power. The way to attain power is to make people suffer. The more you make people suffer, the more power you have over them.
Dear RPL,
Yes, and then they strap a rat to your face and make you tell them to do it to the person you love most instead. That’s where feminism leads us. Also, the elimination of the orgasm.
Eduardo:
Jung recognized this as a dangerous neurosis. He called it Electra Complex. Basically, father and daughter enter into a sublimated erotic/intimate space that keeps the daughter in a perpetual state of childhood, and keeps the father from bonding with his wife. It appeals to both parties, because it relieves both of some of the emotional responsibilities of adulthood, but it also inhibits each from forming meaningful relationships outside the coupling.
Note that actual sex between father and daughter is not necessary. It’s all sublimated (in fact, if father and daughter are acting out their sublimated erotic pathologies, then it probably wouldn’t be Electra complex – part of the complex is dependent upon the lack of conscious recognition of what’s actually going on).
tl;dr, stay away from these women who are emotionally attached to daddy.
Boxer
CSI: So it seems many wives will want to spend every moment you are home next to you, demanding your full attention.
Many women want their husbands to stop spending time with their male friends.
OTOH, if a man were to demand his wife not spend time with her girlfriends, that’s controlling and abusive.
Anonymous Reader says:
July 21, 2017 at 4:36 pm
“Don’t fool yourself with your female “always one more chance” adaptability. Women don’t close doors quite the way men do. The last minute of Gone with the Wind is worth watching, because Rhett ain’t coming back, ever. He has spoken.”
I read that book less than a year ago. The first five minutes after long-suffering mostly-alpha Rhett tells Scarlett he is forever through with her, she figures she can change his mind. This is coming from a broad that has been a spendthrift, during her marriage was long hung up on another man to the point she was willing to be adulterous to her husband, has denied her husband sex for long periods, their one child together has died, and she’s getting long in the tooth WRT her looks AND ability to bear more children. No wonder he was done with her, even if he had had a marriage vow (that he took very seriously) and had a major case of oneitis with her. The real wonder (aside from him hanging around as long as he did) was that she thought she could get his loyalty and interest back.
And when the husband just ignores this behavior(the alternative being a burst out,hardly a good idea considering the laws), notice how the wife will use the kids instead. Options are:
A) spoil the kids specifically to undermine the authority of the father (favorite)
B) trash their father for never being there (although its him who takes them everywhere, sports, friends,without her)
C) use kids as emotional tampons
How to avoid this?
PBS did a reality show back in the early 2000s called Frontier Home. You can still see the episodes on Youtube. It was amazing how hard these people had to work, day in and day out. But what really caught my eye was how much the women were convinced they were doing all the work, how resentful they were of their husbands. It shows up especially in the first and last episodes. In the final show, they do a medley of the women complaining constantly about having to cook and clean. The one woman’s husband literally built their house from rough timber. He planted a garden, raised their crops, raised their livestock, cut four cords of wood in a couple months, brought in the water and everything else. She was convinced that he was having a fun time while she had to do all the labor. It was ridiculous.
The real wonder (aside from [Rhett] hanging around as long as he did) was that [Scarlett] thought she could get his loyalty and interest back.
This is a programming feature with women and it works if the men they’re married to are blue-pill beta schlubs who are infected with oneitis and think they can’t do any better (e.g., Scarlett’s first two husbands). The program breaks down in the face of the alpha (and the quandom beta schlub who eventually swallows the red pill, wakes up, and grows a pair), but woman can’t adapt to this. Her programming loop has her believing that her power is unbreakable. When it finally does break, ccatastrophy results, although never are any lessons learned.
Such women are incapable of being normal reasonable humans on their own. So you husband should not feel bad about correcting them and molding them into what you want, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Them making you miserable is a cry for you to enforce boundaries and bring them to heel. In the end they’ll be happier and more fulfilled for it.
Yes its easier to just get distant and live as mere roommates or to leave. But you’ve been entrusted by God with the task of training her unto holiness.
But you have to be man enough to do it. They’ll bitch and wine and moan about it and fight you and try to wear you down and work to destroy your household. It may take making them endure as much as they’d make others suffer until she cracks.
But don’t get feel bads about it; whatever she’ll willing to go through to resist being a sane normal person can’t be all that bad.
Gary Eden says:
July 22, 2017 at 11:53 am
In the past society recognized this duty of the husband and not only encouraged, but supported him in his efforts to create a decent woman out of his wife.
No more. Today’s society views this as misogyny and treats any such man as a criminal. Nobody has his back. THIS is why so many men today simply no longer have any desire to fight the good fight. No woman is worth the effort or the risk.
What makes this even more frustrating for husbands is that wives who punish husbands with their presence were formerly girlfriends and fiances who behaved in a way where the men always wanted to spend time with them.
Contrary to what the ladies in my wife’s former bible study thinks, the devil does whisper in wives’ ears.
In today’s world we must socialize, even if only at work, with punishers. I revolt by noticing good behavior and verbally rewarding it.
“Contrary to what the ladies in my wife’s former bible study thinks, the devil does whisper in wives’ ears.”
Listen to the whispers. Heh.
@W.B.Kotter says:
July 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm
In today’s world we must socialize, even if only at work, with punishers. I revolt by noticing good behavior and verbally rewarding it.
________
Problem is, for every one person who verbally rewards actual good behavior, there a dozen people, sermons, magazines, and politicians telling the same women that their sins are virtues.
@feeriker You are correct. Yet it is still his duty before God, and the only way he’ll have a truly good marriage.
Thing is, she’s more likely to blow up the marriage and involve the world in it if he puts up with her bad behavior than if he asserts his power and corrects her.
But this isn’t obvious at the time nor is the need to do so. I’ve noticed that in many of these marriages the women has gaslighted the manlet into believing she’s his savior and he’s nothing without her.
@W.B.Kotter says:
July 22, 2017 at 12:37 pm
“Contrary to what the ladies in my wife’s former bible study thinks, the devil does whisper in wives’ ears.”
Listen to the whispers. Heh.
_____________
“You deserve better.”
“It’s a good deal, put it on the credit card, your husband will get over it.”
“You deserve nice things, put it on your credit card, your husband will get over it.”
“50 Shades and Twilight are harmless, unlike the porn your husband might be watching.”
“If your husband is truly right with god, you’ll naturally be attracted to him and instinctively follow, so you should NEVER listen to him unless you feel like it.”
“Stay up and play on Facebook until your pervert husband falls asleep.”
“Your husband only cares about sex, it’s your job to get his priorities straight by keeping your pants on.”
“Your boyfriend is the one who really loves you, it is he who should be rewarded with sex, you wouldn’t even have the desire to do so if your husband didn’t neglect you.”
“Oh good, your husband is home after 10 hours at work, work is so much easier than being home, let him have it!”
“My husband is so boring and lazy all he wants to do is sleep when he gets home from his third job! He so selfish, he never has time for me!” In that case the woman in question almost certainly spent the previous 30 min bragging about her conspicuous consumption in the form of automobiles, travel, housing, and name brands/fashion.
This is astonishing, when you think about it. It makes it impossible to have any respect for female intelligence or character whatsoever.
Sure, a married man can Game his way around this situation and nullify the wife’s tendencies, but as Keoni Galt used to say, that is for men who are already trapped. Far better to never enter the situation where you have to move mountains on a daily basis…
— The reaction you will get will either be a look of pure hatred for challenging a sacred birthright of the sisterhood, or a look of sudden perplexity, as the woman tries to understand not only why she expects her husband to want to be around her when she is being a bitch
Similarly, an overweight middle-aged divorced woman nearby was complaining to another about a friend of hers (presumably of similar age and attributes) having meager success on a dating site due to men’s “unrealistic standards.”
I asked her “what does she bring to the table?”
The look of hatred with perplexity you describe was exactly what flashed in her eyes. I believe that the notion of a woman’s obligation to offer something of value to a man has never crossed her consciousness.
She regained her composure and huffed: “my friend is smart, educated, and makes good money.”
I said “so do many of my male friends, but I wouldn’t wanna date any of them.”
Other ways to tell if it’s a woman who makes her husband miserable: 1) She jokes about the inability of men to do certain things (clean the bathroom properly, care for the children properly, etc.). 2) On social media, she posts memes that say, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t no one happy!” Indicates a strong sense of entitlement to be toxic.
Gents,
Isn’t this phenomenon identical to a previously described trend of wives wanting husband to do more housework, and when Mrs. Dalrock pointed out that there were other solutions, the wives would hear none of it, and were only interested in making the husbands do something degrading and humiliating?
It seems to be exactly the same mentality at work.
Anon,
I remember that. And the women were frustrated and angry when the men enjoyed the housework or made a game out of it.
Look at this gem: http://abc13.com/news/court-man-who-isnt-father-of-child-still-owes-payments/2236804/
“Last year, a deputy showed up at his door with court papers telling him the state of Texas thinks he has another child…
He, his wife and the ex-girlfriend he broke up with 16 years ago all agreed he should get a DNA test. He did. ‘The results came in,’ Cornejo said. ‘I’m not the father.’
But that wasn’t the end of the case. Not even close. Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend still wants the money and so does the state of Texas.
In 2003, Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend went to court and said Cornejo was the only possible father [even though it was a lie]. The state of Texas started assessing child support payments, which continue to add up, now totaling nearly $65,000. Cornejo was never told, he claims. Court records suggest, but don’t prove, he got a subpoena years ago. He denies it.
The mother’s lawyer says child support was taken from Cornejo’s paycheck long ago and Cornejo never fought it. That can be enough to establish a lock-tight claim that he should’ve dealt with it long ago. Unless he and his lawyer can convince a judge to take a second look there’s nothing that can change the old court order and Cornejo will still owe all that money.
‘They say he should have fought back then and he failed to do so,’ Coleman said. ‘But how can you fight something you don’t know anything about?’ If the court doesn’t reopen the case, he either pays or may go to jail.”
Contrary to what the ladies in my wife’s former bible study thinks, the devil does whisper in wives’ ears.
How typically churchian. If those women really believed that Satan doesn’t constantly tempt wives to rebel, then they are either deluded, stupid, arrogant, unbelieving of the Scriptures, or just plain lying. I’d wager on a combination of all of the above.
I’m glad it’s your wife’s former Bible study group. If she had stayed around that gaggle of hens she would have been led completely astray.
I asked her “what does she bring to the table?”
An honest answer would have been “lard, attitude, head issues, and selfishness, just for starters.”
An impressive portfolio, even if not one that any man wants any part of.
The look of hatred with perplexity you describe was exactly what flashed in her eyes. I believe that the notion of a woman’s obligation to offer something of value to a man has never crossed her consciousness.
Nope. The very idea of having to contribute anything to a relationship is flat-out offensive to the NorthAmeric**t. “Sacrifice?” Why, you should be jailed for even thinking of the word unless it applies to YOU doing it for HER.
She regained her composure and huffed: “my friend is smart, educated, and makes good money.”
I said “so do many of my male friends, but I wouldn’t wanna date any of them.”
Typical femprojection, the insistence that men find attractive in them the masculine traits they find attractive in us (the Earth will reverse its rotational direction before that ever happens). I’m also sure that your rejoinder went right over her empty butch-haircut head. (And I doubt her friend was really any of these things, other than in her own mind.)
Awkward Social Skills and Courting/Dating
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1059131
“St Ann, St. Ann, Send Me a Man” (a Catholic Woman Tells Her Story)
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1059123
son being dragged into it (Interesting…)
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1059095
Bettina Arndt on sex starved husbands
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1059168
‘ Do you think that women face more and greater temptations in this world than do men?’
Not sure, most likely we face different types of temptations in this world. We know the serpent went to Eve with the first temptation and Adam fell because Eve most likely tempted him.
‘This isn’t logical, but when the desire to drive the husband away is accomplished the wife tends to feel a deep sense of loss/abandonment. The complaint is as heartfelt as it is absurd.’
I was speaking with a seminarian last night and we talked about Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. He was telling me women’s biggest fear is loss and abandonment and men’s biggest fear is failure (based off what happened in the fall). So perhaps both are motivated by some fear to bring about the very thing they are afraid of. I agree it makes no logical sense…but humans at times can be very irrational especially when there’s a lot of emotions involved.
He was telling me women’s biggest fear is loss and abandonment and men’s biggest fear is failure
Failure in the broadest sense of the word, I think.
The existential fears have a biological as well as a spiritual basis. The biological roots are women being afraid of their man leaving them and taking his resources and parental investment to another woman and his children with her, abandoning woman 1 to her own. Historically, that was usually death for women, or at least severe hardship, and so the fear has a very firm basis. For men, the fear of failure in biological terms is tied closely to paternity, and the male insecurity about his actual paternity (cuckolding) — the ultimate portrait of a male’s failure, historically, is the male who is cuckolded, because he has failed to master his wife, and in doing so has wasted the chance to have actual offspring of his own.
The “old set of books”, in terms of sexual mores and “rules”, was built around these two deep-seated fears and insecurities. By binding women and men together in extremely hard to break bonds, and punishing severely the breaking of those bonds (in different ways appropriate to each sex), the idea was to allay the fears of each sex — the fear of women that their mate would abandon them for another woman (by making that hard to do, even if sexual dalliances short of abandonment of the wife were widely tolerated — again, those didn’t impact the wife’s core abandonment insecurity unless the guy left his wife, which was made very hard to do and was very shamed historically — still is by many) and fear of men of their wives having children by other men (by making this punishable, in effect, by death — harsher, because the act, if fecund, is irrevocable in its impact on the man).
The underlying basis for the fears has been altered by technology and law. Laws today prevent a man from abandoning a woman in terms of support. They do less well at compelling male parental investment, but the support aspect goers a long way to alleviating a large part of the core fear that women have in this area — he can walk away, but the law won’t allow him to abandon her, upon penalty of prison. Added to that is the change in the economic system, in particular the shift towards most work not involving manual labor or physical strength and size, which has allowed many more women to support themselves economically if a man leaves them. Technologies today largely make pregnancy an “opt-in” phenomenon, meaning that women can control their fertility if they step out on men in a way that prevents the man from raising another man’s child — this doesn’t impact the sexual jealousy impact on the man, of course, but the biological basis of it is greatly reduced as compared with historical times. As a result of these legal, economic and technical changes, the overall environment has changed with respect to inter-sexual relations — but the mores haven’t completely shifted (yet). Some things have changed (greater tolerance for extramarital sex and cohabitation, divorce), while others have not (same emphasis on sexual monogamy in couples, shaming of men who walk away physically from their wives, shaming of men who are cuckolded even if it doesn’t result in children, etc.). So currently we’re in a kind of odd place where we have a mish-mash of mores from the first set of books period, and some new ones from the contemporary period, and they don’t really mesh very well. I expect more change in that area, gradually, over the coming decades.
@feeriker says:
July 22, 2017 at 7:42 pm
How typically churchian. If those women really believed that Satan doesn’t constantly tempt wives to rebel, then they are either deluded, stupid, arrogant, unbelieving of the Scriptures, or just plain lying. I’d wager on a combination of all of the above.
____________
I asked her to leave. They did her harm, and hurt our marriage. Their bible study had little to do with studying the bible, and everything to do with indulgence.
The short version can be cited in one example: My wife has a shopping problem, and “confessed” to the bible study that one of our biggest conflicts is financial. The conclusion of the bible study was “the devil is whispering in your husband’s ear trying to convince him he cannot handle it, but you should have faith in him.” SOOOO, how exactly does a wife resist the devil and show faith in her husband, when she concludes the devil is whispering to him tell her not to shop so much? Shop more, of course.
Imagine a husband confessing to his bible study that his wife gets upset that he is a slob, and the conclusion was the devil was whispering in his ear that she cannot handle it, but he should have faith in her to pick up after him. So he resisted the devil by creating more messes, and perhaps tracking mud onto the carpet too.
Many wives would no doubt find these circumstances different, only because they overlook the underlying problem. Creating messes, be they home or financial, despite the fact that you spouse has told you it hurts them, is not resisting the devil, it is in fact listening to the devil.
You have to flip the sexes for some people to see the absurdity. Even then, they usually say it is different.
“spending time with me” is kind of like ‘communicate’ and ‘listen’, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
They don’t want to spend time with you, if they did they’d take interest in your activities and join. No they want to monopolize your time, involve you in pointless chores / her drama, or isolate you from contact with friends or the outside world. It can also mean ‘…doing what I want’, in other words a power play to dominate you by focusing your time/energy by her command.
‘How typically churchian. If those women really believed that Satan doesn’t constantly tempt wives to rebel, then they are either deluded, stupid, arrogant, unbelieving of the Scriptures, or just plain lying. I’d wager on a combination of all of the above.’
I’d be very cautious of who is teaching these Bible studies. I was speaking with a seminarian last night and he pointed out this particular Scripture about twisting it for your own purposes and we shouldn’t depend on our own knowledge about it.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; [i] just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, [/i] but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
‘Looks like birth control destroys the ability of women to have empathy:’
It’s amazing how we go through time the more things they find about those pills that are negative for women. I think you will find the route of most problems between men and women start there.
“I’d be very cautious of who is teaching these Bible studies.”
Better yet, just ask him a few pointed questions. In public.
The original comment was a woman’s bible study; often these are led by women. No need to ask questions, you already know they’re easily deceived and not grounded in the scriptures.
Just a bad idea all around.
She regained her composure and huffed: “my friend is smart, educated, and makes good money.”
“Smart” is a fetish word among women. Smart, choice, opinion … all these words give women the warm fuzzies. Marketers know this, which is why they drop these words into ads aimed at women.
Women love to imagine themselves as “smart.” They so overuse the word, “smart” is no longer enough. Instead, all women are wicked smart, or whip smart, or scary smart, or crazy smart.
What qualifies a woman as “smart”? In her mind it’s either that 1. she has a Mickey Mouse degree from some diploma mill, or 2. she has the right opinions.
Hillary Clinton repeats some platitude about “climate change” and all the women respond, “Wow! That woman is scary smart!“
The comments about women seeing themselves as smart really hit home, then it made me think that a really good way for women’s rebelliousness to be curtailed is forcing them and the best way to do that is to marry them off and start having kids. Even then the husband will be in for a life long battle, but at least he has the help of circumstances. Which is made more important since the church has abandoned her role (the church is referred to with a feminine pronoun?).
I am a little sour about the church because the sermon today listing ways to help each other included a request to help single Moms to make it easier for them. No, there wasn’t a balancing statement to that, such as, “go talk to the feral women and help them learn to be content” or even a more simple plea to help single Dads. Nope, just help the single Moms. That is from a PCA. conservative church.
The churches obsession with praising single moms is a good example of calling good evil and evil good in order to appeal to the divine women.
The plea to help single Moms was literally just minutes after speaking about how pastors are held to a higher account for what they say.
Gary, you said true words that husbands have a duty to address their wives, or it will be like roommates. Pleas pray for me, because I have decided to go the roommate route. I won’t make excuses for it, and even though she would almost certainly divorce me if I started confronting the rebellion, it would still be right to do. I am convinced my son would get more from me by being a man even if it ended in a divorce than he ever will by my suffering just so the roommate marriage stays intact. I know better, that is why I ask for your prayers.
My comments are somewhat on topic because my feminist roommate is a severe punished with her presence. Almost a constant onslaught of minute by minute punishments, as in the original post. We’ve fought the last two times shopping because she felt rushed. I get overwhelmed when I think about confronting her because it would be such a tiring battle, and at the end would be God’s pleasure, but as long as I live, she would never give a manometer of respect or sorrow.
Happy natural family planning awareness week!
Swanny River @ 1:49 pm:
I am a little sour about the church because the sermon today listing ways to help each other included a request to help single Moms to make it easier for them. … That is from a PCA. conservative church.
It’s why I don’t go to church. Either I’ll be allowed to teach and speak as a newcomer layman, or I’ll be sitting in the pews waiting for the convergence. If you have any voice at all, you’re fortunate.
“Please pray for me, because I have decided to go the roommate route. I won’t make excuses for it…”
No need to make excuses. If she won’t follow then you can’t lead, and it’s appropriate to direct your efforts to more productive ends. Whether to endure patiently or confront directly is a decision based on a guy’s personality. God is on record approving of both approaches.
Single mothers needing help should be 101 education why a woman should be prudent in not becoming a single mother. Sex outside of marriage has consequences.
Now the father who left is also making a grave error by running out of his responsibility.. but that’s what can happen if you aren’t married. He has no legal obligation to that woman.
He has no legal obligation to that woman.
How could you be so wrong, after so much time in the ‘sphere?
‘Child Support’ is brutally ruthless in pursuing the father, married or not. He can be assessed a payment amount that is imputed, i.e. continues to accrue even if he loses his job. He can be jailed for non-payment, even if he wants to pay but has no job. Plus, remember that custody is always given to the woman, so the man has to pay even though he has no custody access.
Read up on the law before you say something misandric like that.
Your statement that it is easy for an unmarried man to skip it is very wrong, and frankly, very cuckservative.
‘Your statement that it is easy for an unmarried man to skip it is very wrong, and frankly, very cuckservative.’
I said he doesn’t have a legal obligation to the woman. He still has a legal obligation for the child he created. That’s why more men need to be prudent and not create single mothers. It’s also why I think the courts should give custody more to the father.
The legal obligation to an unmarried woman — or any of her children — is a recent innovation, and very shortsighted. Certainly I don’t consider any binding moral obligation on any such man, regardless of the law.
In a saner society, a man would only have a legal obligation to support his family. That implies a valid marriage contract that he signed of his own free-will. In the same direction, alimony would never be given to any woman (or man) without a judgment for good cause.
A woman who has babies out of wedlock is not owed a penny of support. If she can’t shift for her children herself, or with the help of her own parents, then society ought to take the children and place them with a normal couple, where the kid will learn good morals and values.
I fear that our own decadent society will only correct itself after we adopt laws of the Soviet or Chinese models, where single mothers are taxed, and where repeat offenders are sent to jail for wasting social services money. Women who have multiple welfare babies are extorting moneys from normal people, in service to their own dysfunction. It’s unjust to everyone (including to their own kids).
Boxer
Earl
Single mothers needing help should be 101 education why a woman should be prudent in not becoming a single mother. Sex outside of marriage has consequences.
Yes, it does: guaranteed housing, guaranteed medical care, food, the list goes on. Did you mean something else?
Now the father who left is also making a grave error by running out of his responsibility..
Single-by-choice mothers exist. Women who decide to have a child, select a sperm donor from the pool of available men, and get pregnant. Sometimes they pick another man for a second child. They don’t want a husband, because they don’t want anyone to tell them what to do, and as long as they can have a Section 8 paid apartment, EBT food card, WiC, Medicaid, etc. with the gaps filled in by various organizations including churches, they get what they want.
A woman with two or more children by two or more men who has never been married can go to almost any church in the US and get treated pretty well. She’ll be a “widow” in most cases, too.
In your pedestalization of women, Earl, you keep avoiding reality. The reality is most women who have children out of marriage are not poor, bruised, mistreated virgins who were taken advantage of by heartless cads. They are women who have decided to marry all men via the government rather than a particular man. A woman who really wants to get married will put her 438 bullet point list to one side and find a man to marry.
I can introduce you to a few, in real life, but I wager if you looked around with open eyes in a few Catholic parishes you would see them for yourself.
I get overwhelmed when I think about confronting her because it would be such a tiring battle, and at the end would be God’s pleasure, but as long as I live, she would never give a manometer of respect or sorrow.
I hope you’re not dealing with a sociopath.
‘In your pedestalization of women, Earl, you keep avoiding reality.’
I don’t avoid reality. The procreative act can result in a pregnancy (even on birth control) and the consequences from that especially for nonmarried couples. And why would you want to do that with a woman you barely know? Plenty of people don’t think that far ahead when the are under passionate influences. The people who avoid reality are those who think they can separate sex and procreation.
‘The legal obligation to an unmarried woman — or any of her children — is a recent innovation, and very shortsighted. Certainly I don’t consider any binding moral obligation on any such man, regardless of the law.’
If the man helps create them…it’s not just her child. It’s the irresponsibility on both parties that leads to the drain of the system. That’s why I don’t care for cads or single mothers.
Dear Earl:
Have you ever read this book?
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Ambiguity-Development-Behaviour-Procedural/dp/1901240215/ref=la_B0034Q3N38_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500853690&sr=1-3
I highly recommend it. It’s an illustration of the immense power women wield in the sexual marketplace.
You are welcome not to care for cads (by which you mean guys like me and Anon) but you’re a fool if you think that, in an age of free birth control, we are equally responsible for your sisters’ misbehavior.
Best,
Boxer
‘You are welcome not to care for cads (by which you mean guys like me and Anon) but you’re a fool if you think that, in an age of free birth control, we are equally responsible for your sisters’ misbehavior.’
And cads will rationalize their misbehavior onto others as well as any loose woman. Unless there was some legit rape involved both parties are equally responsible.
Dear Earl:
Ignoring the personal slight, you have a distinct knack for contradicting yourself in the same sentence. You’ve done it twice, now (and those are just my notices of it). You ought to work on
For the record, I don’t rationalize my own misbehavior. I’m the male version of skank-ho. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. Celibacy is just not in the cards for me (a lack of self-discipline), and while marriage is more risky than what I’m doing now, the cad lifestyle is not without its perils. I have yet to get an STD or knock anyone up, but that’s a combined function of unusual paranoia and excellent luck. Young bros who find Dalrock ought to read this blog carefully, and learn how to vet a prospective wife.
In any event, you ought to work on your formal arguments. You’re a consistently great writer, but you’re a very shallow thinker. Your responses in this thread are just repeating constellation of talking points, grounded in nothing, and with no measure of originality.
Best,
Boxer
Earl,
If the man helps create them…it’s not just her child. It’s the irresponsibility on both parties that leads to the drain of the system. That’s why I don’t care for cads or single mothers.
Again, this is a very cuckservative point. The woman has unilateral authority to abort, and gets custody unilaterally. The man has no rights, and all the responsibilities. I bet you think the way to reduce abortions is to punish men (which has been US policy for the last 20+ years, with predictably bad results).
Until you become more familiar with how brutally anti-male the child support/custody laws are, I suggest you don’t comment on this subject.
Dear Anon:
A minor point, but in a healthy society, unilateral custody to the woman would be the norm.
In a just society, an unmarried mother has no financial claim on the biological father, and he has no rights to visitation or custody or authority. If he is concerned about establishing those rights, he is expected to marry the mother. If not, he should be prepared for the possibility of another man marrying her. That other guy will become the child’s father in a legal sense, at that point.
It’s hard to believe, but about fifty years ago, this was just the order of things in North America.
Best,
Boxer
Boxer,
Yes, but note that in Sweden, for all its flaws, joint custody is the default, so transfer of wealth from the man to woman (that too with imputation and the threat of prison) does not arise. Hence, it is nowhere near as brutal as the US.
In the US, this is a major cause of male suicides. Plus, as Novaseeker and others surely agree, the current CS laws (with imputation, the Bradley Amendment, etc.) are surely the most unjust laws in the US in the last 150 years.
The pre-1960 norm you describe is also better than today, since few women would become single mothers in the first place without the cash and prizes now associated with it. Remember that the mother has no duty to prove she spent it on the child. She is free to feed the child the bare minimum of white rice to keep it alive so that she can use the rest of the money on a Nigerian romance scam…
How to make it stop ask I do
View at Medium.com
I will Swanny.
Think of her as a child. Sometimes she rebells because the leadership is weak, because she can get away with it, because you’ve set no boundaries, because you’re not being the adult by being in control, because she’s mentally freaking out from having to take the leader role.
And like a child when boundaries are set the behavior can shift quite suddenly and dramatically, likely a totally different person; joyous, happy, agreeable, pleasant. Wives are almost as malleable as children.
No there aren’t any guarantees in life. This is especially harder if you don’t have your whole act together. But it is far from certain she’ll jet when you step up; remember God created her for submission. Its a safe bet that shes MORE likely to divorce if you continue to take the abuse. Standing up to her may well be the only possible path to improvement.
If she divorces over it, thats on her, your job is to lead.
Now I’m not saying it will be easy. And it may not be quick either; depends on the situation. Frankly, it helps to think of it as an insurrection. Many men have to take back control of their marriage by stealth, a piece at a time while they work on improving themselves because neither they nor their wife are prepared for the change involved if you rush headlong into it.
And don’t forget to pray. God will give you the knowledge you need if you ask.
Ms. Allard punish us with her presence she does
I was much struck with Novaseeker at 08.35am on the 23rd. Novaseeker refers to the shame of a man of being cuckolded. I was wondering whether Cuckoldry was still a matter of male shame and whether this was one of the mores that was shicfting. Yesterday, though I did not pick it up, I observed in the local supermarket the cover of one of the colour supplements that had fallen free from its selophane wrapper. On the cover was photo of a woman and with backs to the camera a man and another woman which other woman the first woman seemed to be cuddling even as the man was at a slight distance – all were white. The headline was ‘The Feminist argument for Polyamory’. As this is being pumped by a ‘quality’ newspaper I can only presume that cuckoldry is being pushed as the normal.
I had asked my friend whether he was happy that his wife now had a lover. He said he did not care even though he thought that he and his wife should go on living together as before. Even so, I thought that I detected an unspoken element of jealousy especially when I observed that her secrecy as to her lover’s identity might be caused by the lover being otherwise known to my friend. ‘That had occurred to me to’ he said as if we both possessed Sherlock Holmes type perception.. Usually, even when adultery is staring husbands in the face they tend to go into denial.
Anon says:
July 23, 2017 at 9:26 pm
Boxer,
“Yes, but note that in Sweden, for all its flaws, joint custody is the default, so transfer of wealth from the man to woman (that too with imputation and the threat of prison) does not arise. Hence, it is nowhere near as brutal as the US.”
Anon, you’re forgetting that transfer of wealth from men to women has already occurred prior to marriage. Over job/school affirmative action in favor of women at the expense of men, massively high tax rates, and even a psychic affirmative action in the various ways men are cut down and women are unjustly extolled — it’s clearly decisive, if you think about it.
On the cover was photo of a woman and with backs to the camera a man and another woman which other woman the first woman seemed to be cuddling even as the man was at a slight distance – all were white. The headline was ‘The Feminist argument for Polyamory’. As this is being pumped by a ‘quality’ newspaper I can only presume that cuckoldry is being pushed as the normal.
Well the push for the de-norming of monogamy was inevitable. It will be a gradual process, however. I expect that things like that cover story — which soft pedals it by making the wife’s lover a woman, something which doesn’t always trigger the sexual jealousy circuits in men the way a male lover would — will be more and more common in the years ahead.
Yes, but note that in Sweden, for all its flaws, joint custody is the default, so transfer of wealth from the man to woman (that too with imputation and the threat of prison) does not arise. Hence, it is nowhere near as brutal as the US.
My understanding is that in Sweden the way CS is calculated is radically different. In the US, it’s generally a fixed percentage of income according to a formula — it’s basically like a tax. In Sweden, it’s a flat amount based on cost, which doesn’t vary by your income. So it’s fundamentally different. The Swedish concept is the cost required to support the child, the US concept is that the child/mother is entitled to a percentage of your income regardless of the actual cost of supporting the child — it’s a completely different concept, and it arose from the prior common concept of alimony, which, when it is still awarded (and when it was more commonly awarded in the smaller number of divorces before no fault came along) is similarly based on income. When alimony awards started to dwindle, child support calculations were changed in the US to be quasi-alimony by making them into an income tax type of calculation, completely divorced from any calculation of the actual cost to support a child. The alimony standard of “keeping in the same lifestyle as prior to the divorce” became transposed onto child support to give us the system we have now, which is very different from the system in most other countries outside the Anglosphere.
I think it’s a hard-sell argument, in the US at least, that a biological father should not contribute financially to support children sired by him — I see the argument, but I don’t see it being a broad winner in this culture. The key, though, is the detail of what “support” means.
Legally, support is now designed to keep the child in the same standard of living that it was, or would have been in, had the couple stayed together (either married or not), and the child had the “benefit” of access to a portion of the dad’s income being spent on it. Note that this standard has nothing to do with the actual cost of raising a child, but rather the overall lifestyle situation that the child would have been living in had the parents remained together. So the standard is not actual support cost, but standard of living maintenance — which is a concept imported from alimony, where the idea was to keep (mostly) wives in the same standard of living to which they had become accustomed during the marriage, due to the idea that they had foregone their own income opportunities in favor of having and raising children. With the vast improvement of employment opportunities for women and the large percentage of women in the workforce already, the justification for alimony falls away in most cases, and therefore alimony has become much less common, and when it is awarded it is often for a limited period of time (aka “rehabilitative alimony”, paid for a few years so she can get her own earnings back on track), rather than a lifetime percentage of her ex-husband’s income just because she was married to him for 10 of the 75+ years of her life.
However, this standard sneaks into child support by means of (1) the lifestyle maintenance approach to how child support is determined combined with (2) the impossibility of separating the child’s lifestyle from the lifestyle of the custodial parent. In other words, if you are going to calculate CS based on the idea of maintaining the same lifestyle for the child as if the parents had not split, then the parent who has custody of the child, which is where the child is living and where that lifestyle will be experienced, must also be placed in that same lifestyle — you cannot separate it because that is where the child lives.
So, in effect, determining child support based on keeping the child in the same lifestyle essentially keeps the custodial parent (normally mother) in the same lifestyle as well, because this is unavoidable (that is where the child is, after all) — and it is by this means that the custodial parent is receiving alimony to keep her in the same lifestyle as if the separation had never happened, through the back door of child support which is determined on the basis of keeping the child, who lives with her, in that lifestyle. And because this is child support and not actual alimony, unlike actual alimony she is entitled to the payment regardless of her own income, regardless of whether she remarries and has income from new husband, and so on — the entitlement is absolute, and increasingly until the youngest child is 22. That this is an ersatz alimony payment is further underscored by the fact that even between ages 18 and 22 if the child is away at college and so on, the mother still receives the CS payment, while the payor spouse is generally required to pony up additional funds to pay for a part of the college costs as well.
It is these details, which are very different from the way CS works in most non-Anglo countries, in which the devil lies here. When people say that the father should be contributing to the support of the child, most of them don’t think that means the father should be maintaining the mother in the same lifestyle she had before the split for 20+ years — ie, that the father should be paying alimony to the mother. Because they don’t know how the stuff is calculated. The details matter, here as elsewhere in life. Feminists will fight any changes in this area (because the rules as they are currently applied result in millions of women receiving de facto alimony payments under the guise of child support in addition to their own income or second husband’s income and that’s a great windfall for women as a class), and they have an easy fight because they simply characterize any opposition to the current system as being deadbeat dads who don’t want to support their kids. It’s an easy argument for them to make, particularly in a culture where almost no-one has any interest in the details about anything at all any longer. This is why the advocacy groups like NPO focus on tinkering at the edges — things like trying to get more shared custody presumptions, because that will reduce women’s unilateral power over children in these situations, as well as reduce child support payments (the main reasons the women’s groups are generally against these initiatives) — rather than attacking the entire system as being fundamentally wrong, because doing that is a non-starter due to the “deadbeat dads” counter argument which will win in this culture.
Why is it when I see people writing on marriage, even in this comment section, I just am so glad I am not? Why would I want to deal with the shit that Novaseeker is writing about? Whether child support should be stolen from the husband because the wife decides she’s better off fucking another man? The best place for the child to be is with the father but.. who cares about that, more child support is needed instead… Why? Are people simply deluded. This is not a good culture anymore.
At this point the evidence against single motherhood and easy divorce is devastating. Its tantamount to child abuse. The child support / family court system must be thrown out and father only custody established along with coverture.
Anything less means the certain end of our civilization.
You are right feministhater. There no longer remains a logical reason to get married or have children. With a 50% divorce rate and the failing quality of American women there is no good reason to entertain this suicide mission.
Except one big one: the maintenance of our kind and the command to be fruitful and multiply.
But not all are called to such things. However the answer for MIGTOW isn’t ‘enjoy the decline poolside’ but rather: how can you lend your (unrisked by marriage) time and resources to directly support those men and their families who have taken the plunge?
They need your help. Badly. Its not just the risk of divorce rape. The economy is in the can. Their children are tempted at every turn. The state is looking for any excuse to steal your children.
That last is the worst. It may not strike as big a percentage of parents but its risk is less easily mitigated.
@Novaseeker
Well the push for the de-norming of monogamy was inevitable.
RE: feminist push for polyamory
A distinction should be made that polyamory, polygany, and polygamy are not the same. When you say “de-norming” monogamy, I believe it mulls this together. And I’m not sure that monogamy was always the “norm”
Polyamory carries with it NO commitment between any party. There are no husbands or wives. They are all free beings and are together because they choose to be. Some believe this is “purer” because it isn’t “forced.” But it isn’t Gods way. It basically has no rules at all except that you’re not committed.
Polygyny is a man taking multiple wives.. With all the commitments and head/body authority defined by God. Polygyny is (or was) accepted and encouraged by God and the scriptures. King David was told by God that he would’ve been given twice as many wives if he had wanted them. (There is ambiguity as to whether the NT prohibits polygyny. It is true that the NT recommends against marriage AT ALL and restricts “deacons” from having “more than one wife”)
“Polygamy” would mean the wife could take multiple husbands, which is not supported by God and scripture.
Not to belabor the issue, but since the details are important, bear with me for a moment. (Dalrock, I realize these longish comments are not directly on topic for this post, but I think they are important in the context of the discussion that was going on in the comments, and are important overall for people who may be reading along to understand).
Some would critique what I wrote by countering that “the system is an income share system, so the costs are by definition shared by both parents”. While that is technically how the system is described, in effect it doesn’t actually work that way in terms of how the payments work. The way to understand this is with a few examples in which I use arbitrary percentages to demonstrate how the system actually works.
Example A: H earns 100k, W earns 50k, total income is 150k. CS “need”, based on lifestyle of combined income, is calculated at 15% of total income, or 22.5k. That 22.5k is split between H and W based on their “income share”, whereby H has 2/3 of the income, so 2/3 of the support cost is borne by H, or 15k. So H pays W 15k. 15k represents 15% of H’s income.
Example B: H earns 100k, W earns 100k, total income is 200k. CS “need” based on lifestyle of combined income, is calculated at 15% of total income, or 30k. That 30k is split 50/50 between H and W based on their “income share”, whereby each has 1/2 of total income, so 1/2 of the support cost is borne by H, or 15k. So H pays W 15k. 15k represents 15% of H’s income.
Example C: H earns 50k, W earns 100k, total income is 150k. CS “need” based on lifestyle of combined income, is calculated at 15% of total income, or 22.5k. That 22.5k is split between H and W based on their “income share”, whereby H has 1/3 of the income, so 1/3 of the support cost is borne by H, or 7.5k. So H pays W 7.5k. That 7.5k represents … you guessed it, 15% of H’s income.
Now it’s correct that the percentage of the overall support cost which is borne by H in the three examples is higher or lower based on the relationship between the income of H and W, and the theoretical total support cost calculated on the basis of the joint income, but as you can see in practice, H ends up paying the same percentage of his income to W regardless of whether he earns more, the same, or even less, than she does. In practice, it is a simple flat tax on the payor spouse (which is typically the H), that is dressed up as being an “income share” method to make it sound more fair and less like a flat tax on income — which is what it is. Guys, never let anyone jack you up on this about it being an “income share” system which is “fair”. The income share is camouflage based on a “theoretical support amount” that the payee spouse doesn’t actually spend — the actual payments are calculated as a flat tax on the income of the payor spouse, regardless of what share of the total income he has.
@novaseeker
” It’s an easy argument for them to make, particularly in a culture where almost no-one has any interest in the details about anything at all any longer. ”
This is pure gold! THe headline wins. EVery time. Details don’t matter. Nor does truth
CS “need”, based on lifestyle of combined income, is calculated at 15% of total income”
DONT forget that if custody shared more than 80/20, the CS “need” is increased by 50%
DONT forget that if custody shared more than 80/20, the CS “need” is increased by 50%</i<
It's true, there are variables like that — just wanted to keep it fairly simple so that people understand that income share is a chimera. It's also the case in many states that if you have true 50/50 shared custody, the actual payments are reduced substantially — which is one of the main reasons why groups like NOW are generally against shared custody.
No rewards for liars who break their vows. End ‘child’ support. End mother custody. Period. Completely.
PokeSalads Law noted!
I’ve heard divorce rates have declined considerably only because people don’t get married anymore.
“I think it’s a hard-sell argument, in the US at least, that a biological father should not contribute financially to support children sired by him — I see the argument, but I don’t see it being a broad winner in this culture. ”
Everyone should pay for their own kids. Why should I pay for them?
The mother who forcefully booted the father out of the home should “pay” for the children. The government should not be in that business, and it is a huge business today.
Child support is traditionally what a man provides to his legitimate children in his house. If he is expelled from the house, or the children are taken away from him, his ability to provide for them is removed. So should his obligation be removed. There should essentially NEVER be mandatory inter-household monetary payments for children’s support. If the ex-wife makes more, she can pay for all their support. If it’s the father who makes more, let the children be sent to him, to reside in his household. ONLY if he refuses them in the latter case, should there be mandatory inter-household monetary payments for children’s support.
BTTT
if elders are allowed to discipline members, Husbands should be allowed to discipline wives…
but they do not seem to understand that