In my previous post I quoted Jezebel Managing Editor Joanna Rothkopf. From her Bio at Bustle, she is a walking, breathing, men’s sphere cliché:
Joanna is a New York-based writer and performer. Her work has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The Huffington Post, and Epicurious.com, among others, and her body has performed at UCB, Standup NY and the Secret Theater, among others. She is currently a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Fellow in Science and Health Journalism at Columbia University and holds degrees in Literary Studies and French from Middlebury College. She loves her cat like a son.
More specifically, Rothkopf is what The Other McCain calls The Writer, in ‘Broken People,’ Cats and Prozac:
Cats. Of course, she’s got cats. Did I mention she’s 29? And an alumna of New School University (2014-15 tuition $41,836)? Also, you may not be surprised to learn, Ms. Stokes lives in Brooklyn.
See, this is the thing with young feminist writer types nowadays. They can’t go to Podunk State University. No, they must attend one of those private schools where annual tuition is at or near the median U.S. household income. This is the only way to become that glorious being, The Writer. And, probably because as girls dreaming of becoming The Writer, they watched a sitcom or movie about the lives of quirky bachelorettes in Brooklyn, they simply must live there after graduation.
Well, you may ask, what does The Writer write about?
Herself, of course! Do these elite colleges offer a major in Solipsism Studies nowadays?
Going through the list for official scoring:
- Cats? Check!
- Went to an expensive private university? Check!
- Lives in Brooklyn? Here Rothkopf only gets partial credit, but NYC is the next best thing for The Writer.
- Writes about herself? Check! Check! Check!
From Rothkopf’s Teen Diary: ‘I Get a Little Teenage Girl Privalege Right Now’:
Growing up, I had upwards of 15 diaries—none of them finished, or even really given a chance to thrive. I’d buy one at the beginning of camp or if I was in a bookstore, sit on my bed, write six pages about how I wanted to be a writer, and then immediately forget about my diary and never return to it.
This is the solipsism Hat Trick, with Rothkopf writing about herself writing about how she wanted to write (about herself).
Pingback: The Other McCain nailed it (yet again). | @the_arv
In a sane world, college students would earn journalism degrees in the hopes of becoming Jimmy Stewart in “Call Northside 777.”
Instead, they graduate with aspirations of becoming the next Walter Duranty.
She is currently a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Fellow in Science and Health Journalism at Columbia University
Nice work if you can get it. One of the dirty little secrets of the upper middle class and upper class is how many fluffly make-work jobs exist for their children in acadamia, the NGO world, foundations, etc. , while everyone else has to actually get a real job.
She loves her cat like a son.
Given the love of feminists for their sons, one does feel bad for the cat.
It’s all solipsism and attention neediness.
I just saw an ad by GE promoting women scientists saying things like “what if women scientists were stars, what if they were treated as celebrities” and so on.
I mean, look assholes at GE, male scientists aren’t celebrities and stars, outside a few outliers, either. But the key thing to understand is that women will be attracted to science if it makes them like Beyonce or ScarJo (the ad actually had an image of an elderly woman scientist on the cover of Allure) — which reflects the fundamental solipsism of women and their desperate need for attention as a prime driver. I remember an article in The New York Times a few years ago saying something similar — to get more women into science, scientists have to become cooler, sexier and hipper, because women want to be cool, sexy and hip and won’t go into science if they don’t find the current scientists to be cool, sexy and hip.
I mean it’s obvious, really. Yet of course all of this will be blamed on men because reasons.
Nice work if you can get it. One of the dirty little secrets of the upper middle class and upper class is how many fluffly make-work jobs exist for their children in acadamia, the NGO world, foundations, etc. , while everyone else has to actually get a real job.
True — of course those jobs don’t pay well, but that’s ok because Daddy’s Money. So it’s kind of like the old system (fathers support daughters until married) with a twist: in the modern system, daughter gets to ride the cock carousel for as long as she wants on Daddy’s Money, doesn’t have to live under parental supervision at all, and gets the best of both worlds (financial support without parental restrictions). It’s easy to understand why they opt for that really. Parents don’t care as long as she collects feminist merit badges and marries another UMC between 28 and 32.
At 29 I was already an honorably discharged veteran who was working full time and finishing my bachelor’s of science at night with an A average but without any support from anyone (after graduation went on to finish two master’s degrees along with a long list of technology and science certifications while working full time).
Not her. Ms Snowflake lounges around sipping expensive wines while getting paid ridiculous amounts of money to say bad things about men.
Columbia is in uptown Manhattan. Her bio says she lives in New York, NY, which usually means Manhattan – which would be a status upgrade from Brooklyn if she indeed lives there.
Parents don’t care as long as she collects feminist merit badges and marries another UMC between 28 and 32.
I know someone like this. Didn’t even work, but got a large Manhattan apartment from her father.
She did, however, manage to marry a man 5 years younger. She was 33, he was 28. The man was the son of someone much richer still. Today, they have 3 kids. So ultimately, everything seems fine except that the beta male married a woman older than him.
“in the modern system, daughter gets to ride the cock carousel for as long as she wants on Daddy’s Money, doesn’t have to live under parental supervision at all, and gets the best of both worlds (financial support without parental restrictions).”
Thereby virtually guaranteeing that she will not get married, not produce legitimate offspring, will likely be a drug abuser, a feminist idiot and die old and lonely surround by her cats.
Poetic justice, I say, for the boomer parents who decided that parenting consisted of little more than an exchange of DNA.
I’m really glad they write about themselves. Other men should be happy too. You don’t need to spend lots of money and waste precious time getting to know that she is a waste of time, she just tells you. Why can’t all women be more honest and upfront?
Novaseeker,
I remember an article in The New York Times a few years ago saying something similar — to get more women into science, scientists have to become cooler, sexier and hipper, because women want to be cool, sexy and hip and won’t go into science if they don’t find the current scientists to be cool, sexy and hip.
This is just more proof that women are becoming obsolete. The more important a certain thing is for civilizational advancement, the less suited women are for it, and the more they try to obstruct the value-added aspects of it.
This is also why the vast resource misallocation towards women will eventually correct very dramatically.
About RS McCain..
Sure, he is great at bashing the bluehaired femtwats. But that, frankly, is easy.
He is still a Republican blue/purple piller, in that :
1) He has little to no problem with the way divorce laws presently are.
2) He thinks that Republican women are strongly against ‘feminism’, mainly because he thinks ‘feminism’ is restricted to the far-left groups he ridicules.
3) He probably agrees with the ‘man up’ videos from Brad Wilcucks and Jim Gay-ratty.
Overall, RS McCain is still far, far from seeing how wide the rot is. This is partly due to his own life : never divorced, 6 kids.
Thereby virtually guaranteeing that she will not get married, not produce legitimate offspring, will likely be a drug abuser, a feminist idiot and die old and lonely surround by her cats.
Well, no.
Almost all of them marry. Most between 28 and 33. Some marry later in the 30s or around 40. By the time you get to 40 the percentage of never married women is quite small, and also very small in this set — it’s generally women who have issues, women who are very picky (rode the carousel too long) or who are quite unattractive physically. Most UMC/UMC+ women are married by 35, almost all by 40, and the outliers write articles for the Daily Mail and The Atlantic whining about the lack of men. Most of them aren’t single drug-addled cat ladies, as much as some in the sphere like to think. I know because these are my peers.
Anon,
Have you actually read RSM?
Accusation 1, from what I have read of his writing (which I have done for years) is patently untrue.
Accusation 2: Unsure, but possible since he mostly equates feminism with pro-abortion. In all fairness, so do most self-professed feminists. It is not their only cause, but it is their chief cause.
Accusation 3: Do you have any actual evidence of this? If so, have you actually engaged Mr. McCain on his own blog on the matter? He is not overly censorious of dissent unless things have changed recently.
Novaseeker,
Concerning UMC womynz, it depends on how you define “drug addled”. Huffington Post reported in 2011 that 1 in 4 US womynz used anti-depressants, a 29% increase over ten years from 2001. As that is now 6 years old I expect the upward trend has continued. I also rub elbows with these people from time to time. That is separate from anti anxiety meds (hello Xanax and benzos in general). Once you mix up two or three of these and wash them down with a nice sparkling white you will indeed be addled.
okrahead,
Show me where he says that divorce laws are unfair. And not just to some minimal, lip-service degree, but real commentary.
Plus, he has said that it is a man’s duty to marry even now, rather than do PUA activities. This is identical to what Brad Wilcucks says (when Wilcucks condemns ‘six pack Craig’)..
Also, the use of Rx brain candy (but NOT Opioid meds) is very much a UMC thing. You don’t see too many hood rats or trailer trash going to the exclusive psychiatrist with the nice home office to stock up on the latest anti-depressant.
Most UMC/UMC+ women are married by 35, almost all by 40, and the outliers write articles for the Daily Mail and The Atlantic whining about the lack of men. Most of them aren’t single drug-addled cat ladies, as much as some in the sphere like to think.
That is right. I see no shortage of 38 y/o women with Ns to rival their age (but who are decent looking and not overtly feminist to the untrained eye) still manage to land a beta male of the same age. The beta male has a good job.
So it is not difficult for even a 38 y/o spinster to find a Captain Save a Ho..
Anon,
Concerning man’s duty to marry vs. pick up Vox Day says the same thing. I triple dog dare you to go over and call him out on it. Just let me know first so I can get some popcorn.
okrahead,
You are moving the goalposts. Just because RS McCain is wrong about his ‘man up and marry’ views does not mean Vox Day is not also wrong. Both can be wrong. But you were specifically defending RS McCain, only to contradict yourself a minute later, admitting that he has the ‘man up and marry’ view, effectively avoiding an honest discussion about the risks.
“Almost all of them marry. Most between 28 and 33”
I don’t see how this is possible if half of all men under the age of 35 are single.
Now I will agree, the ratios for UMC and UC, especially on the east coast, are not so dire. But I’ve met my share of post wall, overeducated and unmarried women. There are plenty right here at the office. And virtually all of the under 30 women are cohabitating or living alone and are not married. I’m sure some will stick the landing, but many won’t. I also don’t know a single under 30 guy at the office who is married. Not a single one. Now granted, these are yucky betas with STEM degrees and not well bred Ivy league grads with mega paychecks on Wall St or consulting firms.
What will be interesting to see is how UMC millennials will behave. If the majority take the red pill it could be seismic.
Anon,
I encourage you to go to RSM’s blog and type “divorce” into the search engine on the page. RSM calls for marriage only to a chaste partner (female virgin) which is not the churchian “man up” call. We seem to be working from two different definitions. Churchians say “man up and marry” and mean for Beta Bux to put a ring on Suzy Slut’s finger once she hits the wall and needs a provider. RSM and Vox (If I understand them correctly) both call on men to marry chaste, young Christian (not churchian) women. Neither RSM, nor Vox, and certainly not I, would ever tell a man to “man up” by marrying Suzy Slut. Manning up would be for the churchians grow a spine and tell Suzy Slut she’s ruined herself for marriage and to live a life of poverty, celibacy and service to others as repentance.
“She is currently a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Fellow in Science and Health Journalism at Columbia University…”
Why do universities take feminist “scholarship” seriously? It’s a bunch of non-scientific made-up “theories.” It’s fine if you want to make things up, but file it under “fiction.”
What’s really troubling is that feminists make up ideas like “rape is a crime not of lust, but of violence and power” (which comes from Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book “Against Our Will”) and it’s then taken as gospel by the media and bought wholesale by the public. There is no scientific basis for that statement and it defies logic since a man has to be in a state of sexual arousal to perform the act. A book called “A Natural History of Rape” debunked the original statement in detail decades later. But by that time it was taken as gospel so the book was seen a heresy. What other fictitious ideas are feminists spewing today that will become doctrine tomorrow?
@Frank K
Part of this is explained by the disparity in remarriage rates as men and women get older. A woman marries in her 20s and then goes Jenny Erikson in her 30s– add a mark to the “ever married” women tally, even though said hypothetical woman is now unmarried, banging strange men and bearing illegitimate children. Her ex husband then goes on to marry a younger woman who has never married– that makes two “ever marrieds” that a single man accounts for. Only one of these two women is presently married, but both are “ever married”.
Anon,
Further reflection: I have in the past attended a church with multiple single mother members. Many of the members felt a constant need to 1) help the womynz out constantly with every material need they had and 2) constantly try and find some poor sap dumb enough to put a ring on her finger. This is the typical “man up” rant from the churchians.
Now consider Moses. As Pharaoh’s son he could enjoy all the pleasure of the world, including, one supposes, many concubines. From all we read he was LAMPS in the flesh. Yet he chose to suffer affliction with the people of God for a season rather than the pleasures of the world.
This is the call… true manhood is not found in being a PUA working on your slut notch count, it is found in establishing a patriarchal family structure or celibacy in service to God.
In places like Brooklyn the number of 40+ single white women is high. Next time you are in big city like that, take a look at how many fewer wedding rings you see than in a place like Texas.
Pingback: The Other McCain nailed it (yet again). | Reaction Times
Further reflection: I have in the past attended a church with multiple single mother members. Many of the members felt a constant need to 1) help the womynz out constantly with every material need they had and
People who provide alcoholics with every material need are called “enablers” in the 12-step world.
Yet the same actions to women who are clearly addicted to promiscuity is called what, in the church world? “Charity?”
@okrahead and Anonymous Reader
Not that I’m telling you anything you don’t already know, but in some churches these heroic single moms are lumped in with the “widow’s” ministry, to ensure they get adequate enabling care. I suppose whilst waiting for the next batter to step (man) up to the plate.
>Manning up would be for the churchians grow a spine and tell Suzy Slut she’s ruined herself for marriage and to live a life of poverty, celibacy and service to others as repentance.
No, that’s just chest-beating virtue-signaling. Suzy Slut isn’t going to change unless and until the external conditions, particularly economic ones, motivate her to change.
Actually manning up would involve:
1) Identifying the organizations that have succeeded at improving divorce and custody legislation and outcomes for men and children, and
2) Repeatedly and consistently promoting them and reporting on their successes.
This includes both secular organizations and churches. Where are the least divorces in the usa? Where are the most equitable divisions of custody? What are the similarities between those communities?
Does Vox Day do that or ask those questions? How about RSMcCain? Or Dalrock? Or Rollo? Or anybody else besides me?
Not to my recollection.
Here it is, yet again, and perhaps it will sink in this time:
Practically speaking, marriage is a contract between a couple on one side and a community on the other, and both my experience and observation of other people’s reports is that WE CAN’T FIND A COMMUNITY WORTH TRUSTING TO KEEP UP THEIR END OF THAT CONTRACT.
Yes, it matters what her upbringing is like. Yes, it matters if she’s been sleeping around before marriage, and so on. I can agree to the influence of those factors. The thing is, though, what can we do about them? Not much, AFAICT.
No one else, however, seems capable of agreeing to the comparable influence of poor to nonexistent community reliability in marriage contracts. Yet we can do so much more about that — as actually demonstrated by the people who actually are.
Who are they, you ask?
Well, the NPO keeps improving the divorce and custody legislation. I don’t know of any other orgs accomplishing even a tenth as much. See https://nationalparentsorganization.org/recent-articles?id=23560 , for example.
I’m not claiming this is God’s answer to your prayers. But I’m pretty damn sure it’s the best damn candidate for it that you people have got. So from now on, it’s on your heads. NPO has a roadmap and a network and a history of winning. The rest is up to you.
“Part of this is explained by the disparity in remarriage rates as men and women get older.”
Interesting. I wonder about this though, because most men I meet who’ve been through the divorce ringer join the “once and done club”. Granted, my experience is anecdotal, but it does seem to me that a man who is saddled down with alimony and child support payments is usually not considered a “good catch”, as he will be perennially broke. I do know of one case where a broke, but very studly divorced guy did score a younger woman, but he’s the only case I know of). Not to mention the baggage he will have (this is my weekend to have the kids!). I would thing the young pretty thing would want all his resources and attention for her kids and not the ex’s.
Then again, what do I know?
“This is the call… true manhood is not found in being a PUA working on your slut notch count, it is found in establishing a patriarchal family structure or celibacy in service to God.”
Not to mention the very real possibility of contracting an incurable, and possibly deadly, STD.
okrahead,
This is the call… true manhood is not found in being a PUA working on your slut notch count, it is found in establishing a patriarchal family structure or celibacy in service to God.
Putting aside the fact that a lot of men don’t believe in God…
The problem with this belief is that the M-word completely dupes the devout Christian. There is no possibility of distinguishing Marriage 2.0 from Marriage 1.0, which is why any call to ‘get married’ in 2017 is effectively being a tool of the lawyers/feminists in leading the male cattle to slaughter.
Plus, while RS McCain may tell men to marry virgins, and that is certainly better than marrying a church slut, he never accounts for how few such young virgins there are, and the numbers just don’t match up. Under his strategy, maybe 20% of men will enter Marriage 2.0 (which is wrongly called ‘marriage’, as described above).
Lastly, Jenny Erikson married at 19 and was probably a virgin at the time. See what happened there. Marrying a virgin is lower risk than marrying a slut, but the risk merely reduces from ‘high’ to ‘moderate’.
Acksiom,
Where are the least divorces in the usa? Where are the most equitable divisions of custody? What are the similarities between those communities?
Sharia Law is the the only solution that fits your criteria..
>Sharia Law is the the only solution that fits your criteria.
Literacy is the best solution that fits your comment’s irrelevancy. I didn’t provide ‘criteria’ in the solvable sense. You’re presenting a straw man.
Second, IIRC, there aren’t enough muslims in the usa for statistical significance, Let’s see. . .boom yeah, Infogalactic:
“According to a newer estimate done in 2016, there were 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States, about 1% of the total U.S. population. . .[A]bout 72% of American Muslims are immigrants or ‘second generation'”
So basically, that’s a data set of barely over .25% of the usa population, and that’s without considering the confounding factors. Just the in-group miniscule minority pressure alone, regardless of creed, would argue strongly for not considering them except for anecdotal interest after the original data gathering and analysis.
Anon,
“Putting aside the fact that a lot of men don’t believe in God…”
No, by all means, let’s not put it aside. Lots of men and womynz don’t believe in God. Lots of churchians don’t truly believe in God. Jenny Erickson has rejected belief in God, as proven by her actions. Lack of belief in God, and in His law as absolute, is what has gotten us into this mess. Pedestalizing and worshiping womynz rather than God is what feminism is all about.
Acksiom,
The people who should be the target of your ire are MRAs (Men’s Rights Authors). People like Angry Harry and Paul Elam. They claim to be activists fighting against misandric laws and media memes, but where are their petitions? Their gatherings? Their lawsuits?
There are a tiny spattering here and there, but certainly nothing that can justifiably be called ‘activism’. A blogger who only even intended to be a blogger (like Dalrock) is not to blame. Rather, the self-described ‘activists’, who do no real activism, are.
Acksiom,
You’re missing the point yourself. Telling women that they’re doing wrong and ought to do what the Bible tells them if they’re going to be Christians is the only practical solution for most of us.
You’re looking for some kind of technocratic solution; what conditions can we create that will foster this. But if you have bad people, no amount of positive environment is going to stop them from behaving badly. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The solution is to teach people to be moral and shame them for acting immorally. If people are moral, the rules can be bad and it won’t matter.
Can you or I create laws that will foster healthy families? Can we get rid of no-fault divorce or change things so fathers get default custody? No. Can we teach our daughters and tell women around us that it’s treacherous and evil to betray your husband, that it’s disgusting and degenerate to slut around, that homosexuality is sinful and perverse? Yes, we can do these things.
Our speculations about the best legislative or community environment for moral behavior are not going to matter. That’s what the MRAs get involved with, and they’ve made little to no progress on that front. But if all the Christians taught their daughters that being a slut is despicable and that a woman divorcing her husband is low and evil, we wouldn’t need the laws to be perfect.
Imagine if no-fault divorce was made legal through some fluke in 1908. Are the women going to go out and divorce their husbands in huge numbers? No. It’s not the laws that make people act morally.
You’re focusing on the things we can’t change and overlooking the only practical things we can do. As Christians we can actually make positive change, but it won’t be through lawsuits and it probably won’t be through voting either. You’re discouraging the very actions that would be most likely to create communities where marriage is respected and people behave in a moral way.
>The people who should be the target of your ire
1) That’s not ire; that’s you being oversensitive.
2) The fact that other people out there deserve my feedback as well doesn’t mean the rest of you don’t.
>are MRAs (Men’s Rights Authors).
[facepalm] Activists. Not Authors. Activists.
>People like Angry Harry
Angry Harry’s dead. Happened over a year ago.
>and Paul Elam. They claim to be activists fighting against misandric laws and media memes, but where are their petitions? Their gatherings? Their lawsuits?
Yes, that was rather my point, thank you.
>There are a tiny spattering here and there, but certainly nothing that can justifiably be called ‘activism’.
Except, of course, for the NPO, the existence and track record of which your response ever-so-conveniently ignores.
>A blogger who only even intended to be a blogger (like Dalrock) is not to blame. Rather, the self-described ‘activists’, who do no real activism, are.
Except, of course, for those who complain about the situation at length, and share advice with each other about how to deal with it, and address how other people keep making it worse, and so forth, and so on.
Y’know.
The way you folks here keep doing.
Dear Acksiom,
You mad, bro?
I’m a genuine born again Christian who is formally educated in the worldview I hold (M.Div. as one of my degrees). I’ve been approached by single women that I’ve gotten to know through small group fellowships and single groups at churches I’ve attended over the years who have literally thrown themselves at me begging me to date them with an eye toward marriage. I’ve had more than one tell me they’ve “fallen in love with me” (a mystery to me since I never even dated them).
In each case I’ve sat them down and explained that if it were a traditional pre-sexual revolution society and legal system, there is no doubt in my mind that I would date and ultimately propose to a Christian woman to start a traditional nuclear family.
However, because I live in a post-sexual revolution period in which radical feminism and no-fault divorce are presently the pillars upon which rests our body of familial law; I cannot. I would then get a piece of paper and a pencil or pen and SWOT what marriage is to a single male in the U.S. today. Needless to say, the strengths and opportunities side is short while the weaknesses and threats side usually results in me reaching for another piece of paper.
I explain that the present legal environment is such that it’s simply not safe for me to marry or have progeny with them.
And as a genuine born again Christian, who walks the walk, I do NOT engage in sex outside of marriage. My habit is occasional masturbation in the shower, nothing more. The word for this is celibate. Celibate MGTOW, of course, is a choice but it’s not one that I ever would have willingly made were the sides of the SWOT balanced or better yet reversed.
My friends say there is a Christian woman out there who is missing out on a really great Christian man. The irony is that she probably voted for the present body of radical feminist familial law. So the reaping and sowing continues…
Dear Fellas:
Anon Sez:
Then Acksiom sez:
The author of Dalrock blog doesn’t solicit thousands of dollars (as Paul Elam has), promising to fight the power. He’s a critical theorist who publishes free stuff you can read — or not. Elam is a scam artist who has grown rich off other people’s misery, making big promises while doing absolutely nothing.
As an aside, Paul Elam’s one good idea was a separate blog called “Register Her”. It started to have real-world impact, and as soon as he (ever so slightly) shifted the overton window, he took it down. Do you find this interesting, as I do?
Regards,
Boxer
>You’re missing the point yourself.
Except, of course, for how I’m not.
>Telling women that they’re doing wrong and ought to do what the Bible tells them if they’re going to be Christians is the only practical solution for most of us.
. . .because. . .why, exactly?
>You’re looking for some kind of technocratic solution; what conditions can we create that will foster this. But if you have bad people, no amount of positive environment is going to stop them from behaving badly.
And if you have people who are capable of both good and bad, which IME happens to be the majority of us, then some amount of positive environment *is* going to stop them from behaving badly, and draw them towards behaving well.
You seem to have forgotten that the situation has changed; that we would not be facing the current conditions if negative environments had not made things worse in some ways, and how that indicates that positive changes can be made back towards the preferred conditions.
>“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And when I start talking about Constitutional Amendments or Conventions, that will be relevant.
But I’m not, so it isn’t.
>The solution is to teach people to be moral and shame them for acting immorally. If people are moral, the rules can be bad and it won’t matter.
No, that’s just *a* solution, not the only one. And the rules do that anyway. And if people are capable of both moral and immoral behavior, which IME the majority of us are, the rules had better be good, because in that case, it does matter.
The unfortunate and tragic fact that a minority of people are simply dysfunctional beyond repair does not obviate the fortunate and comforting fact that the majority of people not only aren’t that dysfunctional but can even be helped and taught better.
>Can you or I create laws that will foster healthy families?
I don’t see why not. Do you have some kind of proof to the contrary?
>Can we get rid of no-fault divorce or change things so fathers get default custody? No.
Maybe not, but we absolutely can arrest the downward slide, and even take advantage of changing economic and technological conditions to improve the current situation.
>Can we teach our daughters and tell women around us that it’s treacherous and evil to betray your husband, that it’s disgusting and degenerate to slut around, that homosexuality is sinful and perverse? Yes, we can do these things.
Aaaaand that prevents us from also doing other things. . .how, exactly?
>Our speculations about the best legislative or community environment for moral behavior are not going to matter.
Except, of course, for how they not only will, but already do.
>That’s what the MRAs get involved with, and they’ve made little to no progress on that front.
Because of (A) the economic conditions, and (B) the general lack of focus across the movement. The first is changing as the technology improvements reach the higher-hanging fruit of men’s traditional responsibilities, and the actual successes of the NPO demonstrate the second.
And, as a trailing third, because they keep trying to imitate the methods of the women’s and minorities’ movements, which don’t work for men’s issues, mainly due to (A).
>But if all the Christians taught their daughters that being a slut is despicable and that a woman divorcing her husband is low and evil, we wouldn’t need the laws to be perfect.
And if somebody here other than yourself was arguing that the laws need to be perfect rather than just better, that would be relevant.
But nobody else is, so it isn’t.
>Imagine if no-fault divorce was made legal through some fluke in 1908. Are the women going to go out and divorce their husbands in huge numbers? No.
But are both genders going to start frivorcing their partners in larger numbers than they would have otherwise? Yes. How do we know? Because when it was made legal, they did. And then we added on alimony and child support and perverse federal funding incentives for larger awards of the latter, all of which contributed to the conditions we’re discussing now.
Things changed. Those changes indicate that things can be changed again, including for the better — not necessarily back again, but for the better nevertheless,
>It’s not the laws that make people act morally.
Except, of course, for when it is.
>You’re focusing on the things we can’t change and overlooking the only practical things we can do.
Except, of course, for how I’m not, and how the NPO actually is changing things, and through focusing on the other practical things that can be done, in addition to your preferred means.
Why you believe that the proposition that other ways can work necessarily means that your own ways consequently can’t work escapes me. I find it very irrational.
>As Christians we can actually make positive change, but it won’t be through lawsuits
Except, of course, for when it is, and not just through lawsuits. I posted a link about specifically that. Why didn’t you read it before replying?
>and it probably won’t be through voting either.
Not as much as through changing the economic conditions, no.
>You’re discouraging the very actions that would be most likely to create communities where marriage is respected and people behave in a moral way.
Except, of course, for how I’m not. If you disagree, then what actions have I discouraged, and how? Where have I ever said that you can’t do both?
The author of Dalrock blog doesn’t solicit thousands of dollars (as Paul Elam has), promising to fight the power. He’s a critical theorist who publishes free stuff you can read — or not. Elam is a scam artist who has grown rich off other people’s misery, making big promises while doing absolutely nothing.
Yep.
As an aside, Paul Elam’s one good idea was a separate blog called “Register Her”. It started to have real-world impact, and as soon as he (ever so slightly) shifted the overton window, he took it down. Do you find this interesting, as I do?
He deliberately took it down, and refused to provide any explanation even when questioned point blank on numerous occasions. It is obvious that he took it down because it was actually working. Much like Jesse Jackson doesn’t want black underperformance to actually end as the revenue would dry up, Elam accidentally started a website that he did not expect to be as effective as it was. Hence, he took it down.
Anon: “Jenny Erikson married at 19 and was probably a virgin”
She was not one, and as far as I remember wrote a blog how actually the societally induced shame she felt about it made her marry her husband, who didn’t mind she gave it to previous boyfriend, so the failure of the marriage can be actually attributed to the prejudiced backwards thinking about virginity, something along these lines.. Which is amazing – hamster on speed.
I should add that this makes Paul Elam identical to Anita Sarkeesian. Both solicit money in order to do some future activism; both dupe their donors and do nothing; donors are extremely slow to learn (much less go to the authorities).
Acksiom said, “But are both genders going to start frivorcing their partners in larger numbers than they would have otherwise? Yes. How do we know? Because when it was made legal, they did.” Really? Men started frivorcing in larger numbers because of no fault divorce? Citation please. Does not compute.
Ofelas,
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten that. Gotta love it when your Mrs. writes online, in her own name, about the dude who wasn’t you that she let pop her cherry. Good times.
>You mad, bro?
Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics much, Derpette?
* * *
>The author of Dalrock blog doesn’t solicit thousands of dollars (as Paul Elam has), promising to fight the power.
He does, however, write about the situation at length, and shares advice with others about how to deal with it, and addresses how other people keep making it worse, and so forth, and so on.
Y’know.
The way you just quoted me saying.
>He’s a critical theorist who publishes free stuff you can read — or not. Elam is a scam artist who has grown rich off other people’s misery, making big promises while doing absolutely nothing.
I agree that he seems to have accomplished very little. I stopped paying attention to him and AVFM years ago. Apart from my doubt about how wealthy it’s made him, I don’t agree or disagree with your characterizations, because I lack proof of them way or the other, and can’t be bothered to care. He’s of no apparent use to me, so I file him under “Toohey”. I have better things to think about.
>As an aside, Paul Elam’s one good idea was a separate blog called “Register Her”. It started to have real-world impact, and as soon as he (ever so slightly) shifted the overton window, he took it down. Do you find this interesting, as I do?
Yes, but I’m inclined to view the causes as more a combination of a failure of courage and a lack of defensive legal resources against the inevitable lawsuits to follow than a direct self-threat to his own rice bowl.
IME, most people are honestly trying to do the best they can in a world gone mad, and they are nowhere near so much actively venal as just immaturely incompetent.
>Men started frivorcing in larger numbers because of no fault divorce? Citation please. Does not compute.
A moment’s googling shows my memory of the commonly claimed primary justification is correct. Both people and lawyers ;-P were sick of perjury testimony falsely accusing their spouses of various divorceable actions, from infidelity to abuse, as well as the other tiresome work-arounds. I am confident that at least some of these were instigated by husbands lacking sufficiently good reason in comparison to the best interests of their children, because human nature, and were thus frivorces by my standards; QED. It may not have been a very significant increase, but no-fault did significantly enable it.
” I am confident that at least some of these were instigated by husbands lacking sufficiently good reason in comparison to the best interests of their children, because human nature, and were thus frivorces by my standards; QED.”
Confident based on your view of human nature, with a complete absence of verifiable data points. In other words the exact opposite of what our host, whom you have continuously, rudely and slanderously denigrated, provides. Have you no shame sir? QED indeed. Are you still mad, bro?
Related: (I hope it survives the mods long enough for at least a few of the key regulars to read it.)
http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html
Anon says:
July 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
“Parents don’t care as long as she collects feminist merit badges and marries another UMC between 28 and 32.
I know someone like this. Didn’t even work, but got a large Manhattan apartment from her father.
She did, however, manage to marry a man 5 years younger. She was 33, he was 28. The man was the son of someone much richer still. Today, they have 3 kids. So ultimately, everything seems fine except that the beta male married a woman older than him.“
Not entirely. The kids are guaranteed less healthy than if their mother had conceived them while she was still young.
Not entirely. The kids are guaranteed less healthy than if their mother had conceived them while she was still young.
Maybe. She was not at the ideal age, but not unusually old either (all three were in quick succession, so the mother was 34, 35, and 36 at birth).
>Confident based on your view of human nature, with a complete absence of verifiable data points.
Except, of course, for the data points showing an increase in divorce after no-fault was enacted, such as https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce , and thus for my proposition to be false, neither any of the increases among husband-instigated no-faults nor the mutual ones could be a result of that to any degree whatsoever.
Yeah, no.
The falsified case is far less likely or believable. I do the best I can with the knowledge I have. Unless and until you present data proving the falsified case, which I don’t think is available to anyone, the dispute remains in the court of opinion where it originated.
>In other words the exact opposite
Except, of course, for how it isn’t, since Dalrock posts plenty of opinion as well as data.
>of what our host, whom you have continuously, rudely and slanderously denigrated,
Except, of course, for how I haven’t.
>provides. Have you no shame sir?
No, not really. ZFG for as long as I can recall.
>QED indeed.
So it was, and so it is, and so it shall remain, yes.
>Are you still mad, bro?
Are you still Code Redding, Derpy Hooves?
No “maybe” about it, Anon. There is something (proved by a study I showed our fertility clinic’s doc, which he confirmed as valid) that starting right around age 34, advancing age of genetic mothers results in a roughly even tradeoff of decreased life expectancy and health of all her daughters. That is, a woman who is 38 when she conceives a daughter has knocked 4 years, or over 5%, off the life expectancy and vitality of her daughter. It’s universal, can’t be avoided, and can’t be tested for except with a calendar. And, it’s not that “they die at 75 instead of 80 with everything the same till then. It’s ALL THROUGH LIFE, that innocent little girl is less healthy and more likely to die. (Something similar likely applies to all her sons as well, but that study focused on daughters for simplicity.) That’s a horrid thing for a mother to do to a baby she’d want to put bows in her hair and dress her up in pretty little dresses.
@Luke:
I hadn’t heard that one, but it’s not too surprising. The final inflection point in a Woman’s fertility starts at age 32. Generally speaking all of the significantly neurological & endocrine protective systems start their slow descent around that time. The pregnancy happens when the Mother’s body is less capable of protecting against the stress it causes.
Things like the NPO do make small, incremental changes in some places — that’s true. If you want to contribute to it, go right ahead — they do make some small difference in some places, so it isn’t a complete waste of time and money, if that is what you are interested in doing. In the bigger picture, in my view we won’t see real change on a broad, nation-wide basis (as compared with small, incremental changes on a local basis here and there) about the legal issues until women become the net payors overall — when that happens, there will be a groundswell of support for changing the rules so that there isn’t a “windfall” for the male payees. But we aren’t really close to that, at least overall in terms of marriages. Perhaps that changes in another generation or two, or perhaps these issues become less relevant because fewer and fewer people will be marrying and becoming parents to begin with down the track.
Mind you none of that legal tinkering changes the fact that marriage has been converted to a child support model (it’s just tinkering the rules about child support), or that hedonic marriage/romantic love justifies marriage and most of the other things that are talked about here, so it’s really only of tangential significance.
Dear Acksiom:
I’d be inclined to believe that too, if Elam had simply explained it as such when I politely asked him about the status of “register-her dot com” on AVFM.
Instead of answering my question, or posting a link to an article, he deleted all my comments and immediately banned my username from further comment there.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Luke:
It would be pretty difficult to prove this, and there’s no evidence for such a strong association. I think there’s certainly a statistical correlation. For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1166564/
But, a statistical correlation isn’t a “guarantee” of anything. There are women over 40 who have healthy kids, and proving that said kids were “guaranteed less healthy” than the kids the same women had at 25 is easily shown to be false, by countless examples.
I consider Dalrock blog to be the “sound argument factory”. The notion of soundness isn’t tricky. It requires true premises. We need to be careful when we’re among the feminists, because they like to nitpick and point out generalizations like this, as examples of us being full o’ beans.
Regards,
Boxer
As soon as Elam gave women a prominent role on AVFM is ceased being men’s voices and became a voice for women to try and bring men back to the plantation. See the Red Pill movie as an example.
When Susan, can’t remember her second name, started one of her authoritative banning sessions on AVFM, I questioned her power hungry actions and was banned immediately. These are not people you should be placing your hope in. MGTOW has done far more to scare the crap out of women than anything MRAs could ever do. You cannot negotiate with women. That’s something Paul Elam still needs to learn.
“Men started frivorcing in larger numbers because of no fault divorce? Citation please. Does not compute.”
Agreed. A man who frivorces his wife still has to pay alimony and child support, and will most likely get to see the kids far less frequently than her future boyfriend will. Even if he initiates it, it’s a raw deal for him.
Pingback: The Other McCain nailed it (yet again). - Top
Just like that female lead on that show “Big Bang Theory” her goal of being on the show is to get “gurls psyched about science”
Really? The few episodes I have seen it’s a bunch of nerdy guys trying to get sex and the one dude is obviously flaming gay. Getting “gurls” psyched about science? Yeah……okay
When I was at IBM they had a “science camp” for a week in the summer at my campus in San Jose……..and yes, it was for “girls only” and it was to get them “psyched about science and math”
Yet all the presenters, the leaders, volunteers, and speakers were women at IBM who worked in HR, “community relations” and softer aspects of the company. They never had been in a lab, a clean-room, and probably could barely balance a checkbook; but since they “worked” at IBM, they were deemed the ones to get girls “psyched” about science and math. What these women did was just talk about themselves….like any good HR professional does. I asked if any of our top-tier developers or programmers in San Jose were going to speak? Not one that I knew was asked, nor their co-workers.
Several men, including myself made a small “noise” about it only for being for girls. We were silenced very quickly.
I think Burk nailed it better with his latest article on “inter sectionalism”.
Women in non-HR tech tend to be East or South Asian. Their cultures and families push them to get real educations and real jobs that matter. For many its a responsibility to pull their parents out of poverty. They have a deep sense of duty toward their families and when they get married they rarely divorce. These are the women who should be “talking about themselves” to American girls. Maybe some of their smarts, charm, culture and family duty will rub off on Generation Zed.
Boxer said :
I’d be inclined to believe that too, if Elam had simply explained it as such when I politely asked him about the status of “register-her dot com” on AVFM.
Instead of answering my question, or posting a link to an article, he deleted all my comments and immediately banned my username from further comment there.
That is right. Any questions about it, and he immediately attacked the questioner, and refused to answer any questions about why he took it down. This revealed Paul Elam’s true goals, which were to defraud men of donations with the promise of actual activism.
W.B. Kotter
Women in non-HR tech tend to be East or South Asian.
Or Hispanic. Or “white”.
They have a deep sense of duty toward their families and when they get married they rarely divorce.
Sure. I have some Indian divorced men you should meet. What planet are you posting from?
Are you over 70, or do you just write that way?
Dear Anon, Feminist Hater, et.al:
Generalizing on this same topic… Elam was a great example of successful black propaganda in action. He took in a lot of money without doing anything, and worked pretty hard to demoralize decent men. I think it’s useful to point these things out, especially to new people, who assume we can take everyone at face value.
More current (and even more successful) examples are screecher Alex Jones and fat pig Michael Moore. Both of these hucksters are millionaires, who regularly promise to fight the power. Interestingly, both of these men got railroaded in divorce court within the last couple of years, and neither one is making a peep out of it.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/28/more-kooky-alex-jones/
I thought there was some tiny chance that Jones would lead a protest in front of the Texas divorce courts. No fuck’n way. Not only is Alex Jones silent about losing his kids, but when questioned directly by Megan Kelly he described having his kids taken away as a “big win”. Harder to get any more cucked than this. Not surprisingly, he now has white house press credentials, so that he can go pal around with his friends in the “fake news media” and rub shoulders with the people who are going to round us all up and put us in “fema camps” any day now.
Young brothers who are new to Dalrock and related sites should be very cautious about donating or doing business with flashy types like these. The world is full of wolves-in-sheeps-clothing, and we have more than enough examples trying to live at our expense.
Regards,
Boxer
@Luke
Fyi, I don’t object to the message, but I deleted the lenthy quote for copyright reasons.
I understood that and expected that, Dalrock. I believed the post was of value, and knew that people tend not to follow links much, just reading what’s posted (and missing out on what’s not). The author most likely wanted his ideas propogated, too, so I rather doubt he’d have minded a full post of his thoughts.
======================================================================
Kotter, before you laud Indian (call center, not casino) chicks any more, you might do well to ponder this short set of observations about them:
http://www.returnofkings.com/51395/5-reasons-why-you-should-not-date-indian-girls
The current state of Anglo American relations
Walking along the road I heard what sounded like a woman calling. On hearing that call a second time I turned and approaching me from across the road rushed two women who it transpired were mother and daughter the daughter being American and the mother English. [I don’t understand that at all]. They were lost and sought my assistance.
‘We are looking for Castle Road’ the daughter who did most of the talking explained.
‘If you have come all the way from America’ I responded’ for Castle Road you have had a wasted journey for there is no such road around here nor for that matter any castle.
They produced their map in the fading light [it was 09.25 pm] .
‘It would help’ I observed, ‘if you had the map the right way up’. They turned the map 90 degrees and pointed to the road they were interested in. Now I knew where it was – North at the top always helps.
‘What you are looking for is Church Road. We have one of those as well as no shortage of places of worship and by good fortune Church Road is just twenty yards further on’ I said pointing.
‘But there is no sidewalk’ one of them remonstrated, obviously worried for her safety.
‘Madam’ I explained further ‘we have no sidewalks at all in England but we do have pavements though we do not mark them on maps’. ‘By good fortune as you will shortly observe Church Road does have a pavement.
At this point the better looking of the two began nudging me in the arm. I showed them where to go and learned that they were looking for a restaurant in the up-market part of the town.
A few minutes later having parted from them and met my friend and having told him of the encounter his comment was:
‘They will be lucky’ [when they arrive there at just before ten p.m.]’ to find a restaurant that is still serving’.
Boxer, re the health issue for geriatric genetic mothers (those 35+): sure, there are women who had children over a wide span of life, who had ones conceived when those mothers were older, that turned out healthier than children those women conceived when younger. My rebuttal to the idea that refutes the study I saw:
1) Those women’s telomeres inexorably shorten every day they age, 100% guaranteed.
2) There is a roll of the dice at each conception. Nonetheless, why make your child a draw to an inside straight?
3) The concept of central tendencies is key here. Just seeing apparent exceptions to a statistically valid central tendency refutes nothing. Saying that it does is akin to saying “my great grandpa smoked 3 packs of Camels a day for 69 years and lived to 91, so this idea that smoking hurts your health is hokum”. Uh, no, that’s not a valide refutation.
“They have a deep sense of duty toward their families and when they get married they rarely divorce.”
There is a Chinese woman where I work. All she ever does is complain about her husband. Sure doesn’t sound like the stereotypical submissive Asian woman,
Further Anglo American relations
I am both delighted and surprised that the movie Dunkirk leads this weeks American box office with a projected first weekend cume of $50 million. Surprised, because the previous movie on the subject from 1958* did not fare well at the American box office – what interest could Americans have in a British military near disaster – and thus to spend $150 million on the 2017 remake would have struck me as foolhardy especially as there can be no room in a movie concerning the fortunes of 400,000 British males for Americans or females or of course of any other race.
It is also symbolically a movie about Brexit though its producers could not at the time of putting the movie into production have hoped for that happy synchronicity.
* There is also a French movie on the subject Weekend at Dunkirk from 1964 which I recall enjoying.
I have found all women to be similar everywhere. If there is a group that is typically assumed to be “better” (not only E. Asian women, but also Latin American and Arab Muslim women have this reputation) then it’s more likely that those women are merely better liars, and thus even more dangerous than the norm.
The one consistent correlation between tolerability and femaleness I’ve found is the presence, in childhood, of a decent father or grandfather. This matters far more than the virginity that is ridiculously championed here on Dalrock. If you young guys want to see if a woman is worth your time, do some digging as to whether her dad was a good dad. By that I don’t mean did he buy her everything she wanted, but see if he disciplined her baser instincts (troublemaking, etc.) out of her.
Once you do your due diligence, get her talking about pops. Does she show the appropriate level of respect for him, or does she sneer and scoff at him? You will enter the dominant male role that he enjoyed after you marry, and how she treats him is a fair barometer of how she’ll treat you.
Regards,
Boxer
‘She loves her cat like a son.’
Poor cat. Makes me wonder how much she hates that animal and its male privilege.
‘There is a Chinese woman where I work. All she ever does is complain about her husband. Sure doesn’t sound like the stereotypical submissive Asian woman…’
Doesn’t matter the culture…all women have to submit to God to overcome this particular problem.
Doesn’t matter the culture…all women have to submit to God to overcome this particular problem.
A message that they are not getting in church* because, heaven forbid, that would offend them and make them unhappy and turn the World of which they are a dedicated servant against the church.
(* Last Sunday we had a guest pastor who delivered a VERY red pill message on marriage, one that included an exhortation to wives to RESPECT THEIR HUSBANDS! This was followed by the appropriate complete references from Ephesians 5, 1st Peter, and Titus. I’m very surprised he didn’t get jeered down or escorted out of the pulpit. I was sufficiently impressed that I bought a DVD of his series of messages on how couples can ensure a successful Christian marriage. I look forward to watching them as soon as I get the time.)
Dear Anon:
I’ve never really interacted with Sarkeesian, but I think I understand your allusion.
My experience with Paul Elam was very similar to my experience with David “Manboobz” Futrelle, and both my interactions happened at about the same time (around 2011-2012).
For different reasons, both of these characters called me out publicly. I subsequently went over to both Manboobz blog and AVFM blog, all by my lonesome, to argue my case. Both of these men subsequently banned me from commenting in short order.
Of the two, the open feminist Futrelle actually argued his points in good faith. He made fun of me (which is standard practice on the internet) but otherwise he at least attempted an argument. The closet feminist Elam did not argue in good faith. His comments in my direction were filled with disgusting sexual references, and he merely attempted to poison the well. It was a particularly disappointing show, especially for someone who claims to have advanced degrees in psychology and counseling.
I don’t know what Elam is doing now, but I’ll repeat Anon’s warning not to give him any of your money. He has a history of tickling men’s ears for donations. If he does something useful, it’s on accident, and is quickly retracted.
Regards,
Boxer
I will third and fourth the above motion that a Chinese wife does not help with sparing one’s self from a contentious wife. I have stayed out of it when I have read comments from here to go off- shores, I obviously see the appeal of doing so, and it does help avoid the tats and fats of US women, but God’s Word is definitely applicable to the hearts of eastern women as well as western.
From Lost patrol….
Given the love of feminists for their sons, one does feel bad for the cat.
Memes shall be made.
Not all cultures are the same or hold the same values. Divorce is still taboo in South Asian cultures so while yeah there are some, the percentage is a hell of a lot lower than ours. Divorce is more common in East Asian cultures but still lower than ours. Of course when you marry a South or East Asian you are marrying her or his entire family so expectations are higher for both a wife and husband. The families expect their kids to be educated in a productive, meaningful and money making field and they expect the same of son or daughter in law. If you plan to spend a lot of time in sports or in the arts or any hobby, then marrying a South or East Asian is not for you. They are about work and family primarily. “Muh creative expression” counts for nothing.
Most Americans can’t handle its only advisable for serious, hard working professional and family (beyond nuclear) oriented individuals.
“Sure doesn’t sound like the stereotypical submissive Asian woman”
Who created that stereotype and why? I think it has something to do with porn.
Read my comment above. You marry an Asian you marry her family and they all have expectations of you. Thats how traditional cultures work. If you can’t handle it don’t go there. But if you can handle it you will get a loyal spouse who will stick with you through thick and thin and her family will have your back too and your children will grow up in a large network of extended family connections. Sure the wife may nag, expect nagging from her family members as well, but the benefits often outweigh the costs. Its more a matter of will her family accept you and allow her to marry you than anything else. And for that to happen you have to be pretty serious and professional.
Luke, that article was troll bait click bait written by some Fat Forney guy who can’t get a date off the calendar. I’m a grown man in my 40s with degrees and a professional career. My colleagues who’ve married South or East Asian women and men are married to cultured, degreed, professional, family oriented people. Fat Forney made up some story about an Indian “chick” he dated in…. college. What’s he doing now? Single, alone, working at Walmart or trying to scam money off of the blogosphere. Youtube, Patreon, blogs, forums, websites, as pointed out above regarding Elam, are scam platforms for hustlers who don’t want to get a degree in something useful and work for a living. Losers like that, who are fat and unattractive to boot simply don’t get women of any background.
Frank K
There is a Chinese woman where I work. All she ever does is complain about her husband. Sure doesn’t sound like the stereotypical submissive Asian woman,
A few years back, a Taiwanese co-worker laughed out loud at the idea of the submissive Chinese wife who would bring tea and slippers at the end of the day. He was sure Japanese women did that. I refrained from telling him about the American I knew who imported a Japanese woman, only to wind up a few years and a couple of children later in an incredibly nasty divorce. Women are women, and importing an East Asian into the US isn’t the panacea a lot of Beta men believe. Ditto South Asian, or South American, or Eastern European, etc. The chromosomes are the same, the brain wiring is similar. In Bible terms? They are all Eve’s daughters. Something the tradcons cannot get their tiny brains around, by the way.
As for Kotter, that’s just another waste of time.
Forget chromosomes, it has to do with culture. Divorce is a taboo in South Asian culture. It brings a lot of shame on the divorcees who are rarely able to marry again, and then only to another divorcee, and even he/she will wonder why the other one did in his/her previous marriage to warrant a divorce, so even marrying another divorcee can be hard going. Culture does matter. The biggest deterrent in marrying an Asian (south or east) is their family. Getting accepted by their family is difficult, sometimes impossible. Especially with South Asians. As Americans we rarely want to deal with in-laws or even our own extended family. That’s why I say, its not for the faint at heart or the slacker.
W.B. Kotter
Forget chromosomes, it has to do with culture.
LOL! Sure, culture is more powerful than the structure of the brain. You bet. Kotter, you are a low-T individual, most likely a woman, but possibly an older man in andropause – over 60, maybe over 70.
As Americans we rarely want to deal with in-laws or even our own extended family.
In an earlier posting you claimed to be in a different country than the US. Could you please make up your mind which lie you want to tell, and stick to it?
Kotter
I’m a grown man in my 40s with degrees and a professional career.
Sure you are. Sure. Two meters tall and a former Marine, too, right?
“In an earlier posting you claimed to be in a different country than the US. ” I did? Where? And aren’t American citizens allowed to travel or live in other countries?
I find it hilarious that Americans, Canadians, Ozzies, Brits and Europeans are arguing what a “risk” it is to marry a South or East Asian, when one of the reasons Asian parents are against their adult kids marrying those of us in the west is precisely because of our high divorce rates and lack of family values.
Is anyone still reading this content-free unwelcomed-back Kotter troll?
Women need to be told, from the pulpit in unapologetic terms, that rendering the marriage debt to one’s spouse is not a grand concession, or an act of charity. it is an obligation under justice, and refusal without a damn good reason (severe illness, STD, ongoing adultery) is gravely sinful. It is a betrayal of the marriage vow as serious as adultery or abandonment. Simple enough. he should deliver this sermon the Sunday morning before his annual one week vacation, and at the end of the annual capital campaign.
A wife’s failure to have good and frequent sex with her husband is tantamount to marital abandonment. A wife’s repeated refusal to have sex with her husband is marital abandonment.