We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’
–Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique
Women are especially prone to falling into discontentment and disrupting the lives of everyone around them when they do. The Book of Proverbs warns repeatedly of this tendency:
- Proverbs 21-9 (ISV): It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than to share a house with a contentious woman.
- Proverbs 21-19 (KJV): It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
- Proverbs 25-24 (ISV): It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than in a house with a contentious woman.
- Proverbs 27-15 (NKJV): A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike;
- Proverbs 14:1 (NIV): The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.
Betty Friedan called this tendency of women toward discontentment “the problem that has no name” in her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique. The book is commonly credited with identifying the problem (the mysterious discontentment of women) and thereby kicking off second wave feminism.
This understanding isn’t limited to feminism or the Bible. This is something that aside from some strategic amnesia, everyone knows. We are constantly being reminded that women are prone to becoming discontent for mysterious reasons, and that husbands need to forever be on their guard against this. The other day Heidi at Lazy Mother Musings expertly dissected a warning for husbands a chaplain she knows posted on Facebook.
Wife: I’m not doing okay.
Translation: …She’s referring to the condition of her heart. If she says this, stop what you’re doing and clear space for a deep conversation. She might need counseling. Don’t ignore or dismiss this!
…
Husbands, these are not polite recommendations from overly-sensitive wives. Our wives are generally more emotionally intelligent than we are and can read the temperature of the marriage better than we can. If they say it’s time to see a counselor, do it without questioning.
Over the years, I’ve learned these lessons the hard way. [My wife] knows that I’ll go see a counselor if she suggests it (and we do see our counselor-pastor about once a month). Our marriage is stronger than ever, by God’s grace. At the same time, I watch countless marriages fail because husbands didn’t heed their wives until it was too late (or wives simply didn’t say anything until it was too late).
According to the chaplain, women’s tendency to become discontented and destroy their homes is proof that women are superior to men, especially when it comes to marriage and commitment. Women being prone to becoming unhappy honoring their marriage vows means that they are more “emotionally intelligent” than men. This is a common belief, along with the belief that husbands can stave off this discontentment by giving their money to marriage counselors and doing as they are told.
Like Heidi’s chaplain friend, Dr. David Clarke at Focus on the Family (FotF) explains that women being discontented in marriage and men being happy is a sign that God made women better at marriage than men. According to Clarke a wife’s discontentment isn’t something she needs to overcome, it is a virtue, and proof that she is better at marriage than her clueless husband:
Well, these little stories we heard just a few minutes ago from these ladies, I have heard a million times at my seminars, in my therapy office, oh, just one after the other, good solid Christian women… There’s no real intimacy. I’m dying inside. And the key is, they’re not letting the husband know that. The guy has no clue. He’s perfectly happy. So, when that woman hits the wall and leaves him, he is the most stunned guy on earth.
Clarke explains that God has a master plan, and God’s plan involves the wife becoming unhappy so she can threaten to destroy the family as a way to take control:
Now [God]’s got a master plan, because if we work together and let the woman actually teach us, ’cause she has many more skills interpersonally that we will … ever will have. She’s got a Ph.D. in emotional intimacy and spiritual intimacy very often. We have like a third-grade education.
But according to Clarke God’s plan often fails because modern women aren’t contentious enough:
You gotta get a man with a shovel to the head, metaphorically speaking, of course.
Pastor Doug Wilson discusses the same basic issue slightly differently in his book Reforming Marriage. Wilson explains that the way a man can tell if he is pleasing God is by his wife’s happiness (or lack thereof):
…the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife. Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
…
The collateral effect of obedience is the aroma of love. This aroma is out of reach for those who have a hypocritical desire to be known by others as a keeper of God’s law. Many can fake an attempt at keeping God’s standards in some external way. What we cannot fake is the resulting, distinctive aroma of pleasure to God…
When a husband seeks to glorify God in his home, he will be equipped to love his wife as he is commanded. And if he loves his wife as commanded, the aroma of his home will be pleasant indeed.
Another Pastor Wilson (Pastor Dave Wilson) teaches in FamilyLife’s Art of Marriage that if a wife isn’t sexually attracted to her husband, it is God speaking to the husband through his wife’s (non) burning bush:
Dave: Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;
This type of advice is everywhere, because it is the prevailing wisdom of our feminist era. But while the Bible does agree that women are prone to becoming discontented and destroying their homes, it doesn’t present this as a virtue, it presents it as a vice. Discontentment is not part of God’s plan for women to improve men, it is a temptation women need to overcome. The Bible also doesn’t place the onus on the husband (or men in general) to prevent the woman from becoming unhappy. Contrary to feminists and modern Christian thought, the onus for keeping Christian women from lapsing into discontentment and familial destruction is on women, not men.
Nevertheless, this idea that a husband’s job is to prevent his wife from becoming unhappy and blowing up the marriage is widespread. Even in the Men’s Sphere this is a common perspective. I’ve written about this topic before, but a recent post by fellow sphere blogger Adam Piggott made me want to revisit it. Adam shared that his wife had succumbed to discontentment and decided to move out and divorce. Consistent with Adam’s admirably self reliant character, he blames himself for allowing mama to become unhappy:
It’s very tempting and all too easy in moments like these to convince yourself that you are a victim. But the truth is that I failed to keep her. And the truth hurts. In the first 9 years of our relationship she was dependent on me more than I was on her. There were a few reasons for that but primarily it was down to the fact that she was in my worlds; Italy and then Australia.
But the move to Holland last year reversed that position. And our marriage wasn’t able to withstand it.
I hope it is clear that I don’t mean this as a criticism of Adam*. I have great respect for his self reliant attitude and the high standards he holds himself to. I also enjoy reading his blog. But in this case he is mistaken. If it were true that husbands are responsible not only for upholding their own vows, but also for making sure their wives always wanted to uphold their vows, then marriage vows would be a profoundly foolish thing. They are not foolish, but there is no denying that they would be foolish if you accept conventional wisdom, including the teaching of modern Christian leaders like Heidi’s chaplain friend, FotF, FamilyLife, and Pastors Dave and Doug Wilson. If a man doesn’t believe in biblical marriage, then not only does marriage have no moral meaning, but the very idea of marriage is downright absurd.
Ironically Adam uses a phrase that echoes how we used to understand the issue in the past. He says “the truth is that I failed to keep her”. In the past we (especially women) would say she can’t keep a man of a woman who wasn’t able to marry and stay married. This was a brilliant term, because while on the surface it was technically misstating the issue, it accurately captured the fundamental problem as well as pointed to the solution. Discontentment tends to come from a lack of thankfulness, and this is true in men and women. But this is true in a specific way for women when it comes to feelings of sexual attraction and romantic love. Women who fear they are going to lose the best man they can get tend to automatically become attracted to him. As Heartiste puts it, female tingles are born in a defensive crouch. Even if the woman the phrase was used to describe wasn’t able to straighten out her own course, other women on the road to discontentment would hear the term and see the larger truth that such women aren’t typically trading up, and especially in the long run tend to fare very badly compared to what they foolishly discarded. This fear of losing what she had both helped her be generally thankful for the good man she was tempted to discard, as well as tended to cause her to feel greater sexual attraction to him.
Telling a woman she can’t keep a man simultaneously acknowledges that something is broken in her and helps her work on fixing that problem! Telling her it is her husband’s fault if she is unhappy reinforces the problem and blocks the solution. Yet since we made the mistake of following Friedan’s lead and assuming women’s sins are men’s fault, we have reworked the old phrase to the version Adam used. Even worse, pastors like Dave and Doug Wilson have come along and declared that a wife’s discontentment is God’s sign that He is unhappy with her husband! This is evil, and cruel to men, women, and children.
H/T Anonymous Reader
*I should also note that he offers excellent insight in his two followup posts here and here.
Yes…and what the Bible does say God’s plan for women to improve men is living a life of virtue. 1 Peter 3:1-2
Churchians sorely lack making these points or if a man even hints that women should be more virtuous he will get a lot of flack from women.
Pingback: Whose job is it to keep mama happy? | @the_arv
I believe Dalrock to be among the most observant and insightful people writing about the gender wars. But I believe this sentence is deeply wrong. I’ve scribbled out this comment, semi-coherent – but I think most here understand the issues.
“If it were true that husbands are responsible not only for upholding their own vows, but also for making sure their wives always wanted to uphold their vows, then marriage vows would be a profoundly foolish thing. They are not foolish, but there is no denying that they would be foolish if you accept conventional wisdom, …”
By conventional wisdom I would substitute “the way things are.” Directly fighting the world is a losing battle. We have to recognize the possibility that marriage vows *are* foolish in 2018 America.
We ask young men to evaluate a potential bride not just as she is today, but predicting what she will be like in 10 years — with the children in school, the husband making good money, and her desire for independence in full bloom. It’s asking too much of men who have too little experience of the world – and (as we have raised them) no training whatsoever to make such predictions.
The odds of his wife blowing up the marriage – taking his children and money – are aprox 30% – 40%. He has few defenses. Using “Game” for Life is like climbing Mt Everest – possible for a few, a dream for most. Going to a most marriage counselors is like hiring the D.A. for your defense attorney. Going to the family courts is like a pioneer explorer forced to “run the gauntlet” of hostile natives.
I’ve written about “solutions” in terms of collective action changing the rules of marriage. But that takes time, at best. I think we all need to question if the vows are rational today in our society (as some men have already decided).
I don’t know if gender is a socially determined construct (that’s over my pay grade). But marriage certainly is.
I don’t understand the idolization of feelings. God speaks through his word, not the flaky emotions of women. The canon of scripture is closed.
Making your happiness depend on the actions of others is a bad idea, and possibly idolizing that person. Your own personal happiness is your responsibility, that you have control over. It also comes from peace with god. (Your happiness can become an idol- especially when it stems from external events and experiences).
Let’s face it. In the west, women aren’t happy, and it is all their fault. Their blame of men for every problem is projection. And because women tend to prove the group think theory en masse, we have a societal projection against men.
When my first wife told me she wanted a divorce, I called her attention to the vows she made and the long and serious conversations we had leading up to those vows. Her response: “I changed my mind.”
As fascinating as I find your writing, Dalrock, it is immensely painful to read you. This is stuff I knew all along somewhere before the brainwashing kicked in, and rediscovering what I was lied to about that led me to my current state of misery, well, it’s pretty tough to swallow.
If the symptoms you suffer are mainly the side effects of the treatment you are being given, you are in a lot of trouble. First, the odds that the dose will be increased up are extremely high. Second, the worse your suffering becomes, the harder it is for your Doctor to admit that they are at fault.
By conventional wisdom I would substitute “the way things are.” Directly fighting the world is a losing battle. We have to recognize the possibility that marriage vows *are* foolish in 2018 America.
Once you spend a significant amount of time around the manosphere, you will find that probably about 1/2 of them men who write/comment have already concluded this. And from a transactional/rational perspective, it is impossible to argue against, for many more reasons than this one matter.
The divide occurs along several fault lines within the core. “Civlizationalist” vs “Enjoy the decline” or “MGTOW” vs “married game,” and several others.
What Dalrock, as a devoted Christian is writing about is the difference between marriage as it would appear in its ideal state (that Orthodox Christians like myself would call one that has canonical form and the participants were properly catechized) and marriage as is presented and understood by roughly 99.99999% of people.
In that regard, you may consider that Dalrocks is the most profound and highest version of hope you will find, because his hope is that God will–eventually –sort all this out. This despite the fact marriage is in a totally unsustainable state right now. And despite the fact the second and third order effects of that destruction have not even been felt yet. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.
I’ve been reading along since about 2011 (and humbly trying to contribute). What I have found is the common thread shared among these parts is a realism about the situation on the ground, with deeply contended opinions about paths forward depending on each individuals life circumstances and rubric for predicting what lies ahead.
Whatever happened to the Christian concept of “carrying one’s cross”?
It was once assumed that life was a vale of tears. We were in a fallen state. Unhappiness and disappointment was normal. Moments of happiness were rare and precious gifts, an imperfect glimpse of heaven. Only upon arrival in heaven could one expect complete and uninterrupted joy.
But today, people (especially females) expect an amazingly awesome life, 24/7, to be their entitlement. And if they don’t have it, someone is to blame and must be punished.
@LK
I think we aren’t as far apart here as you believe. If a man is responsible for both sets of vows, for his and his wife’s, then we are talking about something other than marriage from the Bible. In that case, having rejected God’s morality, the morality we substituted, that we made with our own hands, is a fiction. There is no moral reason to “marry” if you are using the term as commonly used, because as commonly used marriage has no moral force. It is merely foolish playacting with serious legal liability.
If you reject God and his sexual morality, it makes no sense to marry. One level deeper, if Game is the glue that will hold her to you, marrying is doubly foolish because it only impedes Game.
Things like marrying in the church and regular weekly attendance, keeping contraceptives out of the marriage, and praying together daily have shown significantly lower divorce rates. Not 0% but as low as around 1%,
Long story short…the more God (the actual true God, not her feelings) is in the marriage the lower the divorce risk.
Welcome to the cult of my feelz and not reality.
Somehow I think once the concept of sin, original sin, and man’s fallen state was swept under the rug is how this present mindset really took off.
“If you reject God and his sexual morality, it makes no sense to marry.”
When you think about it, this is what the seculars are telling us. Few actually expect their marriages to succeed, but go through with it because, as you mentioned, it’s become little more than play acting. The women still want their princess day, but upon close (or not even so close) examination it’s apparent that it has little to do with marriage. As for the guys, I can’t fathom what they expect to get out of it, other than a nasty divorce, child support payments, alimony and having another dude “raise” his kids.
And many more simply plan not to marry at all. Most of my adult son’s childhood friends are bachelors and appear to remain that way, bouncing from girlfriend to girlfriend, who seem eager enough to sexually service them. It probably doesn’t help that many, if not most of them, come from middle to upper middle class broken homes and no doubt remember just how awful it was when mom threw dad out of the house and started bringing boyfriends home.
Once God and sexual morality was taken out of the equation in different wasy both men and women have come to the conclusion that marriage is a facade.
@Chase
I’ve been there. It’s accepting things as they are, not trying to force things to be as they “should be.”
The toughest concept to come to terms with? Women sitting in church pews, singing songs and raising their hands to the sky are bedhopping and frivorcing/divorce raping just like the ones who don’t bother to attend church.
This joke of a lie seems the same as Marriage 2.0. Narcissistic grown children wrecking lives on whimsy alone. Keep reading, toughen up, place your faith in God instead of any human being. It’ll get better
Pingback: Whose job is it to keep mama happy? | Reaction Times
DrPinWV,
My wife didn’t give a hoot about her vows when she filed for divorce and then firmly committed herself to not draw back after bad advice from the pastor’s wife and long conversations with her mother and sister a few days later, less than 2 weeks after filing.
Vows to most women today are things that can be freely changed on their end. They are highly unlikely to accept the same from men, but their double standard doesn’t bother them in the slightest, even those who may really be Christians.
I blame the Church significantly for this now. Churches no longer stand against this, only holding men accountable. They are actively undermining marriages with all their marriage advice.
JRob,
And the men who come to church are mostly seeking to do the right thing. Sure, some are PUAs or such, but they are not the faithful ones. Yet preachers target the men who do come as the ultimate slimes (or potential slimes just on the edge of going that way), completely ignoring female behavior.
It disgusts me, but then I am having to live through it now.
Cunts are gonna cunt.
Cucks are gonna cuck. They’re worthless pussies and should have been cast out long ago. But…
…when a society that worships silly little creatures (women) instead of God it will die.
As a boy, I noticed it was impossible to make mama happy. No point in trying.
(Non) burning bush. Heh. Very Heartisian.
Larry Kummer, Editor says:
November 2, 2018 at 3:20 pm
” We ask young men to evaluate a potential bride not just as she is today, but predicting what she will be like in 10 years — with the children in school, the husband making good money, and her desire for independence in full bloom. It’s asking too much of men who have too little experience of the world – and (as we have raised them) no training whatsoever to make such predictions.
The odds of his wife blowing up the marriage – taking his children and money – are aprox 30% – 40%. He has few defenses. Using “Game” for Life is like climbing Mt Everest – possible for a few, a dream for most. ”
To add something to the discussion, I’d rather add, Larry, that game is more like a Sisyphus drudgery. It reminds me that women’s happiness is like the Danaïds’ barrel. Impossible to fill and to stay filled…
It is men’s fault. God warned you to never have relations with a divorced woman (unless she was the victim of adultery). Any man who complains about the behavior of women while giving them a free pass will find why God gave that commandment. Women are less likely to divorce if they know the game is over for them.
Knowing what women are all about is what Peter is talking about in 1 Peter 3:7 “dwell with them according to knowledge.”
He means don’t discard as radical the knowledge directly from God in Genesis 3:16, that she is the agent of Satan and he is the agent of God.
OT breaking news: https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11
You think she’ll face any consequences? Me neither.
“Impossible to fill and to stay filled…”
Sounds like penis envy.
“The leech has two daughters, “Give,” “Give.”
Proverbs 30:15
Scott,
“Once you spend a significant amount of time around the manosphere, you will find that probably about 1/2 of them men who write/comment have already concluded this.”
(a) You omitted from your quote from my comment this, which makes that *exact* point: “as some men have already decided.” Nice.
(b) I’ve been writing about the gender wars for 13 years, with over 300 points documenting it.Here are links to 190 of my posts, discussing 15 different aspects (most of my early posts are dated, and so omitted from this index). So I’m familiar with the “the manosphere”, having watched it grow from seeds to a seedling..
https://fabiusmaximus.com/women/
@Larry Kummer: “The odds of his wife blowing up the marriage – taking his children and money – are aprox 30% – 40%.”
These figures can give the wrong impression. Statistics do indeed tell us that about 50% of marriages will fail…but that’s ALL marriages. Includes couples that rush into marriage because she’s pregnant, teenagers getting married, second, third, fourth marriages, etc. This skews the results.
In point of fact, if you meet the following requirements your marriage has a 90% chance of succeeding as a lifetime marriage: A) Both parties are white, B) Both have a college degree, C) The bride has reached her 25th b-day at the time of the wedding, D) Their first child is conceived in wedlock, E) First marriage for both.
If you meet those requirements, you should have every expectation of having a lfetime marriage, as only ten percent of such marriages will fail. And I get the feeling that a lot of people are unaware of these stats.
I don’t know … I seem to constantly meet educated white guys who had the divorce bomb dropped on them by their white career wives and seem to constantly meet UMC couples in their second (or worse) marriage. I’m sure that for the demographic mentioned above that the odds are better than average they will succeed, but I have my doubts about a 90% success rate. And even if that good, would anyone here fly on a airplane that has at 10% chance of crashing?
“Vows to most women today are things that can be freely changed on their end.”
My observation is that in most weddings genuine vows, as in promises of fidelity and permanence, are not exchanged. Instead, sentimental expressions are exchanged, but not one single promise. Perhaps only in churches with strict wedding liturgies or rites will one hear promises to “forsake all others” and “until death do we part”, otherwise it’s really just the bride’s princess day.
The ones I despise the most are the “destination weddings”, where you are expected to fly somewhere distant (say Fiji or the Seychelles) which will require great expense on your behalf, not to mention burning precious vacation days, so you can attend some narcissist’s princess day.
@Frank: “And even if that good, would anyone here fly on a airplane that has at 10% chance of crashing?”
That’s up to the judgment of the individual. But folks should know the facts. And that if they meet the requirements I mentioned, their odds of marriage failure are 10% (and NOT 50%). And that’s a big difference.
That David Clarke piece you linked to is a doozy. I suspect that most churchgoing men are so ODed on the blue pill that they probably won’t even notice that he contradicts himself every time he’s in danger of assigning any responsibility for marital communication to the wife. He starts out by asserting that women won’t speak up when something in a relationship is going wrong:
Is the wife’s failure to talk to her husband about her problems an error on her part? Nope, it’s actually just proof of how good she is at the art of communication:
Women are such naturally brilliant communicators that men need to learn multiple new languages and syntaxes just to understand the things their wives never even attempted to say to them in the first place.
Typo alert / correction. Proverbs 14:1 not 13:1
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+14&version=KJV
Memorization verse of the week for every married woman..
[D: Good catch. Thanks!]
sipcode,
That is quite ignorant. The key is to not claim men are holy and women scum, but to teach the things that both face, where they commonly fall and how to prevent or restore after such falls.
Claiming men are perfect angels would be no better. Men have been very evil and will be so until He returns and transforms the Earth.
“Jeff Strand”
If you meet those requirements, you should have every expectation of having a lfetime marriage, as only ten percent of such marriages will fail
Cool story. I love reruns from the 1970’s. Got any newer ones?
Frank,
Jeff did it right and almost anyone who follows his ways would do it right too! Get with the program.
He of course fails to realize that it is far more than a 10% risk. I am living proof (unfortunately) of that. How many intact long term marriages are around of late boomer/early buster age these days? I will be quite a few less than past generations, which will ultimately skew the results when the older ones do die off.
“She has a PhD in emotional insight, foresight, hindsight, and deep understanding of everything that matters regarding serious relationships”
… and she routinely chooses partners for to spread her legs with that are the very least likely to committ to her for any longer than the duration of a sweaty bang in the bath stall of a dive bar.
Yeah… Behold their superior spiritual wisdom.
Just make sure, that if you go in, you go in with a raincoat on the whole time and keep her in the dark regarding yur real name.
I think the most fundamental problem is that many of our pastors and bible teachers are not Christians. It’s like the Pharisees trying to teach people the way to God. Christ called them “blind leaders of the blind”.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
(Matthew 15:14 King James Version (KJV))
Yawn…. Jeff can keep her happy.
Just as long as she has been to college and been around the block a few times and is out of her prime fertility years…
OT: Statistics on False Rape Allegations:
http://freetheanimal.com/2018/10/center-for-violence-against-women-62-of-rape-allegations-are-bullshit.html
Article was removed from internet in August, then restored. Hmmmm …..
Here’s another rerun from the 70s I noticed ‘Jeff Strand’ didn’t mention.
Back in the 70s your chances of finding a bride who didn’t partake in ‘Jeff Strand’, the great alpha amongst loser men, before marriage was certainly much higher.
You could point to this issue as 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c as to why marriage is almost dead.
Reading through the entire Bible yearly is a good practice. Many of these “teachers” would benefit from it because they would be exposed to the whole counsel of God instead of the little echo chambers they inhabit where they endlessly recycle some out-of-context passage to prove discontentment is always the man’s fault.
Case in point: they would be unable to avoid passages like Numbers chapter 5, particularly the very last verse (31):
The husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter, but his wife will be held accountable for her sin.
Some of this is the disconnect between the pure secular side of the manosphere and the Christian side. On the Christian side, you can point to the Bible and demand women be accoutable. Some of the secular, red-pill game types think women don’t have agency. Under that premise, it would be technically Adam’s fault for failing to keep his wife. I don’t agree with that thoughtline, but people with those underlying beliefs would.
I will point out that Dalrock’s line, “non-burning bush” might be my all-time laugher from this site. Thanks for the memories, that one is hilarious.
I also completely agree with Dalrock in his remark in the comments that, I don’t understand why secular men get married either. I really don’t get it at all, but it happens.
I think the most fundamental problem is that many of our pastors and bible teachers are not Christians.
The obviousness of this is becoming more and more unavoidable, to the point where it might as well be openly admitted in order to avoid insulting everyone’s collective intelligence. The only thing preventing this to date is the depth of delusion into which the majority has allowed itself to be lulled, but even this is rapidly evaporating.
Numbers 5 is an interesting passage…since it states the wife is under authority of her husband…and defiles herself by having sex with another man.
Has nothing to do with whether her husband makes her feel the right feeling…it’s about rebelling against his God given authority.
Reading through the entire Bible yearly is a good practice. Many of these “teachers” would benefit from it because they would be exposed to the whole counsel of God instead of the little echo chambers they inhabit where they endlessly recycle some out-of-context passage to prove discontentment is always the man’s fault.
…one would think. However, I have close relatives “in the ministry”, who frequently make it point to mention how they’ve regularly read through the Bible for decades (and so can you, etc.), but they’re as blue-pill as ever. No, this is a spiritual blindness resulting from the desire of these men to gain the favor of females. It’s selfishness. They believe what they want to, regardless of whether or not it jibes with the Word. And the women, in their selfishness, take advantage of what is promoted by these would-be pulpit AMOGs/white knights.
Now, though it’s not bullet-proof, I would still agree that a regular read-through-the-Bible is a good thing.
I don’t understand how marriage counselors and their ilk stay in business. Yes, their advice is meant to fail so people keep coming back, but after so many failures at this point, one would expect that no one would take them seriously anymore. Especially given how they themselves have helped create a culture in which people are more likely to not get married to begin with. The whole business is a snake eating its own tail, but somehow this drivel keeps selling.
The biggest problem Jeff has is convincing men to pay 100% and take on his daughters once they’ve had their tonsils poked by other men at college and high school that paid absolutely nothing but got their best.
C) The bride has reached her 25th b-day at the time of the wedding.
This is an important point. My ex was 23 (a month or so shy of 24) when we married. Ivy degree, white, never married before, no kids outside wedlock, but 23. Too young. These days, that one thing can mess things up royally, really.
That ‘voice within’ is exactly the voice that led Eve out of the garden.
If you let women lead, they will lead you out of the Garden every time.
Here’s another rerun from the 70s I noticed ‘Jeff Strand’ didn’t mention.
Interesting thing about that table is that the high end partner numbers have jumped. Even if you compare it to the 1990s, the number of married women with 10+ premarital partners has almost doubled, and the total in the three highest number categories has gone from 37% to 50%. Lots of Xers and even younger boomers married in the 90s and really don’t get what’s happening now, and how much things have changed even in the past 20 years. Promiscuity is going through the roof.
This is why I am skeptical about the 10% claim. I am simply amazed at the number of middle and upper class couples who divorced and remarried that I encounter, and that includes boomers.
And now factor in the fact that for the younger generations that the wifey has an N count not only greater than zero, but much greater than zero, meaning that she’s an alpha widow. Stats have been posted on this site which show that even a “lowish” N count correlates with a much higher divorce rate.
Much better to marry an older women who rode the carousel and hard, I suppose. After all, she’ll be “experienced” and will be eager and know how to please you.
I think that many get away with billing their hours as “therapy” (most likely for wifey), which many insurance plans will pay for.
Not having kids outside of wedlock is certainly an important point…
Not having sex outside of wedlock IS the point.
Unless she is God fearing and submits to lawful authority I think a woman’s natural position is to rebel against her husband…fornication and adultery is pouring gas on that.
Yeah I really don’t think the ’23’ was the reason she divorced you.
This idea that you should marry a college educated woman past her peak fertile years is crazy. Not only does it go against all of the accumulated wisdom of the manosphere, it’s unbiblical (“Cling to the bride of your youth.”)
“Hey guys, you don’t want a 19 year old virgin. You want a post-wall career girl slut, who majored in getting trains run on her at frat parties, and fried her oxytocin system a decade ago. Find a woman who really sowed her wild oats. The key to a happy marriage is finding a woman with a notch count that only prostitutes would approach prior to the sexual revolution.”
Betty Friedan– Lying old fraud. Long-time revolutionista, briefly tried suburbia, then made a career out of complaining about it– and ruining ordinary lives for men, women, and children– for the next 40 years.
This idea that you should marry a college educated woman past her peak fertile years is crazy.
Women want to be judged by the same criteria as men.
A man who is well educated, accomplished in a respected career, and a high earner, is regarded as desirable husband material, even if he’s 35 years old.
Women think those same criteria should apply to them. A 35-year-old, college educated, career gal should be more desirable than an 18-year-old virgin who only knows how to cook and clean.
I was reading Micah today, and came across this:
Micah 3:11-12 (Good News Translation)
The city’s rulers govern for bribes, the priests interpret the Law for pay, the prophets give their revelations for money — and they all claim that the Lord is with them. “No harm will come to us,” they say. “The Lord is with us.”
And so, because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a pile of ruins, and the Temple hill will become a forest.
Sounds like today’s religious leaders.
Well it doesn’t…mainly because women aren’t men.
Not only that. She is older and wiser and knows that divorcing is a one way street to messing up her life. Her older and wiser self realising that it’s merely better to cheat on you and force you into the ‘cheaper to keep her’ camp.
Yay! Winning!
Women want to be judged by the same criteria as men.
It’s projection on their part. They think their career and education are actually things which men looking for wives assess on the same level as a woman’s youth and beauty. Because these are things they value very highly in husbands. You see women express this view in forums, and they often honestly seem a bit confused when their error is pointed out to them.
I wonder if “nice guys” are a similar issue? Men who think being sweet and amiable will make them attractive to women, because this is something men regard as desirable in women.
Frank K says:
November 2, 2018 at 11:55 pm
“Vows to most women today are things that can be freely changed on their end.”
My observation is that in most weddings genuine vows, as in promises of fidelity and permanence, are not exchanged. Instead, sentimental expressions are exchanged, but not one single promise. Perhaps only in churches with strict wedding liturgies or rites will one hear promises to “forsake all others” and “until death do we part”, otherwise it’s really just the bride’s princess day.
The ones I despise the most are the “destination weddings”, where you are expected to fly somewhere distant (say Fiji or the Seychelles) which will require great expense on your behalf, not to mention burning precious vacation days, so you can attend some narcissist’s princess day.
***********************************************
Our vows were very traditional. And like I mentioned before, she purposfully kept in the “Obey part of “to love, honor and obey. She wanted all the music for the wedding picked out of a hymal (except the traditinal wedding march and one that a friend wrote and sang).
Geez we aren’t fond of those destination weddings as well. People don’t get married in Churches anymore. They have to have some kind of production in a foriegn country. We’re like “why can’t they just get married here at Church”. We know why. It’s because Church is not important to them. We’re invited to a destination wedding. We’re not going. They are already living together anyway and bought a house together anyway, so whats the big deal.
We hate these new production engagments too. Where the guy has to jump through all these hoops and make the HUGE deal out of proposing. All I did was go to a fancy restuarant, spill wine all over us, move to another table, eat a steak and then pull the ring out of the toilet paper is was resting in.
Reminds me of this:
What timing. My wife is at the store and texted me that she loves me. Aww…
That’s quite possible especially if a guy was raised by a single mother or gets all his advice on how to attract women….from women.
Just like the DODOs out there who think turning their daughters into de facto authoritative sons will somehow make them attract a higher vale male. In both cases it generally repels members of the complimentary sex.
And am I the only one who cringes at the guy kneeling to the girl when proposing? Kneeling should be reserved to those you are under authority of.
Not to mention there is a crowd of friends present, and EVERYONE knows he’s going to propose, including the girl. I guess having one princess day (the wedding), isn’t good enough anymore, she now needs two. I wonder what they will come up with next? I’ve heard that some women are throwing big bashes to celebrate their divorces.
I think the implication is that he isn’t worthy of her (as in she is out of his league), when in reality she is the one dying to have a wedding, where he will only be a prop,
When it comes to kneeling…the only person I can think I’ve ever knelt for was Christ present in the Eucharist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuflection
In any case it’s the signal he’s doing is to a superior.
Like I said, she is supposed to be out of his league, and is doing him a favor by saying ‘yes’
I also find it absurd when he proposes after an extended period of cohabitation. That used to be called a “common law marriage”, which a handful of states still have on the books.
I did not kneel before my wife, I never have.
I’m wondering if guys do it just because (almost) every other guy has…or if they really know what they are communicating.
Given I know what it communicates I wouldn’t kneel either.
Destination weddings seem to be a thing. Not one, but two films were recently released with the title Destination Wedding.
One is a 2017 Hallmark film:
The other is a 2018 film starring Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves:
People don’t get married in Churches anymore. They have to have some kind of production in a foriegn country. We’re like “why can’t they just get married here at Church”. We know why. It’s because Church is not important to them.
OTOH, some women want “a traditional church wedding,” though they haven’t been inside a church since they were children (if ever). And they won’t return to church once the wedding is over.
Two bitter people who are alone, backbite, insult, and roll eyes at each other…somehow fall in love.
Fairy tales just ain’t like they used to be.
Two bitter people who are alone, backbite, insult, and roll eyes at each other…somehow fall in love.
That sounds like this review, entitled If Woody Allen Made a Romcom, While in a Bad Mood: http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2018/destination.html
Great post! This one is for bookmarking.
CSI
Men who think being sweet and amiable will make them attractive to women, because this is something men regard as desirable in women.
Mirror image of yougogirl careerism.
Makes sense, since that is part of the standard Blue Pill / no-glasses view. “Just be yourself”.
Projection is pretty common in humans, perhaps it is being aggravated by the fact that so many grew up as only children, live alone as adults, etc. so there’s little opportunity to learn “up close and personal” that no, everyone else is not just another version of “you”.
Earl
And am I the only one who cringes at the guy kneeling to the girl when proposing? Kneeling should be reserved to those you are under authority of.
Remember all that Dalrockian text about the Cult of Courtly Love? Remember who has authority over the knight, right down to the least whim? Remember that stuff? Well, there you go.
“Mah Lady Fair!” in short. Massively bad plan, of course.
My guess: this kneel-to-propose is something from the Victorian upper class that’s still lingering in our civilization. Rather like chickenpox lingers to cause shingles, or a herpes virus…
Remember that the next time a gal leads with ‘sarcasm’ as one of her personality traits.
When did ‘queen’ become…’any peasant woman’?
Kneeling should be reserved to those you are under authority of.
Well, that would explain everything, then.
Mychael and I were out on a date and I was putting her in the truck. Right before I closed the door I pulled the ring out and said “I saw you looking at this one the other day” and closed the door.
When I got in on the other side she jumped across the middle seat and attacked me.
Earl, can you point to the source for that chart you posted up thread?
It is remarkable.
@ Scott
Did you fight back?
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
I’d still like to meet these people who somehow think it is normal that you can have lots o’ sex before marriage and still have marital stability. Because they keep calling it ‘counterintuitive’ that fewer sexual partners outside of marriage increases marital stability.
@ddswaterloo said: That ‘voice within’ is exactly the voice that led Eve out of the garden. If you let women lead, they will lead you out of the Garden every time.
It hasn’t escaped many of us that the admonition in the Bible is repeatedly for Israelite men to not take foreign wives – not vice-versa. In fact, I am not aware of a single incidence of even reciprocal advice in the old testament (women admonished not to take foreign husbands). Solomon is held up as the prime example of what happens when a man takes foreign wives and his heart goes astray. Ezra and Nehemiah are also rife with examples, and it is always men that are warned in Proverbs to avoid the wayward woman – not vice-versa.
Something to ponder. Flies in the face of women being more inherently noble and spiritual, while fitting quite consistently with what Adam experienced – thinking with his genitals and capitulating to his wife instead of remaining true to his God. I submit that this is the primary sin that besets most men (listening to and capitulating to their wives) – NOT pornography as conventional churchian wisdom seems to insist. And the primary sin that besets most women is that of complaining and usurping – not this insufferable nonsense about “low self esteem.”
I have attended two weddings in the United States, neither were outdoors (or civil) or accompanied by Mexican-style trumpet playing – have things changed that much since I was Stateside?
“We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’”
For some reason this reminds me of Aesop’s Fable of the greedy dog with a bone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_and_Its_Reflection
An important point to highlight is that ‘foreign’ in Solomon’s case was women who didn’t worship the true God and rather worshipped the false gods. It may or may not have meant they were from different tracks of land. Long story short…it’s just as possible they were Jewish women who decided Baal was an alright god.
Now think about that when you see which entity a lot of Christian women worship.
We should have ignored it…
I’d still like to meet these people who somehow think it is normal that you can have lots o’ sex before marriage and still have marital stability. Because they keep calling it ‘counterintuitive’ that fewer sexual partners outside of marriage increases marital stability.
It’s the “how can you buy a decent car without test driving a bunch of cars and comparing them?!?!?!” mindset which makes it counterintuitive to them. The thought process is that anyone who picks something without much experience/comparison is going to have serious buyer’s remorse — because they look at relationships transactionally like they were buying a car or a house (even though they wouldn’t admit that to your face).
The engagement cringe. Damn!
We were sitting on the couch watching tv and I said “Do you want a June wedding or July?”
She said “The fall.”
That was that.
Technically I never asked her, I just said what we both knew and she agreed.
Then we went together over a month later to pick our matching rings.
Of course that was 1986 when people were still rational.
Still together 30 years later.
(The year from hell helped a few years ago when I said there is the door and we both looked into the Abyss and stepped back to appreciate what we have.)
Also how does one do a production wedding in a strange church?
It is a day to honour your family and your god.
Shouldn’t the officiating clergy be part of your family?
We had known her Reverend for years, I had escorted her to services for ages.
It was like stating our pledges before an honoured, favorite uncle.
When the person accepting your vows, the conduit of them to god, is a stranger, what does that say about your vows and your beginning as a bound couple?
Consider the “current year” convention of describing oneself as “single” only when not in a “relationship”. It demonstrates that marriage is now perceived by the popular culture as fundamentally being no different from dating, or as you put it “a facade”. Young men are getting this. When I listen to my adult son’s friends talk, it’s obvious that they are VERY red pill.
Interesting too, a month later just the two of us went to my Temple and made our vows again there to honour my beliefs. (I am a 6-1, Caucasian Toaist). Before a priest she knew and called friend.
Both times knew we were pledging to God directly, just the settings were different.
It’s the “how can you buy a decent car without test driving a bunch of cars and comparing them?!?!?!” mindset which makes it counterintuitive to them. The thought process is that anyone who picks something without much experience/comparison is going to have serious buyer’s remorse — because they look at relationships transactionally like they were buying a car or a house (even though they wouldn’t admit that to your face).
(Most) women understand that you can’t return a child. Once you have the baby, you can’t whine about buyer’s remorse and dump the baby. (At least, most women don’t dump an already born baby.)
Women should be made the understand that it’s the same with marriage. Once you say “I do” you’ve taken the husband “as is.” You can no more return him than you can return a baby. For better or worse.
Pingback: The strange and dangerous cult of happiness. – Adam Piggott
LOL @ Jeff Strand’s 90% successful marriage stat. Jeff, that was just your opening gambit in steering the thread to yourself and your own alpha-success. I haven’t even read the rest of the comments yet. But that’s my bet.
I can’t even agree with Larry’s 30-40% stat. It’s much higher. Black Dragon Blog broke it down. It’s a tricky stat to pin down because each new marriage is racked up to the successful marriage stat. Well, give them 8 months. There are also still successful marriages from the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s pumping up the ‘success’ rate. Those are completely different eras, different people.
Get married to an American female in 2018 and your chance of divorce is about 80% and growing.
All hail the guy who stays successfully married in our current day. That usually just means that he’s outpaced his wife in SMV and has her by a full 4 SMV points. Big win there. Make your 250k working 70 hours a week in a competitive, exhausting field and that 200 pounder won’t file. Congratulations!!!
“We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.”
“Okay, we won’t ignore it.”
Signed,
Mgtow
So they teach that if a man sins in his marriage/against his wife, he is responsible for this and should repent. Ok, I’m with them!
Then they teach that if a wife sins in her marriage/against her husband, he is responsible for this and should repent. I’m not really with them any more…
Well said!
The reason we can’t turn sex into economics is because the possibilty of procreation is involved. That’s why it’s a great responsibility and should only be reserved in marriage…perhaps then marriage will be seen for what it is…a great responsibility. Not a day for a woman to be a princess only to discard the dress after she tires of it.
@Opus
– have things changed that much since I was Stateside?
https://www.rusticbride.com/category/ohio/ohio-venues/
Rustic barns are all the rage in flyover country. They’ll book these places, usually the ceremony takes place outdoors on the grounds, for $4-9k. No self-respecting pwincess would be caught dead near an icky old church.
http://www.jlhweddingbarn.com/
Typical example.
Yes we should have ignored it. Why was allowed to spread in the first place?
Women need to learn the value of self denial as much as men do…otherwise nothing but selfishness results.
Speaking of engagement stories…
I may have shared this before, so sorry for repetition if you have heard it all before…
My husband (then boyfriend), one day after Mass came into my kitchen as I cooked Sunday lunch (we lived 5 hours apart so Sunday lunch was my only option to ‘impress’ him with my feminine skills before he had to take the train home) and suddenly declared:
“You cook great, you seem like a nice girl, you might be a good mother one day. Let’s get married.”
Literally, just like that. No ring. No kneeling down. Not even Skittles.
I was just happy to hear ‘let’s get married’ after 2 years ‘hanging out’.
When I excitedly told my family and friends that he had proposed, they kept waiting to hear the ‘big romatic punchline’. When I ‘told it how it was’, they were absolutely horrified.
WHAT? NO RING?? NO RING???
LOL.
And now, years later, when they are upset with him because of his ZFG ways (which I understand keeps ME attracted to him but I don’t think THEY understand this simple quirk of female psychology), they say snarkily at ME: …”And he couldn’t even give you a nice engagement ring!” which always amuses me (I am not at all a fan of rings – I never wore rings in my life until I was married – the plain gold wedding ring is OK, but anything else, I really don’t like – but no-one believes me when I tell them this).
They think I am making excuses for my ‘neanderthal husband’.
He did buy both our WEDDING rings though. He saw it as his duty. I was happy with that arrangement.
He says, IF I turn out to be a good wife, then MAYBE after 50 years with him, I MIGHT get (finally!) a ring.
Talk about Dread Game…
Yes, I am a victim, no, survivor of the dreaded Dread Game…LOL.
In all seriousness, I think all the lavishness of weddings/engagements is overrated.
I know, it is nice for a woman to feel ‘special’ one day in her life, klar. But not to overdo it and overlook the symbolism of the ceremony. (Perhaps I am being a little hypocritical here, alas, because actually we did have a huge wedding, 600 guests, but that is only because I was due to leave my country to go live in another. it was a huge ‘goodbye’ to my nearest and dearest, not just a wedding ceremony for us).
All in all, I think my husband’s attitude is the correct one. Keep it simple, and make it meaningful.
But many people in my entourage don’t understand why I am ‘cool’ with his failure to indulge any ‘princess’ tendencies I may have.
Sigh. I will NEVER be able to explain…
I wish there were more women like you, Spacetraveller.
And the fact you went to Mass at least in theory means you are a God fearing woman.
Heck that’s all I’m looking for too.
I think these posts really hit home the fact that men in the West should not even consider marriage anymore, nor cohabitation, etc.
They should just rule it out entirely.
Aside from being risky legally, financially and emotionally for men, and aside from being high maintenance and high effort against mediocre to no return on investment, everything else outside of it is quite literally upside down.
And the the common response is “well, you just need to choose wisely that’s all”.
The levels of attitude and ingratitude necessary for western American female to harbor mentalities like this one are giant red flags:
What a horror show.
The education system hates you.
The workplace hates you.
The Church itself hates you most of all.
And women, in general, only like you on the surface to the extent that you can and will provide for her reality. Everything else from her is poorly veiled contempt.
Rollo Tomassi once previously stated in an interview (with respect to women loving men opportunistically) that women are indeed capable of a deep, genuine love and adoration.
I don’t necessarily disagree.
But given the prevailing attitudes I no longer believe this is or ever was common from women. Such deep genuine love is certainly not available to the 80% of men out there.
All these are just a symptom of who really hates you…that being the devil.
Many times it’s the white knights, the manginas, the male feminists, and any other man who wants to snuff out any hint of masculinity in their fellow men.
Think about it…if a male pastor is promoting vice in women as a virtue it’s ultimately going to harm men. Just like Satan did with Eve.
Great post C.L.
“Aside from being risky legally, financially…”
Legally and financially is enough for me to see that it is not an option at all. That’s where I call it off, like it or not, disappointed or not, my old Disney-hearted idea of love dead or not. None of that matters. There’s no way that I should have to undertake those risks just to be a normal family man.
But it’s absolutely the case which is an astounding situation.
Especially legal risk. Really? Legal risk? What am I doing here? Robbing a bank? Committing a crime is a legal risk, not being a married father. Oh, but it is. And that’s why I’m not doing it.
I could be crying myself to sleep every night in want of a wife (I’m not), but I still wouldn’t consider marriage in 2018 just due to the laws surrounding it. Learning about imputed income alone made me shut down my Disney dreams for all-time. Obesity, Duluth model, child support and on and on and on only reinforced it.
Never thought about it like that before…but yeah it seems like being a married father if she has the whims to pull the plug would put you into the same realm as a criminal.
Betty Friedan, along with Susan “Backlash” Faludi, Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daley and Jilly Cooper should be put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity.
Seriously: They collectively and indisputably own feminism. That hideous philosophy in turn has killed a total of 1.6 billion people, most of them innocent unborn, since 1973. That same philosophy has tortured children through psychotic single motherhood, enslaved men through alimony and created untold economic havoc throughout the world.
We have tried tin-pot Third World dictators for far less.
”Women need to learn the value of self denial as much as men do…otherwise nothing but selfishness results”. -earl
Got it in one, earl. Feminism is all about selfishness.
-Demanding more than house, family and not having to work
-Demanding unfettered promiscuity (Andrea Dworkin)
-Demanding unfettered abortion
-Demanding free childcare
-Demanding workplace CEO, political and STEM quotas
-Demanding lowered working hours
-Resentment of children
-Resentment of husband-sex
-Resentment of cooking / keeping home (Betty Friedan)
-Resentment of wrapping Christmas presents (Jessica Valenti)
Does this sound like someone you want to spend your life with? It sounds to me like someone I need to arm myself against.
For those like “Earl” and “John James” who ridiculed my statement about a 10% divorce rate, it just shows that you haven’t done your homework. Again, as I made clear, that exceedingly low divorce rate ONLY applies to those marriages that meet the requirements I laid out. All this means is that if you meet those requirements and choose to marry, the statistics indicate that there is a 90% chance you will have a lifelong marriage.
I spent a few minutes on Google, and although I didn’t immediately find the 10% stat I referenced, I found this very relevant data:
People who wait to marry or cohabitate until they are over the age of 23 are less likely to get divorced.[xvi]
If you’ve attended college, your risk of divorce decreases by 13 percent.
If you have a baby after getting married (at least 7 months after), your risk of divorce decreases by 24%.[xvii]
You’re less likely to divorce if your annual income is over $25,000.[xviii]
If your parents are happily married, your risk of divorce decreases by 14 percent.[xix]
Note that these are basically the factors that I laid out. And notice they are independent of each other – so if you meet ALL these requirements combined, then you are truly going to see a MASSIVE drop in divorce rate from the average. (This is all statistically speaking, of course).
And keep in mind, the appropriate “average” divorce rate (i.e., the baseline for comparison) that we’re talking about here is ALREADY well under 50% and is actually down around 40 to 42%. This is so because we are talking only about first marriages here (recall that this was one of my specified conditions). The oft-stated claim that “half of all marriages end in divorce” is taking into account ALL marriages, and second and third marriages have such high divorce rates that they skew the average. In fact, divorce rates for third marriages are north of 70 percent!
So if we start with a baseline of around a 40% divorce rate (because only interested here in first marriages), then factor in the various factors I cut and pasted above that significantly lower that rate, and then understand that the effect of all those factors combined is multiplicative, you can easily see how you rather quickly get down to a very low lifetimes divorce rate around 10%.
These are the statistics and the FACTS. They have nothing to do with what you or I wish were true. They just are. And to quote John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things.”
@Jeff…
You’ve stated you are Catholic…so things like fornication and cohabitation should be on your radar as BIG indicators of divorce risk. We could throw in taking artificial contraception and lackluster church attendance as other factors in increasing divorce risk…because those have been studied too.
And I guarantee my FACTS are a bigger tells than age, money, or sheepskins.
I don’t believe that these percentages aggregate.
I think its pretty well covered territory around these parts that if you are entering marriage (or your marriage search) using purely an aggregated risk wager, where “success” is defined something like this:
Permanence (never divorced, never face divorce, neither of you ever really considers it)
Your church supports you in your marriage and your position as authority while simultaneously supports your wife in being the best Christian wife she can be. It’s leadership does not let either party off of accountability to their assigned roles according to the faith.
You are treated like a flawed king in your house, but a king no less.
Regular, enthusiastic, uncomplicated sex until legitimate health reasons prohibit it
(and stuff like that)
You will probably fail using the current norms. marriage laws, conventional mate selection tools and cultural apparatus.
It is also fairly well covered territory that if you find such a marriage, there is something unique about it that is most likely peculiar to the woman, her attitude, her upbringing etc.
Deep Strength wrote a post about the odds of finding this using fairly conservative estimates and the analysis was brutal and depressing.
Those truths are [one of the things] that drove the manosphere into existence.
Anyway, the 10% stat simply doesn’t jive with what I see first hand at the office and in casual social circles. From what I have observed, staying together for the long haul, even for MC and UMC couples, seems more like the exception than the norm.
I recall when my wife and I went to celebrate our 30th anniversary (she was 22 when we tied the knot). The waitress marveled when we told her it was our 30th, and this was at a swanky place, very UMC. She seemed simply stunned.
I can assure you that far more than 10% of my fellow college classmates are divorced.
“Jeff Strand”
I spent a few minutes on Google, and although I didn’t immediately find the 10% stat I referenced, I found this very relevant data:
Thus you have zero factual support for your claim.
Frank K
Agreed. It simply doesn’t pass the walking around outside test.
I have several overlapping circles of friends (as most of us do) from various strata along the SES spectrum. Different levels of income, different families of origin. The vast majority have been divorced, (or will be) no matter how many protective factors they have.
In fact, on a related note, Mychael and I have become pretty good at detecting which couple will be next, based on their social media behavior (usually the wife). It’s a pretty morbid hobby when you think about it, but it never fails.
I usually say “uh oh, looks like so an so took separate vacations. She says it was because of conflicting work schedules. They will be divorced in a year.”
I’m right every time.
Probably because there is more to it than money, education, and age.
https://rampages.us/williamsv4/2017/03/27/birth-control-and-divorce-where-is-the-correlation/
And this old standby…
The easiest signal I see on social media is she proudly puts up the ‘family’ photos where it’s just her and the kids.
Once you get good at the ‘indirect’ game (because most of the time couples don’t air full dirty laundry on the social medium of their choice)…you can have a good eye at which couples are having trouble in paradise.
That one (pics with no dad) is usually about 3-4 steps in. A few that I have noticed that occur before that are:
1. She starts getting in shape and posting selfies in tighter, revealing outfits. The husband (assuming has a FB page and is on regularly) says absolutely nothing in the comments about it. Getting in shape and looking nice is not, in and of itself bad. Its just an early detector.
2. Already mentioned, but separate vacations (or anything else they would normally do together). A new hobby that the husband is not interested in, never goes to with her, etc.
3. Reconnecting with “my dear old friend from highschool/college” (always an opposite sex friend) and sharing photos about that person. Again. husband is usually totally silent on the posts.
4. Severe drop off in comments specifically about the husband. “Here’s a shout out to my sweet husband who is also a great dad” sharply decline.
Then, you start to see more and more pics without dad in them.
AR: “Thus you have zero factual support for your claim.”
When I read the stat, I didn’t save the link in a convenient place. So I would have to spend some time researching it to find the source again.
But I think the data I provided in my last post makes the point, even if it doesn’t specifically say ten percent. Again, the MAJORITY of ALL first marriages are lifetime marriages (divorce rate for first marriages is around 40 to 43%). So if you start at a baseline of around 40% divorce rate, then add in multiple factors I showed above (each one of which significantly lowers the divorce risk), then I think it’s obvious you’re gonna end up around a 10 to 15% lifetime divorce risk. Again, assuming you meet all the criteria I laid out: both partners are white, both have a four year degree, the bride has reached her 25th b-day by the day of the wedding, first marriage for both, and their first child is conceived within wedlock.
If you meet those criteria, the stats say you have a VERY low lifetime divorce risk. Yes, low enough that it’s somewhere down around 10%. So that’s why I said earlier that the whole “half of all marriages end in divorce” claim can be very misleading.
It is what it is.
“Frank K”: From what I have observed, staying together for the long haul, even for MC and UMC couples, seems more like the exception than the norm.
You’re just plain wrong. If we’re talking first marriage for both partners, then the majority of ALL such marriages are lifetime marriages. Take a minute and Google “divorce rate for first marriages” and you’ll see that the majority last, as about 40 to 43% end in divorce. So again, most (meaning over half) last a lifetime.
Now keep in mind, that’s ALL first marriages. That includes teen marriages, Shaniqua and Jamal in the ‘hood, shotgun weddings, sham marriages, marriages to get a Green Card, high school dropouts from the trailer park, etc. As long as it’s a first marriage for both, they count. And obviously, these cases seriously increase the overall divorce rate.
This obviously means that if you ONLY look at first marriages that meet the criteria I’ve laid out, you are going to have a divorce rate MUCH lower than the baseline of about 40%. I submit that it’s going to be down around 10 to 15%.
Again, it is what it is.
You are full of it Jeff, and it doesn’t smell good. Though the worst part is I expect you don’t know how full of it you are.
Consider Earl’s stat, showing that the number one indicator of marital success is a very low notch count. Consideri that college is where many women first start riding the carousel. Consider that by Jeff’s magical age of 25, many women have a notch count north of 30, their oxytocin system is already fried, and they are nearing the end of their peak fertile. Consider also, that college is the place that many women become misandrist, politically obsessed radfems, which makes a divorce exponentially more likely. Seriously guys, wife up a post wall feminist carousel rider. What could possibly go wrong? If you can’t make it work, it’s probably just because you’re not alpha enough.
“Jeff Strand”
But I think the data I provided in my last post makes the point,
What data? You provided zero data and zero sources. You should be embarrassed by this.
Handwaving in the form of word salad isn’t data. Even when it is in ALL CAPS…
“Jeff Strand”
When I read the stat, I didn’t save the link in a convenient place. So I would have to spend some time researching it to find the source again.
Too bad the dog ate your homework. Your grade remains unchanged.
Guys, for what compelling reason are you dignifying Jeff Strand with further attention?
So many words, all to convey the one fact that rules all others: To women men may ask: “How much is enough?”. From women of greed, of envy: “MORE!!!”. More. Always more.
At least they got a sheepskin on the wall and enough revolutions around the sun to reassure you she’s a low divorce risk and that gender studies degree should give you plenty of confidence that her high notch count and toxic womb won’t torpedo your marriage when she feels like it.
I don’t know why they do it. I had him pinned ages ago. Why would any man demean himself and marry an ageing whore who went to college and fucked other guys until she was ‘ready’ to marry at 26-30? … yeah, that’s the feminist pill and Jeff has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The only reason these women are not divorcing their hubbies is because hubby is loaded and she would lose her status. This in no way means she is submissive or doesn’t cheat. She does. So yeah, if you like your wife cheating on you, go for it. If you want a submissive wife, you don’t marry a 26 year old college educated brat.
What I always seem to observe is that most of the time most people are married – or cohabiting – or in a relationship – and thus I think there is something in Jeff Strand’s views. Failed marriages, broken engagements, former relationships, rampant promiscuity and the like are to be swept under the carpet and thus not to be counted.
I once had a late-twenties girlfriend whose N (by her own admission) was well into three figures who wrote to me that she was ‘worthy’ of marriage. Only someone who knows she is a bad risk could write something like that. Women sometimes exude desperation even as they assert their suitability and uniqueness. Time brings everything into focus and my failure to kick the high-N woman to the curb the day following my raising her N by one now has me ‘shakin muh head’ (It took a couple of months – oh lordy!).
Folks check this out
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8eLDzfH6YfZRDbDuMsNWiA
New data about “keeping mama happy”
The article has lots of hand-waving about causes, but it states the facts far more clearly than most articles about the evolution of America’s family structure. But the article buries the lede, with the big conclusion in the last paragraph (giving a different message than the bulk of the article).
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/09/millennials-divorce-baby-boomers/571282/
“In the past 10 years, the percentage of American marriages that end in divorce has fallen, and in a new paper, the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen quantified the drop-off: Between 2008 and 2016, the divorce rate declined by 18% overall.
“After accounting for the rising average age of married Americans and other demographic shifts during that time, Cohen found “a less steep decline – 8% – but the pattern is the same.” That is, the divorce rate in 2016 was still lower than one would have predicted if the demographics of married people were the same then as in 2008.
“When I asked Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, how to make sense of this trend, he opened his explanation with something of a koan: “In order to get divorced,” he said, “you have to get married first.”
…
“So, looking at married couples alone doesn’t capture the true nature of American partnerships today. “If you were to include cohabiting relationships [in addition to marriages], the breakup rates for young adults have probably not been going down,” Cherlin says. In other words: Yes, divorce rates are declining. But that’s more a reflection of who’s getting married than of the stability of any given American couple.”
—————————–
Prof Cherlin’s conclusion is probably very false. Break-up rates among cohabitating couples are much higher than divorce rates. So young people cohabitating instead of marrying will increase break-up rates.
But that experts at least see the trend is progress, even if they don’t yet see its obvious effects.
FH: “The only reason these women are not divorcing their hubbies is because hubby is loaded and she would lose her status. This in no way means she is submissive or doesn’t cheat. She does. So yeah, if you like your wife cheating on you, go for it. If you want a submissive wife, you don’t marry a 26 year old college educated brat.”
This whole paranoid mindset that your wife will cheat on you is a very Beta mindset. I have to tell you, Alpha guys don’t spend even one minute worrying about this.
Reminds me of a reality show I was watching recently. Some schlub did the “90 Day Fiancé” thing and married a hot Brazilian chick and brought her back to the States. I know that a lot of guys like you recommend that route FH…because “all American women cheat”. Like foreign women don’t? It makes about as much sense as the Cuban gal I dated for awhile, who was determined only to marry a White, non-Hispanic guy (or “Anglo”, as she called them) like me…because in her mind, all Hispanic guys cheat (she told me this flat-out). And I’m like, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard! So “Anglo” guys never cheat? Give me a break!
Anyway, back to the reality show. So this schlub’s pretty Brazilian wife does some modeling shots. And again, she’s very pretty. Her new hubby talks to her afterwards, and he’s all…”you look so pretty in your modeling pics…you’re not gonna leave me now, are you?” And so forth. He actually says this.
And my wife and me look at each other, speechless. The schlub doesn’t have any idea how incredibly unattractive and repellent it is to a woman to hear her husband beg her to stay with him (or not cheat on him) like that. Talk about a pussy-dryer-upper! And that schlub reminds me of you, FH, always going around obsessing that your (potential) wife will find a “better guy” and cheat on you.
An Alpha doesn’t worry about that – he knows HE’S the “better guy” and the prize to be won. That his pretty wife hit the jackpot when she locked him down. Of course, you don’t say that outright (then you’re just an a$$hole). But you just take it for granted and it remains unspoken. It’s how you carry yourself and how you act. You are an Alpha, and she’s damn lucky to have you – you are the prize that she’s won. And BOTH of you internalize that dynamic. This is the recipe for a successful marriage.
This appeals to all her inner womanly desires. Makes her want to prove herself to you. Your way drives her from you. The correct attitude is, “There IS no better man than me out there (for her, anyway). So I don’t worry about her cheating. And if, in spite of that, she cheats…it can only mean she’s become completely irrational. In which case, an Alpha like me can easily replace her and I’m better off without her. Her loss.” But again, let me emphasize, the odds of her cheating are low when she is married to an Alpha. She knows she has something other women would kill for, and she knows she better not screw this up!
So there’s some good advice for you. Not that you’ll take it, though. Right?
Failed marriages, broken engagements, former relationships, rampant promiscuity and the like are to be swept under the carpet and thus not to be counted.
“…thus not to be counted.”
This is what I wonder about on the various charts and tables. How much of the data is self reported, and if by women what standard of reality is being used? I guess public records would be adequate for age of participants, certificates achieved, etc.; but how accurate are the categories containing items that occurred but are ‘not to be counted’? Maybe it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.
Re: Earl’s table showing “the distribution of women’s premarital sex partners by marriage cohort”
Here is the press release to the paper that contained that block-buster table:
https://unews.utah.edu/u-researcher-more-sex-partners-before-marriage-doesnt-necessarily-lead-to-divorce/
It includes much PC hand-waving attempting to deny the obvious conclusion from his data. The author does so by ignoring the other big factor in divorce rates: the woman’s age. Looking at divorce rates only in terms of previous partners ignores the fact that a teen marrying hasn’t had time to get a big number (ie, few have done so).
Including age at marriage that would, I’ll bet, change his conclusions.
Is Jeff Strand AT with just a single wife?
Be macho like me and you don’t have any worries!
feeriker,
The problem is someone reading these comments in the future seeing Jeff’s idiocy go unchallenged.
No way to win with JS.
Jeff could have condensed his inane ramblings of a deluded fool to ‘be alpha like me’ but instead he thinks everyone is going to read his diatribe. Yawn.
The number of cheating whore wives is insane. There are no consequences for them if they’re caught. If they took cock before getting married, they will take cock after it too, just a matter of time. You’re never alpha enough. That’s the whole point.
Hello all,
I would describe myself as a beta who has recently read the Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi. To be honest, it’s one of the best books I have ever read. But since I’m a Catholic, Rollo advises on following Dalrock because he talks about Christian Game. Since I’m new to the blog, I haven’t been able to find anything that can give me clear guidance. Can someone give me some direction on how I apply game to my life as a practising Christian?
If only the stats inculded ‘alpha mindset’…then those man up and marry those slut types would enjoy low divorce risk. Divorce only happens because you are beta to her high N and toxic womb.
Grab your latest copy of Gorilla Mindset.
Seriously Jeff…your lack of acknowledgement of known sinful things is odd to me.
‘Anyway, back to the reality show. So this schlub’s pretty Brazilian wife does some modeling shots. And again, she’s very pretty. Her new hubby talks to her afterwards, and he’s all…”you look so pretty in your modeling pics…you’re not gonna leave me now, are you?” And so forth. He actually says this.’
A reality show…those things are scripted. And it’s mainly for drama and attention brought on the woman. Feminized men are also part and parcel for that garbage.
“Earl”, I won’t argue your point that reality shows are scripted. Some probably are real, but some are certainly scripted…and often there’s no way to tell the difference. The only reality show you can know to a certainty is real and not scripted is “COPS”. That show is SO unscripted that in one episode they were responding to a hold-up at a Wendy’s, a gunfight took place, and one of the “COPS” crew (I believe he was the sound guy) was shot and killed. It made the news.
So, yeah. “COPS” – totally real and unscripted. All other reality shows? Not so much.
Of course, whether the show I was referencing in my prior post is scripted or not doesn’t change my point. But you knew that already, right?
Btw, I left this out of a prior comment.
That Cuban gal I dated? The one who was so determined to only marry an “Anglo”, because “all Hispanic guys cheat”? Well, she wanted to lock me down in the worst way – even offered to buy me a house if I would put an engagement ring on her finger. I passed.
Here’s the capper – for the last few months of our relationship, I was cheating on her with a hot little blond! (That I later got engaged to, but ended it…but that’s a whole other story!). Talk about irony!
When I broke up with the Cuban, she called my apt and my new chick (the hot, petite blond) happened to be over and answered the phone (this was just before everybody got a cell phone). Next thing I know these two broads are fighting like cats and dogs, threatening each other and such, e.g. “You bitch, you stole my boyfriend!” and “The hell I did! Well, he’s mine now! And if you don’t back off, I’ll have your legs broken!”, etc, etc.
Now it may be immature, but I have to admit….for those of you who’ve never had multiple chicks literally fighting over you….it’s pretty cool, lol. I have to admit, I enjoyed that.
P.S. The Cuban gal never married or had kids, and ended up an old maid. (I kept in touch with her for awhile, years later. She’s now in her mid-fifties and all alone. A sad story, She should have married a “Rodriguez” or “Gonzalez” back in her 20’s. She gambled, and she lost)
Guys, we’re just not alpha enough. The most alpha thing to do is marry an aging career girl slut who spent her prime turning her womb off with drugs, giving it up to every Chad, Dick, and Tyrone, and aborting any “mistakes” that slipped through. There’s nothing more alpha than being her beta bucks when she takes a break from the carousel.
“Earl”: Seriously Jeff…your lack of acknowledgement of known sinful things is odd to me.
Then we’re even. Because I find it quite odd that you accept Bergoglio as the legitimate successor to St. Peter. A man who says there is no Hell (but that the damned souls are annihilated out of existence), that to convert non-Catholics to the true religion is a “grave sin against ecumenism”, that when it comes to gays “Who am I to judge?”, that all religions are more or less equal, that no one need fear the Judgment, that the “parable” (his word) of the Loaves and Fishes involved no real miracle but was just a matter of Hippie Jesus teaching everyone to share, that falsely “married” couples living in open mortal sin can receive the Blessed Sacrament in such a state, that unmarried couples cohabiting “have all the graces of marriage” if they are “faithful”, etc.
The man has done everything but climb up on the altar of St. Peter’s, lift his drawers, and take a giant “Cleveland steamer” on the altar! But hey, there’s still time!
So yeah. I find it rather confusing and very “odd” that you consider such a man to be a valid Roman Pontiff. A man who is not JUST a material and formal heretic, but openly shows his contempt for the Holy Faith every chance he gets!
But to you, this maniac is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Which is beyond laughable. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t take your advice or thoughts very seriously when it comes to morality and religion.
FH: “The number of cheating whore wives is insane. There are no consequences for them if they’re caught. If they took cock before getting married, they will take cock after it too, just a matter of time. You’re never alpha enough. That’s the whole point.”
Yawn is right. We’ve had this argument before. Your advice to young men is to have no contact with women, and either go gay…or live alone with a stack of p0rn, a big bottle of hand lotion, and/or a sex doll.
You refuse to see how pathetic that makes you look in the eyes of your fellow men. And how ridiculous that is as advice to young men.
I give real advice. Advice that’s proven to work in many or most cases, and worked very well for me. But you and a few other guys on here get so insanely jealous that we can’t even have a viable discussion about it. You want everyone to be as lonely and miserable as you are. Jesus, take a look in the mirror dude! Realize that not everyone is as miserable and bitter as you.
You don’t deserve a NAWALT. Which works out fine, since it’s obvious you will never have one. Go back to your p0rn and your hand lotion.
Lost Patrol
How much of the data is self reported, and if by women what standard of reality is being used?
Self reporting has known problems, obviously. The degree of anonymity matters, and a lot of these surveys are done in a “clipboard” manner that isn’t anonymous at all.
It was known 20 years ago that men in their 20’s tend to inflate their partner count (N) and women tend to deflate it. A small study performed in Canada showed that college women lied on survey forms, lied less on anonymous survey forms and possibly told the truth when completing a survey while connected to what they were told was a lie detector. I should re-find the link to this because even though the number of participants was small, it’s the only work of its kind.
Even now in 2018 it is not unreasonable to take a woman’s stated N and triple it (Nreal=Nstated x3) to obtain a more accurate number. Given that the probability of divorce increases with each notch on her lipstick case, it’s worth knowing. Men have the right to protect themselves and their children…
What is funny is a woman (and I forget the context of the conversation because it happened over 4o years ago), my mother, told me this once – “no one is responsible for your happiness but yourself” her meaning was very clear – all sorts of things may and will happen in your life that you can not control, but you can control your attitude and how you react to them. My mother, generally speaking, was one of the most positive people I ever met in my life.
She was also a very conservative and christian woman, and prayed daily. She did not allow herself to fall into what used to be called ‘melancholy’ or become angry for no reason…nor does my wife generally, either. She leave the run and go off and collect herself first of work it out on her own (she will tell me she is in that sort of place, and AI will leave her alone -I don’t try to make it right). I am training my 8 year daughter to do the same; if she is going to get upset or start to have a fit about something trivial I make he go to her room to cool off saying I don’t want to her it…I only go up and talk and mostly listen to her after about 10 minutes or so, and don’t try to offer up a solution unless asked.
I think collectively, we as men, need to do more of this – don’t accept of put up with these mood swings. Let it be known it is not acceptable behavior, and it needs to be kept under wraps or dealt with by them, and it is their own responsibility.
“Brian”: The most alpha thing to do is marry an aging career girl slut who spent her prime turning her womb off with drugs, giving it up to every Chad, Dick, and Tyrone, and aborting any “mistakes” that slipped through.
You first! LOL
P.S. I was dating a hot little Italian gal who let it slip during dinner that she had had an abortion. Her parents knew and encouraged her to get the abortion, as “the smart thing to do”. She felt she could confide this to me. Sorry, sweetheart! Let’s just say, I never took her on another date. Dropped her ass like a hot potato.
Also, I’m not a fan of career women (my wife is a SAHM and surrendered housewife). But hey, you do you! Wife up that career girl! Be sure to check back later and let us know how that went.
DR Smith: What is funny is a woman (and I forget the context of the conversation because it happened over 4o years ago), my mother, told me this once – “no one is responsible for your happiness but yourself”
Your mother was a wise woman! I told this to my wife before we married – “Don’t expect me to make you happy, that’s not my job. And only you can make you happy.”
To this day she tells people that’s some of the best advice she ever got, and she really took it to heart. Nice to hear other folks see things that way as well.
Cheers!
The only difference is your wife didn’t career after college. The amount of time you spend commenting about yourself is mind boggling. Go live your life Jeff, stop wasting your time here. No one cares what you think.
Nice deflection, Jeff.
Fornication was a sin and artifical contraception was deemed a sin way before Pope Francis came onto the scene.
There’s no even here, Jeff.
Doug Wilson makes things clear:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/smash-the-matriarchy.html
@BillyS
My wife didn’t give a hoot about her vows when she filed for divorce and then firmly committed herself to not draw back after bad advice from the pastor’s wife and long conversations with her mother and sister a few days later, less than 2 weeks after filing.
Your wife has convinced herself that her divorce is biblically sound and moral; that God has “allowed” her divorce or even approved of it. Because there is an entire false theology that has sprung up around divorce, and she, like most Christian women (even married Christian women) have bought into, because it makes them “feel good”. It also gives them an “out” – they can get divorced and still be “right” with God.
Larry Kummer
Here is the press release to the paper that contained that block-buster table:
Thanks for that link. The study is from 2016 and will require some reading. The table alone is revealing, moreso when one factors in women’s tendency to lie about sex.
Always useful to know who one is reading. A couple of people at that org are familiar names:
https://ifstudies.org/about/our-people
I think this is the post from DeepStrength about the very small pool of Christian women that are good bets for marriage.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/doom-and-gloom-and-the-amount-of-attractive-christian-virgins-part-3/
Jeff Strand’s statement that marriages with the highest success rate are where both are white, college educated, childless, and never before married, is objectively true. The last stat I saw on this was at Hooking Up Smart a couple of years ago and the divorce rate was at 17% if both are college educated (race, childless and never married not included). But take into account that at that time a few years ago, at least, most college educated men marrying college educated women were white, had no kids and had not been married before.
It is true that where both H and W are white, college educated, childless and never before married, these marriages have the lowest divorce rates. That said, I don’t think it’s anything like 10%. I think the divorce rates are quite a bit higher across the board. The couples SES and social class is the greatest predictor of marriage duration. Those who are UMC on up are the ones who stay together.
Marriages last in the UMC and UC, not necessarily because the marriage is a good one – many of them are not, many of them cheat on each other and have an “understanding” or a de facto open marriage – it is because a divorce would be enormously expensive and would bring shame on them and their kids. Husband would take a huge financial hit. Wife would take a huge status hit. The children would take a huge emotional hit. Both the H and W know this, and keep marriages together on that basis.
@Jeff
I don’t disagree with any of your recommended list of attributes to filter any and all prospective wife candidates. Those attributes actually make sense. And they probably do tend to keep couples together. I would even go so far as to include a few more to filter more thoroughly for greater surety.
However, I believe most men might actually be wanting and expecting a little bit more for their time, attention, sacrifice, endeavor, effort and opportunity cost than just avoiding probable divorce, financial annihilation and separation from their own children.
Most average Joes go into marriage believing earnestly that they will be rewarded with appreciation, respect, feminine companionship and frequent sexual intimacy. Yet if you listen to the talking heads in church, this expectation is unreasonable or woefully misplaced. Doesn’t matter. The truth is, none of these rewards are realized within marriage anymore.
Neither am I convinced that the 90% of marriages, properly filtered at the forefront and therefore successfully staving off divorce, are brimming with marital bliss.
Yet if you listen to the talking heads in church, this expectation is unreasonable or woefully misplaced. Doesn’t matter.
Which is a good point. Men in churches now are being told and exhorted that marriage is constant work, that you get no enjoyment from it, that you SHOULD NOT expect to enjoy it, that your wives (not you men) get to enjoy marriage; and if you men are enjoying marriage, then you are taking something away from your wives and you are enjoying life and marriage at your wives’ expense.
Jeff Strand: This whole paranoid mindset that your wife will cheat on you is a very Beta mindset. I have to tell you, Alpha guys don’t spend even one minute worrying about this.
So when an Alpha’s wife cheats, it hits him unexpectedly. Is that better?
Regarding Jeff Strand’s requirements for a “90% chance of succeeding as a lifetime marriage”, I think I should have bought a lottery ticket instead of getting married, because my marriage met all of those criteria and, although it took 21 years (many of them unpleasant), she frivorced me. Perhaps I was especially unlucky, but I have my doubts.
Admittedly, ten years into our marriage, I learned she would not even estimate her N-count, she had been raped twice, and had aborted one child. I like to think that I would not have married her if I had known this, but I may well have been too blue-pilled to do so.
So, where does an aging Christian get one of those 18 year old virginal women?
Seriously, until we identify feminism as the Devil nothing will change.
Feminism is worse than National Socialism.
@ OKRickety
It certainly would’ve been a lot less expensive.
@Jeff Strand
Right. Because alphas don’t marry. Marriage is the ultimate in one-itis. Marriage is the very definition of Beta. Alpha men don’t worry about keeping mama happy, they just next her when she gets unhappy.
Guys, Jeff Strand is a legendary alpha, he told me so himself. There was a time when when every supermodel from that year’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue got together as a group and proposed to Jeff. They were willing to share him, and they offered to buy him his own private island, complete with an airstrip, an executive chef, and a wish granting leprechaun. Unfortunately, they were all under 25, and had no student loan debt to speak of, so he had to turn them down.
@Damn Crackers: Feminism most certainly is the problem. We’re a century into women’s suffrage, and our civilization is crumbling. Abortion is the leading cause of death in America, over 40% of children are born out of wedlock, marriage has become a sham that isn’t worth the frivorce risk for many men, and the pound me too movement is making every interaction with women a potentially life altering danger. TFM may be a heathen, but he’s right about the need to take women’s rights away. If we don’t do it, the Muslims they’re replacing us with will.
Ha! Thanks for the chuckle!
@ Damn Crackers
With extremely rare exceptions, he doesn’t.
You don’t. Hence why some of us are MGTOW. The unicorn does not exist. You’ve got one life to live, enjoy it and be thankful you don’t have to marry a harpy. Just because you’re not going to find the unicorn does not mean you have to find and be with the succubus.
Just be forewarned, any women who goes to college is not a virgin. You’re not going them at university. That’s where the whores go to be test driven by the Chads.
@Hmmm
Let us know when he says, “And you know what? For years I taught the opposite of this. I Doug Wilson gave women the tools to bring down their own houses and establish themselves as matriarchs. Please forgive me.”
Wives need counseling? Then, “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home”.
This article uses the term toxic femininity: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1018/toxicfemininity.html
It’s a nice change, seeing “femininity” described as “toxic.”
@Dalrock: “Right. Because alphas don’t marry. Marriage is the ultimate in one-itis. Marriage is the very definition of Beta.”
George Clooney married. Brat Pitt married (a couple times). Tommy Lee married. The guys from Lef Zeppelin all married. Donald Trump married (several times). JFK married. JFK Jr. married.
Your claim that Alpha’s don’t marry is laughable.
“Brian”: Unfortunately, they were all under 25, and had no student loan debt to speak of, so he had to turn them down.
Dude, are you projecting? Because my wife had no debt, and I wouldn’t have married a girl who did. And while she wasn’t 18 when we met – she was 24, going on 25 – I myself was going on 31. So she was a hot young thing from my point of view. And 18 years later, she still is!
But enough about me. Let’s hear your story. It’s easy to criticize, isn’t it? What’s your experience or plan? Find a NAWALT? Buy a real doll? Beers, bros, video games, and p0rn? Or what? Enlighten us.
ConstrainedLocus: “However, I believe most men might actually be wanting and expecting a little bit more for their time, attention, sacrifice, endeavor, effort and opportunity cost than just avoiding probable divorce, financial annihilation and separation from their own children.”
I can only say I agree with you. The attributes I listed were simply measurable criteria that the data show decrease divorce risk. Doesn’t prove anything about how “happy” those marriages are.
So while you’re right, you’re arguing a point I wasn’t making. I was just trying to show that the oft-repeated claim of “half of all marriages end in divorce” can be misleading. That’s all.
Cheers.
Many people commenting on the divorce rate. It continues to be a gamble but you can reduce your risk. Educated highly religious never-married white couples who marry after age 18 have divorce rates below 10%, often as low as 5%. The repetition of the the all-comers 50% divorce rate just does not apply to most people. I am not advocating everyone run off and get married. But understanding your realistic risk is crucial, and for most people it is not nearly as high as 50% (and for some it is much higher than 50%).
Also, its not necessary to tell us about your PhD pastor cousin who married his high school sweet heart who had a bachelors in staying married but they got divorced. Thats what probability means – some couples are going to fail but it doesn’t change the statistics.
Get your facts straight please. Is it after 25 or 18?
You and Jeff can get a room. Marriage is a bad bet, one only tradcons promote in its current form.
Wow! Fantastic examples of Christian marriages there Jeff! All aboard!
If only we had the alpha mindset…none of this would have happened. And we’d all be millionaires having supermodels proposing to us.
I propose we go back to the way it always was…the patriarchy. The man is the head of the marriage and the wife is the helpmate.
“Earl” said: “Fornication was a sin and artifical contraception was deemed a sin way before Pope Francis came onto the scene.”
I guess you weren’t paying attention when your hero Bergoglio took a personal phone call from a wife in Argentina. She revealed the content of the call to a reporter afterwards. On the call, she complained to Bergoglio that her local parish priest was denying her the sacraments of Confession and the Holy Eucharist because she is openly cohabiting with a married man (he never got an annulment from his prior wife). She found this situation embarrassing. (By saying the priest is “denying her Confession” I take that to mean the priest is refusing to grant her absolution of her sins)
Of course, the priest was doing the right thing and merely following Catholic doctrine and avoiding scandal, since the woman is living publicly in a state of mortal sin. But Bergoglio’s advice to her? That she should stop living in sin, end her adulterous union, do penance, and….just kiddding! That would be advice an actual Catholic would give her, after all! But we’re talking about Bergoglio the Apostate here. So that’s PRECISELY the advice he would NEVER give her.
According to this woman, what Bergoglio actually told her is that she should merely quietly start attending a church in a different location, where she is unknown. There she can quietly and anonymously receive the Blessed Sacrment (in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, mind you!)
So yeah, there’s your “Catholic pope”. The man is scum. The fact that you claim this maniac heretic, apostate, and blasphemer is the Vicar of Christ on Earth shows you’re out of your mind.
1. She starts getting in shape and posting selfies in tighter, revealing outfits. The husband (assuming has a FB page and is on regularly) says absolutely nothing in the comments about it. Getting in shape and looking nice is not, in and of itself bad. Its just an early detector.
I agree. The context on this is the key. The key red flag is if this activity is independent (i.e., not in coordination with, or after discussion with, her H), and is significant — that is she is looking prettier than she did before she was married, and for no obvious reason, and without any discussion with H, while H is about the same as he was before she started looking better.
The key here is that the SMV “delta” between H and W should generally remain roughly similar to what it was when they married. So if H is a 6 in W’s eyes and W is a 5 (the typical middling marriage), and she spruces up to being a 6, while H remains where he was in SMV, that will almost always lead to trouble, because W begins thinking “I wouldn’t have married this guy anyway if I looked like this when I met him, because I can do better looking like this.” Again, context is key — and the red flag is where it is independent, uncoordinated and not discussed with H. In other words “she just does it”. Bonus red flag points arise if the lion’s share of the increase in appearance is displayed to men other than the H — i.e., she dresses down (“comfortable”) at home, but when she is going out to work or shopping without H or what have you, out comes the sexy. Again, it’s a change in behavior that is the red flag — changes that are inconsistent with the prior behavior and are uncoordinated with H.
2. Already mentioned, but separate vacations (or anything else they would normally do together). A new hobby that the husband is not interested in, never goes to with her, etc.
Increasing numbers of GNOs go in this bucket as well, but yes, I have also noted in couples I have known in real life where there are separate vacations going on (and it’s mostly women I am talking about), that divorce happens within a couple of years. Basically she’s taking a vacation *from* her H when she does this, which is never a good sign, no matter how it is spun.
A fun anecdote, and from over 20 years ago:
I was working at a Xerox subsidiary at the time. A coworker, a very conservative Korean married gal, had the temerity to say in a group setting at the office that divorce was a bad thing.
She was dog piled by almost everyone present as being some kind of Neanderthal. I foolishly publicly agreed with her and received my helping of scorn. Turns out many of my degreed coworkers (a lot more than 10 percent) were divorced.
It’s like that EVERYWHERE I’ve worked. It’s WAY more than 10%. Way more.
And here’s a bonus anecdote. I’ve had two neighbors (one on either side of our current house), in an UMC neighborhood, whose marriages crashed and burned.
One of them was a female “pastor” in a liberal denomination whose husband lost his job with Corporate America and couldn’t find another one. She hit the eject button, they sold the house, and poof, were divorced. Prior to their sudden divorce they looked to be the ideal couple.
And these were not young couples. They both had children and I’m guessing were married at least 10 years, maybe longer. On paper they were ideal: educated, first marriages, didn’t marry young, great incomes. Heck, the other couple was Asian!
FH: “Wow! Fantastic examples of Christian marriages there Jeff! All aboard!”
Never said they were Christians, and you know I didn’t. I said they were Alpha (using Dalrock’s definition of Alpha, they certain are). Dalrock said Alpha’s don’t marry, yet we know that virtually all of them do. I merely provided a few examples, I could give many more.
Perhaps Dalrock could give some examples of the Alpha’s he has in mind? The ones who never marry? I’d be interested to see it.
“Earl”: I propose we go back to the way it always was…the patriarchy. The man is the head of the marriage and the wife is the helpmate.
No disagreement with that. For me, that’s how it is in my household. Wouldn’t have it any other way. And neither would she.
As I’ve said a million times, never ever marry a feminist!
Oh, you too, I mean, #metoo then? You would believe this supposedly bad women who commits adultery and doesn’t repent?
@Jeff…
I get it…you think the pope is a heretic. Stay on the topic…fornication and artificial contraception are greater indicators of divorce risk than age, sheepskins, and money. The fact you haven’t even acknowledge this tells me you are overlooking it for some reason.
Your examples were shit Jeff.
Don’t forget Johnny Depp, Chris Rock, Will Smith, Tom Welling, John Schneider, Channing Tatum and now Scotty Pippen.
These high-profile, high-value dudes all chose poorly, or just weren’t alpha enough to sustain their respective wives’ interest and commitment.
They probably weren’t close enough to God either, so there’s that to boot.
And what could possibly be more Christian for women these days than to teach their failing husbands a lesson by kicking him to the curb and extracting those wonderful consolation prize$, with God, the pastor, the men’s ministry, the church and the Sisterhood sitting in the pews all nodding in approval?
The thing I notice about men who supposedly are well verse in plundering women…they simply think you can either force or through mindset somehow make a woman submit. Let’s just take into account the slim possibility she has agency and could choose to.
And just like the alpha men with looks, cash, education, and fame…they chose a woman who decided she’d be on the rebel train because, feminism.
Earl: “I get it…you think the pope is a heretic.”
Dude, you get that I THINK the man is a heretic? What do you not get about this? He has said (several times!) that THERE IS NO HELL! And that instead, the souls of those who fail to reach Heaven are annihilated out of existence! He has also formally taught (in an encyclical) that the Old Covenant is still valid, and today’s Jews are all saved…as Jews, meaning there’s no need for them to convert and be baptized.
This is heresy, period, full stop. Has nothing to do with what I THINK. Bergoglio is a formal and material heretic as a matter of established FACT…has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion. And by canon law, this means he is not even a Catholic! So you believe a non-Catholic is the valid pope, and therefore is the head of the Catholic Church! When he is not even a member of the Catholic Church! Lord, preserve us from such insanity!
@ Novaseeker
I’d say any activity independent of the husband is a red flag. She’s not supposed to be independent of her husband, and the husband ins’t supposed to be independent of the wife. They’re supposed to be one flesh.
Sure. There might be sufficient levels of oxygen for a version of the patriarchy to exist inside the walls of man’s home.
But it would also be a steeply discounted derivative, and under constant siege from outside forces.
No matter who you think you are, in any marriage the gun is always in the room.
The only question every husband alive must repeatedly, hourly and daily, ask himself is whether his loving wife – at any point in time now or in the future – still possesses sufficient benevolence not to pick it up and use it.
Regardless of how you feel or sense, that does not mean you are immune from the risks.
All wives know, even on a cursory conscious or subconscious level, that they are just a couple phone calls away from the police, a feminist divorce attorney and a court ordered restraining order to wipe that smug smile off your face.
Jeff: I’m not the one bragging about how alpha I am, while giving blue pill advice based on the fact that you found a unicorn. You found a debt free college? You found a college girl who believes in the matchless Name of Jesus Christ? You found a college girl who isn’t a feminist, a socialist, an atheist , or a whore? Congratulations, but that doesn’t change the fact that college has a tendency to turn women into debt ridden, socialist, feminist, atheist, whores. Women going to college is a problem, not a solution, especially when you consider that young men are being driven off college campuses as Academia becomes more feminized and leftist. The Christianized version of the blue pill Life script worked for you? Wonderful, but your brothers are being frivorced, falsely accused, losing their children, babies are being massacred in their mothers’ wombs, suicide rates for men are sky rocketing, homelessness among men is skyrocketing, men are being driven out of any environment women want to invade, and you’re clucking your tongue and telling them they’re just not alpha enough. Western civilization is crumbling, but the blue pill has paid off for you so far, so keep handing out those blue pills.
CL: “Don’t forget Johnny Depp, Chris Rock, Will Smith, Tom Welling, John Schneider, Channing Tatum and now Scotty Pippen. These high-profile, high-value dudes all chose poorly, or just weren’t alpha enough to sustain their respective wives’ interest and commitment.”
Of course these kinds of famous people have high divorce rates. Who doesn’t know that? I certainly don’t dispute that.
But that’s not what we’re talking about. Dalrock said Alpha’s don’t GET married. Nothing to do with how successful anybody’s marriages are. He was saying Alpha’s simply don’t marry in the first place.
And we all know that’s total bullschit. Virtually all Alpha’s will marry, as my list and yours demonstrates. Alpha’s marry, Beta’s marry. It’s Omega’s like FH who never marry – they just make do with their p0rn, Real Dolls, and a big bottle of hand lotion.
Brian,
You dodged the question. What are you doing in your life? You count yourself qualified to pass judgment on me and my advice. So I’m guessing you’re doing much better than me. If so, let us know, I’d be happy to hear about it.
And I truly mean it, that I’d “be happy” to hear it. Happy for you, in other words. I don’t see a need to respond with all the bitterness and jealousy you see on these comment threads. It really gets tiresome, TBH.
thedeti says:
November 5, 2018 at 11:38 am
Yet if you listen to the talking heads in church, this expectation is unreasonable or woefully misplaced. Doesn’t matter.
Which is a good point. Men in churches now are being told and exhorted that marriage is constant work, that you get no enjoyment from it, that you SHOULD NOT expect to enjoy it, that your wives (not you men) get to enjoy marriage; and if you men are enjoying marriage, then you are taking something away from your wives and you are enjoying life and marriage at your wives’ expense.
**********************************************************
Man I HATE that “marriage is hard work” crap!
Sure, serous stuff happens sometimes that’s not funny. You still have to take care of serious business.
But…
Even after 30 years and two kids, we still have FUN together.
Work in the yard? We make it fun. Vacation? More fun! Working on our house doing some remolding? Fun! We play games, just us two, because we have fun doing it. We tell each other jokes. We laugh so hard at some things that breathing is hard and tears roll down… Lots of times when there’s nobody else around.
Who would marry someone that you can’t have maximum fun with? I just don’t get it. Maybe we’re just two fun people. We like the sound of each others voice and the sound of each others laugh.
Work schmirk. One of the reasons we got married is because we had so much fun together. Even when we were engaged, we had people say “we want to be like you guys”.
Before we got married, I’m like “yeah she’s a hard worker. Smart with money. Not career oriented. But she’s a LOT of fun too. I have more fun with her around. And besides, she’s a fox”.
Oh the stuff we’ve laughed at until we can’t breath and tears roll down our faces…
It’s a choice we both made. Assume the best. And laugh as much as humanly possible.
What do you not get about fornication and artificial contraception being better indicators of divorce risk than age, sheepskins, and money?
The thing about divorce rates overall is that they are hard to read over the course of a period, like the last 20-30 years, which has seen accelerating and massive social changes.
Overall divorce rates are going down across the board … but largely because marriage rates are going down across the board. The behavior of the 35 and below set regarding marriage is markedly different from earlier generations in that far fewer of them are marrying, period. This is lowering divorce rates (because the “divorce rate” is generally measured as divorces per a certain number, often 1000, of people).
We really don’t know how the smaller number of marriages among the 35 and under set are going to end up, because things are really changing fast culturally. As the chart Earl posted indicates, promiscuity rates, especially at the higher levels, are skyrocketing for women. As we know from the Heritage study, among others, increased partner counts correlate with significantly increased likelihood of divorce — or have for older generations. We don’t know if that holds for the younger generation as well, or if in the younger generation those people are simply not getting married — we just don’t know. What we do know is that promiscuity rates are up and marriage rates are down, while cohab rates are up. We really won’t know whether the smaller cohort that is still getting married will have lower divorce rates (because they are the most suited) or if they won’t because for the most part not enough time has passed yet to have that data.
One thing we can all rest assured of, however — it isn’t the late 1990s. That was 20 years ago, and behaviors are markedly different now.
“The last stat I saw on this was at Hooking Up Smart a couple of years ago and the divorce rate was at 17% if both are college educated”
So we’re talking about two college educated mates who married in 1940’s through 1970’s? Okay. Because those are the only ones who can be counted in the successful (non-divorced) column. A married spouse has to pass away before the marriage is a confirmed success. Those millenial brats who got married two months ago should not count for the 83% irt the above quote.
Everyone looks around and sees 90% of their bros going through a divorce and still has to hear about 40% divorce rate or even less.
Modern marriage odds CANNOT be judged by the actions of people born in the 1930’s or 1940’s or even 1950’s. Those are such different cultures that you might as well be talking about some Amazonian tribe or something. They are the ones inflating the perceived ‘success’ rate.
Check in on the the divorce rate of 2018 marriages in the year 2078 or so. That’s the only time you can know it.
It’s like claiming only 30% of people die based on the numbers of those currently alive versus those passing away.
I got a laugh out of Jeff Strand naming himself ‘Kevin’ for his thread war.
“Jeff Strand”
You dodged the question.
Ironic, coming from an entity that cannot support a single assertion. That dodges every question. That makes claims and cannot back them up, such as “10%” nonsense.
For example, of four close friends of mine: one divorced, the other three are still married to their first wives. And those marriages are, on average, 20 years long at this point. Now, let’s say I include myself in that mix – also first marriage, approaching 20 years happily married. So that’s 4 out of 5 in my immediate circle who are in lifetime marriages.
So if we’re gonna go with anecdotal “evidence”, I can tell you for a fact the divorce rate is 20% of marriages for first time marriages. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Don’t try to tell me different with your “studies” and “data”!
See how that works? (Btw, the example I gave from my personal experience is 100% true)
Dalrock, if you’re still reading this…
Please give us a sample list of Alpha’s who never married. We’d all like to see it. Should be easy, as you made it pretty clear that Alpha’s pretty much NEVER marry. And that it’s almost part of the definition of Alpha that the guy never marries.
Isn’t that funny? All the movie stars, rock stars, hotshot politicians, etc. that we came up with in this thread – who all clearly qualify as Alpha – have all married at some point (sometimes more than once).
So please show us where we’re going wrong, and give us a sample list of your never-marrying Alpha’s.
“Jeff Strand”, if you’re still reading this…
Give us some actual data that supports your claim regarding only 10% of marriages ending in divorce. We’d all like to see it. Should be easy, as you made it pretty clear that you KNEW this to be true. And that telling the truth is something in the very definition of the religion you claim to follow.
Isn’t it funny? All the pro-Nazi rants, all the NAWALT rants, all the bragging, all the claims that you have made – and you’ve never supported a single one with facts.
So please show us where we’re going wrong, and give us some facts to support your 10% claim.
We are all waiting…
AR,
Lol, you know what you can do with yourself, my friend.
I provided data in my posts above. You don’t like it, that’s your problem.
“Jeff Strand”
Lol, you know what you can do with yourself, my friend.
First: I’m not your friend.
Second: What do you want me to do? Spell it out. Don’t hold back, boy, let’s see it.
I provided data in my posts above
Which posts would those be? The one where you found something or other on Google but didn’t save it and can’t find it now? Or the one where you babbled about your social circle? You should be embarrassed to post that kind of garbage on this site as “evidence” of anything, given the kind of data analysis work that Dalrock’s done over the last 8 or so years.
You don’t like it, that’s your problem.
I don’t like liars.
No numb nuts, the data I posted. As in, with percentages and outcomes based on research.
God, you’re dense. Typical Omega. Go back to your Real Doll.
P.S.
Let’s see you bust Dalrock’s balls for posting something that’s blatantly, obviously false. Namely, that Alpha’s never marry…when we know that virtually all of them – from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Tommy Lee and Ozzie Osborne – do indeed marry. Notice he provided no source whatsoever for his ridiculously false claim.
So why don’t you bust his balls?
Jeff Strand says:
November 5, 2018 at 6:03 pm
What Dalrock wrote went right over your head.
“Jeff Strand”
No numb nuts, the data I posted. As in, with percentages and outcomes based on research.
You posted no data, just handwaving word salad. You’ve been busted making stuff up and trying to shift away from that when you’re called on it. Everyone can see what a fake you are, “Jeff Strand”.
You want to be taken seriously? Act like a serious man. Back up that “10%” claim with research and data. Do it now.
Post your links to research right here————>
Post your links to actual data right here———>
God, you’re dense.
I don’t like liars.
“Jeff Strand”
So why don’t you bust his balls?
Because I understand what he wrote. Now, about that “10%” divorce figure you were peddling…where’s the evidence to support it?
PS: Your obsession with the testicles of another man is rather odd. Perhaps you should seek counseling for that personal issue?
Don’t you know part of alpha mindset is resorting to insults and belittling other men when you can’t back up your claims.
Dump your boring husbands ladies, I’m sure it will all work out.
Questioning Jeff Strand’s glorious alphahood is something that only an Omega would do. Why, in Latin America, the women sing ballads of Jeff Strands romantic exploits, after which he dumped them over their lack of a college degree, despite their offers to buy them houses. If you disagree with any of Jeff Strand’s alphantastic assertions, you need to tell Jeff Strand every minute aspect of your life, so he can decide if your worthy of having an opinion about him. If you won’t dox yourself, your clearly an omega with a sex doll. We don’t have to defeat feminism and restore the patriarchy, guys, we just have to be more like Jeff Strand. He knows several Greek letters.
I really wish we could edit comments. Almost every your in that last comment should be a you’re. I’d blame autocorrect, but it’s probably just that I’m not alpha enough to Game my phone properly.
Right. Because alphas don’t marry. Marriage is the ultimate in one-itis. Marriage is the very definition of Beta. Alpha men don’t worry about keeping mama happy, they just next her when she gets unhappy.
Exactly, yet Jeff is married. That whacks him out of the Alpha category and back into the delusional-beta-schlub category. Who knows, maybe he was able to fake alpha for a little while when younger, but lost his edge to the competition and was forced to settle before being shunted onto the incel fast track.
Jeff,
If you wish your statements to be considered seriously, then I suggest you make an effort to show your sources. When you do not, it implies you may well have created your own imaginary information. As far as I can tell, much of your data seems to be based on your recall, for example, the 10% divorce rate that you “didn’t immediately find” (nor, apparently, have you found it since). When your statements are questioned, I think the onus is on you to provide evidence. Instead, you seem to be following the #metoo approach, where the allegations are to be believed without evidence.
These factors combined are multiplicative? Are you a statistician? Did you study statistics in school? I ask because, as I recall, statistics does not always work in the way I would expect. Specifically, I question your claim that those factors are multiplicative.
The only specific data you seem to provide (most is subject to the limits of your recall) are the items beginning with “People who wait to marry ….”. I searched for the entirety of that sentence and very quickly found 32 Shocking Divorce Statistics. I don’t think you tried very hard to find it, or your search abilities are weak.
Dalrock,
I don’t have that perception. Is there relatively universal agreement among the “experts” on this?
@ OKRickety
There’s not even “relatively universal agreement among the ‘experts'” as to what makes an “alpha”, which is part of what makes these androsphere discussions so frustrating.
The more a man declares himself an alpha is a 90% chance he’s emasculated.
I don’t have any research on this except my personal anecdotes.
Great post. Beta males and white knights, with no game, become pastors and then misunderstand the word of god.
Nice post from Lori Alexander on the poisonous effects of women’s discontentment in marriage:
https://thetransformedwife.com/discontentment-is-a-marriage-killer/
Thanks Heidi. That is a truly excellent post.
Pingback: Every woman’s battle. | Dalrock
Pingback: Whose job is it to keep mama happy?
Pingback: Pushing Rubber Downhill | Dalrock
Hypoagency and Hyperagency, manifesting in a religious interpretation. To tell you the truth, this idea of happiness is inherently a selfish black hole, and it will keep sucking the juice out of the other person and it reinforces the subconscious belief of unhappiness. So it keeps perpetuating. Joy is abundant, enjoyment is needy.
We can call this the woman’s pain body. Women tend to be more identified with their pain body in general. And we know where that ends up.
Pingback: Hail to the V. | Dalrock
Pingback: The chivalric rules of love. | Dalrock
My husband wrote a response to the No Longer Quivering blogger who didn’t like my post:
https://lazymothermusings.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/im-a-figment-of-your-imagination-or-my-husband-doesnt-post-often-but-when-he-does-he-stirs-up-trouble/
Easy to tell who really despises women, and it ain’t the patriarchy.
@Heidi
Beautiful.
I do believe, though, that “Suzanne” has some mental (as well as spiritual) health issues that make debating with her pointless unless/until they’re resolved. And pity (and pray for) her poor husband!!!
Alas, Suzannes are a ubiquitous species nowadays…
Thanks, feeriker. Yes, it’s impossible to argue in good faith–but as my husband says, we lose when we don’t even show up to the fight. Others may see this exchange and begin to have doubts about the correctness (and sanity) of opinions like Suzanne’s.
Reading between the lines, Suzanne is most likely in her late 50’s to 60’s, therefore a Boomer 2nd stage feminist who settled for a good-enough man back in her 20’s, a man whom she has ground down to almost nothing with her endless contentiousness. She will out live him in part because he’s under continual low-level stress from her perpetual discontent. She’s perpetually discontent because of a problem with no name and her blog is an extension of that perpetual discontent. Her hindbrain is looking for an Alpha man who will smack down her fitness tests, and none are in sight; there’s a jealousy angle to her anger at Heidi and her husband, although it is unconscious.
“Man bad, women good’ is her go-to ‘philosophy’. There’s millions of Churchians like her. Why does anyone bother to look at Patheos, anyway?
Just another sad, aging feminist who made her bed and doesn’t like it anymore. Her husband deserves pity…and a pair of The Glasses / Red Pill, but I fear he would reject all reality-based help.
PS: Good article, Heidi. Notice how little it takes to trigger these feminists into a froaming rage?
Sad to see.
Thanks, AR. I’m not sure her husband will live to pass away from low-level stress–given her indifference to his health, he might die of any number of things because she couldn’t be bothered to get him medical attention.