Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.
Reader The Question found an example of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism at The Age:
Groups of men harassed me to tears in the street – and no one acted
Intrepid feminist Jill Stark went to an event where she had been uncomfortable for her safety before, and found that it happened again. Surely the good men in the area should have learned from the last time this happened to her!
We’ve been conditioned since childhood to believe it’s our responsibility to change our behaviour and minimise our risk in public spaces but it’s not our actions that need to be policed.
If you are a bystander to the mistreatment of women, you are part of the problem.
What made my experience last week particularly deflating was that exactly the same thing happened to me a few years ago after exactly the same AFL opening round fixture.
What Stark doesn’t understand is that this is a case of tragedy of the commons. The men around her knew she wasn’t their woman. This is true in both the specific sense, and in the more general/societal sense. In the specific sense, Stark tells us a male friend offered to walk with her, and she declined.
At first I was annoyed at myself for not being tougher, and for not taking my friend up on his offer to walk with me.
Oddly she doesn’t say why she declined his help, especially given that she had a bad experience the last time she was alone with the same crowd. But in general feminists resent men’s offers to help in these kinds of situations because accepting help implies not only that they aren’t as strong as men, but it also risks creating a situation where gratitude is appropriate. Since surely women are as strong as men, and since ugly feminists live in fear of feeling gratitude, the offer can’t be accepted. Besides, she should be just fine, since all of the men she doesn’t know, the men who didn’t offer to help, owe her protection on demand.
But her expectation that unknown men owe her protection from even feeling uncomfortable is a poor assumption. For starters in most of the West good samaritans are seen as dangerous threats to good order, and frequently derided as “playing hero”. As the most respected comment to the piece explained:
I can tell you why no-one (read: good men) helped: Being a good samaritan is not worth it. There was a similar situation where when a woman was harassed on the train and the men in the same carriage stood up and changed carriages. Looking at the motives, the journalist who was told about the incident did some investigating as to the lack of help.
Turns out men who tried to help women in distress recently were either killed or badly injured assisting, went to jail for assault or murder themselves because they used excessive force in defending the woman, or hurt the assailant enough that he successfully sued the good samaritan.
In all three cases the (good) man and his family suffered greatly.
So most people don’t want to risk their own families security and livelihood for some stranger. That’s why. They would prefer to protect their own.
There is another problem with her expectation, and it comes from social dynamics of groups of rowdy strange men. If her friend were walking her to a car or another safe place the catcallers would have shown less interest. It is highly unlikely that her friend is strong enough to overcome a group of rowdy football fans, but his presence would cause her not to stand out as (for lack of a better term) an unclaimed woman. In her gut she surely understands this, and this reality will have any feminist reading mad enough to tear out her leg hair. On the other hand, once she placed herself standing alone in the vicinity of rowdy fans, she was in their minds unclaimed. Moreover, if a random stranger challenges a group of men who are catcalling her he will be seen as challenging them personally. A man protecting a woman or women he is with will be (generally speaking) respected, unless he acts to challenge the group and/or unless the group is especially unruly. But a white knight who steps forward will be seen as challenging the men to a fight, and there is a good chance they are looking for such a volunteer.
The feminist response to this reality is that no one owns them, and they are of course right.
Related:
The feminist response to this reality is that no one owns them, and they are of course right.
Good point. Unowned women. Can’t argue with them, they aren’t my women, and for that I am thankful; strays don’t even get fed around here.
First important thing you learn in any concealed carry course: never intervene in any domestic disturbance. It only ends up bad for you.
Unless you know a party involved, stay out of it. You aren’t a hero, and it’s not your job, and you have no duty to suffer legally, financially, and emotionally for another.
Feminist created this world. Let them suffer for it
7817 – “Good point. Unowned women. Can’t argue with them, they aren’t my women, and for that I am thankful; strays don’t even get fed around here.”
If not wives, relatives, some one else’s wife, widow or a nun….they are loose unbound women. Treat them as such.
Feminism is a form of LARPing – the illusion is shattered when people around them refuse to pretend. This particular form of LARPing is codified into all social and cultural norms, plus the law. But that only works with those who care.
From Linkedin I learn:
“Jill Stark is [a forty-two year old woman] from Scotland the author of Happily Never After about her own lifetime of mental health problems and High Sobriety a first person exploration of Binge Drinking, a natural born story teller with a passion for equality, social justice voted LGBTQI ally of the year and mental health”.
Tim Bayly and crew would demand that every man is morally responsible for the violence happening to the woman. This includes a requirement to fight to the death to protect her, no matter how stupid she is or how irrelevant to his life she is. It’s called Universal Binding Obligation and it is a core part of natural law patriarchy, as they see it anyway.
But don’t get the idea that women get off scot-free in this deal. Universal Binding Obligation imposes a burden on women, too. It requires that they ALLOW the man to fight to the death to protect her. And that does impose the risk of eliciting feelings of gratitude on the part of the woman, which is a fate worse than death, don’t you know.
Opus
“Jill Stark is [a forty-two year old woman] from Scotland
Oh, dear, the milk in the fridge has gone way past the “best by” date… what to do, what to do?
The whole notion of “using porn is adultery therefore divorce” is risible given the fact that many men resort to porn after their till-death-do-us-part women decide to use sex as a pry bar, a tool, or a weapon. That doesn’t make use of porn by men right, but it does make the whole “poor, poor wronged woman” concept a load of garbage. Because there are explicit quotes in the Bible that tell women don’t do that, in order to sell this concept one must ignore a lot of bad behavior by women.
Or excuse it, which is White Knighting.
More generally, the people (usually women or White Knight men) who take that line have nothing to say when it’s pointed out that there are women using porn as well. It’s obviously a rule meant to be used in only one way, and that makes the motivations clear – control of men, freeing of women.
We won’t even discuss who bought all those copies of Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey…
Dalrock,
For those who might care, those leaving the AFL match were not “rowdy soccer fans”.
You see, the “football” played in the AFL in Melbourne, Australia, is not soccer but Australian Rules Football. One of the differences being that AFL matches are not likely to have any flopping (ala Neymar in last year’s Soccer World Cup).
[D: Thanks! Fixed.]
What the Age article omits to also mention is the huge demographics change that has occurred in Melbourne – Melbourne is now brown… lots of Indians, Africans, and Asians……. as a result only a foolish white woman would go out like this one did to such an event. There was a recent robbery and sexual assault of two woman days ago in Melbourne, the Age newspaper would not reveal the ethnicity of the perpetrators……. but those like myself who fled Melbourne out into rural areas know. The politicians have turned my once safe and happy country into a shattered hell hole and women like this complainant have aided them all the way… let these women enjoy all the fruits of their choices…. Melbourne police also come down hard on any whites who try to fight back against non-white crime – we are always the bad guys…. so screw it I say.
She wants to tear down the society she claims owes her all the benefits she is helping tear down!
This deserves some thought! It goes to the core of the feminist project, and the nature of men and women (and how much they can change).
Larry
“The feminist response to this reality is that no one owns them, and they are of course right.”
I think feminists are wrong on this count, and, using colloquial Christian language, women (and men) belong to either sin or their savior, assuming Paul is to be believed. Based on Christian scripture, I think it’s plausible a woman belongs to her father, her husband, or the church, usually in that order.
De jure, no person owns a woman. De facto, common and statutory law is a lie. Women alone fare poorly; the exceptions prove the rule.
It is her responsibility to modify her behaviour and minimise her risk in public spaces. No one gets a free pass. It is not mine or any other man’s responsibility to look after her, not anymore.
Good, I’m glad my being a bystander is leading to mistreatment of women. Good! I love it. Moar please. I don’t care about feminists anymore, they have brought this on themselves in spades and deserve it all. Every last little ounce of shit coming their way.
Glad I could be of no service to the feminist. All in a good day’s work.
My only quibble with Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: I wouldn’t say it’s ‘pleas’ I’d say it’s ‘demands.’
@Dave
You hit upon the mark. If those were white men, that adjective would have graced the word “men” in every usage. As in any police report where the race of the offender is not mentioned you can reliably impute it with a high confidence level.
As noted in many European or large city stories of harassment (remember the video of the femm walking around just to garner catcalls?) most of the verbal harassers are non-white.
It would be more than white men’s lives are worth to do that to a woman in these days.
It also shows the disgust reflex and racist nature of the author in that she felt uncomfortable with these men; she would have not one ounce of fear had she been near or surrounded by whites. Ultimately, that is the fundamental problem of her rebellion. Her native race males do not inspire any need for protection, claim, or other dependency in her. That’s what Daddy .Gov is for.
Note that I’m not talking about being racist or feeling disgusted toward non-whites. That is reserved for the white men who have never put her where she wanted to be.
Excellent takedown in that OP Dalrock.
Why doesn’t she call a cop? Say they are “abusing” her. In rich countries the state is her man when one is needed for protection, as for all feminists. Surely by now those “catcalls” are chargeable offenses where she lives.
@ The Question
Feminism is a form of LARPing – the illusion is shattered when people around them refuse to pretend.
Good one. Feminism is forever wilting under the natural laws of the universe (aka jungle rules).
Sorry random woman I don’t know–your pride isn’t worth my risking life or limb.
And, when you get your face bloodied on the floor OR beat the guy to a pulp and he sues you: “I didn’t ask for your help”.
Plausible deniability.
If you are a bystander to the mistreatment of women, you are part of the problem.
Haha! Actually, such a man is part of the SOLUTION.
Excessive whiteknighting, much of it forcibly mandated by the state, is the reason for this preposterously unnatural (and anti-science) distortion we have today.
Male self-awareness and enlightened self-interest is become a real problem you guys!
It’s really put a damper on the pomp and circumstance going on in Girl World.
If women take back all of the TimesUp, YesMeansYes, MeToo and Duluth Model stuff, will you fellas continue once more pulling our carts, paying for dates and sacrificing your lives for intermittent and conditional access to sexual congress?
Asking for a friend.
Oh, dear, the milk in the fridge has gone way past the “best by” date… what to do, what to do?
Not merely past its sell-by date, but another five weeks after that, where solids have begun to separate, colors other than white have begun to emerge, and one dares not actually open the jug lest a vile odor escape.
And this twat demands more ‘whiteknighting’.
My only quibble with Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: I wouldn’t say it’s ‘pleas’ I’d say it’s ‘demands.’
Yes. That would make it more accurate.
The feminist response to this reality is that no one owns them, and they are of course right.
Well, the government does own them, and will eventually realize that it can get the same political benefit from these ‘feminists’ for a far lower price, since the ‘feminists’ have no other alternative to which they can take the only product of value they provide (political activism).
“…The feminist response to this reality is that no one owns them, and they are of course right.”
Let her call 9-1-1, she’s not my problem.
“Not my monkeys, not my circus.”
You guys are slow to post pictures.
Here it is :
Not the worst by ‘feminist’ standards, but still a valid confirmation that physiognomy is real.
The female’s logic is always sound for a herd animal with inferior physical strength. Men are specialized at physical violence; women are specialized at psychological violence (which is physical violence on credit that requires conversion to physical violence enough to be taken at face value, i.e. a willing man). Women enjoy nothing more than manipulating men into violence against each other or against themselves. Drama is her playground. She is not being irrational about civics. She’s being cunning about herd animal jollies and rank. What she does is calculated in a split second. What Dalrock and you other Xian humanizers of women do is calculate an explanation of her psyche in days, weeks, never. There is no ‘problem with her expectations’. It works often enough to be worth a try from her ROI perspective. She does not want to be safe, as you define it. She wants to feel alive. The more she does feel alive, the more decline she creates as a byproduct. Is it not chivalry to endow women with conscious and conscientious reason? Is it not valiant to endow women with hapless incompetence?
They say that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result than the first time. Miss Stark says that exactly the same thing had happened to her in the same place and in the same circumstances on an earlier occasion. I deduce therefore that behind her outrage she loved the attention these random males gave her hence the repeat showing. She will do this again. Let us also not forget that Australian Rules makes American Football and even Rugby League and Rugby Union look like games for sissies and presumably the fans of Ozzie Rules are of a like cast of mind.
Something like this:
So, this is what Ms Stark did:
-Rejects help of a man as escort
-Goes to a place where there are lots of men
-Becomes uncomfortable because she isn’t escorted
-Blames all men
Since women have become complete toxic liabilities, the right thing to do when you see a woman in distress is – cross to the other side of the street, fold your hands behind your back and walk away whistling.
That’s a man baby! (Referring to “her” headshot)
Pingback: Tragedy of the feminist commons. | Reaction Times
Cunts are gonna cunt.
Opus: “Jill Stark is [a forty-two year old woman] from Scotland the author of Happily Never After about her own lifetime of mental health problems …
Having “mental health problems” has become a status symbol among women. They talk about, even brag about, their mental health problems.
Used to be people were ashamed about insanity in the family. They kept quiet about it. Now, women routinely blog about and expose their naked bodies, their sex lives, their dysfunctional families, their mental health issues, everything.
And don’t anyone dare try to judge or shame them for anything.
Off Topic: I saw this at Barnes and Noble (yes, they do still exist).
Check out the look on that little girls face. They’re indoctrinating girls with bitchiness ever earlier.
@spike IOW- you can lead a whore to water, but you can’t make her think.
Well, as the sayings goes, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away (if they show up at all),
Oddly, she doesn’t say why she declined his help…
Anytime a man offers me assistance I feel gratitude, even if I decline his help. Sorry, that was a very MALE thing to say.
Someone tell that Stark bitch, ”Winter has come!”
This is the Winter of our discontent. We are not protecting dried up feminist bags anymore.
I once kicked a steel door down to save a screaming woman in a third world country. And… she was just crazy. No visible reason for her screaming into the night like she was being murdered. Never again…
The gayest cowboy Tradcon gathering I have ever seen parody:
“Real” Masculinity by “real men”. A total farce.
tteclod,
“I think it’s plausible a woman belongs to her father, her husband, or the church, usually in that order.”
After we had been married for several years my wife shared with me that her reading of the Bible she believed that I now owned her. She based that on what she read in Exodus and Proverbs. She dug into the Hebrew word for “husband” and found it literally meant “lord, master”. She was happy about it.
I really doubt that any man here would stand with “arms folded” and watch a woman get pummeled on the street, openly mugged, or someone trying to cause physical violence. You wouldn’t “smirk” and think “you got what was coming to you”
You would call the police…………..
What if it was a realtive of yours? Your wife when she was out shopping? A daughter who was away in college….or out and about?
Would you tell your daughter calmly afterward “Well daughter, you see femimism has done this and that, and if you are getting mugged, or attacked…..that is your own fault…..you should have not been alone in broad daylight…..and in 1211…..there was this thing called Chivarly and ….you should have taken my advice and learned self-defense….”
No. You would be demanding, complaining and bitching about “No real mighty men could stand up to help a defenseless woman, or teen age girl! How come the police didn’t respond quicker?”
Many of you are talkin’ real tough, and its gettin’ real deep in here.
Ah, white knight seventiesjason charges, AMOG as his battlecry!
I have four grown daughters. None are stupid enough to go to a place like described without their man. The grown grand-daughter (getting married in June) ditto. My wife is dead, but she wasn’t stupid either.
As far as non-relative women, yes, I absolutely would walk on by. I was taught that over a decade ago. The only reason I wasn’t arrested and charged was that no actual damage occurred. The woman involved happily threw me under the bus. My wife (then alive) made me promise to never do that sort of thing again.
So, would you like some fire, scarecrow?
@seventies
If it’s your property, you defend it. If it’s not your property, then call the cops.
I expect my wife to not place herself in dangerous situations when I’m not there, and I’ve told her so. I’m also happy to enable her safety, including firearm training, ownership, and carry. That’s last resort stuff. It’s better that she not get in trouble in the first place, or leaves if trouble is starting. I’ll train my daughters the same.
That’s all you can do in life, so if you’re going to bitch about “what if’s” it’s a waste of time.
Last, calling police is not not not the same as whiteknighting and putting yourself in harms way or hurting another person. You can be calling the cops as you walk away. Don’t stand there like a doofus and get creamed in the melee.
@ Dalrock
Maybe you might want to check into this article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-transgender-war-on-women-11553640683?mod=hp_opin_pos2 Perfect example of the Dalrock law of Feminism.
One of the most tone-deaf articles I have read in a long time…..
Opus,
I remember seeing Australian Rules Football on ESPN several decades ago. I think the refs had white outfits then. I never could figure out what the rules were though….
That picture makes her look like she is a tranny. That is another thing that makes me so concerned about connecting with any “woman” today – the chance she is really a he.
On the porn front,
Has anyone read YA stuff? The Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. While not sexually explicit a la 50 Shades, they aren’t much better: bland stand in heroine, a menagerie of hawt dudes, yada yada yada.
Basically, this starts way earlier than 18. Girls are exposed to the tripe in their early teens or earlier.
Many of you are talkin’ real tough
It’s the opposite gamma boy. How is saying you won’t defend someone talking tough? Pro-tip: it isn’t.
Saying you want to take care only of what you are responsible for is at least a good place to start. At the least, maybe we can be faithful to take care of what we have been given, and later, if necessary, develop the strength to help others.
Tell me, has anyone read:
Devlin, F. R. (2015). Sexual utopia in power: The Feminist Revolt against civilization. San Francisco, CA: Counter-Currents Publishing.
@jason The woman in the OP was not assaulted. She suffered from having catcalls made at her. She chose to go to a place where she had seen this kind of behavior before (almost entirely from brown people, which the article does not mention), and she turned down a friend who offered to escort her.
Regarding women choosing to go places unaccompanied, if my daughter deliberately went to a place like that at an hour like that, alone, I would be ashamed of her.
@ seventiesjason
Who stated that he “would stand with ‘arms folded’ and watch a woman get pummeled on the street, openly mugged, or someone trying to cause physical violence, ‘smirk’ and think ‘you got what was coming to you’”? Please provide a name and quote.
Who stated that he would not “call the police”? Please provide a name and quote.
If she rejected male protection knowing full well it might be needed, that means her would-be escort was a beta male she couldn’t risk being seen with by higher status/alpha men. Her singleness at such a late age means she’s either got an overinflated sense of SMV, or is simply more interested in playing attention whore games than finding an actual mate.
They were like “real masculinity is treating women with deference”
What a joke. 🤣🤣🤣
Did you see turd flinging Monkey’s mockery of it?
Here’s the link, read the comment section as well
Da fuk?!?!
What’s up with the white-knighting?
You luvs yuh some good straw man, dontcha Jason?
Go back to whining about your love life. I could use a good laugh.
Years ago, A men’s blog in a newspaper put out the hypothetical question:
“You see a girl being beaten up by a bikie. What do you do?”
I wrote, “What is she doing with the bikie in the first place? Is he her drug dealer? Hot crazy boyfriend? Do they share a past? If so, then I would cross the street arms folded and walk away whistling”.
I received a torrent of abuse for my callousness. But what happens if I get stabbed, and she is indeed her boyfriend, as many times they are? His Dark Triad makes her wet in all the right places, and I bleed to death or am permanently disabled, and not eligible for compensation because his lawyer spun it in court that I was the aggressor.
This is the state of relationships now and the state of Law.
No thank you.
I really doubt that any man here would stand with “arms folded” and watch a woman get pummeled on the street, openly mugged, or someone trying to cause physical violence. You wouldn’t “smirk” and think “you got what was coming to you”
Wanna bet?
American,
“Tell me, has anyone read:
Devlin, F. R. (2015). Sexual utopia in power: The Feminist Revolt against civilization.”
Yes.
It was good. I recommend it.
Most of it is a collection of his essays on men and women compiled into a book. Not much new material. Many of his essays you can find for free on the web.
Devlin is pro-natal. He understands the importance of married couples making lots of babies.
Who stated that he would not “call the police”? Please provide a name and quote.
You still think Jason cares about any level of accuracy. He is more than happy to accuse others here of things they have not said or even implied. Pointing this out is not going to make him change.
You didn’t like that he lied about what you said. Remember, it does not trouble him to do that (and he will do it again, and again after that).
I’ve noticed that even Christian anti-abortion activists follow Dalrock’s law. See this tweet from Lila Rose. Apparently, in post-abortion interviews the majority of women who made their precious ”choice” say they were coerced.
It is someone else’s fault (a man). The anti-abortion movement blames the abortionist, never the mother.
That logic should apply to women. If a woman is slapping her boyfriend in public, don’t be a bystander and slap the shit out of her.
And this begs the question: why isn’t the Sisterhood© defending their own? I thought women were more empathetic and badass than men, kinda like Captain Marvel.
“Tell me, has anyone read: Devlin, F. R. (2015). Sexual utopia in power: The Feminist Revolt against civilization. San Francisco, CA: Counter-Currents Publishing.”
I recall reading somewhere that it was banned from Amazon.
Concerning the subject at hand, to hell with her, just like those two “midsle class White men” said to hell with Tamara Cincik. They need men like fish need bicycles – let them prove it.
@American
I’m about halfway through it. It sort of hits the same beats that heartiste and dalrock do, though more…politely.
Coerced – meaning her dark triad boyfriend threatened to dump her and disappear if she didn’t do it. I guess they can say their tingles made them do it.
Along those lines. I had a coworker who was divorced and had joint custody with his ex. He found out that her new squeeze would beat the kids. Did she call the cops? No. Did she threaten to kick him out? No. Her ex asked for full custody and said yes. She chose the dark triad dude over her own kids. And they were not “white trash”. Both he and his ex were white collar professionals.
@Oscar
I disagree. That’s picture is definitely on topic. I believe it’s partly that bitchy “I can do what I want and you can’t tell me what to do” attitude that gets these women in trouble in the first place. If you don’t believe me, ask the two Scandinavian girls who ended up murdered in Morocco.
Warthog March 28, 2019 at 5:08 am
Lilah Rose may be referring to the notion that if a woman fronts up to an abortion clinic, then she will be talked into an abortion. She will NOT be presented with choices of adoption etc. (Ironically, it is the Pro Life movement that gives her those choices, not the ”Pro Choice” movement). She will be told that she is “removing tissue” or ”getting of a bunch of cells”. It is only afterward when abortionists do an inventory of 2 legs, 2 arms, head, torso and placenta that it is known that yes, it is indeed a baby that has been killed.
Lilah Rose does great work, and my one gripe that I have noticed in the anti-abortion movement is exactly what you say:
It never seems to be the woman’s fault.
There was even talk a while back (other readers may know the reference) where the abortionist, not the woman is charged if an illegal or late-term abortion is performed.
When you consider
-Women have 14 different choices of contraception. Men have 3, none of which are particularly appealing
-Women are in complete legal control of the sex act. She can stop the act at any point, calling it rape, even in mid-coitus.
-Women carry signs saying “My body, My choice” at pro-abortion rallies.
-The rate of abortion is currently 20% of all pregnancies world wide as an average. In Australia it is 1 in 6 or about 15%, USA 25%. The highest abortion rate recorded was in rural Soviet Union, where abortion occurred at a rate of 700 abortions per 100 live births.
-Anyone should agree that 20% is just too much. Women were given custody of birth control and it is now a disastrous slaughterhouse.
“If you are a bystander to the mistreatment of women, you are part of the problem.”
That is an amusing statement. Oh, and fuck you. As a man who has been abused by women, and as a divorced dad who has been enslaved by the system…..if I see a woman on the street being abused by anyone…..I will get a very ugly smile on my face and a warm feeling in my cold black dead heart. Misogynist are not born, they are made. Reap the bitter harvest.
@Bee, thank you for your analysis.
shit_that_didnt_happen.txt
LOL.
In her direction?
Next time, wear a hidden camera and post it on youtube so we can all laugh at it.
I have a copy of Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power with the wonderful picture of Judith and Holofernes on the cover. Before the publication in book form I had my friend run off a copy from his lap-top. I was unable to utilise the public library for that purpose as the County Council who own and run the library have decreed that the site where the essays are hosted is a ‘hate site’. Rather like the Vatican’s list of forbidden books I always assume that designated hate-sites have the only stuff worth reading and Devlin’s essays is worth rereading many times as indeed I have done.
There is that I can see just one obvious and unintentional mistake which a commentor has alluded to on his five star Amazon.co.uk review. Amazingly he has the same name as me.
Vektor: “Misogynist are not born, they are made. Reap the bitter harvest.” thumbs up.
@ American
I highly recommend Devlin’s essay Home Economics, which can be read here: https://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm. The book contains a number of essays, most of which can be found online. I have read most of them but haven’t purchased the book because its very disturbing cover (though appropriate to the topic) would frighten my children.
@ Anonymous Reader:
Re: “using porn is adultery therefore divorce” My sister recently divorced her husband, citing that he had “problematic habits.” She would not come out and say directly that he was using porn, but all the womenfolk in the extended family are sure that the ex-husband was a “porn addict,” so rightly or wrongly he has been branded as such and all seem to believe that the divorce was completely justified. I don’t know the real facts of the situation and neither party was willing to speak openly with me about it, but I know my sister well enough to have some serious questions. I am not in any way condoning the use of pornography, but I understand very well how my sister, who can be very manipulative and not pleasant at all when she doesn’t get her way, could have driven him to it. I’m just not convinced that porn use necessarily justifies divorce, even though most “Christians” I know seem to believe that porn use (by men at least) is worse than adultery. I’m still thinking about this. It is a moot point for my sister and her ex-husband as their divorce is already final, but my gut feeling is that there is a terrible double standard in place. I can’t fully articulate my thoughts but I welcome any insight others can offer.
Tell me, has anyone read:
Devlin, F. R. (2015). Sexual utopia in power: The Feminist Revolt against civilization. San Francisco, CA: Counter-Currents Publishing.
Yes, it’s been around for years in separate form on the internet, since 10+ years ago. I think the core essay from the title was first published in the Occidental Review. Devlin is kind of the theoretical godfather of the manosphere.
@ rocko
I would, but my Ouija board spontaneously combusted last time I used it.
@ Anon
I’m aware, but not everyone else is.
@KA I’m just not convinced that porn use necessarily justifies divorce, even though most “Christians” I know seem to believe that porn use (by men at least) is worse than adultery.
Although adultery starts in the heart, actual adultery is far worse than imagined adultery. Even the apostle Paul had to admit he struggled with ‘thou shalt not covet’.
I think it’s an easy way out to justify divorce. Only Erasmus and after him Luther justified divorce in case of real adultery, but the same Luther justified men having sex with their maids if their wives were unwilling to fulfill their sexual duties.
When was the last time you heard a man was allowed to divorce his wife because she would not fulfill her marital sexual obligations?
@Paul I have never heard anyone in church circles say that a man is justified in divorcing his wife in any circumstance except when she has committed adultery. Even then, many will encourage him to forgive her and remain married- even if she does not repent. Conversely, I have heard a laundry list of reasons that supposedly justify a woman divorcing her husband, though few of them seem to have any Biblical basis that I can determine. A Christian husband who uses pornography is clearly violating his marriage vows (assuming he actually made any Christian vows at marriage) , but Christian wives routinely violate their marriage vows in various ways with the full support and encouragement of their pastors. To me it is a question of degree that should determine whether divorce is justified, because most violations of the marriage vows are of less seriousness than adultery or divorce and can be remedied rather than detonating a sacramental relationship. The seriousness of destroying the marriage sacrament does not seem to factor into the equation for most Christians.
Also, I have never heard any Christian (except in the Manosphere) ever state that a wife has marital sexual obligations, despite the clear teachings found in the New Testament.
Jason:
Sure, I’d call the police if i saw some random woman getting mugged or brutalized. Call 911, report it. Then go on about my day.
If something like this happened to my daughter I’d first question my daughter as to where she was and when and why. Because, odds are, she was probably somewhere she shouldn’t have been at a time she shouldn’t have been there, with men she didn’t know very well, and possibly doing something she should not have been doing with people she shouldn’t have been doing anything with. Because – newsflash – that’s usually when bad things happen to women.
She’s at the biker bar. At 4 am, stoned, and her girlfriends are leaving, while she’s talking with Harley McBadboy who she’s met a couple times before. Or she’s drunk in a hotel room at midnight with Alpha McGorgeous whom she just met 3 hours before. Or she’s walking around, alone, at a sporting event where thugs, criminals, lowlifes, drunks, stoners, and other assorted shady characters are known to congregate.
Almost all the time, when a woman gets herself into some sort of trouble, it’s because she was somewhere she shouldn’t have been, at a time she shouldn’t have been, with people she doesn’t know, doing something she shouldn’t have been doing.
@KA I have never heard any Christian (except in the Manosphere) ever state that a wife has marital sexual obligations, despite the clear teachings found in the New Testament.
My experience is worse than that. The times I’ve discussed the NT texts on sexual obligations in marriage with ANY Christian outside the Manosphere, they’ve looked at me as if I was a despicable stone-age rapist, if not satan himself. In utter disgust replies varied from “I’m never gonna do that” to “how do you imagine that to WORK?”. Not a single one took these verses seriously, ESPECIALLY women.
@ American
F Roger Devlin is a first rate author on any subject he chooses. Lately he has been publishing at The Occidental Observer, also VDARE.