Lydia McGrew. Never heard of her until this week. Followed a link from Dalrock’s and saw her home page. Seemed a faux academic. Read some of her posts and thought, OK, some depth, some knowledge, some wisdom, not too bad. Even the aesthetics of her blog are geared to present an academic facade to the writing. Her condescension leaves the taste of bile, which I’ve been lacking as I am lacking a gall bladder. I didn’t miss it.
Then I read her post, “A Rant Against the Men’s Rights Attitude”. The facade weakened. So, I read the comments. It weakened further. Then I commented, she kept it in moderation but misrepresented my words in comments of her own, creating low rhetorical fruit she could use to rebut me.
Now the facade has crumbled. Pieces of it can be seen appearing, by hour, as she writes comments to herself, the blog equivalent of fingers in ears yelling lalalalalala. I told her that it was unlikely she would ever yield an inch. That she is the fish not grasping the notion that it is soaking wet.
Its nothing new, nothing to see, move on along. Or, read on as I parse her feeble attempt at making a low effort at shaming seem like true point-counterpoint discourse, her one sided debate serving to show that forensics really is not what they are getting at in CSI shows.
Lydia says men she runs into cite that 80% of divorces are initiated by women for frivolous reasons. I list the specific number, 80%, because later she adds points to her score when i make the case that in reality the number is more like 67% and has been backed by some decent studies. I should have known better than to wade in with her when she takes her first mirthful stab at rebutting the claim:
The idea seems to be that pretty much all women have within them an Inner Buffy who is just waiting for the opportunity to dump her husband one day in fit of hormone-driven pique because he fails to put his socks in the hamper. And then ruin his life, ruin the children’s lives, break up his relationship with his children, etc.
No Lydia, that is not what the idea seems to be, unless like you, one wishes to frame a straw man argument that is easy to knock down. Do you really think no one has tried the “socks in the hamper” before? The actual claim is regarding what reasons are NOT present for these divorces. Physical infidelity, physical abuse, and addiction are missing from the 67%. It says nothing about silliness like socks or toilet seats.
It shouldn’t really be too hard to realize that a man can leave his wife for another woman and that his wife may then formally initiate the divorce! In our current no-fault divorce culture, it is quite easy for an erring spouse of either sex to initiate a marital breakup and then put psychological pressure on the other spouse to agree to the subsequent divorce. If the other spouse happens to be the one to file the papers, that doesn’t automatically mean the other spouse is the guilty party in the marital breakup. There are, of course, other scenarios as well. In how many of those 80% of cases was the husband using, and unable or unwilling to stop using, p*rn, perhaps even the type which made the wife fear for her own safety and that of her children? How about severe and uncontrolled substance abuse?
I’d like to say this argument is predictable, but usually women refuting divorce statistics do not get this far. But many do, and Lydia here makes the assumption that the men citing the statistics need to be schooled in this most elementary level of analysis. The men citing these are often the sausage that has emerged from the family court grinder, and most of them tend to go OCD studying the law and its iterations and outcomes. They KNOW that what she is saying is true, and likely asked the same question when they began to read that women file most no-fault divorces. I know I certainly did. I, like Lydia, did not want to, no….refused to accept that the notion men are destroying families is worth further examination. I was doggedly opposed to defense of men, and more so to holding women at all to account for familial destruction. having been the product of divorce, several times, as a child, and having witnessed severe physical abuse by men of my mother, I was wrapped tight and comfortable in the belief set Lydia espouses. A crowbar would not separate me from those views.
So I wrote her a comment explaining that there is a state sponsored study that shows what I claim. She accused me of using stats cooked up in the manosphere. I explained that, no, mine were independent and if anything were biased to not show what they ultimately did show. I then tried to explain that conjecture about the number crunching, thereafter, could ONLY buttress the claims, even if by adding just one more case. That by design, conjecture could not unwind the known numbers, it could only support them. She misunderstood this as well and in a comment said::
This implies that you believe that those doing the study were _not_ really able to get at a clear knowledge of what faults were causes lying behind the divorces. Your bias shows in that you state that we should assume and “add on top” hidden female-fault divorces but that you do not see (even, apparently, after I pointed it out once) that if this is a possibility, so too are hidden male-fault divorces. If, for example, some divorces filed apparently frivolously by men were filed at the request of their wives (an example you gave), then why should we not guess that there were some divorces filed apparently frivolously by women at the request of their husbands?
I really do not know how to make this any clearer.
Also to point out, again, your amusing and strange double standard regarding the alleged thorough knowledge of your cited researchers and possible hidden cases of (only???) female fault. But if you don’t understand that yet, there’s nothing further I can do
[emphasis of condescension mine]
Lydia. It is clear. Its just wrong. You need to step down from your high horse and realize that other people can think and reason as well or better than you. That other people have been steeped in this, for real, and considered it from every possible angle. And that other people can be smart. To wade into a topic for the first time with nothing but simplistic emotional reactions and then condescend to someone offering thoughtful arguments as if you have it all figured out is bad form. In fact, when you say:
On the other hand, I have a very *strong* impression that the manosphere is bad for a person’s (some participants are women as well) ability to think clearly, as well as for a person’s character and ability to perceive the world. I most solemnly wish to have nothing to do with it, considering it, quite literally, mind poison.
You describe your own thinking.
You deride my challenge to “conventional wisdom” and misquote me by calling it “common wisdom”. these two things are very different as read. Since you chose to take my 13% “error”, I used 67% vs your 80%, I have to point out that you misquoted me, again. You use a poor example. I state that I am challenging conventional wisdom and that conventional wisdom is lazy thinking and the hardest to get round. You then turn that around and say that I have taken exception to feminist claims that men and women are the same, and you then choose for me my reason for doing it. You say I base my refutation on years of observations, etc., and ask what is that if not common wisdom, closing your thought with more condescension, goose, gander, etc. But I didn’t say any of that.
You take the low road of insult and slander, attacking blogs and bloggers you have likely never even opened let alone read with a critical but open mind. THAT is a poisoned mind Lydia.
You should have stayed on your stated mission:
Welcome to the home page of Lydia McGrew. I am a homemaker and home schooling mom, and I do analytic philosophy in some of my spare time
Analytic philosophy indeed. Maybe have Tim go over this stuff before you float it out there for the world to see. You cannot wade into an arena where there are very intelligent and reputable people and expect to brush them off with lazy thinking and cheap insults. There are uneducated women less than 25 years old who make far better and more well considered points against manosphere ideas than you have. And, they do it without being condescending.
This is what happens when a women is told that she is special, brilliant, articulate, insightful, throughout life, and that combines with a feminist chip on the shoulder the size of a slab of the 405 after the big one.