Worth it?

Men and women civilize one another. Lacking the civilizing effect, what happens? Women lack

 

Divorce punishes men. It punishes them for making women unhappy. Men who go to work, do some chores, are not abusive or addicted, but fail to calm the storm of her ever changing emotions are tossed from the lives of their children.

 

marriageggMan-CryingWhat happens next? When men are rejected and peel away the civilization that they created…..for the love of a woman and their children?

Men, uncivilized.

Men lacking

 

Feminism. Evangelical feminism. Worth it?

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “Worth it?

  1. Women are not going to like the world that they have voted into existence. Unfortunately, they will be generally incapable of accepting the blame, since women – like children – run from accountability.

    I plan to remain single, mobile, and adaptable.

  2. Eric; that Anglobitch page you linked is very interesting. Combined with Empath’s post and other info I’ve been directed to recently, it makes sense that so many wars may have extreme feminism and the destruction of men’s sexuality as their root cause. I hadn’t fully comprehended till recently how sex with women was the soldier’s booty (pardon the pun). Such action certainly seems just in the overall scheme of things. I know it doesn’t fit with God’s plan for sex only within the confines of marriage, but I can understand it now. Thanks Empath and Eric for opening my eyes that much further. I wonder if Genghis Kahn’s era was a culture of extreme feminism?

  3. Great post. Powerful message.

    Funny sidebar: My daughter saw me reading this, noted the picture of the crying man and said, “Hey, isn’t that the guy who kills demons on that show daddy used to watch?”

    It is! Somehow that makes the picture all the more apropos.

  4. Snowy:
    Even in the American military it only became illegal for soldiers to ‘fraternize’ with local women in the 1990s. I don’t remember if it was Bush Sr. or Clinton who imposed the ban. In either case, Clinton shortly thereafter opened the military for fags and femihags and now we have the Village People instead of an army! lol

  5. Eric:

    https://empathological.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/worth-it/#comment-8320

    I’m certain the Australian armed forces followed suit, at least with the feminisation, homosexuals and lesbians. They’ll be breast feeding on the front lines yet, and holding gay and lesbian madi-gras there too. It’s truly mind-boggling, is it not? I truly do pray that should it come to the defence of our country that our armed forces are really up to the job.

  6. @nonya

    I’d call it melodrama, not necessarily melodramatic with the baggage associated with that word. It exaggerates a plot to appeal to emotion.

    It is precisely the favored tool of women when they gnash teeth at the suggestion that divorce laws be tightened up a bit. My post has no lobbying or influence intent. Not so when women cry ” but all those women will be trapped in abuse….their livs are at stake”

    Come on admit it…..you’ve said that or thought that too

  7. What is going on in hajji land is driven by their belief in islam and from.following the koran and hadith and not the various social ills folks like to blame it on.

  8. It is precisely the favored tool of women when they gnash teeth at the suggestion that divorce laws be tightened up a bit. My post has no lobbying or influence intent. Not so when women cry ” but all those women will be trapped in abuse….their livs are at stake”

    The are logical reasons for the current divorce laws and nothing much to be gained by tightening them. In the end, we can’t force people to live together. Even the abused woman emotional appeal has grounds in reality.

    Your melodramatic appeal to emotion actually makes the argument for tighter divorce laws seem even weaker than it actually is to people who are not already convinced.

  9. Pingback: Random Musings And Links- #3 | Donal Graeme

  10. Nonya:
    “Even the abused woman emotional appeal has grounds in reality.”

    No it hasn’t. Tightening the divorce laws would do things regarding abused women:

    1. Stop single women from throwing themselves at violent, abusive thugs, knowing that the State will have their backs.

    2.Stop married women from throwing themselves at violent, abusive thugs and then forcing their cuckolded husbands to pay for the abuse.

  11. @Elspeth re: Rihanna vs Janay.

    Who would win?

    Just kidding. Janay has said from the outset that she provoked Ray. In contrast, Rihanna has always said Chris hit her first, last, and everywhere in between.

  12. @Nonya,

    On the other hand, not tightening divorce laws combined with the notion that marriage is nothing more than a formalized LTR and we have a seismic disruption in the foundation of civilization.

    For some reason I imagine a squawking (female) designer insisting to the (male)architect that a main bearing wall should have a 6’x9′ picture window in it and that it won’t effect the soundness of the structure. So too the “small” changes that idiot feminists will insist are not going to cause the collapse of Western Civilization (their backers know better…chiefly Satan). The unintended consequences are only beginning to stack up.

  13. LOL my daughter and my sister will never worry about an abusive husband regardless of the legal system. The other men in my family would ensure there isn’t a repeated event. It’s the hillbilly way but has worked for generations

    The law never prevents, it only enables or hinders. And never in the good way

  14. @jf12:

    You’re going to have to suck it up and comment on my posts at my place if you want to engage me on a topic that Empath, GIL, or Sojourner hasn’t broached over here.

    Empath has been much more lenient with me than he probably should be and I appreciate it, but I don’t want to wear out my welcome here that way.

  15. On the other hand, not tightening divorce laws combined with the notion that marriage is nothing more than a formalized LTR and we have a seismic disruption in the foundation of civilization.

    I’m not convinced that the sky is falling. People used to stay together because they had to. Not just because of the divorce laws but because men and women needed each other in ways that we currently do not. The world is a safer place, women no longer get pregnant every two years and most jobs no longer require a lot of physical strength. Tighter divorce laws would be ineffective in the modern world.

  16. Nonya,

    Go tell the black “community” the sky isn’t falling. They don’t have to worry about divorce anymore. A wide majority of the children are born out of anything resembling wedlock and the incarceration rates in that matriarchy are not remotely sustainable if that trend were to spread into the wider community. Besides the problems with the foundation there are big changes in the world afoot. I wouldn’t get too comfortable.

  17. Go tell the black “community” the sky isn’t falling. They don’t have to worry about divorce anymore. A wide majority of the children are born out of anything resembling wedlock and the incarceration rates in that matriarchy are not remotely sustainable if that trend were to spread into the wider community. Besides the problems with the foundation there are big changes in the world afoot. I wouldn’t get too comfortable.

    The problems in the black community go far beyond marriage and are not the result of feminism. Tighter divorce laws won’t help that situation either.

  18. Nonya, I get the suspicion that you are one that classifies feminism as an equality movement. I’m in general agreement with you that tighter divorce laws in fact will not help the situation nearly as much as an appropriately high regard for marriage and it’s foundational role in successful civilizations. Welfare state progressivism and feminism are very much responsible for that decay- especially as it pertains to what can loosely be called the black community.

    Regarding “laws” I think that John Adams put this quite succinctly:

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    The fact that we are neither moral nor religious makes whatever laws we pass moot. And someone was suggesting that the sky wasn’t falling? I would counter-suggest that a ungovernable and lawless society is precisely that. Tocqueville predicted the signs for the failure of our Republic, the decay into democracy and the mob. The state of marriage and the way that our legal system is responding to the hearts (the morals and values) of the people is telling.

    They were feasting when the handwriting appeared on the wall.

  19. I’d like to address the “you can’t force people to stay together” part of the argument above. You can, actually. Ask to be let out of the military after enlisting and see if a person can be made to do something they previously agreed to but no longer feel like doing.

    Failing that, you can make it painful for people to split, especially frivolously. One thing you can easily do is treat marriage as a contract, as it has nearly always been treated by cultures around the world.

    When a person enters into a contract he is constraining his future options — he must either act in accord with the contract or face consequences. He does so willingly because the benefits of the contract are more valuable than the loss of freedom and/or resources that result from the contract.

    We can’t make Jake’s Shoelaces Co. and Joe’s Shoes, Inc. do business with each other if they don’t want to. However, if they made a contract with each other and one no longer wants to be part of that contract, the one who wants out must give something to the other in order to be let out of doing what was promised.

    This model can, has, and should be applied to marriage — if you promised to love and honor the other person till death do you part, and now you want to break that promise, you should have to give something to the other person due to your not keeping your side of the contract. This is because you defrauded them by signing a contract which you now choose not to honor. If some action of theirs is the reason you feel it necessary to break the contract, then you must demonstrate that this is so, and it must be a type of action on the other person’s part which can reasonably be considered serious enough to warrant letting you out of your marital contract (i.e. adultery or physical abuse). We call this fault divorce, and feminists (and liberals, and some misguided traditionalists) have successfully ended this practice.

    Not only is marriage no longer considered a contract, a contractual marriage is no longer even an option. Judges throw out prenuptial agreements at will. Thus, what we see now is that the non-contractual view of marriage (the feminist view) does not work. Non-contractual marriage is not real marriage. It’s like giving the patient the option to call off the surgery at any point during the operation; it’s worse than either not having the surgery or waiting until the surgery is over regardless of what’s happening.

  20. I’d like to address the “you can’t force people to stay together” part of the argument above. You can, actually. Ask to be let out of the military after enlisting and see if a person can be made to do something they previously agreed to but no longer feel like doing.

    I actually said that you can’t force people to live together. Marriage vows are not going to be enforced like Military enlistment nor should they be. That’s just silly. What are you going to have the police come drag spouses who have moved out back to the home and hold them there under armed guard? LOL.

  21. You say marriage vows shouldn’t be enforced by the government on pain of jail, even suggesting the idea is absurd — but the government does this now. Men are frequently jailed for failing to pay alimony or child support, which in some cases is set at a rate which is hard or even impossible to meet, even if it was the wife who initiated the divorce unilaterally, and even if the man did nothing wrong. In California, if the marriage lasts at least 10 years, a man frivolously divorced by his wife is obligated to pay alimony for the rest of his life, or else. What is this but enforcement of a man’s marital obligation to provide for his wife, at the point of a gun?

    Would it be reasonable to expect a wife to provide sex to her ex-husband until he remarries, even if he divorced her for no good reason, or else face jail? That’s essentially the situation men are in now. I agree that it’s absurd, which is why we should eliminate this absurdity as soon as possible. Oddly, feminists are in no hurry to eliminate this instance of “marriage vows [being] enforced like military enlistment.”

    It’s interesting that feminists are so set on marriage vows having no contractual power to constrain women’s choices after having made them, though they favor extremely strict enforcement on men. It’s a clear admission that women, or at least feminists, should never be trusted when they make a promise. They clearly don’t accept the premise that women should be forced to hold up their end of a bargain they entered into willingly..

  22. Fixing marriage laws will not help the black community at this point. That horse escaped the barn decades ago.

    However, there really is no denying that the laws that weakened marriage by offering incentives for illegitimacy played a major role, and that development sped up the destruction of what was already a burgeoning marriage crisis in the black community in the early 60’s. There really is no other characterization of welfare than offering incentives for illegitimacy even though I know liberals insist that welfare was about something else.

    The sky is indeed falling unless a world where the vast majority of people have no common sense of ethics, morality, decency, and duty is okay with you. Note that I left religion OUT.

    And it is entirely possible to leave people with the freedom to leave their marriages while imposing clear and harsh penalties for doing so without just cause. Interestingly enough, society was perfectly willing to impose such penalties when it was assumed that men were more likely to leave, but is unwilling to do the same now that the evidence is clear that women are more inclined to do so.

  23. You say marriage vows shouldn’t be enforced by the government on pain of jail,
    I actually said that runaway spouses shouldn’t be dragged back to the marital home and forced to stay there. I didn’t mention jail. My point was that tighter divorce laws would be ineffective because you can’t make people live together.

    even suggesting the idea is absurd — but the government does this now. Men are frequently jailed for failing to pay alimony or child support, which in some cases is set at a rate which is hard or even impossible to meet, even if it was the wife who initiated the divorce unilaterally, and even if the man did nothing wrong.
    Alimony is no longer common. Lifetime alimony is rare.

    People should be jailed for refusing to pay child support. Who is supposed to support the child if not the parents? The tax payers? I’m not in favor of jailing people for simply being poor, but if they are willfully not paying their child support in defiance of court order then jail is reasonable.

    In California, if the marriage lasts at least 10 years, a man frivolously divorced by his wife is obligated to pay alimony for the rest of his life, or else. What is this but enforcement of a man’s marital obligation to provide for his wife, at the point of a gun?
    That’s not how that law works. Maybe look it up instead of spreading misinformation.

  24. I argue, Elspeth, that what already has been inflicted on the black community is now being writ large on Western Civilization. Illegitimacy, poverty and incarceration. It wasn’t a war ON poverty it was a war BY poverty.

  25. And it is entirely possible to leave people with the freedom to leave their marriages while imposing clear and harsh penalties for doing so without just cause. Interestingly enough, society was perfectly willing to impose such penalties when it was assumed that men were more likely to leave, but is unwilling to do the same now that the evidence is clear that women are more inclined to do so.

    Before no fault divorce people committed perjury so that they could be granted a fault divorce. That’s one of the reasons that the laws were changed. “Tighter” divorce laws were useless then, and they would be useless now. What “harsh penalties” are you talking about?

  26. Nonya:
    The divorce rate between two American-born spouses today is nearly 66% with women initiating the proceedings 72% of the time (and another 18% by the man for things like spousal abandonment).

    In contrast, the divorce rate between American-born men and foreign-born women is 18%. Still high; but why do you suppose this is? These numbers are about what they were before no-fault divorce. Foreign women have the same access to no-fault divorce, yet their divorce rate is similar to what American women’s were previous to the laws being changed.

    IOW, it’s feminist MISANDRY—instilling in women’s minds a hatred of men and teaching them treat men as though they were expendable and useless that’s causing the high divorce rate.

  27. GIL & Elspeth:
    The black community self-destructed when the Civil Rights’ Movement got co-opted by Radical Leftists who taught Blacks to reject the civilization they were originally trying to become equals and part of. Left without a model, they’ve collapsed into anarchy and nihilism.

  28. What “harsh penalties” are you talking about?

    Well for one thing, if you are the one departing one of the 2/3 of all divorces which are “low conflict” AKA “I’m not haaaapy”, then YOU get to leave the family home and the children in the home with the aggrieved, abandoned spouse.

    I’ll betcha that would swiftly eliminate the tendency of women and men alike to walk out on marriages in search of newness, excitement, fulfillment or whatever the heck it is that causes people to leave marriages where there is no adultery or abuse.

  29. then YOU get to leave the family home and the children in the home with the aggrieved, abandoned spouse.

    In most cases both of the spouses incomes are needed to make the mortgage and the family home will have to be sold.

    It is interesting to me how the manosphere sees children as property or tools to be used to “punish” one spouse or the other instead of as people with their own wants and needs. What happens to the children after a divorce should depend on what is best for those children. Sometimes that will mean more time with mom or dad, sometimes equal time with both. A child custody decision shouldn’t be made based on which spouse you think needs to suffer “harsh penalties.” These are people that we are talking about.

  30. See, I automatically characterize a person who leaves a marriage without a real reason for doing so other than a vague sense of unhappiness an unfit parent. In the absence of proof that the other parent is unfit, giving the children to such a person an unfit parent.They are driven by emotions and selfishness and condemning the children to being raised by that punishes the children, and is not in the children’s best interest.

    But I’m just a weirdo like that.

  31. See, I automatically characterize a person who leaves a marriage without a real reason for doing so other than a vague sense of unhappiness an unfit parent.< In the absence of proof that the other parent is unfit, giving the children to such a person an unfit parent.They are driven by emotions and selfishness and condemning the children to being raised by that punishes the children, and is not in the children’s best interest.

    But I’m just a weirdo like that.

    It is weird, especially when you consider that you are married to a man who denied his first child the benefit of a complete family. Yet you’d probably say that he’s a fit parent and good person.

    I agree that denying a child a whole family is a terrible thing to do. I also think that most people are unaware of just how damaging it is for a child to have unmarried parents, divorced parents and/or stepparents. Clearly education is needed in this area. Maybe unwed parents, parents filing for divorce and parents who are marrying or remarrying should be given information about how damaging these actions are for their children.

    However, once the parents have divorced the damage to the child should be mitigated as best possible. This means looking at the children’s needs when deciding custody, not using the children to impose what you call “harsh penalties” on the parents. Again these are people that we are talking about.

  32. I was fully expecting you to mention my husband. I would have been surprised if you hadn’t.

    But comparing the mistakes of a teenager to those of supposedly mature adults is not an apt comparison.

  33. “What’s best for the childrenses” is always the parents staying together and acting like adultses.

  34. “What’s best for the childrenses” is always the parents staying together and acting like adultses.

    I completely agree. My husband agrees, and never, ever would he say that the sin he committed as an 18-year-old high school senior was anything other than sin.

    What pisses me off (and this is what is wrong in the church at large by the way) is this tendency we have to try to shout down people who call sin sin because, “Well-who-are-you-to-talk?”

    Well actually, I am the one to talk about it because if only people who have never committed a certain sin can call that thing a sin, regardless of their repentance, regardless of the lessons learned, then what we have in effect is a church where the only person with any authority to offer any counsel or admonishment is Jesus, and everyone can just do whatever the hell they want regardless of the consequences because no one is qualified to tell them otherwise.

    Oh, wait. That’s the church we have now isn’t it? Well, we see what that is like.

    And I stand by my original response. This blog, and my blog is one where we talk about these things almost solely from a Christian perspective. Divorce in the church is very near identical to divorce rates outside of it. Ergo, you have mature (mostly 30’s-40’s women) divorcing for reasons of vague discontentment or lack of sufficient “stimulation” destroying their families and getting away with it. And the response is to drag out the sins of the guy who was an unsaved teenager.

    I tell a little bit about us because I feel a little realness is important when dispensing what I’ve learned about being married. With that comes the risk of having what is shared thrown back at you. Cost of doing business I suppose.

    As for the law being a separate issue from the church. This is a relatively new thing. The law in this country was initially in open acknowledgement of the 10 commandments as the basis of all law. When everyone agreed that divorce was bad, fornication was bad, and illegitimacy was bad, laws reflected that and you had to prove fault when exiting a marriage.

    One could argue that since we are a post-Christian nation there is no longer any place for that kind of thinking when making laws. Point taken. But know this:

    Most everyone driving divorce (especially among the middle class and in the church) is already well educated on the problems inherent in ripping apart a child’s family. But as in most things, people think that they will be the exception to the rule.

    That leaves one of two things: Do nothing, or enact laws that serve the best interests of children by discouraging divorce.

  35. @Elspeth, like usual (usual!) I agree with everything you say.

    One of the main arguments for no-fault divorce coming from the supposedly enlightened tradcons and others is that fault-based divorce required the woman to lie, so it made her feel worse. “If she’s going to file for divorce anyway,” their attempt at rationalization goes, “we should make it as easy as possible and as nice an experience as possible for her because when momma’s unhappy she’ll make sure everyone else is unhappy too.” Never seeming to realize that’s exactly what she’s doing.

    Would to God that women dreaded men more these days!

  36. What pisses me off (and this is what is wrong in the church at large by the way) is this tendency we have to try to shout down people who call sin sin because, “Well-who-are-you-to-talk?”

    I certainly haven’t tried to shout you down, and I’m not trying to throw anything in your face. My point was that when the sin belongs to you and yours, suddenly the excuses come out. “Well he was young,” and so on. But when we are talking about other people suddenly they are unfit parents. Everyone who does wrong has their reasons. Everyone thinks that their children will be ok and that they won’t be the statistic. Basically everyone thinks like you do. Unfit? Sometimes. But mostly sinful and human.

    Divorcing without good cause is the wrong thing to do. We are in agreement about that. I’d even go so far as to say that if you have good cause you should still try to swallow your pride, get over your hurt and work it out anyway. Where we differ is on what can be done about divorce and on whether children should be used as tools to punish parents.

    As I said in the beginning, you cannot force people to live together. Fault divorce laws were easily skirted in the past. What kept people together were other circumstances. In a world where jobs no longer require physical strength, and women don’t give birth every other year people do not have to stay together. Changing the divorce laws would be pointless in current times and for the most no fault divorce laws and child custody laws make sense.

    I suggested that people be shown the information about the damage it does to children because the divorce preventing change needs to take place in people’s hearts minds. Going back to a fault based system won’t fix the problem.

  37. Oh, it was just as wrong when my husband did it as it is when anyone else does it. I thought I made that perfectly clear. Never once have I said otherwise.That does nothing to change the fact that 1) it cannot be undone, 2)our wrong shouldn’t automatically mean that we are hence forth and forever more banned from saying that something is wrong and 3) comparisons between mature “Christian adults” and ignorant young people cannot and will never be apt comparisons. If we were discussing anything else you would no doubt agree.

    The problem is that you want to simultaneously be a anti-divorce and a divorce apologist. It’s so common as to be cliche. It’s wrong, it’s damaging, and I’d never do it, but I don’t think it’s right to say that no one else should ever do it or pay a penalty for it. The logic, it boggles.

    The difference where my personal situation is concerned is that I have acknowledged that it was wrong, but you won’t be satisfied until I say something along the lines of, “Since my husband ‘got away’ with it, then I have no right to say that other people shouldn’t be able to get away with it too.”

    Except my husband didn’t ‘get away’ with anything. The price for his sins (and mine) has been steep, and goes well beyond money. However, since there is absolutely no way for either of to go back in time and un-commit any of the sins we committed, what is it exactly that you expect me to say?

  38. You know what? I’ll just say you’re right Nonya. Because you are. I did indeed marry a man who denied his firstborn child a complete home. Touche.

    But I’m still not going to shut about the fact that among Christians who divorce 70% are female initiated and of those almost all (2/3) are low conflict marriages. And that it’s not okay for us to shrug our shoulders and say “Oh well”.

    So whenever you pull out that line about my husbands past sins, I’ll say “touche”, you can rest in the knowledge are right, and I’ll prayerfully keep on doing what I feel it is I’m supposed to do and speak the truth.

  39. The problem is that you want to simultaneously be a anti-divorce and a divorce apologist. It’s so common as to be cliche. It’s wrong, it’s damaging, and I’d never do it, but I don’t think it’s right to say that no one else should ever do it or pay a penalty for it. The logic, it boggles.

    No, the problem is that you want to use children as a way to impose “harsh penalties” on the parents while I want the children to be treated as individuals with needs and wants of their own. Obviously what the children need most is a whole family, but the law cannot give them that. You call it being a divorce apologist, but it is really just logic and common sense. Look around. The historical context in which fault divorce was effective is gone. Outside of that context fault divorce doesn’t work. I am not in favor of pointless and ineffective laws.

    The difference where my personal situation is concerned is that I have acknowledged that it was wrong, but you won’t be satisfied until I say something along the lines of, “Since my husband ‘got away’ with it, then I have no right to say that other people shouldn’t be able to get away with it too.”

    I’m saying that you of all people should realize that this kind of wrong doesn’t necessarily make you an “unfit” parent. I have no problem with you pointing out when things are wrong.

  40. The problem is that you want to simultaneously be a anti-divorce and a divorce apologist. It’s so common as to be cliche. It’s wrong, it’s damaging, and I’d never do it, but I don’t think it’s right to say that no one else should ever do it or pay a penalty for it. The logic, it boggles.

    No, the problem is that you want to use children as a way to impose “harsh penalties” on the parents while I want the children to be treated as individuals with needs and wants of their own. Obviously what the children need most is a whole family, but the law cannot give them that. You call it being a divorce apologist, but it is really just logic and common sense. Look around. The historical context in which fault divorce was effective is gone. Outside of that context fault divorce doesn’t work. I am not in favor of pointless and ineffective laws.

    The difference where my personal situation is concerned is that I have acknowledged that it was wrong, but you won’t be satisfied until I say something along the lines of, “Since my husband ‘got away’ with it, then I have no right to say that other people shouldn’t be able to get away with it too.”

    I’m saying that you of all people should realize that this kind of wrong doesn’t necessarily make you an “unfit” parent. I have no problem with you pointing out when things are wrong.

  41. Actually, given the ubiquity of personal recording devices, aka smart phones, fault divorce could be reinstated with a vengeance. Require all claims of abuse to be documented, and your filing frivolously, i.e. low-conflict, could be punished with jail for fraud and contempt of the law, or at minimum loss of custody because such filing demonstrates that you do not have the child’s interests in mind, merely selfishness. It would be easy, and given the terrible state in which MOST of the population has been negatively affected by flippant divorce, it could be voted in almost everywhere.

  42. @Nonya

    Yes, Nonya, you’re right; it’s the frivorcing wife who has the law on her side to use children as tools (weapons) to punish the divorced husband; and she doesn’t blink an eye or give a second thought in doing so. Nonya, you certainly have a Satanic way of twisting, perverting, reversing the facts. Nonya, you are a troll of the highest and most cunning order; credit where credit us due.

  43. As I said in the beginning, you cannot force people to live together.

    Nonya, as I said that comment is not relevant at all. This conversation hasn’t a wit to do with anyone forcing some other people to live together

    I am going to cut you lose Nonya. You can call it eliminating anyone who disagrees. In fact I expect you will call it that based on how you cling to your own narratives no matter what. You are not making dialog.

  44. Don’t you love the solipsism of women who threaten their own children “If you make me stay with that man, I swear by all that’s unholy I’ll make sure the kids suffer”? They ALWAYS claim that the man is trying to take the children hostage. The gall and venom of these evil women is limitless.

  45. Making people live together is the natural concern, and we mustn’t forget this, of the feminist education that most people in the West get about marriage. Divorce is not really taught as something that can occur when the married couple are unable to find a way to peacefully and amiably live together, but rather as acceptable solution to changing feelings. Changing feelings are presented as a disaster, a serious problem, and the women’s narrative tends to be “I was tricked/forced into this.” most of us at least notice the curious fact that women will stay in relationships that are obviously bad to nearly all around them when they want to, but will leave a good man when they want to. The diminishing of the importance of integrity and good behaviour, the clear lack of reward and even contempt received for it is what contributes to the problems described in empath’s post.

  46. Reason number 1,200,310 why I admire my husband:

    I took my hurt feelings to him and his response was basically to concede that he wasn’t a fit parent then, and that he is barely one now by the grace of God. So my offense is misplaced because it assumes that he was in any way shape or form fit for father hood when he sired his first child, or even the second (our first).

    By the time either one of us was cognizant of what it really means to be a fit parent, it was impossible to do anything other the best we could from where we were at that point. When you know better, you do better, and all that jazz.

    How any of this is relevant to the ease with which “Christian women” divorce their husbands and break up existing, functioning well enough families is frankly, something he doesn’t quite grasp.
    Is it a straw man or a red herring?

    I try to get him to comment but his response is that he’ll leave this sort of thing to me. Not his cup of tea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s