Threatpoint

by Dalrock on April 17, 2012

Marriage 2.0

When discussing the topic of changes in divorce law we typically talk about divorce theft and how this causes men to be understandably hesitant to marry, as well as the impact it has on men and their children who are directly victimized by the new regime.  However, divorce “reform” is as much about manipulating the power balance within marriage as it is about ensuring that women can frivolously divorce while collecting cash and prizes.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine).

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

They aren’t under any illusions;  divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the spouse who wants to honor the marriage vows to the spouse who doesn’t.  This is one of the best kept open secrets I’ve ever encountered.

Also, don’t be confused by the gender neutral terms;  women are overwhelmingly the ones who don’t want to honor the marriage vows.  This is confirmed by the academic study “These Boots Are Made for Walking”:  Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women and the data on the age of wife at the time of divorce. Putting this together, divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.

Stevenson and Wolfers are very open about this.  They of course present it through the feminist narrative that husbands are evil brutes which must be tamed, lest they abuse, murder, or drive their wife to suicide:

Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20% in the long run in states that adopted unilateral divorce. We believe that this decline is a robust and well-identified result, and timing evidence speaks clearly to this interpretation. There is no discernable effect on male suicide.

They clarify that this isn’t about women previously being “trapped” in abusive or dangerous marriages, but about how putting all husbands in fear of divorce might tame potentially abusive husbands (emphasis mine):

To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent.  However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

Indeed they found that this was in fact the case.  They close their conclusion with:

The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.

Again, they weren’t looking for evidence that divorce reform allowed wives to escape abusive husbands.  They were looking for and found that changes in family law served as a sort of marital sword of Damocles over husbands, causing them bend to their wife’s will out of fear of unilateral divorce.

In this context we can understand how cases like John’s and walking in hell while not the standard outcome of “divorce reform” also aren’t unintended consequences.  They serve as a warning to keep all husbands in line.

It is also worth noting that while academic studies couch this in the feminist narrative of checking what would otherwise be an army of sadistic husbands, this is really about husbands living in fear of their wife becoming unhaaaapy and dynamiting the family.  Only a fool hasn’t noticed that one of the most prominent themes in women’s entertainment is the concept of the empowerment women experience from frivolously divorcing.

Christians are actively reinforcing these legal and social changes by abandoning the biblical view of marriage in favor of the feminist view.  While the old paradigm was that a woman who couldn’t keep a man was a failure, feminists and Christians have turned this around and now view a husband who can’t keep his wife haaapy as a failure.  At the same time, the wife who kicks the father of her children out of the house is now seen as heroic.  This idea that husbands must grovel to their wives to stave off her ever threatened unhaaapyness is so ingrained in modern Christian thought that there was no meaningful backlash amongst Christians when this was made the central plot of the movie Fireproof.  Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of Christians watched the movie and delighted in its presumed Christian message on marriage. We saw proof of the same thing with the women of christianforums.com going on for over 40 pages passionately arguing the morality of frivolous divorce.  Shortly after I pointed this out, the moderators of the forum enacted a new rule forbidding members from writing anything in judgment of frivolous divorce (emphasis mine):

Please remember that when someone shares a personal experience it is not up for judgement. Divorce is always a last resort, but we will not allow judgement of those who do make that choice.

This abandonment of the biblical concept of marriage in exchange for the feminist view of marriage doesn’t just impact the marriages of Christians.  Christianity is the driving moral force in the west, and as such their turning their backs on biblical marriage has given all women in the west moral cover to use the new legal threatpoint against their husbands to maximum effect.  Husbands are hemmed in by all sides cheerleading his wife to frivolously divorce if he fails to make her happy.

Yet despite the millions of innocent men and their children who have been ground up by the the machinery needed to keep husbands in their place, wives now report less marital happiness (Source: National Marriage Project,  P 67 Fig 4):

We are feeding millions of innocent men and children to the machinery of divorce to keep this threatpoint in place, and not even making women happier with their marriages.

Sword of Damocles image information.

This originally appeared on my blog.

{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }

Zorro April 17, 2012 at 05:35

No, duh.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16
Kevin April 17, 2012 at 06:03

I don’t know which is sadder, that this system exists, that is is so obvious, or that so many are ignorant of it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
Donkey April 17, 2012 at 06:15

Video of Charles Bruce in prison for contempt of court.

According to his testimony because his ex-wife wanted more than 100% of his after-tax income and he even went into debt to avoid prison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EzoNRiKDz2I

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Donkey April 17, 2012 at 06:19
Poiuyt April 17, 2012 at 07:06

This dirty society of loaded cynicism and genderist hypocracy starts from the basis that only females [and by dint of sheer numbers, white ones] are the only citizens with anything worth the giving of and the withdrawing of consent over.

From these above false and fraudulently imposed bases, all other marriage and non-marriage genderist perversions follow. False bases connivingly promoted and accented to by a white knight and white female majority, jointly masquerrading as the humane, the progressive and the morally just ideal-keepers.

What no one leader nor political activist amongst these rent-seeking and rent-keeping ranks will ever admit is the absolute catastrophe this genderist mess has been for children. Non of whom can ever hope to vote their way out of this hell, for all their aborted and violently killed numbers. Talkless of the effects on society at large, now overrun by millions of axe-weilding, gang-banging bastards and fatherless thugs, all out for blood from whatever the source.

Sure enough, for free and with impunity, dog-like women are entitled to endlessly breed, to legally steal, to eat, to drink and to shit on all others cowering from them and a sexist-police state machine. But what happens when the over-poisoned well infects the poisoners, when juvenile crooks, bastardised gangbangers, male and female ferral thugs return to wreck havock on illicitly enriched, aborting and divorcing mothers ?

No amount of sexist-police stooges nor discriminatory laws will then be able to save them, nor us, nor society at large. And if the recent British riots characterised by arson, criminal damage, raping, shooting, robbing, slashing and burning is anything to go by, the day of account-reckonning is not a long way off.

The father of legitmate and his own children isn’t merely there for decoration, for sexual politics nor for window dressing frills. Nature itself has given him very pertinent and very important purposes. The first of which, is to draw fire and to protect the children from their mothers dog-like and destructive tendencies in all and every of her raging periods up to her menopause. That is the only natural time when the danger of a mothers real nature lapses and the kids now safe have become of majority age and majority stature.

We will continue to endure monstrous nonsensities of ideology and of law, until especially white knight cowards and other timids, scared of wives and daughters, understand and acknowledge these simple truths which so terrify them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
ahamkara April 17, 2012 at 07:29

Yep. To me, it all focuses on parental rights. Fathers need to have inalienable rights to their children (and children to their fathers). In a “no fault” divorce, if both parents are seeking custody of the children, it should be automatic 50/50 unless one of the parents has been convicted (not just accused) of wrongdoing against the children. This alone would have saved me from financial ruin, and left a much brighter future for my kids.

As for the current situation affecting family dynamics, I can personally attest to this. Toward the end of my marriage, my ex openly threatened to leave me and take the kids with her if I didn’t give in to her demands – and I knew she could make good on that threat. So, I broke my back trying to save the marriage and she left anyway. From her point of view, if she knows she’s going to leave anyway, why not crack the whip and she what she can get out of me on the way out? The whole system encourages women to be irresponsible. As much as women can congratulate themselves for how empowered they are, it’s no good for them in the long run, much less the men and children whose lives they are wrecking in the process.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 0
J April 17, 2012 at 07:43

The sad thing is, this is going to be a ping-pong game moving at the speed of geological time. Men win over their familes, 100 years later, women do. And so on and so forth! The gender war has taken a bitter turn for the worse. It seems both sides are ready to launch their nukes!

And the children will suffer the worst of it. Already, men of today are refusing marriage in droves, Christian or not. This trend is likely to continue, especially as we in the men’s movement continue to harp at the issues. However, we can’t do it the way the feminists did! We are no better then.

Sucks really, we will never get revenge, for in doing so we will fail to get our oppressors….and harm those after us!

Also, the freedom to travel great distances quickly, is going to have an effect on our movement too. It seems everyone has rights, although we all know “some(womyns) are more equal then others!”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 18
Boxer April 17, 2012 at 07:58

ahamkara sez:
As much as women can congratulate themselves for how empowered they are, it’s no good for them in the long run, much less the men and children whose lives they are wrecking in the process.

The reality is that husband/wife are learned skills, and the art of being a suitable spouse was destroyed when it became so easy for the mentors to abandon the discipline.

Being a suitable father/mother/husband/wife is much like wanting to learn Urdu. It might be possible to get books and learn the grammar and eventually learn the language, but it’s orders of magnitude more difficult to do that than to have living speakers to model and interact with. Feminists have not only opted out themselves, but they’ve dismantled the structure which previously replicated more people proficient in the disciplines.

I can’t complain. I am not the marriage minded type, after all. I do feel for you guys who are, though.

Regards, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 10
keyster April 17, 2012 at 08:19

You’re damned if you try and be the leader of your household;
control her spending habits, discipline the children, etc. – – dominate your household.

And you’re damned if you don’t, by tediously managing an equal co-partner relationship; she slowly loses respect for you as a man for never sticking up for yourself — with divorce soon to follow.

This is what marriage offers a young man…
…a perpetual “Gender Politics” battle; an ongoing competition of verbal jousts and brinksmanship for the rest of his life.

How appealing is that?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 2
Quentin April 17, 2012 at 08:52

Marriage is very unappealing to me because a lot of married women seem obsessed with emasculating their husbands, and then complaining when their husbands become shells of their former selves. The happiest married couples I know consist of women who defer to their men, and men who are the head of their households. Every married couple I know that consists of the exact opposite have very miserable marriages.

The power struggle dynamic, egged on by feminism and the people who buy into it, is the first thing I always notice with married couples, especially younger married couples. These wives give their husbands shit-tests 24/7 and always make everyone in the family miserable (if momma isn’t happy, then nobody will be allowed to be happy). A lot of people are still too focused on all this “equal partnership” nonsense that feminists and manginas have been toting for decades. I am sure a lot of you older men remember a time when a man’s home was his castle, but this is not true for the most part today. Today, a man’s home is a gender politics battleground where he almost can’t win because the wife can call in the Big Daddy Government calvary to smite him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 0
Rumour April 17, 2012 at 09:00

women divorcing their husbands is heroic, but let a man divorce his wife and he brings down upon himself all of the anger and shaming that women and white knights can muster.

should a woman decide to leave the marriage, she will have all of the social, moral, emotional, and economic support she wants. but let a man decide he wants to go it alone and he becomes a social pariah.

there is nothing more dangerous to feminized culture and ruling tyrants than a man who thinks for himself, could care less what others expect of him, and has nothing that others can hold over him.

… and the numbers of men like that are growing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 1
Mr. J April 17, 2012 at 09:01

quote: “this is one of the best kept open secrets I’ve ever encountered”

When most people are more interested in watching (grown)men play “games” than anything else it’s easy to keep “open secrets”.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, keep watching the “game”…LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 12
keyster April 17, 2012 at 09:19

My brother divorced a few years ago, (second divorce).
His (feminist) wife was obsessed with everyone knowing SHE was the one who filed for the divorce, (even though it was HIM). It was also critical to her that she keep the house, as a symbol of her “winning”, (even though it was a Collaborative (50/50) Divorce).

Appearances to family, friends and co-workers was everything to her, and still is. Just bizarre.

When I told him what she was telling everyone, all he could say was “interesting”. And the house is in such utter disrepair at this point, it’s not even sellable. Meanwhile my brother is nearing retirement and happier than he’s ever been, after 25 years of psycho-bitch hell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Anonymous age 70 April 17, 2012 at 10:09

1. My favorite part in the history books is when the Huns come in; kill all the wimpy, spineless men; and rape all the obnoxious, domineering women. Oooo, that is so cool. I get all goose-bumpy just thinking about it.

2. Remember word association? You say up; I think down. You say black; I think white. Well, when you say “Christian male” I think “pompous; arrogant; conceited jackass.” That association is based on more than fifty years of observation. I have known Christian males who show the humility of Jesus their Bible tells them to have, but the number is pretty much the same as the number of totally sane AW I have known: six.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Migu April 17, 2012 at 10:13

Being a suitable father/mother/husband/wife is much like wanting to learn Urdu.

Assertion.

It might be possible to get books and learn the grammar and eventually learn the language, but it’s orders of magnitude more difficult to do that than to have living speakers to model and interact with.

Conflation.

Feminists have not only opted out themselves, but they’ve dismantled the structure which previously replicated more people proficient in the disciplines.

Obfuscation

I can’t complain. I am not the marriage minded type, after all. I do feel for you guys who are, though.

Absolution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Soapwort McFuggletoes April 17, 2012 at 10:16

I for one wish more women actually realized that their happiness is not the responsibility of another, but more an ongoing choice of their own. We must all find that source within ourselves so we are not subjected to another person’s whims. Whatever happened to the truism behind the saying “giving is better than receiving”?

Not only marriage is affected by threat based/lowest common denominator thinking. Once any interdependence has been established, risk is multiplied. Even casual friendship may be easily manipulated in this manner.

In the event that one person should decide to hold hostage some valued contribution, the other is immediately subjected to a serious conundrum. Being ‘innocent’ or ‘undeserving’ has little to do with it. Essentially, you’ve chosen to be at the mercy of another person’s good graces and stability of emotion/mind.

We like to think we pick people that are not prone to backstabbing us for the fun of it, but truth is, you can’t know them that well before you’re exposed to the risk. This is a race to the bottom. The least dependent person is awarded the status of most powerful. Mix with that a self centered nature and the outcome is all but predetermined.

Just one thing I learned of late…if a woman says something remarkably like this: “I never do things that I don’t want to do”; take note! That narcissistic nature has revealed itself and you better tread lightly (run for the hills). She is almost certain to become an unhappy adversary/antagonist in her relationships. Adding insult to injury, her ‘rationalization hamster’ is also likely to blame *you* for the resulting conflicts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Georice81 April 17, 2012 at 11:08

Matthew 5:32 says: (KJV)

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

If you look at the Strong’s Concordance word for word, what it really says is:

But I say to you, That whosoever divorces his wife, except because of her fornication, makes her (as to be considered) an adulteress : and whosever marries a woman who divorced her husband committs adultery.

In other words, No Fault Marriage is definitely not allowed in the New Testament. The only ground a man had to divorce his wife was fornication. Of course he had to prove this to his church. If he was successful in doing so when she was innocent then that is a grave thing. The importance here is how grave this injustice really is.

In a similar light, a woman who divorces her husband is not to be married at all for what she did is very grave and sinful. Women are not to divorce their husbands at all.

This is soooo different from what we are seeing churches preach nowdays. While the Bible considers a divorced as a shameful thing, modern thinking turns it around and puts the shame on the man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Bizzman662 April 17, 2012 at 11:21

Don’t EVER get Married.

If you decide you might want to marry. Take a gun with six bullets……put three rounds in……spin the chamber…….play a little Russian Roulette…..

Should you live through this little game……..realize that your chances of staying married are worse than getting a bullet to the dome.

Don’t get married……………………………EVER!

Or not until shit changes around here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Huck Finn April 17, 2012 at 11:45

I’m married to Mother Nature. What do I need a human female for?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost April 17, 2012 at 12:13

This is what marriage offers a young man…
…a perpetual “Gender Politics” battle; an ongoing competition of verbal jousts and brinksmanship for the rest of his life.

This is a marriage. And no husband is free from this. Because it is the law. How many husbands do you see that are on the surface “pussy whipped” but in reality are prisoners of western law. Even the guys that are “happy” due to marriage game are living in this reality. I hate this more than anything in life. I do not wish this on my son or any man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
LastCrucible April 17, 2012 at 12:18

“There’s a war going on outside no man is safe from.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
nigeles175d April 17, 2012 at 12:25

Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20% in the long run in states that adopted unilateral divorce. We believe that this decline is a robust and well-identified result, and timing evidence speaks clearly to this interpretation. There is no discernable effect on male suicide.

After Thomas James Ball, and many other so-called “violent” husbands and fathers have committed suicide, it remains brushed under the carpet and ignored.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Rob April 17, 2012 at 12:40

ahamkara sez: — Boxer

What academic, after years of writing papers and essays, uses the word “sez”?

You spell it like this: says.

It’s only one extra key stroke, and it takes effort to hit the “z” while the “s” is more natural.

I’m not even close to an academic, thank God, but I still instinctually use proper English as much as I can. It is natural. My worst mistakes are using “btw” and “lol” which I am purposefully trying to eliminate.

An academic ought to be proud of our great English language, and should be dedicated to protecting its integrity.

I can’t believe my tax dollars contribute to such a shoddy product.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7
Eric April 17, 2012 at 13:20

I would imagine that those numbers of men in the study who said that their marriages were very happy were strongly influenced by ‘the threat of divorce’. Likewise, I imagine the number of women who answered positively were strongly by the prospects of divorce. Regardless, the disparity in numbers was the important point. It shows that, not only are women responsible for most divorces, they are responsible for most marital unhappiness as well.

It also illustrates why there really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between radical feminists and Socon or ‘trad’ women. Both accept the belief that women have, or should have, ‘all the power in relationships’ and that men are inherently inferior and expendable. You often hear Socon women, like Laura Schlessinger for example, making these very arguments: that men need to be kept in line with threat of witholding or the promise of receiving sex; or women using the threat of divorce and her presumed ‘ownership of reproduction’ similarly.

What needs to be changed is that men need to stop enabling women with these beliefs—IOW, challenge the idea that ‘women have all the power’ and are ‘the owners of sex and reproduction’. Men can do this best by avoiding Anglo-American women like the plague. Withhold sex and reproduction from them—MGTOW or chose stable women from rational cultures—then we’ll see just who is powerful and who isn’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Stoltz April 17, 2012 at 13:21

Like almost everything else in western civilization, marriage has been corporatized. It all comes down to the almighty dollar – who makes/has it (men/husbands/fathers), but, more importantly, who controls/spends it (women/wives/mothers). And this facet will not change unless one of two things happen:

1. Women spend less to the point they spend as much as men
2. Men spend more to the point they spend as much as women

Then the conglomerates that be, who snake their way into government via lobbyists, will have to correct their course of action and rethink how they can bleed from both. But, of course, neither of the points above will ever happen, so the gambit of squeezing every last penny from men/husbands/fathers will continue unabated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
American April 17, 2012 at 13:25

The American Gender-Raunch community, in a perverse power grab to promote their concept of the “New American Fammily Unit of Same sex parents”, have not been promoting their new fammily unit by promoting the virtues of their same sex values, but by attacking the hetero-fammily unit.
What are the societal consequences of this Gender-Raunch superpower establishment that has nearly endless federal funding to attack the hetero-patriarchy???
Sure, Gender-Raunch may be able to legally dominate the American news media (and their constructionists), they may be able to further their constructions by marketing Raunch culture entertainment to children; but their perverse manufactured statistics Alliance with American law enforcement has crossed some constitutional boundries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
American April 17, 2012 at 13:32

I don’t give a flying f@#k about ones sexual practices, but when a group is perverting the basic institution of American law enforcement in order to further “Empower” themselves at my exspense, then i have a right to cry foul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Gx1080 April 17, 2012 at 13:33

Some decent news:

http://www.ajc.com/news/henry/new-court-pushes-fathers-1415622.html

Someone finally saw the light on why debtor’s prisions were abolished and decided to work with fathers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ethical April 17, 2012 at 14:52

Judging from depictions of men in recent movies endorsed with the entertainment dollars of younger men, young men fully accept that they’ll never command the respect once due a husband, just as they fully accept they’ll never see the deference once due a father.

Regardless of the natural strengths which drew their partners to them in the first place, whether rock-like calm in times of crisis, physical strength in a demanding environment, or a mind strong enough to find financial opportunity amidst a confusion of snake oil, younger men understand they can’t expect to be “the head of the household” because of any strengths they bring to the table.

They DO however see that working hard to hone those strengths just means taking on more responsibility and being held to higher account by an increasingly selfish and entitled generation of wives. Exactly because of these divorce laws Dalrock mentions, most younger men chaff at the idea of working 80 hour weeks to get ahead in hope that his wife will consider it her duty to make a comfortable home life for the both of them. To them it’s a recipe for a miserable work-life balance followed by getting taken to the cleaners in divorce.

The position of husbands as the head of the household may be gone, but being resourceful creatures men are rediscovering power in other aspects of the marital relationship. Younger men are a lot more protective of their own interests. Being a lot less concerned with chivalry they’re also a lot more comfortable standing back and watching a woman fail when she wants to compete by taking over his role. And they’re encroaching on what used to be the wife’s territory in making little everyday decisions regarding the children and the household. Fewer of our grandsons might be saying “yes” to their wife’s choice of floral print wall paper, insisting instead the home retain some “man cave” qualities. In any case it’s clear that increasingly the home is no longer the wife’s exclusive domain.

Now this may not be a relationship contract that many of either sex in previous generations would want any part of, but it’s the reality today. Even though fewer and fewer men are opting to enter the marriage contract, those that do ARE finding ways to blunt its dis-empowering effects. Strange as it seems, the path to men’s rights for the upcoming generation may be gained through … and there’s no other way to put this … being less traditionally manly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Jean Valjean April 17, 2012 at 15:53

Women are more unhappy because women are hypergamist.

Meanwhile they compete directly against men and demand more and more affirmative action and unfair competition thus reducing the income of all men and limiting the number of high status men.

Plus marriage disempowers men and makes them afraid of divorce and if there is one thing women hate it’s weak and powerless men.

And yet women can’t help themselves but to weaken and disempower men.

I hope no one expects me to shed a tear because women are more unhappy today? I really could care less.

But I will say that this article reinforces what we all know and what many man intuit even if they are afraid to articulate it.

Marriage is a shitty deal for men. While I will never say a man deserves to get screwed over I will say I find it difficult to be sympathetic anymore because the facts are so plain to see. And some guys get married more than once. WTF?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Eximio April 17, 2012 at 17:20

Interesting that in the last graphic, across the entire time span presented, men report being happier with their marriage than women.

That in itself should dispel a lot of misconceptions. Except that it wont. Because feminism and political pandering to their ideology overrides reason, logic, data, and sound statistical analysis.

The larger statement is simply that, wow, guys who get married are making a very irrational choice. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. But this is the rule. What a bunch of dopes!

On the other hand, women are making a very rational choice when they get married. They get to meet their biological drive to have children. They get to literally trap the father into providing for both them and the children. And, if they wish, they can get all of that without GIVING anything in return. In fact, this is guaranteed by law in most states.

I cannot think of any other contractual relationship (yes, marriage is a contract) that people enter into in which one side is completely at the mercy of the other in terms of meeting the implied terms of the contract. By “implied” I mean the traditional notion of marriage being a MUTUALLY beneficial partnership, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, etc. That is only implied, of course, and not at all an actual part of the marriage contract. Which means that men get married based on a fantasy. And based on the expectations of that fantasy, agree to contract terms that are completely not to their benefit.

So, how do we teach this fact to men? The media certainly will not help. Politicians pander only to women. Academics will not often shed light on this state of affairs and, if they do, it is by accident. Religion cannot even be counted on. So, what’s left?

All that is left is that men need to inform each other through whatever means are available. And, if you feel that it is not in your self interest to help other men (we are naturally somewhat competitive), think of it this way: It is in your self interest for their to be a larger number of single women searching for men. Not to marry them, unless you choose to follow the fantasy. But, to put it bluntly, simply to meet our sexual needs.

Unfortunately, for any man with even a modicum of rationality, this is the only thing women are good for at this point. I honestly hope that changes some day, but it will not change during my generation, and probably not for several generations to follow. If ever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Dolores April 17, 2012 at 17:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 25
Visionary April 17, 2012 at 19:47

What’s intriguing is that the economists, by solely focusing on suicides inside of marriage, make the argument that with the threat of unilateral feminist divorce, “there is no discernible effect on male suicide.”

As someone who holds both a medical degree and a degree in economics, it is interesting that by simply framing the narrative for WITHIN the marriage, they allow themselves to omit the fact that divorced men are far more likely to commit suicide than any other cohort of men (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/10/suicide-rate-greater-among-divorced-men-research-finds/).

In other words, the threat of unilateral divorce also is a threat of increased death for married men. Concluding that such a threat has “no discernible effect on male suicide” is either blatantly disingenuous or absurd incompetence, particularly for scholarly work.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Doc April 17, 2012 at 20:54

The primary problem with “divorce law” is that it is “judicial” meaning that it is completely up to the judge so it’s completely arbitrary.

The only sane choice, is “Not to Play”. Men are learning that – and if you couple that to the ready availability of single young females willing to hook-up for no-strings-attached-sex, what is the incentive to marry? Long ago it was access to sex – now you get more sex staying single – and you can stick with the age range you prefer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Avenger April 17, 2012 at 22:27

I am sure a lot of you older men remember a time when a man’s home was his castle, but this is not true for the most part today

Have you ever seen that film from the 50′s, Rebel Without A Cause? On of the things that was bugging Dean was the fact that his father was a pussy whipped wimp.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
crypter27 April 18, 2012 at 01:07

This has allot to do with 501c3 churches,speak ill of goverment and unjust laws the goverment will revoke your’e tax exempt status thus are churches are goverment controlled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
daveinga April 18, 2012 at 02:28

i keep hearing guys talk about the point where the wifey starts swinging her legal weight around within the marriage, and starts demanding hubby do as she says or she will divorce him. it always reminds me of an old saying someone told me years ago, and i have always been amazed at how true it is:

women are like monkeys. they never let go of one branch unless they have a real good idea about the next one.

face it, if she is talking divorce, she is already in bed somewhere else. however, nowadays, a promise (to a married lover) today ain’t always cashable tomorrow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Craig Himself April 18, 2012 at 09:08

I’ve always been suspicious that “family law” was behind most of those suburban McMansions, sky-high mortgages and remodeled kitchens out there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Malcolm April 18, 2012 at 10:31

Agony columns can sometimes be very revealing. Two, which although different in their details address the same basic point were:
1. Wife shared bed with 6 y.o. daughter and hubby was relegated to spare room/sofa.
2. Husband worked long hours, wife didn’t work at all. Wife liked organising dinner parties, but he was too tired to really enjoy them. Reading between the lines I think he wanted to spend more time with his family and children.

The advice in both was similar. First the columnist blathered on about negotiation etc, but the throw-away line at the end in both was that if agreement couldn’t be reached, he might have to consider divorce. What was written as a throw-away line actually addressed the fundamental problem – i.e. any man who considers the consequences of divorce will reluctantly settle for the status uo. Because men don’t kick and scream about this adaptive preference, it is assued that they are happy with it. Indeed, some men are very driven and work long hours because they genuinely want to, but to assume that working long hours is a ‘male choice’ and therefore by definition good is wrong.

The power extends beyond the pospect of divorrce. Even in more low-level conflict there is the implied threat that a man won’t get any peace until he agrees. Last weekend a man was writing in the Guardian about living with a houseful of women (wife plus 4 daughters) and wrote that women have a strength of will that will break almost all men. If a man tried to coerce his wife into agreeing in the same way, feminists would describe it as an abusive relationship. a man can fel pressured into agreeing because he does not get any support for his position outside the home. Many years ago there was a plan to build a by-pass around a village near me and two routes were proposed, a northern and a southern route. The local newspaper published an article about a group of women who had come out in favour of one route or the other and were imposing a sex ban on their husbands until they came out in support with them. the fact that some or all of the husbands might genuinely have believed that the other route had greater merit was irrelevant – they were being coerced by their wives and the paper was treating it as a joke.

Some years ago there was a major rift between our family and some very close family friends over the behaviour of their son (then in his late 30s) . He had been convicted of stalking and harassing n ex-girlfriend and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Whilst he had done wrong and there were aggravating factors and he therefore fully deserved to be punished, I believe that this sentence was excessive and that a woman in his position would not have spent a day in jail. Nevertheless, his mother’s position that ‘light shines out of my little boy’s proverbial’ was equally untenable, but she was emotionally incapable of budging from this position until she wore down her husband, who, faced with the choice of siding with his wife, siding with our family (and his daughter) by continuing to have the same argument day in day out, thus making home life intolerable, did the inevitable.

In any other situation, if you argue from an emotional standpoint and are incapable of modifying your stance in the face of reasoned argument, that is seen as a sign of weakness and even lack of intelligence. Here it is seen as ‘strength of will’ and therefore a good thing, because women do it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
bruno April 18, 2012 at 17:06

In the way marriage and divorce laws are today, men can do only one reasonable thing: BE LIKE A WOMAN.

This means: get married only with somebody from who you can make huge financial profit off.
Otherwise better stay single.

This is how women generally think, and men should learn to think like this too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Eric April 18, 2012 at 19:04

Dolores:
I have heard the author of the ‘Men are from Mars’ series (which promotes a thesis I don’t endorse or agree with, BTW) repeat several times during interviews that statistically 90% of all relationships, including marriage, end because of ‘female dissatisfaction.’

Of course, pandering to his literary base, the same author reflexively blames this ‘dissatisfaction’ on men; but to blame men isn’t even mathematically possible. A number like 90% can result only from a radical cultural defect in American women (which, in turn, undermines the whole premise of the ‘Men are from Mars’ thesis).

So, your contention that divorce ‘needs to be looked at from both sides’ doesn’t hold up either. If there was a parity presumed in a marriage, what you’re arguing would make sense.

But there is no parity when only the males are committing, loving, and working for the benefit of the family while the females are entitled, selfish, uncaring, and working for their own benefit. A healthy marriage works like an electrical motor; a male and female pole receiving and dispensing energy in tandem; a typical marriage is more like the male pole absorbing twice the energy, burning itself out, accomplishing nothing; while the female pole doesn’t function at all.

Until women are willing to correct their own attitudes and behavior, they are going to remain unsuitable for marriage or any other kind of relationship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
American April 18, 2012 at 19:17

The protocol perversions and semantics games that American law enforcement are now engaged in that serve to manufacture “Empowerment” rhetoric for American Gender-feminists , are not only perversions, but are unconstitutional.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Avenger April 18, 2012 at 21:14

Toward the end of my marriage, my ex openly threatened to leave me and take the kids with her if I didn’t give in to her demands –

Did you try fluphenazine decanoate ?There’s no way of detecting it and it would have solved your problem :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
bruno April 19, 2012 at 03:17

“…women have a strength of will that will break almost all men.”

That “strength of will” is actually nothing else than the knowledge that they have so many legal privileges over men, that men are almost powerless in all conflict situations with women.

In absolutely every part of life, where men and women come in contact, women have superior legal powers over men.

When you are sitting on a throne of power, and surrounded by an army of white knight bodyguards, who are ready to beat to a pulp any man who dares to offend the queen, it’s easy to have “strength of will”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
American April 19, 2012 at 04:31

In America the hetero-fammilly Unit was a protected relationship for the benefit of the children.
Now Gender-feminists have perverted the institution of American law enforcement to the degree that hetero-relationships are a “Legal liability” for the male involved.
Get American law enforcement out of the manufactured statistics business, they are not qualified for that line of work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Malcolm April 19, 2012 at 08:19

Bruno

It’s not just legal powers. As in the incident about the bypass, it’s because outsiders will instinctively believe that they are acting reasonably and their husbands unreasonably, thus making the husbands feel isolated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Malcolm April 19, 2012 at 10:03

And another thing. you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. If, as the writer in the Guardian wrote, women give primacy to emotion rather than logic, it might be impossible to budge them (as in the last story I initially recounted) and a man is left to ask ‘Is this a ditch I’m prepared to die in’. If, as is usual, the answer is ‘no’, the only solution is to give way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
bruno April 19, 2012 at 17:05

@ Malcolm

I don’t believe that women are more emotional than logical.
I think women most of the time make choices that are very very rational.

Men generally get married because they hope it will bring them love and happiness, while women get married because they KNOW it will bring them money and power.

Men take heavy and dangerous jobs because they enjoy to take on a challenge, while women take the easy jobs because they know that’s more safe and comfortable.

It’s clear who is here acting emotional and who is acting rational.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
ubermensch April 24, 2012 at 17:30

Although I wasted many years of my youth to a miserable and utterly failed marriage to an evil women, I feel blessed to have been freed; the horror ended and the pain subsided.

I have been emancipated. I am a free man.

There is no way I’ll ever marry again and I really don’t care if family law is reformed to 1950s standards – it could easily be changed back again.

Many men like me, who started out as “nice guys”, went through the divorce meat grinder and ended up becoming “not so nice guys”. There is a trend now for men to behave nicely during the first few dates, then dumping the woman after the first round of sex.

As such, I prey upon women and use them with absolute abandonment, now that I understand their true nature and the realities facing men. They are nothing but cum dumpsters to me – to be used and disposed of, as if they were a natural extension of the condom.

These are the consequences. This is the price to be paid. The marriage strike and so-called “objectification of women” has only started. The backlash is going to be terrible for western women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
fmz April 25, 2012 at 15:26

The ‘power’ in any interaction based on exchange goes to the one who is prepared to walk. Very simple.

To who can and will vote with his feet.

Its what makes GYOW what it is and why it attracts such derision from the entitled second-handers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 5, 2012 at 07:12

There are hundreds of miles of desert in Arizona, Utah, and Texas that won’t be disturbed for a hundred years or more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: