Sunday, May 17, 2009

"...they occupy roughly the same status in their households as the help."

WSJ: From Patriach to Patsy: A father of three young children discovers the humiliations of being a modern dad (thanks to reader Dave):

In the most affluent parts of the Western world, a historic transference of power has taken place that is greater than anything achieved by the trade-union movement, the women's movement or the civil-rights movement -- and it hasn't even been extended the courtesy of being called a movement. Fathers, who enjoyed absolute authority within the household for several millennia, now find themselves at the beck and call of their wives and children. Indeed, most of my male friends are not fathers in any traditional sense at all; they occupy roughly the same status in their households as the help. They don't guide their children through the moral quandaries of life -- they guide them to their extracurricular activities from behind the wheel of a Dodge minivan....

Home Game: An Accidental Guide to Fatherhood,Mr. Lewis's account of becoming a father to his three children, begins promisingly. "At some point in the last few decades, the American male sat down at the negotiating table with the American female and -- let us be frank -- got fleeced," he writes.

The poor sucker agreed to take on responsibility for all sorts of menial tasks -- tasks that his own father was barely aware of -- and received nothing in return. If he was hoping for some gratitude, he was mistaken. According to Mr. Lewis: "Women may smile at a man pushing a baby stroller, but it is with the gentle condescension of a high officer of an army toward a village that surrendered without a fight."

Labels:

565 Comments:

Blogger Trust said...

Family law is responsible for this. It used to be that wives would be hurt by a divorce. If she enjoyed her standard of living, she had to keep her man and marriage happy in order to keep the standard of living. She had far more appreciation for what her husband did for her. Now, she does not have to worry about how happy her man and marriage is. The courts will see to it that he keeps providing her with the standard of living if she leaves him. She no longer appreciates what he provides, it is an entitlement guaranteed by the government. This is also why modern men put up with so much out of their wives. They have a lot to lose in terms of money, home, and children. To keep those things, they have to keep their wife. So naturally, they put more effort into it.

I am acquainted with a man who caught his wife of 10 years cheating and doing drugs--with their three kids in the house. So he divorced her. He got shelled in court, and now her and her boyfriend (the man she cheated with) are living in a nice big house with a nice car with three children, but neither one work--all of it is paid by the ex husband. He was cheated on by his wife, then cheated by the system.

I've repeated myself a few times on other posts, but I do think it is big. We've basically leveraged the law of the land to do two things:
1) guaranteed the wife all the standard of married life even if she divorces.
2) guaranteed the husband that he'll lose his children and most his earnings if he doesn't keep his wife happy.

With the above guarantees, is it really a surprise how things are going? That wives don't give a flip how happy or miserable their husbands are, and that husbands have become wusses that put up with anything to keep their wives happy, so they won't lose their kids and everything they work for?

9:05 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

MarkyMark posted an interesting story at his blog (http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/) about a man who owed $188,000 in alimony over the course of 5 years. That's a staggering amount of money. Why would his wife care if the marriage fell apart with a backup plan like that?

Life is about options.

9:09 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

I agree that the family law is quite messed up and one-sided, but I don't think that's what's driving the issues fathers face inside intact marriages, really. Sure, there is the leverage factor, but I think that's not the leading one.

As far as I can tell, the issue is that while women expanded their role into the previously "male" space, despite some rhetoric to the contrary women are not wild about men expanding their role into the previously "female" space (although men were previously "head of the family" in many/most families, women were de facto head of the home and family life). In the contemporary model, women want men to participate more in home life and family life, more actively parent and so on -- but mostly under mom's command. Women want equal effort in terms of tasking in family and home life, but *not* equal power -- they want their husbands to expend effort, but under their ultimate direction, control and power in that sphere of life. Women simply did not cede any power over home and family life, while they grasped for and attained power in public/educational life. That's an imbalanced situation, which leaves fathers in a very odd place today.

Certainly this is reflected in the family law, too. The fact that mother custody is overwhelming reflects the nearly totalitarian power women have over children and family life today. It's no wonder in light of that power that fathers struggle in family life. It's true that the ease of ending a marriage on terms favorable to mother is a huge contributing factor, because it gives mother a ton of leverage in a marriage. But it's also mother's failure to share power in family life, in many cases, that leaves men, as the article says, like paid help. It's kind of what many women want, I think, from men: assistance in home and family life, equal effort, but, importantly, NOT, power. Ultimate power in that sphere rests with mother, and I think women are very, very reluctant to give that up.

9:58 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Novaseeker said... "Ultimate power in that sphere rests with mother, and I think women are very, very reluctant to give that up."
____________

They don't give the power up because they don't have to. The law of the land gives great "my way or the highway" power to mothers, and fathers cower to it because they don't want to lose their kids (or worse, have their wife and her boyfriend live with his kids on the his dime). If things were more equal, like courts being 50/50 or even 60/40,there would be more compromise.

10:14 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

Again, I agree that it's a factor, but I don't think it's the only one. In marriages where things are tense, certainly the sword of damocles effect is there, no doubt. But in many other marriages, it's different -- it isn't the threat of divorce, but an assumption of a lack of competency by Mom when it comes to Dad's abilities as a parent, care-giver, home-take-carer and so on. And many guys fall into the trap of being tentative in these areas, and that kind of feeds Mom's impression that she has to be in charge for things to be done "right". Undoubtedly the perfectionism evident in many mothers also feeds into this as well -- nothing is ever done right if it is done by anyone else, and that kind of attitude means she feels she must be ultimately in charge, rather than sharing power.

So while I agree that the divorce regime has its impact, there are other factors at play as well, I think.

10:43 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Novaseeker said... So while I agree that the divorce regime has its impact, there are other factors at play as well, I think.
________

Of course there is. I agree with that. I do think lowered tolerance and an unwillingness to compromise will exacerbate any problem as well. The issue I speak of may very well magnify other factors.

But you're right, there are other factors.

10:51 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger gunnypink said...

Egad!! In my case, because I chose to not kowtow, and allow myself to be removed, I found myself in divorce court for extreme mental anguish. Go figure!

10:54 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger jimbino said...

I was smart enough to decide babymaking was incompatible with masculine freedom when I was a teen dI have successfully avoided marriage, divorce, breeding and all the attendant miseries. Unfortunately, I am still screwed over as a taxpayer supporting all the childcare credits, miserable public schools, SCHIPs and so on.

Amerikan men should get smart and seek a wife from another, say Latin American, culture. Why put up with Amerikan women when you can marry a Brazilian, move to Rio, choose your marriage terms (community property to separate property) and even marry someone of the same sex? Whoever you marry will ultimately gain the right to work in the USSA and you will gain the right to live and work in Brazil.

11:28 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Bob Wang said...

Did you know that the last comments in this post are Chinese porn spam?

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/04/well-managed-husband.html

11:31 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Jimbino,

I too realized 20 or so years ago what marriage was - and declined to participate. I used to live with women (4 or 5 years each on average until the "ultimatum"), but am now comfortable with a girlfriend who doesn't live with me. I have peace and quiet and sex. That's enough for me.

For the guys who get married, all I can say is: What did you expect? It's not like women's power in a marriage or family court injustice is a big secret or something.

With me, it even went further when I saw the lard-assed, bossy housewives in my neighborhood and the (sometimes hen-pecked) men supporting them with tons of hard work.

I could only ask WHY? as a teenager and in my 20s, and today, twenty years later, I still ask WHY?

11:35 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Michael E. Lopez said...

None of this would be an issue for Mr. Lewis if he wasn't such a...

Let's be family friendly and say "Wuss." If he wasn't such a wuss.

Men who live lives like the one describe allow the things they describe to be done to them.

Mr. Lewis is a simpering fool.

11:40 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Michael E. Lopez said... None of this would be an issue for Mr. Lewis if he wasn't such a... Let's be family friendly and say "Wuss." If he wasn't such a wuss. Men who live lives like the one describe allow the things they describe to be done to them. Mr. Lewis is a simpering fool.
__________

If he decides not to allow it, she can kick him ouit of the house, take his ass to court, take his kids, and make him support her. If the law on the land wasn't so biased, he would be able to do what you speak of.

Me, I don't let my wife walk on me, but I do put up from more than I would if the laws were different. Some men (and women) typically say men should not let it happen -- problem is, there is no "let" when it comes to what happens to men in the family courts.

11:48 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Everything I know about marriage I learned from my grandparents. They were married for over 65 years, until my grandfather died. They raised four children and had over 30 (I lost count) grandchildren and great-children. Every night they slept together on a bed covered with a quilt on which each square had a name and birthday stitched on it.

I never saw my grandfather but that he was well dressed. He would not come out of his bedroom unless he was clean shaven and well groomed, wearing dress shoes, dress slacks, dress belt, and dress shirt. (He even mowed his lawn well dressed.) He never went to work except in a suit and tie.

Every night before he came home, my grandmother would go into their bedroom, fix her hair, put on makeup, perfume and a nice dress, so that she could warmly greet him when he returned from work. (During the day, she spent most of her time cooking and baking so that there were always cakes, pies, cookies, and candies for her grandchildren and great-grandchildren just in case any of them came over to visit.)

And the thing about it is this. When my mother was nine, my grandmother was stricken with tuberculosis. The doctor informed my grandfather that there was no cure and that the only thing he could do was to remove one lung and half the other, then hope she survived. This was an operation that today would cost the equivalent of several hundred thousand dollars. Of course, my grandfather didn't have that kind of money laying around, so he went down to the bank where he was the manager, stole the money, paid the doctor, had the operation done, and saved his wife's life. (She ultimately outlived him.)

She was bed ridden for fourteen years. When his son, my uncle, turned sixteen and could get a job to support the family, my grandfather went down to the police station, confessed his crime and was sentenced to jail for three years. (He actually only served six months, because of good behavior and because everyone knew why he had stolen the money and no one faulted him for it.) When he got out, he promptly went back to work, not at the bank but as the manager of a grocery market, and continued to provide for his family.

This was a man. He had dropped out of school after the third grade and gone to work plowing fields with an ox to support his family. When he was eighteen and had saved enough money, he walked into the business school in San Antonio, passed the entrance exam and earned a business degree, became a bank manager. How did he do that? He helped his sisters do their homework every night, so he read all the textbooks and did all the exercises--he just didn't sit in a classroom and take tests. He also read every newspaper, magazine and book he could get his hands on.

My parents were the same way. Neither of them went to college. My father served in the Navy, then took a six-weeks course on computer programming and became a systems analyst. He designed the entire computer network that all the banks run on down here and ultimately worked his way up to president of the company. My mother started out as a secretary and apartment manager, got her real estate license, and made so much money that she bought the company. All of this to the blessings of their children. They were married for 45 years, until my father passed away.

The point being this, my grandparents and parents were of an era when men were men and women were women. Each accepted their roles and responsibilities without question, and took marriage seriously in order to lift up their children.

Think of it in terms of this, a pyramid: male-female-child, with the child (the union of male and female) as the apex. This is Man in the image of God: Father-Son-Holy Spirit. It is also the substance of Creation: past-present-future.

The past begets the present, and the future proceeds from the past and the present. Just as the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Just as the male begets the female, and the child proceeds from the male and the female.

There is a reason why Jesus sanctified marriage as the highest sacrament in His church. Because that is what is best for male, female and child.

So, what happened? Feminism, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the Brady Bunch, ad nauseam.

We see the results all around us. Social decay, moral decadence, sexual indiscretion, divorce for profit, broken families, unwed mothers, damaged children, girls gone wild, boys gone emasculate. And it's all taking all of society and the entire economy down the toilet with it.

11:51 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Shit is as shit does.

11:55 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

I have permanently solved this problem for myself. I am simply not getting married or having kids. I am the master of my domain. No woman can get pregnant by me and ruin my life.

12:02 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@J. Bowen said... "I have permanently solved this problem for myself. I am simply not getting married or having kids. I am the master of my domain. No woman can get pregnant by me and ruin my life."
_________

I got married specifically because I wanted children. My wife is a good lady, but, like most wives, as soon as we were married she changed a bit. Less sex, less tolerance, more demands, less concern for keeping me happy. etc. Basically, she's normal. But she's still nice to me, just not as accommodating. Keeping a husband around takes less effort than keeping a boyfriend around.

That said, I was willing to sacrifice some of what is important to me to put my children in a better environment. Children of marriage fare much better and are much happier.

12:08 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Amy Alkon said...

I was smart enough to decide babymaking was incompatible with masculine freedom when I was a teen dI have successfully avoided marriage, divorce, breeding and all the attendant miseries. Unfortunately, I am still screwed over as a taxpayer supporting all the childcare credits, miserable public schools, SCHIPs and so on.I'm a woman and I figured this out as well -- I have a wonderful boyfriend of six-plus years, and we live separately, and are very happy. I support myself, he supports himself, and we're together for one reason: We're happier together and better together than we would be alone.

I am for intact families for childrearing, but otherwise, I have no idea why any man would get married.

1:09 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

Amy --

I like reading your columns -- thanks for writing them.

I think men get married for two reasons: (1) they love the woman involved and want to share their lives with them and (2) they want children, and would prefer to have children in a marital context than without.

It isn't a "rational" decision, given the current legal and social frameworks around marriage. I think many of us point that out, especially to younger men. But the decision to get married -- at least by *men* -- is often much less rational, and much more emotionally driven, which is why it can be so dangerous.

1:16 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

It's that damned vagina. I had to fight that very power off just last weekend.

1:47 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

"For the guys who get married, all I can say is: What did you expect?"

In the first marriage, at 23, I expected us to solve our problems and have children and grow old together. We had a child and I spent enough to buy a great sportscar in keeping my child in my life.

In my second marriage, at 39, I expected us to solve our problems and have children and grow old together, but I chose a respectful, kind woman who could do those things.

10 years and 3 more kids later we are doing great. More maturity on my part, God's blessing, and careful choosing helped a lot. But at 23, I was not wise enough to choose, I had to live and suffer some to gain any insight.

Trey

1:50 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Tom P said...

I disagree that husbands are treated like hired help. Hired help is paid.

3:18 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

.......but otherwise, I have no idea why any man would get married.

Thanks, Amy. Thanks for being the first woman I have ever heard in my entire life say what you said.

So where in the hell were you in 1979?

6:13 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

While Mr. Lewis thinks he's writing a funny story, I wasn't particularly amused. It's really pathetic.

I totally agree with J. Bowen. Don't get married and you don't have to worry about it.

7:46 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Allison said...

Lighten up. Mr. Lewis IS funny, and his writings are funny. He is a wuss, but a humorous one. He had daughters for the first two--he may mature up as he tries to protect his son.

Men continue to get married and have kids because they WANT to have children and mold them into something good and great.

If you don't marry the mother of your children, you'll NEVER get the chance to do that. If you do marry her and you pick well, you will get to do that. Not all women have been poisoned by feminism.

Can't figure out which ones are still okay? Start going to church. Catholic church, especially, or Orthodox, as they have mostly held the line against modern leftist liberalism's version of feminism. Find a traditional Catholic church, and find the ladies who attend every week. That's really the secret. They do exist.

hm. I wonder if Dr. Laura should start a match making service...

8:35 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Find a traditional Catholic church, and find the ladies who attend every week. That's really the secret. They do exist.That would mean that we'd have to go to church every week...

12:26 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Acksiom said...

And I still question the presumption that marriage is a necessary or even helpful element in the creation of a family.

As far as I can tell, under current standards, it's effectively irrelevent. Whether a father has access to his children or not is up to their mother regardless of whether they're married or not. Marriage doesn't change that in any meaningful way. The agents of the State simply do not care what he wants or what his actual parental rights may be. He has virtually no legal recourse or standing whatsoever.

So please, tell me what makes marriage at all relevant at this point to creating and maintaining a family. Why do it at all? What is the point? What does it meaningfully change or accomplish?

Seriously, I want to know.

2:46 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Allison- Your flippant attitude towards all of this immediately tells everyone here that you do not have even the slightest clue as to the gravity of the situation.

It's not as simple as some 'character' issue. No one including yourself wants to be in any situation where they have absolutely zero legal rights with their fate up to another human being with virtually God-like powers over you to where you just 'have to trust' they won't do anything regardless of who or what they are- Catholic, Morman or Muslim, much less live your entire life that way with the most fundamental elemants of your very existence at stake.

It's the legal sysytem as well. But apparently that is just waaaay too complicated for you understand.

5:11 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Marriage is a promise on the one hand, an ownership thing on the other. Technically, both make a promise to each other, before God, family, friends. The man makes (and is held to) the promise, the woman takes ownership. Ownership is guaranteed by the courts. It benefits the female much more than the male right out of the gate, and on through the monthly checks. Even if infidelity occurs on her part, or if for some other reason, she just wants "out". Even in the instances where she is the primary bread winner. And as we have seen, even if the kid isn't yours. The math is simple, really. Especially when applied using copious amounts of hindsight.

As one who is no longer surprised by the goings on in this country, even if men avoid marriage, we will all eventually be taxed to support females and their offspring. Wait, we already are.

5:23 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

It's truly bizarre that even on a Web site like this - where these topics are discussed - women can be so absolutely clueless about things that men face.

Women care about children and men care about women. Most women are not only clueless about men, they could care less (as long as he keeps providing money).

5:24 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

My experience (as a marriage-avoider) is that mostly women put the subtle pressure on with regard to marriage in social settings ("why aren't you married yet, are you gay? Ha Ha").

Many men just avoid the topic - live and let live - and a few of the hard-core chivalrous ones feel the need to lecture you on how you are "getting away with something" by not marrying the woman. You are damn well going to be as miserable as they are.

When you pass 40 or so, married or divorced men in your age group stop any pretense of asking when you are going to get married and increasingly look at you in awe and envy - you don't have the "boss", you are not required to send a woman lots of money every month, a person you hate does not have utter control over your life - with the full backing of the state.

5:29 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Acksiom- there is no reason any intelligent man would enter into a nightmare situation like that.

Haven't you noticed the slow creep of the Mexican population spilling into our country? And the explosion of other cultures/races in our country? And they're doing just fine- why? Because love them or hate them their races and cultures are going to survive because they have traditional families and beliefs.

Whites through Feminism have been and are exterminating themselves. Millions of young single women in this country are now living alone and childless (all white)- bet you didn't know that this is the first time this has ever happened in human history. This is simply not how humans behave- it's peversely unnatural and that is why in 50 years this country (and especially Eurpoe) will be predominately Muslim or any culture that values family- not the white population. Birth rates for whites have fallen below replacable levels. Do the Google search. It puts an entirely whole new perspective on things.

Muslim... a feminist's worst possible nightmare.. so you could say that Feminism is enabling the Muslim culture to spread. Oh the irony is beyond sick.

Ever notice how Asians in particular always speak to you almost laughing at you? That's because they can see our entire race is going extinct and they are going to be taking over this continent.

5:29 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"It's truly bizarre that even on a Web site like this - where these topics are discussed - women can be so absolutely clueless about things that men face."

And how bizarre that there isn't really that many websites or blogs that discuss any of this either. Yet what is more important?

And when you do enter into the discussion what is beyond bizarre is how you're immediately told you are a woman hater (???) or how women suddenly become 12 years old and start rambling on about leaving a toilet seat up and are all giggly and tee-hee-hee(???) meanwhile you're wondering if you will even have a place to live if she suddenly decides she's bored and if you will ever see your children again because of the nightmare divorce laws that no one is doing anything about.

This is a very dark time.

5:45 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Now, if a woman did not possess a vagina - and a show of hands please - how many of you men out there would otherwise bother? Exactly.

How many men out there think that any woman hasn't known this since early childhood?

Opium can't hold a candle to it. Colt could never manufacture such an effective weapon.

5:51 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger nk said...

I am a Mr. Mom. I make my daughter's breakfast, comb her hair, pack her lunch, walk her to school, participate in the PTA, even dress up as Chewbacca for the parents' school play. I don't see it as a humiliation. I am grateful that I did not know what I was missing, before I had her, because I would have thrown myself out of a window.

8:19 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chris said...

Dont' remember who said it but...."Why are women so angry? They have half the money and all the p*ssy?"

I don't let my wife boss me around..., but I do have to tolerate her "flightier" behaviour... why? Cause I love her. But then she has to smell my farts, wash my clothes and cook for me. For that, she'll never have to mow the lawn or repair any plumbing.

It's a simple division of labor.

8:36 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Well, I think it's important to distinguish between marriage as a sacrament and a legal contract. The sacrament is pure--a coequal partnership for the purpose of raising, and raising up, children. But the legal contract is corrupt in that it enforces an unequal partnership for the purpose of empowering women to the detriment, some would say enslavement, of men.

8:45 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

nk, I raised three kids. Two daughters, one son. They lived with me, my son still does.

There was no court of law to help me do so, to force someone else to pay. There is nothing available for a functioning white male except his own two hands and what is between his ears. And we still have to pay for others, also (through taxes).

The situation cost me 5 career quality positions over the time I raised my kids. I finally had to take a position where I was not "important" enough to be worth the wage I was capable of in order to be there for my kids. So they didn't eat as well as I could have fed them otherwise; or dress as well, or live in as nice a house. All that disappeared. And although it hurt, years later I held the door for them as they walked out to be on their own. But my job was to prepare them to be able to do just that.

I say all this because you, too, are missing the point.

8:50 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

nk,

I don't think you realize the precarious position you are in. The courts are not going to treat you the same as they would a woman who stayed home. Trust me.

And the more important point is that your wife is going to eventually start showing her growing disrespect for you.

9:00 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Becky said...

For kicks and grins, obtain copies of the movie Cheaper by the Dozen; the old one with Clifton Webb, and the new one with Steve Martin. Then watch them and notice the portrayal of each family and how they interact. It is like looking in a mirror at the popular idea of family for each era.

I cannot logically see how the wife/mother in the old movie wasn't actually ahead of her counterpart of the new version. The original portrayed the parents evenly yoked, and the new portrays the father as somewhere between the kids and the dog.

9:01 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger rezzrovv said...

Personally, I am saddened by this turn. I see fathers (and mothers) completely catering to the whims of their children and what they get in turn are vapid narcissists.

9:15 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Richard said...

I denigrated myself in my marriage for 17 years before I finally got sick of it and divorced. I got 3 beautiful girls out of it, but my wife raked me over the coals and spent most of our savings in legal fees over custody.
I have a lovely girlfriend, but she already knows I will never marry her. I refuse to take the risk.
Maybe when enough men refuse to become legally entrapped by marriage, political pressure will build to equalize the rights of both parties. don't hold your breath.

9:17 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger William Young said...

This is maybe-kinda true for some men, but as a full-time "professional" stay-at-home dad, not so much for me. I gave up a career (as a *cough* "journalist") to raise my three young children and have been super-empowered by it. I run the house. I run the family. I run the errands. My wife runs the kids to the after-school activities and such. Total role reversal (sort of).

None of my male friends who are fathers ever report any diminution of their "status" as fathers/husbands as a result of the "new bargain" the culture has theoretically forced on men. I think this is mostly an issue wimpy/leftist men have voluntarily taken upon themselves and now lament, and that the predominantly leftist culture promotes out of a sense of fairness/idiocy.

We "men's men" are still out here. So what if we have to grocery shop and change diapers? After all, our wives all have jobs, now. Perspective, people, perspective.

9:23 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Dave said...

I found a woman who said she believed in traditional marriage roles, who indicated that she cared for me as much as I cared for her. I married her because I, perhaps naively, thought that raising a family with her would be a good experience for everyone (her, the kids and I).

After we were engaged, she started becoming very bossy and overly critical. I wrote this off as nerves. She was getting married and I thought that once we were married, that she would settle down.

Well, that didn't happen, obviously this bossy and overly critical individual was the real person under the false front.

I then made the often-repeated mistake of thinking that kids would make things better, and to a certain extent my daughter's presence has been a big plus to me (she is one great kid), but I can see her becoming the bossy, critical individual that my wife is and I have no idea how to stop that.

9:25 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"Maybe when enough men refuse to become legally entrapped by marriage, political pressure will build to equalize the rights of both parties."

---------

No, what the politicians will do is start going after men who live with women. And then men who date women. And then men who talk to women.

This has already started: In England, a woman in a live-in relationship can now sue for a "division of assets" after a couple of years. In California, a man (who is not the father) can be ordered to pay child support if he has developed a "significant bond" with the mother and child. That means living with her for a while.

There is just something deep in society that thinks it's just to make men pay for women.

9:28 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: The 'Problem' Here....

....as described in the exert, is a matter of 'pride'.

Whomever this guy is, there seems to be someone who thinks they are better than their marital partner in their relationship.

It could be the guy. Then again, it could be the gal.

Whomever it is, it is ruining their marriage.

I've been married three times now. And in the two previous disasters, pride and/or selfishness was the biggest factor in the collapse.

In this one, a Christian relationship, each of us thinks the other is more important than we are ourselves.

As a result of this sort of thinking, pride, vanity, selfishness, whathaveyou, is no longer a factor. And therein lies the avenue to successful compromise on how we can progress as a whole.

Maybe. Just MAYBE, the complainer in the exert should look at their problem from that perspective. And maybe some of the others here could benefit from such an examination themselves.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who can find a good woman. Her worth is greater than rubies. -- Proverbs 31]

9:28 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"We "men's men" are still out here."

---

Are ya?

*Yawn*

9:29 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Usually the chivalrous, traditional men who also want to push marriage on other men are absolutely shocked when they go through a divorce themselves and find out what the scoop is. I have a (chivalrous, hard guy) cousin who was married for over 20 years - he would give lectures on how you stay married, for instance "communication" and your wife being your best friend - and he went into a royal tailspin when his wife divorced him. He had a good job (VP), so he's paying, paying, paying, paying now. And that's about it.

And not that Alec Baldwin was a traditional guy (I think he's otherwise a lefty), but there's another man in the public eye who used to be a chivalrous, feministic, woman-first kind of guy. And then he ventured into divorce court and is now singing a much different tune.

9:34 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Celeste said...

nk -
Three cheers for you! My husband is a stay at home dad as well, and is doing a fantastic job raising our 3 year old son. I'm incredibly grateful that when we had a choice between putting our son in daycare, or having one of us quit work, my husband was willing to quit.

Does everyone really believe that women are all such conniving, lazy, evil, grasping, mercenary bitches that their only goal is to suck a man dry of his income, humiliate him, and then toss him away when they're done? If you really think that that's what your girlfriend will do to you, then please don't get married - in fact, you should dump her immediately, because the laws are stacked against you even if you aren't married and don't have children - has no one heard of palimony suits? Visit a whore instead.

I, however, am happy and content in my marriage. Apart from the fact that I love him, I am fully aware of the value my husband brings to our marriage, and how much worse off our family would be without him. He IS a 'man's man' and provides the added bonus of being a truly full-time father.

9:35 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"I've been married three times now."

------

Well, then you must know all about it by now.

That's like the lard-ass Dr. Phil having the utter arrogance to write a book about weight loss.

Maybe Paris Hilton can write about how to get a Nobel Prize in physics.

9:36 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

Yeah, fine, the family law system, women today, not me I won't be subservient, whattya gonna do, hey I'm fine with a girlfriend, maybe I'll find a good Bulgarian chick, etc....

Knock it off already. Cut the swagger by half, drop the profanity, stand up, and be a man. If you think there are no women left who want lifelong marriage, quit trolling for easy trash. This goes double for anyone who considers themselves conservative. You're fine on your own? Families, communities, and countries are built when men stand up for what is right no matter what the cost. If you want credit, move to Hollywood. If you want to save that which is worth saving, you're going to have to, at some point, enter a burning building.

See Allison's point above. And look at the divorce rates for women who use NFP. Find one of those women, court her, and raise your family in honor to God and country.

9:44 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Jason said...

This discussion started well, but went a bit astray. The value of the institution of marriage to society can not be overstated. Just look at a city mine, Memphis, where drugs, crime, ignorance, and poverty almost perfectly track children of unmarried parents, creating a malignant subculture.

And while the cost/burden analysis may have shifted for a male considering marriage, the fact is that all of my married friends are generally much happier and healthier - no matter how much singles may cry it not to be so. The joy of holding a child is incomparable and inconceivable to someone who never has.

That said, I agree whole-heartedly that there is an incongruence to men still being expected to be ultimately responsible for the family's well-being, yet not receiving the respect and authority that should naturally accompany that responsibility; to be emotionally sensitive and vulnerable and yet still ultimately responsible to slay dragons when it comes to protecting and providing for the family.

An adjustment is coming. The next generation will not remember the profound moral responsibility that we inherited from the Greatest Generation, that a man continues to protect and provide for his family no matter the burden.

9:46 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

"Cut the swagger by half, drop the profanity, stand up, and be a man."

----

Or what, Bunky?

I think the swaggering idiot here is ... you.

9:47 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger geoffrobinson said...

I think the problem is pretty simple.

Today's women get angry and fight. And unless you want to go nuclear, salt the fields, and burn down Atlanta there is no winning. Just Pyrrhic victories.

So men just give up immediately or don't get married, etc.

9:53 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Joe Giles,

You're not adding anything to the conversation here, because you are focusing on yourself and how you appear to others (you want to appear to be a tough guy) and you are not thinking about the real problem here.

I don't care if you personally are a tough guy or not - I think men are getting the short end of the stick in family relations, and that's the issue here.

9:55 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Prime Designer said...

I, however, am happy and content in my marriage. Apart from the fact that I love him, I am fully aware of the value my husband brings to our marriage...Which is great! Until you change your mind, then he's screwed.

10:01 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger SarahW said...

It was some 15+ years ago, but I don't recall feeling contempt for my husband or anyone else's husband's sharing of child-care chores.

I think the author is full of baloney and his own self-doubts. Maybe he feels contempt for himself.

10:03 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

SarahW,

That's exactly why I don't believe in the existence of cancer.

I've never had cancer.

10:07 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Scott said...

I have made it abundantly clear to my wife that should our otherwise happy marriage change and she have any ideas about replacing me with a new model and having me support her that I would "burn the mother down." I will quit my job, torch my house, put my cars in the river and move to Mexico before I support her seperately from myself. Yes, I love my kids and I do not want to see them suffer. I hope she feels the same way because MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) works as a deterrent and I'm willing to go there.

I suspect that if more men were willing to do so, and do it publicly, that it would serve as an example of how badly women can be served by the current legal situation.

10:17 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger William Young said...

"JG"

It must suck to be you, hanging out in comment threads, "quoting" other commenters and making "clever jibes."

Moron.

10:21 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Hey William Young,

I thought "men's men" just let minor things roll off their back.

I'm starting to wonder if you really are one.

10:26 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

As a general note, I'm starting to hate bullies, self-proclaimed tough guys and self-proclaimed men's men.

All of you are quite intense. Take a deep breath and join the human race.

10:27 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Celeste said...

Prime Designer -
I fully agree that the deck is stacked against men in family law. I think, however, that some proponents of mens' rights have gone down the same distasteful path that womens' rights advocates have gone. I find myself shying away from the term feminist because it's so thoroughly associated with the concept that no man can be trusted, that every man can turn into an abuser. I likewise see commenters on this thread working from an assumption that no woman can be trusted, and that any one of us will set out to ruin a man's life at any moment.

"Until I change my mind" implies that I have no basic sense of fairness or honor. Since you don't know me, the only basis you have for that assumption is that I'm a woman. Just as I know it drives my husband nuts to see how the mothers at the park automatically assume a man out with a child during a workday must be a child-abductor, it drives me nuts that people would assume that I would turn on the father of my children - we made a commitment, and that still matters to some people.

10:41 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

It's just the typical "man up" nonsense that we get from the conservatives when it comes to men's issues as well.

This is why we struggle in articulating a movement for change. The men are mostly either (1) feminists who support the existing system or (2) chivalrous conservatives who want men to "man up".

The laws are totally imbalanced in how they are administered, but hey ... man up. Or, as one woman advises here, if you don't like the laws, go see a whore instead.

This is why increasing numbers of men are avoiding marriage. It's the right call, as Amy points out above. The rest of it is just the usual shaming language from conservative "family guys" and from feminist women and men. Nothing new here, really.

10:52 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger nk said...

Celeste at 9:35 AM, May 18, 2009,

Thank you. You get it. (Although, strictly speaking, I did not entirely abandon my career. I don't go to court anymore to get people out of jail but I do advise them from home how to stay out of jail. Sometimes I even get paid for it. ^_^.)

I brought a human being into the world and she comes first. Period. End of discussion.

11:06 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger CT said...

Hi,

Great post, concise and easy to understand. I like this post..
I found out that this blog is very interesting and informative.
Best of luck to you!

Cheers,
Professional Golf Swings;

Top Fishing Games

11:12 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger nk said...

I grew up that way. We were three boys. My mother worked first shift, my father second shift. My father sent us off to school, brought us back for lunch, sent us back to school, and then went to work to come back at 1:00 a.m.. My mother went to work at 5:00 a.m. and came back at 3:00 p.m. to take care of us in the evening. They slept together for a few hours but saw each other face to face only on weekends. For eighteen years.

I'm a lawyer. My "Irish twin" is an MBA. My baby brother is a doctor (Opthalmologist).

11:20 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger BarryD said...

what they get in turn are vapid narcissistsWhat REALLY amazes me is that a large number of Americans either identify with, or actually worship, the vapid narcissist who is now the President.

I truly can't understand what people have ever seen in him. To me, he has always seemed like that guy who BSes his way all the way to the corner office at work, then eventually gets caught defrauding the company.

It's frightening that this has become so "normal" that so many of us can't even recognize something IMO so blatantly obvious, when we see it.

11:20 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger rasqual said...

Heh. As I was remarking to my daughter yesterday as she grumbled about how boring it was to pull dandelions, parents used to have children not to fulfill some psychological need to raise a child -- but because they needed help with the hard work.

Our world has stood that on its head. Now parents bust their buns to give the kids all kinds of advantages, while the kids play video games.

11:22 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger BarryD said...

We bring up our children like they're spoiled toy poodles, and then we're amazed when they shoot up their high schools or kill themselves as teenagers, because nobody seems to "care" about them...

I just read a book about Elmer Keith's life (b. 1899). The guy worked like an ox, suffered injuries that would probably kill anyone today despite better medicine, and enjoyed his life immensely.

11:27 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger BarryD said...

Oops... didn't finish...

He carried a gun AT SCHOOL because someone had threatened his life, the other kids were told not to mess with his revolver, and everything went on as normal... (This was Montana a long time ago.)

Nobody got shot, nobody killed him/herself -- even though the wealthiest of them quite possibly had a tougher life than some of the worst-off kids do today.

11:29 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Celeste said...

nk -
My husband didn't quit working entirely either. It would be too intellectually stifling, and his technical skills would quickly become out of date if he did. But now he just takes jobs as he wants to and has the time for them, instead of working 60 hour weeks. Either one of us could have been the one to quit working - going single-income cut our annual income exactly in half. I only ended up with the short-straw because I can work from home full-time, so my job is portable, and we want to move out of state. :)

11:30 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

So, nk, you only went to college to get your M.R.S. degree? Find a woman to pay for you so you can sit home?

11:30 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Sarah said...

The overwhelming, and sad, conclusion I'm drawing from these comments is that most people will not find lasting happiness. And it's not because family law has destroyed marriage and society, and it's not because women are secretly (and not so secretly) holding their husband's balls in their Coach purses. It's because we've become so cynical as a society that most of us can't allow a silly notion like love enter into the equation. True, lasting love between two healthy, stable people is attainable. The joy of raising children in a happy home is quite possibly one 'reason for it all.' Most of you won't find that, ever, and it's because you are already cynical, bitter and old before your time. You can label it "wisdom" if it helps you feel more fulfilled. Note that a decision to maintain a single lifestyle based on reasons other than women are evil and divorce is shitty is a different ball of wax.

I'm not saying there isn't truth in the idea that divorce law is clearly skewed toward protecting and providing for women and children. I'm saying love and family is worth the risk, and if you can't see that, well, the joke's on you.

11:43 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

That would get a standing ovation on Oprah, Sarah.

Woo-wooo!

Yes, what about love and more importantly, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

All of the little children of the world.

11:52 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

This seems to be turning into a pure expression of egos.

------

I am a lawyer (although I'm not - I am really unemployed and living off a woman).

I have deep, great thoughts that no one else has, like: What about love?

I am a tough guy and a man's man and you'all'se better just do what the wimmens sez.

I am a great person and all you men complaining should just go to a whore.

-----

It really gets sickening. Sorry.

11:56 AM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Sarah said...

Bitter much, Tether? I really meant what I said very matter-of-factly. Love can, and does, work out for some people. If you're basing life decisions on the litigiousness of American society, why do anything at all? There are inherent legal and monetary risks involved with everything we do these days. You weigh the risks and live your life. It's not so deep. It's just living.

12:04 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Barry said...

I understand the source of many of the anti-marriage comments here is the lopsidedness of family law and divorce law. Having been the product of divorce and seen the effects of several bad marriages and bad "solutions" provided by divorce law, I can understand a certain bitterness about marriage in general.

At the same time, taking these "lessons" and applying them to women and marriage in general is illogical and harmful to the conservative view of marriage the quoted author and many commenters here seem to wistfully desire. Don't pass your distrust of fellow humans and previous terrible choices onto the rest of humanity. There is no universal that can be applied. People are ultimately individuals. There are terrible men and terrible women. But there are also people of both sexes who are honest, caring, and capable of mature emotional connections.

Dig deeper and you will find out that many of the previous generations' marriages were horrible and soul-crushing underneath and modern law simply serves as a way to release or prevent such entanglements. There was no golden age. The best marriages have always been those held by those best at relationships.

I still think the best thing about post-feminist love is the ability to delay marriage, and, if you choose, live with your prospective spouse prior to marriage. While it still won't show you everything you both will be through each changing stage of life, it will bring you closer to understanding what married life may be than simply dating and marrying in the first year or two.

Lighten up, people. Learn to trust, just don't trust blindly.

(I'm a 34 yr-old married father of two.)

12:09 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

So -- Reality#### has developed a few sock puppets.

If all women are bad because of the actions of some, then all men are bad because of the actions of some. Same logic. Same faulty logic that can be refuted by simply observing the population.

I have no interest in joining the Our Gang Woman Haters Club. Why? Very simple. I know good women.

Do I agree with someone 100%? Never, I'm sure. But I can also see that they might have good points. Sad to let one or more instances in your life turn you into a bigot, and someone who hates all men/women/blacks/etc is a bigot by definition.

Barry, you said it well.

12:38 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

"I'm not saying there isn't truth in the idea that divorce law is clearly skewed toward protecting and providing for women and children. I'm saying love and family is worth the risk, and if you can't see that, well, the joke's on you."

That is easy to say as a woman. The law is on your side, and you are not facing the same risks as a man does.

I have been through the system once and have no need to enter it again. I also think it is important to warn younger men about the system.

Do all marriages go bad? No. You have a slightly better chance than equal that it will last. But as man, that's a bad bet. Because if it doesn't last, the law comes down on a man like a bat out of hell -- it really is NOT worth it.

12:41 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Sarah - "The overwhelming, and sad, conclusion I'm drawing from these comments is that most people will not find lasting happiness. And it's not because family law has destroyed marriage and society, and it's not because women are secretly (and not so secretly) holding their husband's balls in their Coach purses."Sarah,

How is it that you conclude that cynicism (by men) towards marriage is NOT connected to either the severe imbalance in (anti-)family law, nor women taking liberal advantage of those laws in the inequitable treatment of their husbands?

It seems to me that those ARE the very reasons many men have become cynical of marriage.

Your thoughts on how they are not connected?

12:45 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"If all women are bad because of the actions of some, then all men are bad because of the actions of some. Same logic. Same faulty logic that can be refuted by simply observing the population."

--------

I don't think that's what people are saying here. I can't even think of one person, but I don't read very carefully. If you find one - so what.

Rather, that was asserted by Celeste and others.

There is the idea that men should watch out for marriage - or even avoid marriage in this climate - but I don't see how that is saying "all women are bad".

12:49 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Sarah Thinks....

"I'm saying love and family is worth the risk...." -- Sarah

....that family is "worth the risk" of divorce and dissolution of future.

And why shouldn't she. She's on the winning side of a divorce. Especially when there are children, that she's likely to get.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you meet Sarah—or her ilk—at a bar....run like hell.....

12:51 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Sarah: If you have been out on your own in the real world for years and years - paying for yourself and taking care of things yourself - then statements like yours would carry more weight. The only problem is you probably wouldn't make them as casually as you do, or make them at all.

If you are being supported by a man (father, husband, whatever) and being shielded from the real world, however, it is the height of conceit and denseness to make assertions like you made. If the latter is the case, you are a protected child, no matter what your physical age.

12:52 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Once again, many of the women here (Celeste, Sarah ...) not only have no empathy for men, they have no clue what men's experiences are like. But to make up for that, they will sure tell you what's what in an arrogant way.

12:54 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JG
RE: Heh

"Well, then you must know all about it by now.

That's like the lard-ass Dr. Phil having the utter arrogance to write a book about weight loss.

Maybe Paris Hilton can write about how to get a Nobel Prize in physics." -- JG

What are you drinking? And how much have you had since you woke up this morning? Or is it 3 am where you're at and the bars are closed, so you're in some wifi coffee shop?

I've been following your comments and you are ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You're not drunk if you can hold onto the floor without falling off.]

12:56 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

Funny, I was just thinking Sarah and Celeste are just the type of women that smart lads should be looking for.

Mr. Lewis might disagree, but I don't see stroller-driving as surrender...more like a fleeting privilege.

1:01 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

That's the best response you've got, Chuck?

1:02 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

I think I should reiterate that if you don't get married, then you don't have to worry about the nonsense. End of story.

I don't want kids and I'm at the stage in my life that I don't want unnecessary complications (i.e. marriage ending up in divorce). As far as being called a "woman hater," I have no problems with them. I get along great with my co-workers (all women). I just don't want to get married. Sorry, but the odds lean way too far in the "bad" direction. It has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with analysis.

As far as men are concerned, my own brother has (or will have) two kids from two different women. Personally I think that's pretty effed up so I can't really say that men are perfect. Far from it. However, you have several generations of women who have been pretty much told that men are evil.

Now does this mean that all women are evil? Nope. However, a solid enough percentage of them are and that's good enough reason for me not to get into a relationship. Like I said, marriage today is like craps at Vegas (for some reason, Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler comes to mind...). Call me bitter, but I don't see it that way. I call it smart.

1:13 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

No one is saying that all women are bad, except people who say others are saying that. I even enjoyed turnips once, when they were prepared right.

One thing is for sure, western civilization is avoiding and aborting itself out of existence, as was stated above. Especially in the U.S. where more children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade than have immigrated legally and illegally since it passed.

1:22 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger nk said...

Once again, many of the women here (Celeste, Sarah ...) not only have no empathy for men, they have no clue what men's experiences are like.Do you have a clue what men's experiences are like, JG? I don't mean male. You might be a very pretty male. With nice broad shoulders. But pretty male with nice broad shoulders does not make a man.

1:24 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Dave Cornutt said...

Celeste: The point isn't what you would do. I have no reason to doubt that you are devoted to your husband and family. However, the law allows that you *could* do these things if you wanted to. So you have to admit that your husband has to have a lot of trust in you -- becuase, under the law, he doesn't have any other choice. Look at it this way: some slave owners treated their slaves quite well, and some slaves actually lived better than most free people did in those days; however, this fact did not justify the existence of slavery.

Actually, I think that a lot of the problem is that the system is set up today to reward impulsive behavior by women. In times past, divorce was hard to get, and just filing for a divorce was a long process. How many times have we said or thought something in anger that we didn't really mean and regretted later? We've all done it. But we nearly always cool off in a short period of time, and then we see the error of our ways, and in most cases this occurs well before we get to actually acting on our impulsive thoughts.

But today, the system encourages and rewards women for filing for divorce impulsively. Let's say a couple have an argument in the morning as they are getting ready for work. They go to work. The wife tells her co-worker that they had an argument. The co-worker says, "You don't have to take that! It's abuse!", and gives her the name and number of a divorce lawyer. She calls, gets a free consultation by phone. They instruct her what to do. She then calls the police, files charges of spouse and child abuse. A restraining order is issued. Then, she calls the bank and cleans out all of the bank accounts. All the while, she has her co-worker encouraging her and cheering her on.

Consider what has happened here. It has been the work of literally minutes, maybe a couple of hours at most, to totally destroy the marriage well beyond any hope of reconciliation. The wheels are now turning and will not stop. Maybe she's starting to feel not so angry now? Too damn bad! There is already a whole marching army that has a vested interest in the divorce going through. It's too late to change course. And if she tries to, her co-worker will never let her forget about it.

The system promises her all of the benefits of marriage, without any of the obligations, plus all of the freedoms of being single. There doesn't appear to be any downside. It sounds like a really sweet deal, and some women, being human and not totally proof against temptation, have already fallen at this point and are totally with the program. She may come to regret what she has done, but it's already too late. And chances are, her husband has already fogotten the whole argument and he has no idea yet that anything is going on. When the police come to his workplace to serve the protection order, it's a declaration of checkmate. He's already lost, and he didn't even know that a contest was going on.

I think this is why the majority of divorces today (2/3 to 3/4 depending which stats you look at) are initiated by women. It's so damn easy, and the system will not pause for a moment to let her considering what she's doing. It's as if some new technology gave us all the ability to murder anyone by simply wishing them dead: at least half of the human race would be killed the first day. The legal system is supposed to provide protection against impulsive behavior; instead, it's encouraging and rewarding it.

1:26 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Brian said...

I got married and had children in my early 30's. When I look back and the women I dated, I realize that the best women I dated came from stable families where Mom and Dad have been together for decades. I married a woman whose Mom and Dad have been together for nearly 40 years and both sets of her grandparents were married over 50 years. I have a good, stable marriage, and our kids are happy, smart, and confident because they are loved and have both Mom and Dad with them all the time, as well as their grandparents.

In my view, when you meet a woman whose Mom and Dad got divorced whent hey were young,a nd they have become used to a split family, seeing Dad on weekends, etc., they become accustomed to it and think it is no big deal. Thus, when their marriage has some trouble, walking away does not seem like the worst thing int he world.

Contrast that with my wife. Her Mom and Dad were married in 1970. She was born in 1975. Last year, she saw her Mom and Dad get into a huge fight. She was really upset. She called her Mom crying and her Mom said, "Honey, that is not the first bad fight I have ever gotten into with your Dad. it is the first you ever saw. I love your Dad more than anything and everything will be fine. Don't worry." My wife actually thought that her Mom was going to leave her Dad, which shocked and really upset her. After she told me that, I said have you ever thought of leaving me after one of our fights? She said absolutely not, not for a second. I responded that it seems that you are just like your Mom.

My point here is that women with stable parents will want to be stable as well. Keep that in mind when looking at marrying someone. Perhaps you may find yourself as happy as me rather than as miserable as many of the people commenting above. I once dated a woman for a while and after we were together for six months, she made an off-hand remark that a woman didn't need a man to raise kids, that her Mom did just fine without a man around. I really liked her right up until that comment. I did not feel the same way about her after that and I sooned dumped her. When she asked me why, I told her that I did not want to invest any more time in a woman with that attitude. As you might expect, she is now a single mother. When I ran into her last year, we talked and she started telling me all the problems she had with the DAd, he never comes around, doesn't pay support, etc. I said, "what happened to that 'you don't need a man to raise a child'?" To her credit, she said she was dead wrong and wishes she never said that to me, for several reasons.

1:26 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JG
RE: Best Response?

"That's the best response you've got, Chuck?" -- JG

But it seemed like an appropriate one, considering your comments on this thread so far.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Your comment is hardly a 'denial' of my observation....

1:30 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Joe Giles
RE: Sarah

"Funny, I was just thinking Sarah and Celeste are just the type of women that smart lads should be looking for." -- Joe Giles

The business about "Come on. Come on. I'm 'worth the risk'", is the indicator.

Out of curiosity, Joe, are you or have you ever been married? Ever been divorced?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Women, n., The unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 19th Century]

P.S. Obviously there were problems going on over a century ago.....

1:35 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Barry "I can understand a certain bitterness about marriage in general.

At the same time, taking these "lessons" and applying them to women and marriage in general is illogical and harmful to the conservative view of marriage the quoted author and many commenters here seem to wistfully desire. Don't pass your distrust of fellow humans and previous terrible choices onto the rest of humanity. There is no universal that can be applied. People are ultimately individuals. There are terrible men and terrible women. But there are also people of both sexes who are honest, caring, and capable of mature emotional connections.

(I'm a 34 yr-old married father of two.)"

Well, Barry, as the happily married, never divorced, 46 year old father of three (since we're reduced to throwing down our credentials), I believe that you (like most of the chivalrous men here) are simply NOT making the logical connections that wise men need to make – if one is to be able to find an loving and trustworthy women to marry, they must be very careful indeed.

While people are, indeed, individuals, the notion that one should never question whether or not a woman, once married, will ever lose interest in them deceive them, turn on them, and take full advantage of the law and the courts against a man is simply foolhardy.

Your desire to hold the “conservative view of marriage” in a positive light has become dated. For men, the prospect of marriage must now be considered a risk vs reward calculation, thanks to the influence of feminism and the embracing of the spoils of the feminist victory by women in general (Christian women included).

Many women, like some who have been posting here, do not wish to acknowledge this modern concern wrt marriage, much less address the issues head-on. They, like most other women do, will proclaim that “they would never act like that”; yet people change.

Would any man tell his wife that at some point in the future he might well cheat on her? Yet, we know all too well that it does happen. Likewise, no woman would tell her husband that she might cheat on him, and, again, it does end up happening. Why then should we take the word of any woman that she will not come to view her husband with contempt and decide to divorce him as an inalterable truth?

Women, just like men are not immune to changing their minds about virtually any thing. For women, it has been observed that they tend to go through cycles as to their affection/sexual desire for their partners. If a woman should lose interest in her husband and decide to divorce him, although she may intend to seek an equitable split, a chat with a typical divorce lawyer can lead to her rethinking just what constitutes “fair”. I can assure you it happens with significant frequency.

If any of you, as men, are content to put the blinders on and enter into marriage without one single doubt, you are, of course, free to do so. But, please, do try to respect the decisions of men who chose a more cautious approach. They are not without solid reason.

1:43 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Brian said...

I have to say one more thing. Being a loving and nurturing Dad is not emasculating, it is empowering. My daughters LOVE me, which inspires me to do better for them and myself. When I am out of town for a night or two for depositions, they tell Mommy how much they miss me and keep asking when I will be home. Sadly, many men (and women!) think a man is a wuss if he is loving and caring to his kids. And, many women think if a man is loving and accomodating to them, they are weak. I have no sympathy for a woman who stays with a jerkoff and complains about how awful he is, and then throws away a good man, like my wife's best friend. Before we got married, my wife and I got into a huge fight that lasted for days. What ended it was when she played the "[name omitted] thinks that I should just dump you and move on." (Similar to the story from the commenter above about enablers). I responded, "if you want to take advice from someone with two kids with two different Dads, neither of which pay child support or see their kids, then by all means go ahead. What I think you should do is call your Mom and tell her what is happening. If she thinks you should leave me, I'll pack up and be gone by tonight, and pay off the rest of the lease. Call her, I'll be back in a half-hour." I went out, she called her Mom, and we worked it out.

1:43 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Celeste said...

Dave Cornutt -
I agree this is true, and have seen plenty of marriages fall apart in that exact same scenario. I also agree that family law is unfairly stacked against men. I'm not in a position to change it, only in a position to promise that I would never treat my husband that way. He trusts that I would not, or we would not have gotten married.

He's several inches taller than I am and outweighs me by a good bit. If he suddenly lost his temper to the point where he started hitting me, I'd have a hard time defending myself - if he were mad enough, he'd have no trouble killing me. We each acknowledge the power imbalance in our relationship, and we each trust the other not to abuse the power we have over each other. It's part of being in love.

I'm not the sort who advocates for everyone to get married. I can never recall - ever - suggesting to someone that they ought to, or that they'd regret not getting married later in life. I actually lean toward Amy Alkon's stance - there isn't a lot of point unless you intend to have children. And especially if you think you can never trust any woman that far, then I see no point in even dating steadily, since you can get hit for palimony as well.

But I do think that two people who love each other and want to have children can get married and that it can turn out to not just be a good way to raise kids, but a wonderful life, period.

1:49 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Sarah said...

Look, I'm not blowing off the disparity when it comes to divorce law. It's BS, although if that's truly the big concern, you could get a good lawyer to draft a strong pre-nup. They work wonders in most states.

The fact is, however, that women have a lot at stake when it comes to taking the risk, too. Do you think women want to become single mothers, which is what almost always happens? If we're going on stereotypes, just picture the woman raising the 3 bratty children of the womanizing junior associate who is off buying the red sports car, sending the child support late, and forgetting about visitation 3 out of 4 times. Seems like a convincing reason to leave it alone for women.

The vast majority of marriages that end in this country do not result in big alimony payments. Most people do not earn that kind of income. Beyond child support, I don't know many divorced women who receive alimony, especially enough to live off. Alimony typically is set at a certain level and decreases rapidly based on the assumption that the woman will start earning her own income. The ones who wind up with the house often lose it because it's not as though the mortgage magically disappears. Fact is, a woman is not helping herself or her family if she doesn't have a back up plan. I believe marriage can work (and I have one stupid young marriage under my belt - and no I did not ask for alimony or anything else), but women who allow themselves to be "owned" by a situation where they can't support themselves are fooling themselves if they think they're going to come out not needing to enter the workforce after a divorce. It happens rarely and only among the wealthy set.

Yes, women usually get the kids and yes, men usually have to foot child support bills, but I'm unconvinced about this magical alimony that is enough for women to live on, run a household and not have to work. I'd love to see some stats that support this assertion, especially since most women work.

If anything, it makes sense for smart people to not get involved in the first place with people who aren't able or willing to support themselves. My husband and I have taken turns being bread winner throughout and this is a good thing. Does this mean bad things can't or won't happen? Nope, and call it naive or simplistic, but I'd rather take risks with high rewards than sit around alone and worried.

It's the height of irony that many of you calling me out for not knowing what it's like to be the man, don't even know what it's like to be married.

1:51 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Thomas Matlack said...

HOME GAME from Lewis touches upon a much bigger and deeper question, which is what it means to be a MAN in this day and age. There is no more important question at this moment in history--with markets collapsing, corruption rampant, two foreign wars, environmental disaster at hand, and the fabric of the American family disintegrating--than what it means to be a "good" man.
Thomas Matlack
www.goodmenbook.org

1:53 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Celeste - "He's several inches taller than I am and outweighs me by a good bit. If he suddenly lost his temper to the point where he started hitting me, I'd have a hard time defending myself - if he were mad enough, he'd have no trouble killing me."Celeste,

You certainly seem like a wonderful, loving, and rational woman; so, my response to your statement is NOT directed at you personally, but....

The exact same could have been said of Mary Winkler.

And, even though she was at one time a devote Christian wife, after years of marriage (in which no one, not even her children - based on their sworn testimony - observed ANY violence to wards her), faced with the reality of being caught in her checking scam, she quite easily murdered her husband by shooting him in the back while he slept.

I'll bet some of our chivalrous male posters - the ones who are trying to shame other men using the tactics of feminists - would have thought Mary Winkler a perfectly wonderful devote Christian wife that Matthew Winkler could have trusted his very life with.

2:01 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: slwerner
RE: An Exception

"....thanks to the influence of feminism and the embracing of the spoils of the feminist victory by women in general (Christian women included)." -- slwerner

Not the REAL christians. Only amongst those who talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk.

Lots of people claim to be 'christians' but, as you have observed, very few actually are.

Heck. I thought I was one until January 1990, when I learned I actually wasn't.

A year, to the very day, after I became a REAL christian, X-2 left. Couldn't 'handle' the idea that God REALLY exists and that He does everything He promised. She was just going through the motions, like so many others do.

So, back to my original point in my original comment on this thread.

If you want to have a good marriage, I suggest you (1) become a REAL christian and (2) find a REAL christian as a spouse.

It's worked for us for the last 17 years. And that's more than my two previous marriages combined.
Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. -- Proverbs 31:3]

P.S. It is interesting that this verse comes shortly before the one I cited earlier......

2:02 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Brian, et al.
RE: Indeed

"Being a loving and nurturing Dad is not emasculating, it is empowering." -- Brian

As I said earlier, the author of the extract seems to have problems with 'pride'.

Just because one can push a baby-carriage or cook and clean doesn't mean he has 'surrendered' being the arbiter of the 'Law' of the household. Unless, of course, if he HAS 'surrendered'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her.... -- Proverbs]

2:10 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

Sarah --

You're assuming that those of us who are critical of your stance have never been married -- you've made that assumption now twice. Let me assure you, the assumption is without merit.

If you, as a woman, think it is a "risk" for women to end up with the children after divorce, then lobby to change the laws. Most men would welcome shared parenting presumptions in the law. Many women, however, would not because of the (1) child support impact and (2) loss of unfettered parenting control. But if a critical mass of women see the overwhelming presumption of mother custody to be a burden, that would be music to my ears -- let's lobby together to change the law.

As for pre-nups, they're very easy to set aside, and they are really only worth it if you are bringing a lot of pre-marital assets into the marriage. If you are not, the main issues won't be the kind of things courts will allow to be regulated in a pre-nup -- namely who gets custody, what amounts of child support are to be paid, and who gets to live where.

And finally, the entire child support system is out of control. The amounts are too high -- particularly at higher income levels, but not only there. The levels are unrealistically high and in many cases present a windfall to the mother. Much of the bitterness around divorce relates to the level of child support assessed by the state, and the lack of any accountability as to how it is spent by the mother (never mind no accountability at all as to whether she is spending the required amount of her own money as child support). The system as a whole is a wealth transfer to the custodial parent, and is a sham.

For all of these reasons, I cannot in good conscience recommend marriage to any young man. The risk is too great for any man to reasonably take. Not all women are bad -- far from it. But the law is uniformly bad for men, pre-nups aren't applicable to the core issues that are bad for men, and people can and do change from when you marry them -- the only think that matters is when those changes come, what the law allows them to do, what options it gives them and so on. And nowadays it's all power to the women in marriages, and all the options to them as well -- which is a raw deal and too big of a risk for men. Young men should take heed and avoid marriage.

2:11 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

I'm wondering if any of you people have ever studied swans.

Do you like swans? I love swans. They're beautiful, elegant creatures.

Did you know that swans are truly monomagous? They mate for life, and if one mate dies the other never mates again. It's actually extremely rare in the animal kingdom. Most species are seasonally monogamous. Only a handfull out of millions of species are truly monogamous--swans, parrots, killer whales (interestingly enough), and a few others.

This brings us to the discussion of Adam and Eve. We've all read th the story, but that belies the fact the most of us don't know how read. Hello! Knock knock! Is anybody home? They're symbols.

And what are they symbols of? That the original human population was monogamous. DUH. The fall was the regression of the first humans into degenerate animal existence (seasonal monogamy).

I had the privilege of studying swans, as a graduate student, when I took a job as a glass-bottom boat captain at Aquarina Springs, in San Marcos, TX. There was a breeding pair of swans on the lake, and I observed them for several hours a day over many months.

The thing I noticed was this. Every day, the female would take the signets (baby swans) over to the nest, and the male would go out onto the lake, splash around, flap his wings, dance across the water, dive underwater--it looked like he was having fun.

I can just hear the feminists whine. "Look at that male! He's oppressing the female! He's forcing her to take care of the children while he's out there having fun!" Blah blah blah.

He's not having fun. He's doing his job, marking his territory, letting all the other animals in the area know this is where I eat, this is where I sleep, this is where I raise my children: Don't come in here if you don't want to mess with me. He's also making sure that no dangerous predators (water snakes, river rats, snapping turtles, racoons, etc.) are not building nests in his territory, as they would eat his siblings for lunch.

Then he would swim over to the nest and look after the children, while the female would swim out onto the lake and do the same thing--splash around, flap her wings, dance across the water, diver underwater. She's marking her territory too, letting all the other animals in the area know this is where I eat, this is where I sleep, this is where I raise my children: Don't come in here, because if you get past him, you're going to have to deal with me. She's also double-checking just in case her mate missed anything.

Then she would swim back to the nest and together, as husband and wife, they would swim together, with their brood of signets, protected, following close behind them.

Question: Don't you think it's disgusting that a bird with the brain the size of a walnut has more intellectual capacity for understanding its responsibilities as a parent than a human being does?

2:18 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Sarah - ”Look, I'm not blowing off the disparity when it comes to divorce law. It's BS, although if that's truly the big concern, you could get a good lawyer to draft a strong pre-nup. They work wonders in most states.”
So, you’re not blowing it off, but it’s BS? Disconnect much? Dismissing something as BS IS blowing it off.

And, just so you know, a judge can simply throw out a pre-nup. Happens all the time. An iron-clad one is very difficult to draw up. Your “reassurance” doesn’t really hold up.

Gee, starting out a post with such “questionable” points doesn’t bode well for the rest of it.

Sarah - ” The fact is, however, that women have a lot at stake when it comes to taking the risk, too. Do you think women want to become single mothers, which is what almost always happens?”
A couple of quick points here: one, the welfare system is a great inducement for women to WANT to be single mothers – thus the nearly 70% illegitimacy rate amongst blacks (I guess you must not have been aware of this?).

Second, if women are so concerned about being single mothers, why do so many of them initiate the divorce, fight tooth-and-nail for full custody, bring false charges of abuse to strengthen their case to eject the father from the children’s lives, and engage in parental alienation of the children form their fathers?

Where do you get the notion that women have some fear of being single parents?

Oh, right, you threw up some BS about men ignoring their child-alimony obligations to buy sports cars.

The majority of men DO pay their child-alimony obligations – a fact borne out by the Department of Justice. And, it is also quite well known that men enjoy a greatly reduced level of living compared to their ex-wives to whom they pay (spare me the BS about women ending up with lower incomes, because I already know about the fact that the child-alimony payments they receive are NOT counted as taxable income, while they are also not income deductions for the man - http://singleparents.about.com/od/taxhelp/qt/support_taxes.htm so you can see for yourself).

2:22 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

It is my understanding that pre-nups go out the window when a kid arrives.

Novaseeker is right-on in his comments at 2:11 PM

2:23 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger goodwife said...

Look, what do you expect from a society that doesn't value God? Before you think I'm getting all religious on you, chew on this: a biblical wife submits to her husband. He is the LEADER of their home. When homes are run this way day-to-day, the HUSBAND gets respect and when he knows he's receiving proper respect, he's loving. So then the wife gets a benefit, too. When she feels loved, she's more likely to love her hub in bed! It's a nice, full circle! See, and you thought the bible was no fun!

2:27 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: GawainsGhost
RE: [Semi-OT] Heh

"This brings us to the discussion of Adam and Eve. We've all read th the story, but that belies the fact the most of us don't know how read. Hello! Knock knock! Is anybody home? They're symbols." -- GawainsGhost

Maybe you should re-read that book a tad more closely.

But you are correct on the second part, about being monogamous. Even Christ mentions THAT. Along with something about 'hardness of our hearts'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.]

2:27 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Some notes on prenuptial agreements:

Steven Spielberg had a prenuptial agreement with Amy Irving. She nevertheless walked away with $100 million because the judge determined she didn't have adequate legal representation when she signed it. At the time, that was half or more than half of his entire fortune.

Jack Welch (the GE guy) went through a divorce with Jane Beasley in 2002 and had to pay $100 million despite a prenuptial agreement. The judge ruled that his fortune had grown substantially since the prenuptial agreement was signed, so it didn't really count anymore.

Just two of the bigger cases to ponder.

2:31 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: GawainsGhost
RE: No....

"Question: Don't you think it's disgusting that a bird with the brain the size of a walnut has more intellectual capacity for understanding its responsibilities as a parent than a human being does?" -- GawainsGhost

....not really. I see it as an example of God's handiwork. As I see the fact that no large land animals died during the tsunami of the Day After Christmas 2004. They heard His warning and they acted accordingly.

Only the 'rebels' didn't hear the warning.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the Go[o]d work.....

2:33 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

I've read the book, and I know how to read. As I said above, there is a reason why Jesus sanctified marriage as the highest sacrament in his church.

This has nothing to do with marriage law as it currently stands, being as it is anti-male and expecially anti-husband and anti-father.

I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read, you are.

2:33 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: GawainsGhost
RE: [OT] You're....

"I've read the book, and I know how to read. As I said above, there is a reason why Jesus sanctified marriage as the highest sacrament in his church." -- GawainsGhost

....missing the 'point' I'm trying to make.

Adam and Eve are not, repeat NOT, symbols. We've proven, with scientific evidence that one, repeat ONE, woman was the ancestor of all of us walking the face of this Earth. Something to do with a study of mitochondrial DNA, which we inherit from our mother and she from hers and so one and so forth, down through the line of ALL TIME....

It's a long and drawn out explanation, but it's worth the effort. But they'd probably complain about 'wasting bandwidth' in this venue.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. So, if there WAS an Eve, there must have been an Adam as well.....

P.P.S. It's written in that Old Book that was too.....if you read it from the proper perspective.....

2:39 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Excerpted from item on Glenn Sack’s Blog:

”Every judge or attorney I have ever asked confidentially estimates the rate of false allegations of domestic violence at 20 to 80 percent where a home, child support or custody of children is at stake, yet almost all allegations are endorsed by the courts. It was in this context that I told Yas that "we will look back on this as an embarrassing era," reminiscent of the McCarthy years.” ( http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3739 )

Oh, look, just in time to verify what I was suggesting to Sarah about women, who she believes feel that they are “risking” single-motherhood, about the reality of how they routinely use false DV/child abuse charges specifically to deny fathers access to their children.

2:56 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

One more thing to remember about prenuptial agreements and marriage in general:

The state can always change the rules, and the direction seems to be in the direction of giving women even MORE.

Here is a good example: A lot of men got married in the 1960s thinking that if they behaved themselves, they would stay married. Then the state changed the rules. In the 1970s, states successively adopted "no fault" divorce (but KEPT some of the old rules about spousal maintenance etc. at first). The result was that men married under one set of rules and were then blindsided under a different set of rules.

The state can yank the carpet out from under you any time it wants and give the woman whatever she wants. With guys like Joe Biden in power, it IS going to get worse.

3:02 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

From another item on Glenn Sack’s Blog:

”The Lifetime TV program ignores the numbers. More than 90 percent of fathers with joint custody paid the support due, according to a Census Bureau report (Series P-23, No. 173). So deadbeats are in the minority. Also, most so-called deadbeat dads actually are dead broke. Two-thirds of men who fail to make child-support payments earn poverty-level wages, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Most of the others are unemployed...” ( http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3740 )

I guess it’s those deep in poverty dead-beats who are the ones buying sports cars. Right, Sarah?

And Kudos to Glenn for keeping up with supporting evidence for my arrangements today.

3:11 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JG, et al.
RE: Agreed

"With guys like Joe Biden in power, it IS going to get worse." -- JG

As the saying from one of the Founding Fathers goes....

No mans liberty, property or life is safe, while the legislature is in session. -- Benjamin Franklin.And with these Democrats in power, you're most likely correct....

....things are going to get MUCH WORSE.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And in more ways than just THIS one.....

3:14 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Ken said...

If your spouse is working outside the home, it seems fair to do some of the shuttling and other duties Mom's once did exclusively. I enjoy it, it gives me time with the little ones.

Family court... it does seem unfair to men. But I'd prefer a remedy, or policies, that kept families together.

Woman control sex, which used to be their main power. Now they control sex AND some resources. So the balance is tipped their way. This can cause angst, clearly, as we've seen in these comments. But it also seems to cause fairly negative results in cultures where the balance has tipped farthest (African American for instance).

You do not want men without access to sex or lacking control of resources. That leads to the problems African American, polygamist and some Muslim cultures are having. I can't imagine wanting to live in a country of 300 million or more where men are so emasculated. Not just because I'm a man, but because I can look around and see cultures like that and those inside them don't seem particularly happy.

3:43 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger JohnnyL said...

Ever noticed that at least once a year the inevitable list comes out from some organization that totals up the value of a woman's labor in the home? Ever remember seeing the same thing about the husband? Just once I would like to see the value of my labor including my 10 hour job along with my household contribution as:
landscaper
painter
plumber
electrician
roofer
auto mechanic
chauffeur
chef

3:44 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger ray said...

america, like the rest of the west, is a functional matriarchy, and has been for many decades

she will change, and fast, or she is going permanent bye-bye, and all the cages and guns and dollars in creation won't save her, and i will trample on her grave

ray

3:57 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JohnnyL, et al.
RE: Heh

Good idea.

Don't forget the following:

• Armed Security/Body Guard (24-hour service)
• IT Specialist
• Manual Laborer, i.e., lifting heavy objects
• Armorer (provided you own weapons)
• Pest Exterminator
• Appliance Repairman
• Sewer and Drain Service
• Interior Remodeling (if you're into that, let's see a woman take out a wall or move/replace a 100+ year-old, cast-iron radiator)
• Vintner (if you make your own wine)
• Brewmaster (if you brew your own beer)
• Audio-Visual Specialist (if you have a home theater or up-scale audio system)
• Landscape Architect/Engineer (this state has put into affect that if you do irrigation systems you MUST be a 'certified' profesional, except if you do it on your own property)
• arborist (lets see a woman use the tools necessary to trim a 100+ year-old tree)


And then there are all those things that women claim, if you're a work-at-home man.

It WOULD be interesting to see a comparison of the two sets of 'tasks'. As MOST women are not capable of doing all the things men do, but MOST men are quite capable of doing the things women do.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

4:06 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JohnnyL, et al.
RE: Heh

Good idea.

Don't forget the following:

• Armed Security/Body Guard (24-hour service)
• IT Specialist
• Manual Laborer, i.e., lifting heavy objects
• Armorer (provided you own weapons)
• Pest Exterminator
• Appliance Repairman
• Sewer and Drain Service
• Interior Remodeling (if you're into that, let's see a woman take out a wall or move/replace a 100+ year-old, cast-iron radiator)
• Vintner (if you make your own wine)
• Brewmaster (if you brew your own beer)
• Audio-Visual Specialist (if you have a home theater or up-scale audio system)
• Landscape Architect/Engineer (this state has put into affect that if you do irrigation systems you MUST be a 'certified' profesional, except if you do it on your own property)
• arborist (lets see a woman use the tools necessary to trim a 100+ year-old tree)


And then there are all those things that women claim, if you're a work-at-home man.

It WOULD be interesting to see a comparison of the two sets of 'tasks'. As MOST women are not capable of doing all the things men do, but MOST men are quite capable of doing the things women do.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

4:06 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

Sheesh....

....WHERE does Blogger get these DOUBLE-ENTRIES???!?!?!?

4:07 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: ray
RE: Maybe....

"she [America] will change, and fast, or she is going permanent bye-bye, and all the cages and guns and dollars in creation won't save her, and i will trample on her grave" -- ray

...and then again, maybe not.

I guess it all depends upon your point of view.

If you're one of those idiot Islamists, we've got a surprise for you. And you're not going to enjoy it.

If you're not one of those idiots, but instead are thinking along the lines of Niven and Pournelle in their classic Lucifer's Hammer....

....I can agree with you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The feminist movement died one milli-second after the first impact. -- Lucifer's Hammer]

4:10 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Aaron said...

I'm a 37 year old male and have been home with our kids for almost 5 years. We now have 3 daughter (6, 5, and 3). It was my choice to stay home and I've never reretted a second of it. I've never felt like a second class citizen, nor do I ever feel discriminated against. Yes, the kids frequently drive me crazy, but it is absolutely no different than the children I once worked with in the 'real world'. At least I can send these kids to their room when they are unreasonable.

4:22 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Melissa said...

'The poor sucker agreed to take on responsibility for all sorts of menial tasks -- tasks that his own father was barely aware of -- and received nothing in return."

Yes, nothing in return. How about a a wife that contributes possibly 50% of the income that provides for the mortgage, cars, vacations and other essentials.

I truly hate when Instapundit links to his wife's blog. Each to their own, but my mother's job supported our family when my father lost his job due to the '80's recession and bad luck. He worked hard to find another job, but it was several years before he found something steady and during that time he took on the menial task of raising my brother and I. The horrors. He seems to love us and our mother well enough and they are still married after 40 years.

Both my husband and I work and yes, I expect him to take on menial tasks because I am not some 1950's robot. Here's a clue: Ovaries do not make one enjoy emptying the dishwasher. I have a career too and in order for both careers to be viable each of us has to SACRIFICE and do things that aren't convenient but are necessary. And if one of us should not be able to work or God forbid, die, the other can take over financially.

I'm not sure why I'm posting this comment as I am sure I will be attacked quite viciously, but perhaps Dr. Helen can please explain what planet she is from.

4:24 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Okay....

"I'm not sure why I'm posting this comment as I am sure I will be attacked quite viciously, but perhaps Dr. Helen can please explain what planet she is from." -- Melissa

...there seems to be a LOT of 'anger' here.

I have to wonder just how 'old' she is. And how long they've been 'married'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. TO: Melissa....

....is that 'vicious' enough?

4:27 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Aaron said...

Also, my wife doesn't cook, doesn't clean, and doesn't do laudnry. She is only responsible for her career and her relationship with our kids and that is how we want it. I don't expect her to lift a finger around the house. She never has to worry about cancelling a trip, confernce call, meeting, etc. because someone is sick or has scout meeting. She knows it will be handled.

However, in return, once the kids all leave for school, I plan on playing a lot of golf and I NEVER plan on re-entering the work force.

People in this world need to stop looking to others for validation. They should be happy with who they are, not some ideal that is thrust upon them.

4:29 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger bbauer said...

In my opiniopn its not so much of a Man vs. Woman issue. Marketing and hyper-consumption is to blame. Wives and children are empowered (consumers). Dad was once the gate-keeper, but that wasn't good for selling shit to grasping children. Or better yet, turn dad into a grasping child by promising him a prolonged childhood filled with suped up golf carts and a garage full of toys. This may explain why Lewis' conundrum is not as prounounced in less developed countries and in immigrants.

4:32 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger nickdigger said...

Brian 1:26pm, you shouldn't have told Miss DontNeedaMan why you dumped her. You were lucky she blurted that out to you, and "the next guy" deserves the same benefit of her tipping her cards.

Bro's before Ho's. :)

4:44 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

"Yes, nothing in return. How about a a wife that contributes possibly 50% of the income that provides for the mortgage, cars, vacations and other essentials."

Melissa, you forget that the 50% of income you state will be made up in case of a divorce, so that cancels out. Don't kid yourself.

"Also, my wife doesn't cook, doesn't clean, and doesn't do laudnry."

Wow, that sounds like it's pretty equitable...ok, I'm kidding.

"In my opiniopn its not so much of a Man vs. Woman issue."

Of course it is. Always has been, always will be. The difference is that Western men have sold themselves out...

4:47 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

"Also, my wife doesn't cook, doesn't clean, and doesn't do laudnry. She is only responsible for her career and her relationship with our kids and that is how we want it. I don't expect her to lift a finger around the house. She never has to worry about cancelling a trip, confernce call, meeting, etc. because someone is sick or has scout meeting. She knows it will be handled."

Congratulations. You became just what Betty Friedan despised. All that's missing is your collar.

4:57 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger sauer38h said...

Women are flighty creatures. Of course there are exceptions, but no women I myself have run into inspire much confidence that they have what it takes to stick with the inevitable ups and downs of a lifelong commitment. So, given that raising a family is not a short-term project, and that American law makes it easier for the woman to bail than to find the inner fortitude to persist, I always found marriage to be an essentially impossible prospect.

6:01 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

OK. I stayed at home and also worked an 8 hour a day job. I paid for the ex after the split, had the kids with me, did all the work from plumbing to ironing, painting and mowing. I've spent hours in the girls' section of every store in every town we've lived in, waiting. Homework help, library trips, birthdays, ball games, roller rinks, and dodging single moms at school functions and kiddie outings. I put the kids through school as far as they wanted to go, with one still in school getting her Ph.D. I was accused of all kinds of things I did, although I was never home enough to do them. The law and the courts went along, even though friends, neighbors, and my kids said differently. It cost my home and life savings to have my kids, and I've already posted what we went through in those years except I forgot to add the kids and I moved four times to 3 different states in order to find work where I could be both breadwinner and homemaker via an understanding employer. I mean, what else do you do when school calls and one of your kids is sick? Ever lost a job over that? I lost 5. My kids ended up with me because that is what THEY wanted. It's not what the state wanted, her lawyer wanted - or even MY lawyer wanted. I paid for both lawyers, and found them eating lunch together. No alimony, no child support, no city, state, or federal help. It has taken a long time to recover financially and I am finally back where I was before all this came down, instead of being 12 years ahead of the game.
There's many more things I haven't said mostly because I can't remember them all at one sitting.

Sometimes I get lonely and the horns get sharp. Sometimes I talk out loud about that. Sometimes I don't think clearly. But I return to my senses. At least my own version of my senses.

I'm not doing it again. Not even if it's Amy Irving and her 100 million. I need to avoid these type threads. They get to me.

8:48 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Celeste said...

"Does everyone really believe that women are all such conniving, lazy, evil, grasping, mercenary bitches that their only goal is to suck a man dry of his income, humiliate him, and then toss him away when they're done?"

Yes.

But not so much evil as 'amoral.' A woman would have to have the mental capacity to comprehend ethics and morals to even truly be evil- and that is simply impossible.

And don't forget completely 'bizarre' and then don't forget you have completely different values and beliefs that are alien to us. Try dating women sometime.. get back to us & let us know how it goes. Women do all their evil behind closed doors and put on a sweet 100% FAKE demenour for the public.

"Until I change my mind" implies that I have no basic sense of fairness or honor. Since you don't know me, the only basis you have for that assumption is that I'm a woman. Just as I know it drives my husband nuts to see how the mothers at the park automatically assume a man out with a child during a workday must be a child-abductor"

How idiotic.. there is only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of child molesters - like one billionth of the population while on the other hand I've never met a woman who wasn't (or could turn into on a dime) a complete psychotic bitch. But I know.. that is just waaaaay too complicated for you to understand.

9:10 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"no women I myself have run into inspire much confidence that they have what it takes to stick with the inevitable ups and downs of a lifelong commitment"

THAT is the best way I have EVER seen it put. That should be a bumper sticker and taught in school as well.

9:13 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Melissa said...

"I have a career too and in order for both careers to be viable each of us has to SACRIFICE and do things that aren't convenient but are necessary. And if one of us should not be able to work or God forbid, die, the other can take over financially."

You are what is known as a 'co-husband.' I'd rather jump out of a window than to have to even know someone like yourself.

"I'm not sure why I'm posting this comment as I am sure I will be attacked quite viciously, but perhaps Dr. Helen can please explain what planet she is from."

Correction: What decade she's from-which is this one. You on the other hand are still living the tired failed 80's-90's mindest. It's over- get with the times.

9:20 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger 1charlie2 said...

It's simple. Find a good woman who'll stand by you and who you can stand by. One who'll commit to you and the family as you will commit to her and to your family. Forget the flashiness and concentrate on substance. Never stray

Oh, and one more thing.

Make certain very early in the relationship that she understands that you are looking for a woman that you can respect, love, and "cleave unto utterly," but you know how the legal deck is stacked against men, but that's okay -- you have no fear because you will SALT THE ^&(%(*( EARTH IF A WOMAN EVER TRIES TO SHAFT YOU BY ABUSING THE COURTS.

I'm with Scott -- and it's worked for me for well over 20 years :)

Mind you, once the kids are all gone, if we somehow drift apart and decide to call it a day (can't see that happening), then an equitable split would be fine. My wife is not "trapped" in our marriage -- she's just bound to be fair since she knows I'd happily use the nuclear option to prevent being "taken" unfairly. Not allowing evil to have its way is worth it.

9:24 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"It's simple. Find a good woman who'll stand by you and who you can stand by. One who'll commit to you and the family as you will commit to her and to your family. Forget the flashiness and concentrate on substance. Never stray"

No it's not simple.. you're simple minded.

Women are not exactly world famous for letting their intentions be known. Hell, I learned that when I was a child reading the Old Testament. Guess you must have been raised under a rock.

My parents divorced after 45 years of marriage and my father found out all kinds of crap that she had been concealing forever. The divorce was awful and they were both 64.

So don't forget- it's never too late in life to have your wife turn your life upside down into a living Hell!

9:55 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

Just avoid marriage, men.

Yes, you are giving up a lot. But the law right now makes you a slave. Some men posting here are happily enslaved -- probably men who have submissive fantasies on some level. Fine for them. For most men, that is not an option. She has you by the balls the moment you say "I do" and soon enough that becomes a command like "Honey Do" with a list attached and so on.

You are becoming a male slave to a woman when you marry her. Avoid marriage, not women, and you will be fine.

10:22 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

A few years ago a guy on a website wrote, "As a man you can make marriage work in today's environment of comeplete disrespect for men to a certain degree if you are willing to take massive amounts of emotional and mental abuse, be demeaned and spoken to as an idiot by a functioning idiot! If you're self-esteem is that low than you wouldn't make it own your own anyway- you need to be kept like a pet."

I'm sure the men on here who are so gleeful about all of this were prob abused by their mothers and that's what wifey is- Mommy Dearest (as in Joan Crawford).

11:08 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger Micha Elyi said...

Sarah grew defensive and wrote, "Look, I'm not blowing off the disparity when it comes to divorce law," and two sentences later she began blowing it off beginning with these remarks:

"The fact is, however, that women have a lot at stake when it comes to taking the risk, too. Do you think women want to become single mothers, which is what almost always happens? If we're going on stereotypes, just picture the woman raising the 3 bratty children of the womanizing junior associate who is off buying the red sports car, sending the child support late, and forgetting about visitation 3 out of 4 times. Seems like a convincing reason to leave it alone for women."Do I think women want to become single mothers? Well, what is Sarah's explanation for single motherhood being "what almost always happens" according to Sarah herself? Looking around I see that there's a whole lot of never-wed and divorced mothers who didn't do much to avoid single motherhood. Do I buy Sarah's stereotype that no woman wants to become a single mother? Not at all because yes, some do. The single mothers by choice movement is only the upper-income tip of a pyramid of baby-rabies women that widens as it descends into every part of the socio-economic spectrum.

At least Sarah recognizes that pity-parties for "the woman raising 3 bratty children" while the father she dumped is enjoying a thrilling life on his earnings that she wants a piece of is a stereotype. Unfortunately, Sarah doesn't appear to recognize that it's a false stereotype. Worse (though this may be yet another fact of the real world that Sarah is unaware of) the stereotype is based on a lie. That lie and others that formed part of Sarah's collection of stereotypes are also debunked in Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Braver and O'Connell (1998).

As for the rest of Sarah's claims, Novaseeker has already politely disposed of them with any that remain crushed under slwerner's heel.

It's the height of irony that Sarah presents her prejudices as expertise yet she's so ignorant of what it's like to be the man that she can't imagine a man is able to learn what it's like to be married by observing other men who are married and seeing how wives, lawyers, courts and legislatures use and abuse husbands.

1:44 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Acksiom said...

In fact, don't just avoid marriage. Avoid community involvement in general. Retreat, withdraw, stay out of it. Don't volunteer. Don't help. Don't get involved.

Why? Because our communities have effectively become domestic abusers. Look at how they treat us. Look at the kind of crap we have to put up with on a daily basis, from television, radio, and print, to work, school, and general social environments.

Now, we do in fact know why this happens. It's because we still rely heavily on male self-sacrifice to keep resource, manufacturing, and infrastructure costs low. So we all collectively devalue men's self-worth in order to maintain a constant resupply of bodies and minds to expend in exchange for cheaper raw materials, finished goods, and utilities.

This is something we all realize on some level but never dare openly acknowledge. Even among men's issues advocates and activists, the point is raised only rarely and without much response. Even men's issues advocates and activists are, for the most part, unwilling to pay the necessary costs that would follow from real and meaningful changes to how things are currently done.

So that problem isn't going away any time soon. Telepresence robotics, meta-industrialization, and super-smart automation will allow us to fix it eventually, just as lowered birth mortality, the pill, and household task automation allowed us to liberate women from their traditional roles, but don't hold your breath waiting.

No, the reason men are dropping out is because you stopped rewarding us. There were carrots to go along with the sticks, and the carrots were what made us go beyond reason for you.

But not any more.

All you people trying to tell us to suck it up and stay in the game, that the kids make it all worthwhile, and that love can still win the day?

YOU ARE ABUSE ENABLERS.

You're effectively the same as people who tell wives who are being abused on a regular basis the same things.

But in fact, if men were wives, you'd be amazed at how we hadn't wised up and left you years ago.

Well, guess what -- we're finally starting.

2:01 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"she can't imagine a man is able to learn what it's like to be married by observing other men who are married and seeing how wives, lawyers, courts and legislatures use and abuse husbands."

That is waaaaay too complicated for the average female to comprehend.

4:24 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

This was in Washinton Times Editorial yesterday

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/18/anti-dad-bias/

"More than 90 percent of fathers with joint custody paid the support due, according to a Census Bureau report (Series P-23, No. 173). So deadbeats are in the minority. Also, most so-called deadbeat dads actually are dead broke. Two-thirds of men who fail to make child-support payments earn poverty-level wages, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Most of the others are unemployed.

Bruce Walker, executive coordinator at the District Attorneys Council in Oklahoma City, who ran the state's child-support enforcement program for three years and jailed hundreds of fathers for nonpayment, told the Newark Star-Ledger in 2002: "These men are seldom the mythical monsters described by politicians."

"Many times I prosecuted impoverished men," he told the Star-Ledger. "I prosecuted one deadbeat dad who had been hospitalized for malnutrition and another who lived in the bed of a pickup truck."

Some fathers simply give money directly to their teenage children because some mothers end up using child-support payments for everything but the child.

Child visitation and child support are tied together, at least in the minds of many fathers. The largest federally funded study of child-support payments was led by Arizona State University researcher Sanford Braver over an eight-year period. Mr. Braver found that fathers with joint custody pay 90.2 percent of all child support ordered. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1 percent of all child support ordered. However, fathers with no access or visitation rights to their children pay just 44.5 percent of the court-ordered child support. Much of Mr. Braver's data was backed up in the Census Bureau report (Series P-23, No. 173).

But what about divorced moms who do not allow the father to visit his children, despite court orders allowing him to do so? Another study, "Visitational Interference: A National Study" by J. Annette Vanini and Edward Nichols, found that 77 percent of noncustodial fathers are not able to spend time with their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. This would mean that noncompliance with court-ordered visitation is three times the problem of noncompliance with court-ordered child support. In short, lousy moms outnumber deadbeat dads 3-1."

Of course all of this information is hidden in newpapers and books. It's called the 'truth.' Look into somtime ladies instead of basing your ENTIRE LIFE on emotinal conjecture. (God that's pathetic).

4:33 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Oh and I forgot to mention - one reason that maybe women are so completely misinformed and clueless when it comes to the truth of the so-called 'deadbeat/deadbroke' dads is that the female mind cannot even fathom or see the low-income male.

A woman only sees high-end professional types and the wealthy country club types because as we all know only too well women are for the most part nauseatingly shallow and live for nothing but empty materialism.

Even then they're not really even looking at the man himself but his house and everything else she can steal from him through legalized fraud called the divorce court system.

I used to find women 'mysterious' when I was young. Now that I am over 40 they just leave me feeling cold, dead and empty wondering what is there to even talk about? What could I possibly have in common with this thing that basically has a criminal mindset regardless if the courts deem all of it legal?

Nothing. I have ethics and morals.

4:48 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"No, the reason men are dropping out is because you stopped rewarding us. There were carrots to go along with the sticks, and the carrots were what made us go beyond reason for you."

Today marriage for men is like a really crappy game show where the obstacle course is the hardest in the world yet the grand prize is a pile of shit, a kick in the face and a trip to Hell.

Why bust your ass and 'prove' yourself to some bitch who hides what she's really thinking from you who will only take everything you do for her 100% completely for granted, criticize everything you do, and then rip you off in the end?

I have become completely indifferent to women and marriage and most of society. Not because there is something wrong with me, but because none of it has anything to offer at all and then far worse than that is extremely dangerous and nightmarish.

5:01 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

I think so many men are complacent because they think, consciously or subconsciously, that the family court system and legal system HAVE TO be fair to men and that men complaining about a bias must have done something wrong themselves.

They can't imagine that people would be treated in an unfair way or that the laws (or more likely the common interpretation of the laws, which are now ostensibly gender-neutral) could bring about unfair results.

And then some of them go through it themselves.

6:27 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Family court is also much more dependent upon the personality of the judge you get than some other areas of the law. Laws in that area are frequently written as ambiguous "balancing acts" among many different points, and that gives a judge a lot more leeway to just do whatever the hell he or she wants - and then "justify" it later if need be. Most people don't appeal (they don't have the money), and there is also no jury unless there is a connection to another area of law.

If you get an older male judge or a female feminist judge, you're pretty much toast. If you get a non-feminist female judge, that may be your best bet as a man, but you will have to have absolutely impeccable behavior as a starting point, whereas the woman is given quite a bit more leeway to be human.

6:33 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Old, traditional assumptions and sex roles are still VERY MUCH alive in family court - for men. Most judges wouldn't dare make similar sexist statements to women.

The same judge may scream at an unemployed man that he better get five minimum-wage jobs and pick up cans to pay the higher child support that is going to be ordered based on imputed income - and then, not 10 minutes later, be very kind to a woman in exactly the same situation (non-custodial parent), for whom he only orders a nominal child support award. That her new husband will have to pay anyway, not her.

It all gets to be too real.

6:38 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Brooklyn Redneck said...

"There is just something deep in society that thinks it's just to make men pay for women."


That's why you should avoid the marriage racket and stick to pros. There are many women doing this stuff on the sly part time. i especially like the eastern european and russian girls. If you are going to pay, might as well be on your terms with a wide variety of young willing women.

9:56 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Heh

If you are going to pay, might as well be on your terms with a wide variety of young willing women. -- Brooklyn Redneck

What a bunch of f------ idiots. And I mean that in the most literal fashion.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. -- Proverbs]

11:12 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Chuck Pelto,

You sound like the kind of guy that would get bled full tilt by a woman. Like serious blood-letting. You probably already have a few times - you didn't realize you were buying love with money, right Chuck?

Umm, and who's the idiot here? LOL

11:54 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Target
RE: Heh

You sound like the kind of guy that would get bled full tilt by a woman. Like serious blood-letting. -- Target

Believe me. I WAS.

You probably already have a few times - you didn't realize you were buying love with money, right Chuck? -- Target

Like I said.

Umm, and who's the idiot here? LOL -- Target

But then I became a REAL christian and took the advice in that Old Book to heart.

Maybe you should go back and read some of my other comments in this thread. THEN you just MIGHT be able to comprehend WHO around here is the 'f------ idiot'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Holy Bible: An Owner's Manual and Rules of Engagement for Human Life on Earth.]

P.S. If you read it and understood it, maybe you wouldn't be so angry.....

12:01 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S. Did I forget to mention that that Old Book has a number of...

• Case Studies
• Histories
• and 'Predictions'

What more could anyone want in a book?

But of course, there are the scoffers....

And speaking of the 'scoffers' hereabouts.....try THIS bit of 'prediction'....

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.... -- Peter

2:10 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Well, that's what Christianity is there for, to show your superiority of foresight and knowledge over others.

And to thunder at the "scoffers" - your views will be confirmed at the latest on judgment day when the living crap will be beat out of the scoffers.

Yeah, you got it all together, Chuck.

I am getting a bit sick of people shoving their religion in others faces here. In some countries in Europe and elsewhere, that's considered rude and in your face. But I realize the God Warriers have to get their message out --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=q3mDLsyn6ns&gl=US

2:41 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Target
RE: Try NOT....

Well, that's what Christianity is there for, to show your superiority of foresight and knowledge over others. -- Target

....to demonstrate your ignorance so boldly.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

2:42 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. You just demonstrated the truth of that item from Peter I cited just a bit ago.

THANKS!!!!

2:44 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

By the way, that video I posted is the tail end of a series of 9 or so videos on YouTube about a real exchange of wives. I couldn't believe people like that existed in the United States, but they do.

I think even the Christians here will have to admit that the woman takes it a bit too far (or in the wrong direction).

2:47 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Chuck, you can be superior to me if you really want to.

I don't care.

2:47 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

I realize that Jesus is your Wing-Man now, so wicked women can no longer get at your money.

That's great!

2:48 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Target
RE: [OT] You See?

Chuck, you can be superior to me if you really want to. -- Target

You just refuse to even attempt to grasp the concept.

I'm not 'superior' to you. The difference between you and I is that I recognize I'm FUBAR.

You don't.


I don't care. -- Target

Yeah....

...that's why you keep harping on this.

In the Army, we refer to your behavior as 'target fixation'. [Note: Heh. How 'apropos', considering your nom des blogs.]

RE: Another Example of 'Ignorance'

I realize that Jesus is your Wing-Man now.... -- Target

He's not the "Wing-Man". He's the Commander.

You REALLY ought to read more....

Can I suggest a Good Book?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Jesus astonishes and overpowers sensual people. They cannot unite him to history, or reconcile him with themselves. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

3:03 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

Chuck,

As to your question yesterday, I'm at: marriage 1, divorce 0.

Naturally, that could change and there's nothing legal I could do to prevent it. But I'm comfortable with the risk mitigation I've done.

By the way, I was writing the following yesterday before getting pulled away:

"My main concern with the worldview that drives this discussion is not that men thus simply say "no" to marriage, but that modern men have also said "yes" to a variety of behaviors that make the family law issue only a part of the problem."

Obviously we're way beyond the family law issue now. AngryMan looks about as much fun as SourWoman. And while she has her addictions, he idolizes porn, profanity, drinking to excess, televised sports, video games, etc. Even worse, he's not only unable to discern the women from the lamprey, he's unable to do any self-reflection. Add to that an refusal to turn toward God, and you've got someone who finds no authority greater than himself.

Can't argue with the economic efficiency of "epistemology of the self" -- nothing like combining slave and master in one person.

Love the "Bro's before Ho's"* comment earlier. Had a good laugh. A man who believes that will be doomed to the latter, and never find the former. A brother will lay his life down for a just cause -- a bro will ditch any cause for a quick lay. If there's a term to describe humans who act like pack animals, I'll defer to that.

3:41 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Chuck Pelto - ”But then I became a REAL christian and took the advice in that Old Book to heart.”
While I do realize that this thread had already gone astray, what’s with the “pissing match”?

And, while it’s great that YOU'VE gotten yourself straightened out, and now have it all together wrt marriage; how does that translate into efforts to salvage the once great institution?

I’m sorry Chuck, I’m sure that you mean well, but suggesting that your best of three data point is somehow indicative of some reversal in the trend away from marriage – and corresponding trend towards poor treatment of men, both in marriage as well as in the aftermath there of? I suppose I should include "prior to marriage" as well.

Again, I’m sure you have the best of intentions here, but with you (and a number of others) using your own good experience with marriage to try to show that the institution – overall – is just fine doesn’t get much traction.

For you, and those few others it’s all well and good to proclaim that your marriage is healthy, you treat your spouse with proper respect and honor, and that neither of you will ever mess that up. But, it means absolutely nothing outside of your marriage. It just one data point amongst multiple-millions. Not persuasive at all.

It come across to me as a “bury your head in the sand” mentality – “My marriage is strong, so why bother looking further, since all marriages must be like mine”.

You and Sarah (and others) are no doubt solid Christians and solid citizens who’s marriages will happily endure; but if you’ll bother to step outside your comfort-zone, you’ll find that it’s really not going so well in the aggregate.

The vast majority of people who’ve entered into a marriage have no doubt intend to live up to their vows of “forsaking all others” and “till death do us part” – but, obviously, a significant portion of those people fail to follow through in the long run.

Nearly half of all first marriages fail – including those of Christians. And, fewer people (men, in particular) are seeking marriage.

Christians ought to be concern with the state of marriage, but far too many simply seem to take the attitude that “I’m okay”, and refuse to delve any deeper into larger societal trends. Or worse, they try to shame others that they are not “real men” or “true Christians” if they don’t likewise bury their heads in the sand and “shut up” about the problems facing the institution of marriage.

4:03 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: slwerner
RE: 'Pissing Match'

While I do realize that this thread had already gone astray, what’s with the “pissing match”? -- slwerner

Don't know.

Maybe we should ask the atheists around here.

After all, all I'm doing is laying out my personal experience. Just like a lot of others here are doing. But the atheists seem to take exception that my experience doesn't bear any 'weight', compared to theirs.

Why that is, I don't know.

More later on YOUR diatribe.

Right now, I've got some chores and meetings to attend to.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And if you think christians, especially the REAL ones, are not concerned about the sorry state of 'marriage', you've got serious problems, compadre.....and I'll address them when I get back.....

4:19 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Target said...

Chuck, there's a difference between someone being an atheist and someone pointing out that shoving your VERSION of religion in other people's faces is rude.

You frankly don't sound to me like a person who wants to truly find out about God, or get close to God, or even treat other people like you want to be treated.

You are exactly the kind of "Christian" who should be shunned. I don't think of religion as a badge to show others or something to shove in someone's face for your own personal, venal motives.

4:25 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I'm just fascinated at how serious some of you are about marriage, on the one hand, and about very tensely trying to get across that you are in a very good marriage, on the other hand.

I hate to be crude, but it could be looked at as simply getting used to being around the girl you're humping.

Maybe you are building it up to be something it is not in reality. The constant drumbeat of the media (Kodak commercials were great 10 years ago) really can make people maudlin and sappy.

And as long as Chuck is wearing his religion on his sleeve, I'd like to point out that most religions in the world have the idea that you should want to get AWAY from money and sex and material things - and marriage is simply included as a convenience - in order to become more spiritual.

Christianity also certainly had that idea - priests were supposed to be celibate.

But maybe you all can get jobs writing beautiful Hallmark cards or something.

4:30 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I've just seen too many guys collapse - guy who used to poke their hairy finger in my chest and tell me all about their great marriage - when pumpkin files for divorce out of the blue after 20 years.

The guy is silly when he is acting like a superior bully (like some of the people here) and the same guy is just as silly when his entire constructed world blows up and ceases to exist. Pathetic.

4:35 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

There are some marriages that are good and happy and last. I do not doubt that.

That, however, does not mean that it is a good risk for men. Not at all. 45% of first marriages fail. Of the remaining 55% even if we assume 2/3 of them are "happy marriages", you're looking at ~36% of all first marriages being "happy marriages". I suspect that the people posting here positively about marriage are in that 36% -- which is fine, but beside the point as well with respect to the much larger group of marriages that either fail or are not happy marriages.

4:58 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Chuck Pelto - "P.S. And if you think christians, especially the REAL ones, are not concerned about the sorry state of 'marriage', you've got serious problems, compadre.....and I'll address them when I get back....."Chuck,

I do hope you have something better than the standard "men need to 'man up' and learn to submit themselves to marriage" fare.

I'll already heard way more of that BS than I've cared to.

But, if you you have something better, I'm all ears, er...eyes.

5:10 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger jay c said...

"Can't figure out which ones are still okay? Start going to church. Catholic church, especially, or Orthodox, as they have mostly held the line against modern leftist liberalism's version of feminism. Find a traditional Catholic church, and find the ladies who attend every week. That's really the secret. They do exist."You can also check out Hassidic Jewish and some Messianic congregations. I say "some" because there is no such thing as a "typical" Messianic congregation or believer.

5:12 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger jay c said...

"[Who can find a good woman. Her worth is greater than rubies. -- Proverbs 31]""Ecc 7:28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found." Good men are hard to find. In my experience, good women are exceptionally hard to find.

5:31 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Jay c - "In my experience, good women are exceptionally hard to find."It was only recently that it dawned on me that the reason Proverbs 31 addresses the value of a virtuous women WAS precisely because such a woman has always been rare - at least rarer that we have been long lead to believe (by the Christian church, by conservatives, and by feminists).

I had always just assumed that Proverbs 31 was simply in praise of women in general (virtue being typical in women).

Now, I realize that it is in specific praise of that woman who stands out from among the majority of the other typical women due to her demonstrable virtue.

Chuck Pelto has all but promised to come back and "clean up the floor" with me and my wicked ideas. I wonder what Chuck might have to say about the virtuous woman of proverbs 31? Is she the rare example that other women need to be trying to emulate in order for the institution of marriage to be saved; or is she simply "every woman" that the majority of males need to "man up" to be worthy of?

Well, we'll just have to see how Chuck is going to intellectually pound me into the floor...or was it chivalrously shame me out the door? I guess I'll just have to wait to find out.

5:59 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: slwerner
RE: A More Lengthly Reply

And, while it’s great that YOU'VE gotten yourself straightened out, and now have it all together wrt marriage; how does that translate into efforts to salvage the once great institution? -- slwerner

How to repair the damage?

You do it one person at a time.

The first aspect is to learn to discern. Some others here have started to do that. The fellow who picked up the ‘cue’ from his ‘lady friend’ when she said she didn’t need a man to raise a child was using his head instead of his other head.

And that sort of information can be found in that Old Book. If anyone bothers to read it.

Each of us has to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions. Being well ‘educated’ in what to watch out for as a young man would be a BIG help. But the ‘education’ as well as the personal discipline needs to be inculcated from the very beginning.

If my parents had educated me better, I might well have avoided the two bad experiences.

I’m sorry Chuck, I’m sure that you mean well, but suggesting that your best of three data point is somehow indicative of some reversal in the trend away from marriage – and corresponding trend towards poor treatment of men, both in marriage as well as in the aftermath there of? I suppose I should include "prior to marriage" as well. -- slwerner

Well.....

....as the saying goes, “Nothing succeeds like success.”

There’s another old adage that is true. It goes....

An ounce of prevention is worth a pounding of ‘cure’. Especially if the pounding occurs in ‘family’, what a misnomer, court.

Don’t you think?

What I AM saying is that you’re not going to find a good woman in a bar. You don’t go looking for rubies in a manure pile. At least not with much hope of ‘success’.

If a man frequents whore houses, sooner or later he’s going to get something he didn’t bargain for.

Again, I’m sure you have the best of intentions here, but with you (and a number of others) using your own good experience with marriage to try to show that the institution – overall – is just fine doesn’t get much traction. -- slwerner

Maybe you’re misreading me. I’m NOT saying that the state of marriage, as an institution in this country, is in good condition.

I can attest to that problem from personal experience. I thought I made that PERFECTLY CLEAR. Or did you miss those statements from earlier in this thread?

More to follow.....

6:14 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

Continued from previous comment....

For you, and those few others it’s all well and good to proclaim that your marriage is healthy, you treat your spouse with proper respect and honor, and that neither of you will ever mess that up. But, it means absolutely nothing outside of your marriage. It just one data point amongst multiple-millions. Not persuasive at all. -- slwerner

“Absolutely nothing”? Hardly. Or maybe it does mean nothing. That is to people who wish to reject success completely ‘out of hand’ because it doesn’t mesh with their world-view.

It come across to me as a “bury your head in the sand” mentality – “My marriage is strong, so why bother looking further, since all marriages must be like mine”. -- slwerner

Ha, ha, ha, ha....aaaaaahhhhhh.....

There’s a straw man easily burned. And it is indicative of someone who is REALLY burying their head in the ‘sand’. Albeit for different reasons.

You and Sarah (and others) are no doubt solid Christians and solid citizens who’s marriages will happily endure; but if you’ll bother to step outside your comfort-zone, you’ll find that it’s really not going so well in the aggregate. -- slwerner

Sarah? A “solid Christian”? There’s a laugh. Nothing she has written here indicates she is. Or maybe I missed it. Would you point it out for me?

The vast majority of people who’ve entered into a marriage have no doubt intend to live up to their vows of “forsaking all others” and “till death do us part” – but, obviously, a significant portion of those people fail to follow through in the long run.

Nearly half of all first marriages fail – including those of Christians. And, fewer people (men, in particular) are seeking marriage.
-- slwerner

True. As I’ve said earlier, either one or both of them were ignorant or liars. And instead, they feed on each other and on those around them, selfish creatures they are.

Christians ought to be concern with the state of marriage, but far too many simply seem to take the attitude that “I’m okay”, and refuse to delve any deeper into larger societal trends. Or worse, they try to shame others that they are not “real men” or “true Christians” if they don’t likewise bury their heads in the sand and “shut up” about the problems facing the institution of marriage. -- slwerner

Your principle complaint here, apparently, is about christianity. Not about whether or not a christian approach to relations between men and women is effective.

Yeah. You’ve pointed out that ‘christians’ have divorces too. But I addressed THAT earlier. Sorry you missed it. Maybe, instead of me chewing up even MORE bandwidth restating it, you should go back and read it again.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For more information, please re-read this comment.]

6:14 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Target, slwerner, et al.
RE: Sooooo....

....tell me....

....what's wrong with marriage if you find a woman like THIS....

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it;] and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also,] and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. -- Proverbs 31:10-31

Regards,

Chuck(le)

6:16 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. That citation in NO WAY means that such women are easy to find.

Even Jay C recognizes THAT, when he cites Ezekiel (above) at 5:31 PM, May 19, 2009.

6:19 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: slwerner
RE: EXCELLENT!

I had always just assumed that Proverbs 31 was simply in praise of women in general (virtue being typical in women).

Now, I realize that it is in specific praise of that woman who stands out from among the majority of the other typical women due to her demonstrable virtue.
-- slwerner

I'm glad to see the learning beginning.

Keep up the good work....

....we're all excited.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. There's a LOT more like that in there, if you take the time to read and try to understand.

6:22 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger MB said...

"I'm glad to see the learning beginning."

----

What an arrogant, dense jackass.

And I'll chip in my agreement that Chuck is trying to be superior through religion. He's the BETTER Christian. Sorry, what a condescending dope.

6:27 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Heh

What an arrogant, dense jackass. -- MB

Another atheist, projecting.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Never let a kind word or good turn go unpunished. -- MB]

6:39 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Gee Chuck,

I had gotten the impression that you were going to come back gunning for me...Oh well!

Yes, I did get that you were personally on your third marriage (my "best data point of three" remark).

But as to the point that is most important to me, I do NOT see Christians, and Christian woman in particular, making efforts to address the real underlying issues that have lead to both the decline in marriage rates, and the high rates of marital failures. These include (but are not limited to) the rejection of perfectly good men by women of prime marrying age in their search for "something better", the high risk to men in marriage due to the anti-family courts, and ubiquitous disrespect for men and masculinity from all quarters (yes, including the Christian church).

Perhaps I've incorrectly lumped you in with Sarah and some others (men who'd be better classified as manginas) who seem not to be willing to understand just how much they allowed the tenants of feminism to shade their views.

Some (and again, I pick on Sarah) seem to me to have only been in the situation of female breadwinner marital circumstances for only a very short time - and I get a sense that they are being arrogant in their proclamations of
contentedness and long-term goodwill wrt that situation.

Oft overlooked by Christians is the very important time Jesus spent being tempted - seriously temped.

I'd have more respect for the claims of the Sarah's of the world if they can come here (months from now, perhaps) and declare that they've beaten the temptations - rather than never faced them.

How will they cope with the not so subtle whispers of their fellow women in church questioning, "how can she stay with that loser?". How are they going to handle it when some of the men in their professional circles start making more overt sexual overtures towards them - showing their disrespect and contempt for their house-husbands? Will they be able to still respect their stay at home man as the months draw on?

That's the real test. After they passed, then they can tell us how well they've adapted to their reversed marital situations - and not be laughed at.

6:39 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: slwerner
RE: Sorry, If....

I had gotten the impression that you were going to come back gunning for me...Oh well! -- slwerner

....I disappointed you. But you hadn't behaved like MB just did. MB offers nothing but vitriol.

You offer good and semi-civil discussion.

More later, I've got to start working on supper. [Note: In this household, I do 90% of the cooking. She's the mistress of things involving flour and the oven. Indeed, she's won prizes in the state fair for such.

....let her own works praise her in the gates.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread.... -- Proverbs]

6:49 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger MB said...

"Indeed, she's won prizes in the state fair ..."

----

Your third wife sounds like a real keeper.

6:58 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

The virtuous woman -- very interesting.

And does a man have a duty to form and educate young women, and defend those who already are virtuous?

Hence the sentiment among some of us, which is interpreted as a demand to "man up."

(Note that marriage and the role of men and women shows up early in Scripture -- Genesis 2.)

Are they rare? Perhaps.

A major issue: they look for virtuous men. No, make that “require” virtuous men.

Problem: it’s easier to decry the lack of virtuous women than to become worthy of one.

And then again, some reject the premise in its entirety. “A virtuous woman?! You rube!” many here seem to say. Well, I’ve met a few, and am training a few others. I find the naysayers to be eerily similar to the woman who would tut-tut a man pushing a stroller. If lucky, they’ll learn the hard way.

Yet the modern man is intent on racing the modern woman to see who can be more selfish. She is – at present – ahead.

7:03 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I have sometimes met the wives of these devoted Christian "man-up", do-everything-for-the-woman type men:

And it ain't pretty. Usually I see a bossy, petty, dopey, chubby housewife.

And there's nothing wrong with that, I guess, if that's what you want.

But here's my point: I completely and utterly don't get it. What is the point in sacrificing your whole life for someone who in my estimation is not only not worth it, but not even close. Or more likely: Worthy of getting a swift kick in her butt to make her quit her using ways.

I'm sure someone will chime in that all human beings on this planet have worth, which is kind of true I guess, but why aren't they sending all their money to Jamal in the ghetto then? Why just a marginal increase in sex once a month and occasional help from dopey Jill the Permanent Housewife / with such a massive increase in the worship of her?

I really, truly don't get it. I wouldn't become a wage slave for Heidi Klum, let alone a bossy house-pig.

7:15 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

And you people who are almost desperate to get across how great your relationship is with your 3rd wife or whatever: Why the pressure? Why the corrosive words for people who don't want to be married?

It really is a bit strange.

Not all people are cut out to be married - I'm one of them, but I'm happy in life. I don't even suffer from the "Grass is Greener on the Other Side of the Fence": I know that many married people are not happy, but more importantly, I think I am no longer striving to get the very best situation. I'm happy the way I am.

So why are there a few men here who are really pushing the marriage thing? Do you really have a secret to happiness you are sharing?

7:20 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

JG said, "I really, truly don't get it."

Nor will mere words from those you think are nuts help you get it. Been there.

But if "peace and quiet and sex" is the pinnacle, you've arrived, bro.

7:25 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"Been there."

----

But now you've evolved. Right, "bro"?

7:28 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I can only repeat ad nauseum that I have actually seen more than one relative with Joe Giles' attitude get dusted by his wife out of the clear blue sky.

And I don't expect anyone to buy my Internet anecdotes (they're usually all made up to prove the writer's point), but I WOULD like people to take a sharp look around at their own relatives and friends and friends of their parents - and maybe, with some honesty, you can also see what I'm talking about.

In any case, I no longer have much respect for tough guys like Joe Giles.

7:34 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

And if I'm honest, my antipathy also comes from the fact that there is a writer on Townhall with the name of Doug Giles who writes almost the exact same crap. With the exact same quasi-hip, "with it", dopey, style of phrasing things.

I assume they're not related, but there are subconscious problems nonetheless with that name.

7:36 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Something else:

These chivalrous, do-whatever-the-woman-commands types are actually CREATING these spoiled, entitled women.

STOP.

7:49 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

JG sez: "I can only repeat ad nauseum"

Well, you got that right.

7:53 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

... and Laura rides in on her broom, just in time to make it clear to everyone that there are still catches like her around and she is going to drown these nay-sayers in a sea of passive-aggressive, snotty crap. Just like the catch she claims to be.

7:58 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

JG, with your ability to define such knowledge and understanding of me from a handful of internet posts, perhaps I've underestimated you -- maybe words could, you know, shift your entire worldview in an instant.

They won't be written by me, however.

I know a few tough guys. I wouldn't count myself among them. And who knows, that blue sky might come filled with dust and I'll be left to deal with it.

But besides the substantial straw-man quality of many posts here, there's also this repetitive notion that we're not taking an "honest" view. Hah. Most of us realize we're standing amidst ruin -- heck, we helped create it. The question is, do we rebuild the same dwelling, build one to stand the test of time, or simply take a whiz on the whole pile?

Tough guy alert: what does a man do?

"...do-whatever-the-woman-commands types..."

That's funny. Again, I can't help you "get it" if that's what you think is going on.

And in order to more firmly root your antipathy, I don't know, and never read, Doug Giles. But I've learned never to judge a book by its initials...or something like that.

8:12 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

You have to be willing to bear the pain of the termination of a long-term relationship if you really want to talk to the woman and put your points through.

The so-called "tough guys" and Christian pro-marriage people and all the rest probably wind up their - with their dopey, bossy house-pig - because they are not willing to take some pain. And the joke is that it is not usually as bad as you expect - except the first time, I guess.

That's the paradox. The Christian marriage-promoters, and tough guys and all the rest are promoting themselves as doing what they are doing out of strength. And it may be out of weakness.

8:25 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

That doesn't mean you have to terminate the relationship - it only means you possibly have to accept the end of a long-term relationship if you actually assert things that you should assert on principle - if you are not a wimp. And it doesn't help that most men in society are wimps and women instinctively know that they can easily dredge money out of some other sap ... but they still have some measure of respect if you actually act on principle.

8:28 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Tom P said...

Disregard financial and religious issues for a moment and consider some other factors.

Marriage seems to correlate with increased male longevity and reduced male suicide. Those look like benefits to marriage, provided one STAYS married. I suspect there are other benefits, with that caveat.

Divorce seems to be a factor in male suicides fairly often. Depression may be a factor in, and a result of divorce - men seem to be largely ignored WRT depression. I suspect there are other negative effects, but I haven't really found much study on those concerns, yet.

So you will have a better chance to live longer and maybe be healthier if you stay married. If you get married and then get divorced, you stand a better chance of suicide and depression.

Never married men seem to be healthier than divorced men, but not as healthy as married men.

Odds for divorce for first marriages in the US stands at better than 50%.

So it seems to work like this.

Best chance for long and healthy life - get married and stay that way.

Next best chance - don't ever get married.

Worst chance - divorced.

Odds of divorce - better than 50% for a first marriage (goes down hill from there).

If you play and win, you live a while longer. If you don't play at all, you live a while longer (but not so long). If you play and lose, you die sooner. And the odds are, you lose.

So why play?

8:46 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

"AngryMan looks about as much fun as SourWoman. And while she has her addictions, he idolizes porn, profanity, drinking to excess, televised sports, video games, etc. Even worse, he's not only unable to discern the women from the lamprey, he's unable to do any self-reflection. Add to that an refusal to turn toward God, and you've got someone who finds no authority greater than himself."

Oh my God! Well, I better change my attitude quick and become oh so more 'positive' - (another word for 'naive') so I can be more 'attractive' as you put it.

Attractive to whom? Attractive to Ms. American Bitch/Slut/Femarroid? (those are the 3 categories)And then end up EXACTLY where we've all been talking about here.. in a one bedromm apartment alone paying child support. No thanks.

9:39 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Watch this video http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=54933950

10:08 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Joe Giles said...

Mark, I said nothing about "attractive." And like you, I'm against naivete.

My comments above? Call it "good for goodness' sake."

But I'm not denying there's a "21st Century Female" archetype. Nor should we deny the Male version, which is just as ghastly.

11:20 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger ruddyturnstone said...

It really never ends, does it? The so-called Christians, and the "real men" and the women are either too stupid, or too stuborn, to admit the truth: marriage is a shit deal for men. This was not always the case. Not long ago, when a man got married he gave up a lot (sexual freedom, money, free time, etc.), but he got a lot in return (regular sex, emotional intimacy, clean house and clothes, a real "home," children, respect and authority as the leader of the household, and so on). Now, when a man gets married, he still gives up all of the former but has no guarantee of getting any of the latter. With spousal "rape" laws, and with the prevalent notion that a woman should never do anything she doesn't want to do, particularly things involving her body and emotions, a married man has absolutely no reason to expect regular sex from his wife. The modern woman bridles in outrage at the idea that she has a "duty" to have sex with her husband. And, while a husband is expected to do many things involving HIS emotions and body that he might prefer not to (say the "I love you's," provide a shoulder to cry on/hugs, give cards, flowers, presents, etc.), a wife feels no reciprocal obligation applies. She can cut off her husband sexually, AND demand that he stay faithful, AND, in many cases, also feel that she has every right to require he abstain from pornography, as well. She can, in other words, put him in sexual prison, while still demanding he supply the emotional intimacy and little praises and gifts and so forth that she wants. Needless to say, this kills any chance of real emotional intimacy that a man might have with his wife. And so on down the line. OK, they both "work" outside the home. But the husband works harder, longer, at a more stressful job, with a worse commute, etc. Yet the wife feels she is, as one poster put it here, some kind of "1950's robot" if he doesn't do his "equal share" of the housework. Study after study has shown, that when all work is included, men and women work basically equal hours in marriage. But hours themselves are not the only factor. An hour of "housework" might mean taking a few pounds of laundry, putting it in a washer, then putting it in a dryer, then folding it and putting it away, all in the nice, climate controlled privacy of one's own home in which one can listen to music or TV of one's choosing, wear shoes and clothes that are comfortable and so on. An hour of work in a factory or on a construction site or at a high pressure office or law firm is a lot more tiring and stressful. So, a husband working long hours at a tough job has no right to expect a hot, home-cooked dinner, clean clothes, and so forth, because his wife works in some BS job part time. More often than not, the increased income taxes, and transportation, clothing, childcare costs associated with the wife having a job actually add up to more than its worth. Her job is a net loss to the household, but, still, it is the excuse for her not doing the chores that wives were routinely expected to do in the past (with fewer labor saving devices and to higher standards) for their wage earning husbands. As for the kids, same deal. Men today do way more childcare than men in the past. Yet women still demand that they be "in charge," be the primary child care provider. Men are expected to do the childcare the women don't feel like doing, when they don't feel like doing it, but at the same time to shut up and do what they're told, and how they're told to do it, by the "Mom" who knows it all.

12:27 AM, May 20, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home