Tag Archives: Divorce

The Wages of Aspiration

Trawling the advice columnists again, I found this gem, which I’ll quote in full:

Dear Amy: My sister lives across the country. She has been married for 33 years. They’ve raised two daughters who are now adults, but she’s been living the most boring life ever!

I don’t know how she could be happy doing nothing but cooking and cleaning for all these years. And then she has the nerve to criticize me for not having enough time in my day, when she has no clue what it’s like to work full time.

Well, OK, she did work full time once — years ago before her daughters were born. She also had a little job when her kids were in school, but it wasn’t a “real job,” just a little part-time lunch-lady position.

I can’t understand why she doesn’t want to work more and help her poor husband with their finances. Then they could travel and see the world! They hardly ever go anywhere. I want so much more for her!

She has never had to live through things like illness, job loss or divorce, as I have. She has been supportive sometimes, but not all the time. I guess I’m a bit jealous because she has so much free time.

I’ve asked her to write me a list of what she does all day. I’ve sent her lists of what I manage to accomplish in the three hours I have in my home, but she has declined to provide her list.

It’s so sad that she has never had any aspirations!

It makes me so sad to feel like she’s wasted her life; she’s only in her 50s! I told her all this in an e-mail, but now she’s mad at me for just being honest. She expects an apology, but I’m hurt now, too. How do we get past this? Do you have any advice on getting her to see my view? — Frustrated Sister in PA

Amy rightfully smacks her down.

The ressentiment here is hidden worse than a toddler’s lies. This women is alone, hurting, and busy-working herself to death, and you can tell she hates it, however much she protests otherwise. She has so little going on in her life, she spends the”three hours I have in my home” on hectoring her contented sister who lives on the other side of the country. She’s looking for validation for her misery, but her sister refuses to provide it by buying into her lies, so instead she tries to destroy her sister’s life because she wants “so much more for her!”

She has refused to tend her own garden, she has leaned in, and now she seethes with resentment towards her sister who is “wasting her life” on creating a loving family. Instead of a family, she chose divorce and a job, and you can feel the pain and betrayal she experienced with her job loss. You can also feel it from her mention of illness; I do not think many people were there to care for her.

Notice how in her miserable ressentiment, she frames her choices as compared to her sisters. “Aspirations!” “So much more!” “Boring”

Having a quiet, happy family life is not an aspiration, but working for a job which would abandon you any time the profit margins were right is? Working your ass off, so you only have 3 hours of free time a day, so that you can go on a vacation once a year is more? Having a contented home life is less? Having a happy family is boring, but working in a cubicle for 13 hours a day is not?

What kind of mutilated soul thinks that way?

This women is in her 50’s, or thereabouts. Retirement looms in a decade. What will her life be when she doesn’t even have her job to distract her from her loneliness? How much of this rage towards her sister is because she knows that horror awaits her soon and she needs to justify the dear she feels to herself?

Dear young lady who may read this, reread that letter and decide carefully which of these sisters you want to be.

Guest Post From Europe: Historical Divorces

Today, we have another guest post from our European reader, with some musings on history, divorce, and mythology:

1.Victory is sweet, even though it tends to take a long time. I SUSPECT that my my self-estranged & self-separated wife will find herself in the Maria Callas’ Mother situation quite soon. Maria Callas, the OPERA singer, was born in 1923 in New York of Greek immigrant parents. When Maria was about 11 the Mother humped off back to Greece with “HER” children while telling the father to keep the dollars’ tsumanai flowing. The Mother told EVERYBODY else (including the children) that the father was an abusive drunk. When Maria Callas found out why she (Maria Callas) had NO Father, she, (Maria Callas) NEVER EVER spoke to the Mother again. Granted, the parents were somewhat reconciled on the Mother’s death-bed, but Maria Callas STILL refused to speak to her Mother.

2. The most famous divorce ever, as you know, is the divorce by Henry VIII of England, of his wife Catherine of Aragon. When Catherine, in 1527, first heard that Henry, planned to divorce her, she went to Confession. Henry, as you know said that his marriage to Catherine was invalid, as Catherine had previously been married to his brother Arthur, two years Henry’s senior, and three years Catherine’s junior. It is true that the above situation, had been a law of the early Church, as Henry always claimed, but it had been modified, as the Church expanded to say that provided the wife and brother A had done nothing inside the bedroom, she could marry brother B. She claimed to the priest in Confession in 1527, that on their wedding night, in 1501, Arthur was legless drunk, and had to be almost physically carried upstairs. She then said that once the bedroom door closed, Arthur collapsed on the bed to sleep it off. She then sat on the bed beside him. She said that she later fell on top of Arthur and dozed off, but she adamantly maintained that they got no further. Arthur left the next morning for Wales, and died soon after. During the Divorce Court hearing in 1529, Catherine repeated, the exact same story as she knelt in front Henry. As Catherine lay dying in 1536, aged fifty, quite old for that time, she again went to Confession, having sent for a priest, and repeated the exact same story. She had the priest write down her Confession in 1527 and 1536. She then had it sent to her nephew King Charles 1 (Carlos Primero) of Spain. Both statements, with absolutely no difference in what Catherine had said, turned up years later. In view of the fact that Catherine’s story NEVER wavered, and Henry varied his story to suit different circumstances and audiences, I think that we can now say that Catherine was telling the truth and Henry was not.

3. Similarly, in 1520, the then twenty year old Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V was persuaded to allow a totally unknown German monk called Martin Luther address the Diet or Parliament in Worms, the following year, 1521, on Luther’s religious views. Charles was a devout Catholic. He was Emperor of what we would now call Holland, Belgium Luxemburg, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Western Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia Northern and Eastern France, plus the far north of Italy, roughly ‘the hammer’ of Italy connecting the far SE of France and Slovenia. When his political advisors heard about this plan, they were outraged, and wanted him to kill Luther, problem solved. But Charles refused, saying that he could not break his word, once given. So in May 1521, he sent one of his knights to meet Luther at a pre-arranged spot, just as he had promised. The knight then escorted Luther on the two weeks’ journey to Worms, where the Diet was held. This in modern terms would have been the equivalent of allowing him address the European Parliament, or putting him on the Euro News today. Luther said his piece, and while the knight was escorting him back to the pre-arranged spot, Luther’s supporters, not trusting Charles, kidnapped him. No evidence has ever emerged to suggest that Luther knew of the kidnapping, or that Charles planned to break his word, or was planning to allow anybody else do so. Charles, who was also Charles 1, King of Spain, Carlos Primero, retired from his different royal duties between 1554 and 1556, and died in a monastery outside Salamanca in 1558, aged 58. To the end of his days, nobody, but absolutely nobody could accuse him of dishonesty. Conclusion: Keep YOUR end of the bargain. Let the other chap break his end of the bargain. History will vindicate you.

4. There is a story, along the same lines from America. When the American Constitution was being written, some of the Founding Fathers wanted the US Senators to be appointed for life to enable them to put the national interest first, and resist populist pressure. Eventually the compromise reached was that the Senators were almost like Ambassadors, appointed to represent their State in Washington, to the Federal Government. Senators were popularly elected after 1912, I think. After the US Civil War, the Northern twenty seven States were dominated by the Republican Party. The Republican Party was divided into the ‘Lincolnites’ who wanted reconciliation with the defeated twelve Southern States, and the ‘Radicals’ who wanted to exploit the defeated South until it was bled dry, and then start again. In 1866 Kansas recalled one of its Senators, a Lincolnite and replaced him with Edmund G. Ross. Ross was a Radical. No matter how harsh the exploitation of the defeated South was, it was never enough for Ross. He was the most belligerent, extremist, hardline, unreasonable politician of the belligerent, extremist hardline, unreasonable politicians of the Radical Republicans. No matter what was done he was not satisfied that it was tough enough on the South. President Johnston, nothing to LBJ was a Lincolnite. He was the only Southern Senator who had stood with the Union/Northern side. He had been a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. He was on Lincoln’s ticket in the 1864 Presidential election, and became President after Lincoln was murdered. In 1867, the Radical Republican leaders decided that they would impeach the President, as he had constantly used his veto to stop their plans. To do that they needed a simple majority in the House of Representatives, after which the President was tried before the Senate, and had to be found guilty by a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just those there on the day. They got their House majority, no problem. At that time there were fifty four Senators, two from each State. There were forty two Republicans and twelve Democrats. It was assumed that the Democrats would back the President in the Senate vote and this happened. Quite soon into the proceedings in the House, six long-serving Republican Senators announced that as the reckoned that the whole thing was a joke, they were going to vote to acquit the President. This meant that the Radical Republicans could not afford to lose any more votes. By all the rules Ross should have been Impeachment Vote No. 1. However his remark ‘Now that we have him in the dock, we must give him a fair trial’ to Senator Sprague of New Jersey was merely the start of his problems. The Radical leaders threatened him with loss of his Senate seat, and the end of his political career, bankruptcy and jail, on false charges. All this happened. A few days after his vote to acquit the President, the Kansas State Assembly recalled him. He ended up a jailed, bankrupt fraudster, soon afterwards. When he was released from jail, he was sleeping on the streets. But in 1872 the US Supreme Court stated that he had been correct. Conclusion: History ALWAYS vindicates those who do the right thing.

5. I have no doubt but you have heard of Cronos, a mythical King in Ancient Greece. He overthrew and killed his father. After learning that he, Cronus, was destined to be overcome by his own sons, just as he had overthrown his father, he devoured all of his children as soon as they were born, to pre-empt the prophecy. When the sixth child, Zeus, was born, Zeus was hidden and later fulfilled the prophecy. Conclusion; No matter how ALL-POWERFUL a Tyranny may appear to be it will EVENTUALLY be overthrown.

6. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Icarus, the bird-man of Greek legend. His father, Daedalus made two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers for himself and his son Icarus so they could escape from Crete where they were held prisoner. Daedalus tried his wings first, but before taking off from the island, warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea, but to follow his (Daddy’s) path of flight. Overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms, and so Icarus fell into the sea and drowned. Conclusion: ALL Ponzi Schemes crash in the end, the bigger the Ponzi Scheme, the bigger the Crash Mess.

7. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Procrustes, a rogue smith and bandit of Greek myth. Procrustes physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. Conclusion: Facts CANNOT be changed to suit a pre-existing theory.

8. Before he invaded Russia, Napoleon said “Apres trois mois, la Russie me demandera la paix/After three months, Russia will ask me for peace” to one of his generals. In June 1941, as Germany prepared to invade Russia, German officers on the ground (as opposed to the Nazi leadership) told the troops that the serious fighting would last 6 weeks, that the Germans would be at the Urals in 14 weeks and that they would all be back home in Germany for Christmas. As a matter of FACT the Germans destroyed the ENTIRE Soviet Air Force in a week.

9. In 1941, as Hitler’s armies were racing towards Moscow, Stalin summoned Ivan Stamenev, the Bulgarian Ambassador to Moscow to the Kremlin, and asked him to mediate with the Germans, as Bulgaria was neutral. Stamenev refused saying ‘Even if you have to retreat to the Urals, you will beat them in the end’,in reply to Stalin a prediction, that Time, proved correct. Men and families are now back at the Urals. However, do NOT worry as this toxic tsumanais called ‘Family Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries WILL come to an end. If you had said ‘This is the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union’ on December 24, 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, you would have been the butt of EVERY joke as people rolled around the streets laughing at you. We all now KNOW that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan WAS the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire. Slowly, men and families are moving westward. We are NOT QUITE YET in the position of the Soviet trooper Sgt. Alyosha Kovalyov who on May 02, 1945, hoisted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in the famous photograph from our History books, but we are getting there.

10. The day WILL come when Families hoist the Flag of Freedom over the TOXIC MT EVERSTS called ‘Family’ Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries. Within twenty years in Western countries, we will see some of the cheerleaders for the Feminist/Liberal/Child Abuse Agenda doing the General Deboi & Julius Streicher Act.

Julius Streicher

Julius Streicher 1885 – 1946 was a Nazi newspaper owner in post WW1 Germany. His racist newspaper even by Nazi standards spewed forth the most vile virulent hatred of Jews. He incited Germans to the persecution and to the extermination Jews. For “the persecution and the extermination Jews” you may read “the persecution and the extermination of the family & fathers” in Western countries including modern Ireland. Hitler was NOT tough enough on the Jews for him. After WW2 he claimed to know NOTHING of any anti-Semitic campaigns NEVER MIND any Death Camps. He was tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and executed by hanging.

General Deboi

After Stalingrad, the Russians captured 22 four-star German generals. One of these generals, General Deboi was appointed group spokesman as he could speak French, Europe’s international language of that time. Deboi was born in 1893 in Vienna and in 1912 he joioned the GERMAN Army. During the Russian-organized press conference Deboi stressed ‘Je suis autrichien, je ne suis pas allemand’ constantly, to anybody who would listen.

A Quick Response

Continuing our genocide conversation, Malcolm points to a women who divorced her husband after ‘signs from the Lord’. My (hopefully final) response is short and twofold:

a) Is she a prophet through whom divine revelation flows?

b) Where in that mess of self-justification does God directly and undeniably command her to divorce?

All I read looking through the link is someone selfishly deciding to do something, then looking for every possible excuse to not feel guilty.

****

Maybe I have not been communicating as effectively as possible. While a specific divine command may override more general commands for the specified action/time/event, this is not some lightly taken thing.

In the Bible these overriding commands occurred when God spoke directly to and through His prophets while shaping the God-chosen nation the of Israel. Anybody receiving and transmitting a divine command from the Lord is a prophet and being a prophet is not something taken lightly. It is a major, nation-shaping event and any proclaimed prophet has tests to pass for which the penalty for failure is death (and likely damnation).

Breaking God’s law under God’s command is not something done lightly. There is no, ‘I was praying and saw a whisp of smoke, then my preacher spoke on something vaguely related’ to it. It is ‘God spoke directly to me clearly and unmistakeably and called me to Himself through miracles, angels, and visions.’

In the Bible, the prophets were clearly and unmistakeably called by God. They were generally hesitant to obey God and had fairly miserable lives. Those they prophesied to/for/against generally did not like what they had to say (hence, Saul disobeying Samuel) and usually responded grudgingly, at best. So, when I write of following a revealed divine command, it is no small thing I speak of. It is a divine revelation of Biblical proportions that you will likely detest and will shatter your life and the lives of those around you.

A prophecy isn’t needed to call people to do what they want or would have done anyway. Anybody using a divine command to justify something they wanted to do already is engaging in delusional self-justification and anybody desiring divine revelation for themselves strikes me as foolish.

When I talk of a divine command it is something on a fundamentally different order than the everyday Christian interactions with God such as praying over which job to take, learning something revealing from a sermon, the small coincidences of life chalked up to God’s grace, ‘small morsels from God’, or feeling God uplifted you through worship.

****

Finally, on the topic of divorce and divine command, we can look to Ezra.

While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath.

Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God and went to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib, where he spent the night, neither eating bread nor drinking water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles. And a proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, and that if anyone did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all his property should be forfeited, and he himself banned from the congregation of the exiles.

Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us.” Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supported them.

Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of fathers’ houses, according to their fathers’ houses, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter; and by the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women.

(Ezra 10:1-17 ESV)

Marriage: Take Up Your Cross

When I write or talk of Christian marriage I will get blowback of the type ‘surely you don’t expect a woman to put up with abuse‘ or ‘surely you don’t expect men to put up with a lack of sex.’ ‘How can you possibly require someone to stay in such a horrific situation?’

First, I will quickly establish once again the fundaments of Christian marriage:

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Matthew 19:5-6 ESV)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:24-27 ESV)

Divorce is not an option, it is illegitimate, and wives are to submit as the church to Christ and husbands are to love their wives as Christ did the church.

If you get married, this is your mission. Love your wife to the point of crucifixion or, alternatively, submit to your husband to the point of crucifixion.

I am not being hyperbolic. This is what is literally what is demanded of you in the Bible.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? (Matthew 16:24-26 ESV)

Take up your cross. If you’re a husband, your cross is to love your wife. If you’re a wife, your cross is to submit to your husband.

****

First for the men, this is how much Christ loved the church. Watch and take it to heart:

Christ loved the church so much he allowed himself to be brutally tortured and crucified for the church. This is how much you are to love your wife.

Is your wife disrespecting you worse than that? Is a dead bedroom ? Is nagging? Is your wife assaulting you?

No.

You do not have the right to divorce your wife for any of this. You do not have the right to stop loving your wife for any of this.

If you are married, stop whining, pick up your cross, and love your wife.

Stop being a little bitch.

****

Now for the women, I do not have a video, but here is Paul on his trials:

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? (2 Corinthians 11:23-29 ESV)

According to tradition, Paul was later martyred by beheading. Peter was crucified upside down.

Paul submitted to Christ to the point of where he spent his life enduring extreme loneliness, extreme deprivation, and brutal torture only to have it end in violent death.

Is your husband ignoring your needs worse than this? Is having regular, if uninteresting, sex worse than this? Is being verbally abused worse than this? Is being smacked around worse than this?

No.

If you are married you do not have the right to divorce your husband for any of this. You do not have the right to stop submitting to you husband for any of this.

If you are married, stop complaining, pick up your cross, and submit to your husband.

Stop thinking your situation is oh-so-specially horrible that you are exempted from God’s commandments.

****

Because fools and knaves may try to twist my words, I will state the stupidly obvious.

The husband being required to love his wife no matter what does not give the wife permission to deny her husband sex, to nag, to disrespect, or be violent.

The wife being required to submit to her husband no matter what does not give the husband the right to belittle, ignore, or abuse her.

Quite simply, for both parties, instead of thinking of your rights and how to get the most out of your marriage, think of what you can do for the other. How best can you love your wife? How best can you submit to your husband?

Your spouse and your spouse’s needs come before your own.

If both spouses think and act this way, you will both be much happier and your marriage much stronger.

If you think and act this way, even if your spouse does not agree to do so, it might surprise you what changes you can effect in the other or in yourself. But even if nothing changes, it’s still your Christian duty.

****

Pick up your cross. If necessary, allow yourself to be nailed to it.

It doesn’t matter if your spouse is abusive, unloving, distant, cold, or quarrelsome, your duty, your cross remains.

Does this sound like a tall order? Does this sound like more than you can handle? Are you not prepared for this?

Then don’t get married.

If you aren’t willing to pick up your cross and do what is commanded of you in marriage, whatever may come, do not get married. Stay single. If you do decide to get married, be sure to choose your spouse well, so they are unlikely to become abusive or unloving.

Before you decide to marry count up your costs. If, having counted the costs, you still choose to marry, pick up your cross.

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ (Luke 14:27-30 ESV)

Child Support is not Fatherhood

I was reading this post, An E-mail from a Proud Deadbeat Dad.

Matt is correct that fathers are important and that a man abandoning his child is an awful human being, but, while he does give a cursory out for men who have been kicked out their homes, he is far too accepting of the “women get pregnant and men abandon them myth”.

Matt, in the unlikely event you read this, the women who wish they had a man around are as much requiring of exorciation as men who abandon their children.

What kind of despicable women has children with a man who is not going to be there?

Why are these women not picking out better men to have children with, instead of cads who pump and dump them?

You should ask this question in your next blog.

(I sent him a e-mail asking him this, but in a more polite manner, we’ll see if he has a response).

****

BW is the product of feminism. “His body, his choice.”

When women can renounce motherhood by destroying their child in the womb, how can society judge a man for renouncing fatherhood?

How is BW any worse a person than the women who has serial abortions?

****

I came across this comment, by one gastronaut76:

I raise a daughter alone, after her father- who I was engaged to- whose idea it was to have a child, who was so excited to have a baby, who I realized I couldn’t make a life and separated from, slipped out of my daughter’s life, stopped paying child support, and owes me thousands. Your reductionist argument that I’m not only somehow defective because I was in love, believed a man who promised to support me and bore his child, only to be left holding the bag, but also AT FAULT for his actions? I have no words.

This gastronaut is obviously entirely at fault here, yet she seems to blame the man.

She kicks the father of her child out of her house for undisclosed (which likely means immature) reasons and then he’s the deadbeat for not paying child support.

This kind of crooked thinking can only be the result of a complete lack of understanding of what fatherhood is.

Child support is not fatherhood.

Every second weekend is not fatherhood.

Visitation rights are not fatherhood.

A man who has been removed from his own children and his own home can not engage in fatherhood. He can try to father the best he can, and any man that does gets my respect, but there is simply no way a father, no matter how great a man he may be, can fulfill the functions of fatherhood while removed from his children’s lives.

Even soldiers, sacrificing everything and fighting wars on the other side of the world, get home leave to spend quantity and quality time with their families.

A father needs to be there for his children, to spend time with them, to teach them, to discipline them, to love them, to nurture them. A father need quantity time with his children.

Every second weekend, no matter how “quality” it is is not enough.

Fatherhood is not disposable, and child support is not fatherhood.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

Christian Marriage

Man was created to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. It is not good for Man to be alone, so Woman was created from Man as Man’s helper. Once united in marriage the two become one flesh, indivisible. This union is as the union of Christ and the Church. The sex act, by itself, is enough to create this union. Any sexual relation outside of this union of this is a sin against God and against one’s own body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is taken very seriously by God. Marriage is to be held in honour by all and the marriage bed is not to be defiled by sin.

The fall led to Man’s work being unyielding and ultimately fruitless and Woman’s submission being to a fallen Man who can never fully be what she needs. Yet, in Christ and His kingdom, Man can build a home eternal where his treasures never rust or decay. In Christ, Woman can submit to Man as to Christ.

Marriage is not eternal; it is made for this world. The dead and the resurrected do not marry for they cannot die. Marriage does not carry from this world to the next; marriage ends with death, and with death alone.

Some men are meant to be alone; they are made eunuchs by birth, by men, and for the sake of the kingdom. It is good for a man not to have sex and not to marry, for he can devote himself fully to the Lord. But not every man is given the gift to remain chaste, remember, Man was not meant to be alone. It is better to marry than burn with passion; if a man cannot exercise sexual self-control, he should marry. Each man unable to do so should each take his own wife. Both marriage and celibacy are good, neither is a sin, but neither Man nor Woman should primarily be focusing on either marriage or being free from marriage. Young women, particularly widows, are given extra encouragement to marry. One should not be burdened or restrained whatever one’s choice, as the choice of whether to marry is for a person’s own benefit, to best promote order and devotion to the Lord. Those who forbid marriage are deceitful; each man should live as he is called. The unmarried should be devoted to the Lord, while the married will necessarily split their devotion.

Marriage has two biblical purposes: to sate passion to avoid sin and for man to have a helper in his mission (to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth). In addition to the commandment to be fruitful, Women will be saved from responsibility for the fall through child-bearing. Any marriage taken should be for one, but optimally both, of these purposes.

To marry a divorced man or woman is to commit adultery. For a man to marry a prostitute or non-virgin or marry more than one woman is less sanctified and may prevent a man from having a position of leadership, but is not necessarily sin.

Christ is the head of man and the husband is the head of his wife for Woman was created for Man.  A wife is to submit in everything to her husband, as the Church to Christ, for the Church is Christ’s bride. No woman should have spiritual authority over a man, yet a wife has authority over her husband’s body, while the husband has the same over hers.  Likewise husbands should love their wives as Christ does the church and as they love their own bodies. A Christian’s submission to Christ and God is to be total and absolute, so should a wife’s submission to her husband. As well, Christ’s love for the church was absolute and self-sacrificing, so should a husband’s love for his wife. Neither man nor women are independent.

To divorce and remarry is sin. A woman is bound to her husband until he dies and a husband should not  divorce his wife, for it is to commit violence. There are only two acceptable justifications for divorce and remarriage: adultery and abandonment by a unbelieving spouse. Separation without remarriage and with attempts to reconcile is acceptable, but not recommended.

****

With all the discussion of marriage around these parts I decided to create a summary for myself of what I could find in the Bible on the issue.

Marriage is both a less important and more important than much of modern Christianity makes of it. It is less important In that being married is not necessary to the faith, as some seem to advocate.

But it’s more in that if you do become married, it is a major dedication for both men and women. Men are to be as Christ, women are to fully submit; there are no outs and there is Biblically no such thing as asking too much in a marriage, for either men or women. Also, Simon is right, Woman was created for Man, and a married woman does not submit to God and is not accountable to God, but to her husband.

The common manosphere meme of divorcing if your wife doesn’t provide sex does not seem to have any support, unless adultery is defined far more broadly than would seem prudent. You have to love her anyway.

So, before you marry, count your costs and be prepared to carry your cross. Biblically, it is a huge, irreversible step with very limited escape clauses.