Unmasking the “Mystique”

The use of the word “mystique” to define the traditionalist women’s cause is fitting and illuminating at the same time. From google dictionary “mystique” is defined:

1. A fascinating aura of mystery, awe, and power surrounding someone or something.

It is one thing to be admired for femininity, good manners, and a quiet spirit. I think most men want that, but do they want to marry someone who comes with an “aura of mystery”? Mystique is not as romantic as it sounds. The manonsphere men have been taking down the veil of mystery that surrounds women, leaving tradcon feminists nowhere to hide.  On the surface, the tradcon women fight a common enemy–garden variety feminists, but there is an enemy that is worse to the tradcon woman and her dreams of finding a provider husband—enter the MRA or any other person in the manosphere.  This person can do what the garden variety feminists can’t (because they still rely on mystique too, to some extent)–unveil or unmask the mystery surrounding women. I can only think this is because they are 110% anti-feminist. There are no loyalties to women just because they are women.

2. An air of secrecy surrounding a particular activity or subject that makes it impressive or baffling to those without specialized knowledge.

This definition can also explain why traditionalists hate the manaosphere so much–the majority of men that make up the manosphere have decoded and unleashed to the public, via blogs, the specialized knowledge that only women use to know; that is, how women use their feminine powers to subtly control men. One of the arguments of the anti-suffragists was it doesn’t matter if women vote, because they have more power by swaying their husbands behind the scenes than they do at any ballot box. Traditionalist women want their secret power back, or in other words, their “not all like that” power back. They want to be able to say NAWALT to make it OK and have men fall at their feet. The power that let them bask in moral superiority upon a pedestal. Too many men have figured women out and thus aren’t marrying and falling for their mystique. They have realized that women, despite PC opinion, are also capable of sin and not the angelic creatures years of mystique marketing has told them they are. Feminism has not lifted the aura of mystery surrounding women as much as some of the manosphere men have. This is threatening because in order to get men to marry and provide, women need to get their mystique groove back on in order to convince men to marry them.

I have noticed at “Feminine Mystique” (femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com) there is some heavy moderating going on and most of a manospherian mind are not getting pass no matter how courteous their comment.  It is obvious they hate the manosphere more than the feminists and it all makes so much sense–feminists are easy to debate, they bring out the same old tired points whereas the men actually see through the mystique and are not blown away in awe at their feminine goddess like power.

I can’t complete this post without calling attention to this comment exchange from “Feminine Mystique” (femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gynocentrism-explained/#comment-1158):

  1. Wudang

    February 14, 2013

    You should check out these if you haven`t found them before:

    Links removed See Comment Policy

    Also see Femicadism Dalrock is a Femicadeist who hates traditional women. This site is not affiliated with the MRM movement because unlike the MRA’s we are against equality, see our About and Traditional Women’s Rights Activists pages.

    Reply
  2. fidelbogen

    February 14, 2013

    You have described me as a “men’s rights activist”, which is customarily abbreviated as “MRA”.

    I do not self-appellate as either a “men’s rights activist” or an “MRA”.

    I most commonly refer to myself as a “non-feminist”.

    Reply
    • Edita TWRA

      February 14, 2013

      I don’t appreciate you calling me a traditionalist Conservative. As I am not even a Conservative. So deal with it! You are an MRA feminist who believes in equality. You are a femicadeist who hates women. See “Femicadism.”

From the small amount that was left unedited in the original comment from Wudang, it looks like he was just trying to help Mrs. Edita better understand where some men are coming from by offering links to Dalrock. Dalrock is probably one of the most mild, level-minded men in the manosphere. To say he hates traditional women and is guilty of her made up term-femicadeist is an outrageous attack.

Further, notice fidelbogen was just trying to correct Mrs. Edita and he got a finger-waggin snarky response.  She is not a conservative, which is VERY interesting.  I noticed on her facebook she doesn’t even identify as Christian, but rather “spiritual”. This is a textbook case of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
She is even starting to use her made-up term “femicadeist” as the new traditional woman’s version of “misogynist”.  Just call “misogynist/femicadeist” to someone, you win, and there is no need to debate them. Shut it down cold.

I am thinking that site is soon going to me no comments or carefully selected comments like at “Thinking Housewife”, because otherwise, they can’t keep up the “mystique”.

About these ads

49 comments

  1. Feminine Mystique (as written in our FQA section): The feminine mystique says that the highest value and the only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own femininity. It says that the great mistake of Western culture, through most of its history, has been the undervaluation of this femininity. It says this femininity is so mysterious and intuitive and close to, the creation and origin of life that fabricated science may never be able to understand it. But however special and different, it is in no way inferior to the nature of man; it may even in certain respects be superior. The mistake, says the feminine mystique, the root of women’s troubles in the past is that women envied men, women tried to be like men, instead of accepting their own nature, which can find fulfillment only in sexual passivity, male domination, and nurturing maternal love.

    The reason I call my blog ‘feminine mystique’ is because the mystique has been stolen from us, thanks to famous femicadeistes such as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer. These women have told women to literally forget their womanhood and instead seek masculine virtues. As a result, the woman can never accomplish true fulfillment by trying to be a man in a woman’s body. To rid ourselves with the feminist nonsense that being a woman is somehow inferior to a man, we must return to the highly cherished feminine mystique of the Victorian age. Women have always been the most privileged, protected and cherished class and feminism has taken this away from us. Betty Friedan painted the feminine mystique as something bad she has told that women ought to forget about it. Well sorry Betty but we are reclaiming our feminine mystique now and today. Moreover, there is nothing that femicadeists and femicadeistes can do to stop us. Once more, women will be cherished and loved as they used to. They will be loved and respected for accepting and fulfilling the feminine mystique; and that is what the TWRA’s seek to accomplish we want our feminine mystique back!

    And fidelbogen was referring to Jesse Powell and not me.

  2. Well sorry Betty but we are reclaiming our feminine mystique now and today. Moreover, there is nothing that femicadeists and femicadeistes can do to stop us. Once more, women will be cherished and loved as they used to.

    youre in rebellion and should learn from the offerings of this site

    Christ’s Kingdom is coming, he doesnt pedestalize females sorry

    your Mystique is already hitting the wall and it will not bounce

    that wont be the last of the housecleaning either

    you better figure out what “obedience” means, what “helpmeet” means, hint they dont = return to victorian snowflakery

  3. The amount of energy some people expend on rationalisation and such always astounds me. It is still possible to be treasured, but it requires that she submit to one man and can this attitude of “I want my privilege back”.

    we must return to the highly cherished feminine mystique of the Victorian age

    LOL! Good luck with that! (Also, no thanks to all that prudery; just not my style I guess). All this is is some women fretting because they want to be ‘kept’ and who have a fantasy idea of what life was like in some or other period in history.

    What exactly do they think Victorian women did all day? Why is it that men invented such labour saving devices as washing machines? Is it because they don’t like women, or because they love them?

    I looked at that site briefly a while back and it didn’t resonate with me. It is typical of blogs run by women to have these types of comment policies, where dissent is quickly squashed and the truth suppressed. If Dalrock is really so bad, why not let the links through and people can see it for themselves and make up their own minds?

  4. The fact that Edita TWRA can comment freely here without moderation at the same time that she heavily moderates on her website speaks volumes. This site is a discussion – her site is an echo chamber.

    Watsamatter, Edita? The fact that your ideas do not stand up under scrutiny is why we are having this discussion here rather than on your website.

    Truth benefits from open exchanges – only lies need to be shielded.

    Think about that next time you hypocritically ban something you don’t like with the flimsy excuse that it “violates the posting policy.” You’re not preserving civility: you are merely shielding your illusions from scrutiny.

  5. @Lyn87

    Hear hear!

    One more thought (sorry for the multiple postings; had to run out this morning). The idea of calling this “rights activism” is what rankles. Privilege is not right, and calling it a right leads to entitlement rather than gratitude. I don’t know if they claim to be Christians in the main, but this is a decidedly unChristian attitude.

  6. I am intrigued how such traditional beliefs can be held without some strain conservatism or Christianity. Yet, they don’t claim to be either. In fact, when scripture was sited it was said to be “silly”.

  7. From Edita TWRA:

    Betty Friedan painted the feminine mystique as something bad she has told that women ought to forget about it. Well sorry Betty but we are reclaiming our feminine mystique now and today. Moreover, there is nothing that femicadeists and femicadeistes can do to stop us. Once more, women will be cherished and loved as they used to. They will be loved and respected for accepting and fulfilling the feminine mystique; and that is what the TWRA’s seek to accomplish we want our feminine mystique back!

    Sorry Edita, that ship has sailed, and YOU were one of those who helped untie it from the wharf of what I call “chivalrous patriarchy.” I say that because YOU are a feminist. Oh, sure, you say a few of the correct things, and you may even mean them at some level, but you share the basic belief at the core of feminism – that men need to cater to women. Forget all the fluff about “equality” that they really don’t mean (equality of benefits and inequality of responsibilities is not equality at all) – you and your feminist sisters want special considerations for women: full stop.

    Patriarchy is vastly superior to any other social arrangement and it benefits everyone (women even more than men), and “chivalrous patriarchy” is the best deal any large group of people has ever gotten in history. “Chivalrous patriarchy” between the Enlightenment and the Modern era was the best-of-the-best time to be a middle- or upper-class white woman living in the Western world.

    Here is my challenge to you: First, stop making up nonsense words like femicadeists and femicadeistes. Your thoroughly pedestrian thoughts do not require you to create your own vocabulary – English works just fine. Ill-defined words like those serve only to obscure meaning (I suppose that may be the point though, no?).

    Next, bend you efforts to fighting the thing that undermines “chivalry” (as you define it). Hint: it’s not Dalrock or the people on sites like this. After fifty years of radical feminism you cannot expect men to unlearn what we know – there is no longer any mystique for any man with his eyes open. We have seen womanhood metaphorically naked and wanton: putting on a few soiled rags at this late date will not recreate the former mindset.

    Men are not signing up for “chivalrous patriarchy” because society has become secularized and coarse – and feminism was the secularist wedge driven between men and women. While demanding that men “take the risks” feminists threw two generations of men and children into a meat grinder of one-sided “Family Law.” Here’s a thought: rather than excoriating people who tell men “Don’t jump into the meat grinder,” how about you Dismantle the friggin’ meat grinder?

  8. From Edita:
    “MRA’s are so emasculated they need MRA women to defend their stance, it’s pathetic.”
    That is if their stance can even make it through moderation! Gee, I wonder why they can’t defend. I don’t even consider myself an MRA, but of course–guilty by association.

    “Also, the constant whining of MRA’s that we should take empathy for men’s experiences and the harms of feminism. Do you see MRA’s taking empathy for women? For the shit we have to go through in this messed up society? Do they do anything besides spit on us and bash us? No they do not do anything because the MRA movement only benefits men and feminism itself benefits men.”

    Aw, you see…women can’t have empathy for men unless men first have empathy for women!! That is how feminists speak. Why should we care about them, they don’t care about us–wah, wah, wah! You care because men are the foundation of society, not women. Also, should a traditional woman be saying “shit” so casually? Where is the femininity?

  9. @LGR

    Well that explains a lot. They are just a bunch of spoilt brats with no anchor then. Like I said, they want to be kept so they can watch Oprah and eat bon bons all day – y’know, like the average Victorian woman did. People in Victorian England were mostly Christian, for a start, and the life of the average working class was probably way more difficult than these women could deal with. Forget being “treasured” and having their “needs” catered to – that’s a laugh! Does this sound like anyone had time to worry about such fluffy fun as “maintaining the feminine mystique”? Talk about romanticising the past!

    From Wikipedia:

    Domestic life for a working-class family was far less comfortable. Legal standards for minimum housing conditions were a new concept during the Victorian era, and a working-class wife was responsible for keeping her family as clean, warm, and dry as possible in housing stock that was often literally rotting around them. In London, overcrowding was endemic in the slums inhabited by the working classes. Families living in single rooms were not unusual. The worst areas had examples such as 90 people crammed into a 10-room house, or 12 people living in a single room (7 feet 3 inches by 14 feet).[7] Rents were exorbitant; 85 percent of working-class households in London spent at least one-fifth of their income on rent, with 50 percent paying one-quarter to one-half of their income on rent. The poorer the neighbourhood, the higher the rents. Rents in the Old Nichol area near Hackney, per cubic foot, were four to ten times higher than rents in the fine streets and squares of West End London. The owners of the slum housing included peers, churchmen, and investment trusts for estates of long-deceased members of the upper classes.

    Domestic chores for women without servants meant a great deal of washing and cleaning during the Victorian era. Coal-dust from stoves (and factories) was the bane of the Victorian woman’s housekeeping existence. It coated windows (carried by wind and fog), clothing, and furniture and rugs inside the home. Washing clothing and linens would usually be done one day a week, scrubbed by hand in a large zinc or copper tub. Some water would be heated and added to the wash tub, and perhaps a handful of soda to soften the water.[9] Curtains were taken down and washed every fortnight; they were often so blackened by coal smoke that they had to be soaked in salted water before being washed. Scrubbing the front wooden doorstep of the home every morning was also an important chore to maintain respectability.

    I have my issues with MRAs, but at least on the whole they are about legal justice and the real issues caused by a fem-biased legal system, not some imagined right to a cushy life.

    Where did Edita run off to? I’d really like to see her justification for this tripe! Then again, why waste my time, eh? Getting into untangling that kind of muddled thinking is more work than it’s worth and likely won’t change anyone’s mind.

  10. CL,
    Of course you already know this, but if you want to be “treasured” and have your “needs” catered –look no further than Jesus.

    Yes, lol, re Victorian housework. Even if women do the majority of household chores, so what, it really isn’t work in the traditional sense.

  11. “Where did Edita run off to?”

    I doubt she’ll be back in this thread, CL. That’s how ignorant-but-confident people like her operate: she pops in, craps all over the place like an incontinent puppy, and scurries back to her hidey-hole until the next post.

    She’s a coward – which is typical for someone who knows she is intellectually and philosophically outclassed.

  12. Let me amend my last sentence for clarity. it should say”

    She’s a coward – which is typical for someone who feels she is correct but knows she is intellectually and philosophically outclassed.

  13. Just a quick thought before I go do something else for a while:

    What about putting the nonsense words “femicadeists” and “femicadeistes” on the list of things that result in a post being removed (except when used in a quotation, obviously)? Seems fair.

    Just kidding… sort of.

  14. Back to the survival of the fittest among blogs and websites, though. I wish FM expires sooner rather than later if they keep this up.

  15. “Why is it that men invented such labour saving devices as washing machines? Is it because they don’t like women, or because they love them?”

    I think they invented them to make money.

  16. Edita, you say that your mistique was taken from you. I am genuinely distressed to hear it. I want to give you your mistique back.

    In tatters.

    Wrapped in a cannonball.

    Please accept your mistique with open arms and your face tilted slightly forward.

    As a victim of child abuse due to my narcissistic father and his female enabler, I felt a profound need for an attachment figure – a need that went unfulfilled as I found, time and again, that women’s hypergamy caused them to feel disgust and contempt towards me specifically because of this need. These foul creatures, who asked me to treat them as my equals, would have sought me out as an attachment figure had they been in my situation; in previous years, I would have happily – and foolishly – taken up this role for their sake, not knowing that they would never have reciprocated.

    Nearly all the women I have spoken to, with the notable exception of Laura Grace, have silently praised hypergamy while denying it exists. Most of those who didn’t deny it likewise praised it.

    You are not my superior in any way. You are a barbarian, an emotional thug and a social parasite. You wish to inflict the suffering I had experienced on countless other men. You do not deserve “rights”. You deserve to be brought to justice.

  17. It is still possible to be treasured, but it requires that she submit to one man and can this attitude of “I want my privilege back”.

    it certainly is possible, even in these broken hours, for a woman to be loved and treasured, both by Christ and by a man

    however, the prog-feminists and the trad-feminists, like young edita, are not going to obtain that love by more coercions, deceits, demands, and manipulations

    that copter left saigon and it’s not returning, edita and co. better stop looking backwards, and start looking to the new world, lemme repeat —

    “Help Meet”

    — doing things to please God and HELP your man, does not include supremacy, equality, or the wiles and privileges of mystique

    God is plenty enough mystique for this shitty planet, that still doesnt know him

  18. I am truly astounded by Edita’s inability to engage in a debate and answer questions head on. She insists that feminism has harmed women more than men, so as such she cares nothing for men. It is all about her and the sisterhood.

  19. I dunno. I’ve read her blog and I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t see the sexes as having to be against one another, therefore I don’t have a problem with both sexes reaping the rewards of each others roles. Her view of patriarchy allows honor for both.

  20. Just visiting,

    If that was as far as it went there would probably be very little disagreement. The problem with TWRA’s like Edita is that she wants men to “take the risks” to set things aright, without lifting a finger to mitigate those risks.

    It’s just another version of, “Man up!”

    Their idea is that if men will just “Man up” and insist on leading women, then all will eventually be right with the world, and we’ll all have rainbows and butterflies flying out of our @$$e$. And if a few more million men and children get trampled waiting for that to happen… oh well – it’s not like anybody important is going to get hurt.

    They also insist that “chivalry” (as they mis-define it), is something that ALL men owe to ALL women, no matter who they are or what wreckage they have made of their lives, their husband’s lives, and their children’s lives.

    In other words, she wants men to behave as if feminism does not exist. That includes the “Family Law Meat Grinder” that allows ANY married or cohabiting woman the unilateral ability to separate a man from his children, his assets, and his future income any time she feels unhaaaaaaaaaapy. She wants men to “take the risk” that they won’t lose all their rights and be forced to keep all their responsibilities – even though it happens to men EVERY SINGLE DAY in “Family Court.”

    But rather than working to create the conditions under which men would gain rights commensurate with their responsibilities (and women would gain responsibilities commensurate with their rights), and changing the culture so that the majority of women would once again be worthy of a man’s love and efforts, she just wants men to keep throwing themselves into a situation where most women are whores and those whores can dial 9-1-1 and say, “He scares me,” to keep all a man has made while he is tossed aside like last month’s tampons.

  21. Manning up doesn’t bother me because I believe in womaning up. I don’t think that equality of low expectaion is a good thing. And I don’t see anything on her blog that goes against that.

    Divorce is a risk either way. The manosphere talks about mens experiences (as it should) but I don’t know of a single woman who gets alimony, and if she stayed home with the family, I don’t have anything against it. I don’t have a problem with child support being paid. As for the unhaaaaapy, if the risk is too high, don’t marry. Work towards ending no fault divorce.

    Marriage is a risk. Period. Not for the faint of heart. Choose wisely or not at all and realize that there are no garantees.

    As for men gaining the same rights, that’s fine, if you’re egalitarian. They aren’t.

  22. As for chivalry, there’s no law forcing any man to be chivilrous. Just as there’s no law forcing women to be chaste. It’s a marker of value and virtue. You’re free to be disgusted by slut walks ( Or at least I would hope that you would be) and I’m free to be disgusted by their male counterpart in the sphere. Anti chivillry rants.

  23. I suspect we agree more than we disagree, but I still think you’re missing the point about why Edita has such a bad reputation.

    I’m okay with “Man up” and “Woman up” as far as that goes. What I’m NOT okay with is “Man up no matter what.” Edita is VERY okay with that. The race to the bottom that feminism has caused between the sexes is, indeed, a bad thing, but it was feminism that caused it.

    Edita wants to solve the problem, not by eliminating the source (feminism and feminist-friendly “Family Law”), but by asking men to set their calendars back to 1957 and pretend that most women are still ladies.

    Feminists redefined the rules that used to govern the “sexual economy” (for lack of a better term). It used to be that both sexes had reasonable duties and commensurate expectations. It worked reasonably well for everyone, although women and children were the prime beneficiaries. Feminism removed duties from women while increasing their expectations of men – for exactly nothing in return.

    What did that get us? The average single women in the U.S. would have been considered un-marraigeable three generations ago because of her demeanor, lack of domestic skills, and the extent of her sexual experience.

    Statistically speaking, one of the greatest determining factors for marriage survival is the number of men the wife has had sex with outside of marriage. Dalrock posted the charts a few weeks ago so I won’t recreate them here, but a man who marries a virgin has an 80% chance of never getting divorced. Even one non-marital partner by the bride makes the odds go to about 50/50, and each additional one causes the odds to get a little worse. There is little correlation if the groom has had non-marital sex. That’s not to say that it’s right (I share your disdain for “players” and “pick-up artists”), but that marital survival is only weakly correlative.

    The bottom line is that a man takes a huge risk when he marries, while a woman does not. You say you don’t know any single women who get alimony – that only proves that the people you know are not statistically representative of the general populace.

    Half of marriages end in divorce. Since 70% of divorces are initiated by women, divorce simply cannot be a bad deal for women: unless you are all willing to stipulate that at least 1/3 of adult women are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

    I don’t think that millions of women are dumping their husbands because it’s a bad deal for them. They’re doing it because they know that they will get the house, the kids, the car, an unearned income stream, and their freedom. If we eliminated the ability of women to initiate no-fault divorce, eliminated or drastically reduced alimony, and returned to presumptive father-custody of minor children, the divorce rate would plummet.

    Edita doesn’t care about doing that. She wants guys to “Man up” under the current system. But the rules have, indeed, changed. The situation caused by feminism has turned traditional marriage into Russian Roulette with three chambers loaded (for men), and into a carnival ride with “Everybody’s a Winner!” for women.

    Edita wants to live as a “Traditional Woman?” Fine. My wife lives more-or-less like that. But before she tries to take the speck out of the eyes of men she needs to work on getting the beam out the eyes of women. That means an end to no-fault divorce, a return to presumptive father custody of minor children, an end to alimony, an end to child support without a DNA test to confirm paternity in all cases, an end to the “female victim” mindset and support system, and an end to abortion-on-demand… for starters.

    Edita wants to start at the end – guys being chivalrous. She needs to start at the beginning – the death of feminism in culture and law.

  24. I can see where Edita would run afoul of sphere sensibilities. Her chivalry for all doesn’t bother me too much because it is akin to when men say that a woman who has sex even once outside of marriage is a slut. People have different sensibilities. Hers are a very high standard of chivallry and chastity. Also, if I was in a situation of having to provide female chivallry (protection of children) I wouldn’t pick and choose between the brats and the goodie goodies. I might even be in a situation where they were strangers to me and I wouldn’t know. My honor would expect me to behave in a certain manner regardless. I do think that there are some women who are just too classless and troublemaking to waste the effort on. A man who constantly finds himself in the company of women who are so abhorent to him is probably better served by finding ways not to be in their presence. Life is too short to spend around toxic people even in a work environment. Also, how ladylike of me would it be if I was polite and considerate to only certain types of men, but had a mouth like a sailer and callous to others. That doesn’t mean that all men are deserving of ladylike considerations, but a certain standard requires consistency. And like my example of shunning or avoiding abhorent women, this is something a woman should also consider with abhorent men.

    I’m not sure leadership from the herd is practical. And it’s bad enough having a society of sluts. I’m not sure civilization could crawl back from”empowered” sluts AND “empowered ” cowards.

    I’m in agreement that most women today would have been considered unmarriagable at another time. Can they be rehabilitated. Deti seems to think so, but is cautious about it. I would share that caution.

    I’m also cautious about family law. I’ll be the first to admit that I can be a bit of a know it all on certain topics. Not on this Every time that I’ve contemplated how the laws could be made to punish frivolous divorce types, I end up seeing how my corrections could cause more harm. And I say this as a woman who does not get alimony or child support . No cash or prizes there. I’m willing to admit that I could be totally wrong, but I’m cautious about messing with allimony and child support laws. I don’t mess with things that I don’t have the wisdom for. I don’t know if Edita is against the other things that you’ve discussed . If it’s any consolation, I did read in one of her comments that fathers retaining custody under patriarchy is a good thing. Ensuring their family line and all. I don’t get the impression that she supports abortion. Again, I can’t speak for her.

    I can understand that Edita’s value’s clash with the sphere. Paul Elam’s letter to traditional women made it pretty clear that they are not allies. The thing is, I hold traditional values too.

  25. No, Deti is a well respected commenter within the manosphere.
    No relationship with either Deti or Edita.

  26. Just visiting,

    Again, it appears that we are in general agreement on most things. I agree with most of your latest post, but with a few caveats. First caveat: chivalry is not synonymous with polite. I am not suggesting that people should be rude to each other, but that chivalrous treatment is something a woman earns, not something every individual woman is owed by every individual man simply by virtue of having a uterus. I am polite to sluts and cads, but I will not accord chivalry to the slut nor admiration for the cad. Edita would have me extend chivalry (which goes far beyond everyday good manners) to all women, including whores.

    Second caveat, I’m not sure where you get the idea that there are a significant number of “empowered cowards,” as you put it. Surely you cannot be suggesting that men who refrain who marrying promiscuous women under today’s conditions of legal misandry in “Family Court” are cowards. Would you clarify your point?

    Third caveat: I have made my point about the possibility of sluts reforming and becoming “wife material” elsewhere, so I won’t repeat myself here, but I consider it highly unlikely to be worth the risk. Once a woman has lost her ability to pair-bond to a husband due to previous sexual experience (for many women the threshold is as low as one partner – for others it may be more), getting that ability back is akin to a blind person recovering sight: it can happen, but it takes a miracle.

    If we lived in a society where wives were expected to honor their vows as a matter of course the problem would be lessened a great deal: a woman who had impaired her ability to pair-bond would stay married. But we don’t: we live in a society where unhaaaaaaaapy wives are encouraged to “frivorce” their husbands and take their kids and their cash. Thus marriage to a non-virgin is simply too risky. She may be an exception, but the odds are bad and the costs of being wrong are catastrophic for men and children. At the same time, feminism encourages girls and women to “explore their sexuality,” which results in few women arriving at marriageable age with their virginity intact.

    Fourth caveat: Your comment about the conundrum of family law leaves me curious. You wrote, “Every time that I’ve contemplated how the laws could be made to punish frivolous divorce types, I end up seeing how my corrections could cause more harm. And I say this as a woman who does not get alimony or child support .”

    Cause more harm to whom? Any change would have winners and losers, but being a good (ex-) husband and “manning up” to his “responsibilities” to his ex-wife and kids (even if they are bastards born of his wife’s adultery), is simply to make a man a slave to the woman who defrauded him. Shouldn’t we worry more about making that right and worry less about making divorcing women comfortable after they break their vows?

    Fifth and final caveat: you mentioned that you do not receive alimony or child support – by which I infer that you are divorced with minor children. This is the internet and we’re all anonymous, so would you clarify (without revealing any identifying information), the circumstances? Were you a virgin when you married? Did you initiate the divorce? What were the actual causes of your divorce (complaints from both sides)? What were the religious affiliations of you and your husband? Are all of your children the biological offspring of your husband beyond any doubt whatsoever? Did you seek alimony and/or child support? Were you awarded alimony and/or child support by the court? If so, why don’t you get it?

    I just want to understand your frame of reference. (I have laid my cards on the table elsewhere on this site recently.)

  27. “Any change would have winners and losers, but being a good (ex-) husband and “manning up” to his “responsibilities” to his ex-wife and kids (even if they are bastards born of his wife’s adultery), is simply to make a man a slave to the woman who defrauded him. ”

    I would never refer to a little child or infant as a “bastard.”

  28. Fascinating series LGR, and thanks for the kind words.

    @CL

    They are just a bunch of spoilt brats with no anchor then.

    Yes. That is what struck me most reading their writing. The term I used in a recent post is untethered, but unhinged is a much better fit.

  29. I would never refer to a little child or infant as a “bastard.”

    Then you need to pick a language other than English. In the English language the word bastard refers to a person whose parents were not married at the time of conception. Deal with it.

    I have a bastard niece that I get along with extremely well (FAR better than with her ne’er-do-well legitimate half-siblings, in fact). My wife and I used to take her on vacation when she was little. Now that she’s grown and married my wife and I went on a Caribbean cruise with her and her husband a few months ago. Her bastardy is a reflection on her parents 27 years go, not her.

    Bastard or legitimate only refers to the circumstances surrounding the marital status of the parents at the time of conception – nothing more. Stop being hypersensitive: I used it as a descriptor – not an insult.

    By the way, the words “bastard” and “bastards” occur three times in the King James translation of the Bible – and all three times they are used to refer to people whose parents were not married.

  30. Edita has stopped by my place to be insufferably rude as well. If that’s the feminine mystique, then no thanks.

    On a side note: Jesse Powell is an atheist. I believe Edita is Jewish, at least culturally.

  31. Yes I was a virgin. Met hubby when I was 17. Yes all children were his. I ended our marriage due to his drug abuse which he would not seek treatment for. And you can’t get blood from a stone. Before the marriage ended, the house,business and savings were lost. Stood by him for another 18 months trying to get him to quit. He ended up in jail a few months after we split. It was quite the fall from grace. And no, he wasn’t always like that.

    I know that the 70% of divorce filing statistic is trotted out quite often to show that women are divorcing like crazy. The question is why? Yes, I think that some divorces are frivillous. But, I also think that that statistic is reflective of a few other things. A lot of times, if a man leaves and moves out, he doesn’t file. It’s not in his best interest finacially to do so. Also, as was pointed out by a lawyer in the sphere , traditionally, there’s been a courtesy extended to women by most men to file first. I don’t know if I beleive that. Again, I think that it just isn’t financially in the mans best interest to do so first.

    I’m also not sure that no fault divorce is reflective of only frivillous divorce. I could see it being used as a negotiation chip to insure privacy, to speed things along, or to try to avoid a really nasty divorce. Again, I’m not a fan of no fault divorce because I think that it can be abused by the flaky.

    Also, I do not have a problem with alimoney if the woman was home with the family. And I really do not have a problem with child support. I do have a problem with frivillous divorces, but, that’s a cultural and character issue that needs to be addressed. Legally, such a woman or man would hamster or lie about small stupid events to look larger than life anyways. I personally don’t believe that most women EPL.

    I disagree that chivilry doesn’t extend to basic courtesy. It’s a spin off of it. I have no idea if Edita or Jesse beleive that chivallry should be extended to whores. I think that it was Jesse who hinted that a post would be written going into more detail. Though, if you’re spending a lot of time with whores, you’ve got bigger problems on your hands.

    Empowered cowards. Exactly what it implys. Same hamstering and justification that goes on with empowered sluts.

  32. JV,

    Fair enough. I don’t think you were morally justified in filing for divorce unless there’s more to the story, though: as you did not mention adultery, abandonment, or severe one-sided violence. I’m certainly not going to excuse your husband’s conduct (which appears to have been utterly reprehensible), but in the absence of such provocations I would put “honor my vows” ahead of those other considerations. But that’s water under the bridge: I wanted to understand your frame – which is that a woman is justified in unilaterally initiating divorce if her husband is an unrepentant dirt-bag. I disagree, but I think I understand your frame of reference better now. Thank you for your candor: I’m sure your marriage sucked for a long time and I’m sorry you went through that. Two final questions if you care to answer: 1) Did you have a strong father growing up? 2) If so, did he approve of your marriage to your husband? (The only “wrong” answers would be both “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second.)

    I think you have some valid points about the causes wives file for divorce so much more than husbands, but historical and cross-cultural comparisons may be able to shed some light.

    I’m no fan of Islam, but within that culture wives generally cannot initiate divorce, and certainly not “no-fault” divorce. Divorce rates are low, as men are expected to honor their responsibilities.

    Before the 1850’s in the U.S. children of divorcing parents usually went with the father. The adoption of the “tender years doctrine” that gave wives custody (and monetary support) saw wife-initiated divorce begin climbing, never to return to the rates before that change.

    I agree that most women don’t “frivorce” for EPL, but it seems that lowering social stigma against it, plus giving women the presumption that they will get the kids and an income stream has lowered the disincentives to the point where it is very common. Reversing the incentives by sex in other times and places does not seem to have nearly the same effect: when men can safely dump their wives they seldom do – when women can safely dump their husbands they often do. Change the incentives for women and you change the outcome for everyone.

    You missed my point about chivalry versus manners. I agree that chivalry includes manners, but that manners does not encompass all that constitutes chivalry. In other words, good manners are a subset of chivalrous conduct, not the other way around. We would probably be in basic agreement if we were using identical definitions for those two ideas.

    Your “empowered cowards” answer is tautological. Since neither of us supports bad behavior by men either I suppose we could just let that one drop, though.

  33. “Fair enough. I don’t think you were morally justified in filing for divorce unless there’s more to the story, though: as you did not mention adultery, abandonment, or severe one-sided violence. ”

    Really? Moderate one-sided violence is OK?

  34. My husband was the last person on earth that I thought would end up the way he did. Though,hindsight is 20/20, and I had denial and hamstering going on.

    Yes, a very strong father . He liked my husband but did not approve of my marrying so young.

    I agree that the lowering of social stigma of divorce has increased people divorcing. I suspect that the entertainment industry has normalized divorce in the culture as well as crass behaviour. Our laws should make it harder to divorce, and I suspect that if children were were made the property of the father in all cases except for abuse,adultery or addiction, we would see less of it. But would we see false accusations to get around it? I don’t know. But I’d worry about that.

    A lot of it stems back to morality and character. As a culture we might need to work on that before we see the divorce culture beaten back.

  35. Really? Moderate one-sided violence is OK?

    Two things:

    1) Stop being histrionic.
    2) Stop putting words in my mouth.

    No, moderate violence is not “OK,” but neither is the occasional low-intensity scuffle grounds for divorce.

  36. What exactly is a one-sided low-intensity scuffle?

    Really? Okay, I’ll type s-l-o-w-l-y since there seem to be people here who cannot fathom simple concepts.

    Let’s say my wife gets mad at me and throws a pillow at my head (not that she would do that: we never even argue, but this sort of thing happens all the time in households all over).

    Bad form? Yes. One-sided? Yes again. Low intensity? Obviously.

    Legitimate grounds for divorce? Nope. Not even close.

    The fact is that feminists often use the term “violence” to describe anything that makes a woman uncomfortable. I call “B.S.” on that. The fact is that some people (mostly women) like a high level of drama in their lives. Politically incorrect? Yep? Do I give a crap that the truth is politically incorrect? Nope.

    I used the term “severe one-sided violence” to differentiate between those acts that are legitimate cause for separation and those that are just par for the course among high-drama couples.

    For some reason a lot of women are attracted to men who treat them like crap: guys who occasionally get physical. (The obverse is also true – women can run the gamut from “sweet-as-pie-every-day” to “psychotic bitch.”)

    My wife is definitely on the “sweet-every-day” side of the spectrum – because I chose to marry a low-drama woman.

    If you don’t marry a psychotic bitch or a brute you almost certainly won’t have to deal with it. if you do marry such a person it’s because you liked the drama and excitement. Some couples like drama and the angry make-up sex that comes later. Whatever: not my cup of tea and certainly not my problem.

    Keep your vows or don’t make them to begin with. Too many people of both sexes marry volatile people because of the excitement that surrounds those relationships, then get butt-hurt when the person doesn’t turn into June Cleaver or Mister Rogers.

  37. lg,

    Yep: clearly. I’ll ignore further goofy comments about this subject. The trolls are not even trying to sound rational at this point.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s