Reader Criticizes Blog Posters, Says ‘American Woman–Don’t Stay Away!’
“The more I know about men, the more I like dogs”–Gloria Allred
“The women I’ve known I wouldn’t let tie my shoe. I wouldn’t give them the time of day.”–Rod Stewart, from Every Picture Tells a Story
I sometimes get annoyed at the anti-woman comments I see on many men’s sites and blogs, including my own site. I generally allow them (as well as anti-male comments from feminist posters, of which there are several), both in the interest of open debate and because I don’t have time to micromanage my blog. However, when Stan Eads (aka “stanton”), one of my most intelligent and perceptive readers, wrote me a letter recently complaining about some of the comments on my blog, I invited him to write something more detailed on the subject for me. His article is “American Woman–Don’t Stay Away!”, and is posted below.
American Woman–Don’t Stay Away
By Stan Eads (aka stanton)
Some of the posters on Glenn’s blog have taken extreme positions. Misogynist-sounding expressions can be found here and there among the comments, and one theme in particular seems to be recurring with regularity, and that is regarding American women in particular. The refrain is that American women are entirely ruined as a group, and no longer worthy partners for honest and caring American men either as wives or as mothers for their children. With a couple of exceptions, these posters tend to post anonymously. Some examples:
“Yes women, America’s politicians, courts, idiot-staffed-government agencies and pig-lawyers have exploited you more than any ‘man’ could ever have exploited you — by making you so unattractive that sane men are running away from you and not looking back.”
“By my estimate, the complete collapse of American women is within America’s proximal reach in the next 5 to 10 years, so bloated and unattractive have they become on the falsities they have been gorging themselves on. So bloated and unattractive indeed.”
And there are many more where these came from.
I have a problem with this on at least two levels. First of all, I totally disagree with the premise, that there is some kind of systemic problem with American women. There clearly is a problem with some aspects of American culture, where men are devalued and considered legitimate foils for all types of media where other groups are not.
The American family law/court system is clearly out of control, and is destroying the lives of honest citizens, not to mention creating nightmare childhood experiences for children on a massive scale. Some women are caught up in the drama of these things, certainly, and others actually celebrate and seek to perpetuate in intensify these horrors. Such women are a small but vocal minority, and are generally easily identified. And in the midst of the emotionally traumatic throes of a divorce action, many are unable to resist exploiting the absolute power that the courts hand them. (If men had such dangerous power given to them I would like to think that we would use it more responsibly than many women have, but I don’t know that we would. I do know that many men would also be corrupted thereby, and would be just as harsh in wielding it as some of the women are now.)
But the great majority of women are not in any of these categories. American women do not fit in any mold at all. They are as diverse a lot as they could possibly be, and one will find among them any and every type imaginable. Thus, if one expects to find just a bunch of screeching feminists, they are out there to be found, and the observer will thus declare his description of American women to be confirmed. I happen to believe that some of the finest women in the world are right here in America, and surprise! That’s what I found. I am married to one of them. (I might add, only after the horror story of a divorce that is easily a match for all but the worst I’ve read about here, so I am not unfamiliar with the dark side.) All of you complainers about American women – please have a good look inside yourselves. Have a different expectation, and you will have a different experience.
My other problem with these complainers about American women is concerning the consequences of their repeated comments on Glenn’s blog. These comments are not in alignment with Glenn’s mission, if I may be so bold as to declare this in his behalf, and the repeating of them in this blogspace results in detracting from this mission, which is to address the injustices males face in modern western society where men have been heretofore silenced. What I have seen over and over is that when misandrists venture in to engage in discussion of the topics that Glenn has raised, they invariably end up addressing the extremists about blaming their problems on women. The rest of us are thus denied the opportunity to actually discuss and defend the issues that Glenn has raised. We do not “blame our problems on women,” whether American or not, and we end up out of the conversation.
What is the solution? I don’t think the “Hugo-esque”* response of large-scale banning is the answer. Free speech is important, and blogs have become a vital part of a massive American and international conversation. I would start by requesting that these commenters – you know who you are – practice self-restraint to a point. You have stated your opinion on this matter, and we have heard it. There is no need to pull the conversation back there at every opportunity.
Ask yourself before you post: Does this comment further the discussion at hand, or does it urge new discussion of MY particular issues/conclusions?
(*Hugo Schwyzer went on a banning spree after some threats from several of his regulars. He was no doubt intimidated by the way Barry Deutsch had just been bullied about being too civil to men’s and father’s supporters. I was the one of the few dissenting voices he didn’t ban, and that led me to preemptively take my leave.–Stan)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
July 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Advertising is directed at the masses to sell the most product. Today a great deal of advertising is directed at females who control most of the money in this country and who make 80% of purchasing decisions. Most of the advertising ridicules men in general to appeal to the most women. The woman is shown as smart, strong, wise. The man is shown as stupid, weak, immature. If this did not appeal to most women, advertisers sure as heck would not use this tactic as much as they do. Why is it okay to insult males in general but most women and many Stuart Smalley-type men get all upset when a few militant MRAs get angry?
Answer: because they are hypocrites.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I forget which actress said it, but rumors are only hurtful when they’re true.
The whole problem started in the first place because men have been apologetic and afraid to offend women which has produced a culture of women acting in a spoiled, self-centered, and randomly destructive manner. It’s not going to be fixed by walking on eggs!!!
Foreign men (and women) commonly joke about the selfishness and even viciousness of American women. I’ve heard about this for DECADES from them. I tried dating American women myself, for decades, and nearly all of them were either/and messed up or selfish or exceptionally unattractive. I thought to myself: Sure, I could settle for an ugly American woman (and I do mean UGLY) and HOPE she wouldn’t act as badly as other women later, but why?
Even the most extremist posters usually lay the reason for the problem at the foot of the legal system and even American men. It’s not the women’s fault 100% of the time but they are, what they are. Men didn’t act this monstrously in our culture when they had power with women. Women act as badly in our culture as the worst men in other cultures treat their women. Hell, that’s why many American women will defend their rotten treatment of the men in their life with a statement like: “Sure, men exist to pay the bills and I get affirmative action privileges but women in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear veils!”
Western men’s primary fault lies in that they’re treated women too good. Time to rectify the situation.
“We’ve changed the rules! From now on, all the fights are fair!” — The Quick and the Dead
July 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am
I just watched a video on foxnews.com about the age old question of who wears the pants in American homes. The study showed that the gals do. This is part of the picture, part of defining why there is the (correct) perception that American women are tainted goods largely.
Ive said before, a man can almost never win an argument with a woman. Even when the issue goes his way, she conceded the action but not the matter. The level of frustration that men experience when daily negotiating the gauntlet of female reasoning leads them to simply aviod the discourse and yield leadership.
In the extreme, when a man doesn’t yield, the woman will in many cases avail herself to the all but openly declared advocacy of the family court, call him a “jerk” (I wonder if that is codified in any state…the word jerk) and divorce him…you go girlfriend, yea!
A friend of mine told me about his final days in court during the break of his 30 year marriage. There were (as usual) no grounds and wife was bored…he was a jerk. Theyw ent before the judge and the woman had piles of notes to recount how big a jerk he was. The judge said, mam, are you and your attorney prepared? She somehow suggested that yes, she was going to regale all with tales of jerkness. Judge said, but we’ve only to split the assets and thats it, did you bring any figures. No she had not. My friends lawyer said this judge had told him privately many times that the women are seeking a TV moment whereby the court issues a proclamation that the man is OFFICIALLY AN ASSHOLE.
How does this relate to the topic? Because the American womans definition of asshole is a man that doesn’t recreate himself in her image.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:58 am
>>But the great majority of women are not in any of these categories. American women do not fit in any mold at all. They are as diverse a lot as they could possibly be, and one will find among them any and every type imaginable.
dude…the great majority of men also do not fall into any category stereotype created by the feminazis and the bloody misandric lawmakers. 99% of men suffer due to laws meant for 1% of the men for no fault of theirs. Similarly, it is the job of the remaining 80% of the women to suffer(if that is possible) for the actions of the 20% feminazis. And if the 80% do not want to suffer, then they better make the difference for the men the way the vast majority of the men made the difference for the women long back to protect them from the 1%. They better join the MRM the way men supported women’s rights then and make the difference for their own sons and brothers the way men made the difference for their daughters and sisters. If they do not make the difference, they have no right to crib….ultimately, women should also face the consequences of their own actions and inactions and such moderate views will have no impact on making any difference.
Any revolution needs both the extremists and the moderates…people listen to moderates only when the extremists make an impact. And we need women in the movement both as extremists and moderates for the sheer purpose of making it seems like an unselfish endeavour.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
In #18 I made clear the hard line that has to be recognised. Women have broken Trust and as a consequence Men have lost Faith in them.
I also said “Yes there are good women about. But the bulk start out as good little babies, charming toddlers, rising stars in mommy and daddy’s eyes, and quickly adopt an entitlement attitude that is common to 90% at around puberty.”
So what of the 10% remaining? Maybe it is 12% or 15. I don’t know. But even the divorce stats show it cannot be larger than 20% as 80 % of divorces are initiated by women who said ”Till Death do us Part’.
But there may well be a large number of ‘good women’ about who are getting severely hurt by the prevailing breaks in Trust and Faith.
These women are a hope. Hope has mostly gone the way of Faith and Trust, but it remains the only possibility for good men and the good women. The average women and the good women have remained largely silent in the face of a huge anti-male sentiment in society.
They have to stop being silent.
Some have stopped and make loud noises as we do. Some indeed are heroines. They are mainstays of the MRM. Some hate the way men feel and get further hurt by the way men express their feelings. Some get rejected by the very men and men’s movement that they are trying to help.
This is unfortunate. It is where we men can cut some slack and recognise that all does not have to be lost. Resurrection can occur. Such good women allies can be nurtured and welcomed. They do earn the trust back. That doesn’t mean we have to absolve the gender, the bulk of women. But we do have to acknowledge and support these particular women, if for no other reason than (masculine) fairness.
And Hope.
Society is made of men and women. Not just one or the other. For society to change back to some semblance of sense and sensitivity, women will have to join us in demanding it. Feminism didn’t get where it is today by women’s effort alone. Men were in there screwing things up too. Manginas. I very much doubt Feminism would have been successful at all if men had not helped it.
We NEED the good women. We need to encourage them. As above, I have strong doubt that men will achieve a better society without the help of good women. These women may well have to put up with the ‘daily knife cuts’ that men have got used to.
These women will be sad and mad (angry) but they are not Bad. They will feel that we men are unfair. Just as we feel women are. They will share the pain.
One day Men’s Faith will come back, Trust will have grown again. It will be realistic the next time.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Denis….here here….ser gut, muy bien, todo bon, weeeeee weeeeee (whatever)
July 14th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
MRAs can always expect the Stuart Smalley’s of the world to predictably tell men to “look inside” when bringing up the “It’s not all American women” rant. If we lived in a world where few divorces occured or where, when divorces did occur, men and father’s received equal justice to women and mother’s then maybe we could say that it’s not all women. Or at least not most women. But a majority of marriages end and women primarily end them. Why do ALL women get favortism in education and employment also just for being female? Why is most discretionary government far greater for ALL women than for men just because they are female? Why is criminal law favorable to women in many cases and why is enforcement of the law frequently more favorable for women than for men? Why does our public and private institutions give ALL women preferential treatment over men simply for being female? The problem is both the unfair system AND the majority of American women. They have a symbiotic relationship where each feeds off the other, which results in both gaining greater and greater influence and control over this society and men. There size and numbers increase year after year. Most women are part of the problem. It is way past time for each and every man to always hold them accountable. Women do not need any more men defending them-not even from militant-minded MRAs. They have vast resources already defending their indefensible behaviors and attitudes. The Stuart Smalley’s are a problem that MRAs will one day have to eliminate.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
By the way, I also believe that if women knew that the government wouldn’t force her man to support her after divorce, regardless of her past behavior, we would have a lot fewer divorces. I further bet American women would treat us men a whole lot different during marriage, divorce and afterward if they knew that our continued support was contingent on how we were treated by them prior to her support requests.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
To Gonzman:
>I didn’t say that both parents should be punished if the other acts badly.
Yes, you did. It’s quoted above.
Give me a break! Do you also believe that every time the government raises taxes on something by $1.00 per purchase and previously 100 people purchased that item, the government will now get an extra $100 in taxes into the foreseeable future? Is it just possible that a certain percentage of buyers will decide to no longer purchase that item or get it on the black market where the extra tax would not be paid and as a result, the government may soon take in only $60-$70 extra instead of the extra $100 they’d planned on getting to pay for their $100 pork bill? This same concept is seen when the government lowers taxes and tax receipts collected by the government go up.
What I stated, in effect, is that women should be held responsible for their actions and choices in life just like us men are. This business of the government allowing women to make whatever choices they wish at every stage of the game and supporting her no matter what regardless of her previous choices, has got to stop.
If women knew they would be held responsible for choosing a bad boy as so many women do and they can no longer expect the government to step in as her primary protector in life and force her man at gunpoint or by threat of jail to act in a way that’s contrary to his nature, do you really think women would continue to act in the same way as they do now? Do you believe that 40% of all births in this country would continue to be born to single mothers? What percentage of women marry men with the expectation of changing him because he isn’t really what she wanted but is “close enough” for the moment while planning on getting the rest through whining, withholding of sex and government intervention if all else fails.
If a woman knows that she will lose her parental rights upon admitting she chose to have children by a man who doesn’t want them or want to support them and we did away with forced child support, do you really believe she would still make THAT choice? Or do you suppose she more likely choose a slightly different course of action, like having children with a man who wants them?
The bottom line is that we need to get the government out of our marital and parental lives and that’s the only way marriage to an American woman would be amenable to me. And the only way we can do that is to immunize mothers and fathers against the fighting that invariably comes with the marital territory. We must take the fighting out of divorce by design. We must require both parents to resolve their problems between themselves and ultimately both be held responsible for their actions and choices in life, including women.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Well, your brother should have done his homework before getting married. Again, don’t get married, and don’t live with someone, it’s that simple.
Society has changed. People don’t work for the same company for 20 years anymore. Most people don’t live in the same town for their whole lives, either.
Date a lot. Have fun with women who want to spend time with you, and be clear about what you want. If they want more than what you’re willing to give, move on and let them go.
That’s society in America today – ranting about getting screwed over isn’t going to help change it, and will alienate a good portion of those women who might otherwise want to help you out if you do decide to take action to change it.
If the sexist feminists are so bad, why copy their strategy and act like sexist MRAs? It just helps build a case against the movement for true equality.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Cybro…
Saying no to bad behaviour doesn’t always work…
My own mother has been married 9 times and I’ve known several wimmin like my next door neighbor who have either been married several times or have had children by as many as four seperate men…
Women tend to leave a man who says no and move on to another man who will (for a time at least) say yes…In this I’ve been lucky because I tell my wife no on a regular basis and she still hasn’t left me after 25 yrs…
It wasn’t until my brother had married his second wife that I found out that each of her three children had a seperate father and on the very first new years eve after my brothers death she went out and got pregnant for a fourth time…
This is why many men are afraid tell the women in their lives No and is just one of the reasons why I have discouraged my own son from entering into an intimate relationship with a female…
Far better to live ones dreams then to risk it all on a single roll of the dice by getting married in this day and time…
July 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
40-50 years ago the feminists broke up mens social networks such as the elks club, bowling leagues,moose clubs ect. ect. All in the name of “breaking up the patriarchy”…
“breaking the patriarchy” is their interpretation of what they did..
keeping men broken, isolated, and easilly manipulated so they could work themselves to an early death is another interpretation of what they did.
With the internet men are communicateing outside the main stream social control media..and are starting to come together again..
July 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Chiefbiggywiggy is right. You have to say no to all the bad behavior. All this bitterness towards american females is only because men had never said no to begin with. They just went rushing forth without paying attention to the red flags hoping that things would just work out.
With all these sob stories about marriage failures I wonder why any man still goes through with it. I’m starting to believe that most men really are the idiots that they are portrayed to be in the media.
I guess some people can’t learn by what is going on around them and need three or four failed marriages to get the idea.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Glenn…
There is an old saying that goes something like this: Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes…
I used to think like you until I myself got married and still am (25 yrs and counting) and began researching feminism…Then watched my father die from an STD infection given to him by one of my stepmothers and just before he died he was teetering on the edge of bankrupcy because of the other one…
As well as watched my youngest brother get financially raped by his first wife in family court and was forced years later to give up all of his parental rights to his children to keep from being financially destroyed after he became disabled…Which he didn’t want to do but did so after his daughter told him to his face that she would have no problem with lying to a judge by falsely claiming that my brother (her father) had hit her when he had never touched her…
BTW my brother remarried and then committed suicide Thanksgiving night a few years later after receiving a phone call from one of his second wife’s female coworkers who claimed that his wife from whom he was seperated and attempting to reconcile with was having an affair with another coworker…This later turned out to be a lie but by then it was too late and the damage had been done…
Yep been there done that and definitely have no plans of going there again in this lifetime…
July 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Whenever a women repeats the not all women are bad mantra to me I always ask:
“Would you as a women agree to marry if the laws regarding marriage, child custody and support were enforced in such a way. That you could be removed from your home with nothing but the clothes on your back and yet be required to pay a large share of your income to your ex spouse for many years to come and never be allowed to see your children?”
No women has ever answered yes to this question…To which I always ask: “Then why do you expect men to get married under these very same conditions?”
July 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
1. Either both parents get equal custody or both parents lose custody.
2. If the man is so bad a parent that he should lose his parental rights, the woman should also lose her parental rights for choosing him and having children with such a man. and the implied converse If the woman is so bad a parent that she should lose her parental rights, the man should also lose his parental rights for choosing her and having children with such a woman.
3. They must both properly parent in marriage and in divorce. Or they are both unfit.
I didn’t say that both parents should be punished if the other acts badly.
Yes, you did. It’s quoted above. With no qualifiers, except those you add in a later missive. (Which is more than just a little disingenuous for you to expect someone to clairvoyantly know)
If you meant something besides what you said, it is hardly reasonable for you to accuse me of being a “male feminist.”
July 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
They don’t stay away, they just stay mad all the time.
I agree that it serves no purpose to trash american women. They are only going to get away with whatever you let them. It has been that way ever since Adam failed to tell Eve no, get away from that tree, you can’t have everything you want.
Now here we are. Nothing has changed. You boys are still running around giving chicks everything they want and you can’t figure out why they are all mad at you.
Trying saying no every once and a while. Say no to marriage. Say no to dating. Say no to opening doors, sending cards, flowers and gifts. No to all that trash until they do something for you first.
You will be amazed how fast bad behavior goes away when it is not rewarded.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:38 am
>To a certain extent you can hardly blame people – women – for learning the lessons that this society has gone to a great deal of trouble to teach them.
Baloney! Women must be held accountable for their actions. And just because someone teaches them that black is white, that doesn’t absolve them of the responsibility for determining that black is black and white is white. And for doing the right thing. Theft is theft, whether government sanctioned or not.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am
No – I can’t go with this at all.
This means if a MAN goes into a marriage, keeps his bond, and then she decides “He’s neglecting me by working two jobs to support this family, so I am going to bang the pool boy, even though he’s been a loyal father and husband for the past 16 years” that it is his fault for her changing.
No. People change. And it is unreasonable to expect a man or woman to forsee this change, or to hold them accountable for their partner’s change to bad behavior.
That type of thing is a license for a woman to have children by other men – and then YOU have to support them or lose your kids (while she goes and has more). That’s a license for a man to abuse a woman, and her have no recourse.
That says “No matter how bad your partner acts, you have no control in it, and your only choices are to suck it up, or lose everything for your lack of psychic abilities.
Ain’t right. It is a license for bad behavior.
You won’t go with it? Who cares? You asked me if I’d be willing to marry an American woman if the family court system was fair. And I said HELL NO and explained what it would take. (By the way, I’m no longer attracted to American women (faux men) at all, so my list was only for the benefit of other men who still think that American women are the only game in town.) You asked if I’d be willing to accept marriage to an American woman if the family court system was “fair” and gave women the opportunity to be compensated by the man if the man “misbehaves”. Who decides what’s fair? American women? Judges? Child support agencies? Child protective services agencies? And how do the courts tell when the woman is lying? Everyone in the system knows that women never lie, that women are always the victim and we men are always the predator.
You said that under my system, if the woman screws around it would be the man’s fault. I never said that. What I said is that they can get a divorce and live apart but both still have to parent their children equally. Under our system now, when the woman screws around, it’s irrelevant. She still gets the kids, house, car, alimony, child support and the opportunity to find another sucker to add his support to her insatiable needs. All the guy gets is the bill for all this, permission to see his children once every two weeks if he’s lucky, and the blame for her having to screw around.
People change? I agree. But that doesn’t change both parents’ responsibility to parent their children. Divorce or otherwise. And the government shouldn’t have the power to take our children from us as parents. If we break the law, we go to jail. If we don’t break the law and go to jail, we don’t. In fact, how many women’s prisons have child care facilities these days so that American women criminals can still continue to parent their children while in jail? This should stop, too.
You said that, “That type of thing is a license for a woman to have children by other men – and then YOU have to support them or lose your kids (while she goes and has more). That’s a license for a man to abuse a woman, and her have no recourse.
That says “No matter how bad your partner acts, you have no control in it, and your only choices are to suck it up, or lose everything for your lack of psychic abilities.
Ain’t right. It is a license for bad behavior.
Women already have a license to have as many children as they desire by as many different men as they wish with no upward limit on the number of children they can have or the total amount of money they can collect from however many male suckers they can screw. On the other hand, because child support is based on the man’s income, he is effectively restricted in the number of children he can have unless he stays married, no matter how much money he makes. Make more money? Pay more money! The woman can always go back for more. In fact, there was an article recently where a woman went back for more money after 30 years and got it because she had mismanaged her settlement money and he was apparently doing well.
And my system doesn’t make the man responsible for another man’s children. Only his own, DNA-proven children.
>Would you sign a business contract that says, “If either party breaches this contract the other will be punished too if they complain about it for their lack of vision?
That’s the contract you are expecting us men to sign when we marry American women based on your unproven assertion that there are plenty of good women out there. The only difference is that in about 98% of the cases, women today are the punisher and we men the punishees.
I didn’t say that both parents should be punished if the other acts badly. I said that both should be permanently responsible for parenting their children. And no matter what happens, they must work out their problems, barring criminal behavior that must be proven in a criminal court of law, not in family court. Men are perpetually punished now when they make a bad decision as to whom to marry and have children with. Why should you have a problem with women having the same level of responsibility? Unless you are secretly a woman. Or a male feminist.
By the way, do you think that if both parents were held responsible for their choices in life, rather than just the man, that both individuals would be a lot more careful in whom they choose to have children with?
Whew! I’ve got to quit posting at this site! These arguments can really get long!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Sh*t, there is a lot of bitterness here.
And that is bad why?
Most of us who are soured on marriage bought the lie of “forever and ever” and “you will win out if you do right” then got screwed by a system that is hostile to us.
I’d encourage the hell out of your daughters to read this. Maybe it will be a wake-up call to them, and help them to say “I am not going to participate in perpetuating this inequality, and I am going to help break the cycle.”
At least if you raise the right otherwise.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Christians and Prenuptial Agreements, Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?
A crisp clear blue sky, temperature in the 70’s, low humidity and a slight breeze all frame the day where two young people will exchange the vows that sever the bonds of one nuclear family and form the basis for a new one. A botanists dream kaleidoscope of flowers and greenery, rented tuxedos and custom made dresses in colors that render them useless the next day, an embarrassing group of incompatible friends and relatives, and a nervous father of the bride with a bank account sometimes tens of thousands of dollars lighter complete the backdrop. No one gives a thought to the disposable opulence, for after all, this is marriage, an event that happens once. It is a “till death do us part” spiritual and contractual arrangement.
There is only one small problem. Many of these will break this contract. And for those whose wedding day setting included a preacher at their home church, the likelihood of the contract being broken is even higher. The family that prays together stays together…until they break up. Why does this problem exist in the church where presumably a vow before God holds more value?
Bible believing Christians must recognize that divorce is sin. God even says He hates divorce. Jesus made allowances under duress. He clearly did not endorse modern no fault laws. But mention of divorce being sin is frowned upon and followed by qualifiers about forgiveness and circumstantial provocations. We just can’t bring ourselves to be judgmental about divorce. Contrast the churches treatment of homosexuality, which God declares an abomination, to that of divorce, which He hates. It is little wonder consistent Christian is considered an oxymoron by many. If you accept that divorce is sin, it is the only sin I can think of that the church will actually help you commit. Regardless of reason or fault, most churches embrace everyone experiencing the pain of divorce and deliver comfort and assistance. Some go so far as to organize meals, carpools, childcare, etc. How many churches have a program to assist adulterers and their struggles while they are committing adultery? Imagine asking, “Could someone drive me to the hotel where I will meet my mistress?” Absurd.
If you are not a church member, and you are involved in divorce, your support network is limited to friends and family, and is usually smaller and lacking structure. There isn’t a free group therapy session like the churches “Divorce Care Workshop” waiting for you to join. This partially accounts for the statistical difference in divorce rate in and out of the church. There are myriad other factors beyond blog scope. So what can we Christians who believe the marriage contract should not be unilaterally cancelable do?
Most divorces are filed as no fault due to irreconcilable differences. This represents the unilateral breaking of the most significant contract we will ever enter, often against the wishes of the other party for usually self-centered reasons. Statements like, “I just don’t feel loved”, “I need some space” “We’ve grown apart and no longer are in love” are the touchy feely norm. The law has turned the other way and greased the skids for the continuance of this tragedy. Imagine telling the lender that you and your car have grown apart and therefore you intend to stop making payments.
The myth of children’s resiliency has been shattered in the past decade as collateral damage manifests in the adult children from the initial 1970’s wave of no fault divorcees. But the church is not the law, and therefore must work on the margins to lower the divorce rate.
Returning the stigma to divorce is a good starting point. Being honest in the church about what is happening and why can begin the cultural transformation that must occur. The church expends countless resources on the symptoms of family break up, like alcoholism and depression, while looking the other way and accommodating what is the root cause of many of societies biggest problems. A reduction in church divorces would lead to a reduction in the need for church programs for other hurts. And while the church cannot change the law, the church can make it policy that marriages performed in the church by the pastor are taken more seriously.
Arkansas and a few other states have written Covenant Marriage into family law.
This covenant type of marriage is a prepackaged prenuptial agreement that spells out a very difficult path to achieve divorce, a long waiting period, and places immediate and long term consequences on both parties. Not all states have covenant marriage laws. In that case, prenuptial agreements can accomplish the same thing. Rather then being a vehicle for a wealthy spouse to protect assets from the other, the church can develop an acceptable template that, when incorporated in the premarital counseling, can have the effect of discouraging the filing of unwarranted divorces. No one wants victims to be trapped in abuse etc. But in the case of one spouse discarding another who wishes to preserve the family, the church must recognize victims there too in the persons of the unwilling spouse and the children. A sound Biblically developed prenuptial agreement will preserve families in the church. The decision to file a divorce should be more than well considered. It should be prayed about, counseled, and prayed about some more. When it is finally taken, the decision should demonstrate that the person wishing to divorce sees immediate negative consequences worth enduring to end up divorced.
Where once prenuptial agreements seemed like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the church could make lemonade from the lemons available and start to turn the tables on the deterioration of the American family.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Sh*t, there is a lot of bitterness here. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and saying they have to get married. I don’t think American culture is producing much of anything family-oriented, but I do know I wouldn’t want my daughters to read some of the posts above.
The answer is simple. Don’t get married. My girlfriend (divorced) points out that all of her unmarried friends are equally as angry about the situation, because the legal/cultural environment has generated a very large cohort of men who do not want to get married or live with a woman.
In one or two generations marriage will be in a state as it is now in Sweden or Britain – a minority arrangement, with the legislature scrabbling to generate more laws to cover other living arrangements so as not to lose revenue lost from dwindling marriage/divorce cases…
July 14th, 2007 at 9:01 am
i say what i know, even when it gets deleted by ml. the younger generation must stand and fight…or be roled by those who have an agenda, male or female. think twice/three times before getting married. don’t put your assets on the line ( that is no commingling of funds or joint asset investments and/or accounts ). insist on dna proof if you are named the father. pay half when dating, never more. stand your ground and put your chin to the wind. listen to older men who have felt the hammer. decide for yourself if you are ready to hold yourself accountable for your future security and contentment or are willing to roll the dice and put your entire lifeand future in the hands of a women who can turn on you in a second and create a situation where your world explodes, irrevocably i will add. is the sex worth it? you better hope so.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:34 am
It does not matter to me what “the American Woman” does. If it was true that ALL women were indeed like that, BUT, one could get a fair shake in family court, marriage would be worth it because the law of consequence woulkd prevail – behave badly, break up your marriage, violate the legal contract – and you reap consequences.
In fact, I imagine having to face such consequences would shape many up – indeed, I think a great deal of the problem ios caused the the tendency in this overly secularist society to conflate “Legal” with “Morally right,” or at least “Not Illegal” with “Morally Neutral.”
To a certain extent you can hardly blame people – women – for learning the lessons that this society has gone to a great deal of trouble to teach them.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Amfortas, that was good.
We have danced along the edges here of a coming “something”, a reckoning of sorts. Well it’s still coming but we can see it now, where before it was just past the horizon. This little band-o-bro’s has lost faith in the American woman. Imagine that. I submit there are many men about suffering in silence, flirting with these notions, not knowing they are ok to feel that way, and keeping silent.
There are not enough men with the guts to say it for it to garner any reaction from women but disdain. They will dwell in the “not all ____________” realm and each claim to be the exception. It is both sad and encouraging to see conclusions reached like this.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:02 am
I propose a 5 year moratoriam on marraige until Our society gets a few things worked out!!!no joke.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Furthermore, there is no more sole custody. Either both parents get equal custody or both parents lose custody. If the man is so bad a parent that he should lose his parental rights, the woman should also lose her parental rights for choosing him and having children with such a man. Equal justice… both are responsible for their actions or non action. They must both properly parent in marriage and in divorce. Or they are both unfit.
No – I can’t go with this at all.
This means if a MAN goes into a marriage, keeps his bond, and then she decides “He’s neglecting me by working two jobs to support this family, so I am going to bang the pool boy, even though he’s been a loyal father and husband for the past 16 years” that it is his fault for her changing.
No. People change. And it is unreasonable to expect a man or woman to forsee this change, or to hold them accountable for their partner’s change to bad behavior.
That type of thing is a license for a woman to have children by other men – and then YOU have to support them or lose your kids (while she goes and has more). That’s a license for a man to abuse a woman, and her have no recourse.
That says “No matter how bad your partner acts, you have no control in it, and your only choices are to suck it up, or lose everything for your lack of psychic abilities.
Ain’t right. It is a license for bad behavior.
There must never be any pitting of one spouse against the other for any reason. The marital bond must be held as sacred.
That’s a religious stance. One which I happen to agree with, but marriage is a legal contract. You said it yourself – a business partnership. All business contracts have conditions under which the contract terminates, and clauses under which the contract provides sanctions.
Would you sign a business contract that says, “If either party breaches this contract the other will be punished too if they complain about it for their lack of vision?
July 14th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Stan Eads (aka stanton) said: If men had such dangerous power given to them I would like to think that we would use it more responsibly than many women have, but I don’t know that we would.
Are you under the impression the men’s movement is about taking power? Was the civil rights movement about blacks taking over America? Or was it about getting what was rightfully ours?
This statement of yours show that you aren’t paying full attention. Yes, there are some guys who go too far, and they do some damage to the MRM. But what causes more damage to us- these guys, or a war between them and you?
Besides, when you’ve been royally screwed (by whomever) and you just clam up, you end up having a massive coronary. Sometimes, it’s healthy to vent.
But guys, don’t forget – the ‘opposition’ could read what you write (and copy and paste, and post a million times). Do your best not to load their weapons for them. In other words, read what you wrote before you hit the ’submit’ button.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:11 am
There is always a PC Thought Police enforcer in every crowd.
Misogyny: Any expressed thought that is counter to “woman good, man bad”.
Misandry: There is no such thing. All men are scum.
But remember, some guys have wives who read their posts, and they best tow the line or they could be next (again).
I will say this. If fathers could take children away from mothers any time they want, if husbands could throw wives out of the house but make her continue to pay his bills, if most entertainment was of the “man good, woman bad” variety, and if the justice system was based on a “male = victim, female = perpetrator” model, then we would have a lot of fat, lazy, ignorant, greedy, child-exploiting, selfish men on our hands.
And there would still be some good men despite it.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Jeez, you guys!
Do me a slight favor, please reread !18 (amfortas), is it entirely possible that men have finally woken up? At least some of us? If ANYONE can ssert that Amerikan women are decent loving responsible or anything even remotely positive I think the time has come to look for another website.
These fat rude stupid bimbos don’t even support their own uber slut (Couric). Too stupid to even watch the news.
And what, now we’re gonna sing their praise?
Good God.
The adivice I give my almost 16yo daughter (I have total custody because “mom” is too psychotic and an abuser, that was the decision AFTER 80+ trips to female-ly court) is to leave this stupid country after college. I’ve told her she can join me in whatever ex-pat country I move to after retirement.
Glenn, I’m surprised.
These fat slobs (aka Amerikan females) should be shunned/ignored and any male dull enough to marry or impregante one of these self absorbed “independant morons deserves what the courts will shove up his all too well known posterior.
Most of them are really okay? Shame on you guys.
Read the ads of the divorcees, almost all use the “I’m a strong independant woman”, “WHAT”, are you kidding me? Most of them can’t wipe their ass in the right direction. Look at the average American kid raised by the average Amerikan mother – Last in the industrialized world in learning, if male likely on some ADD Rx, fat, lazy, disrespectful and the list goes on. They’re mostly morons reciting they work so hard they deserve everything the ex ever makes and more.
Have you no shame? Now there is amove in the idiot Kongrass to raise taxes on men and lower taxes on these fat slobs.
Whats next? We wipe their large asses for them?
And no, I don’t hate women. Just returning from Asia and ffound their women beautiful. Thin, respectful and hard working. Not the pathetic fat slobs we have here.
A very disgusted Ed signing off
July 14th, 2007 at 12:09 am
When a man gets married, he is asked to put his trust in:
1. the woman, who could change
2. the government, which could change the marriage laws at any time
3. courts
4. the lawyers
Can any of the above be trusted?
July 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
To Gonzman:
>IF fault-based divorce was returned, and you could get a fair shake in court vis-a-vis your good behavior vs. bad behavior, would it become worth the risk to you?
Not no but HELL NO!
When a man and woman get married, they are supposed to be forming a partnership for the best interests of both. If it doesn’t work out, there should be no option for one to “punish” the other in any way for any reason because for a marriage to truly work, each is expected to be honest and open and vulnerable to the other. In fact to truly support marriage, it should be against the law for either to hurt the other during a divorce or afterward. Furthermore, it should be against the law for a man or woman to testify in court against the other spouse and hurt that other spouse in any way whatsoever, ever.
The partnership should be created in writing before the marriage and provisions fair to both should be agreed to beforehand (mostly boilerplate) in case of a divorce just as is done in real life in business partnerships. And a judge should not have the power to void any agreement or provisions on the phony justification that it doesn’t agree with public policy or that the children’s interests are paramount and trump what was previously agreed to by the parents.
Furthermore, there should be restrictions that cannot be breached, like no more child support will be allowed because both parents must maintain equal custody. If the children live at one parent’s house all the time, that parent must certify that they can support the children under those circumstances on their own. Neither parent can move far away from the other while the children are still minors. They both stay or both move. Alimony should be done away with completely. And along these lines, no man or woman should be allowed to marry unless they certify that they can support themselves and will maintain that ability throughout the marriage.
Furthermore, there is no more sole custody. Either both parents get equal custody or both parents lose custody. If the man is so bad a parent that he should lose his parental rights, the woman should also lose her parental rights for choosing him and having children with such a man. Equal justice… both are responsible for their actions or non action. They must both properly parent in marriage and in divorce. Or they are both unfit. There must never be any pitting of one spouse against the other for any reason. The marital bond must be held as sacred.
Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind on this website that the loss of a man’s children after a divorce to the status of visitor every two weeks and his inability to do anything about it based on the family court system in this country is not a big contributing factor to man’s 6-7 year difference in the age he dies here in America as compared to the age American women die on average? Or that our current system hurts our children too?
In America, women are encouraged to divorce by the laws and rules that are followed in marriage and divorce. Why would any man enter such an arrangement under those conditions who is in his right mind or has more than half a brain.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Let’s look at it from the woman’s point of view of herself. Women like to claim individuality – which is what the thrust of this article and cry from the heart is about – “look at me” – and a cursory glance around shows that it isn’t the case.
Sure everyone is an individual; everyone is unique; just, if you examine the minutae; and there is a huge pretense about owning one’s own mind. “My choice” is a woman’s mantra, as though her choice turns out any different from the next woman’s.
Yes there are good women about. But the bulk start out as good little babies, charming toddlers, rising stars in mommy and daddy’s eyes, and quickly adopt an entitlement attitude that is common to 90% at around puberty.
Women say things that sound fine. “Marriage has to be based on trust”; “love is forever”; the Brahmin phrase, “I love you”. But they retain the not so fine, “It’s a woman’s perogative to change her mind”. It sure ain’t a man’s.
The stock phrases that women regurgitate are bunk. She breaks trust almost daily with a misandric remark, a sigh, a demeanment, a laugh At, rather than with, a demand for apology for things she has misintepreted or simply imagines with the consumate ease of an Edgar Allen Poe.
Yes there are good women who raise families and strive to live harmoniously with their husband, believe in truth and fairness and compromise and cooperation and even Win-Win!. Until.
Until she changes her mind.
Then she takes the shotgun that society has given her and shoots her man. The one she said she loves. The father of her children. Not to death, usually. Just sometimes. When he is asleep. Usually its just in the heart and legs so he can keep paying in pain for the next twenty years.
She breaks trust. Every woman who has initiated a divorce breaks trust. Yes men initiate too. They break trust. But men get nowhere near the scale. Their break is an almost irrelevant feather in comparison. A woman CAN trust much more easily than a man can on simple gender track record. She doesn’t need to be a mathematician but as a logician she is brilliant. She will ‘test’ the resolve and the staying power of her man, daily, with small knife cuts. She learns that he is resiliant and will put up with her small evils and still love her, still forgive and forget. But it only takes one small slight on his part for her fury to manifest. She won’t forgive and forget because she ‘knows’, ‘intuitively’ that he is a misogynist woman hater and oppressor, because it is drummed into her by the shotgun sellers.
Men don’t trust women. At last.
It has been a very long time coming.
A self-fulfilling women’s prophesy.
If she wants our trust she will have to earn it. Not just as a ‘group’, a ‘gender’, but individually. And keep that trust. Care for it. Tend it. Not spit and shit on it.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Gonz — “Everything to lose. Nothing to gain.”
I could almost agree with that….
Because feminism has always been a zero-sum game — women only win when men only lose…
But here’s the confusing realization —
Even when feminists win — they want to win even MORE.
So?
Gonz?
Is it now a “beyond-zero-sum-game?”
And …. what would that be?
In the Gender Wars?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
It may be plausible that “some of the finest women in the world are right here in America…”
But most thinking men will never be foolish enough to test that assumption.
It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
Not worth the effort.
Why try to find a “decent” American feminist-indoctrinated-”but-I’m-not-like-them” female, when the planet is chock full of alternatives?
Women who have never been schooled in feminism are … actually FEMININE.
Not servile. Not idiot doormats.
Just, well, the antithesis of American women ….
foolish idiologically-fooled women who have spent the last forty years trying to become like faux-men. (”Our Power will defeat the evil patriarchy!”)
Give it up to Kim Gandy and her ilk ….
they have become exemplary at mimicking the worst male behaviors.
And in the process, they (most American women) have lost their femininity.
When an American woman asks me why I will not date her/them, all I have to say is —
I’m not atttracted to men. Or their simulated female versions….
Sad. True.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Be tough on the issue, soft on the person.
Hate the lie, not the lier. Hate stealing, not the thief. Hate injustice, not the judge. Hate feminism, not the feminist.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Yes, I know it’s not fair now. That’s where I sit. Everything to lose. Nothing to gain.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Scott, Bob, Ditto – ask yourself a question:
IF fault-based diovorce was returned, and you could get a fair shake in court vis-a-vis your good behavior vs. bad behavior, would it become worth the risk to you?
Mind you – IF IT WAS FAIR?
It would be for me.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
the feminazi are villifying and alienateing their subjects on the world stage..(men).
July 13th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
>But the great majority of women are not in any of these categories. American women do not fit in any mold at all. They are as diverse a lot as they could possibly be, and one will find among them any and every type imaginable.
Who cares? Even Dr. Phil who panders to women on his show because 99% of his audience is women has said that women come divorce time are completely different than the woman we married.
I say any man who marries an American woman has his head up his butt or is totally stupid. Or is a masochist. Or likes playing Russian Roulette.
I say, if you don’t like the rules of the game, don’t play the game… or get the rules changed before playing. And don’t expect a whole lot of help from American women. How many are going to turn down the level of power they’ve been given over men at just about every juncture? In fact, there are so many men opting out of this game, congress made it more dangerous and embarrassing and demonizing to American men who seek out foreign women instead of American women over the internet by passing a law that requires all American men to give up their complete personal and criminal history to any foreign woman he desires to get to know, for her approval, even before he is allowed to make his first communication with her. And where is the concern for us American men against criminals who establish phony pictures and personals on such websites for criminal purposes?
Now, ask me if the same requirement must be followed by the foreign women before being allowed to talk to us American men. Then ask if this is required for men or women here in the U.S. Don’t bother. Those questions were rhetorical.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
glenn, mike lasalle, mr. usher…I really hope youre more moderate approach works…I would like to say, as a man from a younger generation than most that blog here..I will say that as our fathers generation let this anti male chaos stand..the noose around the younger generation of males gets tighter and tighter.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I think that American women as a group actually deserve all of the contempt that they are getting on this site. Here’s why.
My personal benchmark concerns paternity fraud laws as they pertain to married couples. Quite honestly, women’s reactions to this subject have completely poisoned my attitute toward them, possibly irrevocably.I have yet to meet a woman who is actually willing to do anything constructive to change the current legal environment in this area, yet all of these women say that they believe the present laws are unjust and should be changed.
Some women have actually had the audacity to blame this situation on men, saying that men have all the power and ignoring the fact that women have voted for almost 90 years now. In short, men are being blamed for trusting women. Ladies, you have no idea how easy it is to fix that mistake!
What women appear to want is to be trusted and to be well paid when they break that trust. This sort of overt and manipulative hypocricy deserves contempt.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
One of the problems I see is that when one only focuses on the negative, after a while that is all that is seen.
I think Daphne Patai in Heterophobia mentioned something like when introducing the sexual harrasement laws the microscope was turned onto male female relationships and more and more incidences or types of human behaviour were then classified as sexual harrasement.
Sexual harrassement laws totally ignore the fact that despite equality it still up to the male to make the overt actions in relationships. and female courting behaviour tends to be covert.
The question is how does one move from the negative to the positive, without ignoring the negative effects.
I would surmise that whilst it is acceptable in society for women to be angry about male behaviour, it is not acceptable for men to be angry about female behaviour.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
i say fight fire with fire or just go to sleep and ignore the heat.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I take responsibility…
For sloppy “women are…” commentary, when I have “The majority of Radical (whatever wave)feminist and their (actual, not implied) allies on my mind.
For ALWAYS refering to misguided sexist laws that favor a female by virtue of her plumbing, rather than specificly refering to the specific cases of women , judges, and attorneys that ABUSE them for cash and revenge.
For refusing to “play along to get along”
As it is, I have NO USE for posters that hide from rebuttal, well intentioned or other.
“You know who you are!”
Thanks for the suggested guidelines, I hold that, like a few seasoned pundits have
taken the time to explore, it takes all kinds. When I see a clear case of straying propaganda that fails to keep eyes on the prise, I have no option but to correct it. Denied that option, simply write off the author, and their allies, as simply lost boys who just don’t wanna grow up.
Stand and take it, warts and all, or simply sit down.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Thing is, though, marriage is not just between the man and the woman.
It is between the man, the woman, and the government.
And I don’t trust the government.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
3 The Gonzman (common sense man)
Other than Richard Doyle, former editor of The Liberator, there seems no to be consistent voice among current. The Gonzman is right, when I was in law classes for para legal program, I felt lucky, until the stuff hit the fan
Take for example David Horowitz.How many of his early follofers were stigmatized and perhaps lives ruined because his vociferous amd persuasive style.
Now he has made a 180 degree turn and how long will that last? Some say if you can not dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with B.S. Is that happening to us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(conservative_writer)#Early_life_and_career
July 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Pop culture ennobles women who take advantage of men. It romanticizes it.
The leagl systems encourages it. Rewards it.
Frequently it even punishes it
True story: When I first got custody of my kids, I declined to harass their m,others for Child Support. Now, as everyone knows, the government gets a cut of child support. (States – matching funs in a certain percentage from the federal level.) If I didn’t collect CS, they didn’t get that cut.
I was threatened with losing custody if I didn’t pursue it, because they required a complainant. Not that they actually enforced it against a woman, but I had to jump through the hoops
Handouts. Special programs. Messages of “Girl Power!” Affirmative action – for a majority group, no less!
C’mon, Glenn – you campaigned against “Boys are stupid” because of what it was teaching girls.
You telling me that at least three gerations of women growing up under this and it has produced no effect on the general attitude of entitlement in women? Princess Syndrome?
When all else remains, marriage is a crapshoot. Stanton, Glenn, Mike – you all are lucky. But at the end of the day, you are at the sufferance of your wives. If they woke up tomorrow and felt different, the system would be on their side, and against you.
You got lucky. Now the small sampling of three of you may very well all have got lucky in a big way, but the more guys reading this who are married and saying, “Why, my sugar-dumplin’ is a great ol’ gal, she’d *NEVER* do that to ME…”
Well – damn few of us didn’t say that at one time either.
In any event, even if not the women, I sure as God Made Little Green Apples am not going to trust an institution which is a contract, that may be broken on whimsy, with no penalties to the one who broke it – especially with a court system that has a track record of crapping on men.
And when all is said and done, there isn’t anything you all have that I don’t – with the possible exception that you have a risk of one day being subject to those same courts who are hostile to you. Not because of what you did.
But because of what you are.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
You are using this piece to say that action is legal reform etc. and not a sort of blanket blaming of American women. Fair enough
The legal system is like a gun, to make an analogy. The holder of the gun can make the decision to squeeze the trigger. The holder of the legal advantage can decide to squeeze that trigger as well. It seems to me that approximately 75% of the time the American girls are squeezing, repeatedly. To suggest the laws are at fault and that the women are not consciously taking these actions is to demean the intellect and freewill of the women in a far more insulting and subtle way than most of the bitter comments some men make.
Let us be clear here. MRM gurus like Glenn and Usher and others often cite a set of statistics that are useful in motivating clear headed men to action
We point out equality in DV in this country. We point out the proliferation of teacher student sex scandals in this country. We write about the unjustness of it all as we see men taken apart by the legal system. And my favorite is the two thirds to eighty percent figure of no fault divorces filed by American women. The divorce rate, according to INS numbers for so called mail order brides to American men is 19%. Anecdotally I’ve yet to see commentary from a man dating or married to one of these women that weren’t absolutely content with the outcome. I bring the anecdote because the author here offered his own wife as evidence.
All the above routinely mentioned by MRM advocates aghast, but we cannot draw a single conclusion about the statistical relationship between the variables of country of origin and outcome of marriage nor “blame” American women for the very things we argue they are doing at statistically equal or majority rates?
Uh huh.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for posting this, Glenn and Stan.
My sentiments precisely.