Saturday, June 10, 2017

Women destroy entire civilization (sort of ?)





O.K. that's a ridiculous exaggeration.

I love women. I hate feminism. Well, what it has become.

Men infantilize women : “Oh she’s just a girl, we can’t hold her responsible!”

I too treat women like Children, often refusing to hold them accountable.

The White Knight in me, ever poised to guard the virtue of these fair maidens, revolts against data.

Lotta factors in divorce - poverty, global capitalism, and many, many others. Here I concentrate on only one, but one suppressed and ignored.

The truth is women are largely the cause for breaking up the family, at least 70% of the time initiating divorce.

Why ?
Basically, wives are now incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody.

Feminism wants the best of all possible worlds: rights without responsibilities; privileges without obligations.



Contrary to common assumptions, divorce today seldom involves two people mutually deciding to part ways. According to Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin in Divided Families, 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, that is, over the objection of one spouse. The woman.

Now, According to the Department of Health and Human Services , “Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.” Britain’s Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family.

So, we’d expect a woman to be in incredible danger, and initiate divorce only in the most desperate of circumstances.

No. Not because they are beaten or abused, but, according to Psychology today , they divorce because men fail to meet “
expectations for gender equality.”


These are not girls breaking up with their boyfriends. These are marriages. Children are involved.

The reasons given are laughably abstract and inconsequential - the woman aren't treated equal enough etc - mistreatment or abuse is not mentioned at all.

What ? Only 30% of men can meet reasonable expectations of a marriage, to the point where entire families are dismantled justifiably.

While 70% of women CAN meet reasonable expectations of men ?

And this is not the fault of women having unreasonable expectations.? This is simply because the vast majority of men act so horrifically that the family must be broken up, with all the terrible consequences suffered by the children that entails ?

In "A Generation at Risk," just published by Harvard University Press, Paul Amato of the University of Nebraska and Alan Booth of Penn State University painstakingly analyze data from a large national sample of families, seeking especially to isolate the independent effects of divorce on children from the effects of preexisting marital conflict. 

The results call into question the rationalizations of our high divorce rate.

That many children are harmed by parental conflict is not in doubt, nor is the fact that some children benefit from parental separation because it lessens their exposure to conflict. But Amato and Booth estimate that at most a third of divorces involving children are so distressed that the children are likely to benefit. The remainder, about 70%, involve low-conflict marriages that apparently harm children much less than do the realities of divorce. 

Moreover, Amato and Booth estimate that, as the threshold of dissatisfaction at which divorce occurs becomes ever lower, an even higher proportion of future divorces will involve low-conflict situations in which divorce will be worse for children than the continuation of the marriage. This reasoning leads to a startling conclusion, especially coming from two liberal social scientists: For that majority of marriages in trouble that are not fraught with conflict, "future generations would be well served if parents remained together until children are grown."

No one study is definitive, the 70% figure may turn out to be too high or too low. However, if the correct percentage is 60 or even 50, it is still much higher than we would ever guess by listening to those who maintain that the desires of parents are almost never in conflict with the needs of children. The uncomfortable truth seems to be that such conflict is present in a substantial proportion, probably a majority, of those cases today in which child-rearing parents contemplate divorce.




Despite the innuendos of child abuse advocates, it is not married fathers but single mothers who are most likely to injure or kill their children. 

“Contrary to public perception,” write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, “research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household.” HHS itself found that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: “almost two-thirds were females.” 

From Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. :

The safest place for a woman is in her home and married to the biological father of her children.

Abuse of children is largely an act of women and only very rarely the biological father.

The safest place for a child is with its biological father. Conversely, the most dangerous place for a child is in the home of a single mother.

Yet Women are awarded primary custody 84% of the time. 

Here’s another statistic: Divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men. Divorce, however, doesn’t seem to lead more women to commit suicide. Separated and divorced male suicides outnumber their female counterparts by 4 to 1.



Economist Robert Willis calculates that child-support levels vastly exceeding the cost of raising children create “an incentive for divorce by the custodial mother.”

 His analysis indicates that only one-fifth to one-third of child-support payments are actually used for the children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alvarez write in the Journal of Socio-Economics that child support serves as an “economic incentive for middle-class women to seek divorce.”

Mothers are not the only ones who can profit by creating fatherless children.
Governments also generate revenue from child support, 95 % of single mothers are on some form of welfare.

Divorce “reform” is as much about manipulating the power balance within marriage as it is about ensuring that women can frivolously divorce while collecting cash and prizes.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress

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

They aren’t under any illusions;  divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the spouse who wants to honor the marriage vows to the spouse who doesn’t. 


 Women are overwhelmingly the ones who don’t want to honor the marriage vows.  This is confirmed by the academic study “These Boots Are Made for Walking”:  Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women and the data on the age of wife at the time of divorce.

Putting this together,
divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.

"Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty.  Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia.

We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.

What Brinig and Allen found is that children are typically a marriage’s most valuable asset, and that women are using the near guarantee that they will get custody against their husbands.

Making matters worse unilateral no fault divorce laws give the upper hand to whichever party wishes to engage in divorce theft or exploitation, as the authors of the working paper explain:

If only one of the spouses wants to divorce, spouses engage in ‘bargaining in the shadow of the law’ (Mnookin and Kornhauser, 1979), where the existing law becomes a threat point for one of the spouses. In a legal system with only consensual divorce the spouse not seeking divorce has the bargaining power….

When the law allows for unilateral divorce the bargaining power shifts to the partner seeking divorce, who can always threaten with unilateral divorce (Fella et al., 2004).






A recent economics paper makes clear the incentives and disincentives of divorce :

"From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed."

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

"With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure."




Myth #:  Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence.

Baskerville again :

Fact: On the contrary violence and child abuse have become an industry in themselves, mostly to secure child custody. By dispensing with standards of justice for divorce, we have allowed them to be abandoned for criminal justice too. Thus "domestic violence" and "child abuse" are not adjudicated as criminal assault, and the accused seldom receives a trial or chance to clear his name. Instead he simply loses his children until he can prove his innocence, an impossible standard.

Most domestic violence and child abuse take place during and after family dissolution; very little occurs in intact families. So domestic violence is a red herring. Federal funds for domestic violence and child abuse now serve effectively as a subsidy on divorce in every state in America, encouraging spouses to bring false accusations and law-enforcement officials to reward them.

In fact, divorced and unmarried women are twice as likely to suffer physical abuse as married women.


"Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes and seizing their property. 


Through involuntary divorce, a legally unimpeachable parent can be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be charged with domestic violence or child abuse, without evidence that he has committed either crime. He can be hauled before a judge for not paying child support without proof that he actually owes it. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist whom he has not hired. No formal charge, no jury, no trial required.

To justify this repression, the divorce machinery has generated hysterias against fathers so inflammatory that few dare question them: child abuse, wife-beating, nonpayment of child support. The accused parent simply loses his family and finds himself abandoned, with everyone terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”



Stephen Baskerville quotes the lawyers: 

“Open perjury is readily acknowledged in family law circles. … Bar associations and even courts themselves regularly sponsor seminars counseling mothers on how to fabricate abuse accusation. 'The number of women attending the seminars who smugly – indeed boastfully – announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence claims against their hapless husband, and the device worked!'”

Stephen D. Finstein , LMSW-ACP reports “Statistically, it has been reported that 70-80% of divorce-linked child sexual abuse cases are hoaxes.”


A Canadian/American research team found that "who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce." 

What we call "divorce" has in effect become a kind of legalized parental kidnapping.

 "All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to take children away from their fathers," writes Irish Times columnist John Waters. 


Divorce, not violence, is also behind the explosion of restraining orders, which are routinely issued without evidence of wrongdoing, separating fathers from their children and homes. Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce — often on the advice of a solicitor — to deprive fathers of access to their children.

 Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out "like candy." "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," and "the facts have become irrelevant," she reports.

Fathers are further criminalized through child-support burdens, which constitute the financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting unilateral divorce and giving everyone involved further incentives to remove children from their fathers. Government claims of unpaid child support constitute one of the most dishonest and destructive hoaxes ever foisted on the public. In a US government-funded study, Sanford Braver discovered that most fathers pay fully and on time and that "estimated" arrearages are derived not from official records but from surveys of mothers. Braver's findings have never been refuted by any official or scholar. Yet ever-more draconian "crackdowns" and arrests continue.



One third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children, and most are expected to pay for this.


So, are fathers abandoning the kids ? Baskerville in his book Taken into Custody, has studied the matter extensively, he says :
 An American study of young, low-income, and unmarried fathers presents a picture that, while far from ideal, does not show them abandoning their children: 63% had only one child; 82% had children by only one mother...70% saw their children at least once a week...and large percentages reported bathing, feeding, dressing and playing with their children; and 85% provided informal child support in the form of cash or purchased goods such as diapers, cloth- ing and toys. 
Another survey, conducted in the north of England, found that “the most common reason given by the fathers for not having more contact with their children was the mothers’ reluctance to let them.”



Women are constantly propagandized to resist the natural impulse to hold together a family. Everyones familiar with the endless best selling books about women leaving their husbands, and families, to “find themselves” in a series  of sexual escapades. When Liz Gilbert the author of Eat Pray and Love left her husband to spend more time with her gay male best friend she was universally lauded as a brave freedom fighting feminist.


Young women especially. Leslie Bell in the the Atlantic writes :

As a sociologist who’s interviewed several 20-something women on their sexual development, I’ve found s young women in their 20s feel they shouldn’t want relationships with men at this phase in their lives.

Many express the same sentiment again and again: “Why do I, a young and highly educated woman in the 21st century, value relationships with men so highly?” To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of their education, and of their achievements.

To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening tot hese women. ONe said She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.”

This women is destroying herself, destroying the things that are real in her life (relationships, family, and her desires for such) over ideological cant.

It’s got to make you wonder what women would choose if “sex-positive” harpies weren’t constantly shrieking and spitting at them in the media


Laura Helmuth: "I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but I am kind of thrilled that this is considered embarrassing among smart young women.Having a boyfriend and/or being well on the way to marriage used to be the default for twentysomethings. It’s fascinating that the social stigma has reversed so dramatically."

I am thrilled that women are denying their basic human desires and needs to pursue empty corporate work and a consumerist lifestyle.

Hanna Rosin: "I feel like this moment we’re in now of shame about the boyfriend is great and necessary for progress and all that but will recalibrate and settle down."



Kate Bolick’s superlong Atlantic article on reaching middle age as an uneasily unmarried woman, echoes what so many women are coming to realize :

 
"Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.

Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices."


Marriage columnist Deidre  says that  “women have such high expectations, and that we deserve to have everything we want in a mate – from a best friend to a sensational lover, to a guy that has an awesome job, to someone who will be sensitive and listen to us when we’re blue.

THAT is why women are initiating divorce…they simply don’t respect their men for who they are as men, anymore – and they have allowed themselves to listen to the ever-changing voices of a feminist narrative, that drones on and on about ‘how happiness has nothing to do with men.’ The voices that a woman hears on a daily basis, come from the news, family, social media, her social circle, and her work or college campus environment. Many feminists of today are lost and confused, but they find themselves hanging onto their feminist ideals, hoping that it will all pay off in the end. They have decided to view marriage as a way to control men and their money, and sadly, this is empowering to them. So, some of them marry, and as they call the shots in their relationships, the man’s role dwindles into a sort of puppet, the wife being the pseudo-puppeteer.”


Although Infidelity is still often given as a reason for divorce (21.6% of all divorces) Hugo Schwyzer  explains that 

The reason women are more likely to leave is less about cheating than it is about their unwillingness to settle....

Put simply, boys are taught that marriage is about “settling down” while girls are taught that marriage is about finding enduring fulfillment. And it’s obvious who has the higher set of expectations.”

Another reason Wives are now leaving perfectly good marriages and their sacrificial beta provider husbands because they are bored

 Chateau Heartiste comments :

The death of shame and the glorification of status.

We now exalt that which we used to shame into invisibility. Pathetic single moms are paraded as exemplars of tough-as-nails fortitude and moral virtue. Infidelity is de rigueur, an exciting life transition that self-actualized women find empowering. And of course, taking your husband for all he’s worth in divorce, regardless of marital fault, is practically its own sacrament — the Sacrament of Separation Theft :

One divorced mother of two sons put her complaint succinctly: “I realized my husband was of no added value.”

To get the full chill of that statement, try imagining a husband who had divorced his wife saying it, or this next one.



But...Are women really that demanding ?



Well, writing in New York magazine, let’s ask Rebecca Traister who gives voice to the cutting-edge complaint of campus feminists: consensual sex is not enough; it had better be good, and bridge the “orgasm gap” — or else.  :

"...sex on offer to young women is not of very high quality..the game remains rigged.

Dusenbery, who is now 29, speaks of her “great feminist shame”: After a decade of sexual activity, she very often still doesn’t get off  “What I want is not for me to have that burden. ”






Poor, oppressed Jancee Dubb writes about the horrors of modern day female slavery :


A few depressing lines from a 2012 study of first-time parents neatly summed up the colossal asymmetry I experienced with my husband: “As found in prior research, mothers experienced unmet expectations with fathers doing less than mothers expected. Fathers, on the other hand, experienced overmet expectations with mothers doing more than fathers expected.”


That’s because men are generous and easy to please, while women are never satisfied with anything.


Meanwhile, the woman, filled with notions of gender equality, thinks that the man will continue working full time (or more) and split all of her house chores – because she read that in some magazine.

"I thought I had married an evolved guy—one who assured me, when I was pregnant, that we would divide up the work equally. Yet right after our baby was born, we backslid into hidebound midcentury gender roles."

All of the labor-intensive tasks involved in taking care of the hope have been automated with easy-to-use home appliances. Cooking, cleaning and shopping takes something like 10-20 hours a week.


And they have the gall to ask the husband, who works anywhere from 40 to 60 hours a week to “do more” in the home?

So, even though they work 20 hrs more a week than women, on average, they can't seem to divide up the housework to the woman satisfaction...sorry kids, looks like your drug use, depression, poverty, and suicide rates will have to triple because daddy doesn't clean enough....


And of course motherhood and family is denigrated endlessly :

No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981

If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100


Roissy once stated that the goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality. How we reward and punish either sex’s capacity to sublimate their feral natures is how this is effected.


Since women consume 3x the services as men, men pay all net taxes, men do all the dirty work, men do all the dangerous work, men fight all the Wars, men give women free money to go to college, lower the test examination scores for women, give women free points, upon graduation force companies to hire them, every year women gain more power, more freedom, more advantages, despite 'Muh Patriarchy childless women now make more money than men and graduate college at higher rates, and yet with every gain they become increasingly dissatisfied, they’re happiness plummeting in the past 30 yrs, still they ratchet up the blame on the Patriarchy while happily demanding more of that patriarchy paycheck.

I end this with the bold words of Bonald  :

"I suspect that most feminists have no idea, and would be shocked if their noses were rubbed in it, that they, and the two generations or so of feminists before them, have a very large hand of responsibility for the societal catastrophe unfolding around us.

If I were to put the matter more bluntly, I would say that the last half-century of gender dynamics in the West has been a case of women behaving remarkably badly, men enabling them and society unraveling around them both in consequence. When basic social ties, economic activity and public safety become progressively undermined with the further disenfranchisement of men, do you think that the elevation of women in the midst of a dysfunctional society will serve them better than a traditional social conservative arrangement? Put more pointedly yet, a nation full of excluded men, single mothers and bastard children cannot possibly thrive for any significant length of time – the beginning of this outcome is already well in sight."





The Ugly Truth About Single Motherhood 










No comments:

Post a Comment