2010 August 17 Tuesday
Women Dumping Husbands

An article looks at women who grow tired of their husbands.

A lot of midlife women in my acquaintance are leaving what appear to be perfectly good and loving husbands. Or thinking about it. Or cheating on them. Or wanting to. Or staying married and faithful but buying their own houses, which they either live in or keep as a bolt hole. [...]

In a 2004 AARP survey of divorced people 40 and older, 66 percent of wives said they had requested the divorce, and 26 percent had surprised their husbands, often after planning for years. Women were especially likely to have no regrets, and 43 percent did not want to remarry. In another national study that year, ex-wives were three times more likely to say that they wanted the divorce, rather than their husbands wanting it. Fewer than 40 percent of marriages of more than 15 years were rated as successful by respondents.

That's 40% of the marriages that even last 15 years. Your odds of being happy in the long term from getting married seem slim.

Read the full article to find out how a growing number of women see marriage. If you are a single male who hopes marriage is in your future it would pay you to read the full thing and think hard about your desire. Divorce settlements and alimony will drastically lower your living standard.

Some accuse Roissy of being a nihilist and therefore they argue he has nothing constructive to offer and that he's part of the problem. But these women who are divorcing their husbands aren't doing it because more men are using pick-up artist techniques. PUA's like Roissy are more like a symptom or a result of changes in female attitudes and behavior. As always, Roissy offers real insights.

A multitude of factors likely contributes to the urge to spousally purge of the modern American wife. The Chateau has discussed the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse before as triggers or exacerbating conditions for the rising divorce, single momhood, and infidelity rates that will herald the denouement of the Grand American Epoch, and now we can throw in a couple more factors –

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.

Divorcing women are aping their peers. Don't be the last girl in your social circle to dump your boring husband.

And then there is the compelling allure of status jockeying. When women are surrounded by lots of other women cheating on, divorcing, or leaving their dutiful husbands, they feel an odd predilection to ape the group dynamic. Women are herd animals, and will do what they see is trendy in the group. A bunch of well-heeled upper middle class ladies on the block had affairs, including Susie with the best landscaping in the neighborhood? Clearly the heretofore faithful wife thinks she is missing out on something. The stampede of the herd fills her with anxiety, morphing into unhappiness. She plots and connives; her heart bursts with excitement at the taboo! The outsized role of status seeking in shaping women’s choices may help explain why Western populations — excluding the peasant immigrant hordes rapidly displacing us — are demographically imploding: when half the properly educated and economically independent women you know have zero kids, you impart higher status on that childlessness, and then you will seek to mimic the behavior of your admired peers.

Just as men can use game to manipulate women into bed Roissy says married men can use game to manipulate women into happiness in marriage. Widespread use of game techniques might be the only thing that can save the West from collapse.

Roissy argues the guys getting dumped are beta herbs. Do not act or dress like one of them.

What else is breaking up marriages? When women make more than their husbands they are both more likely to cheat. She probably doesn't respect him and he feels emasculated. They can't help reacting to their biological nature as females and males. But if guys with high status only make babies with lower status females then higher status females won't reproduce and that'll be dysgenic. The West sure seems destined to decline.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 August 17 11:14 PM  Cultural Wars Marriage


Comments
James Bowery said at August 18, 2010 12:04 AM:

Beta shmeta.

Sexual liberation of women (social approval of free choice in sex partners) should have been accompanied by the sexual liberation of men:

Social approval of single combat to the death upon formal challenge.

Sure, civilization would fall, but where we're headed now is something worse than some random guy off the street challenging Obama, or Bush, or....

joseph Moroco said at August 18, 2010 5:01 PM:

There is nothing about this that the coming poverty won't cure.

Frank McDonough said at August 18, 2010 5:33 PM:

Sexual liberation of women (social approval of free choice in sex partners) should have been accompanied by the sexual liberation of men:

Social approval of single combat to the death upon formal challenge.

Sure, civilization would fall, but where we're headed now is something worse than some random guy off the street challenging Obama, or Bush, or....

I don't get it. I agree that sexual liberation of women has been disastrous, but I don't see how "single combat to the death upon formal challenge" would have mitigated things.

Why is "where we're headed now" "something worse"? Where exactly are you suggesting we're headed?

Eileen said at August 18, 2010 5:49 PM:

"Just as men can use game to manipulate women into bed Roissy says married men can use game to manipulate women into happiness in marriage. Widespread use of game techniques might be the only thing that can save the West from collapse."

If THAT is the only way to save the West from collapse, then I say let it fall. (We'd all deserve it.)

Kudzu Bob said at August 18, 2010 6:49 PM:

"If THAT is the only way to save the West from collapse, then I say let it fall. (We'd all deserve it.)"

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it, to quote a noted alpha male.

Mercer said at August 18, 2010 6:54 PM:

" As always, Roissy offers real insights"

Roissy offers opinions but does he ever offer any hard data to support them? I get the impression that he bases his opinions mainly on people in their twenties in DC bars. DC is far from a typical city so I have my doubts to how accurate they are for average American women.

In this post he does have a different sample. He quotes a woman from California who says many of her acquaintances are "staying married and faithful but buying their own houses, which they either live in or keep as a bolt hole". What percentage of married women in California have an additional house as a "bolt hole"? I don't live in CA. What I read about housing prices there is that most people have trouble affording one house. I don't see why people take Roissy seriously when he bases his opinions on stories like that.


James Bowery said at August 18, 2010 9:53 PM:

McDonough states: "I don't see how "single combat to the death upon formal challenge" would have mitigated things."

Women respect valor. When she goes buns up for some Managerial Elite pseudo alpha above the glass ceiling, it is simple "let's you and he fight" genes controlling her behavior. Roissy's diagnosis of the woman's behavior is wrong. She isn't a herd animals. She is testing the evolutionary environment for genes that are going to survive. Yes, she sees other women doing it to their objects of abuse, but that is simply cluing her into the new selective pressures. She wants you to kill the alpha she's ovulating for -- IF YOU CAN. Her limbic system doesn't realize that there is an entire civilization armed to the teeth with prisons ready to have you gang raped by "protected groups" you just to prove you are far from the alpha her genes need to ally themselves with to make it in the future.

So you, seeing this Beast of the Apocalypse upon which this Whore of Babylon rides with her Cup filled with Wrath -- you cower. That sends a clear signal to her limbic system. It's just the wrong signal.

So...

How to send a different signal?

What if you could, will full social approval and backing put up a notarized public notice saying: "I hereby challenge Mr. Managerial Elite to formal combat to the death as prescribed by law: A jury picks a wilderness area large enough to allow strategy and the chance that the weak and intelligent would have in nature. Mr. Managerial Elite and I are each given a standard 10 inch blade and 15 yards of strong cordage. We enter from opposite sides. At most one leaves the wilderness area. If Mr. Managerial Elite does not present himself for formal combat at the prescribed time and place, he is subject to being killed by anyone at any time in any manner for being a coward."

Mr. Roissy's "insights" would be worth less than a rubber, as would the lives of the pseudo alphas of "civilization".

Frank McDonough said at August 18, 2010 10:50 PM:

@ James Bowery

Ok, I think I sort of get what you're getting at. You're saying that the managerial elite basically has a monopoly on sexual access to females based on the violent force provided by other men e.g. military, law enforcement, violent prisoners, etc., that exploits women's psychology and manipulates them into thinking that the men in the managerial elite are "better" or "stronger" than they actually are.

The formal combat presumably mitigates this by forcing the men to actually fight for the woman rather than rely on the violent force of others.

But why is this necessarily a better situation? While I have no love for the managerial elite, isn't the main problem here the monopoly on women and the potential problems and instability it can engender? It seems to me the formal combat thing could also result in a monopoly on women by one or few guys and then create similar problems and instability. And what is so special about the terms of the formal combat you have outlined? Wouldn't it just select for men who are best at killing other men in wilderness areas with a 10 inch blade and 15 yards of strong cordage? Why is this necessarily better than the managerial elite?

Also you mentioned in your original comment that "where we're headed now is something worse than" where we'd be headed if we had your system of formal combat instituted. Where exactly are you suggesting we're headed?

James Bowery said at August 19, 2010 9:21 AM:

MacDonough asks: "And what is so special about the terms of the formal combat you have outlined? Wouldn't it just select for men who are best at killing other men in wilderness areas with a 10 inch blade and 15 yards of strong cordage? Why is this necessarily better than the managerial elite?"

This is really the same question as: "Also you mentioned in your original comment that "where we're headed now is something worse than" where we'd be headed if we had your system of formal combat instituted. Where exactly are you suggesting we're headed?"

"Where we're headed" is controlled by birth and death.

Our ancestral environment, as a sexual species, was one in which individual women controlled birth and individual men controlled death. As humans -- a moral animal -- this remained true, especially in low population density environments, until the advent of formalized groups. Then "position" within the body politic gradually subsumed both individual perogatives. We are witnessing a clear direction resulting from that groupism in the form of a managerial elite which denies they are an elite while they, therefore, deny everything upon which their power is founded, including the the fully heterosexual moral individual. Where can this end but in the destruction of the very genetic heritage from which civilization arose as but one of many potentials of that genotype? What could be worse than the narrowing of genetic options to not only the denial of a future rebirth of civilization but descent of man to less than a sexual beast -- perhaps some sort of asexual group resembling a myxomycetes?

Frank McDonough said at August 19, 2010 1:32 PM:

@ James Bowery

Your views on "where we're headed" are extremely vague, speculative, and long-term. Many variables can change over the long-term. Do you have anything on a more reasonable time scale? Where are we headed over the near term?

James Bowery said at August 19, 2010 5:55 PM:

How vague, speculative and long-term is Aldous Huxley's distopian vision in "Brave New World"? We are fairly close to achieving artificial wombs, having already achieved cloning with genetic modifications. The ten thousand year explosion of incorporations pacifying human evolution toward specialization is accelerating. Recent dysgenic disasters are only a silly taboo away from "optimization" for the benefit of incorporations.

Frank McDonough said at August 19, 2010 6:05 PM:

@ James Bowery

So what are you saying here, that the "Brave New World" is nigh?

Are you suggesting that pretty soon we're going to have slave societies controlled by a tiny class of slave drivers where slaves are specially bred for different tasks? Who will be this tiny slave driving class?

This sounds like a techno fantasy. Isn't it more likely that robots will do more tasks, rather than genetically modified and bred specialized humans? And isn't it more likely that some sort of collapse will intervene before this vision comes to pass?

James Bowery said at August 19, 2010 11:28 PM:

The "slave drivers" will probably be a form of the current managerial elite that takes its human husbandry more seriously. BTW: The stupidity of the current managerial elite when it comes to human husbandry is what I meant when I mentioned recent dysgenics.

The current managerial elite have shown a distinct preference for slaves over mechanization. What do you think their open borders theocracy is all about? The techniques for human husbandry are as well understood as they are ancient. Guys like Paul Ehrlich have even praised the Egyptian model of human husbandry as an ideal to be emulated toward population control. If the Egyptian "priests" had advanced reproductive technologies, how do you think Egypt would have evolved?

There may be a collapse -- but what then? Is it that incredible that men might formalize single combat to the death as did the pre-Christian northern Europeans -- and as it reemerged on the frontier of the New World? Moreover, is it implausible that people would retain, and apply, reproductive techniques developed before the collapse -- such as artificial wombs? A clone society has raw power advantages over individualistic societies as is clearly demonstrated in eusocial insects. Why wouldn't post-collapse warlords use legacy reproductive technologies to their greatest advantage?

Frank McDonough said at August 20, 2010 2:38 AM:

@ James Bowery

First time I've ever heard about "the Egyptian model of human husbandry." Do you have a source or some more info about that? I don't doubt you, I just want to read more about it. Sounds kind of creepy and eerie to be honest.

I'm sorry for belaboring this, but I want to make sure I've understood your original point. In your first comment you wrote: "Sure, civilization would fall, but where we're headed now is something worse than some random guy off the street challenging Obama, or Bush, or...."

You seem to suggest here that the collapse of civilization would be preferable to "where we're headed," which you've described as some kind of situation involving a managerial elite controlling specialized groups of clone slaves or something. Why would this latter situation necessarily be worse? Isn't it possible that the members of the managerial elite would lead human lives and maintain human civilization? Are you worried that there would be too much specialization such that if the arrangement fell apart, there would be nobody around to put civilization back together, so to speak? The managerial elite then, despite controlling everything would be like a disembodied mind which would lack the capacity and skills to bring about the future rebirth of civilization if it collapsed?

To use the individual human body as an analogy, is your main worry here that individual human beings will evolve to become like parts, limbs, organs, etc., of a human body working in concert, which if broken down would be destroyed and lost forever since as separated parts they wouldn't be able to assemble themselves back together, whereas individual human beings who remain as individual human beings and don't evolve into specialized parts would retain the comprehensive skills and abilities necessary to put things back together again if it ever fell apart?

James Bowery said at August 20, 2010 2:51 PM:

McDonough asks: "First time I've ever heard about "the Egyptian model of human husbandry." Do you have a source or some more info about that?"

Dynastic Egypt lasted three millennia, and it was founded on grain stores as central banks, with grain acting as currency and the priesthood acting as land baron/bankers. Dynastic Egypt lasted so long primarily due to the renewal of fertile soil by the Nile's periodic flooding with corresponding fluctuations in grain supplies outside the central grain banks. These famines were population bottlenecks with strong selective pressure applied by the priesthood for access to the central grain banks. This works exactly the way animal husbandry works, with the farmer controlling the high calorie stores and periodically making them available for his dependent livestock -- which breeds for domestication. Repeat frequently over 3 millennia and you have a docile, highly religious work force. In all likelihood the real source of labor for the grand engineering projects was not "slave" labor so much as "jobs programs" where people who would otherwise starve were put to work by the priesthood in exchange for bread and beer.

McDonough asks: "The managerial elite then, despite controlling everything would be like a disembodied mind which would lack the capacity and skills to bring about the future rebirth of civilization if it collapsed?"

Yes, that's the optimum body politic from a raw power perspective: Cells made from specialized clones forming the organs of a highly cohesive and coordinated organism that, unlike sexual organisms, does not die, but grows to consume all resources. The best we can hope for is that such organisms would reach some sort of balance through the higher intelligence of the managerial elite. But the managerial elite would then, as they are now, be nonviable as individuals.

Frank McDonough said at August 21, 2010 3:49 AM:

@ James Bowery

So the grain stores were like central banks and the pyramid building projects were like "jobs programs"? Interesting. Never thought of it that way, but makes sense. I suppose the pyramids served no real function aside from being tombs and monuments to the priests' power and position at the top of the society.

So the commoners were forced to participate in "jobs programs" building pyramids out of necessity, and the pyramids with their awesome stature and religious significance served to do nothing more apart from justifying the priests' position and monopoly on the grain, allowing them to not have to work in order to have access to grain, unlike the commoners.

Would this be analogous to the situation today where "jobs programs" and monetary injections ultimately do nothing aside from propping up the stock market and other assets controlled by the managerial elite that in turn justifies the elite's position?

If so, just like Dynastic Egypt collapsed aren't we as well headed towards collapse, since just as Egypt's activities became wholly focused on simply maintaining the priests' relative status (i.e. above the commoners) our activities become geared towards maintaining the managerial elite's relative position to the detriment of absolute improvement (i.e. increase in technology, productivity, etc.)?

James Bowery said at August 21, 2010 9:27 AM:

McDonough asks: "Would this be analogous to the situation today where "jobs programs" and monetary injections ultimately do nothing aside from propping up the stock market and other assets controlled by the managerial elite that in turn justifies the elite's position?"

Yes.

Then asks: "If so, just like Dynastic Egypt collapsed aren't we as well headed towards collapse...?"

Dynastic Egypt lasted 3000 years. One of the primary tactics of theocracy is to obscure technology as "magic" or "miracles". These may be nothing more than selected legacy technologies that are used to stabilize the theocratic structure.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©