Stay at home parents by the numbers

Some small data points for the day, courtesy of the most updated data on the matter from the US Census.

  • 38% of households with a stay at home parent have household income of 75k/yr or higher.
  • 96% of stay at home parents are mothers, only 4% are fathers.
  • Households with a stay at home parent represent 25% of married-couple households.
  • Less than 5% of households with a stay at home parent have three or more children under 6 in the home.
  • 41% of households with a stay at home parent have five or more members in the household, compared with 29% of households with both parents working at least part-time during the year.
  • 18% of households with a stay at home parent have exactly three children under 15 in the home.
  • 9% of households with a stay at home parent have four or more children under 15 in the home.

This is for all married-couple households with their own children under 15 in the home.

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “Stay at home parents by the numbers

  1. “Less than 5% of households with a stay at home parent have three or more children under 6 in the home”

    That configuration (at best something like 5/3/1) is pretty hard on mom.

    Like

  2. Yes, I can vouch for even stay-home parents and struggling to make ends meet. Everyone likes to trumpet loud and long about all the wife has to do is “cut expenses”. Even then it sometimes does not cut it. But let us go back to even only part-time work, or work from home, and all of a sudden we are condemned as feminists….

    Like

    • One thing I have been noting is that it is common for men (particularly manosphere men) to believe that all of the material sacrifices in family life are borne by fathers while the moms are carried aloft on their palanquins eating bon bons (whatever those are).

      I’ve lately been realizing, though, that the material sacrifices of parenthood are fairly substantial for both parents in the average functional married parent family. Huge new child-related expenses appear, disposable income shrinks to nothing, free time disappears, dining out is pared down (even IHOP is ruinously expensive for a family of five), going out to a movie for date night turns into a $50 minimum expense, mom’s wardrobe deteriorates, shoes become an item to strategize for the purchase of, etc.

      While the overall level of spending may actually be increasing (even substantially), the pie slices are getting cut thinner and thinner.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “shoes become an item to strategize for the purchase of, etc.”

        Amen to that! If you get the shoes that you can reasonably afford, they fall apart….and if you get high quality, at least you can pass them down, but you have to set aside from three pay periods to buy them. I have a soon-to-be teenage son who has suddenly begun to grow – and grow. But on the positive side of this, he outgrows the shoes so fast now that they are practically new, so I won’t have to purchase new shoes for the younger brothers.

        Like

      • The fact is, for a middle class person, becoming a parent means becoming immediately poorer than one was before.

        That is crucially important as part of the explanation why so many middle class young people are in no hurry to marry and have children. Forget the [bad word] carousel–it’s just a matter of basic self-preservation to delay marriage and childbearing until one is in a position where having children doesn’t mean an immediate collapse in standard of living.

        I feel like the manosphere has not come to terms with how much it actually costs to feed and clothe half a dozen people, or how much it really costs to live in an OK house in an OK neighborhood with OK schools.

        Liked by 1 person

      • TPC said:

        “Oh, it’s not just the manosphere, conservative Boomers and Silents and some of the older Gen Xers haven’t either.”

        With older people, there’s a certain amount of confusion caused by the fact that their own mortgage payment are often very small and the wages they hear quoted probably sound very large. They probably don’t do the math to figure out how much younger homeowners have to pay to afford the same thing.

        Also, there tend to be a lot of misunderstandings about what is the expensive part about having children. Many people are under the impression that it’s gadgets that make child-rearing today expensive–whereas gadgets are actually very cheap and getting cheaper. You can get a Kindle for $50 these days and an Acer chromebook for $159 and they last a relatively long time. Consumer goods (which are a lot of people’s go-to explanation for other people’s financial problems) are very cheap today–what’s expensive is housing, education and medical care.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Forget the [bad word] carousel–it’s just a matter of basic self-preservation to delay marriage and childbearing until one is in a position where having children doesn’t mean an immediate collapse in standard of living.

        It also provides clarity on the fact most couples can’t rely on one income for decades. It doesn’t matter how hard they try sometimes. They can move to a cheaper area, husband can take a better paying job, cut expenses, etc. but what the suggesters don’t admit is all of these require trade-offs. What are the trade-offs? If a couple moves to a cheaper area, are they moving closer to– or further away from family who may be assisting with childcare? If a husband takes on a higher-paying job, is he still working the same hours or working more– and thereby leaving her alone more at home with multiple children?

        If many couples were able to make ends meeting comfortably, marry “young” (= or <25), and had no debt, most wouldn't be able to have many children without already living in a low COLA. You never hear about families with 3+ children coming out from San Francisco. You hear them coming from smaller communities in low COLA areas.

        Like

    • I think it’s very ironic that the manosphere guys are the people who most sell the idea of “cash and prizes” awaiting the divorcee.

      I’ve never heard anybody make divorce sound as financially attractive as they do.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well, it’s easy for them to do when they leave out the little fact that most divorces involving children do not yield child support or alimony.

        Same’s true, even more so for nonmarital child support, most of those women can’t get money out of the guy either.

        They refuse to distinguish between women getting most of the child support money that is awarded and what percentage of divorces result in awarded child support. Because it’s a minority of divorces with kids.

        Like

      • In the article, it also sounded like there was some mommy wars stuff going on with female judges who had clawed their way up to the top wanting to stick it to the SAHMs.

        Question: I wonder whether female family court judges are harsher to women than male family court judges?

        Like

      • From the same author:

        “Dana Lin was also a stay-at-home mom for most of her marriage, and like Starrick, admits there was a measure of pride in not pursuing alimony in her divorce, even though she could barely support herself — selling her wedding and heirloom jewelry to make ends meet, and admitting to not eating for days on end when her children spent time with their dad.”

        ““I never wanted him to be able to say, ‘I can’t spend time with the kids because I have to work long hours to support you,’” says Lin, who also forewent child support, even though at the time of the split worked part-time as a school office manager for $20 per hour. Today, she says, she has a very friendly relationship with her ex, who “is an amazing father now.”

        “That doesn’t mean there weren’t moments when she questioned her decision to be completely financially independent from the start. “There were times when I did think: ‘Oh my God, what am I doing?”” Lin admits. She estimates she was entitled to several thousand dollars per month in child support and maintenance.”

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/13/i-turned-down-alimony-3-womens-stories/

        That’s probably the worst thing I’ve read on the internet today.

        Like

      • I didn’t quite see it that way — probably because I am a child of a divorce and my mother, who never had a career and devoted all her time to supporting my father’s career, was left in poverty with no alimony and she had to sue for child support. So I guess I saw it a little differently than you did.

        Like

  3. I realize of course that the author completely looks down on stay-home Moms, but my intention was to notice the trend — and it was obvious with my Mom and with one of our friends whose husband also divorced her and left her in desperate poverty also with four children to support. She even had to sell her house and every stick of furniture in it — she took her clothes, whatever items she could fit in her car, and photographs. That’s it. Everything else had to stay in the house when she sold it because she couldn’t afford a moving truck to move even her furniture. She lives in an apartment now with whatever she can find from a scratch-and-dent from the Goodwill, none of the heirlooms she inherited from her parents (she’s Godmother to one of our sons, so we know her fairly well).

    Knowing her story, and my mother’s, it incenses me when the manospherians go on and on about how cushy women have it if they divorce their husbands. Every divorcée I know had divorce papers filed on them by their husbands, not the other way around, and they all live in precarious financial conditions (unless they have been fortunate enough to get themselves out of it by their own blood and sweat). So what they say on the subject of divorce makes me nauseated….let them try wondering if they can feed their children one day, or wonder if their son is going to be able to wear his shoes another week without them ripping apart…..let them live in the shoes of a divorced mother and see just how “cushy” she has it. And I might also add that not once did these women (including my Mom) go on welfare…..my mother thought that was the biggest disgrace in the world, and she earned every penny that fed us growing up. My Dad contributed the bare minimum in child support that the court ordered. That check just about paid the utility bills each month, and there was nothing left over. We girls all went to work to help contribute as soon as we were the legal age to work, and then some of the pressure on Mom eased, but if it hadn’t been for my grandfather making up the slack, we wouldn’t have had a house to live in without having to go on relief.

    Like

    • St. Thomas More Academy said:

      “Knowing her story, and my mother’s, it incenses me when the manospherians go on and on about how cushy women have it if they divorce their husbands.”

      And it’s such an own-goal, too, for them to be selling the idea that divorce is financially rewarding for the average woman.

      My suspicion is that they come by this belief because deep down their hearts they don’t really believe that there is such a thing as justifiable child or family expenses. Children should be fed, clothed, housed, transported, doctored and educated for absolutely nothing a year.

      Of course, having that belief is probably not unrelated to why a person like that might wind up divorced…

      Also, it sounds a lot like the “solipsism” we keep hearing about.

      Like

      • And you’ll note that none of them are commenting on here…..and undoubtedly won’t read it, because it is a viewpoint that challenges theirs. We go and read their blogs, and contribute. Note that they don’t do the same. The only logical conclusion I’ve been able to draw so far is that they do not want their opinion challenged by those who have lived it.

        In fairness, they are reacting to militant feminism. But to react to militant feminism with militant masculinism only perpetuates the circle of defeat.

        Like

      • Some thoughts for St. Thomas More Academy:

        1. I wouldn’t comment on a manosphere blog because I’ve got a fairly strong sense of self-preservation. It’s creepy enough finding that some of those guys obsess over stuff I’ve written elsewhere without parachuting onto their turf. I don’t trust ’em. There’s a common bad combo in those parts of total lack of empathy/high technical ability/hatred of 90+% of the population.

        2. One of the most dysfunctional things about the manosphere is how painstakingly they teach naive and inexperienced (not to mention kinda autistic) younger guys not to believe anything women say. So, if your wife asks for help, it couldn’t possibly be because she needs help. If she says sex hurts, it couldn’t possibly be because sex hurts. If she says she’s having trouble with the kids and she really doesn’t want to have another baby right now, she couldn’t possibly be having trouble with the kids. Etc.

        It would be bad enough for a socially savvy person to adopt this philosophy, but as it happens, the young manosphere guys just about uniformly seem to be of well below average social intelligence and well below average social functioning. And the sad thing is, a guy like that could do very well to lean on a more socially gifted wife for figuring out social situations and practical problems, especially those involving people. But no–this Sheldon Cooper look-alike has to insist on knowing everything already and there being absolutely nothing he could learn from his wife…It’s like Sheldon with no Amy.

        3. One of the biggest mysteries for me of the Christian manosphere is how the guys believe simultaneously in the omnicompetence and the omnistupidity of women. So, the wife is supposed to be just smart enough to raise and homeschool a large family all by herself, but she’s not smart enough to have views worth listening to on….well, anything really. Which is it, guys?

        4. Every woman who says boo is a “feminist,” even if she’s a homeschooling mother of six.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. 3b. The wife is supposed to be an expert homemaker, mother and home educator, but it’s not worthwhile listening to her opinions on homemaking, childcare and education.

    Weird.

    Liked by 1 person

    • AmyP,

      Good point about the self-preservation. I made that gargantuan mistake myself, and boy did I learn a lot about what they will do to someone who says that they are misinformed. I’ve worked with ladies who have been in bad situations over the years, and thought to propose to them one of the situations we were in with a relative who was in a seriously bad situation — she was basically being gaslighted and things had gotten very, very bad — and I thought perhaps they could offer some insight as to just what might be going on with her and her husband. She had finally written down the things she wanted to say to her husband regarding his treatment of her, and asked if it was worded correctly; the thought occurred to me that some of the manosphere guys might possibly be able to offer insight, so I asked, protecting her anonymity (and she agreed about asking for input)…..and boy, did my spine chill when I read all the responses. I could not believe what I was reading. Then when I added that my husband was also trying to help this poor lady out, they bashed HIM for getting involved in another man’s marriage….that experience alone told me volumes about how they felt about mental abuse in a marriage. They don’t believe it exists. They also don’t believe a person could have their mind so messed with by a person that they believe they can’t get help and need outside intervention when things get so bad you can see a tragedy will develop if you don’t intervene….I think they would prefer a suicide or a murder to anybody “interfering” in a dangerous situation. Finally calling a spade a spade got me banned from commenting, which is ultimately a good thing, because eventually everyone gets called for who they really are.

      My husband was involved with helping our relative (which I pointed out because they were attacking me for my “feminism” in interfering), and they bashed him as well. I guess my husband intervening to protect her before something really bad happened was wrong, since she was married to someone else who I guess “owns” her and can do whatever he wants with her. (Never mind the fact that she is my husband’s blood relative.)

      There are people, believe it or not, who are so cowed by the thought that everything the other person says must be right, and they must be doing this to me because I probably provoked it and it’s my fault, and they simply cannot and do not have the will to seek help. They’re called codependents. Telling them to just go get help if they’re in trouble doesn’t work. Some people simply can’t do it, and then a tragedy ends up happening to them, or their children. Manospherians say that is an evil fear. Which maybe it is, but telling them their fear is evil only adds more fuel to the thought pattern that they’re evil and that they must deserve all the stuff that’s happening, and so on it goes. Until someone intervenes and says, “You must take care of yourself, and I’m going to get you started,” the cycle doesn’t break. But in the manosphere’s eyes, that is a feminist tactic to destroy a marriage.

      Maybe it’s their version of “survival of the fittest”. I don’t know, but what I do know is that my husband is a thousand times more of a man than any of them. He stood up for someone who could not help herself. He protected her physically and emotionally and drew a line in the sand. If anything, the great gift of the manosphere is to make you realize just what a great blessing you have in your own life. Especially important on this Thanksgiving Day. And meanwhile, you pray hard for the women married to manosphere men that they get the graces to persevere to the end — unless in real life these folks are not as bad as they make themselves out to be (I hope not).

      It is my surmisation that they have immersed themselves in the secular world and have become embittered regarding the secular culture. And I can understand this, having a teenage son of my own whom I must guard and warn against the filth of modern society. But you can immerse yourself too far, and it appears clear that most of them are young, and did not have appropriate parental guidance. It’s an opportunity for those of us who are mothers of teens to take heed as to what can happen without a good mother teaching her children. Same for Dad, too, but I’m speaking here to other women and mothers.

      Well, this has been long and I didn’t intend for it to be, but it’s a good day to give thanks for the GOOD husbands and fathers in our lives, and to learn how blessed we are.

      Blessed Thanksgiving!

      Like

      • 1. “…that experience alone told me volumes about how they felt about mental abuse in a marriage. They don’t believe it exists.”

        They believe mental abuse exists, but only with female perpetrators.

        2. “Never mind the fact that she is my husband’s blood relative.”

        You never get a sense of those guys having a really lively extended family life, do you?

        3. “If anything, the great gift of the manosphere is to make you realize just what a great blessing you have in your own life.”

        Yes!

        4. “And meanwhile, you pray hard for the women married to manosphere men that they get the graces to persevere to the end — unless in real life these folks are not as bad as they make themselves out to be (I hope not).”

        I think that probably in real life, they’re mostly just very stupid and rigid with their wives. I feel like there’s a bad synergy between the autism spectrum and the manosphere. I know one guy like that in real life and he’s not evil and he wants to do the right thing, but he’s got a) a very strong sense of his rights as a husband b) no humility c) poor social skills and little empathy. The combination is really toxic.

        The more I hear of that kind of situation, the less I am impressed by manosphere fairy tales of wife-initiated divorces that come out of nowhere. Suuuuure.

        The other issue is that there are various traditional methods of managing difficult husbands, and some of these guys may not realize that they’re being managed. (Come to think of it, an overseas wife might be especially conversant with those methods.)

        5. “But you can immerse yourself too far, and it appears clear that most of them are young, and did not have appropriate parental guidance. It’s an opportunity for those of us who are mothers of teens to take heed as to what can happen without a good mother teaching her children.”

        Yes!

        Happy Thanksgiving!

        Like

        • I think it’s much simpler, these guys don’t like real hierarchy and real authority. Being subject to another man (or *gasp* another woman who is invested with authority from a man) is something they simply can’t accept. The idea that being the head of a tiny nuclear family doesn’t make you an earthly God-figure is really upsetting to them and they get pretty touchy if it’s called out. They always find a way to claim proper authority somehow never involves other men regulating their behavior.

          It’s part of American tradition, pushing against authority, but they take it to a profoundly disordered extreme.

          Like

  5. Not to be a comment box hog, but I’ve been wanting to talk about this stuff for a long time.

    6. The Christian manosphere ideology makes it virtually impossible for a man to be a good husband because those guys explicitly teach other men to ignore any and all signs of distress from their wives. Allegedly, it’s all whining and manipulation. (And I don’t think I’m exaggerating about this–you will literally never see the Dalrock gang discussing what to do when your wife is genuinely suffering, because they don’t believe that a married woman can genuinely suffer. It’s that solipsism/semi-autistic thing again–if I’m not suffering, my wife can’t possibly be suffering.)

    The thing I really want to ask those guys (but there’s no way I’m going there to ask) is–how would you know that your wife was suffering or struggling, given that you’ve got a well-worked out program for ignoring or silencing all signs of distress from your wife?

    There are at least two contradictory views in play here:

    a. women are weak by nature
    b. women ought to be able to take anything that their husbands or life dish out

    Again, which is it, boys? Choose one–you can’t choose both.

    7. The belief that feminism just came out of nowhere.

    It’s a hallmark of the Christian manosphere that stuff just happens for no reason. Feminism starts–for no reason. Wives complain or leave–for no reason.

    Like

  6. I agree with you ladies on many of these things, but I don’t think we can entirely discount everything the manosphere says. I’ve had confirmations from blog authors (along with continuing suspicions) many of these men don’t have a lot of experience with women (even with their own female relatives); their views about women are from the trickle-down, fractal effect of the manosphere. Or, their experience with women has been awful and those women are the archetypes for all women. It’s like hey, if all of these guys are talking about how awful their divorces were and the innate terrible nature of women, maybe it’s true…especially if one doesn’t have much experience to compare to.

    IME, men and women can be awful, and we’re responsible for meticulously discerning who and what is poor character. I do believe a handful of the men on the manosphere are genuinely searching for truth and want to be holy husbands. What I don’t like is how they seem to allow some of their audience to hurl verbal vitriol towards female commenters, and it’s okay because moderating would be a threat to free speech or it means you’re pandering to women…or something. Correction is not censorship. Just because there was disagreement on one aspect, doesn’t mean the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

    The ‘net can be a strange place, where people can create their own realities or replace actual reality with the “‘sphere” of their choosing. It explains why so many people are rigid in their thinking, and I’ve seen that with both sexes. “Red pill” unmarried women have just as many rigid views about marriage and family just as the unmarried men. Heck, a few of the married women are so supplicating they’ll do anything for brownie points.

    I don’t like the trend of banning or restricting the sexes depending on discussion, especially when the topics are non-sexual in nature, but it’s all done to prevent arguments (that happens on the ‘net?) and challenging views. There’s a reason why I didn’t read the manosphere for 1.5 years or so… I’ve never seen the banning intersex discussion on other alt right blogs, religious forums (unless it’s sex-specific topics), or “conservative” type blogs.

    The manosphere and the ‘net as a whole isn’t the best place to look for an exemplary example of patriarchy. I’d argue the manosphere doesn’t know what patriarchy truly is, and it’s not about what’s “your own.” I was raised in a patriarchal culture, and I can tell you the men don’t go around touting what’s theirs. It’s not about making the husband the center of his own family, and the wife better obey or else. True patriarchy involves a lot of sacrifice, a lot of responsibility, and your reputation is on the line. Your word is treated as gold, and there were many times where I can recall my dad following through with what he said for the betterment of the community. If you want to partake of the community, you need to contribute. Why is it the manosphere never talks about patriarchy this way? Has all of western civilization been about the husband as a god-like center of the universe, with no community? See, I know it makes no difference for me to mention any of these things at a manosphere blog because I’m a woman and therefore my word is crap. It doesn’t matter I’m from a patriarchal culture, what would I know.

    No matter how hard they try, the alt right will never be able to replicate the wisdom and insight shared from our Christian forefathers, or from antiquity. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike all stem from them, and I’ve yet to see anything overshadow what’s been in existence for hundreds of years and millenia.

    Liked by 1 person

      • TPC,

        Really looking forward to your Red Pill Women series!

        I’d also be interested in talking about launching children successfully. My current practical thoughts are 1) no college debt or as little college debt as possible and 2) encouraging savings during the years spent living at home (especially if kids live at home for college).

        Like

      • A lot of submission blogging seems designed to convey the idea, “Look what an ogre my husband is, and what an angel I am to joyously submit to him!”

        I can think of at least one female blogger of that sort (Mychael from morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com) that isn’t guilty of that, but a lot of submission blogging women make their husbands sound terrible, which doesn’t sound very submissive to me.

        Like

    • Some thoughts:

      1. People with poor social skills do tend to have a lot of disastrous social experiences and they often think it’s everybody else, not them.

      2. “I do believe a handful of the men on the manosphere are genuinely searching for truth and want to be holy husbands.”

      Yes, and they tend to be very young and naive (or middle aged and naive).

      I’ve talked elsewhere online with one of those young earnest manosphere guys and I’m pretty sure he wanted to be a holy husband, but he just had no clue. For instance, he was balking at the expense of dating.

      I’m pretty sure he had no clue as to how expensive having a family is going to be (especially a Costco-sized Catholic family).

      3. “Heck, a few of the married women are so supplicating they’ll do anything for brownie points.”

      Remember SSM and the dishwasher story not to mention the totally fictitious extra daughters? Good times, good times.

      I feel like she’s been a lot more human lately. It may have something to do with having daughters and spending a lot of time around real live teenage girls and seeing that they’re actually human and not mini-tramps.

      4. “The manosphere and the ‘net as a whole isn’t the best place to look for an exemplary example of patriarchy.”

      Yeah. “Internet patriarchy” is right up there with “jumbo shrimp.”

      5. “Has all of western civilization been about the husband as a god-like center of the universe, with no community?”

      Nope.

      Like

      • I thought the SSM dishwasher story was real? I read about it, but not on her blog; it was gone by the time I got to it. I sort of shrugged the dishwasher story off…..I went without a dishwasher for some time, although not because of knives but because it just quit on us one day…..which was funny in itself…..didn’t replace it because we had three places to put every penny, and we cut the water bill by handwashing and then dumping the water on the outdoor ornamental plants….and then one day my daughter bumped into the dishwasher and it started…..will wonders never cease….gives new meaning to the whack-it-on-the-side-and-it’s-fixed phenomenon. 🙂 I just figured she probably had the same financial issues we had at the time, and her husband had to tell her right now he couldn’t afford to replace it…..which I can certainly understand….

        Although I have to say she sure made her husband out to be an ogre in the dishwasher story (which I read off another blog that is dedicated to Titus 2). I have put knives in the dishwasher before, mostly because I’m on autopilot trying to finish things and I blank out….I couldn’t tell you what I fixed for dinner yesterday unless I really thought about it, because I’ve already washed two laundry loads and am tackling the mess on my desk with all the school papers piled up, and it would probably take me a while to remember what I cooked, with all the kids reminding me….and she was probably in the same position, I dare say, and if she was then it is my personal opinion that her husband was completely unreasonable.

        …..I got to shut up, I type too much. 🙂

        Like

      • The story DID make her husband sound like an ogre. I’ve seen plenty of other examples where women cited learning to refold laundry because that’s not how her husband learned to fold laundry, or learning to put away dishes better because that’s not how her husband learned, etc. None of those examples show me how submissiveness is the way to go. It just makes those husbands sound like micromanagers. I thought the domestic sphere was the woman’s role, not a man’s? If a woman is responsible for managing the home, why does her husband care about the way clothes are folded or the way dishes are washed? Seriously.

        Like

  7. I’ve talked elsewhere online with one of those young earnest manosphere guys and I’m pretty sure he wanted to be a holy husband, but he just had no clue. For instance, he was balking at the expense of dating.

    Or, they have no idea what dating/courtship should be like. I’ve already expressed my criticism over that at donalgraeme’s place, where the single guys thought it was okay for unmarried women to be submissive to a man she’s not married to. Uh-huh, because that’s how patriarchy works. Or not. Not once did I ever say a woman should never give anything to the man she’s romantically involved with, but my words were misconstrued.

    It became “men are obligated to give women everything, and women owe them nothing.” The funny thing is, unmarried men and women actually don’t “owe” each other anything, but speaking from a woman’s perspective when I was dating my now-husband, it would have been awful to not align myself with him as our relationship progressed. Of course I showed submissiveness after time, duh. But unmarried relationships progress differently than marital relationships. Do people not understand the context of boundaries? I thought it was rich when the line of “there needs to be a functional dating culture” came in. How is it even functional, or moral to expect every unmarried woman to submit to men she’s not married to? Golly I wonder what the fathers would think. The Bible is dead silent on the topic of dating, and people seem to forget that tidbit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • My husband didn’t “owe” me a thing when we were dating. He chose of his own free will to ask me out on a date, I accepted of my own free will, and along with that comes the obligation on the girl’s part to enjoy that which he has planned and thank him graciously afterward. If he doesn’t enjoy her company, then he need never ask her out again. It bemuses me that they can’t get that.

      There is simply no point in trying to engage anybody on those blogs. Last year I tried to engage in a discussion with one of the other folks, and no matter what I said, it was wrong and misconstrued. I finally gave up. This was before the incident I mentioned up above. It got so bad I had to delete my old blog, because I got all sorts of followers and people commenting with some of vilest language, I deleted them, but they were spamming me with every four-letter word in the book and more. Then someone must have hacked my account as well because some really weird things started happening. Stuff came up all over the place in my old screen name, I got weird emails. I finally deleted my blog and my entire account to start anew and fresh. I learned my lesson well, believe me.

      These manosphere guys are vicious. Once you challenge their views, they will come at you with all their fangs out. The Christian guys are not too terrible, but if there is a secular one amongst them, or you happen to disagree on a secular one, LOOK OUT. They will eat you alive.

      Like

      • I meant to say that it was after both of the incidents — trying to engage with the person I mentioned a year ago, and then culminated in the incident I mentioned in which I asked for input on our relative — that all these things happened.

        Like

      • I’ve never met devout Christian guys like that in real life. I’ve been to church youth groups, Friday night worship, Bible studies, young adult groups, married couples groups, etc. Never once have I come across guys like that.

        It sounds like you were through the ringer, STMA :/ My goodness. In real life, if one can’t handle criticism and challenges to one’s views in stride, and have a debate or conversation like an adult, the person is disregarded. How the manosphere currently functions is not a semblance of reality.

        Like

        • There are men like the manosphere “single women should submit to any random man” types IRL. It is acceptable fringe. Not many of them, and they mostly say it to other men, who then typically (though not always gently) correct them IRL.

          Like

    • Maea,

      Yes!

      Some thoughts:

      1. No, those guys aren’t big on boundaries, especially for women.

      2. They don’t get that it’s really important for chastity for a woman to not submit to random men, or even to every guy that she’s seriously dating. To maintain chastity, a woman has to be able to tell men NO. So, unfortunately for them, the more chaste a woman is, the more likely she is to be capable of standing up to them.

      3. Unrelated (but kinda sorta not)–there’s a major STEM fetish in those parts and some rather noticeable gaps in knowledge with regard to softer subjects like literature and history, especially social history. Hence the gullibility of the average manosphere guy–they simply don’t have the sort of knowledge base that would enable them to evaluate manosphere claims. And they don’t know that they don’t know.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      4. I think that the issues a lot of the guys have with understanding dating are related to a lack of social knowledge generally, for instance understanding that dating rules are a subset of the more general rules relating to hospitality and reciprocity. They don’t get that with a real live friendship or romantic relationship, there is mutual hospitality and reciprocity. If one person is doing all the heavy lifting and initiation, it’s not a viable friendship or romance.

      Going forward, I think it’s going to be very important to teach boys (and less socially savvy girls) social rules fairly explicitly–how to be a host, how to be a guest, how to maintain friendships, not persisting with social overtures in the face of obvious disinterest, etc.

      Like

      • Unrelated (but kinda sorta not)–there’s a major STEM fetish in those parts and some rather noticeable gaps in knowledge with regard to softer subjects like literature and history, especially social history.

        That is very true, and why is it that no one cites their sources?? It’s maddening. I end up having to do a ton of my own research, but the bright side is I am more knowledgeable and I keep records of my research…

        Like

      • Maea said:

        “That is very true, and why is it that no one cites their sources?? It’s maddening.”

        Right.

        There’s one stat (on the higher divorce rates of non-virgin brides) that is part of the Dalrock canon, but I’ve never seen a source cited or how large the effect is. I have no idea what year it’s from (and that’s important–the virgin bride of 1955 is not the same as the virgin bride of 1975, 1995 or 2015) and I have no idea how large the survey sample was or how the divorce demographics on age, income level, education and time spent dating or engaged interact with the virginity stat. The virginity stat stands in total isolation.

        I find their treatment of female virginity objectionable for a number of reasons:

        1. They don’t twig to the fact that if women lie about virginity and partner number (as the Dalrock guys insist they do), that their stat about lower divorce rates for virgin brides is contaminated by that same fact.

        2. Their enthusiasm for virgin brides is unmatched by enthusiasm for college educated brides or 25+-year-old brides or high household incomes, even though those groups also have lower rates of divorce. It’s almost as if a lower rate of divorce isn’t really the goal at all, and what’s going on is just some sort of creepy virginity fetish…

        3. It seems to be more the rule than the exception that a lot of the try hard red pill Christian women were totally not virgin brides.

        Like

  8. TPC,
    Interesting discussions here. I just have time for a quick comment now. Regarding the social pathologist link, you haven’t seen that posted likely because the dalrock boys can’t stand him. He goes by slumlord when he has commented at dalrock in the past and he gets chewed up and spit out like so many others.

    Like

Comments are closed.