Alpha Mail: a category error

I received a few emails asking me about my opinion concerning a difference of opinion between Susan Walsh and Dalrock concerning a discussion of frivolous divorce. To be honest, I have to admit that I haven't been paying any attention to what appears to have been a bit of a kerfluffle even though I linked to the original post, which was a rather good one. Based on perusing the comments and the various responses, it seems fairly apparent to me that both sides have been talking past each other.

Susan's response to Doug1 was clearly one of a blogger dealing with an annoying commenter pushing an agenda, and therefore, her response is best understood in that context. I don't believe she had any intention of issuing a general challenge; I certainly didn't perceive one. Moreover, her core assertion was correct. A woman choosing to file for divorce due to her husband's infidelity isn't frivolous under any meaningful definition of the word, in fact, such an action is the exact opposite of frivolous. As Susan has rightly pointed out, once the marital contract is broken by infidelity, it is broken and divorce is the logical, if not the only possible, consequence. End of story. While it's possible to imagine situations where a woman has stage-managed the destruction of her marriage in order to play the victim, one cannot possibly assume this is the case in many, much less most, divorces for which the husband's infidelity is the proximate cause.

However, I don't think it is possible to either agree or disagree with the statement that "wife initiated frivolous divorce is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber" because it is first, an opinion, and second, it utilizes three subjective terms. Note that "exaggerated" and "overblown" are both unquantifiable terms, as is the adjective "frivolous". Were I involved in the discussion, I would have requested definitions of all three words before even attempting to determine what my own opinion was.

Now, I will say that I tend to think too much energy is devoted to bitching about female behavior that is the obvious consequence of the current legal regime. Yes, the zoo animals will tend to run wild if the cage doors are left open. But it serves little purpose to complain about the animals, it's the zookeepers and the open door policies that are the relevant controlling factor.

That being said, I completely support Dalrock's perspective concerning his right to hit anyone as hard as he sees fit, for any reason that suits him, including personal amusement.

So long as women demand to be taken seriously, I’ll reserve the right to take them at their word. If they put themselves in a position of leadership and/or make direct challenges to me or a group I’m part of, I’ll reserve the right to respond. I’ll do this understanding full well that many will feel that I’m unfairly picking on a poor defenseless girl in doing so.

Equality means never having to apologize. While I haven't gone over the numbers in any detail, I recall sufficient statistics to know that there simply isn't enough male infidelity to potentially account for the majority of female-triggered divorces. How many of those divorces are frivolous, I could not say, in the absence of a definition that can be quantified. Regardless, Susan is a big girl and she's got a better grasp of economics and statistics than most men, so if she's not fair game, then who could be? Her arguments are fair game, of course, nor are they going to be correct all the time for the obvious reason that no one's are, not even those produced by a coldly charming superintelligence with a certain je ne sais quoi.

What I think both parties are missing here is that there is absolutely nothing personal about intellectual debate. The facts are what they are, regardless of how well or poorly we happen to understand them, and so it is a category error for anyone to even talk about "pulling punches" or "piling on" because neither Susan nor Dalrock can be reasonably confused with either their opinions or their arguments.