Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Straining at a gnat

And missing the camel. A psychologist fails to grasp the concept of "economic incentive":
Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

How to explain? I find that these data are consistent with what I and others have seen clinically. When men and women seek couples therapy and then subsequently divorce; or, when either partner seeks individual therapy about a marriage conflict that ends in divorce, it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.
The difference is that in a marital breakup, a woman gets cash and prizes. In a non-marital breakup, a woman gets nothing.

This indicates that since there are 2.3 marital breakups initiated by women for every marital breakup initiated by a man, the divorce rate could be reduced by 39.4 percent by removing the economic incentive from women.

33 comments:

swiftfoxmark2 said...

If no-fault divorce had been passed with the removal of alimony and child support, we'd see a very different world in the US these days.

Thanks Ronald Reagan.

Trust said...

Notice the framing. Women express and try to deal with the dissatisfaction. Men just lope along.

They don't consider the possibility that men suck it up and try to get along. They ultimately give up on trying to fill a bottomless pit.

They also don't consider the way that the woman is "expressing dissatisfaction.". In all likelihood, she's being a selfish immature bitch who feels she's entitled to receive unconditional love without regardless of her behavior.

Dr Laura call of the day from such a wife:
http://drlauradl.noxsolutions.com/audio/calls/2016-08-16_c_Nikki.mp3

If these stats were reversed they'd tout a woman's endurance and a man's abuse.

savantissimo said...

Cash and prizes is certainly a big part of it, but Heartiste just brought up another factor: "romance" porn warping women's ideas of what's normal, probable or even possible. Many romance addicts feel deep down that their current marriage is the only thing standing between them and being pursued by a rugged yet sensitive billionaire who will (after a satisfactory amount of drama) devote his life to her feelz. If they had an actual thought process instead of a wheel-spinning rationalization hamster, women would realize what happens in romance novels seldom happens in real life, but they operate totally on the basis that what they feel they would like must be the entire purpose of the universe. In reality she won't even enjoy what she thinks she wants, but that's OK because she won't get it, either. Meanwhile, though, if she doesn't get enough real-life drama/domination from her husband she'll wreck her marriage in pursuit of what the romances tell her she could be having.

tweell said...

Ah, but hypergamy, the rationalization hamster and romance porn are at work in non-marital relationships as well. A woman in a relationship has no problem with hopping to another guy that she perceives as more worthy. The money for nothing is the biggest difference here.

Here's where white knights have screwed us yet again. Awarding the woman cash and prizes for divorce would be perceived by that mindset as protecting the institution of marriage, because guys will see the financial downside and stay married, while the 'can do no wrong' 'spiritually advanced' women would of course not divorce for any reason other than an evil partner.

manuel hernandez said...

Even in a nonmarital breakup, if you "invested" on that relationship, she's still going to keep that Cartier watch, or that Coach purse. That those are or aren't long term gains, that's another thing, but you see where I'm going at. Either way, the man loses money and more importantly, valuable time.

Undocumented Pharmacist said...

Women initiate divorce more often because it is in their self-perceived interests to do so. They express more dissatisfaction because their expectations are more unrealistic. Men initiate less often as divorce is definitely against their interests and their expectations were probably much more realistic (though they are often disappointed) to begin with.

Men can just as easily say "fuck you" as women in a non-marital relationship because they don't stand to lose anything.

Bike Bubba said...

I don't know how one could totally remove the incentive of the 50/50 split in assets without prenups--OK maybe that's a solution there--but I agree wholeheartedly with ending the presumption of sole maternal custody and child support, except in special cases (e.g. one parent poses a risk, one parent doesn't want joint custody). I vividly remember listening as a young "lady" was plotting out how much child support she would get when she divorced her husband, a husband who was not even the biological father of two of her four children. That, along with welfare programs (including Obamacare subsidies), is a very real issue driving divorce rates.

Cigar Sommelier said...

My ex had $150,000+ reasons to get divorced... Good riddance!

Miguel D'Anconia said...

Then women wonder why they can't find a good man. Why in the hell would a man marry no adays? Especially without a pre-nup and significant asset protection.

Keyser Soze said...

It cost me a half M, but in retro, best thing that happened to me. I almost want to thank her......and ironically I carry no grudge..........

praetorian said...

These clinical observations are consistent with what the study’s lead author, (((Michael Rosenfeld))), suggests — that women may be more likely to initiate divorces because the married women reported lower levels of relationship quality than married men. In contrast, women and men in non-marital relationships reported equal levels of relationship quality. (((Rosenfeld))) said his results support the feminist assertion that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable.

He adds, “I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality. Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage, which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable to modern expectations, including women’s expectations for more gender equality.”


Is it possible to NOT read this in the voice of Morrakiu?

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

It is really a wonder where they find scientists this blind - did the guy just walk out of a time machine from 1920 before doing this study? "You get more of what you pay for" is such a eureka phrase that considering it is akin to the invention of the transistor?

Matthew Peak said...

I am curious as to how many marriages are honestly (secretly) ended because of conflicts over who is in charge (who is the "head" of the marriage) and the lack of freedom a woman feels under marital commitments.

Bob Loblaw said...

Thanks Ronald Reagan.

Eh? Divorce is a state thing. Reagan only affected divorce law in California.

Bob Loblaw said...

They also don't consider the way that the woman is "expressing dissatisfaction.". In all likelihood, she's being a selfish immature bitch who feels she's entitled to receive unconditional love without regardless of her behavior.

Or worse - I know guys who were completely blindsided. They come home from work and a totally normal day and the wife is on the porch with bags packed. No indication this was coming.

Dexter said...

I am curious as to how many marriages are honestly (secretly) ended because of conflicts over who is in charge (who is the "head" of the marriage) and the lack of freedom a woman feels under marital commitments.

Red Pill answer: if you, the man, are in charge and doing your job, there is no conflict. Conflict only arises when you are failing to show leadership; when you show too little leadership, not when you show "too much" leadership.

She does not want "freedom". She wants to submit to a worthy man in whose leadership she feels confidence. She only wants "freedom" if your leadership is weak.

Trust said...

@Dexter: She does not want "freedom". She wants to submit to a worthy man in whose leadership she feels confidence. She only wants "freedom" if your leadership is weak
________

So, female misbehaviors are caused by male imperfections.

Brilliant, feminist tool.

Mountain Man said...

Oh yeah... Ive got buddy whose wife just left him. She got the tingles for some guy she knew. He moved in while my buddy moved out. She got the house and full child support while he gets to go live up the road in a dingy apt and continue his wretched life of driving a truck from 3am.- 700 pm to support it all.
Recently I recommended he start hitting the gym at night. He used to love lifting till he got married. He says to me " I can't afford the gas and the membership- all but enough for necessities is going for child support". It broke my heart to hear this. No man should have to suffer like this.
White privilege my ass - I see more white guys suffering like this than you can shake a stick at - here in the land of the "free"

S. Misanthrope said...

Vox is spot-on about this being all about incentives. I suspect that the pivot actually happened not with no-fault divorce and 50/50 laws but with the (feminist-initiated) switch in custody from fathers to mothers. As a fictional example, what Anna Karenina couldn't bear in the end was not reduced wealth or social status but the loss of her first-born. The whole point of hypergamy is to gain resources for the children, after all.

The Divorce Corp film puts a lot of work into showing how expensive divorce is, as though people don't already know. Where I grew up, divorce is very nearly as common as marriage, and every single person complains about how expensive it is. These costs are not secret or hidden. People aren't confused and making a bad financial decision due to lack of information. In general, people know that it's cheaper to live in one household versus two. Yet women gladly give up those resources for some reason. That reason could be another chance to ride the carousel (so they imagine) or to escape from marital obligations or attain some hypergamous fantasy...or it could be the powerful drug of mother-child bonding allowed to spiral out of control.

If I'm right, this should be verifiable in historical divorce rate data. If the "scientist" is right, then women are simply less good at being happy than men are. But wait, isn't that sexist? Quick rephrase that to make it sound like it's mens' fault!

By the way, the study is based on survey data, not court records. Ugh, social sciences.

Dexter said...

So, female misbehaviors are caused by male imperfections.

Brilliant, feminist tool.


If she stops fucking you, and ultimately cheats or dumps you, yes that is your fault. You fucked up. Own it. You were weak, whiny, boring, and your relationship with her was on autopilot. Make yourself better. Do what it takes to be more attractive. Stop being an unattractive beta pussy. If all that self-improvement doesn't work on her, then it will work on some other woman.

Bob Loblaw said...

I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality. Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare.

I'm always amazed people can say this without also including "... and wives expect husbands to bring in the bulk of the money." If I had a nickel for every middle aged white woman in my area who has a part time job at the local animal rescue center and yet berates the husband for not doing half the housework because I have a job just like you...

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

Right Dex so anything you do is your fault and anything she does is your fault also. And you need to be on top of it if she calls the police on you for whatever contrived reason and when she does if you cannot defeat the police and overthrow the entire United States government your not "alpha" and its your fault. You can't stop her from pulling the rip cord the only thing you can do is have an escape - second passport - that the US can't revoke/block/etc. Getting married without one of those is stupid in today's legal environment.

Bodichi said...

@Dexter

"if she stops fucking you, and ultimately cheats or dumps you, yes that is your fault. You fucked up. Own it. You were weak, whiny, boring, and your relationship with her was on autopilot. Make yourself better. Do what it takes to be more attractive. Stop being an unattractive beta pussy. If all that self-improvement doesn't work on her, then it will work on some other woman."

Explain how it was God's fault when Eve directly disobeyed her. He must not have been man enough for her. Maybe he was too boring.

Bodichi said...

Satan is a far more dynamic person than God. He was exciting and not boring at all. If Eve preferred Satan over God, we should all emulate his actions.

Thank you now I understand.

Trust said...

Over the years I've witnessed many commenters beat their chest, throw around the word pussy, and tell everyone to man up.

I've long wondered what these supposed "real men" are like in real life.

Unknown said...

Easiest way to do that is force the immediate sale of residences, with proceeds split 50/50 and then have child support paid by both parents into and overseen by an escrow fund, with reimbursements paid only if justified by receipts, ya know, for ACTUAL support for children!

Right now a man pays "child support" and the ex can use it to support her coke habit when she parties with the bad boyz.

Austin Ballast said...

The whole point of hypergamy is to gain resources for the children, after all.

Bzzt.... Wrong!

It is all about gaining resources for her. She might like her offspring to gain something too, but it is all about her, not anyone or anything else.

====

The man is responsible for what he can do, it is not a simple either-or situation. Many have no clue how the power put in a woman's hands today creates very perverse incentives. Other fail to realize many men cause their own problems by acting in a manner that almost assures their marriage's destruction. It is sad that much of that behavior may be because they are following the advice of well-meaning but ultimately immoral people who tell him to do things that will destroy her attraction for him.

I went through my own time of lamenting some serious tough situations my wife and I were in (not between us, but other things). It almost destroyed my marriage. Things turned around when I did, but I am not foolish enough to think I was in full control of my wife and her decisions. Men should seek to control and improve themselves, but don't think for a moment that doing that is sufficient to fix everything.

Bob Loblaw said...

"if she stops fucking you, and ultimately cheats or dumps you, yes that is your fault. You fucked up. Own it.

While that's probably true in many cases, as a blanket statement this is wrong. You only have so much influence on what other people think and do.

Dexter said...

Over the years I've witnessed many commenters beat their chest, throw around the word pussy, and tell everyone to man up.

I've long wondered what these supposed "real men" are like in real life.


If you're referring to me, I am exactly what I was talking about: a guy who got weak, lazy, and boring after he got married. Changing that now.

Right Dex so anything you do is your fault and anything she does is your fault also. And you need to be on top of it if she calls the police on you for whatever contrived reason and when she does if you cannot defeat the police and overthrow the entire United States government your not "alpha" and its your fault. You can't stop her from pulling the rip cord the only thing you can do is have an escape - second passport - that the US can't revoke/block/etc. Getting married without one of those is stupid in today's legal environment.

She is not going to do all that harsh shit, and will not want to eject from the marriage, if you are not a weak boring beta pussy.

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

She is not going to do all that harsh shit, and will not want to eject from the marriage, if you are not a weak boring beta pussy.

Sure she will if she meets a more alpha man or if you have to work too much or are on deployment, etc. You have control of yourself not others. As has been pointed out Eve rejected GOD for satan so don't preach to me about this unless you want to say Eve's fall was GODs fault. Have a second passport and don't be afraid to use it.

S. Misanthrope said...

@Austin Ballast - What indicates that it's all about resources for her? Women with resources but no children are a uniquely miserable bunch. I would certainly agree that women generally don't consciously know they are gathering resources for children, and even with children they keep plenty for themselves, but woman + resources != happiness in the vast majority of cases. What am I missing? I admit I find it very hard to relate to and understand the average woman.

SciVo said...

You get more of what you incentivize. How this became controversial, I don't know.

Githyanki said...

On your numbers of female initiated divorce and economic incentive:
The country I live in, Namibia, though small, has the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world.
Out of every 11 divorces, 10 are initiated by women. If I calculated that right, 91%. As opposed to the 2.3 for 1 that you are mentioning. Another factor to observe though is that unemployment is very very high, even with pro feminine employment policies, so lower status females use the (very) easy option of marrying up with full intention of fiscal rape.
Kind of strengthens your argument that the correlation in female behaviour is, indeed, assets and money.
Current policy makes women the most employable class of citizen, with white women being the least advantaged of those due to the government policies in effect.
This has been going on for the past 25 or so years.
So I am just wondering if that implies that we might well live in the most effectively feminist country in the world. Lord knows local females of all races are utterly mercenary. White women being far more overtly hypergamous, of course. (In spite of economic realities, you better bring it as a man, buddy.)

Luckily I will not be around to see the full impact of this on the hapless males entering the job market now.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.