failed marriages

Divorce Incorporated

What I’m going to get into today is going to be kind of dark. I’m doing this not to exacerbate any guy’s negative feelings, but to shed some light on the reality of how divorce operates in the United States as well as many other western societies. A lot of guys tend to focus on the logistics, the laws, the process of how a divorce proceeds. Much of what I see coming from Men’s Rights advocates about divorce centers on the need for legal and institutional reform of the process in their misguided hopes of creating a more ‘equal’ state between men and women. From what I understand, MRA’s primary hope (for most every issue they address) is that this reform can come from a top-down approach – changing the system to be more fair – rather than confronting the fact that these laws, divorce and others, are manifestations of an endemic social dynamic that is based on a fundamentally unfair, unequal interrelation between the sexes.

What I’m going to focus on here is dissecting this process, but doing so from a Red Pill aware perspective. While it may be the purview of the MRM that this process is fundamentally corrupt and in need of reform (I agree), what they willingly ignore is the root level inequalities that are part of men and women’s evolved differences that are the source of this process. This isn’t meant to be some take-down of the MRM; I find their causes worthy enough, but I believe their approach to solving them to be fundamentally flawed due to a refusal to accept the core, evolved differences in men and women and a stubborn refusal to reject the ideals of egalitarian equalism that the feminism they claim to hate is ostensibly founded on.

This system is designed to create conflict, but that conflict is rooted in the presumption that men are always at fault in it. This is why there can never be an equalist solution to correcting the endemic problems of modern divorce procedures.

At present I have a personal friend I’m counseling who is in the opening phases of this process. He and his soon to be Ex are also in ‘marriage therapy’. First thing I ask, “is it a man or woman therapist?” He says woman. I say, you’re fucked; start planning your exit now.

He agrees, but still has that Blue Pill hope he’s not wasting his money (she’s a SAHM) and they’ll be able to negotiate some mutually amicable feigning of her desire for him. When we invest ourselves in something we’ve accepted is supposed to be effective we’ll hold on to hope that it will because there’s a part of us (especially in idealistic men) that doesn’t like to think we are able to be conned. This is a very well studied psych phenomenon. We convince ourselves that we ‘got something out of’ an experience regardless of it being a provably bad investment. We like to believe that in all labor there is profit, but reality shows us, quite often, that this simply isn’t true.

I gave him a list of things to keep in his head as he was going to these counseling sessions, but I also told him the truth that marriage counseling is almost always ‘last stop before toll’ and that he needs to be careful now because his wife will eagerly use this therapist’s testimony to destroy his character at a later date. That’s the profit model for therapists in divorce proceedings. They’re getting paid when you’re coming and going.

I told him she will turn into someone he never thought she could become and most of it will be at the prodding of their therapist and her attorney (who he’ll also be paying). It’s in all of their best interests that they create a monster of him. The male anger bias I write about here will be the primary basis for his character assassination.

Anything even remotely, positively masculine or Alpha is still a ‘man being a man’ and this can always be reinterpreted as potentially aggressive or violent. In a feminine-primary social order where feminized men and women are taught that men are inherently evil and prone to anger and violence (the “culture” of masculinity) there’s an army of women and White Knight sympathizing men who want nothing more than to stick it to the ‘man’ symbolically. And when they draw a paycheck from doing so they’re all the more eager. Add to this that they feel a sense of moral justification in “making the world a better place” by burning him in an effigy of all men and you get to where we are now. We presently live in a social order that presumes any masculinity is “toxic” or “hyper” masculinity. So disassociated from anything positive has society become with regard to conventional masculinity that just the term is now masculinity is a negative connotation.

Needless to say this will be the starting point from which a soon-to-be-divorced man will have his undoing begin. So prevalent is the presumption of abuse on a man’s part that even the most saintly father can be remade into a secret monster. It’s just ‘how guys are’ and this presumption also serves as a point of justification for women, and Blue Pill male sympathizers, to feel okay about pillorying him.

Yes, I understand that there is at least a reportedly higher incidence of men being the abuser in domestic cases, but we also have to understand that the definition of “abuse” has been rendered so ambiguous that most men don’t realize virtually anything they do in a domestic confrontation can fit the definition of “abuse”. Just raising one’s voice is enough to qualify as psychological abuse. Denying a woman access to money also fits a new definition of abuse. I once counseled a guy who had been taken to jail for snatching the car keys away from his drunk wife so as to prevent her from driving drunk. She called the police and, as you likely know, the man is always the party removed from the home by police. Snatching the keys was enough to qualify his removal. 5 months later he’s living with his parents (at 43) and paying rent on a home and car payments on a car only his now ex is allowed to occupy and drive.

I know how my friend’s story is going to end. I’m doing what I can to give him fair warning – it’d be better for him to completely pull up stakes and remove himself from the situation than stick around and ‘try to make it work’ because the longer he lingers the more ammunition she and the therapist potentially get. I think this is also the profit model; keep the Blue Pill chump husband around the house for as long as it takes to build him up as a stereotypical ‘man’ and then escalate the most marginal conflict as a ‘typical’ domestic violence incident and he’s gone. If you watch the above documentary on the divorce industry you’ll see how many lucrative profit opportunities there are at every stage of divorce; and there is no incentive to dissuade divorce profiteers from doing anything different. And, as I stated earlier, there are many ready-made social and moral conventions available to help them justify their profits.

Old Books and New Books

‘No one cares how mean your ex was, how unfair she was to you and so on … at the end of the day, the system can’t right wrongs, they only process your case’

The above and following  quote was from an article in the National Post, Family court advice for men, from one who’s made it through;

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of notes; on a gender breakdown, probably 80 percent are from men, 20 percent from women.

I’ve heard from family court lawyers, some of whom are angry at my suggestions that fathers get the tough end of the stick in child custody cases (though the actual evidence is reasonably clear that they do), some of whom say “the whole system is B.S … one of the first things out of my mouth when I see someone is, ‘What’s your budget and how much does he/she dislike you?’” I’ve heard from judges and former judges and psychologists and counsellors.

Without exception, they agree that the system is beyond broken.

What we have, fundamentally, in the state of modern divorce is a conflict between old books social contracts serving as the ethical basis of a new books resource transfer from men to women (Thomas Ball even described it as such). Really this conflict is at the root of much of what Red Pill awareness (from the social perspective of intersexual dynamics) describes, but in this instance there’s an entire social complex that influences policy and profit. Judges, attorneys, psychologists and counselors all make a very good living from this fundamental conflict; and if you watch the Divorce Incorporated documentary I linked you’ll see that there’s no incentive to ever change that profitable conflict at any stage.

However, all of the people involved in even a typical western divorce are all subject to the belief sets that the Feminine Imperative has predisposed them to about men and women. We presume a default state of victimhood is to be applied to a woman and the benefit of that victimhood doubt runs deep. We see it evolve into the kangaroo court systems that govern what we’re told to believe is an endemic ‘rape culture’ on college campuses – up to and beyond denying a man his civil rights.

We’re taught that any slight appearance of abuse towards a woman is an opportunity to teach any man doing so a lesson, but should a man be the victim of the same abuse? Well, he probably had it coming. The Feminine Imperative has (and still is in some senses) prepared women and Blue Pill men to believe that women are untouchable; always to be believed, by default, in their victim status no matter the circumstance.

Now we can expand this presumption to every party involved in a divorce proceeding. We get female therapists whose livelihoods depend on following the victimhood of women and demonization of men (and masculinity) script the Feminine Imperative has laid out for them for most of their lives. We get Blue Pill Alphas eager to prove their authority by punishing any man who might remind them of their asshole fathers or who fits their idea of what the imperative has taught him is a “misogynist”. The imperative plays to the natural ‘protector’ impulse of these men. We get well-conditioned attorneys, counsellors and judges ready to follow that same script by legally enacting the retribution and restitution upon which feminism has always been based.

But underneath all of this we have the fundamental inequalities in ideology between what the old books social contract expects of men while the divorce industry enforces, almost unilaterally male, punishment based on a new books social paradigm to better empower women – presumably to right the past wrongs they believe were endemic in that old books paradigm. What we have today are new books divorce and marital laws based on those old books presumptions of men’s evils, indiscretions and addressing the toll it allegedly took on women. The result is a system that is designed to psychologically, financially and personally ruin any man whose idealism led him to believe that men and women share some mutually recognized concept of love; enough to compel him to a lifetime commitment in modern marriage. It is a system calculated to destroy the same Blue Pill conditioned men who will eagerly stand up to defend their ego-investments in it.

The common refrain to this is always “just don’t get married”, and it is precisely this system’s goal to disincentivize long term commitment between the sexes so that this response is the only logical one. Thus, we get women spending small fortunes to freeze their eggs in the hopes that one day some man will be foolishly idealistic enough to look past all the inherent life-threatening risks marriage and divorce uniquely disposes men to. Thus, we get old books moralists berating men for wanting to prolong their adolescence (never mind women doing so is considered empowerment) by avoiding the dangers of marriage that they’ve been smart enough to understand, or have been a party to in one way or another.

In my next essay I’ll be addressing the misguided opinion of some ‘stand up’ Purple Pill moralists that the Red Pill is “just for guys who are obsessed with sex and make getting laid their life’s mission”. I’ll elaborate on why this is simply a distraction from the much larger meta-scope of Red Pill awareness and intersexual dynamics. However, understanding how the divorce industry is based on the same dynamics the Red Pill has described for a decade and a half is a good illustration of why the Red Pill isn’t just about men basing their lives on getting laid. This system is fundamentally unegalitarian and unequal, and the designed imbalances are entirely founded in Red Pill intersexual principles. This is why the MRM will never be successful in their hopes of a top down institution of social change. The laws and the social imperatives that crush men are symptoms of a deeper problem that requires a bottom up changing of men’s minds about women and themselves.

The Peacekeepers

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’ it’s usually in response to a comment or forum thread breaking down the cost-to-benefits ratio of the travesty that’s become Marriage 2.0. To me, the real irony in these evaluative debates is how often they arise. They come up so often it’s as if these men, in their most rational and prescient minds, are seeking permission from more experienced men to enter into marriage in spite of all the overwhelming downsides to what the institution has become. Even when they’re staring down the gun barrel, guys still want to get married. They want it to work like it’s supposed to.

‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ Marriages

I’ve made prior posts about my own marriage and how I’ve developed it, but I’m always reluctant to hold myself up as some model for other men to follow because I’m painfully and personally aware of the marriage stories of other men. As good as it sounds, don’t use my marriage as your benchmark.

In fact I think the very idea of a “successful marriage” is a very abused, feel-good Oprah-esque term. ‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ marriages are Matrix-speak. They’re goal oriented terms for a relational condition that’s constantly in flux. You have to stop thinking of a “successful marriage” in terms of years on the clock. There are people married for 50+ years who are absolutely miserable with each other, and there are couples married for 2 or 3 who have a better love and mutual respect for each other than their parents ever realized themselves after 40 years. Perpetuating a life-long state of misery because it became normalized is a much greater ‘failure’ than divorcing a woman who’s poisonous to your well-being, to say nothing of your family’s. Longevity does not equal ‘success’ in marriage.

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’, and particularly when asked by guys seeking to turn their Beta-framed marriage around, I always refer to this inspirational post from Dave in Hawaii. This is my go-to model for both the questioning unmarried man and the desperate beta-married man.

Experimentation

The underlying, root problem most men have with regard to women, intimacy, their relationships, etc. is fear. Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire. So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death. I personally know Marines who’ve bravely faced real bullets shot at them, who’ll manically avoid any situation they think their wives or girlfriends would even remotely consider leaving them for. Bullets don’t scare them, but the chance of losing a girlfriend’s intimacy paralyzes them with fear. This is the “Yes Dear” fear.

In order to compensate for that fear men will devise all manner of rationales for their relations, but furthest from their mind would ever be ‘experimenting’ or engaging in risk taking situations with their LTR woman. So influential is that fear that they will never attempt changing their own positions no matter how beneficial it would be to both him and his partner. Guys embodying the peak of confidence in other aspects of their lives would still rather “keep the peace” in the face of a bad situation with their wives than risk that loss (of the ONE or otherwise), and be cast back into uncertain conditions where they may actually grow, but again be subject to real rejection.

Dave in Hawaii’s story I linked is an example of a guy who would’ve otherwise divorced his wife and was already in a “nothing left to lose” situation while married, so he overcame the fear and experimented. That led him to a new reframing of his relationship; one where his wife had a renewed respect for him. The possibility existed that she could have taken such offense to his behavior that she would’ve been prompted to leave him, but her leaving was already a foregone conclusion if he hadn’t initiated something new.

There comes a point in a Man’s life where the fear of experimenting with a potentially disastrous outcome is out weighed by the cost involved in not assuming that risk.

Whether it comes (preferably) before he’s committed to a situation (like marriage) or as a result of the conditions created by that commitment, at some point he realizes the truth that he will only get what he has gotten if keeps doing what he has done. This is the internal debate the ‘peacekeeper’ has to confront – is his peacekeeping so debilitating that he wont experiment with risking a new outcome? If you’re still having this internal dialog you haven’t reached that threshold yet.

In July I’ll have been married for 16 years. Mrs. Tomassi and I have always enjoyed a mature, adult, mutual respect and understanding of each other’s identities and how we relate to each other. I’ve been in LTRs where I was constantly walking on eggshells, nervous that any slight might mean the end of what was really a twisted, adolescent level BPD relationship. You cannot live like that forever; you will break it off, or you will commit suicide. For over 16 years I’ve fearlessly ‘checked out’ other women and ask my wife’s joking opinion about them. And yes, she playfully hits me back by saying some random guy is cute, but my confidence to roll with what we’re both aware is part of the Game only serves to amplify her continued attraction for me. That push-pull is an essential part of my wife’s respect for me. Experimentation and a sense of fearlessness is an intentional foundation of my marriage.