For those of you who have missed it, heretic Dalrock has trained his gimlet eye upon the Trad-Papist, Darwin Catholic. The brouhaha started when Mrs. DC discovered the no-holds-barred discussion nature of the manosphere; Dalrock launched his first salvo with Rules of the Road for Fornication, yet another takedown of the effort to make carousel-riding (or carousel watching) safe for women. She bleated and would not engage, but Mr. Darwin Catholic did, as Dalrock noted here. DC’s response talked about finding a “nice girl” to marry (one wonders if he’d read Roissy on this topic), and is well worth a read. DC’s advice, however, seemed overly simplistic, along the lines of George’s complaint in Seinfeld when Jerry asks him to teach him to lie to beat the lie detector: “You can’t just go up to Pavorotti and ask: ‘Teach me to sing like you.’” Dalrock’s response was to call DC the Alfred E. Neuman of TradCons, with “What, me Worry?” All the articles make for great reading, as two pro-marriage advocates of considerable intelligence square off. I think that Dalrock got the better of it; DC did not let my comment out of moderation on his post, while Dalrock allowed open discussion that he, and several commenters, owned.
We, the Papists at Patriactionary, now take up the cudgel in support of Mr. DC. Sir, you hit the jackpot. No, not just in marrying young to another chaste person, raising five arrows in your quiverfull, or being blessed to live in a like-minded community. You did not mention attending traditional Latin mass, but most of your life meets my prescription for success in “At an Orthodox Jewish Wedding.” Specifically, my lessons or suggestions to build a functioning society included:
Religions whose ceremonies are entirely or mostly in the vernacular cannot in form display the mystery that religions that use obscure, dead languages can. It cannot be coincidental that growing faiths, like Islam, Traditionalist Catholicism, the Amish, and the Orthodox Jews, rely so heavily on mysterious and reverence-inducing languages, at odds with the modern vernacular.
Beta men can win women of higher SMV by banding together to exclude interlopers who might try to game the sexual marketplace so as to monopolize a young woman’s most attractive years between 18 and 24.
The religious community must maintain a strong community life apart from the mainstream society, so strong that threatening to be expelled from that society constrains the behavior of women and men. Orthodox Judaism permits secular divorce, but, like Catholicism, holds back one stricture: a divorced spouse does not have to grant a “get,” (similar to a Catholic annulment) permitting the other spouse to marry again in the Orthodox faith.
Marriages must be seen as the bringing together of two families, not two people. Grooms must seek approval from brides’ fathers, and fathers must protect the chastity of their daughters. My friend’s daughter could honestly wear white at her wedding.
Marriage must be in accord with man’s biological nature. Female fertility is at a peak plateau from 18 to 24, and declines inexorably thereafter. Encouraging women to use that time to pursue careers or graduate school means that their chances of bearing healthy children will be lower, forever. (Sorry, Mrs. DC; that’s the truth)
Most importantly, the future belongs to those who show up for it, and that means religions that can reproduce themselves by having a greater-than-replacement-rate fertility, and holding on to members. The Orthodox do this well, perhaps because they know that the lower the number of sex partners a woman has (barring 0, of course), the higher the number of children she bears. To whit: “Not only do the Orthodox suffer many fewer losses from intermarriage, but their fertility rate is far above the Jewish norm. As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3 children in “modern Orthodox” families to 6.6 in Haredi or “ultra-Orthodox” families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim.” Christianity did not conquer the Roman empire with the sword, but with higher fertility rates, not being focused on material aspects and the “doubtful doom of mankind.”
Mr. DC grew up with this knowledge, even if it is “muscle memory,” and not something he can explicitly state. But when I say that he hit the jackpot, getting called out by Dalrock is also what I meant: how else to drive traffic to the site with the message about what is a splinter-size sect of the Church of Rome? So, take our advice, sir: read everything, especially the comments, and use it to build a more secure and growing community. I have taken the liberty of excerpting some of the best for you, with headings.
On the advisability of separatism
Mule Chewing Briars writes “Lots of dickswinging talk here – but really, what are the options for men?
1) DC’s solution – dive into a subculture that upholds patriarchy. Yeah. I already know one priest who had to leave the priesthood because his wife was unhaaaapy. It may work. It may not.
2) Join Roissy at poolside. The drinks are ready. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Not an option for anyone with a soul. Enjoy your life. Keep the penicillin nearby.
3) GYOW – No intimacy, ever. Kind of radical, but the number of men who did this in the first Christian centuries eventually brought Rome to heel. However, something tells me that the majority of MRAs would make piss-poor monks.
4) PUA-lite “game-your-wifers” see #1 above. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. Depends on the level of pimp hand you were dealt on how hard it will be for you to maintain. It would be exhausting for me.
5) Stormfront type shit. Badassery in the woods and the mountains. A wet dream for all but about 99.98% of men. Once they start rappelling out of the assault helicopters…
6) Work within the system. That takes time and organization. An Emily’s List for men? I could see it. We would need to start electing people at the local level first, and would have a hell of an uphill battle against the DV state and the feminized media gestalt.
The more I think about it, the more DC’s “solution” seems to be pretty feasible. Knotty, fussy, religion-level-dedicated face-time-sized communities will probably be the most likely to survive the coming shitstorm.”
Several commenters noted that the larger society posed a threat, even so, but the number agreeing with DC’s basic strategy was large.
Chris writes: “The problem is that the secular divorce laws actively undermine the rules of his (separatist) Catholic world — or the Amish, for that matter. The only way the community can function is to shun those who do not play by the rules.
This is moving from the theological position of universality (what ‘catholic’ means) to a functional counter cultural cult. Like the closed Brethren, Hutterites, etc.
What most of you forget is this strategy (works) . Not for society in general, but for those who are in the group. It as worked for the Anabaptists for 400 years. But it will not preserve a society who sees the Amish as quaint, part of a tourist trail, and cathedrals as tourist destinations.”
The Intrusion of Society
Many commenters objected that you might not be interested in modernity, but modernity is interested in you. A succinct atheistic comment:
“(2) You, Mr. Trad Con, are living in a Fool’s Paradise. At any moment, the dam may break and little, loyal Mrs. Trad Con just might let the flood tide of feminism and the simple reality of the law break through into her perfect little Mrs. Trad Con heart. And, when she does, it’s EPL time for you, Mr. Trad Con. Divorce papers. BS accusations of “abuse” (which, by the way, your Trad Con lifestyle and beliefs will only [confirm] in the mind and heart of the judge). Loss of child custody. Kicked out of your (own) house. Alimony. Child Support. “Setttlments.” Attorneys’ fees (yours and hers). Enjoy!”
Some suggested that your seeming obliviousness was a defense mechanism, and that you did in fact know the problems in the society at large:
Paul writes: “I wonder if sometimes the ignorance generally displayed by white knighting guys who have married well (good on them, I hope to be doing the same) isn’t really purposeful, a form of denial as psychological defense. Let us take the current subject at hand, Mr. Darwin, as an example. I went to a Catholic college, my friends were traditional, some Opus Dei, I have some idea where he’s coming from.
The facts about marriage 2.0 are pretty much self-evident and self-explanatory, you really have to choose to not get them. However, think of the consequences to someone such as Mr. Darwin of accepting them. Specifically, every married man in the U.S. and the West pretty much is entirely at the mercy of his wife, who has the entire legal and political establishment behind her. Period. Full stop. That’s quite the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head, and as we’ve all seen from personal example and in the overall statistics, there is no proof against that, not religion, not social class, nothing. Unhappiness sets in and you’re done like dinner, and you can’t do a darn thing about it.
Now this is bad enough for any guy, but imagine the fellow like Mr. Darwin, who is not only Catholic, but he means it, takes it seriously. On the one hand, to follow his religious teachings is very counter-cultural (i.e. to lead, be head of the house, etc.) and can get you arrested on a whim of Mrs. Darwin (not that I’m casting aspersions on her character, just saying that it is a simple fact that one phone call from her destroys his carefully constructed and sheltered world). Equally, should she end the marriage frivolously (which could happen at will, for any or no reason), there are obviously very troubling implications for him theologically, which should she leave obviously wouldn’t be bothering her anywhere near as much. Or, to sum up, he has a lot further to fall and is in for a much rougher landing should that come to pass.
Not only that, but he, called to be the leader, patriarch, etc., by teaching, wouldn’t be able to. His Church, either his Church or the Church as an entity, can’t do anything about it. In fact the Catholic Church is if anything tacitly supporting her frivolous divorce, regardless of whatever his local Catholic community might think or do. And of course if Mrs. Darwin were to simply decide to leave their community as well as the marriage, anything his very traditional community might do becomes a moot point.”
Could Pre-Nups help?
TFH proposed that a pre-nuptial agreement might help. But that cannot work with a Trad Catholic, as that shows a plan for divorce. You wrote this, as did wise man of the manosphere, Novaseeker. But Brent lays out the ancient case.
Brent writes: “With pre-nups, the woman wouldn’t be entitled to any support if she was unfaithful. This is another way in which pre-nups were designed to strengthen, not weaken, the marriage. They dis-incentivized female infidelity. They disincentivized male infidelity by requiring him to pay her money in the case of his infidelity. This stood as a check on the sinful flesh.
It is for this reason that within Orthodox Judaism, ever since the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish pre-nup, or Katubah, has been a requirement for Orthodox Jewish marriage… In the patriarchal ancient world, the tables were flipped, and consequently pre-nups were used to check male frivolous divorce. The tendency was still to give custody to the woman, intending this to stand as another check on male frivolous divorce.
In today’s society, the tables are flipped. A woman can frivolously divorce a man, for no reason. And overwhelmingly most divorces are filed by women, and the large majority of the time male infidelity is not a reason given in surveys. Once she divorces her man, even if she is the one in the wrong, he may be forced by a judge, at the judge’s whim, to give her huge sums of money, even if she has the capability of providing comfortably for her own basic needs. If her income is a comfortable $50K, and his is $100K, he has to make up the difference under the asinine legal principle that “standard of living” shouldn’t change because of a divorce. This is absurd on its face.
Add to this the tendency for courts to almost always award child custody to the woman, even if there is good evidence she might not be as good a parent as the man, and the tendency for courts to reflexively and unthinkingly give the woman the primary residence (thankfully, my ex-wife didn’t want mine, because it was too far from her work). You have a recipe for a woman’s sinful nature to be tempted to frivolously divorce a man just so she can get cash and prizes.”
On pre-nups, Novaseeker also weighed in.
Brendan writes: “Doubtful, because he’s handcuffed as a Catholic to a canon law system which provides that anything like that basically is an indicator that one had a faulty intention when entering into the marriage (and therefore the marriage may be annulled). I suspect that the “answer” he has is what he has stated above: follow “Catholic truth” and find someone else who does so as well, and do your best.
As I note above, this isn’t really a solution for the masses, even the masses of most Catholics. It’s in many ways a regurgitation of the old “you’re just going after/marrying the wrong women” or “you just don’t have the right attitude” and so on. It’s not useful in the context of an overarching legal and social system which applies to you regardless of your religious beliefs, affiliations and other attitudes.
And, in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level, generally, to any meaningful degree beyond wedge issues like abortion. They shame individual decision-making which constitutes a rational response to the realities of the current system, and instead make appeals to ideals, ideologies and beliefs that are all subject to the current system, no matter what they are, and so which can actually set one up for catastrophic failure. And the more of a personal bubble they live in, the worse their advice actually is.”
The Source of the problem: Women, the Serpent’s Target
Joe Sheehy writes: “Many people suggest the psychology of women remains constant, but I’m convinced it’s been changing. Their behavior has been changing, and this is a result of a changed psychology, it’s not just a matter of physical limitations on promiscuity being removed. I believe this firmly because I have spoken to career women from the Muslim world, about my age. Their psychology is a great deal different than western women the same age. They are just a lot more like my mother in their personalities than modern western women. There’s a lot of brainwashing going on, and while it’s tapping into the natural desires of women, it’s amplifying them and distorting them as well. It’s also poisoning them against their better instincts.”
What is to be done?
The important issues were framed by several commenters. I quote again the words of Brendan: “in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level.” We at Patriactionary agree: we must have a systemic approach. Your community is a good first step, Mr. DC, recalling the effort of the Church to save what could be saved of civilization in the West as Rome collapsed. But if it is to survive, and grow, and become again the mainstream of the West, it will need some help. Over the coming weeks, I will review the problems, and propose some solutions.
One issue is outlined below:
I Art Laughing writes: “Do you have any thoughts on how to (disincentivize) women from divorcing using the “no fault” system to steal the marital assets from the marriage? Something that might actually represent a penalty to a wife’s bad behavior should she become dissatisfied in a marriage? Any ideas for taking the detonator that society has handed them away?”
My simple, short answer: change no-fault divorce laws so that the person filing is not entitled to custody, alimony, or child support. If any of those are desired, then the filing MUST be a fault filing.
My simple, long answer: the divorce laws are an outgrowth of Cultural Marxism. They will not be cured by anything less than a case of full-blown socialism, in alignment with what the Church provided during the glorious High Middle Ages, before the “Reformation” gave the politicians a chance to seize the 1/5 to 1/3 of Europe owned by the Church. We will visit this them over coming weeks, with articles I dread to write. Please stop by and let us know where we are off track with the enclave mentality.