Sometimes, when I raise the fact that women initiate 69% of divorces, I get the response that this number is men’s fault. For example, pro-marriage Christian feminists and sociologists will say “it’s because men are less emotionally intelligent, they don’t meet the needs of women”. If that’s true, then we should expect that lesbian relationships will be the most committed. Are they?

Here’s a study from August 2022, published in the Journal of Family History.

The abstract says:

The trends in marriage and divorce among male and female same-sex couples in urban and rural Norway were compared to different-sex marriages. Norway legalized same-sex living in 1993 and marriage in 2009. Cohorts from 1993 to 2018 were included. The 2009 gender-neutral marriage law appears to have had minimal impact on the rate of same-sex unions and divorces. Moreover, divorce risks are highest in female same-sex marriages, whereas male same-sex marriages have the same divorce risk levels as different-sex marriages. The divorce risk is declining for same-sex marriages in urban areas, while the opposite is observed in rural areas.

And down in the results section, we have this:

Female same-sex marriages had the highest total divorce rate throughout the period, followed by male same-sex marriages. The highest total divorce rate was observed among female same-sex marriages formed in 2003, with 59.1% divorced before 2018.

Now, some people will say, but this is just one country. Yes, but it’s a same-sex marriage affirming country. They’ve had same-sex unions since 1993, and same-sex marriage since 2009. So critics can’t blame disapproval of LGBT for these numbers. And this study agrees with previous studies.

Now, let’s make a comment about this.

I think this data suggests a wonderful question for men to use in the course of vetting a candidate wife for marriage. Just casually mention the study, and then ask her “what do you think the explanation for this is?”

There will be one group of women who say “that’s easy. women are very emotional, and that causes them to have more difficulty keeping to their commitments. It’s something that men should test for. Men should choose women who have a habit of taking on tough tasks, and seeing them through to the end. And maintaining their relationship obligations with difficult or demanding family members, friends, elderly pets, etc.” That’s the right answer. I like women who do STEM degrees and work hard jobs in the competitive private sector, they tend to be good at sticking with tough situations and engineer solutions, instead of quitting.

But there’s another group that will reply “these numbers are the result of external forces that are conspiring against women to make them fail. It’s all the fault of insufficient resources, or social disapproval, or sexism, or the males in their lives.” That’s the wrong answer. I avoid women who do easy degrees like English, psychology, etc. They tend to go straight to a safe unionized job teaching children in the public school monopoly. That’s not good training for commitment-keeping. It shows that they like to do easy things. Marriage is hard work. Don’t pick a wife who likes fun and thrills. Pick a wife who engineers solutions to problems.

I do understand that women expect high quality communication and emotional intelligence in their relationships. To those women, I would just say, you need to choose better men. You need to know up front what marriage is about in the long-run, and you need to choose the things that you really need for the long run.

I wrote this post to try to help men avoid disasters when making their relationship choices. The best we can do as men is to take responsibility for our own choices. That means not letting ourselves be carried away by emotions. We have to test by asking questions. And even better than listening to an answer, is looking at the actions. Always look for women who keep their commitments when it goes against their self-interest. They are out there. Pick one.

I know, I know. And from Australia, of all places. I would classify Australia as a secular left police state, at this point. I’m not sure if this judge’s ruling will stand up. But it sure is amazing to see a judge side with the father instead of the secular leftist mother. And even better, the judge sanctioned an “expert” in transgenderism – in fact, a transgender activist – for misleading the family court.

Here’s the story (biased to the left, of course) from The Australian. (full text archived)

Here is a summary I found on Twitter.

BREAKING: A Family Court Judge has prevented a 12-year-old boy from receiving ‘gender-affirming’ treatment and removed him from his mother’s custody after determining he does not have gender dysphoria, finding the boy had been surrounded by ‘gender-affirming and external influences’.

The mother claimed her son was gender-dysphoric from the age of 6 and started taking him to a children’s gender clinic.

Despite no formal diagnoses or consultation with the treating doctor, his mother gave him a female name and socially affirmed her son, including making him wear ‘gender-affirming’ underwear described as ‘small, tight, and padded underpants designed to pressure and flatten his penile area’.

The mother then sought the son to be prescribed puberty blockers, which the father objected to, resulting in court action. There was no formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria from the gender clinic until the commencement of the court case.

The Judge slammed one of the key witnesses in the case, a paediatric gender-medicine ‘expert’ who for failing to meet court requirements in giving an ‘objective and unbiased opinion that is independent and impartial’ after she was found to be an advocate for trans people who’s preferred model of healthcare for transgender children is ‘gender-affirming’ care and supported the removal of court authorisation for trans and gender diverse adolescents to receive gender-affirming hormones.

The Judge also found the RCH Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines ‘do not have the approval or the imprimatur of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory Government, including any such minister or Department of Health’.

This damning judgment further highlights the need for an urgent national inquiry into youth gender medicine in Australia and a pause on all medical gender transitions for children and young people until this inquiry is complete.

So, this is a shock ruling, to me. It goes against the other cases that I blogged about recently where women were claiming that their children had gender dysphoria in order to get full custody of the children, and the maximum child support from the father. Basically, they wanted the father’s money, and to raise the child without any male influence, and the family courts were giving it to them. Then we saw a case out of Colorado about legislation designed to label any dissent from transgenderism as “abuse”, which is typically used in divorces to cut the father out of his natural role.

What I expect from family courts is what I see in cases of divorce. I expect to see false accusations against the father, with no supporting evidence. I expect CPS to show up and take the child from the father. I expect the judge to award alimony and child support to the mother. So, this story out of Australia was a real shock. My view of Australia is that it’s become a feminized police state, where men are viewed as dangerous and evil. So I really was not expecting any kind of recognition of the importance of male influences in bringing up children.

I thought that states like Washington, California, New York, etc. were the worst blue states, but Colorado is really getting nasty. If you asked me what my nightmare is as a taxpayer, it would be having my tax money used for immoral things. I fled my home country in part because they were making me pay for abortions, IVF and sex-changes. If you’re in Colorado, it might be time to leave.

Here’s the story from The Federalist:

Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly bulldozed their way forward to require health insurance to cover genital mutilation for children, kidnap children from parents who do not “affirm” a transgender claim, and make sure the state is the biggest taxpayer-funded abortion enterprise in the country.

Left-wing lawmakers in the state House are advancing two bills related to “transgender” identity, one of which forces healthcare providers to cover everything from chemical castration to genital mutilation in their plans, while the other would codify “misgendering” as child abuse with the ability to strip custody rights from parents who do not “affirm.”

In the Senate, one bill codifies taxpayer-funded abortions, and the other one expands Colorado’s ability to mail abortion pills out-of-state to kill even more babies.

They’re also preventing Republicans from debating the legislation:

Democrats in the House started the weekend by using parliamentary tools to restrict Republicans from being able to debate or object to the bill to only two hours.

One Republican legislator said “The most egregious moment was when they prevented any debate on HB25-1312. This bill enshrines that if you are having a custody dispute and your child is suffering from gender identity delusions, not affirming those delusions are considered child abuse and grounds for losing custody”.

Remember that article I posted earlier in the week, about how white secular leftist women were choosing to trans their kids against their husbands wishes? Well, it turns out that this is being done intentionally in order to get custody of the kids. How? Well, the leftist parent pressures the child into gender dysphoria, and then uses that as an excuse to keep the moral parent from getting custody. Hello, big child support money.

The article explains:

As The Federalist reported, HB25-1312 would allow Colorado to become a “transition” mill for parents who want to use the “transgender” claims of their children as a weapon in custody battles. As one parent advocate in the Colorado described it, the bill allows “state-enabled kidnapping.”

The bill would require that “a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control,” meaning that any parent who does not want to see their child mutilated.

And taxpayers will be paying for it – all of it:

The tandem “transgender” bill in the House, HB25-1309, requires that all health insurance plans sold in the state cover medical gender transition interventions.

[…]SB25-183…  repeals a constitutional amendment that prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars on abortions and adds one, recognizing the right to an abortion and prohibiting Colorado state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance companies from excluding coverage for abortion,” a bill summary states.

Remember, transing a kid means a lifetime of drug use and surgeries to keep it going. So, if you’re paying for health insurance, then you’ll be paying for people to trans their kids and for abortions. Your health premiums will go up, because more stuff is being covered. Disgusting. The people who are living clean are subsidizing the people who are living recklessly. Can you say “moral hazard”?

And here’s how opposition was characterized by the Democrats:

The Democrats behind the bill are crazed, too, with state Rep. Yara Zokaie comparing parental rights groups opposed to the destructive bill to the Ku Klux Klan, saying, “A well-stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed with hate groups, and we don’t ask someone passing civil rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.”

One of the divorce horror stories I blogged about recently was out of Colorado, and there, the secular leftist wife did seem to be using lack of support for transgenderism to wrestly custody (and those yummy child support dollars) away from her ex-husband. This legislation will definitely lead to more of that, which is why men need to take responsibility for choosing women who have demonstrated their morals and religion through a sustained pattern of action, over many years.

Daily Signal notes:

Critics warn that a bill like this could make stories like that of California father Jeff Younger more likely in Colorado. Younger is battling in court to prevent his ex-wife from putting his son on experimental treatments to make him appear female.

“It prejudices the court by saying any non-affirmation of gender, anything short of actual celebration of the genital mutilation and the hormone therapy, the conversion, is discriminatory and is coercive control,” state Rep. Ken DeGraaf, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in an interview Friday. “It just prejudices the court in this civil arena.”

“This bill puts one parent waste-deep in a hole for the other one to start throwing stones at them,” he added.

Caldwell, the Republican who asked about stakeholders, told The Daily Signal that the bill creates a “legal imbalance that could lead to serious consequences for parents who do not affirm their child’s gender dysphoria.”

“I believe the ultimate intention of this bill is to make it impossible for a parent to get their child help when the child is gender confused by declaring such help as child abuse,” he added.

Personally, if you are a conservative man, you need to be in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama and other states that are socially conservative. You do not want to be paying taxes and health insurance premiums to cover these sorts of behaviors. Part of being an intelligent man is to take action to achieve results. You don’t choose to live in a blue state, and then cry victim when they smash your finances and your marriage and ruin your kids.