Category Archives: News

New study: the majority (69%) of divorces are initiated by women

This new report from Live Science gives us some numbers about who initiates divorces most frequently.

It says:

Women are more likely than men to initiate divorce in the United States, but they are no more likely than men to initiate breakups in a dating relationship, a new study finds.

“The breakups of nonmarital heterosexual relationships in the U.S. are quite gender-neutral and fairly egalitarian,” study author Michael Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, said in a statement. “This was a surprise because the only prior research that had been done on who wanted the breakup was research on marital divorces.”

Previous research had found that women are more likely to initiate divorce, at least in the United States, Europe and Australia. In the new study, Rosenfeld compared divorces to nonmarital breakups, in an effort to understand the driving forces behind each type of breakup.

To investigate, he looked at data from the 2009 to 2015 waves of How Couples Meet and Stay Together, a nationally representative survey spearheaded by Rosenfeld and his colleagues. The new study includes 2,262 adults, ages 19 to 64, who reported having opposite-sex partners in 2009. By 2015, 371 of the participants had broken up or gotten divorced.

Women initiated 69 percent of the 92 divorces, Rosenfeld found. But there was no statistically significant difference between women and men when it came to nonmarital breakups, regardless of whether they were living together, he said.

The Ruth Institute reports on a few studies:

Female unions seem to have the highest divorce rates, followed by male unions, followed by opposite sex unions.

“For Sweden, the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the risk for heterosexual marriages, and that the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men.”

“For Norway, divorce risks are 77% higher in lesbian partnerships than in those of gay men.”  (The Norwegian data did not include a comparison with opposite sex couples.)

In California, the data is collected a little differently. The study looks at couples who describe themselves as partners, whether same sex or opposite sex. The study asks the question, how likely is it that these couples live in the same household five years later. Male couples were only 30% as likely, while female couples were less that 25% as likely, as heterosexual married couples, to be residing in the same household for five years.

It really seems as if there is something about women in particular that causes them to be unable to keep to commitments in their actions, despite what they might say with their words.

So I am seeing a couple of problems in young, unmarried women that might explain this.

Feminism is bad

First, there is the feminism. Feminism was the driving force behind no-fault divorce. Today, young unmarried women are being taught to view marriage as stifling to their freedom. So if they do get married, they are often resolved that marriage should not affect their freedom in any way. That is just not the way marriage works, though – both spouses need to be equally ready to have their freedom infringed upon by things that HAVE TO GET DONE. Lots of things that have to get done will not be fun, thrilling or amusing – and that’s why it’s good to be prepared to do them before you marry.

My friend Dina says that she only knows one happily married couple from among her friends. The most frequent case she sees is wife is working in order to pay for big house, two cars, etc. and wife is denying husband sex, which makes him disengage from the marriage. A working wife tends to not be as responsive to the needs of husband and kids as a non-working wife, probably in part due to work stress. There is an epidemic of sex-withholding by women, and it causes men to disengage from marriage because they feel unloved. Although women tend to rebel against the idea that the man’s bad behavior is their fault, and that there is a “contractual” nature to marriage, that is how marriage works. You cannot stay married, women, by just doing whatever you feel like, and NOT doing whatever you DON’T feel like. Men will disengage when their needs are not supplied, and that’s no fault of theirs. It’s your fault. Denying relationship obligations causes men to underperform.

Feminism is often linked closely to “independence”. There is a lot of confusion over what the word independence means among young, unmarried women. A man uses that word to mean “lack of financial dependence on parents, the state, etc. because of good decisions in education, career and finances”. But a woman means “not having to care about the needs of a man and the leadership of a man, or the needs of children while still getting what I want from men and children”. That attitude is not compatible with life-long married love.

Emotions are bad

Second, emotions. In my experience, young, unmarried women are less likely to have reasoned out their own life plan in a practical step-by-step manner. Instead, they tend to do whatever makes them feel good moment-by-moment without any realistic plan. One Christian woman was recently telling me how attracted she was to an atheist moral relativist who had been promiscuous from the age of 15. She explained that her emotions were kindled by his GQ looks, 6-pack abs, mysterious European accent, seductive manner and witty conversations. Although she is apparently a Christian, she doesn’t take Christianity seriously in her decisions about relationships and marriage.

Peer-approval and culture play a large part in determining what women think is attractive in a man, as well as their life goals, and women are driven by these cultural standards more than men who focus on honoring their commitments regardless of their emotions. In my experience, women struggle to make their day-to-day actions match their socially-acceptable goal of getting married “some day”. Marriage is for “some day” for today’s busy women, but fun and thrills is for today. “Live in the moment”, they often tell me. If you try to talk to them about roles and responsibilities in a marriage, they will withdraw and rebel. But marriage is about each spouse doing his or her job, and feeling content about what the couple is building together. You can’t make life-long married love from emotional craziness and pursuing fun and thrills with seductive promiscuous moral relativist atheists.

How to pick a woman who won’t divorce you

Young men, I advise you to choose wives who have had to do things that they did not feel like doing. That can involve things like getting a STEM degree, getting a job in STEM, moving out of her parents’ house, getting a “boring” job that helps her pay off her debts, keeping commitments when she doesn’t feel like it, and caring for other people and even animals.

Basically, the more the woman has ground down any narcissism and hedonism she may have, by having to do nasty calculus and horrid lab work, the better. The more accustomed she is to constraints, responsibilities, expectations and obligations, the less likely it is that she’ll divorce you for unhappiness. And all of this goes for men, as well. STEM degree, STEM job, save money, serve others, give to charity.

Marriage is not the time for people to be carried away by their emotions. It’s an enterprise, and it works when both people are rational, practical, hard-working and self-controlled.

Does neuroscience provide support for physicalism or dualism?

When it comes to the problem of mind, there are some people who maintain that the mind is just reducible to the physical brain. Those are physicalists, also known as materialists. And then there are those who defend dualism, which is the idea that you are a non-material soul, and you have a body (which includes your brain). Who is right? Well, let’s take a look at the science and see.

This post is from Mind Matters, and it’s written by Dr. Michael Egnor.

He says:

Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891‒1976), who pioneered epilepsy surgery at the Montreal Neurological Institute in the mid-20th century, asked this very question: What does the brain do? He explored the question during eleven hundred “awake” brain operations over four decades. He needed patients to be awake so that he could communicate with them, to be sure that he was not damaging vital tissue while removing the tissue that was prone to epileptic seizures.

Penfield could do brain surgery while a patient is awake because the brain has no pain sensors. A local anesthetic (similar to the novocaine used in dentists’ offices) ensures that there is no pain in the scalp either during the surgery. Neurosurgeons still do this type of surgery today.

While epilepsy patients were awake and their responses to brain stimulation could be observed, he mapped their brains using electrical probes to find and remove seizure foci but also to determine which parts of the patients’ brains did what. He could answer questions like “What part of the brain makes us move our muscles?”, “What part of the brain enables us to see?” and “What part of the brain enables us to have memories and emotions?”

What fascinated Penfield is not so much what he found—i.e., which parts of the brain caused movement, perception, memory and emotions—but what he didn’t find.

Penfield could find no part of the brain that, when stimulated, caused patients to think abstractly—to reason, think logically, do mathematics or philosophy or exercise free will.

He noticed the same thing about epileptic seizures as about stimulation during surgery. Patients who were having seizures did all sorts of things—they jerked their muscles, they saw flashes of light or had unusual sensations on their skin. They even occasionally had specific memories and emotions. Then they fell unconscious.

But patients never had intellectual seizures. That is, they never had seizures that caused them to reason, think logically, or do mathematics or philosophy. There are no “calculus seizures” that cause them to uncontrollably take first derivatives. There are no philosophical seizures that cause them to uncontrollably contemplate Plato’s Republic.

Penfield asked the obvious question: why did brain stimulation only cause certain mental operations, like movement, perception, memory and emotion to happen, but not other ones, like abstract thought and free will?

It sounds like the brain is responsible for low-level interactions with the body itself. It reminds me of “device driver” software, which allows higher software to interact with hardware devices, like graphics cards and hard drives. What the progress of neuroscience seems to show is that the brain is doing device driver work, but something else is doing higher operations. And that something else is what substance dualists like me would call a “mind”.

There are lots of good philosophical arguments for minds, such as consciousness, direct first-person access to your thoughts, persistent identity over time that does not depend on your (changing) physical body, the intentionality problem (thinking about something else is not something that a material system can do), as well as free will. And there are more of those, too.

But it’s nice to see that there are scientific arguments as well. By doing the neuroscience, we can find out what the brain controls, and what it doesn’t control.

I thought this part of the article was interesting:

Penfield started out as a materialist, like most scientists do, but, as he learned more about the mind and the brain he became a dualist. He concluded in his book Mystery of the Mind (1975) that the mind is something separate from the brain, and that there are aspects of the mind that don’t come from the brain but are spiritual in nature. As he put it, “The mind must be viewed as a basic element in itself . . . That is to say, it has a continuing existence.” (p. xxi.)

The article mentions a new book coming out in June 2025, entitled “The Immortal Mind”. And I’ve already contact one of the authors of the book to see if we can get them to come on the Knight and Rose Show to tell us about all of this scientific research. I hope that will help our listeners to be able to have good evidence-based conversations about this fascinating area of disagreement between theists and atheists.

Latest developments in Canada’s war on Christians and Christianity

I do like to keep an eye on how secular left countries are treating Christians, especially European countries and Canada. It’s important to keep an eye on things so I can stay ahead of any threats. Well, Canada has been making continuous attacks on free speech and religious liberty since they elected Justin Trudeau, who leads the far-left Liberal Party of Canada. Let’s take a look.

Here’s the latest story from Christian Post:

The mayor of a small town in Ontario, Canada, is facing a bank levy from his personal account following a legal battle with a pride group who compared their legal victory to sexual intercourse.

Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, Ontario, had funds garnished from his personal bank account following his refusal to comply with a Human Rights Tribunal order after the governing body found that the town of Emo — with a population of just 1,400 — violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by not recognizing LGBT pride month.

The decision stems from a legal case initiated by Borderland Pride, a local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization, which accused the township of discrimination for voting against an official pride month proclamation in 2020.

The tribunal’s ruling, delivered on Nov. 20, penalized McQuaker personally with a CA$5,000 fine (about $3533) and required him to undergo Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) training. Additionally, the township itself was fined CA$10,000 (about $7066), and the two other town councilors who voted against the proclamation were also mandated to complete the same training.

[…]Borderland Pride took to social media to announce that they had successfully garnished the mayor’s bank account.

“Sure, sex is great, but have you ever garnished your mayor’s bank account after he publicly refused to comply with a Tribunal’s order to pay damages?” the group asked in a post on Facebook.

You might remember that these Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals are staffed by secular left activists, and they are able to punish people who disagree with secular left dogma. Canada does not have any authoritative statement of rights and freedoms like we do. They have something on paper, but that doesn’t apply when they want to go after Christians and conservatives. As I’ve blogged on before, if you disagree with the government, you’re likely to face gag orders, bank account freezes, and even being violently ridden down by a policeman on a horse. And in Canada, the judges and LGBT activists can trans your kid in a split second, and throw you in prison if you so much as voice dissent.

Here’s another one from True North, which is my favorite source of news about Canada:

A Canadian billboard company cancelled a contract with a Manitoba pro-life group, saying that the requested image “creates too much controversy” and that the company received “a lot of backlash” for similar designs in the past.

[…]The image featured a pregnant woman cradling her belly. The caption read, “Celebrate the gift of life!” and included Life Culture’s website address. Penner told True North in an interview that the billboard was meant to remind people, in a time of widely accessible euthanasia and abortions, that “life and pregnancy is a gift.”

[…]“Our government creates fear by pitting life and women’s rights against each other. Businesses fear the legal and economic consequences if there’s any indication they support life. Churches fear losing a charitable probation status…Individuals fear losing friends or acceptance,” Penner said.

Now, you might think that Penner would be able to log a human rights complaint, but like I said, Christians and conservatives never, ever win those cases in Canada.

And here’s an article from New York Post about the epidemic of church arsons in Canada:

According to Olivia Torrone of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) who runs the Church Attacks Database, there have been at least 40 church arsons since the wave began in June 2021, and this is just Catholic churches.

Non-Catholic churches are burning as well; in total nearly 120 churches in Canada have been vandalized, set ablaze, or burned to the ground, with a married couple living above one of them dying as a result. Yet, as of January 2024, only 12 people had been charged in relation to these — and just one person had been convicted.

[…]Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has given Canadians mixed messages on the fires, calling them “unacceptable and wrong” on the one hand, while on the other calling the motive for the attacks “real and fully understandable.”

Church arson in Canada is “fully understandable” according to the Prime Minister of Canada. It’s something Hitler might have said about Jewish synagogues, but that’s just how Canada is now.

Right after clicking “Publish” a friend of the blog, David H. left a comment on Facebook with this story from the New York Post:

Controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson has fled Canada as liberals push to pass legislation that he says will suppress free speech and turn the country into a “totalitarian hellhole.”

Speaking in a recent episode of his daughter’s show, “The Mikhaila Peterson Podcast,” Peterson said he opted to move to the US over the contentious bill, C-63, and ongoing feud with the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

“The issue with the College of Psychologists is very annoying, to say the least, and the new legislation that the liberals are attempting to push through, Bill C-63, we’d all be living in a totalitarian hellhole if it passes,” Peterson said.

Christians in America need to be vigilant about the secular left. They have a long history of using threats, coercion, and violence against their enemies. You can see it in the history of communist regimes, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. And today in North Korea. Atheists have no rational foundation for behaving morally in his or her worldview. Anything is permissible.

Most atheists in America act better than their worldview allows, because we are still living in Christian culture. But once that Christian influence is dead, the real atheism will emerge, and we are already seeing the start of it in Canada.