I started writing this comment, than realized it reached post-worthy length, so here it appears, rather than where it was originally composed.
I like Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart.
Interesting blog, interesting perspective, unique comment section.
That being said...after reading this entire thread and it's comments, Dalrock's take on this entire conflict looks accurate to me:
Susan appears to have taken my repeated efforts to keep any disagreement from becoming personal as a sign of weakness. Instead of debate the issue, she scolded me like a dog which just soiled the carpet. She has never yet either defended her claim or withdrawn it. In place of debate, she kicks up dust and makes accusations. She wanted to make it personal; she outright insisted. So be it.
Logic has cornered Feminine emoting.
Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere?
Not just no, but HELL NO.
In the face of indisputable logic, dissembling is the female's primary defense.
This is what Susan is doing here.
Saying so does not mean I am "piling on" or "attacking" her (please note the first line of this post).
I'm just pointing to the rising sun and saying - "The Sun rises in the East."
When a woman engages her emotions because she feels attacked, this is what she defaults to. I've been married for 14 years and counting now, and believe you me, I understand this perfectly.
It's a very hard earned wisdom to learn to recognize this dynamic in action between your wife and yourself. Ignorance of this nearly lead to a frivolous divorce of my own on several occasions.
All women do this when they FEEL attacked...and it's obvious that Susan feels attacked here.
Dalrock has consistently reminded her (and everyone else) that he's endeavored to keep the debate impersonal and respectful, and focused solely on the conflicting ideas:
I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol.
This only makes sense if your definition of “firing squad” is “challenged me to back up my statements in a non personal way”. I’ve gone out of my way to frame any disagreements we have as not personal, and have repeatedly asked my readers to offer you the same courtesy. I only wish you had responded in kind. This is a sphere of intellectual debate, sometimes involving strong intellectual disagreement.
That you can’t separate this from the personal suggests to me that you aren’t cut out for what you are doing. You have a worldwide platform, are mentioned in the national media, and I’m sure have thousands of hits a day on your site. Yet you want to be allowed to say whatever you want as “your own truth”, and anyone who challenges this (even while taking pains to make it non personal) is a mean man who hurt your feelings.
IMO, Susan has failed to refute Dalrock's logic and he has accurately called her out on her dissembling.
All that being said, I'm not commenting here to declare a winner.
(I still like Susan, her blog and I still endorse that others continue to read her.)
Rather, I'd like to make an observation:
This entire debate is similar to an argument between a husband and wife, in which the husband is arguing with logic and the wife is arguing with emotion.
Logic vs. Emotion = masculine frame vs. feminine frame
The thread is an excellent example of Dalrock demonstrating "married man game" in this debate.
Of course, for a happily married father in a post-feminist world, he makes it look effortless.
It's much harder for a husband who is not aware of the subtext of his logic-based argument vs. her emotion-based response frame of interaction with his wife, and mistakenly thinks that they are both discussing a point of logic.
Husbands don't like to see their wives upset or angry. When we don't know any better (take the blue pill), we seek to appease and end the emotional onslaught, even when we know we are logically correct.
This is precisely how the AMC (Average Married Chump) often finds himself "winning" an argument, but still losing it in the long run. That's because he acceded to her frame instead of reaffirming his own.
You proved your point, you were 100% correct...yet you're still sleeping on the couch.
See the similarities with this current debate?
Because Susan is generally well regarded in the manosphere (note regular manosphere commenter Clarence's vigorous defense; note once again the first thing I wrote in this comment,) and has had good will and a history of positive interactions with Dalrock and many other manosphere bloggers, Dalrock could have relented his frame and offered Susan an easy out here and not held her feet to the fire of his logic in an effort to soothe this all over.
"Can't we all just get along?"
This is the temptation husbands face with upset wives.
Take note men. When you are right, and you know it...act like it, no matter how upset she appears to get, no matter how much of a soft spot you may have for her. That is the only way you both "win" an argument.