If You’re Going To Do The Time

I found this idiot feminist woman who pretty much said that hating women is 100% correlated with being a man who women find unattractive.  We know that women find 80% of men (give or take) unattractive so this brings up a question.  If women find you unattractive, why shouldn’t you hate women?  Even if you don’t hate women, you will still be treated as if you do if women find you unattractive.  If you’re going to do the time, you might as well do the crime.

Some may answer my question with how hate (and bitterness) will supposedly eat you up inside.  If that is really the case, then it’s going to be worse trying to not hate women while women are acting as if you do.  (Remember you have already been determined to be a woman hater due to your lack of attractiveness.)

Others may answer with how the whole thing is entrapment.  Women want unattractive men to hate them so that they can use that as “evidence” of how we’re a threat to women.  This is a valid point, but we will still be accused of hating women so not hating women doesn’t prevent this entrapment.  If anything working hard at not hating women, just leaves you vulnerable.

I’m forced to conclude there is no reason to not hate women.  For those of us whose “crime” is being unattractive to women, it’s the only logical option.

Even Spambots Have Figured Out The So Called Manosphere

A couple of days ago the blog got an interesting comment.

The so called manosphere will attack you for failing to get laid, but it will attack you for successfully get laid too.

This comment was originally in my spam filter.  It also had a link to some website selling pills which I edited out.  Normally, I would have just deleted this comment as I normally delete anything from spambots.  In this case, I let it through because despite being from a spambot, it was an insightful comment.

If you actually get laid, the so called manosphere will attack you.  (See the attacks on PMAFT for an example.)  If you don’t get laid and are honest about not getting laid, then you will get attacked.  That’s is what happened to me.  To be a part of the so called manosphere, you have to not get laid but be dishonest and say you get laid.  This was so obvious that a non-sentient spambot figured it out.

Even spambots have figured out the so called manosphere.

Are Women A Threat To National Security?

The scandal around General Petraeus continues to get weirder.  There’s another general involved with his own woman and a FBI agent sending shirtless pics via email.

This thing could have been a bonanza for foreign intelligence services.  For all we know it was.  Thus, I have to ask the question, are women a threat to national security?  Obviously, the answer is yes.  If Petraeus and that other general distrusted women, then they wouldn’t be in a scandal.  Petraeus would still have his job.

We’re now at a point where the only type of person that can be trusted with national security has the same opinion of women that I do.

What Is With Women Who Say They Support Me?

There are three groups of women who come to my blog.  The first are women who hate me and come to attack me.  The invasion from Manboobz due to my post about how dating advice doesn’t need female approval is a good example of this.  They are the largest group of women who come here.  The second group is female MRAs, like Hestia, Laura Grace Robbins, etc.  They aren’t around that often because usually there isn’t a reason for them to be here, and they are so few in number.  They are the smallest group who come here.  There is a third group that comes here that’s slightly bigger than the female MRAs.  These are women who say that they support me, but who aren’t female MRAs.  The most recent example is a woman using the username, kotoula01.  Read what she said.

Jeezuz, that last post by Martian Bachelor about the New Aristocrats was spot on! I am a 46 yo mother of 5 sons in their 20s. I adore my sons absolutely. They struggle and have to work at such physically difficult jobs because they are men, and it’s ‘expected’ of them. I ask them ” have you met any nice girls lately” and the answer is always the same: ‘there are no nice girls mom, only sluts’ That is sad.

Femcunt has to realize that a new class of people has been given special privileges such as outlined in this description of the New Aristocrats, and it is patently unfair and I don’t blame men like Black Pill for raging against this. I have no idea where my sons are going to find good women, feminine women to settle down with and make families. Not in this country (Canada) that’s for sure. They certainly realize the dangers of spreading their seed in the wrong place…and how they will lose everything if they piss off the wrong female.

Black Pill, I do agree with your position and I’m glad you’re trying to raise awareness. It’s a friggen uphill battle.

Sounds good, right?  Not so fast.  I did a search of her username and found her blogger account.  From reading the blogs that she follows from her blogger profile, I found out what she is really about.  Most of the blogs that she follows are of no consequence, but there are conspiracy theorist blogs like “NWO Intel Briefing”, a paleo diet blog called “The Paleo Diet”, and a couple of Roissyite game blogs including Athol Kay’s BS.  She’s really about Roissyite game, the paleo diet, and conspiracy theory.  Even from her comment you can tell what she’s really worried about is not getting any grandchildren, not her sons.

In the archives of this blog are the occasional comment from a woman like kotoula01.  I also have gotten the rare email via the contact from from women like this.  Typically, they didn’t keep their motivations hidden like kotoula01 did.  These women fell into three groups.

  1. White supremacists and other Jew haters who blamed the Jews for feminism.  They tried to convince me the problem was really non-white women, and anything a white woman may have done to me was really because they were tricked by Jews.  The implication of that is that I shouldn’t hold white women responsible for their actions despite their guilt and hatred for me.  These women were trying to recruit me into anti-semitism.
  2. Conspiracy theorists who blamed the Rockefellers or some other conspiracy theorist mythical evil for feminism.  They tried to convince me that the problem was some sort of shadowy conspiracy so women were really tricked by the Rockefellers or whoever else they think is “really” behind feminism.  The implication was the same as the Jew haters in that I shouldn’t hold women responsible because it’s “not their fault”.  These women were trying to recruit me into conspiracy theory.
  3. Traditionalist conservatives who blamed “liberals” for feminism.  These women might actually fall into one of the other groups, but I never talked to them long enough to find out.  They might have a point in that feminism started out in the left side of politics, but feminism is really the ideology of women and women’s interests so that makes that irrelevant.  Like most MRAs in the last few years, I have realized that traditional conservatives are just as feminist as their liberal counterparts.  These women were trying to recruit me into traditional conservatism.

All three groups of women are effectively lying about being anti-feminist.   None of them are willing to hold women accountable for their actions.  (This makes them completely different from true female MRAs.)  They are all trying to transfer responsibility to some irrelevant third party whether its the Jews, the Rockefellers, liberals, or someone else.  It’s all somebody else’s fault to them.

I’m actually insulted by their attempts to recruit me into their alternate forms of feminism.  They think that I must be so desperate for female attention that I will go along with their crap just to have contact with a woman.

Some of you think that I’m being too harsh on these women and throwing away potential allies for no reason.  The problem with that is that these women are offering me absolutely nothing.  Even if I was inclined to believe that any of these scapegoats was really responsible for women’s bad, immoral, and in many cases illegal behavior, why should I?  Is my life going to be better for believing the Jews or the Rockefellers or whoever else is responsible for feminism?  No.  It’s not going to stop women from trying to destroy my job/business, steal my assets, and steal my freedom.  Are these groups going to protect me from that in any way?  No.  Do any of these groups women who are truly not feminist?  No.  The truth is that joining up with any of these groups would just put me into a position for more women to attack me.

What would happen if I joined any of these groups?  If I joined the Jew haters, eventually I would be attacked for not doing my “duty to the white race” since I wouldn’t be getting married to a female white supremacist and having white children.  Even if I wanted to do that, the Jew hating women would still hate me and not want anything to do with me.  I would also be attacked for not accepting these women’s past as sluts and man haters since I would hold these women accountable for their actions and not blame the Jews.  If I joined the conspiracy theorists, eventually I would be attacked for not doing my “duty” to fight the (non-existent) “depopulation agenda” by getting married and having children.  Like with the Jew haters, the conspiracy theorist women wouldn’t marry me because they sill hate me and not want anything to do with me.  I would be attacked here as well for not accepting these women’s pasts and holding them accountable for their actions instead of blaming the Rockefellers or whoever else the conspiracy theorists want to blame this week.  If I joined the traditionalist conservatives, eventually I would be attacked for not doing my “duty to God” since I wouldn’t be getting married and having children just like with the Jew haters and the conspiracy theorists.  The problem is the same since traditionalist conservative women will still hate me and not want anything to do with me.  Again, I would be attacked for not accepting these women’s past and holding them accountable for their actions instead of blaming “liberals”.  All these groups make a big deal about being “pro-family” so that means I would end up a pariah because there is no way I could form a “family”.

If I were to join any of these groups, it would be a completely one sided relationship where they benefit 100%, and I would never benefit.  These women aren’t potential allies.  They are parasites with their own anti-male agenda.

Strangely Appropriate

Inmalafide is back in a manner of speaking.  Someone took over the domain and make it a mirror of the internet shock site, goatse.  (I’m not providing a link to inmalafide because I will not link to goatse.)  For those of you who do not know what goatse is, you are very lucky.  The wikipedia page about it does a good job of explaining it.  (This link is safe to look at.)

In a way this is strangely appropriate.  Inmalafide was metaphorically equivalent to goatse when Bardamu was around.  Now, it’s literally a goatse website.  That is the fate that inmalafide deserves.

The Shoe Is On The Other Sockpuppet

Gamers accuse us of sockpuppeting.  They accuse of sockpuppeting to the point where it’s clear that they think everyone against game is just a sockpuppet of one person.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot or sockpuppet.  Fifth Donkey, a gamer, has been caught sockpuppeting.

It’s clear that when gamers accuse of sockpuppeting, they are really just projecting on to us what they do.  That’s true of everything else they accuse of us of doing, as well.

Updates

I have several things I want to update everyone on.  I have written two new pages.  The first, Why the black pill?, is the new about page.  The second page, The Paleo-Game Cult, is a work in progress and rough draft about the nature of the Roissysphere gamers and the obsessions with the paleo diet, conspiracy theory, etc. in addition to game.  It’s the beginning of what will likely be a few pages about the ideologies that game gets incorporated to.  At some point I will write a page on feminist interest in game and another page on how that’s similar to the Paleo-Game Cult’s use of game.  Comments are open on those two pages so I would like all comments related to that under those pages and not here.

Conspiracy theorists still can’t provide evidence of their conspiracies so the say stupid things like, “Rich people have free time so they must be conspiring.”

The Susan Walsh debacle that got started when she said that “frivolous divorce was overstated by MRAs” continues.  In following this debacle, several people have pointed out something interesting about Susan Walsh, that the men in her family are non-entities to her.  Susan Walsh two brothers that both were abused by the divorce system.  The state of her husband and son don’t concern her.  She sides with women over men in her own family.  (I have seen examples over and over again of women being misandrist even when their misandry directly hurts the men they claim to love so Susan Walsh is a typical woman.)  Here are some comments from various people on this subject.

Its been pointed out numerous times but never stops being horrible: the complete nullification of her son from any thought at all. This is a woman who waxes poetic on the internet about alphas, how to get them, how to move on to the next one. Endless advice for girls, while her loser son likely sits as an incel and will for the remainder of his life (not even his own mother wants him. I’m sure it was a flip of a coin whether she kept her beta-husbands son to begin with, since women RARELY keep the sons of betas to term.)

Woe to that poor boy. Especially considering the radfems Walsh has been inviting would rather give him a double-tap to the back of the head than give him any advice. Maybe his mother feels the same way, on account of his broken, undesireable, inadequate genetic material.

If Susan Walsh is aware of her son’s state at all, she probably game him some game literature.  This is a guarantee that Susan Walsh’s son is now getting laid as much as I am.  He may have been getting laid as much as I do before she found game.

The only thing I have heard SW say about her husband besides that he exists is how big of a beta he is. IOW SW is trashing her husband as a big chump.

It’s the same with SW’s son. We never hear anything about him except how he is a big beta too. SW is trashing her son as a future chump.

Since SW treats her son & husband with such contempt, then she clearly is as bad as the feminists.

In game circles, “beta” is considered effectively equivalent to “lower lifeform”.  Since Susan Walsh is immersed in game, calling her husband and her son “betas” means she has nothing but contempt for them.

Anyone who is defending Susan Walsh by this point is either insane or a white knight mangina.  One thing I glad to see is more men speaking up about Susan Walsh who didn’t in the past for whatever reason.

I’ve never understood why so many in the manosphere (even some otherwise highly bright individuals I think highly of) think so well of SW, when she clearly is an inconsistent, at best, supporter of men in general – her blog, which is aimed at women, with its title ‘Hooking Up Smart’, shows one all one needs to know about her and where her sympathies lie. Not with the menfolk…

For a long time myself, PMAFT, and a couple others were lone voices in the wilderness on Susan Walsh.  Now, more people understand the truth about her that we have known for a long time.

Susan Walsh

Several questions have been asked about Susan Walsh.  I don’t have the time right now to run through all of the problems with her because such a thing would approach being a doctoral dissertation.  Instead I will do my best to provide a brief summary with some examples.  None of the examples I list are freak occurrences.  They are part of a pattern on Susan Walsh’s part going back at least two years of lies, deceit, and woman firstism.  She claims not to be a feminist, but only because she has tried to redefine feminist purely in terms of being a slut.  This definition fails to capture what feminism is really about, female supremacism, and Susan Walsh is a female supremacist.

One question that was asked was whether Susan Walsh is pro-game or not.  This should answer that.

This is the reason I am vociferously pro-Game and anti-feminism.

The anti-feminist part is effectively a lie as I said, but there is no doubt now about her stance on game.

Susan Walsh appeared in the manosphere around two years ago give or take.  Some the gamers tried to convince her of game.  There were quite a few fights between the gamers and her because at first she didn’t buy into game.  Eventually, she did, likely because she realized that the cult of Roissysphere game can be used to control men for the benefit of women.  Once this happened all of the gamers that were fighting her stopped that and starting kissing her ass except one, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, one of the few (possibly the only) sane gamers out there.  PMAFT’s perspective is not about game as much as it is about mens rights and respect for men, so he wasn’t taken in by her sudden conversion to being pro-game.  PMAFT kept on disagreeing with her so she eventually banned him from hooking up morons.  She tried to claim that PMAFT couldn’t hold a “civil conversation”, but those of us who know PMAFT know that is bullshit.  You can read more about this on PMAFT’s blog at this link.

It was sometime after this that I came along to the manosphere.  For a while I got on fine with Susan Walsh.  Then one day all of a sudden, she went nuts about me.  She started calling me “creepy”, not to me since she doesn’t talk to me anymore, but to other people.  Calling a virgin man like myself, “creepy”, is no different than calling a black person a nigger, or using any sort of racist or anti-semitic slur.  I can’t give you links exactly what happened with Susan Walsh because it’s all in her head.  Here is an example of her calling me creepy.

Keoni, I’ve wrestled with this guy before. He’s impossible to reason with, he just lashes out irrationally. He was a fixture on HUS even before he started blogging and finally left in a huff claiming I’d banned him. I hadn’t but I would have been justified in doing so – he hijacked a bunch of threads complaining about everyone without taking any responsibility whatsoever for his own circumstances.

This is what women mean when they use the word creepy.

Not only did Susan Walsh call me creepy but she lied (like she does over and over again).  I never said that she banned me from hooking up stupid.  I left because commenting there was a waste of time, not “in a huff”.  What she calls my “not taking responsibility” is my refusal to believe in game.  Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men.  They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible.  She also has the nerve to call me irrational when Hawaiian Fat Blob was writing a conspiracy theory about how I was down voting his comments on The Spearhead, and when I had to delete various comments from gamers because they were coming here to drive traffic to their blogs.  One of HFB’s sycophants, Workshy Joe, another gamer who has employment problems, admitted to this.

For the sake of brevity, I going to skip a lot here.  There’s a lot of talk about the 80/20 rule, where 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  Gamers think this is true, and more or less so do I.  Susan Walsh has talked about the 80/20 rule as well, which the gamers took to mean that she agreed with them.  She let them think this.  What Susan Walsh meant by the 80/20 rule was that 80% of sex is happening between 20% of the men and 20% of the women.  Not that long ago, Susan Walsh’s duplicity in this area was uncovered.  Later in the comments, she tries to pull some BS by claiming various surveys about a person’s number of sex partners are anonymous which by definition can’t be.  (The survey thing is better explained here and here.)  What Susan Walsh is trying to do here is invoke the myth of equal suffering as described on The Spearhead, in order for women to not be held accountable for their actions.  She tried the same thing when she was still talking to me.  She said that there women “in the same situation as me”.  I challenged her to produce a 33 year old involuntary virgin woman.  Susan Walsh did not do this and let this insult to my intelligence stand.

As a result of all this one of her sycophants made up a conspiracy theory that I had “invaded” Dalrock’s blog, and all the anti-Susan Walsh comments were really sock puppets of me.  I didn’t even know that there were people rightfully criticizing Susan Walsh until after that conspiracy theory accusation was made against me.  Despite that, even many of the gamers were starting to catch on to Susan Walsh’s lies, passive aggressive behavior, and general modus operandi as explained in the following by Anonymous Reader.

Unfortunately a key part of her “hanging in there” consisted of simply ignoring facts that did not agree with her pre-determined conclusion. This is part of a pattern with Walsh; she makes some sweeping generalization, men provide examples that disprove it, she ignores them or even belittles them with some feeble snark, then she goes on to repeat the same false claim again in some other venue. In the case of surveys, there are some major issues with truthfulness of women that Walsh refuses to discuss. Basil posted a small study that clearly demonstrated that women will lie about number of sexual partners except when they believe that they are certain to be caught. This doesn’t surprise me as a man, but apparently it doesn’t fit in well with Walsh’s view of women – so she ignores it. I’m not impressed when someone claims to be ‘open minded’ one minute and then demonstrates obvious close-mindedness the next. Actions speaking louder than words, once again. I bet that even if someone went to Walsh’s own blog and posted links to the study, or even the study itself, she’d continue to ignore it.

And yes, I’m going to bring up her claim that she can spot entitled women just by looking at them from time to time. Because it is a claim that is testable, but she refuses to test it. It is a claim that flies right in the face of some men I know, and she refuses to acknowledge that. Her arrogant ignorance in this matter doesn’t give me any confidence at all in anything else Walsh has to say, frankly.

This matters because Walsh on the one hand is presenting herself as an honest debater, and an honest researcher. But honest debate means putting claims to the test, testing hypotheses and admitting if they cannot pass muster. Honest research means following evidence wherever it leads, not starting with a preconceived idea and only accepting data that supports it.

Based on what I’ve here and elsewhere:

Susan Walsh says she looks at all the data, but her actions are those of someone who is cherry picking surveys to support a predetermined conclusion.

Susan Walsh says she’s willing to learn from men and admit when she’s wrong, but her actions to me are those of someone who has zero interest in men’s real experience and an arrogant refusal to admit any error.

So as far as I’m concerned, she appears to be just another “Team Women!” player, and nothing more.

PMAFT, another gamer, said something similar.

You have realized the same thing I have discovered a long time ago. The only difference between her and Amanda Marcotte is that Susan Walsh is running a better con. It’s telling that Susan Walsh’s only opposition to feminism is the part of feminism she perceives as harming women. She agrees with every other part of feminism. For example, she is against men going expat to find wives/form families (not to mention men going ghost). This shows that Susan Walsh wants to keep men in the marriage 2.0 system. This is one of a thousand examples.

Her attempt to redefine the 80/20 rule is another example of how Susan Walsh is playing for Team Woman and nothing more. She is trying to claim that women are suffering the same lack of sex men are. We know this is not true. Walsh’s subtle redefinition of the 80/20 rule is similar to duplicitous Middle Eastern leaders who say one thing in English for American/Western consumption and another thing in Arabic for local consumption.

Put all of this together, and it becomes clear that Susan Walsh is all about trying to keep men locked in to the feminist system here in the West. Just because she disagrees with (or is willing to sacrifice) some transgender sex-positive lesbians does not mean that Susan Walsh isn’t playing for Team Woman.

Over the last week, Susan Walsh’s true nature was exposed again at Dalrock’s blog when she revealed what she thinks causes divorce.  A man commenting at her blog said the following.

Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.

This was Susan Walsh’s angry response.

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

Everyone in the manosphere knows the truth about divorce.  We all know how it is female initiated for the flimsiest of reasons, yet Susan Walsh both insults our intelligence and proves she is no anti-feminist with this comment.  She said that divorce only happens because men cheat which we know is bullshit.  You have to read all of the comments to that link above.  (Don’t complain that it’s too long.  It’s all relevant.)  Eventually you will find out how Susan Walsh digs a deeper hole for herself on this issue, lies about what this gamer said, accuses Dalrock of taking what she said out of context when he didn’t, etc.  Eventually, even Dalrock gets tired of Susan Walsh’s bullshit.

Even if she ultimately acknowledges the reality of frivolous divorce, there still is her bizarre denial that she ever wrote what she did, not to mention her characterization of her statement Provide stats for this or shut up. as I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. She also is claiming that she was responding to an entirely different comment from Doug1 than the one she quoted in her response. She doesn’t characterize this as an oversight or error on her part, she simply denies her reply was actually a reply to the comment everyone can see she quoted.

Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand. Her latest statement (the one the OP is in response to) betrays a deep hostility to men’s complaints about women taking advantage of the system. Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Read that last sentence several times to make sure it sinks in.  The end result of this is that the gamers are all realizing the truth about Susan Walsh that PMAFT first realized back in early 2010, something he realized even before I did.

Dalrock,

Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Wow. Pretty harsh. But probably true…

And this is just a couple of days after dragnet and others had explained how she is ‘not that bad’. I agreed with the position at the time, but now I think I will re-assess.

Susan Walsh has both a daughter *and* a son, btw.

You will notice that sentence at the end about how Susan Walsh has both a daughter and a son.  The fact that she has a son rarely comes up whereas the fact that she has a daughter comes up all of the time.  When someone says, “Susan Walsh is just trying to help her daughter,” the question I have to ask is what about her son?  That’s in addition to “helping her daughter” seems to mean “putting as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts” which is by definition at the expense of her son.  This is even more clear when you learn about Susan Walsh’s life story which was being a slut followed by snagging a beta to bail her out.  What she is trying to do is make sure her daughter has that option because men are figuring out what is going on and will not be the beta to bail out an aging slut.

I could write about more examples from the last two years, but Susan Walsh’s pattern of lies, deceit, and woman firstism is clear.  To end this, I am going to add a comment from Roosh’s forum about Susan Walsh.

ehh, I don’t care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that’s inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you’d never guess it from her writing.

She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.

When I read her site, I feel like I’m reading “How to Manipulate Men for Dummies.” It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to “get what you want” out of dating, how to have the relationship on “her terms.” The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.

Slut Rehab is definitely what hooking up stupid should be called.

Update: Dalrock made the following comment, and I think it should be included.

I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician. She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue. I have given her the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and worked very hard to not make this a personal issue. In return she scolds, accuses, and makes it personal. Now, as someone predicted, she returns as if none of this happened and apologizes for offending anyone who feels strongly about the issue of divorce. I expected much more from Susan.

Even the part which appears to be acknowledging an error is actually restating what she said in the beginning, and reiterating her defense that she was taken out of context:

In truth, it was not my intention to say that women do not file for divorce frivolously. I am well aware that they do. However, my desire to have the exchange put in context is legitimate.

Note that this is not a retraction of the position that I challenged. She didn’t say that women never file for divorce frivolously. She said:

Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

As far as I can tell she hasn’t retracted this and is simply continuing to deny and deflect, all the while continuing to accuse me of taking her out of context.