The Destruction of Modern Women
- Thread starter Let God Arise
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cultural marxism women
Back in the day this was part of the reason men had mistresses on the side (and wealthy men still often do). Although of course this is not the Christian way. But anyway if you are you allowing your wife to get fat? You should be taking action on this.
That's why, before marrying, it's important to pay attention to how her mother and even other women in her family age. And their lifestyle in general.
That falls under rule 8, of not upholding the responsibilities of marriage.
A major responsibility of marriage is that each spouse gains control over the other's body. If your wife likes a beard you grow a beard, if she likes you shaved then you must shave. Likewise if the man likes his wife to be in good shape and grow her hair, then she needs to also do that.
Of course, when it comes to something like going to the gym, it is hypocrisy to demand it from your spouse and not do it yourself, so, for many things regarding the upkeep of our bodies it should be done mutually. However, if one refuses and lets themselves go, this falls under not upholding the responsibilities of marriage since one's body is no longer an individual.
"The two become one flesh."
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Husbands with Much Higher Incomes Than Their Wives Have a Lower Chance of Divorce
It is true that more than half of all marriages in the U.S. are now dual-earner marriages and the share of women who earn as much as or significantly more than their husband has roughly tripled over the past 50 years. According to the PEW Research Institute, in 1972 the wife was the primary or...
ifstudies.org
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
Studies show affirmative action helps white women as much or more than others
White marriages are being sabotaged.
Lately I have noticed a massive difference in the quality of women at church that wear a dress or look like they're from the 1950s. Several of them even dress like that on a regular day.
I'm not saying to automatically avoid women that don't wear a dress, or to start simping right away for any woman wearing one. But it is absolutely noticeable when you start talking to them.
I'm not saying to automatically avoid women that don't wear a dress, or to start simping right away for any woman wearing one. But it is absolutely noticeable when you start talking to them.
Last edited:
So much for China being based. The feminism and hypergamy there is off the charts. its every bit as bad as the west. The only difference is Chinese men are waking up to the reality of things much faster than western men and have started refusing to simp for these older leftover women with insane standards. Based on this video it seems the majority of Chinese women from larger cities expect to land land a top 1% man when they are aged 30 or 35. Its absolutely insane. I am surprised the Chinese leadership is not doing more to address this.
In the video there was literally a 34 year old woman complaining she cannot find a man. And she required a man who has a house, a postgraduate degree and is handsome and earns 1 million yuan per year ($138,000 USD). You honestly cannot make this stuff up.
At this point the Chinese government should honestly put a special penalty tax on unmarried women over 25 and give the money to married couples with children (with a fixed annual bonus payment per child).
But I was also honestly impressed by how based the Chinese dudes in the video seemed. Western men could really learn something from them.
Last edited:
1.78m is 5'10. They're asking for 5'11 and up? In China? ROFL.
I don't think there's anything Chinese leadership could do about this, short of forcing these women to marry a more realistic guy. The problem here is not Chinese leadership, it's just that these are women.
I love this line from the video, "the city is overflowing with beautiful mature single women." The euphemism is just comical. So these are hags, got it.
Last edited:
At this point I am beginning to wonder if there are any countries left in the world were women are not delusional?
Being delusional is not a bug or a corruption in women, it's a feature. Women are innately disconnected from reality to some degree, which is supposed to make them full of childlike wonder, which would allow them to make their husbands' lives much brighter. The problem is that social engineers have used that trait of women in very clever and evil ways. They have also have taken away men's ability to control their women when they get all hysterical and start causing trouble as a result of this trait.
Women have retard moments, this is normal, always has been. What's not normal is for men to have no recourse when it happens. My grandfather had the option of just locking his wife in a room until she stopped being a retard, and he had the support of the entire society. His wife simply did not have the option of refusing to submit to him, causing him trouble or abandoning him, because the entire society punished such behaviors harshly. That's all gone now.
I agree given their traditions and history, unity and uniformity.
It's not a conspiracy, that's for sure, considering how different culturally all these countries are, yet women resort to the same behavior en masse. Very telling/confirmatory of the experiments we've done to come to a stark conclusion about human/female nature. Good on the Chinese men too, for not simping and letting it die. It's happening in the west as well, but there isn't as cultural of a bias like in China for traditionalism and there is more propaganda here, whereas China does nothing of the sort from at least their own governmental or societal levels.
While part of this may be a vestigial benefit for men, it's mostly the evolution of a trait to be at the beck and call of children. Jordan Peterson has a good talk/video on this. Their almost absurd (especially in the modern day, given less than harsh realities of life) attention and worry about children is just for the really young ages. But it's built in, so that neuroticism doesn't go away. So yes, it's a feature but as far as men are concerned, particularly after age 6-7 for kids, it's a bug.
Something that is red pill that seems black because of how we were all raised to believe that everyone is similar and/or equal is when you come to the realization of things like Australia and I have, and I think most around here are the same, they just don't say it as bluntly or forcefully.
The problem is that people can always use silly, stupid or normie men against the obvious arguments that 99% of women have absolutely predictable, almost crazy responses to things that cause major problems for almost all of men, and society.
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
I posted something about china a while back:
The real retardation in this is if you care about birth rates and want to increase them, you need women to have more babies, so that in and of itself is seeing them as “baby-making machines,” is it not? However, these people act as if the determining factor of if women are baby machines is if they marry when young, which does not make sense.
Absolutely. These people who say things like this and push for women to have "heckin' careers" (actually just doing the easiest basic nonsense in MSOffice, that's all any of these women's careers ever amount to) are disgusting.
Baby-making machine, vs. money-making machine, like all men already are?
Fundamentally you can see the evil in how they rebel against the curse of original sin: Men must work, and women must breed; if either sex ignores this curse then they die. For men this curse is literal, and for women it is more figurative since women without children leave no future. Thus the women of the future will always be the ones who marry and have children.
Fundamentally you can see the evil in how they rebel against the curse of original sin: Men must work, and women must breed; if either sex ignores this curse then they die. For men this curse is literal, and for women it is more figurative since women without children leave no future. Thus the women of the future will always be the ones who marry and have children.
Sort of. We revisit this all the time because it's quite clear that there isn't something intrinsic in women's genes that disallows future chaos if there isn't structure. Your view of the "future" should already be in our genes, given all the time that has passed since we were first around, but it isn't. No matter who moves into future generations, there is already enough with human behavior, biochemistry, hormones, etc for the demons to make use of, even for the more advanced races (in particular ways). That's why eugenics never really "works" - but it does lessen the proclivity for certain behaviors.
Regarding the careers, since women aren't interested largely in things related to meaning, but rather emotion and resources (that is their meaning), they don't care about the career technically except for that it creates options. If you look at their behaviors, such as monkey branching, this makes perfect sense: they are all about just creating options for many things; fun, another partner, moving on from something deemed less worthwhile, etc.
Your assumption is wrong. There isn't gene selection for behavior in such a stringent way. Just as there isn't for men. There is some kind of effect, however, consider how men who refuse to work also lead to destruction as as women who refuse to have children. The men who work will be the ones to create a future the same as women who have desire their husbands.
Yes, however, when women have children this causes them to mature considerably and seriously clamp down on their fickleness. Of course many mothers still do stay immature, however, it is nothing in comparison to those without children.
You have the assumption, not I. Saying that there is some kind of effect with the people that have kids is just saying that some people have kids. I don't see the point, as obviously anyone who lives "creates" a future. The point is always the obvious - we would already have good behavior if the women from thousands of years ago had some intrinsic quality that made them "have children." On a population level, it's clear, they don't.
I will grant that the vestigial characteristics that I've pointed out in other threads, that lead to women acting like children since they have to have such emotions and neuroticism to take care of infants - apparently, but that's questionable after they have kids and say, whatever with the later kids who turn out well usually - these same characteristics were just survival behaviors mostly due to the shorter life humans lived. Now we have this added dimension of living longer, so the whole idea of women not having kids "young" is entertained, when it would never have been the case in the past. Young wasn't young back then, and certainly when survival is hard women aren't going to get anywhere unless they get a man, who obviously always wants young women, if he's interested.
But this can't be true, because if they didn't we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Instead Earth's population is billions strong.
This is a popular misconception. We aren't living longer than in the past. The reason life expectancies are double from the past is because 50% of children would not survive to adulthood.
Of those who reached the age of 18, the vast majority (80%+) would live to about the same ages you see today, around 75 years old, just like the Bible says.
So we aren't living longer and women today are the same women of the past.
That said, you are correct in saying that survival was much more difficult in the past and both men and women needed to work more. Men had to work outside, and for women, taking care of the house and children before modern appliances was literally a 60-hour workweek. That women are spoiled is unique to our time and it is a severe negative influence, even though in theory it should enable us to have bigger families than ever before.
Last edited:
Just recently I met a 16 year old girl from Spain. She was very beautiful and was giving virgin vibes (although I did not get a chance to ask about that). There is something so biologically primal about a woman at that peak age of 16 - 18. The emotions it stirred up in me simply speaking to her. She seemed very nice but rejected me because of my age. Unfortunately the brainwashing in western countries regarding age shaming is strong. I felt that she innately liked me but that her natural response was overridden by the social indoctrination she received. A 16 year old woman wanting a 16 year old male is absurd as a male at that age has no life experience and cannot look after her. There is just something about women in that 16 - 18 age bracket biologically and the innocence they have you simply cannot get the same emotions and attachment toward even a 21 year old woman even if they physically are just as attractive.
By the way where I live 16 is the legal age of sexual consent and the legal age of marriage (if parental approval and a magistrates approval are both given) so I am not talking about anything illegal I just want to make that clear.
By the way where I live 16 is the legal age of sexual consent and the legal age of marriage (if parental approval and a magistrates approval are both given) so I am not talking about anything illegal I just want to make that clear.