I think most people will agree with this statement on what bar a woman must pass in order to be loved by her husband.
Do two things.
-
Support your husband generally, aka have his back and generally encourage him rather than undermine him or tear him down
-
Respect him, show him respect as a man.
That's it. If a woman does that, 99% of men will love that woman.
It's not exactly a high bar.
Forget love, women don't even pass the bar to be LIKED by men in the modern day. How crazy is that, with a bar that low for unending, soul-mate forever love, modern women are STILL some of the most unlikable and disliked creatures to have ever walked the planet.
No I'm not impossible1, but the old him before dresdonfirebomber wasn't always wrong on everything either.
It’s not “modern”. Women today are the same as women for thousands of years. The difference is today they are given agency without cost. The Maenads didn’t come from nowhere, they were the reflection of actual female nature and were known long before we could write down their nature and name it.
The submissive women came with the convenience of society. If women wanted access to the niceties men built they had to play by the men’s rules. We are told today this was the most evil thing to ever happen but that’s what actual balance in gender roles looks like, women controlled the home and children and men controlled the country and development. Women died in childbirth and men died in war.
Today women live in the societies built by men and believe, somehow, it was actually women and feminism that created all the nice things around them. They work their made up daycare jobs while scorning the men who make their society function. This occurs entirely because the government put guns to men and said you will work and die for the convenience women and turd worlders.
So yes, you are correct that women are generally awful and provide no value relative to a relationship. That’s because they don’t have to anymore, they can get knocked up in a bar bathroom and have a government husband the rest of their life.
Agreed, as u/throwawayaccount2037 said, the Bible spoke about women's nature that unfortunately a lot of the church has ignored, rather adopting the liberal culture view of the sexes.
Society was always meant to keep the worst elements of human nature at bay.
Women are more easily decieved, more emotional, and less principled and typically need a moral man to lead. Without boundaries men will also eventually end up being immoral and decadent, like with Romans, a pagan society, what happens when they reject God, but women for some reason are more prone towards an accelerationist self-destruction and even non-Christian societies where the men are holding the reigns back a bit and creating a bit more traditional society, the society at least functions better and has more lawfulness than a society where women have no reigns on them.
I agree with you on the why. Women are like a kid in a candy store. Society is supposed to say "no, you can't eat only candy"
When society says "go eat all the candy you want" suddenly everyone's got cavities and their teeth are falling out and are looking for someone to blame. "Well maybe if men allowed us to eat even more candy our problems would be fixed"
No, sweetheart, you have to put down the candy bar and start brushing your teeth. Women are averse to personal responsibilty so society needs to act as the responsibilty enforcers for women. Whoever were the ones that were foolish enough to take down that enforcement deserves to get more than a slap in the face.
And then you have all the tradcons coming in and wagging their finger at men for not stopping the women from eating the candy, meanwhile the men are gagged and hogtied over a firepit so what the fuck were they supposed to do?
Most modern tradcons are Zionists larping as tradcons. They dont actually care about the white family or american society, they just know pandering to women is how you get votes.
Bingo!
Yes, the bar is EXTREMELY low and they cannot even meet those standards.
A lot of it is because women have no clue how to give men grace.
The zeitgeist have aggressively taught them to be combative, resentful, dismissive, and aggressive towards men; everything men despise in a loving wife.
I've always said that when you go to "war" with the world outside the home, there should be respite in the home. But a lot of times, they just do not know how to be helpmates to provide a decompression for their husband, so it turns into yet ANOTHER battlefield.
It's ironic because the Bible redpilled men about this thousands of years ago with Proverbs 21:9: Better to be in the corner of a rooftop than share a home with a quarrelsome woman.
The worshipers of the hermaphroditic idol Baphomet are trying to turn men into women and women into men.
Women are inherently inclined towards perpetual unhappiness. They’ve been told that’s because of men, so now they act hateful towards men. Men are no longer wanting them. Women now have an authentic reason to be unhappy forever. They finally got what they wanted!
I just exited a relationship with a woman who was basically financially using me to advance her personal career where she found her true satisfaction. It was short term but I couldnt imagine finding satisfaction in your career over someone who wanted to love you and have a family with you.
But that is what feminism does to women. Even men dont believe that lie that you can find satisfaction in the work you do itself. For some reason it worked on women, and now they behave like 2nd class "beta" men.
yeah, as a man i like taking care of my woman, including financially but it typically is me taking care of "us", not me taking care of her and her life separately. It took me a little while to figure it out because it was so strange
Sorry it happened to you.
growing up means realizing the witch burners were right
I have been married almost 30 years and couldn’t comprehend living like that. Another tip - don’t get fat
The thing you have to remember about the jewish woman and her sockpuppet accounts is that she works as a double-edged system of attack on purpose. Through misdirecting people away from jews by blaming other parties for their actions, the reader (who knows she’s lying about that) is subconsciously primed to believe the party she blames is “innocent,” merely by being falsely accused of one other thing.
Feminism—all waves—is objectively bad. It has ruined women in the West. It has to be undone, and apparently by force. It was done by jews, though. And allowed by cowardly white men. Women (white) are the victims, more so than they are the perpetrators—even if some relish in their “power,” in much the same way a child relishes in being left home alone for the first time.
Nah, hold women accountable for their actions.
Should all children be tried as adults under the law?
Children are still punished for misbehavior. Only leftists say "No no, there is no such thing as bad children or teenagers. Anything they do wrong is because of their parents!". Also, the Bible says women have free will and the capacity for moral choice.
Good thing no one here said that then, huh.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
That's for liars, not the mentally unwell.
Imp is a liar. He knows exactly what he is doing.
LOL yeah that's exactly what I think when I see him post--someone who's totally on the ball and not the least bit deranged.
That is because you are a newfag. He was part of the MGTOW psyop. The Tate types try to get White men to chase nons, the monk types try to get men to abstain, and the imp types try to get men to hate women. All of them have the objective of lowering White birthrates.
Man I don't know what to tell you. I'm not new, I've been reading years of this community--since something like 2014 or 2015...whenever all the GG stuff hit reddit on KIA prime. I'm not saying this because I'm behind on the reading.
I simply disagree, strongly, with your analysis of intent. I doubt very much Imp has the social grace to be in any way any part of a "psyop." I watched him devolve over years, and nothing he ever did or said implied to me he was a part of anything grander than a single sick, sad person. This is clear from his nigh-total lack of engagement on the forums he's moderated. Tiny king of lonelytown; Friends: 1 (sometimes).
Anyways, not actually relevant here. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is only useful in limited circumstances to say that when caught in a lie, it can be safely assumed that nothing else the person says can be relied upon.
When the subject is saying true things, for instance, "Men get the short end of the stick in family court," that is a demonstrably, obviously true thing to say. Calling "Falsus in omnibus" when that's the context is just silly. And that's the kind of true thing that OP was clearly referring to. You want to "broken clock is right twice a day" this, that's the kind of aphorism I'm there for. "Falsus etc." no.
Sure, but you still have to go over every single thing he said and review it, and see what his objective was in saying it. Far faster to just reject everything he said.
LOL fair enough. Too much chaff for too little wheat.
Women are human beings just like men, and are just as fallible. Generations of ego-fellating, emotional gaslighting and weighted career opportunities have taken all of womens worst traits and amplified them tenfold. They're programmed zogbots.
The only way out is punishing them through social shaming, like we used to do. No more simping, period.