Wives Disrespecting Husbands

[jophil28]

The bottom line is don't get married. When you do, you lose 95% of the leverage you have over your female companion, namely your power to walk away.

The marriage contract has been modified in the 1970's as part of the No Fault reforms. In its current form it is not only defective, it is downright lethal.

As Tom Leykis says, if you really really want kids, you are better off knocking up a chick of your choice and paying her the state-minimum child support.

Marriage was a fine institution until the state stuck it's beak into it.
Here is a beter deal for men than marriage - find a woman that you hate and buy her a house.
Save yourself 20 years of suffering .

 

[slaog]

Some of you guys get really confused as to the cause and effect relationship of things.

Once again, media is a refection of society, not the dictator of it.

The American media is PROFIT DRIVEN. That means that it RESPONDS to consumers existing desires. No media company in the world has enough resources to "convince" the world to become corrupt. No sir. And they don't HAVE to, because people do a good enough job of it on their own.

You aren't seeing moral decay, you are seeing moral exposure. just like back in the 50's.

And I can find other research to support Kinsey's findings, so?

The media dictates to society. Is this by chance or design? Design I say.


Do you know how the banking system works? Well basically they need people to be in debt so they can make money. Yes, it's debt that creates wealth. If people stop buying things and pay off their debts then the whole banking system would collapse. So they need people to spend, spend, spend!! The media are the main people in making people spend.


Propaganda behind the media - this video tells how in 1917 a company hired men to calculate how many papers they would need to buy to control the US media.

 

[Nutz]

The bottom line is don't get married. When you do, you lose 95% of the leverage you have over your female companion, namely your power to walk away.

The marriage contract has been modified in the 1970's as part of the No Fault reforms. In its current form it is not only defective, it is downright lethal.

As Tom Leykis says, if you really really want kids, you are better off knocking up a chick of your choice and paying her the state-minimum child support.

Fully agree on all accounts.

 

[STR8UP]

C'mon Str8 it's not a loaded question to say people have lower standards for women now. In the past a woman practically had to be a young virgin to get anyone to want to marry her. No one wanted an older woman, divorced women, or one with kids. Now it doesn't matter. Perhaps the government and religion was following the "natural order" more than what society is today?

I don't know about you, but if I am attracted to a woman I don't care about anything other than being attracted to her if I only want sex. For a relationship it's a different story. As I think it is with most other men.

To imply that men have lower standards also implies that the "standards" have remained constant.

I will admit that things have changed and that people behave differently today than they did in the past. My point was that it wasn't THAT much different, especially when it comes to sex. People still had premarital sex back then (You didn't have to BE a virgin, you just had to lie about it to your future husband).

I think it is a two-way street. Marketing is as much about creating demand as it is meeting demand. You can put anything on TV, any propaganda, slant in the news and the people will eat it up. Remember what I said about the personality ethics? As long as crap is wrapped in a shiny, dazzling package it'll get accepted.

It's a two way street with the majority of the traffic going in one direction.

You absolutely CAN'T put just anything on tv and people will eat it up. It has to be what people WANT to see, otherwise it will cease to exist. That's why ratings are so important. If a show fails to get ratings, it gets the ax. The media is driven by PROFIT, so by its very nature it cannot (on a large scale anyway) be a reflection of an individual or small group agenda- it must appeal to the largest audience possible. If not something else that people like better will take its place.

We all know humans naturally have a "dark-side". What I'm saying is people are embracing it, cultivating it, even making it a virtue more nowadays. But people also have naturally a "light-side" that they can cultivate.

I agree with you to a point, but my theory is that it has more to do with the fact that it is more accepted to talk about things than people's behavior actually having changed drastically.

I agree with the point that people have a tendency to act in certain ways, like animals basically, but that doesn't mean it's really in their best interest. Most people don't want to live the harsh life of the animals and they naturally see the value in living within rationally defined rules and guidelines.

Hence the artificial construct that is society.

Nature makes the rules, society attempts to modify them based upon individual and group agendas.

Society isn't entirely good and it isn't entirely bad. We certainly would not have the quality of life we have today if it were not for society. But at that same time society is the reason why you are posting on this message board. You got some seriously fukked up information during your upbringing, you began to realize that your NATURE as a man was being compromised by this upbringing, and you are seeking to get what you think you deserve. At least that's what brought most of us here anyway.

Going back to the point of the modern females, they have basically no rules or guidelines imposed upon them. And any one man can't impose them, it has to be done by the society. Instead we have the society of women imposing their rules on men when I believe men were suppose to be the rule makers by nature.

I agree. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction for ANYONE'S good, including women.

The media dictates to society. Is this by chance or design? Design I say.

So what you are saying is that you, me, and everyone else on this planet are a bunch of mindless drones who do whatever they are told?

Listen, I am IN the media. I advertise to bring in customers. By your logic I could place an ad on ANY network on ANY program and since I "dictate" to society, I should be able to make ANYONE buy my product. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. The day I start trying to impose MY agenda as opposed to filling a need is the day I might as well close the doors and go home.

You really should think about what you are saying because it is nothing more than buying into popular misconception. If you stopped to look at the facts (that media cannot exist without money and money cannot be made without filling a DEMAND) you could easily see how it really works.

Somehow I doubt you care to take the time to do that.

 

[frivolousz21]

No message

 

[Rob Fedders]

There is a book out there called “Sex and Culture” which was written by JD Unwin in the 1930’s. He was an anthropologist who adhered to Freudian philosophy.

Mr. Unwin took it upon himself to study 80 different cultures from the past, in regard to sexuality. He wound up being very pissed off because everything that he discovered completely contradicted his beliefs up to that point (Freudianism), but, unlike the nitwit academics of the modern day, he had the moral fortitude to report his findings accurately, despite his extreme uneasiness with it contradicting his life-long beliefs.

He discovered that “female freedom” is 100% related to female sexuality (and it’s subsequent economics). And, he discovered that female sexuality is anti-civilization.

You cannot “liberate” women without giving them 100% license to screw men indiscriminately. He discovered that women will not stay with one man, but, in fact, will always behave as they do today.

He discovered that divorce, child support and alimony has existed many, many times in the past. The Babylonians had child support and divorce (the Babylonians rose up from the Sumerian civilization, thereby linking it to the oldest civilization known to mankind).

He also discovered that when female sexuality/freedom peaked (as it is doing today), the civilization soon destroyed itself within but a few generations. And then, the remnants of that civilization became highly embittered towards women, and cruelly misogynistic towards them (like killing them for adultery), and this cruel misogyny again would lead to another civilization creating itself from the ashes of the old one… and eventually, over time, the natural male’s “mangina-ness” would again give women more and more freedom, and this cycle simply repeats itself over and over again, throughout history… nearly universally. (For example – as Darius III of Persia was getting his ass handed to him by Alexander the Great, he lamented “My men have become women, and my women have become men.” Feminist cultures universally die, or live as “savages.”)

It is the old story of the yin and the yang. The one takes over the other, and then gets taken over again in a never ending cycle. (A truly “progressive” society, therefore, would seek to stop this cycle at some point where both genders achieve some measure of fairness and happiness, while still acknowledging that certain goalposts must remain).

This stuff is not new. Women have always been hostile to men. In the book of Judges, there is a woman who snuck up on her husband as he slept, and she drove a tent peg through his temple – just like the Mary Winkler’s of today.

Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife, for her own nefarious purposes, and manginas came from far and wide to defend the lying woman, and toss the man in prison, just as we do today.

Belfort Bax, a British anti-feminist writer during the time of the suffragettes and after, wrote much about female behaviour. He noted that as soon as the first female judges took to the bench, they instantly shifted the blame of prostitution away from the peddling prostitute and onto the consumer male, and females felt the man should be punished just as heavily as the prostitute, or more. (Kinda like treating the guy who buys and smokes a joint as an equal criminal as the guy who grows and sells it). He also noted that every time a female judge made such a claim, there were no shortage of manginas in the gallery who would leap to their feet and cheer “Hear, hear!” – Not much has changed.

Mr. Bax followed court cases in which he described 14 year old boys being criminally charged for having sex with 16 year old girls who get off scott free, despite overwhelming evidence that the girl had been the sexual aggressor.

Bax also discussed the theatrical industry of the 19th Century/early 20th Century, and noted how it was absolutely necessary for playwrights to continually portray women as victims of evil males, and never the other way around – despite overwhelming evidence that this notion is anti-reality. Not much different than TV today, eh?

In the time of the suffragettes, the delusional dearies chanted “If women had the vote, there would be no more war.” Today, this has merely morphed into “If a woman were President, there would be no more war.” The psychology is consistent – and women are always anti-male.

Tolstoy claimed he had “discovered the secret” about women, but that he refused to share it with anyone until he was lying in his coffin, so that as soon as he said it, he could pull the lid over him and rest in peace (or something along those lines). One might think that Tolstoy didn’t really tell us anything… or did he?

Of course, you have to stop reading the filthy censored garbage that fills academia today.

I view anything written post WWII with great suspicion. You will be shocked to find out how much of the stuff we are all talking about was common knowledge to the general population… and even moreso, when reading up on the feminist (and Marxist) theorists of the past few decades, you will discover that the “intelligentsia feminists” firmly acknowledged all of these things were a reality as well – The Great Walrus, Andrea Dworkin, for example. (Most of the feminists you meet are just useful idiots). The thing is, because feminism is based firmly in Marxism, and Marxism is based firmly in Darwinism, they believe that because of evolution, that “The Truth is Relative.” (As first developed with Hegel’s philosophies regarding the Dialectical).

Because of evolution, what was true yesterday is no longer true today… and therefore, what is true today may not be true tomorrow… and because of evolution, mankind can therefore “force an evolutionary direction” on mankind, and alter the future truth. This is the basis for all of our social engineering programs, btw, and those social engineering programs are the basis of Humanism (Man is God). Psychologists and Sociologists are our new priests – or voodoo doctors. We can “evolve” humans into equality, or evolve them out of homophobia etc (via totalitarianism). The Bible, of course, cannot exist within this paradigm. God is the beginning and the end, remember? He never changes. He is an absolute. If absolutes exist, then Darwinism is dead. If absolutes don’t exist, then Christianity is dead. Marxism/feminism and the Bible simply cannot exist in the same space because they are eachother’s philosophical anti-thesis.

Anyway, I could give you thousands of examples that women have always been this way.

Here is a really good one – it was written 700 years ago, but could have been written yesterday by any married man you know.

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/matheol.html

“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn’t stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn’t care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there’s not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn’t want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”

 

[jophil28]

He ( God) is an absolute. If absolutes exist, then Darwinism is dead. If absolutes don’t exist, then Christianity is dead. Marxism/feminism and the Bible simply cannot exist in the same space because they are eachother’s philosophical anti-thesis.

THis this is the core of it.

Do we give our value and authority to the wisdom of 66 books written over a span of 1530 years by 40 writers.
OR do we believe in philosophies which promotes random chaos, "relative truths" and personal omnipotence and the sole gratification of the self.

 

[Rob Fedders]

Lol, sorry for the triple posts.

Heh, I see that the posts I tried to make over the past few days have now shown up. (You can see they tend to grow each time, too).

Oops.

But, then again.

The world would be a better place if everyone read the wisdom of Fedders thrice over... then they would learn how repugnant it is to be arrogant with your words...

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

And once again the discourse slips into Absolutes vs. Relativism,..why am I not surprised?

I'm going to close this thread, but before anyone pops off with accusations of personal bias, let me state for the record that the rules of this forum expressly discourage topics of religion and politics, and as per usual this is where the conversation goes when moralists chime in.