www.dalrock.wordpress.com

ray #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

Every society follows the feminine imperative, to different degrees. The patriarchy is a matriarchy in disguise. The XX century saw the change from a kind of matriarchy to another kind of matriarchy.

correct

once modern (satanic) western cultures sold The People the idea that a “patriarchy” existed that “constantly oppresses females” it was all over except the Last War

our gynarchies insist that the 20th century shifted from patriarchy (evil oppressors) to an equalist society (fairness, no more oppression of women)

in truth, all empires have been matriarchal, tho the extremity of female supremacism only becomes fully visible in the last-stages of these empires (as it did in , say, rome and babylon uno)

the Bible affirms that a “woman” called the “great whore” (i.e. a fallen angel, but also females collectively) “sits over” the nations of this planet, and rules secretly

the trick was re-framing to the Boomers that this gyno-planet was instead an Evil Patriarchy, because duh, cant you see that Evil Males are the presidents and senators and corp execs? etc etc, “men have all the power” which was the First Lie, from which all others flowed

once that re-frame was hammered into the culture, and eventually accepted as truth, then the flood-gates to the gynogulag were wide open — because then, any malevolence done to any boy or man by any female — or any extension of the female, ie. the State and Church — is not only excusable and acceptable, it’s a GOOD thing! . . . because it “puts the male in his place” and “liberates women from their historical oppression”

even at this moment, the western nations are viewed as patriarchal, although every authentic masculine element of those cultures was already extinguished , fifteen or twenty years ago

perfect slavery is accomplished by convincing the slave that not only is he “free” but that in fact he is the slaveholder, then keeping him in an ongoing state of abject guilt, remorse, and constant recompense for crimes that he didnt commit — and, in fact, were committed against him, and against his brothers

financial, sexual, psychological, and other inducements are then offered to “good males” to keep the lie functioning, and to keep other males shamed, impoverished, and scapegoated

TFH #sexist dalrock.wordpress.com

It is not an exaggeration to say that betting against anything that a group of women think is a good idea, is a very solid strategy. Remember, women rely on groupthink, and invest (or force their husband to invest) in a manner that prioritizes groupthink rather than actual returns.

Mortgaged houses, gold, and Facebook shares are all things women thought were superb investments. Hence, all three are terrible.

deti #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

Putting a fine point on it: Back to the OP.

The point is that the FI causes hypergamy and/or the woman’s interests to literally BECOME Christian sexual “morality”.

Thus the FI says: Hypergamy is moral. I am God’s daughter. God wants the best for his special princess. God is not a man that He should lie. God knew me before I was formed in my mother’s womb. God will provide. Therefore, God will give me the best.

Premarital sex is moral as long as he and I do not have sex with anyone else. If he is only having sex with me, then he is “invested” in me and “committed” to me, because if he wasn’t invested and committed, he could have sex with me and with other women. And if he is invested and committed, then that means he loves me. And I would not have sex with him if I did not love him. And if he loves me and I love him, then it is of God and therefore is moral, because God is love.

Serial monogamy is moral. I can marry the “best” man, and I can stay married to him, until he is not “the best” man. If a man is not “the best”, then I should not marry him. And if I do marry him and he is not perfect or “the best”, then God will release me from that marriage and free me to find “the best” and “the One”.

Divorce is moral. God provides “peace that surpasses all understanding” and “joy unspeakable”. Therefore, God wants me to be happy. Anything that makes me unhappy, or that does not make me happy, is not ordained of God. I am unhaaaaaappy in my marriage. Therefore, anything that alleviates that unhaaaaaappiness is moral. Therefore, at least under these (my) circumstances, divorce is moral.

Master Po #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

“I will be Lord of my own house.” Thankfully, I only have to remind my wife occasionally of this fact. The corollary: “My great love for you enables me to put you through any amount of suffering to make sure it is so.”

TFH #sexist dalrock.wordpress.com

As I often say :

Feminism, far from helping women, has actually exposed the full extent of female inferiority (mental, moral, intellectual, economic) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

In the old days, women knew how to discreetly avoid tasks they would be ill-suited for. Now, they are encouraged to go in, demonstrate incompetence, and then loudly proclaim success and oppression at the same time.

sunshinemary #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

I disagree with you.

We must love God, but we must also fear (respect) Him.

Women might love their husbands, but they have no fear of (respect for) them. The law neuters mens’ ability to maintain order in their own households. Preferably a man keeps order by inspiring love and obedience; if this does not work, I see no reason why he should not be able to use coercion just to the point of regaining control of the situation and his wife’s respect.

David Collard #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

Any form of male assertion has now been defined as “abuse”. I noticed this on my own blog recently. Anything a woman or a mangina might dislike is now abusive, apparently.

From a Catholic perspective, we speak of “crosses” to bear in life. For some, it is work problems, for others problems with children, others have health problems, others have difficult or disappointing marriages. I suspect these women just won’t accept that their life is not perfect, that their marriage is a bit blah. They have no endurance. No guts. They are cowards, in a word.

From an Australian perspective, this is where the “pursuit of happiness” leads. To people with no stoicism.

Next page