No Patriarchy for My Daughter!!!

Dialing up the Femininsm

A commenter, “thedeti”, left a great comment at Σ Frame describing the Feminist life script for women.   Responding to the following question: One question I have at this point is, why are a woman’s solipsistic dreams so much more important than submitting to a fantastic man who loves her? Not even sexual bonding is enough to get her to tune into her God ordained purpose as a woman? WTH??? And no matter how good her life might be, fantasy land will always be “better”.

Elspeth is correct that it is the parents’ fault. It’s also the ambient feminism that everyone swims in. Modern Western culture IS feminism. Everyone and everything is feminist. Even Christian women are feminists who are against abortion.

All women, and I mean ALL women, born after about 1960 are marinated in feminism and are feminists. All women in the US over the age of 25 are feminists, and I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary because it’s not true. EVERY man who has gotten married in the last 40 years married a feminist.

The last reason is the overarching dominant cultural narrative and “life script” that Novaseeker has explicated so well and better than I can. The narrative is basically this:

“Daughter, you can’t ever depend on a man and you can’t ever trust a man. Think about the D’s: Divorce, death, disability. What if he leaves you, cheats on you, dies on you, or becomes a cripple? You need a career so you can stand on your own two feet if you have to. You need college. You need job training. You need to earn your own money. You need to compete on equal footing with men. You are equal to men in every way, you can do anything a man can do. You don’t have to take any crap from a man and you sure as hell don’t have to “submit” to him. Any man you marry will be a completely 50/50 equal partner with you and you MUST insist on that.”

“In the meantime before you get married, it’s not really OK to have sex, but you’re going to anyway, so just make sure that if you do, you do it with men you love or at least like a lot. Or, if you’re a non-Christian, you can have all the sex you want with as many different men as you want and there will still be hot, attractive, resources-rich men waiting for you when you’re done with that.”

The ideal “life script” is:

Education, bachelor’s degree or extensive job training, move to a population center, get job, live alone or with roommates who are doing the same thing you’re doing. Advance in career, get competent or even proficient. Travel to fun and exotic tropical destinations. Have fun. Make some frivolous purchases like $800 Louis Vuitton handbags. Keep working. Probably get master’s degree. Change job if necessary. All your friends and every woman you know around your age is doing this.

During all of the above, you are dating both for fun and in the hopes of meeting a marriageable man. You are having sex with most of those men. Some are false starts. Some are short term, no more than 3-6 months. Some are long term. Again: All your friends and every woman you know around your age is doing this.

Two Sluts

The above 2 paragraphs take her out to at least age 25, and many times to the late 20s. (It is alleged by some that many, most, women meet the man they will marry by age 23, and they then marry in their late 20s because the reported average age from relationship start to marriage is 4.9 years. This doesn’t take into account though that female average age at first marriage is 28 and creeping upwards.)

Phase 2: Meet man who you will marry. Get married in equal partnership marriage. Have one child, at most two. Options to stay home, work part time/flex time, or continue full time. Your husband also works and does significant chores around the house and takes the stress off you, as he’s expected to because you are his equal in every significant way. It’s not your job to do most of the housework and child rearing- you’re to do only half of it, and he’s to do the other half (that you decide he needs to do).

So that’s why a woman’s solipsistic dreams are more important than submitting to a fantastic man who loves her:

1) Her “dreams” (or, her life survival) predominate over marriage and everything else until she’s at least in her early 20s. During the time when she’s most attractive and most able to secure “a fantastic man who loves her”, she is spending that time getting educated and job trained so she can do what mom and dad and everyone else told her – Don’t ever be in a position where you have to depend on a man. Instead of looking for a man to take care of survival, she’s doing it herself and not nearly as well as a man can.

2) She’s entitled to “have fun” before she gets married. Travel, make and spend money. Date (i.e. have sex with) attractive men and maybe one will commit. Dating = sex. Everyone is doing this. Your parents, church and pastors usually know this but look the other way.

3) The way you find a husband is you find attractive men, have sex with them within 3 dates, and then find out if there’s enough compatibility there to keep dating. Then hopefully you get exclusive. Then hopefully, when everything is right, you get married. But EVERYTHING must be in place: His career, her career, sufficient money, a decent place to live, access to transportation and culture. She must also be satisfied she has acquired enough life experience that she is satisfying her YOLO needs and FOMO fears, and she must do this before she agrees to marriage.

4) Submission is almost completely omitted from the narrative. Women are not to submit to men. A woman dating a man is not to take the submissive position. A wife is not to submit to her husband, or if she does, she submits only when she wants to and only when she approves of the husband’s conduct. She has everyone’s permission and approval to approach men and marriage this way – even from her church and her pastors, and certainly from her mother, and almost always from her father (if she has one) Absolutely no one will tell her she is to submit to her husband “in all things, as unto the Lord” – not even her church, not even her pastors. Submission to a man equals dependence on him, and remember – she cannot be in a position where she has to depend on a man.

So how can this paradigm be fixed?

I don't know

previously I gave some advice about keeping an unmarried woman in her father’s house.  But, I really would like your help in coming up with a way to counter this godless Feminist life script.   Some of the underlying assumptions made by those who accept this life script seem to be that:

  1.  An olden day patriarchal lifestyle and marriage is unacceptable for their daughter.
  2.  If I live a strict Bible-directed life, I will miss out on so much I would like to do.
  3.  As long as I’m not the worst girl at church (e.g. the pastor’s daughter) I’m still going to heaven.
  4.  I can be redeemed and a fornicator.
  5.  God must judge me relative to the society all around me.
  6.  Egalitarian/Complementarian marriages work better and are happier than Patriarchal marriages.
  7.  My husband doesn’t deserve my best years, or for my life to focus on him.
  8.  I can chase my Feminist dreams before and after marriage, and if I can, I’ll help my husband too.
  9.  As a woman my goals and dreams are just as important as any man’s.
  10.  My husband should do half of the domestic work, because; “Baby, I’m worth it!”

Should we do something about it?

Thoughts and Prayers

If we only keep the brainwashed young men and women of this Feminist generation in our thoughts and prayers, things will only grow worse as the rabid Feminists charge unopposed against the last few remnants of traditional Christian patriarchy that are still left in our lives.  At this moment what I can see is that we need to change our mindset and the frame of reference of those around us.  Feminism and Hollywood have programmed and brainwashed us to believe that women are equal to men, if not morally superior.  So consequently a wife’s priorities become equal to her husband’s, if not superior.

Many of the underlying assumptions that the Feminist life script is based upon, are rooted in the idea that husbands aren’t any more important than their wives.  Churchians generally believe that now, and that male headship makes little sense, but is commanded only by reason of divine fiat.  So, they try to humor God by calling the man the head, while carrying on like he is only the co-head, or preferably only the vice president of their daughter’s future extension of their own family.  They don’t give their daughters away to belong to their husband’s clan anymore, on the contrary they feel that the husbands are being nabbed for their daughter’s matriarchal dominion.

Basically people lack the faith that God’s original ways are best, that their daughters should prepare for a faith-filled life depending on God and their husband.   They would gladly risk their daughter fornicating and being indoctrinated and radicalized into complete worldliness just to give her a chance to get a degree at a well known school of this world.  They make a deal with the devil whereby they clearly sell out their future son in law’s best interests to try to assure that their daughter tastes fleeting pleasures apart from him while securing her financial insurance against ever becoming fully bound to his circumstances or dependent on him.  They are literally trading off future marital unity interdependence and intimacy for faithless independence and separation preparedness.   We as individuals and as a society need to repent of this foolish faithlessness!

Exit Question: How do we best get people to deprioritize women and their fruitless independence and instead cherish men, marriage, and strong patriarchal families?

Dalrock’s Departure

wisdom

Yesterday Red-Pilled Christian blogger, Dalrock, announced on his blog, that he is quitting his blog, after a decade of blogging.  https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/farewell-for-now-at-least-and-thank-you/     For myself, I am saddened to see his site ending.  It helped me a lot, I met a lot of good men there, and was challenged to hone and defend my Bible based beliefs.  I am glad it was there for me at a time when few were.

Getting the Word Out

 

Repeal the19th AmendmentHow to tell others about God’s loving plan of patriarchy?

Where I work I usually get a couple emails weekly about what the company is doing to empower women, or increase diversity.  Supposedly diversity of ideas is a good thing, and apparently you get it by hiring and promoting people who don’t look like myself.   LOL   However, even though my ideas are quite outside the mainstream, instead of being celebrated for such diversity of thought, I know I might be fired for sharing my diverse beliefs with some of the “diverse” people at work.  Although I do continually push the envelope at work, sharing more about Godly Sexism than anybody else I know there.

I bought the shirt, shown above, from Amazon and wore it yesterday.(not to work)  My boys were the first to ask me what the 19th amendment was.  And It gave me the chance to share with them  that the 19th amendment allowed women to vote in the USA.

Later I got to briefly share the calamity of women voting with a stocker at Walmart who asked me what the 19th amendment was.  He didn’t really say anything in return.  I assume he had been coached not to speak of his personal politics with customers.  But, his facial expression looked shocked, like he’d just had his pussy grabbed.

Our country has made a grave mistake by letting women “help” rule us.  And as expected, ideological politics descended from written platforms and whole speeches printed in newspapers, into glamour photos and quotable quips from the candidates.  Today we have memes and soundbites, but the effect is the same.  Both parties left off deep discussion of the candidates stances and ideas and effectively turned elections into beauty contests judged by flighty “undecided” women.

Giving women the vote also meant the inevitable passage of “women’s issues”, e.g. Abortion on demand,(babies are drawn & quartered in their mother’s wombs) No-Fault Divorce,(family men are absolutely ruined for No-Fault of their own) the Sexual Harassment campaign,(that criminalizes even the mildest pursuit and advances by unwelcomed men) Equal pay for twice the drama, and every imaginable perversion of virtue and justice along with a whole raft of freebies and carveouts designed to provide for women who don’t care to treat any man respectably enough to earn that provision from him.  So, women voting has brought a murderous reign of family devastation upon our nation and world, and I don’t see what we’ve gained by making women so entitled.

If we feel men were created by God to be the leaders, and run society in accordance with God’s will, then we need to be able to openly share those Godly ideas, before we can ever expect we’ll get others to agree with them and adopt them.

Who’s Oppressing Women?

wage slave

On today’s episode of BattleTwats the Siren of Socialism takes on Feminazi Fever!

The Socialist Bot quickly hits the spinning flail of Feminism with a delegitimizing blow but then loses one of her own intellectual wheels and winds up spun out and going in similar circles to that of her opponent, the spinning Feminist wage-slave.  The feral Feminist lazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from patriarchy, and the silly Socialist crazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from Capitalism.

Today I happened across some old Socialist theory on achieving a classless utopia by Lindsey German: Theories_of_Patriarchy

Lenin’s little Lindsey starts off by showing the absurdity of the settled Feminist conspiracy theory that there is a united army of patriarchal penis possessors all  together responsible for orchestrating every perceived oppression of women.  According to Lindsey, Feminists believe: the “eternal truth” that “patriarchy” in one form or another is the cause of women’s oppression.  Lindsey then reeducates us that, Capitalism done it!

Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society.

Linsey asks, if patriarchy is indeed something by which all men oppress all women, how can it ever be overcome by women and men acting together?   I want to argue something completely different. I want to reject the concept of patriarchy as at best a muddled term simply meaning women’s oppression (in which case it cannot explain this oppression), and at worst a completely idealist notion which has no basis in material reality. I want to show that it is not men who “benefit” from the oppression of women but capital. I want to look at the way in which the family has changed, and how as it has changed women’s conception of themselves has also changed. Hopefully that will demonstrate that women’s continued oppression is not the result of male conspiracy (or an alliance between male workers and the capitalist class), but of the continuation of class society in every part of the world. It follows that I shall argue the “socialist” countries have no more in common with socialism than they have with women’s liberation.

Apparently all of the Socialism failing all around us is not really Socialism at all!  Socialism was to be a classless society, and male  and female are classes that did not get sufficiently erased by those lame wannabe Socialist despots and their half-assed purges and half-empty killing fields.  Lindsey want’s to do Socialism right even if they have to kill or neuter us all to achieve her total desired classlessness.   If I recall correctly Jordan Peterson has observed that there is no end to the classes you can break society down into, and every class can always claim some grievance.  There is no satisfying these perpetual grievance mongering dividers and subdividers of the people.

Ultimately the revolution was lost through the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to follow the Russian lead. That in its turn led to severe setbacks to the position of women. But in the early years they saw the glimmers of opportunity of equal work, socialized housework and a much freer sexuality which was made possible by the revolutionary overthrow of the old society.

Lindsey wants to overthrow all current societies to make way for her Socialist religion, where all children are forcibly raised entirely by the state, because women are oppressed by being part of a family and most oppressed by child bearing and rearing, because it’s career suicide.

The great “parasite” on women’s domestic labor is the child.

Engels and the early Marxists considered that the proletarian family (unlike the bourgeois family) would disappear since it was not based on property. It clearly has not. Since I do not believe that this is because of patriarchy, I want to look at precisely what does keep the family going.

Yet the family remains a stifling, stultifying place where attitudes and roles are taught and learned, where prejudices and values are transmitted through the generations.

And so women are left with the responsibility for childbirth and childcare. This above explains why the family and women’s oppression continue. Women’s roles as mothers and child rearers structure their whole lives.

At every stage in its development the system has had to establish structures that bind those that it exploits to it.  The family is integrated into a complex network of such structures. These take advantage of the way housewives, isolated in the home and cut off from the wider collectivities that form around industrial production, are more susceptible to unchanging ideas about ‘one’s place in society’; dependent upon their husbands for a livelihood they can be persuaded that any sort of social change is a threat to their family and their security. Or, again, these structures rely on the way the male worker, having to worry about the security of his wife and children as well as himself personally, is likely to think twice before getting involved in a strike, occupation or insurrection. The slogan of ‘defense of the family’ becomes a slogan for mobilizing working people in defense of the status quo.

Apparently Lindsey believes in atheistic Socialism inspired economic forces directing humankind,  and so God didn’t design the traditional Patriarchal family, it must have been invented, as her ilk teach, by people in the middle east about 2,000 B.C. due to a change in economic forces.  Lindsey assumes that prior to that was a matriarchal utopia.  LOL   Apparently Lindsey(circa 1981) believed women should effect societal change through things like a collective sex strike.  LOL Alyssa Milano’s recent sex strike didn’t work too well.  How do you escalate things when that fails?  A collective rape accusation against all men?

Anyhow Lindsey seems to believe that having children and raising them is the biggest drag on women and it must be stopped.  Women and men must both alike have no consequences or responsibilities whatsoever after having sex.  Few children should be born, and all children must be raised entirely by the state.  Since having a child will torpedo a woman’s career, I believe she would favor as few select women as possible acting as career babymakers, artificially inseminated with the best semen for the best planned future of the collective state, if in fact she even believes in the favorability of the continued existence of the human race.

Lindsey’s utopia is somehow genderless, marriageless, familyless, sexless except for unaffiliated female-initiated recreational sex, and every remaining problem will then stem from the last remaining vestiges of Capitalism and improperly reeducated malefactors who still have the human ambition to be unique or to belong to a select group.(like a family)

So, I can see Lindsey German has a slightly different alternative to Feminism, the only problem is, it is even worse, and we’d have to kill billions of “Capitalists”, and we still wouldn’t get anything but life in an inescapable globalized shithole nation, filled with apathy, addiction, and despair.

I say society should quit harkening to all these batshit-crazy women and start living Biblically.  Women won’t be happy again until collectively they’re properly repressed.

Realizing the divinely ordained dominion of men

Feminist Tears

We are entering the next phase in public consciousness. (Opposition to being Red-Pilled)

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Christian Manosphere maven, Dalrock, posted: The Atlantic blames the Manosphere for mass shootings. , he cites: a largely incoherent article blaming the manosphere for mass shootings.

Feminists are now demanding that men oppose the Manosphere.

Feminists and their fellow female-supremacist enablers are turning a corner.  While they once smugly ignored the Manosphere/Androsphere/Intellectual Dark Web, they eventually acknowledged its penetrating presence by switching to ridiculing it.  August 7th, 2019, the fembots have finally decided to fight us in the public square.

Fembot AttackShe’s got her little gun turrets aimed at you, brother.

I noticed that the author, Helen Lewis, was careful not to specifically mention any operating Manosphere sites, so that her readers could not go there in search of the truth, but instead she set up her own woman-hating, violence prone, straw-man to shoot at.

Our friend Jack keeps a fine list of Manosphere sites on his sidebar at Σ Frame.

Helen whines; “Women’s sexual and reproductive freedom are seen as threats to civilization itself.”   Apparently most Feminists are not yet willing to contemplate the reality that a nation of self-serving whores is not as stable as a nation of upright people with mothers who are trained from their youth to be dedicated to their husbands and children.  Then Helen whines that anti-Feminist videos are getting too many views on YouTube.  Helen scolds that there are bad men out there who make generalized statements about women, and don’t accept dogmas like man-made climate change.  Poor Helen, she might faint if she knew my sons and I leave our toilet seats up.

Helen quotes Ashley Mattheis who opines that the secular Manosphere thinks men are superior because of innate biological advantages, whereas the religious Manosphere believes men’s superiority is divinely ordained.  Amen!

Helen does acknowledge that Feminist overuse of the misandrist phrase “Toxic Masculinity” has backfired by making their latent misandry obvious to men.  And finally Helen implies that men are crazy for taking steps to protect themselves from now rampant false sexual-harassment and rape charges.

LOL

If those are their best arguments against men who aren’t ashamed to be men, then Feminisms’ eventual loss of control over societies sexual narrative may come quicker than we have anticipated.  Like the bursting of a generational dam, the baby boomers and their failed Feminist experiment might quickly be washed away by younger generations who don’t want to repeat their parents’ folly, but want to try something different.

When did Feminism Start?

 

Strangling a Feminist

Commenter ‘Ace’ recently commented: “This is an attitude from the 1700s, so well before feminism took hold.”

Upon reading that I knew I wanted to respond with a post, but I had to go to work and I am now finally able to quickly address this.  However, in the intervening time, commenter ‘ikr’ gave the following reply: “To borrow recently-coined terminology, you further commit a strawwoman argument in arguing feminism, when the issue is gynocentrism. It was known as chivalry before that. The terms belong to eras, but the concept is the same: woman as the central figure in the concern of man.”

Commenter ‘ikr’ largely stole my thunder, by getting my main point across in a nutshell, but I’ll make the argument that “Feminism” goes all the way back to Eve, and that coveting equality with your superior, usurping, and rebellion, that are key features of Feminism, can be traced back to the fall of Lucifer.

 Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

Genesis 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely dieFor God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;  18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;  19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

A while prior to Ace’s assertion of the 1700s being well before Feminism, commenter ‘ray’ had remarked: “I mean there’s no such thing as equality, in heaven or upon Earth, amongst man or woman or angel. Within these ranks there is Created order, each different and having a place or station.   Equality is an abstraction, a construction or artifice, created by Lucifer. The parallel between what happened in the Garden (Eve and quest for Equality) and today’s spiritual and political landscapes isn’t accidental.”

I previously explained a bit about how the Roman state church wrongly added women to the image of God around the end of the fourth century AD in another post: https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/?wref=tp

It wasn’t until the fourth century around 380 AD that Mary began to be called Mother of God, or “Theotokos” This was said as part of the controversy over the nature of Jesus. Some said he was born human but became God later. Others said Jesus was divine from the moment of inception. Those who believed that Jesus was divine at birth used the slogan: Mary the Mother of God. Actually, the phrase was more like Mary: God-bearer. Saint Ambrose, who lived in Rome before going to Milan as its bishop, venerated Mary as an example of Christian life and is credited with starting a Marian cult of virginity in the 4th century.

In the 5th and 6th century, churches in Rome began to be dedicated to Mary, and from there the Great Whore seated on the seven mountains spoken of in Revelation 17 has continued to adopt features of preexisting pagan goddess worship and further deify Mary, growing in strength in the dark ages, eventually calling Mary the “Queen of heaven”, the same old name as Old Testament idol worshippers used when committing abominations in Jeremiah 7 & 44.  Somewhere early along our church age time line to accepting Satan’s counterfeit goddess worship, it was decided that women must also be in the image of God, because, how could Mary be a goddess, if she isn’t even able to be in the image of God?  So women were deceitfully added into the image of God to bolster the worldly reintroduction of preexisting Roman goddess worship back into the church under the guise of “honoring” Mary.  Satan’s minions deceitfully said, “You’re dishonoring the ‘Mother of God’ if you say she was a sinner and wasn’t even in God’s image”.

I think we would be unwise not to recognize that most all of the necessary components for todays ‘Feminism’ were conjured into place, by the Great Whore (Satan’s state church, of this world) even well before it was called ‘Chivalry’.

Please add your thoughts for discussion below.  🙂

The Image of God (the first & last men’s only club)

Did Sharkly jump out the “Overton window”?

out the window

Jack,  at Σ Frame linked to my How to bring back Patriarchy post.

In his description Jack hinted about the Overton window.   While I’m not certain what Jack was implying, I do have a response.

First I had to look up what the Overton window was.  While I was unfamiliar with the term, It was a familiar concept that I believe is quite true.  It refers to the range of ideas permitted in public discourse.  Often people, especially on the far left, will use the Door-in-the-face technique to modify the window of ideas which are acceptable, by publicly promoting leftist ideas that are currently far out of bounds to destigmatize less extreme leftist ideas that then seem to be an acceptable compromise by comparison.

So am I saying men are in the image of God while women are not, as a strategic ploy to move the center point of discussion to the right by yanking the extreme edge over further to the right?

No.  I actually believe every word I wrote, and I even held back a bit.

Now if all I accomplish is to move the Overton window to the right through the Door-in-the-face technique, that in itself will increase righteousness and be helpful to society, and will have been a good deed.  But I intend to do far more.  I’d actually love to see my plan followed and patriarchy restored.

Now if I were to bet on my success, I’d bet against Sharkly.  I’d bet that society continues to ignore God’s word, even when I proclaim it, and instead will try to censor me, mock me, and persecute me.  But the results are not mine to control.  So, I’ll just try to be a faithful servant of God, and serve him as best I can, in my own unique way that He has been preparing and equipping me to do.

 

separately, a commenter seems to wonder:

Am I just venting misogyny?

“…so bitter and resentful, almost hateful, of women.”

No, I don’t believe so.

If I really hated women I’d tell them to study for years in college preparing so they can waste their most fertile years and expel their freshest eggs while working in a factory or office, and then have to settle for whatever leftover men are still available, or else cats.   I’d tell them to be sexually liberated and get pumped and dumped by a string of immoral men who will later laugh about all the stupid whores they porked.  If I really hated women I’d flatter them that they’re equal or better than men, they’re “daughters of the King” made in the image of God, have a goddess inside them, and that they just need to “find themselves”.

No, I love women.  A lot!  I’ve even spent time carefully admiring pictures of women whom I don’t personally know, on the internet.  😉  And my love and appreciation for women is why I’m not hesitant to tell them what is truly best for them.  And it is best for women to truly know their place.  Woman was created last of all, for the man, God gave her to the man, to have.   The man was created in the image of God and as such comes before God, who’s image he bears, uncovered.  But the woman is just the glory of man, and must cover her head when coming into the presence of God, because she is not allowed this exaltation that is reserved for men who are all in God’s image and glory.

I also feel that women get too much flattery and aggrandizement in our Feminist society, and especially in our churches, having become veritable temples of cunt-worship.   So, out of love I generally try not to overinflate their already inflated sense of self.  I try not to apologize in advance before I say something putting women back in their place, nor do I want to sandwich it with a piece of praise.  Just, Whack!  Know your place woman!  That way the message doesn’t get lost.  I’m willing to be a rock of offense for God.

Let me have it below!  Your comments may help me or others.

Grateful wives, holding back the arrival of the Feminist utopia.

Korean Boxwood

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/mothers-shouldnt-be-grateful-their-husbands-help/588787/

Darcy Lockman writes in The Atlantic, that wives, who are grateful for their husbands help in raising their children, are holding back the rewriting of gender rules necessary to arrive at somewhere different than where we currently are with vestiges of the patriarchy still haunting us.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother to read such an article, but, to generate content for my blog, I held my nose and read her short screed on your behalf.

Ms. Lockman discovers her grievance: For the past 20 years, research by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has consistently found that women employed outside of the home shoulder 65 percent of child-care responsibilities, and their male partners 35 percent. … In 2017, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development called the uneven distribution of unpaid labor between men and women in the home one of the most important gender-equality issues of our time. … MenCare, a fatherhood campaign working toward child-care parity in 45 nations, estimates that at the current rate of change, it will be another 75 years before women achieve gender equality in the home —a more optimistic figure than the 200 years the United Nations International Labour Organization predicted in March, on the eve of International Women’s Day. … Women’s gratitude is doubtless a result of the well-known, deeply felt fact that while domestic labor isn’t equal now, it was even less equal before. 

So, according to Ms. Lockman, the Feminism foiling gratitude is because many wives perceive a relative improvement in the distribution of child care responsibilities since the 80’s and 90’s.  Apparently Feminists are not to be prematurely grateful for getting what they want, because giving up their raging aggrieved state may slow the progress of achieving complete parity between the sexes in the child care role.

Andrea’s misplaced gratitude is not only common, but also an impediment to the elusive goal of equity in the home. … Gratitude is a brand of benevolent sexism, a force that repels change. To offer thanks for whatever contributions men happen to make reinforces the implicit idea that parenting is women’s work, that 65/35 is a very fine place to stop. … Only once gratitude is relinquished for righteous anger will gender rules in this realm be rewritten. Then we can land somewhere different: not grateful, only glad.

So, according to Ms. Lockman, ladies you should not ever be grateful for your husband’s help with child care, until complete parity is achieved in 75 – 200 more years.  Basically, you should express no gratitude for your husband’s help, ever!  So, ladies, Please stay aggrieved and filled with anger, because your individual marriage is not to be a joy filled pothole on the grim road to our future sexless society.  /s

 

Addendum:

Dalrock has now mentioned this story:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/gratitude-is-the-enemy-of-feminism/

However Lori Alexander gave it a better treatment, in this case:

https://thetransformedwife.com/gender-equality-in-the-home/

‘Biblical Gender Roles’ hits one out of the park!

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2019/05/03/why-christian-woman-should-wear-head-coverings/

Head is covered

Wow!  I couldn’t have written a better article on the topic, of Christian head coverings, myself, and I consider this a very crucial topic of anti-God rebellion in our churches and amongst Christians who rebel in full view of the world.  How can Christians be asking God for anything, and expecting to receive it, when our women’s prayers are, in form, a defiant affront to Him?  Our collective prayers are surely hindered, because we do not live with our wives in an understanding way, allowing them to defy God and throw off the headship of their husbands(the image and glory of God) by refusing to even have a symbol of that divinely commanded headship over them in the presence of angels and God himself, who made men in His own image.

I have been planning to write a post about this topic myself and have in fact already made a graphic for it.  To me, so many of the problems with today’s apostate church stem from satanic deceptions, lies, false doctrine, and disobedience related to Feminisms’ blasphemous effeminization of God, “even the Father”.  While at the same time they denigrate men, being made in God’s image and glory.  Yet some Christians will even advocate women wearing head coverings, while still refusing to acknowledge a man’s reason for not wearing one:

1 Corinthians 11:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

The difference in form makes no sense, if you view man and woman as equal creations.  You have to see that the man was in fact made superior, and first, in the image and glory of God, to understand the Apostle Paul’s explanation.  Otherwise Paul is just spouting off something that has no bearing on the matter, since both men and women share in the image of their hermaphrodite god/goddess alike.  We have to get back to the early churches Biblical belief that only men were created in the image of God.  That is foundational to understanding God’s model of patriarchy, and why holy Sarah called Abraham, “Lord”.  Flattery is a sin, not something the Apostle Peter would commend Sarah for.(1 Peter 3:6)  Sarah was acknowledging Abraham’s divine dominion over her.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

If the husband images Christ, and the wife images the church, which one is an image of God?