Raamatun mukaan mies on perheen pää

Niin olen minäkin.

Problems, femicunt?

rgtht kirjoitti:

Niin olen minäkin.

Problems, femicunt?

Veikkaan sun olevan sitä mieltä, että kaikki naiset antaa, toisia pitää vaan lyödä kovempaa, eikö totta?

kyllä. mitä sitten?

mies on kaiken pää, itse pääjohtaja. mies on pää sekä Pohjolassa että lattareissa, joissa suominainen käy hakemassa niin ihanalta nappisilmältä hieman kreolibambulla höyläämistä, tosin suominainen ei kuitenkaan ole niin älykäs, että ymmärtäisi kuinka sovinistinen lattarikulttuuri todellisuudessa on. kömpelöt ja liikkumattomalla lantiolla varustetut suominaiset yrittävät tanssia mambossa ja salsassa mukana, mutta lattaribambun tarjoajat pitävät kankeaa suominaista lähinnä panopuunaan. eivoimitään. lattarinaiset ovat sitten sitä oikeaa kiihkeää ja tulista romanssia varten, ei ummehtunut suomivako.

Semmonen se oli komento nomaditeltassa.

Mitä Rockefellerit ja muu illuminati ajattelee feministeistä. Videolla alussa Aaron Russo kertoo, että Nicholas Rockefeller kysyi Russon mielipidettä naisten vapautusliikkeestä ja Russo vastasi, että en paljon ole sitä ajatellut, mutta naisilla on samanlainen oikeus työskennellä, saada samaa palkkaa kuin miehet ja äänestää. Rockefeller alkoi nauraa ja sanoi, että sinä olet idiootti. Russo kysyi, että miksi olen idiootti ja vastaus oli, että me Rockefellerit rahoitimme naisten vapautusliikkeen, meillä on hallussa sanomalehdet ja tv. Ja sitten Rockefeller antaa kaksi pääasiallista syytä miksi he loivat feminismin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

"In the past patriarchy was invented, because without it the consequences of unrestrained human sexuality makes stable families impossible and therefore civilization itself impossible. Why? If we go back far enough, pre-modern love (traditional restraints on human sexuality otherwise know as traditional gender roles)becomes primitive love(unrestrained human sexuality that existed prior to civilization-the same as what exist today and during the decline of rome ), which was the same as modern love. One person had an intense desire for another person, they had sex, and when they no longer desired each other intensely they ceased to have sex. This might sound agreeable to some of us in theory, but it created serious problems when it involved a man and a woman: 1. If a woman was free to have sex with multiple men, then there was no way of determining who the father was when she became pregnant. Thus, children were born without paternal support and were abandoned. 2. A woman’s fertility and attractiveness usually decline much faster than a man’s. Men would consistently abandon women after a few years for younger partners, leaving older women and their offspring to fend for themselves for the rest of their lives. 3. When free love is permitted, it quickly becomes an obsession. Men and woman spent an inordinate amount of time pursuing sex with each other. This lead to violent conflict over mates, and emotional drama consumed so much time that nobody invested much effort in developing high culture or improving technology. These and countless other problems meant that any society wishing to advance beyond the most primitive state had to attach a set of socially enforced rules to sex between men and women because without them society is forced back into a primitive state where civilization becomes impossible . Across the world, very similar sets of rules developed and eventually became known as the institution of marriage. What were these rules? A woman would devote her most fertile and attractive years to one man, who could be confident that any offspring were his. Consequently, he was obligated to support them materially and emotionally. In return, the man was not permitted to abandon the woman as her attractiveness declined. He was obligated to support her and their offspring. Some cultures permitted powerful men with extra resources to take on younger mistresses or even another wife, but the interests of his first wife and legitimate offspring had priority. Considering how much men value consequence-free sex, marriage was probably a bad deal from a selfish standpoint. But if society was going to advance beyond a primitive state, it was necessary. Social evolution is every bit as ruthless as biological evolution, and cultures that had controlled sex and subordinated it to higher goals quickly conquered cultures that spent all their time infighting over sexual partners. The bad deal for men was also turned into a good deal by the rise of the cult of domesticity. Over time women discovered a whole set of non-sexual attributes that maintained their desirability against younger women as they aged. Above all, women learned to provide constant emotional support to a man. Men can function alone, but they tend to become abstracted and anxious the longer they do. Women are much more social and grounded in the moment, and can bring a man into a richer, more social life if he has confidence in the sincerity and consistency of his wife’s support. Then of course there are all the mundane domestic acts that demonstrate emotional support, such as cooking. As the old peasant proverb goes: beauty fades, cooking does not. Furthermore, by adopting feminine mannerisms, careful selection of clothing, makeup, and so forth a woman could maintain a high level of desirability for years longer than otherwise. Gender roles may be in part an artificial construct, and they are ideologically very out of fashion, but they evolved across the whole world for a reason, and they evolved for the benefit of women looking to maintain long-term commitment."

on myöskin kohtia joissa sanotaa, että varkaalta käsi poikki ja pyhäpäivänä 8sunnuntaina ) työnteosta kivitetään. Joten jos yksi koht aotetaan täysmääräisesti käytäntöön, niin sitten koko homma.