I didn't go to college until I was 30. This gave me a chance to see it with the perspective of an adult.
One lecture in Industrial Psychology, in particular, I will never forget.
The professor spoke about how an effective job description focused on concretely measurable tasks, not vague instructions, or characteristics.
For example, "maintain an 85% or greater average on customer feedback surveys", instead of "be cheerful and upbeat", or even "interact positively with customers".
This means that goals are clear, and performance is measurable. A job is to do something, not be something.
Once some of the students had wrapped their minds around this concept, the professor decided to do a class exercise.
He asked the female students to come up with a job description for "husband". At first, this went fine. The girls noodled around a bit with things they wanted their husbands to be (tall, etc), but he was able to gradually steer them towards describing what they wanted in terms of actions.
But then he asked the male students to define a wife in the same way.
And all the girls became upset. Some of them had full-on meltdowns.
Every single thing that a male student wanted, or expected, from his hypothetical future wife was sexist, oppressive, old-fashioned, misogynistic, patriarchal, etc.
They were literally screaming. Some of them in tears.
And I realized something pretty quickly. It wasn't the actual, concrete responsibilities of the female role that they objected to.
It was the idea of there being a female role at all, with any attached responsibilities.
These women didn't want to be wives. They wanted to be pets.
What's a pet? Well a pet is not a wife, or a friend. A pet is a creature of instinct, which you bring into your home because you like how it naturally behaves.
You get a cat because you want to behave like a cat, and do things a cat naturally does, like play with string, and purr when you pet him. If he's smart, he'll adapt to you somewhat, but he doesn't have responsibilities other than "be a cat".
If you get a wife, you get a wife so she will do things for you, specific things that are the responsibilities of wife, like care for your home, bear and raise your children, cook nutritious meals so you don't have to eat processed slop, look after your emotional well-being, and so on.
These girls didn't want to be held responsible for those things. As married women, they might have anticipated doing some of them, but only some of the time. Only when they felt like it.
The cat chases the string if and when it wants to, not because chasing the string is its job.
These young millenial women didn't realize it, but they wanted to be pets. And that's what they were in their college relationships. They hung out with guys when they wanted to, had sex with them when they wanted to, broke up with them for someone new when they wanted to.
Their relationships had no element of reciprocal responsibilities. They were perfectly at home with the idea of men having responsibilities to them, but they would repay those men if they chose, and how they chose, not how the men actually wanted.
And as I've said twice already, someone you have responsibilities to, but who has none to you, is a pet, or a child.
Since our ancestors, in a moment of foolishness and weakness, allowed women to vote, it is no longer legal to dole out the corrective spankings a great many of them both need and read pornographic novels about.
Therefore, the corrective measure, for any man who finds himself with a pet instead of a wife, is to withdraw from any husbandly duties and start actively searching for alternatives.
This can either result in a correction of the behavior, or the end of a relationship that offers no value. Either is acceptable.
This may strike some of you as dishonorable, but there is no honor in keeping a broken pact, or in serving those who despise you.
Men must have the pride and self-worth to say "I will be honored and respected, or I will depart to a place where I can be, even if I must be alone there."
Men must honor and respect themselves.
The Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats.
It is not punishing Republicans; rather, it is recognizing that both Republicans and Democrats are worthless cowards, at best, and, more often and worse, traitors.
The second you stand up and poke the gods of this age in both eyes, people will come out of the woodwork with all sorts of accusations:
You must have daddy issues. You must be consumed with envy and bitterness. Your heart must be shriveled up like a Pharisee's. You must be addicted to porn. You probably beat your wife. I'll bet she hates you.
The liberal mind cannot fathom a mind that is not riddled with and captive to its liberalism.
Liberalism is to the liberal fundamental law. It is gravity. It is the strong nuclear force. It is the unseen operating system which controls the world.
It can be frustrating, but it's important that we don't back down, that we keep pressing. Liberalism is a competing religion. It must be made to bend the knee to Christ.
For those daily inundated with accusations and projections like these, my counsel is simply to stand firm. Don't worry overmuch about being vindicated before men. The Lord will judge. Keep your hand to the plow.
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 And what exactly does one's salvation (x) have to do with their ability to exist as another person's property (y)? You're again conflating two separate things. I'm the property (or slave) of God and still a 'co-heir' with Christ. See the problem?
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 Again, you're using an extremely rigid and specific definition of property. It'd be retarded to say that ALL property is 'consumable' or even non-consensual. Regardless, God does not operate with a 'consent morality'.
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 Haha, of course the mandatory Galations 3:38 reference comes out! And, I will also affirm 1 Peter 3:7, but it still doesn't prove your point. You're projecting bad enlightenment philosophy onto scripture. The Word of God cares not for your false god of equality.
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 Again, this is a total reach. Yes, men are commanded to lay down their lives for their wives if necessary. Why does this mean that their wives are not also a form of property? Or that people cannot definitionally be property? Still haven't connected those dots.
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 Again, you need to substantiate the with Scripture. God permits and even blesses men with slaves. He never condemns the practice anywhere in His Word. The burden of proof is on you.
@Loganvl96@censor_m3 Sure - first of all, the Bible clearly states that a man's conjugal rights belong to his wife as well (so it's not a one way thing). Second, you're making a huge assumption when you assume property cannot be ensouled or have the image of God. Feel free to substantiate that.
Can someone tell me what's the point of even having a country, let alone a Nation, if you have to compete with an ever expanding influx of third world people for jobs, medical care, housing etc? What are we even doing?