explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

No, Cappy. Women DO NOT like men. (And they never have)

SnapperTrxOct 22, 2021, 10:14:50 PM

The infamous "Captain Capitalism", ie: Aaron Clarey, recently made post to his blog, which he then spoke about at length on one of his podcasts. The post is titled What if Women Just Don't Like Men: The Economic Consequences of Women's Divestment from Men. The TLDR is that now that women literally do not need men to survive because they can work, gain an income, own property and are essentially propped up by the government they are ditching men and marriage, entertaining the two only for sexual pleasure and children, the latter of which men are still required (but not even then, really). As is his schtick Cappy goes over the economic ramifications of the separation of the sexes and poses the question: Did women even ever really like men?

Cappy, I'm here to tell you: No. And they never have.

"Now wait, Snapper", some might say, "I know lots of women who like men! I myself am a woman who likes men", and to this I say, "Okay". However, as with anything I say here, simply saying "men" or "women" never means 100% of all men or women who have lived throughout time. It simply means a preponderance of men or women, making the outliers the "not the norm". If you are a woman who likes men, great, then this article will probably be an interesting read for you, but doesn't necessarily apply to you - OR DOES IT?

As is my schtick, and since I know Cappy isn't keen on religion, I am going to be looking at the question from a biblical standpoint and give my two cents as to why women have never really liked men, and what this means for the present day and the future of the West.

Genesis 3:16 [KJV] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Biblically speaking we can see that almost from the beginning there has been enmity between men and women. After bringing sin into the world God curses the woman by saying he will "...greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" (The NKJV explains a bit better: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children"). However the second part of the woman's curse is what we are interested in here: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

"...he shall rule over thee."

Because of the foolishness of Eve her husband was placed in authority over her, but her desire would not be to follow her husband authority, but to rebel, and rule over him instead. This curse would follow all the daughters of Eve, throughout time. This means that, by default, women do not like men, but particularly when they are men who rule over their lives. This means fathers first, husbands second.

Everyone knows that young men rebel against their fathers, but most of the time this is just seen as said young man coming into his own. He is escaping from the confines of being a boy and starting to think for himself. His inexperience puts him at odds with his dad, who has been down many of the same roads before, but the young man feels his fathers ways are the old ways, and that his new ways are superior. Sometimes he is right, but many times he is wrong, and as time goes by he learns that his old man is far wiser than he originally thought, and humility takes hold of him.

The real lamentation, however, comes from a rebellious daughter. She often times doesn't give a whit for her fathers wisdom because wisdom is of little to no value to her. Her coin is "E X P E R I E N C E". We see this even in modern times where women want to experience everything they can, even to their detriment. They want the college experience. The Chad Thundercock experience. Even at the women at church live for the "church experience". She doesn't take issue with her fathers wisdom, she takes issues with her fathers rules and authority.

Now, that is not to say that the young men don't also rebel against their fathers authority, but I, personally, come from a family of two boys (my brother and myself) and two girls (my sisters). I fought with my father because despite his advice I thought he was an idiot! He didn't know the situation. He didn't know how things were in the NOW world, he was speaking from his time, decades ago! How could he understand modern problems? My brother, I believe, fared much better. Whether because he witnessed the fighting between myself and our father or because I was married with kids while he was still in school, I don't recall ever seeing him go toe to toe with our old man or ever recall him saying anything about it.

My sisters, however, were god awful to my parents, with much of it being my parents fault, mostly, I'd say, due to a churchian understanding of a father's authority over his daughters and an already weak Western church to begin with. We were a christian family, attending church every Sunday, fellowshipping with other families, going to bible studies. It made little difference. One of my sisters was always sneaking out of the house to do the things she was told not to do. Partying, drinking, getting involved with thugs she had no business hanging around. She ended up getting pregnant after a conjugal visit in prison with her ex-boyfriend.

My other sister was a bit more tame than the other, but she too ended up getting pregnant outside of wedlock. Eventually she did get married and divorced, but the point was she followed pretty much the same road as her sister: Dad's rules didn't permit her to have the "experiences" everyone told her were so great in life, so she rebelled.

Despite their hatred for my fathers authority they chose to get married. Again a weak Western church teaches christian men that though the bible distinctly says they have authority over their wives in EVERY THING, they are taught that it is sin to ever use it, and the christian women have caught on. My first sister is now married to a man with whom she has several children, along with her daughter from her ex-boyfriend. Despite going to church and being a christian she treats her husband like a child, acting more like his mother than his wife, constantly chiding him and harping on him about this and that. Even my wife, whom I have spoken to at length on this blog, whom I consider to be "feminist-lite" can't stand listening to my sister sink her teeth into her husband.

And so, everywhere we look, since the dawn of time, we have seen wives that rebel against their husbands, turning into heartless harpies. The bible itself laments their existence:

Proverbs 21:9 [KJV] It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

And a mere ten verses later:

Proverbs 21:19 [KJV] It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

And yet again in the same book:

Proverbs 25:24 [KJV] It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.

We see the rebellious wife in the book of Esther, when Vashti refuses a summons by the king, and his wise men lament that if word made it out that the queen herself was disrespectful toward her husband, every wife in all of Persia would turn against their husbands [Esther 1].

We see the rebellious and hateful wife of Job, who had it all, according to the scripture, as Job was very well to do and a big man about town. When it was all taken from them Job cried out to God. Unlike Job, however, his wife suffered none of the physical maladies satan meted out on her husband, yet she had the audacity to tell him to stop crying out and to simply give up his integrity, and to "curse God and die".

This post waxes long, so I will try to get more quickly to the point.

Before biblical times, through biblical times and beyond biblical times even unto the more recent era there have been safeguards that have kept women from rebelling en masse in the majority of societies. Rebellious women would, at one time, be shunned by society, a steep price to pay for their "experience". To be a loose woman, a drunk woman, a contentious woman, a heathen woman - these would all invite, from fellow citizens, a woman's most lethal poison: Shame. Women are emotional creatures and there is little doubt they experience emotion on a much grander scale than men do (which could explain why they seek "experiences" so much), and to experience shame, already a heavy burden to bear for most men, is a crushing weight for a woman.

That shame, however, has been removed.

Another safeguard was the necessity of men in women's lives simply for survival. In centuries long past there homes had to be built by hand of wood or stone. Few would the the woman, or women for that matter, that could perform such work. Food wasn't picked up from a grocery store and would either have to be hunted daily or killed daily from a stock of kept animals. Even in large cities there was no way to get ahold of guards or whatever law enforcement might be available to ward of thieves or attackers. You had to have a husband for that! It would be even more difficult if you lived out in the woods or prairies, where the next closest human was a few miles away at best, and your only mode of transportation might be a horse or mule. Even a buggy or wagon wouldn't be much of a solution unless it was all hooked up and ready to go in the time of trouble. Much of the work available that would pay a living wage was hard work that required the strength of men, and the idea of women working those jobs was laughable at best, as it should have been. Working in mines lifting tons of rock every day, cutting down huge trees and transporting them as logs, blacksmithing, farming - Its difficult now to look at those jobs and think, "Well women can do those jobs too!", but we are talking a couple hundred to a few thousand years ago, with none of the modern technology that women enjoy using today in those jobs. No chainsaws, no forklifts or backhoes, not even comfortable shoes with cushioned insoles. Men were needed, and women needed men to survive.

That need, however, has been removed.

What we are seeing is not the transformation of women into mean-spirited, rebellious harpies. What we are seeing is the true nature of women coming through now that all of their limiters have been removed. Women aren't starting to dislike men - they never have liked men, but now they can show it with little to no repercussion. Why deal with a man if you don't need him for shelter, you can just work your own job and get an apartment? Why deal with a man if you don't need him for food you can just go to the store and pick up a meal, already prepared, you just toss it in the oven or microwave? Why deal with a man at all when you can literally walk into a government building and, as a woman, get food stamps, cash and assistance (all tax raped from men, mind you)? Men have that deeply instilled expectation of: I am the husband. I am the captain of this ship. Its my way or the highway! Well, now women can just take that highway and be of no concern about THAT man! Not only that, but they can have all the "experiences" they want with little to no repercussion! Be a slosh? Join the club! Get knocked up? Shout your abortion! Let a football team run a train on you? Instagram it and mark that off your list! At any moment you can call the government funded goon square, aka: The Police, and have any man arrested if you just say those magick words: He. Raped. Me. Even if its a lie you're likely to get off the hook with little more than a warning, and if any judge tries to come down hard on you then you just need to switch on the waterworks and talk about your daddy issues and how you were on your period and of course the meds for depression over your weight and boo-hoo-hoooooo!

Hyperbole? Nope. Every word I just said is the absolute truth. Search the internet. It wont take long until you find proof.

The only safeguard still in place that works, when applied correctly, is service to Christ. A woman who accepts Jesus as her savior and takes the scriptures to heart knows she must honor, obey and revere her husband, even when she doesn't not like him. In fact, with this application she very well can like him and even love him! Even this safeguard, however, is in dire peril as most Western churches today teach such a warped version of scripture that many christian women feel that they stand between God and their husbands as some kind of holy arbiter. Many christian teachers actually strengthen this concept through the warped teachings of thinks like "If mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy", or "Your wife is your spiritual compass" or "The aroma of godliness in the home comes from the happiness of the wife"! Again view Dalrock's page while you still can to see countless examples of such anti-biblical, heretical teachings.

So what is the solution? Well, there really is none save the collapse of Western society and for women to be forced back into the need for a husband. The church of the West is hardly a solution now, since most christian women feel they are already following scripture by commanding their husbands about and the churches that teach true scripture are often referred to as "legalistic" because they understand the words of the bible to mean what they mean. This, most certainly, will keep most young men and women out of their pews, instead leading them to churchian mega-churches that use The Message as their primary version of the bible along with Joel Olsteen and a host of modern day, gag-me, "Jesus is my boyfriend" worship songs. That's not to say that the word of God cannot instill these safeguards back into women, but without a vehicle for the word to reach them it is a sore bet to think they will find it on their own. That leaves only the collapse of the niceties and conveniences of the West, and the return to a woman needing a man for food, for shelter and for protection. From this point, from rock bottom, the men and women carrying God's right word can instill the safeguards once enjoyed by society again.

So, TL:DR: No, Cappy. Women DO NOT like men. (And they never have).