There is very little glamorous about the average western woman. No grace. No subtlety. No shyness, cuteness or warmth. Not sophisticated nor classy.

Coarse, obnoxious, aggressive, and openly, shamelessly promiscuous.

This is what "women's freedom" looks like.

Take a good look.

Perhaps if she had been a little less free to live life on her own terms, she may have retained some of the natural features of femininity that could endear a man to marry her for life.

The moral of the story here is too much freedom is even worse than too little for a woman.
Yes we may denounce the practices of more authoritarian cultures in how they limit their women, and how those women suffer at the hands of abuses of patriarchal power. But at least those women still resemble something that actually looks like a woman. They stay feminine & unugly.
Free women suffer an altogether different abuse, one only comparable to something akin to childhood neglect. Unattended, they lose their warmth and grace in their bid for self-reliance, stripping their femininity bare of all but its ugliest parts.

Free women are feral women.
And a feral woman is what you see in the video at the beginning of this thread.

An unmarriageable husk, an abomination that has all the negative qualities of the feminine, and all of the negative qualities of the masculine, with none of the positives of either

Neglect is abuse.
You see the authoritarians may harm their women through incompetent and improper uses of power, as well as malicious abuses of it.

But libertariarians abuse their women in an altogether different way - they abdicate their duty to protect and guide her. They neglect her entirely.
And then both turn around and say

"We are doing what is best for our women"

One, allowing her little room to even breathe incorrectly or make any sort of meaningful decision for herself without extreme social pressure and harsh punishment, the other, tossing her to the dogs.
Woman herself will always push for more freedoms, regardless of whether she can properly handle them or not, because insecurity is in her veins & chaos her nature, & so like a child, whether it is healthy for her or not, she will always want more, even if there's no more to have.
Look at western women, they have everything, and yet they continue to find things to want & demand with no end in sight, despite every basic right and privilege secured. And yet towards the men who've given them everything they show much scorn, almost as if they hate being free.
So they battle bitterly to gain the rights and privileges of men, and then upon attaining them, become resentful of those very same men who awarded them. Counter intuitively, gender relations deteriorate rather than improve.

"Why did you let me win" you can hear her soul cry.
They know not what's good for them, but they believe with all their hearts & souls they do. They want a say in the course of the trajectory of their own life, which is understandable, and yet given free rein they crash and burn. Women are not built for leadership or independence.
And so societies around the world idolising and emulating the west begin to copy its ways. It begins with allowing basic rights and liberties which do not seem all that unreasonable to award, correcting moral wrongs, until it snowballs out of control and civilization unravels.
It starts with "we want freely available access to birth control and the right to work, and choose who we marry"

And it ends with frivolous divorce, broken homes, widespread misandry, feminine sons, masculine daughters and the complete demonisation of any & all things masculine.
This is the sad thing about women's rights.

You cannot out of kindness, fairness and modern thinking grant them a few liberties, preserve society and be done with it.

Oh no.

Once the foot's in the door, it never ends. They will push for more until the universe itself explodes.
And so it seems we must pick our poison, limit the women, forcing them to endure a degree of masculine misuse of power for the wider benefit of society, or we do not limit them, but society in turn suffers at the hands of the destruction brought about by their unchecked freedom.

More from Society

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x