Sure but not that way, screw the whole "cover them up so I can control myself" thinking as that implies you lack self control and they have power over you because of it.
Women should KNOW they are property and only belong to one man /s
Women aren't covered up because men lack control. That's what you were told by leftists. Women are covered up because women seek attention by flaunting their sexuality so keeping them covered ensures they aren't given validation by other men for their sexuality which helps to keep a woman's ego in check.
Then why not ignore them? If they're attention seeking sluts like you imply, just ignore them or punish them before they apparently go full whore?
I love how by that logic alone you accept women must be repressed otherwise they'll go whore for ego not the fact that women will naturally latch onto strong men, more psychologically than physically would suggest, and it is the weakening of the male role model intentionally by feminism that led to this decline.
I don’t agree with Islam, but the steelman is clearly: look at all the simps we have today. Look at all the thots and bitches that get influence they should never be allowed anywhere near. Heck, this forum is ultimately the result of a woman using sex to get tons and tons of influence she didn’t deserve, and she wasn’t even particularly attractive. It’s nice that you have good self control, but it’s clear that much of society does not, and a handful of individuals’ resistance to manipulation means little when so many people around them are vulnerable.
In general I do think you’re right and there’s probably a much more scaled back version of a patriarchal society where you don’t force women into hijabs and prevent them from speaking entirely while still disallowing thottery and expecting men to have the bulk of societal leadership. But it is worth pointing out that at one point, we did have that, and it obviously didn’t end well.
In the NHL there was a rule put in called the Sean Avery rule. Sean Avery would put himself right in-front of the goalie, face the goalie, then wave his stick around as much as he could to distract the goalie. The rule was put in to stop this from happening. Now, you could have argued that goalies were just weak men and a strong man could have just ignored Sean Avery or you could be a reasonable person and be like Sean Avery is being a twat and this is not what should happen. Women who flaunt their sexuality to distract men are being little twats and we should cover them up so they don't do that. We shouldn't be insulting men by suggesting they are not "strong" enough because they aren't able to ignore the women. Women are purposely trying to distract men. Fuck them. Cover them up.
So, isn't the solution to let the women face the consequences of their actions?
Sure but not that way, screw the whole "cover them up so I can control myself" thinking as that implies you lack self control and they have power over you because of it.
Women should KNOW they are property and only belong to one man /s
Women aren't covered up because men lack control. That's what you were told by leftists. Women are covered up because women seek attention by flaunting their sexuality so keeping them covered ensures they aren't given validation by other men for their sexuality which helps to keep a woman's ego in check.
Then why not ignore them? If they're attention seeking sluts like you imply, just ignore them or punish them before they apparently go full whore?
I love how by that logic alone you accept women must be repressed otherwise they'll go whore for ego not the fact that women will naturally latch onto strong men, more psychologically than physically would suggest, and it is the weakening of the male role model intentionally by feminism that led to this decline.
I don’t agree with Islam, but the steelman is clearly: look at all the simps we have today. Look at all the thots and bitches that get influence they should never be allowed anywhere near. Heck, this forum is ultimately the result of a woman using sex to get tons and tons of influence she didn’t deserve, and she wasn’t even particularly attractive. It’s nice that you have good self control, but it’s clear that much of society does not, and a handful of individuals’ resistance to manipulation means little when so many people around them are vulnerable.
In general I do think you’re right and there’s probably a much more scaled back version of a patriarchal society where you don’t force women into hijabs and prevent them from speaking entirely while still disallowing thottery and expecting men to have the bulk of societal leadership. But it is worth pointing out that at one point, we did have that, and it obviously didn’t end well.
In the NHL there was a rule put in called the Sean Avery rule. Sean Avery would put himself right in-front of the goalie, face the goalie, then wave his stick around as much as he could to distract the goalie. The rule was put in to stop this from happening. Now, you could have argued that goalies were just weak men and a strong man could have just ignored Sean Avery or you could be a reasonable person and be like Sean Avery is being a twat and this is not what should happen. Women who flaunt their sexuality to distract men are being little twats and we should cover them up so they don't do that. We shouldn't be insulting men by suggesting they are not "strong" enough because they aren't able to ignore the women. Women are purposely trying to distract men. Fuck them. Cover them up.
When western civilization collapses, we will all face the consequences of their actions.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech