A Reader Reckons Women’s Liberation is a Suicide Pact

In response to my piece comparing enabling women to behave as sluts being akin to allowing toddlers to eat heroin candies, a reader commented on the way women only achieve power by disempowering men, and that the men who accept this do it out of cowardice and low character:

Masochism, like masturbation, is just a weakness; there’s absolutely nothing moral about it. It’s self-indulgent and achieves only negative results. The wank-men who think they’re “good” for being self-hating are the same type who believe that frequent masturbation is “good” because it makes them less threatening to women. They’ve fully adopted a female morality with predictably terrible results given that women lack empathy.

You see this most prominently with the ridiculous college freshman lectures where young men are advised to “rub one out” to prevent themselves from becoming too sexually aggressive. The idea here is that women can dress and behave as provocatively as they want, even to the point of actively teasing men, and men are just expected to be ashamed of their sexuality and conceal it because acting on it in reasonable ways is forbidden and will be severely punished. Women derive more enjoyment from being desired than actually having sex, so this creates an environment of constant sexual abuse of men, and when their self-control fails they’re blamed for that too as if there’s no context to the situation. People in the “liberated” west consider muslims to be perverse in the way they can’t control their urges and cover their women up, but the situation we have is actually much more perverse because it incentivizes cock teasing and bombards people with sexual imagery.

A thought on this analogy; if toddlers collectively decided tomorrow to kill themselves, would we allow that as a society and go extinct? Is that really their choice to make? Even if it was (because we lack moral authority) why would we permit something so pointlessly destructive? If women are going to steer us collectively over a cliff (and by all appearances this is where we’re headed under female rule, demographically speaking) is anyone seriously arguing that we have a moral responsibility to allow that to happen? I’d like to hear someone say this so we can have an honest conversation about the logical endpoint of female emancipation being a suicide pact.

Currently, we know it to be an absolute fact that the more women are liberated, the fewer babies they have. We are plunging toward zero fertility.

Do women have a right to simply collectively decide to wipe white people out of existence?

If you justify it by saying that we don’t actually live in a society and no one has a right to tell anyone what to do, and these women are free to wipe us out if they so choose, have you not already lost the plot?

Why should anyone listen to an argument that begins with “let me explain why we are philosophically and morally obligated to wipe ourselves out” in the first place? If you have created a system of ethics that allows you to reach this point, then that system of ethics is not only evil, it is farcical. Can it not simply be dismissed out of hand?

If we do dismiss it out of hand – and clearly, any other response would be as pathological as the argument itself – then we can also dismiss women’s liberation out of hand.

Because there is no situation in which women are allowed to make choices about their lives to the extent that they are presently making them in the Western world that does not ultimately lead to a birthrate of zero.

• If women’s liberation is moral
• And liberated women refuse to reproduce
• Then the complete annihilation of white people is a moral imperative

Everyone is apparently in agreement about these facts, but we do not seem to be discussing them in these terms.

We need an explanation beyond “anyone can just do whatever they want” to explain what we are allowing to happen here.