Thread by @TellYourSonThis

Whilst she may condemn violence, she would sooner apologise for a brute than fall in love with a pacifist.

Truth be told women are in fact great lovers of violence, just only when it is employed in service of them, be it for their sexual pleasure, or their bodily protection.

Women are averse to engaging in violence themselves, and of course, afraid of being subjected to it - given their small frames and lack of musculature. It is for precisely this reason they seek to benefit from it by proxy.

And so a man incapable of violence is no man at all.

Men aren't solely violent, but must possess a capacity for it

To be otherwise is to be rendered domesticated.

And in case you think this absurd

How does a man "make her feel safe" with zero destructive capability?

To neurotically neuter man is to eradicate your own protection

Which is precisely what western feminism did

By viewing man's destructive capacity as a threat + sole evil, rather than as also a good thing that benefits women - they went out of their way to neuter + domesticate their men into harmlessness

So now they lay exposed, unprotected

The philosophical error in their dogma is to view man's destructive capacity as uniquely and chiefly evil, as a threat that must be vanquished - rather than to recognise its duality - that short of eliminating all the violence in the world, you need violence to maintain safety.

Only women could be foolishly arrogant enough to declaw their protectors in the pursuit of upholding an erroneous ideological zeal, and only men could be unprincipled enough in their horniness to acquiesce and be eventually worn down by the insanity of such demands.

Women won't tell you these things, and the less honourable among their number will deny it all

Because such truths are most exposing and unflattering

And most women do not care for the truth more than they do their own reputations

But I assure you, this is the truth laid bare.