The wind on your face, the ability to go anywhere, freedom only remains freedom for as long as you can handle it - for once all semblance of order breaks down it becomes chaos, and chaos can be fun at first, but when it becomes your prison, you become disordered, stagnant, stuck.
Freedom, like money, is an easy sell - everybody wants lots of it, but few would be able to handle too much without destroying themselves.
Blinded by ignorance they see only the benefits, not the costs.
They do not equate freedom with self-discipline and accountability.
If I ask a woman "Miss, would you like total freedom?"
She will almost assuredly say yes
Yet if I asked her if she was willing to make all the tough decisions, lead, punish herself, and act as if everything that goes wrong in her life is always her fault, almost all will say no
If nobody decides for you, you must decide for yourself.
If nobody will discipline you, you must discipline yourself.
If you are in charge, then you must always take blame when it goes wrong.
So how can you expect to be free, if you are not willing to pay the price it entails?
If you fail to do these things, then your freedom becomes chaos.
You become dysfunctional, demoralised, unstructured, don't take criticism well, lack introspection, have no consistency in any area of growth and move through life, directionless and astray.
You are low agency.
To be free is to lead one's self.
But freedom is not free, the burden of leadership and all it entails is the cost incurred.
To lead one's self inadequately is to be mired in chaos, and continuous chaos is the default state of failure. Nothing grows. You just eat yourself.
So you like the idea of being free, but can you handle self-leadership? Are you even any good at it, or would your life be better if someone competent governed it?
Many people who want to be free would be in a worse place if they were - they are just too foolish to realise this.
Feminism is an excellent example of this. Women sought emancipation in pursuit of a better life, and instead, free to self-direct and left to their own devices, they became inferior mothers and wives. Their happiness dwindled. They became more traumatised, more promiscuous, less… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Woman does not want to be free because she is not equipped to be, but she is too foolish to realise that, and should she become wise enough to realise it, she is usually too prideful to admit it.
Soft men and generally destructive overcompensating men are like arrogant women - both are the result of weak fathers or single mothers.
I don't have to meet your parents to know what they're like, because their failings are evident in you regardless of how you feel about them.
The person who is well put together and had bad parents, or who is a mess but had great parents is the exception, not the rule.
Most people are almost always a reflection of the parental investment (or lack thereof) they received even well into adulthood.
When I talk to a woman who is reserved, polite, sophisticated, modest and thoughtful, she brings honour to her father and I assume he is a strong and competent man due to her elegance of soul.
When I talk to a woman who is arrogant, combative, immodest - I assume the opposite.
The idea of a man needing a woman is actively repulsive to her.
This is why the idea "men and women need each other" is nonsense.
Women need men, men want women - in the same way parents want children, but children need parents.
That statement's always bothered me, because it implies a false equivalence where there is none.
No man's desperate to commit to a woman, though he may like the idea of family, but single women are oft desperate to be taken care of, though in their pride they may deny it.
Sometimes teenagers resent the parents they depend on due to negative experiences, and claim they don't need them and can do everything themselves, but this is frustration speaking and not indicative of true psychological need.
When a man tells a man who cares about him his problem, he'll try to offer solutions and assure him things will get better if he follows the plan.
When a man tells a woman who cares about him his problem, she will get upset and he will end up assuring her things will get better.
Burdening her with his problems will cause her to burden him with a strong need for comfort and reassurance. She won't actually help him. She won't make him feel better. Zero point telling her. Best thing she can do is not ask questions, encourage him and provide comfort.
Women are socially aware enough to know something's up without being told it's up, but not emotionally stable enough to handle a man's issues without creating an additional issue. They want to know, but they are not equipped to know. Nagging, crying and screaming are worthless.
The difference between a man and woman is consistency.
A man who wants power wants a woman who is submissive - no contradiction.
A woman who wants power wants a man who is dominant - massive contradiction.
Is why feminists are doomed to misery.
Unstable paradox, doesn't work.
Attraction thrives on polarity, not similarity.
Women with "dominant personalities" are universally disgusted by pushover men, so seek the strongest males as per their nature, except they don't possess the polarising positive feminine qualities such as gentleness and grace that men like, and thus are spiritually unattractive.
They routinely defend abusers as good men and accuse good men of wickedness
They protect the wicked they're attracted to whilst defaming the innocent who disgusted them
Given their track record it is frankly a miracle of human stupidity a woman's word carries the weight it does
This is not to say they're always lying, because they're not, but between the damaged lovers of narcissism riveted by Stockholm syndrome, and the narcissists themselves with a sadistic love of hurting man, the group's collective testimony is at best reputationally circumspect.
There is something in Islam about a woman's testimony being worth less than a man's, or something like this, when I was younger and more foolish I used to think that was an unjust thing, and I'm sure in practice it does gets abused, but in principle it makes a lot of sense to me.