You implicitly demand that my female children not be denied exposure to certain "rights" else I am not allowed to live in "your" society. What happened to my society and my choice? In other words, you demand I invest for at least 18 years in my children and have all the repercussions+liability for how my children behave and perform, but you don't give me the control to decide what I think it best for my children. This is why fathers are defecting and allowing the State to raise their children, even if they are still around by implicitly allowing their kids to attend State (and even SJWs infected private) schools.
What I am driving at here is that your so called universal "rights" are actually allowing the camel's nose under opening in the bottom of the tent to enable the total annihilation of my culture and infect+overwhelm it with the culture of the State and SJWs. This is
the insideous Marxist demoralization strategy. This is a slippery slope which slides all the way to the Frankenstein outcomes such as where both men and women defect from the optimum life strategies and society collapses.
Every society has rules. In the USA the highest form of those rules is laid out in the constitution and the constitution gives women the right to vote. If you want to try and change the constitution there is a mechanism to do so.
Our rights as parents are not absolute. We are stewards of our children not their owners. We have a responsibility to shepherd them into adulthood to the best of our ability. Once our children attain adulthood they are granted all the rights that society gives its adults. One of these rights is the ability to discard parental will and make their own way in the world.
Even decentralized paradigms like Bitcoin have a set of common rules that all participants must follow. If someone is unwilling to follow these they must either build a new consensus or hard fork and go off on their own. The same is true here. Society has established certain rules that limit parental authority over children. You cannot force your children into marriage against their will, you are limited in the amount of physical violence you are permitted to deploy, you cannot grossly abuse them, and your authority over them ends at age 18. These are constraints society places on all parents. As a parent you have broad but not unlimited deference.
You can try and change societies rules (in this case via a constitutional amendment) or you can move on to greener pastures. Saudi Arabia does not allow its women freedom and this is a potential options for those interested. A third option is to identify an island or an underpopulated nation and attempt to get like minded individuals to move with you in the hopes of forming a majority in that location. A fourth (and probably best) option is to join or build a voluntary non-coercive subculture compliant with and nested within the larger culture that reinforces healthy behaviors.
You refuse to acknowledge that JAD is correct where he wrote:
...
Here I will quote it for you:
Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.
Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.
Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.
A prisoners dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.
If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children dont get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.
Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed. One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage. But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage. Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.
To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.
Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a womans fertile years.
A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head. If men and women equal, requires separation. If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.
So, patriarchy. If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children. The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.
It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate. They will not support or protect women on current terms.
Yes that is because the blogger here is engaged in a
deductive fallacy. There certainly are are large numbers of women and men engaged in the described defect/defect equilibrium. The blogger errors is in his assumption that his analogy is universally true when it is not. There are a large number of educated free men and women who do a reasonable job of selecting their mates and voluntary choose cooperate/cooperate options.
The fact that some individuals fail in the face of selective pressure does not mean we must coercively impose a forced solution on all men and women. Individuals who are engaged in defect/defect equilibrium are sadly maladapted to the current environment and will be gradually replaced over time by those who do not make unhealthy choices.