Murray Rothtard

Women are demanding the unquestioned right to kill their infant children because they are having sex with men they do not respect. This is not a matter of poor moral character, as if all women of a several generations had suddenly been born depraved all at once. It's a matter of instinct. A woman is instinctively programmed not to mate with a man unless she sees him as superior to her. Not just equal. Superior. This ensures she will have the best children she can. A woman is instinctively programmed to conform to the wishes and opinions of her tribe. This ensures that her children will be cared for and survive. A woman is instinctively programmed to crave sex, just as men do. This ensures that she will have children at all. All of these instincts are paleolithic, genetic, hardwired, and immutable. But what happens when these instincts are pitted against each other? What happens when the very social matrix, which she is programmed to obey, insists to each and every woman that no man is her superior, and she can do anything he can do, not only backwards and in heels, but with far better result? She is now programmed to refuse every potential mate. Oh, she won't be celibate, of course. But sex will be social, casual, or downright recreational, and she will want double, triple, and quadruple assurances that she will never become pregnant, or if she does, that pregnancy will never lead to her raising the child of an "unworthy" man. We have socially engineered our entire civilization into a state where all men give women the ick. Every single one. Even the wealthiest, most powerful, and most accomplished men in the world are getting divorces... or, if they are smart enough not to get legally married, they are getting publicly dragged by their baby-mommas in the press. I won't go into how or why this was done, not right here today. It's enough that we all know that it was done, and anyone who says different isn't confused, he's just lying. When a modern day Amelia Earhart is given a five million dollar Lear Jet with fifteen lives aboard to crash and destroy, before she is even old enough to have a beer, just so we can all sprain a shoulder patting ourselves on the back... well, then you all know what the problem is. We all know that matriarchies go extinct because women with political power immediate steer their society into the nearest iceberg. But do we really? Perhaps now we find out that wasn't even the problem, at least not immediately, and possibly far less than we thought. Matriarchies go extinct because they don't breed. If you give women power over men, they start to find men disgusting. How dare they? How dare those men be so weak that women actually be able to influence or hurt them in any way? To a woman's basic, paleolithic mating instincts, this is unforgivable. Men can forgive weakness, but never cruelty. Women can forgive cruelty, but never weakness. But this means we are left with a dilemma, a choice of two unacceptable alternatives we cannot avoid. Either we stop propping up women into a forced social and political equality with men, which is unacceptable because every civilized Westerner, including me, was brought up to think of this as morally imperative... ... or, by doing nothing, we allow society to collapse back into a more desperate state where this will happen automatically. I don't have a third, easy offramp to offer you. Pornographic films can comfort young men who have been shut out of any chance at success, power, and respect by social engineering. And pornographic books can comfort girls who have been rendered unable to feel anything for an any man who isn't an immortal billionaire vampire warlord. But porn can't love anyone, and it can't get married and raise children. We need to stop this nonsense, not because we have gleefully become bigots suddenly and for no reason at all, but because we need to be smart enough to recognize an existential crisis when we spot one. Otherwise, what good is it to even be an intelligent species?