On its surface, the modern Feminist movement purports to protect the rights of women from male oppression, often associating itself with the civil rights movement of Afro-Americans. But this faulty rationale fails to recognize the difference between unjust oppression and healthy restriction; limiting a gender’s job responsibilities based on natural capacity is not the same as limiting a racial group’s opportunities based on appearance. This key Feminist
misunderstanding can be clarified by examining how restriction
affects a child’s life.

Children lack foresight. They act according to their immediate desires without considering the possible consequences. Thus, children require healthy restrictions to protect them from harm. If this protection is removed, children will be in danger of suffering the consequences of indulging their reckless whims.

For example, a child admiring a parent’s ability to drive a car may desire to take on that role. Even though the child lacks the mental and physical capacity to drive, he still insists on doing it. The exciting prospect of participating in an adult activity is just too enticing. Although this short-sighted decision places the child and others in danger, he lacks the capacity to understand this. Thus, he requires an adult to restrict his actions for his own protection.

Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others.

As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism’s reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to “steer” the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situation this creates for everyone; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional and civil service standards to accommodate women’s irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24106559/Principles-101

Memo to Dr. Mohler:
It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
– Proverbs 21:19

So if your stated views are merely a copy of my own, where is your problem? It is natural for a Beta to copy an Alpha, so there is nothing wrong with you adopting my views, but you will have to provide detail if we are to believe that your disagreement with me is anything more than a hissyfit.

Then exactly what is your problem with holding SocialCons accountable?

“So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view.”

I will quote this in the future.