Lets begin with Axiom A: At one point, women did not have rights, and did not at one point have rights before this point.
This is relatively agreeable, regardless of what definition of rights you use. Most people would agree women were second class citizens a little over a century ago, and spanning back to antiquity.
Axiom B: Humans have not had significant genetic change in a large timeframe.
Our brains and bodies are about capable now as they were 3000 years ago. We have medicine and education to increase IQ, but overall we are the same species we were when major civilization started.
Observation: Sexual Dimorphism exists.
Therefore, from Axiom B, we can conclude that neither sex has gone significant changes. We then can further conclude that the differences between the sexes have not changed.
From Axiom A there are two possibilities
Either
1: They did not want rights
or
2: They could not obtain rights.
If 1 is true, then giving women is either immoral or illogical. The argument that "they want rights now" does not hold because as we derived above, women's brains have not changed since the time were they did not want rights (assuming A). If we define rights as the natural moral restrictions against actions imposed on ones agency that said agent is entitled to, then naturally women do not want rights, and their desire for rights is taught. We know this is the case because as we said in Axiom A there was not some previous point where women had rights. If someone joins a cult and wants to be shot, this does not mean there is a moral obligation to shoot them. We know this because the natural tendency of humans is to recognize murder is a violation of ones self determination.
To preempt the argument "Well we used to murder and rape each other. that doesn't make it okay", this is non-sequitur. 4000 years ago people did not want to be killed. No living being does. We recognize that these actions are violations of ones rational agency. Therefore, 1 is true, it is immoral to give them rights even if they ask for them.
If 2 is true, then it is very simple to conclude its because men did not assign rights to them. Its not like Trees or rocks or dolphins play a part in the moral interactions of rights and freedoms, so the only other agents that would be deciding if women had rights is men. However, because of Axiom B, we can conclude that men are making the active CHOICE to allow women to have rights, as nothing physical has changed. We are 100% in control of women if the second premise is true. It would be ridiculous to say they have rights because they can be easily revoked at any time and there is nothing women could do about it. Women vote because we allow them to, not because they have a right to.
Therefore, in conclusion, we as a society have a moral obligation to force women to take whatever actions maximize utilitarian value. Whether this be mandatory gfs for incels so they dont rope or ER, or incubators for Chads to increase the genetic quality of the planet. There is no point is allowing them descision because
Either
A: They are making the right decision
B: They are making the wrong decision
We don't randomly toss hammers around because they "might hit the right nail". We grab them, and we make them do what must be done.
This is relatively agreeable, regardless of what definition of rights you use. Most people would agree women were second class citizens a little over a century ago, and spanning back to antiquity.
Axiom B: Humans have not had significant genetic change in a large timeframe.
Our brains and bodies are about capable now as they were 3000 years ago. We have medicine and education to increase IQ, but overall we are the same species we were when major civilization started.
Observation: Sexual Dimorphism exists.
Therefore, from Axiom B, we can conclude that neither sex has gone significant changes. We then can further conclude that the differences between the sexes have not changed.
From Axiom A there are two possibilities
Either
1: They did not want rights
or
2: They could not obtain rights.
If 1 is true, then giving women is either immoral or illogical. The argument that "they want rights now" does not hold because as we derived above, women's brains have not changed since the time were they did not want rights (assuming A). If we define rights as the natural moral restrictions against actions imposed on ones agency that said agent is entitled to, then naturally women do not want rights, and their desire for rights is taught. We know this is the case because as we said in Axiom A there was not some previous point where women had rights. If someone joins a cult and wants to be shot, this does not mean there is a moral obligation to shoot them. We know this because the natural tendency of humans is to recognize murder is a violation of ones self determination.
To preempt the argument "Well we used to murder and rape each other. that doesn't make it okay", this is non-sequitur. 4000 years ago people did not want to be killed. No living being does. We recognize that these actions are violations of ones rational agency. Therefore, 1 is true, it is immoral to give them rights even if they ask for them.
If 2 is true, then it is very simple to conclude its because men did not assign rights to them. Its not like Trees or rocks or dolphins play a part in the moral interactions of rights and freedoms, so the only other agents that would be deciding if women had rights is men. However, because of Axiom B, we can conclude that men are making the active CHOICE to allow women to have rights, as nothing physical has changed. We are 100% in control of women if the second premise is true. It would be ridiculous to say they have rights because they can be easily revoked at any time and there is nothing women could do about it. Women vote because we allow them to, not because they have a right to.
Therefore, in conclusion, we as a society have a moral obligation to force women to take whatever actions maximize utilitarian value. Whether this be mandatory gfs for incels so they dont rope or ER, or incubators for Chads to increase the genetic quality of the planet. There is no point is allowing them descision because
Either
A: They are making the right decision
B: They are making the wrong decision
We don't randomly toss hammers around because they "might hit the right nail". We grab them, and we make them do what must be done.
