全 2 件のコメント

[–]hollybegin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wish I could add something meaningful after this......

[–]soelc3 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a popular analysis in red pill / tradcon circles. By including the "modern" adjective, the implication is that pre-modern, pre-feminist women were somehow different. MGTOWs have said over and over again, that if modernity or feminism is the root cause of women's behavior, as red pillers / tradcons / white nationalists like to claim, rather than an enabler or catalyst, it absolves them of any responsibility for their actions, and we don't have to see how far the rabbit hole actually goes, or look into any uncomfortable truths about human nature. It reminds me of that "Neomasculinist" clown Paul Joseph Watson having to awkwardly emphasize "Third Wave feminism" whenever he criticizes it, as if the first two waves were benign and irrelevant. At what point does this tip-toeing around the truth become another form of gynocentric pandering?