I used to be helpful when I was young, when I was a child. I had idealism back then. I believed in “the good”. But as an adult, after connecting the dots, after acquiring wisdom, I know more of “the truth”. And truth is: Many/Most cannot be helped. It’s not a matter of helping. Here’s a quick point for you to make sense of things. I can’t “help” that modern women, girls, are born as bastards and fatherless (like you-yourself have no father). That’s not a matter of my choosing. I suppose that a man could turn into a religious leader, head a cult, try to re-instill moral and family values. But even then, I don’t necessarily believe that either. Because nature is powerful. Even if you, hypothetically, changed social values so that more girls had more fathers or father-figures, more morality and family-values, then would it stay that way, or just be temporary? It would just be temporary. Because you can’t change people’s natures, at least, not indefinitely.
You can exert a great pressure to pervert and twist a person’s nature around into circles. But once you let go of that exertion, the person’s nature returns to its original form. Same with genetics. So even if you could boost social fatherhood, if you took away the artificial boost, then people (women) would return to their bastard roots. There is a strong undercurrent, reason, and causation, underneath fatherless progeny. It’s biological. It’s sociological. It’s pathological.
Quite frankly, there’s very few reasons and benefits to “help women”. Because, again, it means that you are a victim. You are not (already) “helping yourself”. Thus you are a dependent. And mankind is independent. This is what your language suggests. And it’s correct. Thus how could anybody ever hope to “change” humanity when the cost is too great, when it would be temporary at best, and when there are few (or no) beneficial reasons to?
I’m considering more ‘Destructive’ methods. Being “good” all the time is a childish, naive proposition. There is more fun in being “bad” and “evil”.
Here’s my greater point: if a woman truly wanted independence and autonomy, then she would already be striving and struggling to attain it, on her own, of her own volition. She would not need a man’s help, or anybody’s. Certainly not mine. So that is what I mean when I say that I would (and do) respect such women, rare as they are. Coincidentally, “ironically?”, such women almost always have strong biological father-figures. Thus such women take after her father’s guise as a matter of Pride. In this way, pride cannot be underestimated.
Pride = Self-love, Self-confidence, Self-esteem.
This is another childish idealism, a feel-good dream. Reality exemplifies the opposite. Not all life is worth living. Not all life has value. People take away, negate, steal, destroy each-other’s value on a daily basis. Nature is Predatory, dog-eat-dog. Those who have something worth defending, have fought and struggled to build it up. That is the fact of life. To level it all down with “we are all valuable, all worthy” is an insult. It’s an insult to those who build amazing things for themselves, who achieve excellence, who win big, who succeed in life. It’s an insult to the winners of life.
And it also implies that “it’s okay to be a loser”. Maybe to you, that’s acceptable. Not to me. The loser-mentality is an anchor, a dead-weight. There is no “worth defending” about that. It’s the winners who have most to lose.
For example, can you build up $1,000,000 in assets from nothing? Do you have what it takes? Probably not. Most people cannot build very high from nothing. Those who are rich, are usually so, because they are born into wealth, and inherit it.
So it goes with Pride too (some are born into it, most others, are not).