I write this article with the complete understanding, that I now will be strewed with the utilized gaskets and not only by feminists.
But the question is of the extremely importance.
How it was before?
There was a conspiracy between women before. It was called: "Get married first!" Every woman followed this principle strictly. And those who didn’t were called “the fallen woman” and were banished from society. And if a man got married this type of woman he was considered as a fool. And even more often he considered to be a lecher and was banished from society too. And there were no divorces. If married – feed her and her children till the rest of your days! Even if the children are not yours. Thus it was allowed to beat them, but not unto death and without injuries. And certainly in a case she won’t do it first. (Such circumstances also could happen. Women were strong enough!) In short: the times were gloomy. And a woman was a slave. Well, at least progressive minds used to say it.
What about now?
Now we have freedom and tolerance.
The principle "Get married first!" was acknowledged to be out-of-date and not in use anymore. (And if a woman adheres it she is either Muslim in the other words the hammered woman of the east, or she is honored as a stupid by the rest women). Therefore anyone gets married nobody. In fact there is no sense in marriage. A man can easy get sex without it. But in this case women get in a life-long trap.
The emancipation is a great responsibility first of all and it may cost you a lot.
A woman finds herself highly sought and popular starting active sexual life in the age of about fifteen, so popular that she needn’t work at lot. There are many men ready to lure her. Indeed the demand for such contingent is higher then the proposition in the sex-market. But it is not for marriage however. And she doesn’t really need it. She is satisfied. "Everybody lives this way". However it is necessary to practice only safe sex and to do abortions in time, as far as the behavior of the-so-called-common-law-husband is unpredictable in a case of pregnancy. He can even deprive allowances. From the other hand using a good deal of certain smartness it is possible to get even a few common law husbands simultaneously. By the virtue of certain psychological features inherent to this age it seems that such a lifestyle will last forever.
But nothing is everlasting. In general, it is possible to support such a lifestyle approximately till the age of 25. And it is possible only if she looks after herself. Her price in the sex-market goes down; it is a matter of time. And she emerges in adult life at the age of 25 and with 24 abortions, with complete absence of education and profession. Even if she has a diploma, anyway she hasn’t any working experience.
Here she is, useless, having no chance to start her life with the tabula rasa.
This is how usually things happen with those, who were influenced by their emancipated mothers, who instructed them to enjoy her life before building a family. As a result we have to variants: to settle down and spit out a baby meanwhile it is possible; or to keep living that way but being emancipated and independent.
Someone will say: let it ride! She is an independent woman in the civilized society and she is free to handle her fate as she wants. Isn’t that so? The personal freedom is the highest value, isn’t it?
It could be so.
Only emancipated woman still has no intentions to give a birth for some reasons, especially in Europe where depopulation of indigenous citizens sweepingly goes up. They die out imperceptibly like the Neanderthals on the same territory, only much faster. Neanderthals were dying out during the 20000 years period.
And this is far not her personal business as feminists trying to assure us. It is a matter of a large state importance to give a birth to the future citizens – taxpayers.
However God-damn the state! In fact not that we are for the state, but the state is for us!
There is another aspect of this problem: women’s emancipation leads to the extinction of the whole population though it should have made our society perfect. It is hard to define what the ideal woman is. The women themselves can’t answer this question categorically. Feminization and emancipation if not marring up then wrench the conception of an “ideal woman”. This conception includes not only independent but also smart, bright, thrifty, trustworthy, cheerful, and modest woman. And it is she who is able to safe this world. But in most cases she prefers hunting after fashion, pants and youth.
At the same time there is no cult of the "correct" consumption in the Muslim world. But the cult of a healthy way of life and strong family rules there. It became a universal idea that the "enslaved woman of the east" gives birth and keeps the family. Moreover she continues to do that after the relocation to Europe. And the example of a “civilized” European lady doesn’t impact her.
So there are only two solutions for us: either to de-emancipate a woman, bringing her back to the gloomy den of the family or to doom the society to the slow degradation at first and to the absolute extinction at last. And it is really great that we illuminate this problem, really nice that there are such interactive international projects as openlife.tv, which shows what the “ideal woman” means. She is ideal not according to the new waves of the millennium, but in the context of eternal nature.