How to Turn That Against Women

As long as there is a correlation between educational accomplishment and high financial worth of one's property, to value a man for the financial worth of his property is to feminise him.[1] A woman can do this. Therefore, despite having the highest known static value, the feminine self can manifest pure evil.

Furthermore, according to empirical science women don't pick up addictions as easily as men but it's more difficult for them to quit. This is a rational reason to inductively argue that women affected by pure evil are more damaged than men affected by pure evil.

***

Women have been empirically observed to frequently protest against PUA literature, apparently in an attempt to remain innocent of the fact that men need teaching in order to interact with women. But to try to be innocent of this is wrong because a father would need to teach his son. Thus, a woman, who refuses paternal guidance on grounds of a principle that it's evil to be a father, cannot quantify the value of a potential father, and consequently is arguably choosing to use her brain the wrong way and thus is responsible for the consequences of using her brain the wrong way. But she doesn't need to understand her responsibility.

Not needing to understand her responsibility means that, in both political and military terms, it is permissible to use the 0000 expectation profile in dealing with women with regards to this matter. This means that no woman necessarily needs to understand anything about what happens to her for the sake of this cause.

There are many rational arguments in favour of PUA literature for men, just like there are rational arguments against crossdressing for men. Furthermore, society signals no commitment to deny men access to women's clothing, so why should it signal a commitment to deny women access to PUA literature? Why cannot the woman just not read the PUA literature?

***

If a woman chooses to read PUA literature and then starts complaining about it, there are rational methods for arguing that she should shut up, but these methods don't even work because they don't make women change their minds. Then some women will retain their innocence at the expense of other women so that these other women teach men. The innocent women have made these other women teach men in order to retain their innocence, but that isn't an innocent motive for retaining innocence.

Furthermore, said motive is in fact arguably bad because those other women don't like to teach men so they will try to retaliate on any man who learnt anything. Since that man is in debt of gratitude to the teacher woman he can't retaliate back but must retaliate on some other woman, who could be innocent. This is how femininity turns against itself when women attempt to censor methods of handling femininity that have been empirically found to work.

The good news for women is that since the other women could choose to retaliate against the innocent women instead of teaching men, but the other women generally don't do so, the innocent women retain innocence despite being hurt by men for causing the other women to teach them. The bad news for men is that they need to become aware of not telling the truth when they tell people about women's rights. They also need to act accordingly.

[1] https://pastebin.com/ykJZF04Q