new

Men are superior to women and therefore have more responsibilities than women. Women are superior to children, and therefore have more responsibilities than children. Superiority means "leadership over" due to increased maturity and reason, it does not come with a connotation of hate. Women do not hate children because they're superior to them in the same way that men do not hate women because they're superior to them. Although plenty of men have their hang-ups with women (just as the reverse is true.) Men are more mature than women, who are more mature than children. This is about a hierarchy of maturity, of which men are at the top. The less mature you are, the less reasonable you are. You wouldn't want an immature person in charge of you, and assuming you found someone competent, you wouldn't say you were equal to the person in charge of you.

The problem with people today is women have been told it's bad to let a man be in charge of them, and men have been told to treat women as equal partners rather than subordinate dependants they care for. You are superior, and you have to be in order to be eligible. That's reality. For the sake of ego preservation on her part, she will want to think of herself as your "first mate" or "partner", but you're not the captain, you're the ship. Without you there is nothing, no base nor foundation. She relies on you VASTLY more than you rely on her, and any functional relationship between a man and a woman is always based on this model.

It doesn't mean she's not important, it means you're depended upon more than you depend on her. It means the distribution of burden is disproportionate in order to reflect your difference in maturity, your burden is greater because her need is greater, her need is greater because she is more immature, and by extension of being less mature, less competent. In fact, it's dangerous for you to depend on her emotionally, but the reverse is perfectly acceptable and fine. This is the burden that comes with being at the top of the maturity hierarchy. Emotional loneliness. Accepting you cannot confide all your deepest secrets and fears, not unless you're a schmuck who wants to see your relationship fall to shit. Women are so upset they're not really equals that they're completely ignorant to the fact that not being the final person everybody depends on is a privileged position.

That when push comes to shove, women want someone to lean on and someone to blame, that true equality to men is something they could never handle. Like a child who wants to stay up late and eat unlimited amounts of candy, they only see the privileges of being a man, not the burdens. Notice how women always go on about maturity in a way men don't seem to give a fuck about They're like the damn maturity police. This reminds me of little kids who insist they're grown-ups out of insecurity. "Women are equal to men!" touted by women is the same infantile narcissism as a child claiming "I'm not a little kid anymore!". It stems from the desire to be taken seriously by people you're less mature and capable than. This is all ego, remember you will find the truth in action rather than words, for in words they claim equality to man, but in action they demand superiority from him. In relation to the statement "women are children", this is hyperbole, what /u/redpillschool concretely means is "women are childlike" - if they weren't, you wouldn't want them. Feminine charm comes from a certain present-orientation, feminine beauty comes from a lack of ageing.

Women play up innocence and play down their cunning because this is what makes them attractive to men. Innocence is an inherently childlike quality. Men don't try to seem innocent because it's not masculine, things that are childlike are inherently unmasculine, but they aren't unfeminine. Why? Because women are closer to children than men. Stop thinking this is some way of talking women down or some sad attempt at dehumanisation. It isn't. It's a truism regardless of whether it suits your sensibilities. Shrewd women constantly leverage the appearance of innocence to get people to help them. Women pout, men don't. Women have strops, men don't. Women cry more than men. Women are less rational than men. In summary: women are more mature than children, but less mature than men. You can teach a woman to behave well, but she is still a woman and so requires discipline in the same way a child does. She craves it. She will not "be good" because "she's a good woman" she will only "be good" because you convey authority, and in order to convey authority, you must be superior, superior meaning more mature and more competent. This is the natural order of things. Egalitarianism is an indoctrinated ideal, it is normal to you because you grew up brainwashed by feminist garbage, but it is not normal in nature, and it is not indicative of reality.

Women's childlike qualities are not just physical (smaller, less hair etc), but their neonatality is likewise echoed mentally. The hottest women have greater neonatal traits than uglier ones. She's not your psychological equal. You can love her, care for her, even depend on her for small things, but she's not your equal and never will be. As Schopenhauer said, she is somewhere between a child and an adult, an adolescent perhaps. If you can't accept that, if you need to believe in the feminine ego porn that she's your equal in every which way, fine. But that doesn't mean TRP is wrong, it means you're unable to accept an aspect of reality that discomforts you.

Sex with children isn't non-violent or harmless. Talk to the majority of victims of sexual molestation and ask them if they weren't emotionally harmed by the people who attacked them. There are small children who literally die from internal injuries after being assaulted by adults. Children usually don't have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from STDs, pregnancy, or any other injury that might happen. Anyone of ANY age is usually negatively impacted by another person coercing sneaky, non-consensual sexual interactions on them. You can try and call it societal conditioning if you want, but this is the society you live in and neither children nor adults are going out of their way to endorse molestation.

I'm not convinced your last sentence contained an argument. It gives the appearance of explaining why my criticism of cultural conditioning is somehow irrelevant, but I fail to see what that explanation is. Are you saying my criticism is irrelevant because I live in the culture I'm criticizing? Why do you think that? Do you believe all activism is wrong because those who try to incite change live in the communities they are trying to change? And are you saying my call for change is irrelevant because no one is saying they want to be molested? I am not arguing to permit forcing anyone into sex against their will and so your criticism doesn't apply. You are arguing in the unimaginative way people do when they aren't interested in using reason to win an argument but instead only rely on outrage to bully the other party into feeling intimidated.
The way you dismiss my cultural conditioning argument gives the impression you believe all that matters is children are being harmed by sexual activity and it doesn't matter why it's happening. In order to justify criminalization of pedophilia for the reason that it doesn't matter if cultural conditioning is the reason why children experience trauma from sex, but that the fact trauma is caused is all that matters, it would have to be true that punishment for breaking this taboo is in and of itself sufficient a reason to criminalize it. Children are traumatized because of cultural conditioning. In what universe is threat of punishment for breaking a rule a good reason to punish those who break it? That's literally the same thing as saying pedophilia is wrong because it is punished. That's what it means when you claim societal conditioning makes sexual activity with children wrong.

You need a better reason to punish than just saying, "If you don't do as I say, you'll be punished." Cultural conditioning does NOT mean something benign like being taught the difference between right and wrong or learning about the "right" way to live through example. It specifically means punishment and threat of punishment. The specific claim I am making is children are traumatized because of the ultra severe punishments people suffer for breaking this taboo. If a child didn't show guilt and shame and fear and trauma, or some deep sense of wrongness for the sexual activity, but instead expressed positive feelings about it and a defiance to authority and of their condemnation of it, they would be punished harshly. And that punishment would get worse and worse as they got older until they became positively vilified and ostracized by society. They would be a pariah rejected by almost everyone they know. The punishments you are a supporter of is the reason why children experience trauma from harmless sexual activity.

If you are going to allow the accounts of people who report deeply negative experiences from sexual activity with a pedophile to inform your beliefs about the inherent harmfulness of it, then you are obligated to allow the reports of positive experiences to shape your beliefs as well. The reason why it takes hard work to find personal accounts of those who report positive experiences with a pedophile, and why almost all of them are anonymous, is because of the rejection and vilification people face from doing so. Anyone who gives a positive account of engaging in sexual activity with an adult as a child is treated with dismissiveness and condescension. They are belittled and treated as though they have nothing of value to say and they become a pariah. On the other hand, when someone says they had a negative experience, they are listened to and their opinion is valued. That is hypocritical. The fact that sexual feelings and activities are not inherently distressing in childhood, but that they are instead inherently pleasurable, is proof that you're wrong to believe it was the sexual activity which traumatized the people who give accounts of being harmed by a child molester. They were either forced against their will by a heartless and uncaring rapist, and possibly even injured in the process, or they weren't forced into sex acts but only later came to learn of the severe disgust and hatred everyone has for pedophiles, and so the sickening fear of being severely punished for not feeling a deep sense of wrongness caused the child to feel a deep sense of wrongness for the activities. It is systems of rewards and punishments that give humans their sense of right and wrong for whatever society they live in. But things aren't right or wrong simply because they happen to be rewarded or punished.

There is no stage during human development when a child cannot express willingness or unwillingness to be involved in whatever they're brought to be involved in. Physical injury would result in an immediate distress reaction and no responsible caretaker is going to heartlessly ignore cries of pain. It's already the case that parents and caretakers who fail in their duty to keep their children safe and who cause them harm due to negligence or cruelty are punished for it. And so you are foolish to believe sexual activity would result in internal injuries to a child.
Children do not need the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from anything. That's what caretakers are for. Children are protected on a daily basis from drowning and car accidents and abduction in public places. For the same reason there is no need to criminalize swimming and car rides and traveling through busy public places, there's no need to criminalize sexual activity in order to protect children from unwanted pregnancies and STD's and sexual bullies and violent rapists. There is no danger inherent to sexual activity that a responsible caretaker cannot protect their child from.
Children are forced against their will into doing a very lot of things, and yet they aren't traumatized for it. I'm opposed to forcing anyone of any age into doing anything ever, but apparently, unless a child is forced into something to the point of unbearable anguish, they aren't traumatized for it. Sexual activity doesn't possess any feature that makes it uniquely different in some important way from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in. You are unjustified in your support of violence for non-violent activities.