Having already expressed my profound admiration for womankind -- that Woman is worthy of protection and chivalry -- I must now express something far less comfortable, and yet vital to her well-being.  For in recent years I've become aware that modern woman, being alienated generations from the laws of nature and all sensibility, has placed both herself and mankind in a precarious position -- so dangerous, in fact, that I believe her doing so constitutes a forfeiture of sanity.

Consider that every choice, every decision, every plan, and every venture requires picking between goods, a selection of a certain path to the exclusion of all others.  The ability to choose greater over lesser goods and higher over lower paths is known as reason -- the mind projecting consciousness forward, attempting to predict outcome and choosing for itself which is superior toward the pursuit of happiness (whether by conscience, Law, urge, or intellect).

Choice cannot be avoided.  Supposing a woman chooses marriage, she forfeits the liberty to choose partners at will; supposing she chooses to work, she forfeits care of her children.  In every decision, something is gained, and something else is either lost or lessened.  We choose because we believe that our choice is best, and when we choose wrongly, the spirit of liberty -- to those possessive of it -- accepts responsibility for any unpleasant ramifications.  Those who cannot accept responsibility cannot maintain liberty, and those who deserve liberty constantly assert their own responsibility.

But modern woman, high on the mind-numbing intoxicants of unwarranted self-esteem and vanity, believes herself exempt from the laws of nature, proclaiming herself capable of achieving all ends without suffering any ramifications of choice -- a proclamation which would but for the obstinacy of womankind need no examples.  She demands liberty for all women to portray themselves as sexual objects and then complains when objectified by random men on the street.  She lambasts her father and brothers with lyrics such as "I'm just a girl ... and they won't let me walk the streets at night" and then blames patriarchy for her lack of safety.  She demands liberty to keep company with drunkards and have sex at random but then desires laws to jeopardize anyone who has sex with her while drinking (see: rape laws of Washington State).  She demands to be treated as equally capable and yet claims that women need stronger legal protection because they are the weaker sex.  She wants men to defend her against lewd sexual advances and then derides men for using terms such as "slut" while she accepts them.  She wants the security of marriage and the liberty of the girlfriend alike -- the legal status of an adult but the marital contract rights of the mentally incapacitate.

Modern woman wants all things at all expense of everyone else, but not of her own, driving every sensible male into a state of confusion, knowing that all paths chosen risk womankind's wrath while she simultaneously demands both positive outcomes and zero ramifications.  Like a toddler in a tantrum, she demands from good men that all be fulfilled under threat of ignominy, painting all dissenters as chauvinists, misogynists, knuckle-draggers -- as proponents of rape culture!  Every attempt to force women to choose between options is met with vociferous resistance -- rallies which mar the names of reasonable men and drag realists through the mud.  And any man with any sense of morality -- or even simply a brain -- is rightfully frustrated.

It's not difficult to say which is more insulting to woman's intelligence: her repeatedly choosing the lesser of two goods to her own visible harm (what's known as foolishness) or her choosing the lesser good and believing she can still attain the greater (what's known as insanity).  In the former circumstance, woman still has the claim to some lesser form of reason (though true reason chooses the better): she acknowledges the dangers of her decisions and prefers them anyway.  But what ignorance, what irrationality, what insanity comprises the latter!  That woman can at the same time be respected by men, and slut!  That woman can live dangerously, and be entirely safe!  That she can be considered strong, and protected as weak!  That she can be drunk, and always wake up without regrets!

Whatever kind of doctrine this is, it is certainly not safe -- neither for women nor for men.  It leaves all confused for evil gain, generates laws without justice, teaches lessons fit not for free women, but for the asylum.  And this "rape culture," as they call it -- this meaningless and trendy catchphrase -- is the direct result of woman's sexual anarchism, the failure to recognize man's natural, biologically obvious role as a sexual pursuer, and the refusal of women to protect themselves with moral, logical, and (most forgotten of all) universal rules for romantic and sexual pursuit (and we must recognize that so-called rape culture is nothing more than a particular science of pursuit).  We must decide as a society whether women may be sexual objects or whether their chastity is worth defending.  We cannot protect both chastity and sexual anarchy.

It may be argued that the defining factor of "rape culture" concerns the woman's choice, that her consent alone determines whether or not sexual advance is proper.  But when every woman has a different preference, and all is possible, how may men be held morally accountable for woman's defense?  Certainly, some circumstances are obvious -- but are all?  And if they are not obvious, who is responsible?  A woman's refusal to see this is not a testament to her inner strength, in praise of her venturing into danger.  Rather, as woman's reaction to "rape culture" has blatantly shown -- a cultural liberty which she so loudly and ignorantly defends -- it is a testament to her own imbecility.

In the world of sexual relations, there is no path honorable besides chivalry -- the exaltation of women as endowed with beauty and worthy of protection and service.  But we would be mistaken to say that chastity's opposite, sexual degradation -- total disavowal of the necessity of manners, of special protection, and of marriage -- is the most despicable alternative.  No, that infamy is left for chivalry compromised, the idea that chivalry is good but can be forfeited at any moment depending upon the situation itself.  For it is better to have no morals at all and be known a devil than to compromise in any way the angelic.

But show me a woman with grace and charm, sensibility and righteousness -- goodness and beauty combined!  This woman, this angel, this gift of God to men -- may she be adored, and not just adored, but protected by all men!  And wherever such women are -- buried, for the present moment, beneath mountains of feminist propaganda and slander -- let us love them; and for the rest, may we wake them from their slumber!  Let men stand together in unanimity, and testify that whatever woman thinks of us, we will be gentlemen -- and we expect women to be ladies!

Jeremy Egerer is a convert to biblical conservatism from radical liberalism and the editor of the Seattle website www.americanclarity.com. American Clarity welcomes friend requests on Facebook.