His argument is not NAWALT. His argument is that if we put women legally under the control of men, as they were before female suffrage, they wouldn't be in any position to destroy the lives of not just their husbands but also their children.
Just like a child must be stopped from eating nothing but candy and ice cream, a woman must be stopped from being a whore.
If they didn't act like demons as a whole (taking our houses, trucks, kids, and child support with no faults) they might be worth keeping around.
You:
His argument is not NAWALT. His argument is that if we put women legally under the control of men, as they were before female suffrage, they wouldn't be in any position to destroy the lives of not just their husbands but also their children.
Just like a child must be stopped from eating nothing but candy and ice cream, a woman must be stopped from being a whore.