Dude, you way to go back to pre-20th century society? Does anybody want that? (Hint: you're not going to have many takers.)

I'm also not clear when you think liberalism started. Presumably pre-20th century(?) What did that look like?

This is the thing that I really want to know. When exactly was this golden age?

But those are the primary issues: you appear to be basing your whole deal on the notion that somehow things were better some undetermined long time ago. It reminds me of a libertarian whose example of a functioning "free" society was western expansion-era agrarian America. But it was a completely different world, and a fair number of people would take exception to it being so great.

So I don't quite understand. But you persist in misquoting/misunderstanding to make your point.

"You're saying to stop judging women on appearance entirely, even though judgment of appearance has been practiced since the beginning of western civilization, according to you."

No, people always judge each other on appearance, it's fundamental to the species. But when it comes to matters of business, law, government, etc. people should be judged on what they bring to the table.

"You haven't explained how women's appearances are historically stigmatized in a way unlike men, barring sexual/reproductive necessity."

Again, women have always been judged on their appearance. Unattractive women have always been stigmatized. However, unattractive men have had the option to overcome that based on other factors, such as wealth.

"You're essentially saying that things have gotten better, which needs to be addressed with more radical liberalization, without offering any cogent reasoning."

The reasoning is that women are being treated more fairly. You apparently disagree. Your reasoning on why is opaque, perhaps because I still don't get the whole pre-20th century riff, apparently because I wasn't alive to take notes(?) Were you?

"The best I can guess, because you're not speaking succinctly, is that you're saying that men are not allowed to judge a woman's appearances whatsoever in dating or marriage."

No, I've never addressed that as far as I recall. I specifically said that appearance (of either gender in fact) should not be relevant in matters of business, law, government, etc. When it comes to dating and marriage, the game is entirely different and I don't recall addressing it. Perhaps I forgot. When it comes to attraction, there's nothing we can do about bias toward the more attractive because the heart wants what it wants.

"Aside from that, it is entirely unclear in what way you think women are judged superficially that is fundamentally wrong."

If the several times I've laid it out haven't been enough, I don't think another try is going to help.

"Lack of sound reasoning is a symptom of social engineering."

As far as sound reason goes, I don't think you've even tried to reason anything.

"It's also a pattern of ideological puritanism to assume certain natural behavior like physical attraction as fundamentally evil."

I don't think I ever said anything was evil, you just made that up. For the can't-remember-how-many-th time, appearance should not be relevant in matters of business, law, government, etc.