Form: Reply

—“Curt How about working on the positive aspects of female psychology and behaviour and how to develop them, rather than merely the ‘Women are weak, bad and a dangerous influence if they aren’t controlled’?”—Claire Rae Randall

GREAT QUESTION.

Well, if you go into my past work you see an awful lot of INTERPERSONAL adulation of women. And my history with (a variety) of women sort of speaks for itself. But that is different from the problem of the current era, and the way that we enfranchised women. And that I merely suggest that we give women a separate house so that men and women must agree, since we see such specialized views of the world.

As far as I know all my arguments run back to the same basic idea: that we evolved a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and the the major and minor races, civilizations, classes, and genders have chosen specific strategies for doing so, and that the only way to know what is ‘good’ is that which is achievable through trade between people regardless of civilization, clan, class and gender,

But at present the ant-aristocratic, anti white, anti west, anti-male dogma of the marxists, socialists, feminists, and postmodernists, is the dominant ‘status quo’ and I find it necessary to provide an arsenal of arguments to defeat that status quo leaving nothing but VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE that makes use of the information (wants) of all parts of the sense-perceptoin spectrum

So my via-negativa in this subject is just like my via-negativa in every other subject – including my via-negativa against the white supremacists.

I don’t think men have any other opinion than that women are DESIRABLE and that some women are TERRIBLY DESIRABLE and worthy dying for. I think that given the lack of agency, and the high degree of mental illness in women, (just as the high degree of impulsivity and violence in men) that failing to account for these outliers and failing to suppress them in political expression, through demand for demonstrated performance, is the problem.

Yet, exclusion from the group because of ability is not frightening for men – but comforting. But for women, it’s terrifying to be eliminated from the debate. So while it has been possible to limit male participation in the debate over the commons it would be very difficult for women to accept meritocracy as do men.

We have spent 50k years politically domesticating man, and we have spent less than a century politically domesticating women, and it shows.

Ergo, the answer I propose is to produce a market for agency through demonstrated ability in the possession of agency.

And to make use of the information and wants of women of agency and men of agency, and to incrementally suppress and eventually reduce, those people who lack agency.

Thanks.

Adore you.

Curt Doolittle