Source: Facebook

WE *CAN* WIN A DOMINANT ROLE, SO YOU MUST MAKE IT WORTH OUR WHILE *NOT* TO WIN A DOMINANT ROLE

By Eli Harman (edited for general audience)

————–

Eli’s arguments are reducible to 1) yes women think they can rebel against the compromise between the genders without men doing the same – and this is what the world will look like if men do the same: sharia law is an illustration of what occurs if men want it to. 2) women have consistently voted to destroy the compromise between the genders, to the extent that the current destruction of western civilization through disintegration of the family and massive immigration that would never have happened without women voting consistently for it. (Yep, thats the data) 3) men should all rebel against western civilization as well, and imitate the muslims (hence ‘white sharia’ memes) – because the islamic model is the more beneficial condition for men. So Eli’s arguments are meant to illustrate and agitate, as a politicized version of the Men’s Rights Movement.

( BTW: * All psychologism is lying. We all follow incentives. if you cannot argue using incentives, you’re just using the feminine technique of gossiping, disapproval, shaming, ridiculing, rallying. It is not argument. We all know this. Note that Eli uses incentives not psychologisms. )

-Curt

————–

It is reasonable to suppose that the aim of your disapproval, ridicule, shaming, and rallying, is not simply to call attention to a man’s sexual market value, but to diminish it – to retaliate for thoughts and statements (which are obviously the real issue) and to obtain moral and social leverage to COERCE men into silence by the threat of further diminishment.

This is a credible threat because women gauge such things, not independently, but largely from social cues.

By manufacturing these cues, through rallying, shaming, and gossip, women have lately succeeded in attaining unprecedented social and institutional power to organize the administration of social sanction and sexual boycott, to advance their interests against men’s and to impose their sensibilities and imperatives upon men.

We call these means, RALLYING, SHAMING, and GOSSIP, together, “the feminine means of coercion.” They are analogous to more masculine means of coercion (VIOLENCE) in that they aim, not at the discovery or propagation of TRUTH, but at the achievement of particular outcomes by RAISING THE COSTS of the behaviors against which they are directed.

Another word that was formerly employed for the same thing, was being “unladylike.”

That’s an important point to bring up because ladylike behavior is a logical and necessary correlate and corequisite for gentlemanly behavior. You can’t have the one without the other.

Since you have crossed that line, one has a number of choices for how to respond.

1) Submit, surrender to your authority, repent, and plead for leniency. (Not gonna happen.)

2) Retaliate in kind by making disparaging comments about your ages, likely past sexual indiscretions, or emotional baggage.

3) Resort to more masculine means of coercion (violence.)

But, despite your early resort to the feminine means of coercion, (rallying, shaming, gossip) you have nevertheless demonstrated uncommon aptitude and understanding so I am willing to offer an additional option

4) retreat to the realm of facts, issues, and ideas and discuss those in their own terms and in good faith.

As far as that goes, the main issue is that rights do not exist as you think they exist.

Rights can exist productively and sustainably if they are obtained in exchange, one benefit or consideration for another (e.g. gentlemanly behavior for ladylike) then it can be a win-win, and durable.

If cooperation based on rights originating in exchange and resulting in mutual benefits breaks down there are two further options. Non-cooperation (boycott, disassociation) or conflict (coercion) aiming to obtain surrender and submission (option 1 above.)

But if you resort to conflict and coercion (by the feminine means) there is no reason for me to try to cooperate with you. Cooperation can’t be a one way street.

And you have ruined option 1 for yourselves (going forward) by making submission to feminine sensibilities and imperatives more costly – for men – than resorting to conflict, which men can win, because we have more means of coercion at our disposal, if we only use them.

You don’t understand that submission to your demands is now too costly for men or why, because you don’t understand male sensibilities or male endeavors.

But that is the fact. And even if we cannot communicate the full dimensions and characteristics of that fact to you, because you are women, we can communicate that it is a fact, by a variety of means.

And now we will.

You claim that men feel entitled to a dominant role.

But we don’t feel that I am entitled to anything. And neither are you entitled to anything.

We are simply able, by virtue of my superior size, strength, aggression, and risk tolerance, in confederation with our friends and allies (men also do allegiance, loyalty and solidarity better than women) to WIN a dominant role.

So if you don’t want us to win a dominant role then you have to make it worth my while not to try to win a dominant role. Or you have to make it worth someone’s while to stop me from winning a dominant role.

But you’re not going to keep getting things for nothing, or by the means by which you have been getting them, namely the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, and gossip.)

The Gravy Train is over.