Source: Original Site Post

( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.

( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.