GENDER CONTRACT?
—-“I have a great idea : control your impulses to gossip, rent-seek like a vampire, and impose socialism upon us, and I’ll control my impulses to beat, rape, murder, and steal? OK? …… Oh. Wait. I ALREADY DO THAT. So what are you waiting for? Hold up your part of the bargain.”—-
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 12:30:00 UTC
THE FEMALE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY = THE POSTMODERN STRATEGY
1) Attract Attention (promise sex, affection, subsidy/rent or attention)
2) Rally.
3) Shame.
4) Gossip (load and frame)
5) Overload (persistence)
6) Change to outright lying. (shift)
It works. It works if you don’t use violence and truth to suppress it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 11:16:00 UTC
If men must work to suppress their impulsive desires, why must women not work to oppress their impulsive desires? Are we not equal in rights and responsibilities?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 10:59:00 UTC
–“Women are not damsels in distress who need men to save them. They are oppressed victims who need men to save them.”–Joshua Strodtbeck
(That one is just too damn good….. )
–“Make stronger women not weaker men.”– Curt Doolittle
(My general position on every feminist fallacy.)
–“Feminists: not enough agency to pay for their own rent seeking.”– Eli Harman
(OMG. Econo-sarcasm.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 10:42:00 UTC
Johannes Meixner: –“Men without access to sex always and everywhere cause revolutions. … [the primary] reason for monogamy-based societies being more stable.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 11:17:00 UTC
Inequality?
Again: 1) feminism and single motherhood along racial lines generates theft from those with good discipline and who create a single household cost, to those with poor discipline and who generate two household costs. The “fair answer” then is to ignore all marriage corporation in taxation, everyone file individual taxes, and halve the income and double the deductions of married cohabiting people, so that married people who co-habitate are not unfairly taxed. If we did that, then taxes would have to be adjusted higher on everyone now that money was not stolen from efficient families to expensive single mothers.
2) companies left the states because we are no longer the exclusive members of the wealth club, able to export products to others. And did so because overpaid labor in the postwar period tried to further increase their take. So rather than lose other markets or lose this market to others, Americans had no choice but to move production to companies with new markets.
I left for that reason. Plus government employees are predatory members of the lower classes. And I am sick of living in fear of them.
3) Education never was able to compensate for racial differences in ability and preference, and cannot now compensate for both biological differences and cultural differences as well.
Educators are overpaid given the statistical relationship between teacher compensation and other graduates with same iq, especially given that teachers do not marginally improve in performance after the first six months of employment.
Our children are largely taught indoctrination and falsehoods and we can prove that by testing against other cultures.
So we can no longer produce employment asymmetrically from the rest of the world.
If we examine voting history we see that without women voters, none of these policies would have been possible to pass. So this state of affairs is due to feminists and socialists.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 04:02:00 UTC
http://slnm.us/99c9qj9False feminist argument.
Men fear loss of value as a provider and therefor loss of access to sex and affection.
Self esteem is a Freudian psychologism – meaning a deception.
All emotional states can be described as economic transitions. And only by describing emotional states as economic transactions are arguments free of deceptive loading and framing.
Men trade production and defense, and to some degree physical manipulation and transformation of the world for sex and affection.
The relative value in exchange, of a man’s productivity declines with any marginal increase in his mate’s productivity.
His brain chemistry punishes him so that he increased his productivity, thereby restoring his value, or he must search for a new mate for whom his productivity is likely to retain his access to sex and affection.
This explanation is born out by the data in all walks of life.
Period.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 19:27:00 UTC
—“Women control access to sex. But men control access to commitment. [Not committing] is just [how] men [are] exercising [their] control – because they are now incentivized to do so. [Under monogamy] they [were] incentivized to commit. [Now they are not]. That’s why the family is being destroyed.”— Kyle Casperson
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:48:00 UTC
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-odds-of-having-boy-or-girl-2014-10NATURE IS HOSTILE TO MALES. WE ARE HARDER TO MAKE, MORE EXPENDABLE. WE ARE WHERE NATURE EXPERIMENTS.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:02:00 UTC
SCARY IDEAS FROM AN ACCIDENTAL PROCESS OF DEDUCTION….
(I need to write about the immorality of the feminist movement, given that it breaks the contract for cooperation between the genders in a division of labor. I can support his with the evidence that women have universally acted to impose immoral laws. I can then demonstrate that it is possible to construct institutions that allow us to cooperate without the systemic theft enacted by women at the encouragement of feminists. And demonstrate yet again that we act almost entirely as gene machines, and all our language is merely justification for one theft or another, or the prevention of one theft or another: a complex negotiation.
Now if morality is objective, and if we can conquer and subjugate pirates, and thieves, why can we not conquer and subjugate all thieves? Even purely immoral ones?
Worse…. IS THAT WHAT MEN ACTUALLY DID?
Roll that one around in your head for a minute: was monogamous, propertarian, paternalism merely the only available solution to prevent the natural thievery of women, as a natural expression of their genetic intuitions, which favor their genetic strategy even at the expense of in-group members. While the male strategy comes only at the expense of out-group members?
Very weird. I have to think about this a bit more.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 07:29:00 UTC