Redefining the feminine imperative

This is a bit of a continuation on yesterday’s post–re: the theme of shaming.

Cathy Reseinwitz has made an oh-so-desperate attempt to square the circle by shoving the tenets of cultural Marxism into libertarianism–in the strong, legal sense. It’s true that you can be a libertarian and a social liberal faggot, simultaneously, but Cathy wants to approach the sacred altar of non-aggression and place upon it the EVULS OF SHAAAMING.

If X is coercive, then X is WRAAOONNG. All that Cathy needs to do is show that shaming is coercive. There’s a couple ways to approach this. First, I can simply point out that Cathy fails miserably to include the definition of shaming as a sub-category of ‘things that are coercive’. But for Cathy, shaming’s status as coercive-sub-category is virtually self-evident. It hurts the feels, so it’s obviously coercive.

Category error: shaming, on the libertarian view, just isn’t the sort of thing that is comparable with threats of actual violence or physical manifestations of violence. Sorry, Cathy, you can’t throw your boyfriend into prison for coercing your heart to feel bad feels in the event of a breakup.

Second, the fact is, harm occurs all the time in a hypothetical libertarian world. Competition has losers. There are consequences. She’s conflating ‘harm’ with actionable harm. Shaming harms people, too. That’s precisely the point. But for the libertarian, shaming in and of itself isn’t actionable because it is neither a positive threat of violence or an act of violence itself. Disassociation and ostracization are not even close, but nice try.

Here’s a choice quote: “I didn’t sign a contract with slut-shamers any more than I did with my government.”

Reisenwitz is taking the time to inform us that, in fact, her slut-bagginess is subject to shaming if and only if I sit down with her and her lawyer and work out the detailed intricacies of when it is that I’m allowed to shame her, and how much I have to fork over for the privilege of slowly and painfully raking her over the hot coals of deconstruction. In other words, she has to explicitly consent, in order for it to become legally and morally licit to shame her.

I’m reaching into the toolbox of sex realism to come up with an adequate term for the phenomenon here, and I’m coming up blank. It isn’t hypergamy; it’s not solipsism. Is it the feminine imperative? Perhaps this is a distribution where more benefits are allotted to women than men. Cathy is perfectly illustrating the tendency of women to ‘want to have it all (benefits-wise) while minimizing potential burdens of criticism,’ but this advantage wouldn’t be afforded to men, were the situation reversed.

Cail Corishev seems to be satisfied with the following definition of the feminine imperative as “a general deference to the desires of females in all areas.” But I’m not sure that that’s an entirely solid definition, since it focuses exclusively on male reaction to feminine action–what we’re looking for is a term for that female action, not solely the male reaction and response.

From Rational Male (the one who coined the term in the first place) we have the following definition: “Simply put, the feminine imperative is the totality of the framework – social, biological, personal, etc. – that implicitly benefits the feminine.”

This would describe the inevitable existence of double-standards that exist between men and women, but the problem is that it refers to institutions, not women themselves. Again, the feminine imperative as defined by RM describes the tendency of institutions to reflect double-standards which benefit women far more than men.

Whence cometh this tendency?

I don’t know if we have a word for it, and that’s why–instead of coming up with some God-awful neologism, I’d very much rather modify RM’s definition: the feminine imperative is the biological (conscious or unconscious) tendency of women to push for an unequal distribution of resources, rights, and privileges, and the biological tendency of males to defer to these demands, and this dynamic is manifested in the totality of all institutions in society.”

The utility of the definition is clear: we’re not just describing the effects the feminine imperative has on institutions, and we’re not just talking about the male reaction to female action. We’re talking about female action, male reaction, and the effect of this dynamic in society. That’s a much more exhaustive and preferable definition, I think. Females aren’t really aware of the feminine imperative, owing to the twin concept of female solipsism, and even if they are aware, they’re utterly loathe to make any effort, whatsoever. And any effort that is made is usually referred to as an aside and entirely ignored: “sure, we’ll say that all domestic violence is bad, but even though it affects men and women roughly equally, we’ll completely ignore and mock MRAs for bringing to our attention double-standards which favor women, all the while pushing for double-standards that benefit us. And we’ll only refer to women who were abused, not men. If we acknowledge it at all, we’ll either downplay it or barely give it any playing time anyway, because ‘patriarchy’.”

Note that the feminine imperative doesn’t always have to be actualized. The tendency is there, however, to push towards a certain equilibrium, at which point, when females are in control of the resources themselves and not having to depend on male deference for access to resources, they will distribute the resources–not according to the common good–but according to tingles, to the benefit of a minority of alpha males. This mode is incredibly destructive of the common good, and my prediction is that we’ll start to see the equilibrium fully reached in about 10 years, at which point, it’ll snap. Sex realism and knowledge of female psychology is already starting to creep its way into mainstream publications. People are starting to acknowledge the consequences of females engaging in endless promiscuity during their high-value peak–that is, around their early-to-mid twenties.

Man up and marry the sluts! is starting to feel the wear and tear of societal destruction.