Eli Harman, one of my favorite Facebook friends, recently posted this on his page, and I just loved it! With his permission, I am reproducing it here.
HANDLING SOME FEMINIST HECKLERS
First, I have to rebuke you for certain comments made about my weight, appearance, and other qualifications as a potential mate. Being as:
1) I have a fairly accurate self-assessment of my sexual market value and therefore of what constitutes realistic expectations in those endeavors.
2) I have not offered myself to you as a potential mate nor solicited you for sexual favors or reproductive access.
The unbidden contribution of such comments (on my thread, which you sought out of your own volition) was therefore unnecessary.
It is reasonable to suppose that your REAL aim was not simply to call attention to my sexual market value, but actually to diminish it, to retaliate for my thoughts and statements (which are obviously the real issue) and to obtain moral and social leverage to COERCE me 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, I have 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 I feel entitled to a dominant role.
But I don’t feel that I am entitled to anything. And neither are you entitled to anything.
I am simply able, by virtue of my superior size, strength, aggression, and risk tolerance, in confederation with my friends and allies (men also do allegiance, loyalty and solidarity better than women) to WIN a dominant role.
So if you don’t want me 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.)
Gravy train is over.