...why not 'the Manosphere'? Well, the Manosphere is doing fine, and has never made a single noise about wanting more exposure. The Mens Movement, on the other hand, is vastly under-exposed.
Many among the MM take the tack that 'you get more flies with honey' without understanding the basic principles of sales. There is a reason why these people are typically wither Academics or Professionals that don't deal with the public. Because those who deal with people regularly know better.
People are generally nasty creatures, who are held in check by the threat of social approbation, be it of the banishing variety, or the more severe imprisonment. The ONLY thing a salesman needs to internalize, is this one single phrase as embodied by the person buying the product/service.
"What's in it for me?"
If you can answer "You'll save your company money, be more effective/productive, and look like a fuckin' hero!".....well, you got a sale, no matter what it is. The corollary to that is, "If you DON'T buy this, you'll look like a moron/socialpariah/liability to the company."
Both are equally effective.
The Mens Movement (with my encouraging approval - not that anyone noticed or cared) has pursued a certain style of attack at a certain ideology, and that confused a lot of people (still does, apparently)...primarily because they don't understand human nature very well. Sorry, but that's almost always the case with the 'why can't we all just get along?' crowd...
Of course, the decades of proof that our opponents will not be convinced, certainly not with Billions on the table, is notwithstanding. Because of this rank bigotry, and obviously entrenched conflict of interest, feminists...those 'pillars of Gender Equality', had come into the sights of the Mens Movement.
We have pilloried feminism for a specific purpose...to outright blacken the name of feminism to the point where anything even referencing it is automatically suspect. AND to paint anyone taking that label with the same brush. This is a deliberate strategy.
Because when you make hate unpopular and 'socially unacceptable', it becomes either less prevalent, or failing that, much less visible...so a narrative of 'conquering' it can be plausibly put forth. And in either case, it renders feminism politically inert.
And THAT is the point.
The real target here, is gynocentric policy that disregrads things like the Constitution based on 'ends justifying the means', and Politicians who milk their careers without a shred of understanding that the Constitution itself was written to guide those who fail to heed another long-dead adage....
"The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
These are words many MRAs would do well to heed as well, since it is impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting an MRA falling for a Reframe, or Damselling, or any other fallacy or manipulation technique routinely outlined in the Manosphere.
I can even tell you exactly why that is.
Because they refuse to internalize, to LEARN Game. They think it's parlour tricks to get laid, instead of plain language explanations for female behaviour. ANd they believe this because they CHOOSE to believe this, because they don't like the implications of the truth.
And I say, after a near-lifetime in the MRM...EVERY LAST MRA that takes this tack on Game does so for the exact same reason. They don't like what Game implies about women, relationships, and their own SMP value.
Every. Last. One. Of. Them.
And until they get past the crap, and learn to understand the motivations and character of women, they will continue to beg for placating, conciliatory approaches. Even in the face of massive success utilizing the opposite approach.
Because the approach they are uncomfortable with follows the "Alpha" ethos, the one they advocate for follows the "Beta" approach, and they don't like admitting they are wrong and unattractive...(I kid....sorta). The harsh approach works because social approbation until very recently ran in the opposite direction (questioning feminism was a no-no) and largely still does (except on Political RADAR...celebs are ditching the hate movement in droves, the sly socially-savvy foxes), and fear of bad repercussions motivates more quickly than desire of awards (and bad boys are sexy if they're not hostile - amused mastery - a Game concept, is the best approach here).
In other words, people are more afraid of the threat of 'looking bad' (being upstaged/made a fool of) than they are desirous of a chance at looking like a hero. ie, the exact same reasons why these dufuses are asking for a more conciliatory approach, are the reasons why doing so is a bad mistake. Fortune favours the bold, dammit!
If you need wise words, allow Yoda to supply them:
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...leads to the dark side".
Let fear motivate our opponents, not us.
Many among the MM take the tack that 'you get more flies with honey' without understanding the basic principles of sales. There is a reason why these people are typically wither Academics or Professionals that don't deal with the public. Because those who deal with people regularly know better.
People are generally nasty creatures, who are held in check by the threat of social approbation, be it of the banishing variety, or the more severe imprisonment. The ONLY thing a salesman needs to internalize, is this one single phrase as embodied by the person buying the product/service.
"What's in it for me?"
If you can answer "You'll save your company money, be more effective/productive, and look like a fuckin' hero!".....well, you got a sale, no matter what it is. The corollary to that is, "If you DON'T buy this, you'll look like a moron/socialpariah/liability to the company."
Both are equally effective.
The Mens Movement (with my encouraging approval - not that anyone noticed or cared) has pursued a certain style of attack at a certain ideology, and that confused a lot of people (still does, apparently)...primarily because they don't understand human nature very well. Sorry, but that's almost always the case with the 'why can't we all just get along?' crowd...
Of course, the decades of proof that our opponents will not be convinced, certainly not with Billions on the table, is notwithstanding. Because of this rank bigotry, and obviously entrenched conflict of interest, feminists...those 'pillars of Gender Equality', had come into the sights of the Mens Movement.
We have pilloried feminism for a specific purpose...to outright blacken the name of feminism to the point where anything even referencing it is automatically suspect. AND to paint anyone taking that label with the same brush. This is a deliberate strategy.
Because when you make hate unpopular and 'socially unacceptable', it becomes either less prevalent, or failing that, much less visible...so a narrative of 'conquering' it can be plausibly put forth. And in either case, it renders feminism politically inert.
And THAT is the point.
The real target here, is gynocentric policy that disregrads things like the Constitution based on 'ends justifying the means', and Politicians who milk their careers without a shred of understanding that the Constitution itself was written to guide those who fail to heed another long-dead adage....
"The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
These are words many MRAs would do well to heed as well, since it is impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting an MRA falling for a Reframe, or Damselling, or any other fallacy or manipulation technique routinely outlined in the Manosphere.
I can even tell you exactly why that is.
Because they refuse to internalize, to LEARN Game. They think it's parlour tricks to get laid, instead of plain language explanations for female behaviour. ANd they believe this because they CHOOSE to believe this, because they don't like the implications of the truth.
And I say, after a near-lifetime in the MRM...EVERY LAST MRA that takes this tack on Game does so for the exact same reason. They don't like what Game implies about women, relationships, and their own SMP value.
Every. Last. One. Of. Them.
And until they get past the crap, and learn to understand the motivations and character of women, they will continue to beg for placating, conciliatory approaches. Even in the face of massive success utilizing the opposite approach.
Because the approach they are uncomfortable with follows the "Alpha" ethos, the one they advocate for follows the "Beta" approach, and they don't like admitting they are wrong and unattractive...(I kid....sorta). The harsh approach works because social approbation until very recently ran in the opposite direction (questioning feminism was a no-no) and largely still does (except on Political RADAR...celebs are ditching the hate movement in droves, the sly socially-savvy foxes), and fear of bad repercussions motivates more quickly than desire of awards (and bad boys are sexy if they're not hostile - amused mastery - a Game concept, is the best approach here).
In other words, people are more afraid of the threat of 'looking bad' (being upstaged/made a fool of) than they are desirous of a chance at looking like a hero. ie, the exact same reasons why these dufuses are asking for a more conciliatory approach, are the reasons why doing so is a bad mistake. Fortune favours the bold, dammit!
If you need wise words, allow Yoda to supply them:
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...leads to the dark side".
Let fear motivate our opponents, not us.
No comments:
Post a Comment