A political movement must have explicit principles and an agenda, so here are my thoughts on thots.
1) Assume average women have approximately 10% of the moral responsibility of average men. Thus, any policy for patrolling thots must focus on Pavlovian incentive/disincentive structures.
2) Assume women have only two sources of intrinsic motivation (as in Drive by Daniel Pink): 1. their own individual reproductive success and 2. the feminine imperative, in that order. Other than the future orientation necessary to pursue these, they are motivated only by immediate sensory experiences. (Note: a woman may inherit the interest of an attractive man, e.g. golf or video games, and thereafter enjoy the thing itself through association as if it were an intrinsically motivated behavior.)
3) Modern women have no disgust threshold remaining after the age of 18, due to the number of sexual partners they’ve had by the end of high school. All that remains is contempt for men who lack the social dominance to subjugate them (i.e. arousing them) without unduly suffering cultural reprisals. According to my post “The feminist utopia” the ratio of attractive men to unattractive men will approach zero over time.
4) Women fundamentally do not understand what will make them happy in the long run because before this time in human history they have never had such freedom to pursue immediate sexual gratification. Their revealed preference is childless Alpha widowhood and yet the statistics show this makes them extremely unhappy.
1) Childlessness will increase exponentially as female economic independence increases.
2) The reproduction rate of high-functioning white people (that is, K-selection) is linearly proportional to male homeownership. (Please note this is defined by perception of ownership, not reality, so that a woman living with a man paying a mortgage will feel the need to have children.)
3) Male “thirst” enables attention whoring, and thirst correlates with libido and perception of female looseness. Libido is dropping precipitously and perception of sluttery is increasing, so that if the latter is ever controlled we will see an immediate, massive reduction in thirst (similar to the reverse of the Flynn effect in IQ scores).
1) Economic misogyny. Do not tip waitresses, hire women for any reason, attend strip clubs, or otherwise financially support women in any fashion who are not your wife or daughters.This will require women to rely on their fathers’ and husbands’ salaries once again, as they are incapable of starting or running their own businesses. Do not support businesses that hire women a) preferentially, b) equitably, or c) at all. (The reasons for the latter are that dogma is more rhetorically sound than reasonableness, the economic pressure must be maintained even if edge cases are not policed, and the the observation that in many modern corporate jobs it is actually preferable for employers to hire women, rendering the free market figuratively and literally impotent.)
2) Anti-immigration – Foreign labor is the primary driver of white male economic inequality, because low-intelligence white men have no union representation. In order to maintain a reasonable Gini coefficient among native workers there must be strong borders and tariffs.
3) Punish immodesty, adultery, white knighting, and single mommery harshly by law and religious sanction. It is not sufficient to rely on social shaming because there are too many defectors and spiteful mutations extant in our society. Individualistic actors only respond in mass to formal disincentive structures, if at all, and both male and female defectors from the male group social contract must be destroyed to encourage the other antisocial weaklings to comply.
These would be pursued through practical methods such as undermining Instagram, which enables immodesty and white knighting and increases the perception of sluttery.