Iamnothere000
Veteran
★★★★
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Posts
- 1,303
TL,DR: Is there a necessary maximum to male exploitation/oppression?
So, what we currently have is an increasingly gynocentric society that basically treats (low status) men like shit (disposable gender) while expecting them to abide to higher and higher standards.
Dissent does not lead to productive discussion/change but to all kinds of shaming and ridicule. (Women had it sooo hard for thousands of years so you have no right to complain.)
The result is an increasing number of men who just opt out of society one way or another.
Those men form a spectrum along the “danger”-axis:
On one end of the spectrum are the men who just quietly go into the night: They cope with various distractions, try to bullshit themselves with therapy and generally attempt to ignore their shitty lot in life which they assume is unchangeable anyway. The work, die lonely and regretful and are quickly forgotten.
On the other end are the ER-types who don’t even think about accepting their shitty situation. They rebel in the most destructive way possible, simultaneously taking revenge against society and freeing themselves from it. They are unstoppable because they have nothing to lose and don’t value their own life.
If all disenfranchised men would tent to the harmless end of the spectrum, society would ultimately settle into a scenario where women go for the most attractive 1-10% of men and all the resulting unhappiness (for men and women) would be dealt with via drugs or other artificially means. However, society at large would remain open, free and prosperous (because no one is causing real trouble).
But this is not the case. A certain percentage of men will always tend more to the danger-end of the spectrum. And with the constant rise of the number of disenfranchised men the number of ERs will rise accordingly.
In an effort to adapt (to protect the queeenz), society will become less free: Censorship, Surveillance and all kinds of prohibitions are already in place to protect the status quo. I assume these measure are just the beginning.
However, there is a point where too much restrictions will hinder society from functioning even at the most basic level.
I think it was some British roasty who proposed a curfew for men. Such a measure would throw a wrench in the gears of society for various reasons. Even more of such ideas and the economy would fall apart (or at least stop being competitive).
This means that some freedoms for men must always be maintained unless you what your society to implode.
But at the same time, those freedoms will be used by the increasing number of ERs, mentioned above, to take their revenge.
So where do you think lies the “optimum” between keeping men useful and keeping them harmless?
So, what we currently have is an increasingly gynocentric society that basically treats (low status) men like shit (disposable gender) while expecting them to abide to higher and higher standards.
Dissent does not lead to productive discussion/change but to all kinds of shaming and ridicule. (Women had it sooo hard for thousands of years so you have no right to complain.)
The result is an increasing number of men who just opt out of society one way or another.
Those men form a spectrum along the “danger”-axis:
On one end of the spectrum are the men who just quietly go into the night: They cope with various distractions, try to bullshit themselves with therapy and generally attempt to ignore their shitty lot in life which they assume is unchangeable anyway. The work, die lonely and regretful and are quickly forgotten.
On the other end are the ER-types who don’t even think about accepting their shitty situation. They rebel in the most destructive way possible, simultaneously taking revenge against society and freeing themselves from it. They are unstoppable because they have nothing to lose and don’t value their own life.
If all disenfranchised men would tent to the harmless end of the spectrum, society would ultimately settle into a scenario where women go for the most attractive 1-10% of men and all the resulting unhappiness (for men and women) would be dealt with via drugs or other artificially means. However, society at large would remain open, free and prosperous (because no one is causing real trouble).
But this is not the case. A certain percentage of men will always tend more to the danger-end of the spectrum. And with the constant rise of the number of disenfranchised men the number of ERs will rise accordingly.
In an effort to adapt (to protect the queeenz), society will become less free: Censorship, Surveillance and all kinds of prohibitions are already in place to protect the status quo. I assume these measure are just the beginning.
However, there is a point where too much restrictions will hinder society from functioning even at the most basic level.
I think it was some British roasty who proposed a curfew for men. Such a measure would throw a wrench in the gears of society for various reasons. Even more of such ideas and the economy would fall apart (or at least stop being competitive).
This means that some freedoms for men must always be maintained unless you what your society to implode.
But at the same time, those freedoms will be used by the increasing number of ERs, mentioned above, to take their revenge.
So where do you think lies the “optimum” between keeping men useful and keeping them harmless?