Discussion What is societies endgame regarding disenfranchised men?

[Iamnothere000]

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?

 

[mentally lost cel 1]

10% of men and all the resulting unhappiness (for men and women) would be dealt with via drugs or other artificially means.

This is today

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?

The actual end that will happen will be going back to the olden days, inevitably it will happen one way or another, men will be hunters and gatherers while whores stay home, and there will be no disenfranchised men and anyone who disrespects men will get punished

 

[Iamnothere000]

This is today

I wrote "1-10%" meaning between one to then percent so I’m leaving room for the situation to become much worse.

 

[Deleted member 34699]

didnt read your post but the endgame is turning humanity into a blob of no identity, just a drone with a number

 

[somcel182]

There is no end to it because we don't need men anymore. Warfare is all done with drones and missiles and the only men on the ground we need are highly specialised troops. When we separate men from women you don't have households combining together and spending as a household, instead you have two consumers and if a woman has children out of wedlock that just creates even more spending. If a couple of guys kill themselves because of this shitty new world it doesn't really matter because so much money is being generated. Maybe society will be fucked if this carries on and each generation will be progressively worse but we've surrendered ourselves to feminists to such an extent that it's like a snowball rolling downhill. My guess is that Western society will become like Japan where you'll either have betas who make their work their lives or you'll have NEETs. The top 10-20% will take all the women and opportunity for themselves.

 

[Deleted member 35110]

didnt read your post but the endgame is turning humanity into a blob of no identity, just a drone with a number

The wet dream of Jews

 

[Deleted member 29230]

High iq post finally this place is full of shit threads

And yes the end goal knows that men will become violent and out of control this will be there excuse to implement more security measures that will violate the peoples rights even more

 

[coperexia]

High iq post finally this place is full of shit threads

And yes the end goal knows that men will become violent and out of control this will be there excuse to implement more security measures that will violate the peoples rights even more

negative feedback loop

 

[Deleted member 33833]

So where do you think lies the “optimum” between keeping men useful and keeping them harmless?

They will go full schizo fearmongering libtard mode and pick on a niche portion of low status men to the point of putting them on prison for retarded reasons. They already made a step forward by calling virgin men venting in an obscure forum ''domestic terrorists''.

 

[worthlessloser26]

FEMA camps

 

[Remaincel]

I'm glad I won't live these times and today's are pretty shitty, I hope futurecels revolt

 

[Gone Coping]

To keep the beta and omega males wageslaving until the point they can replace us with automation.

 

[Iamnothere000]

This is where I think you are wrong. The average man (ugly, unkept, and uncharismatic) is the single thing that keeps our civilization running. Without him there is no civilization. Think of all the underappreciated construction workers, riggers, and code monkeys that not only maintain our advanced and fragile infrastructure, but also continuously innovate and adapt it to our ever-changing societal needs. Whether women or their male-feminists allies like to admit it or not, the reality is that civilization depends on these so called "low status" males in order to function. But as more and more men become disenfranchised from the current gynocentric system, we are going to reach a point where many of these necessary jobs are simply not going to be filled. And we are already seeing this with coding jobs, where the demand for good developers far outstrips the current supply.

Soon men will realize they only need to do the absolute bare minimum to survive - and honestly that doesn't require much effort. If you're not providing for a family, your expenses as a man are actually quite low. $500 for rent, $300 for food, and a couple hundred for expenses and you're good. Most of the things we consume today are digital, so you're not particularly missing out on a lot with a low wage if you pirate. As more and more men realize that high levels of effort are not necessary to maintain their quality of life, this will have two major effects on our societies. The first is that the lack of male productivity will lead to an obvious decline in national productivity. Less jobs are going to get filled, the economy will become less competitive, and our infrastructure will begin to crumble due to the lack of qualified individuals. Think of the recent wave of bridge collapses we've been seeing in the US - this is only the beginning of what we can expect to occur as men are replaced with unqualified individuals.

The second effect will be even more devastating, at least for women: the state's tax revenues will decrease. Our current gynocentric order is wholly dependent on the state in order to function. Funds extracted from previously over-producing men are used to fund women's healthcare, abortions, maintain the surveillance state, enforce laws which benefit women in divorce and marriage, grant special benefits to women, and enforce censorship. Remember lads, through out the average woman's entire lifespan she is a net tax negative. It is only the average man that keeps the entire system going. Not only will tax revenues drop from productivity, but they'll also drop due to falling birth rates. We've seen that unrestricted hypergamy leads to women either refusing to settle down with a looksmatched man (the femcel lol) or to spend so much time over-optimizing their hypergamy they miss their breeding window. As society ages, the state will then be burdened with maintaining both the gynocracy and gerontocracy. In time, the state's enforcement of hypergamy and gynocracy will have to pull back as they fail to collect the funds needed to enforce it and maintain a minimum standard of life for their citizens.

tl'dr

In summary, I don't think either of the choices are really sustainable. Women, while they may be gaining more college degrees than men and advancing quickly through the corporate hierarchies, cannot replace men. They are not as productive because they are more expensive for the state to care for. And as more and more men quit the system, the current order will become impossible to maintain due to lack of qualified individuals, funds, and new bodies to tax. This is why we see such a huge push for immigration (which is not a solution btw). Despite the delusions of women and their feminist allies, the age of men will one day rise again. We, as well as them, cannot escape biology.

Here I described a hypothetical scenario in which male dissatisfaction would be addressed with drugs and such. I don’t think that will really happen. What you just described is one of the more realistic scenarios and I sincerely hope that it comes to pass.

It’s just a shame that we have to basically reset civilisation because women are such cunts…

 

[Deleted member 31092]

Either soyciety realizes what it's doing to men, and does a complete 180 turn around to make amends, or, infinitely more likely, the marginalization denigration of men, the elevation and exaltation of women, and frequency of ERs, Chos, Sodinis and Lepines increases, until soyciety as we know it collapses. Either way, I don't care.

 

[WØLF]

Nothing

 

[Paperman]

Either soyciety realizes what it's doing to men, and does a complete 180 turn around to make amends, or, infinitely more likely, the marginalization denigration of men, the elevation and exaltation of women, and frequency of ERs, Chos, Sodinis and Lepines increases, until soyciety as we know it collapses. Either way, I don't care.

I think it will collapse because the men who are most marginalized are the ones that make society work.