Iamnothere000
Veteran
★★★★
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Posts
- 1,310
Unlike women (who always had the mother role), men are forced to re-invent themselves every generation or so.
The definition of what a “real man” is changes constantly.
We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again. This wheel of constant crisis and re-invention of what a man is, is spinning faster and faster.
I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.
“A real man contributes to his community.”
“A real man knows how to treat a lady.”
“A real man fights for his country.”
“A real man protects the honor of XXX.”
“A real men does not judge people/women by XXX standard.”
No matter the definition, men are always expected to be, in one form or another, self-sacrificing for women/society. We are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.
Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.
Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man (or even many men) who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.
What attributes should such a man have?
What kind of life would he lead?
I propose that the man of the future, the final man, should be a selective sociopath:
He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.
He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.
He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.
He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.
Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.
The definition of what a “real man” is changes constantly.
We were supposed to be protectors and providers until we built a civilization that took care of those needs. Then we were supposed to be diligent workers until automation makes us obsolete again. This wheel of constant crisis and re-invention of what a man is, is spinning faster and faster.
I notices that every definition of a “real man” is always associated with some kind of servitude and submission.
“A real man contributes to his community.”
“A real man knows how to treat a lady.”
“A real man fights for his country.”
“A real man protects the honor of XXX.”
“A real men does not judge people/women by XXX standard.”
No matter the definition, men are always expected to be, in one form or another, self-sacrificing for women/society. We are expected to use our physical and mental strength to provide for others.
Conveniently, complaining about this state of affairs has always been shamed as “unmanly”.
Now let’s assume there is a revolutionary man (or even many men) who uses his capabilities not for others, but only for his own advancement.
What attributes should such a man have?
What kind of life would he lead?
I propose that the man of the future, the final man, should be a selective sociopath:
He should be 100% opportunistic and convincing. Depending on who is asking and who is currently in power the final man would instantly switch between being a Feminist, a Nazi, a SJW, a republican, a Moslem… He would play each roll so perfectly, that, with enough anonymity, he could hold the favor of different opposing groups simultaneously.
He should not be above using (lethal) violence when he feels that it is beneficial to him.
He should maximally exploit the system he lives in. Ideally, he would not have to work at all and let the state provide everything for him. Instead he would tend to his “activism” or use the time to secretly acquire funds in not necessary legal ways.
He should judge people solely by how much they can support him and how easy he can exploit them.
Finally, he should be able to recognize others like himself and either avoid them or cooperate in order to gain synergetic benefits.