Men – Competent and Responsible

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I’ve been thinking about this whole gender division thing and I’m wondering if we might not get more traction by presenting it as a “competent and responsible person” thing rather than a “man” thing.

You know the now classic example of men’s island versus women’s island… we’ve all seen that men will work together to provide for their basic needs while women simply lounge around and wait for someone to take care of them. You all accept it as a fact, as do I. But trying to explain that to someone else without them seeing it for themselves is difficult because of the implied bias that we as men would appear to be bringing to the table.

For example, Turd Flinging Monkey has made a number of comments recently about how men f~~~ed ourselves by granting women the right to vote. Now let’s say we got together and decided to rectify that mistake. How to do it? You can’t go out there and tell the world “Well, giving women power without responsibility turned out to be a terrible idea and we’re taking it back now and are going to start treating women the same way we treat children… cared for and protected but not consulted when it comes to making actual decisions that effect them.”

But how about if you said we’re going to replace the concept of “Adult” based on chronological age with “Competent and and Responsible” based on the ability to survive a fair test of ability. Pass the test and you get the rights and privileges currently afforded to an adult (vote, drink, drive, own property, bear arms, sign contracts, etc). Fail the test, however, and you don’t get those rights and privileges and you remain a dependent on someone who does have them (your parents, for example, or society, but only to the degree that society is willing to care for you) until you are able to pass.

This would cover idiot men too, by the way… I know a few dudes who are really more women than some women even are and they’d have to pass the test too.

So what do you guys think such a test would be like? I’m thinking a virtual life exam a-la Rick and Morty’s “Roy: A Life Well Lived” where your final score is based on how well you live an entire life.

I’ve already stopped using the male/female designations when talking about life capability with certain volatile people but of course the only real value there is that it enables them to believe they’re in the “pass” category when I really believe they would be in the “fail” group. An actual test of capability and responsibility would sort the wheat from the chaff… one where the’s no “man island” to swoop in and save you when you’re f~~~ing up, and one that can be administered in an afternoon, not require an actual entire lifespan.

What do you guys think?

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Men will eventually have to step in and fix things. If there is a complete collapse we will go down with the country. Hyper inflation will destroy my saving just as well as the females… I don’t like it.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

I think it’s a very blue pill tradcon idea.

Men as savior, and problem solver of problems.

Agreed.

Previous generations have known competent and responsible women. What ever societal and social mix exited at that time is what needs to be duplicated if a radical idea is to be implemented. We would have to find a way of instilling this without having to have men return to the plantation.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[BurgundyParticipant 1525]

Societal and cultural reset need to happen for such a thing, and even after everything has gone down in a blazing fire, the women would clearly demand it, right after it started going upwards again.

Wasteful thinking about it, a tradcon dream, which won’t happen.

In other words, I just can’t see this s~~~ happening, nor should I/we care, waste of time, spend it on yourself instead.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

It’s like the old women and children first. Now feminists are trying to back track on their own views, and willing to at least give men what they were in the 1970’s, but that’s not enough. Men no longer give a f~~~, who cares what men are? All women need to know is that men don’t give a f~~~ about them.

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Men will eventually have to step in and fix things.

I think so, except I’ll be fixing my own s~~~ while women flounder around not knowing anything except how to gossip and be on facebook all day while I know how to do actual important s~~~.

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[HitmanParticipant]

great idea doc, i’m unsure how it could be implemented though . i think the cat is out of the bag so to speak. i hate to be a pessimist but it may be too late to fix..but your basic premise is spot on sir ! ( a female could NEVER get that far into theoretical thinking ! ) ..maybe if there was a social upheaval of a major type the standards you thought of could be applied .

[BudtaoParticipant 293]

While I am fairly indifferent on any subject involving women.(Unless there is a wicked burn or joke to be made.) I do find the idea of a citizenship test for natural born americans to be a good idea. I am really tired of listening to people who have no clue how the world works, talk about who they are going to vote for.(Best example would probably be the feminist talking about voting for Hillary cause she is a woman, I am sure there are plenty of other examples you guys could come up with.) At the very least, you should be able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the systems of our government.

Stargazer wrote:

So what do you guys think such a test would be like? I’m thinking a virtual life exam a-la Rick and Morty’s “Roy: A Life Well Lived” where your final score is based on how well you live an entire life.

I love that show, easily one of the more MGTOW shows ever made.

Nirvanna is never having to worry about a woman ever again.

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t think I’m a fan of having some sort of intelligence or history test. I understand the principle, but I don’t know that it would be practical, or that it would really change things that much.

There are a few ideas I like though regarding the requirements for voting.

Property ownership – this was the original requirement. It made a lot of sense you obviously had a stake in protecting the land if you owned it. It similar to voting for corporations in that event. I don’t know that it makes sense now though, since corporations own most land, and land really isn’t what it used to be, IMO.

Military service – I first read about this in Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. In order to vote, you had to be willing to serve and protect the state. If you understand what it takes to protect and keep the state, then you are better equipped to decide what is best for the state. You’ll be less likely to vote for your own selfish reasons or misguided ideals. I don’t know if I like this for today, nor do I really want to expand the military to compensate for voting.

Taxes – If you do not pay federal income taxes, then you do not get a vote. I like this as it would cut down on robbing the middle class to pay for the poor. You think people would consider government programs a little more seriously if the only people voting are the ones who would be funding it. And yes, the poor could still vote, they’d just have to voluntarily pay taxes.
You are paying for your vote, and that’s not PC, however, that realities is that we pay to keep the government running. We the People. We pay for it, we own it, why should those that didn’t pay get as much say as those that do?

The counter to this would be concern that the ‘haves’ would ignore the needs of the ‘have nots’. Not true. Charity has and always will exist.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 42]

It’s like running into a barn fire to pick up the broken lantern admits all the hay ablaze!

Flee is the only durable answer to an “irreversible situation” live free and unhindered by the intoxication’s of this doomed culture. It’s the best time in history to be a “single” man!
I left the plantation and it’s burning fields of man misery, it’s time for women to snuggle up with their cats, and wait to be eaten!

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I think it’s a very blue pill tradcon idea. Men as savior, and problem solver of problems.

Some men just want to watch the world burn, huh?

Surely you must realize that, in order for humanity to continue, there are things that need to get done and that competent, responsible people are the only ones capable of doing them, yes?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Burgundy wrote:

Societal and cultural reset need to happen for such a thing, and even after everything has gone down in a blazing fire, the women would clearly demand it, right after it started going upwards again.

Wasteful thinking about it, a tradcon dream, which won’t happen.

In other words, I just can’t see this s~~~ happening, nor should I/we care, waste of time, spend it on yourself instead.

At what point did I suggest this as a cure for our current situation? I know when someone calls someone else a “tradcon” they’re really saying “non-MGTOW pussy begging fool” (hurray for shaming language) but I don’t recall implying that this was a method for going back to “Leave it to Beaver” land.

After the current system collapses and we go through a reboot, we’re going to need to do something different, though, aren’t we? Surely you monk types can’t possibly believe that society will proceed with a bunch of individual men all randomly going their own way with no structure or rules for interaction, do you? Or maybe you do.

No, even in a post-apocalyptic scenario there will be rules and laws and people who can do things and should have power and others who can’t and shouldn’t… and some need to distinguish between the two, or are you guys really advocating for total anarchy?

If finding a rational method of separating the producers from the looters is a tradcon dream then advocating for an anarchistic world populated by a handful of self-serving MGTOW monks where women and children are left out to die is a sad, defeatist, dystopian nightmare. You guys having fun with that? Sounds a lot more like sour graping than a rational plan for human survival to me,

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Oh man, here again I’ve allowed myself to engage with an idea that I do not respect nor believe there is any point in addressing.

There is clearly a contingent of men whose own way leaves no room for concern about anyone or anything but their own immediate interests. So be it. You guys want to ghost, go for it… but I no longer see or speak to dead people.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22568]

Stargazer wrote:

I’ve been thinking about this whole gender division thing and I’m wondering if we might not get more traction by presenting it as a “competent and responsible person” thing rather than a “man” thing.

LOL!

While, percentage wise, I personally know more emotionally immature women than men. Most of the men I personally know are also emotionally immature.

To call any of these immature people, “competent” or “responsible” would be an insult to the definition of those terms.

In general, this society brings out the worst in people.

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Stargazer wrote:

What do you guys think?

I think you should stick to writing about women and your experiences, because thats where you are good at. You overestimate your insights and reading your thoughts about topics like this is a waste of time. Sorry.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

Flee is the only durable answer to an “irreversible situation” live free and unhindered by the intoxication’s of this doomed culture. It’s the best time in history to be a “single” man!

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

I suppose if you really do believe that the situation is irreversible, there isn’t much else you can do but save your own skin. But we can conceive of a time when your saved skin must re-emerge into a new world, wiped clean and ready to be remade, can we not? Or do you just intend to flee until you’re dead, regardless?

[Zuberi TauParticipant 10606]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Men will eventually have to step in and fix things.

Not I!
The gloves are off!

[HitmanParticipant]

doc was brave and put out an idea. don’t call him a “slave “..you guys shoot from the hip and a bit too quick to really hit the point. slow your f~~~ing rolls.you can disagree with the guy without shaming and name calling.. show each other some RESPECT . we all deserve that,then argue your points..

[AFTParticipant 2726]

Stargazer wrote:

I’ve been thinking about this whole gender division thing and I’m wondering if we might not get more traction by presenting it as a “competent and responsible person” thing rather than a “man” thing.

I think that is an excellent strategy, which I have personally been using over the past year, whenever I have to talk to bitches about anything.
So I’d say single parents are irresponsible for bringing a child into the world without a complementary parent. I make it all gender neutral but we all know who we are talking about, it’s really just playing the PC game.

Stargazer wrote:

men f~~~ed ourselves by granting women the right to vote.

Please let me say that it was GYNOCRACY that f~~~ed MEN by granting women the vote, in fact I do not believe in democracy, it is corrupted whereby all the clowns you get to vote for are controlled by the same corrupt power.

I respect everything you write DOC, but on this occasion you are being sentimental, wanting to bring back the good old days, which by the way weren’t all that great. We need to move forward. Do what is in OUR best interests, let them suffer, they will choke on their rights, we just have to DO NOTHING.

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

AFT wrote:

but on this occasion you are being sentimental, wanting to bring back the good old days, which by the way weren’t all that great

I’m not really the sentimental type.

There’s nothing about this that has to be about going backward or forward or anywhere. You were spot on about it being more or less a conversational gimmick, replacing the word “man” with something hypothetically less arguable in order to legitimize commentary, but honestly, when has there *ever* been a social organization based purely on demonstrable ability to make competent and responsible decisions?

Surely that’s neither where we are nor how we got here.

[HitmanParticipant]

Survivor, go to your room young man and think about what you’ve done! ..

[Author]

Posts