How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men (Article)

[NorthAmericanguy]

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men


"A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women,and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other,competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally.Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social,existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals."


Read more here: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

[Teal Lantern]

Yeah, if you want a culture AT ALL, men are going to be the ones to build and maintain it.

You'll have lots of radio silence, waiting for the liberated womyn to step up and do jobs like this.

"Wage gap", THIS!

[terminator]

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men




"A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women,and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other,competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally.Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social,existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals."


Read more here: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

It's true and has always been true - just because society tells you that you're free doesn't mean you are! There's always been slavery, now it's just more subtle - e.g. you buy a house & pay 3 times it's value to the bank in interest. This is slavery!

[Dark_Sol]

Yeah, if you want a culture AT ALL, men are going to be the ones to build and maintain it.

You'll have lots of radio silence, waiting for the liberated womyn to step up and do jobs like this.

"Wage gap", THIS!

Hahaha, I bring that up to AW who complain about wage gaps.

[NorthAmericanguy]

"The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today.

Or, put another way, yes,every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children. Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology.It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch and disease.

For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer.We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men,the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.Their lines were dead ends."

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm






Guys, all I can say is that I feel I have a new lease on life. This article above (same as article posted in post 1) really helped me understand my relationship with women and the role that I play as a male regardless if I like it or not. It also substantiates the manosphere claims that 80% of women sleep with the top 20% of men.

It was a huge red pill for me to swallow, but I needed it....

I'm going to get this gentleman's book:

[Teal Lantern]

"For men,the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.Their lines were dead ends."

If a man has children and grandchildren, but none of his grandchildren ever have children, isn't his "line" still a dead end?
If his "line" ends 100 years AFTER his death, does that retroactively diminish the worth or quality of his life?

[Cornfed]

Guys, all I can say is that I feel I have a new lease on life. This article above (same as article posted in post 1) really helped me understand my relationship with women and the role that I play as a male regardless if I like it or not. It also substantiates the manosphere claims that 80% of women sleep with the top 20% of men.

It was a huge red pill for me to swallow, but I needed it....

The problem is that under the ZOG's policies, it is generally the very worst men that breed the most.

[NorthAmericanguy]

Guys, all I can say is that I feel I have a new lease on life. This article above (same as article posted in post 1) really helped me understand my relationship with women and the role that I play as a male regardless if I like it or not. It also substantiates the manosphere claims that 80% of women sleep with the top 20% of men.

It was a huge red pill for me to swallow, but I needed it....

The problem is that under the ZOG's policies, it is generally the very worst men that breed the most.

Let me ask you this: Does nature really even care? Is there even such a concept as "worse" when it comes to human biology.

I only pose the question because I believe moralism is a man made construct to keep a civilization running smoothly.

[NorthAmericanguy]

"For men,the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.Their lines were dead ends."

If a man has children and grandchildren, but none of his grandchildren ever have children, isn't his "line" still a dead end?
If his "line" ends 100 years AFTER his death, does that retroactively diminish the worth or quality of his life?

I'm not qualified to answer your question. I am in the process of trying to track down the research study that the author talks about; hopefully the study will shed more light.

[Cornfed]

The problem is that under the ZOG's policies, it is generally the very worst men that breed the most.

Let me ask you this: Does nature really even care? Is there even such a concept as "worse" when it comes to human biology.

I only pose the question because I believe moralism is a man made construct to keep a civilization running smoothly.

Yes, because a society consisting of the kind of dirtbags doing most of the breeding at the moment has very poor survival potential, both at an individual and societal level, in the vast majority of environments. Children are essentially being raised by the ZOG in captivity with most of the stuff they depend on being provided as a free good from the stored surplus accumulated by previous functional societies. Once the ZOG collapses or cuts them loose they will really be up shit creek. This is good in a way, but unfortunately the rest of us risk being dragged down with them.

[Jester]

If a man has children and grandchildren, but none of his grandchildren ever have children, isn't his "line" still a dead end?
If his "line" ends 100 years AFTER his death, does that retroactively diminish the worth or quality of his life?

IMO, materially speaking, yes it does.
And God did make us in physical form, in a physical world, So this is our arena. And while in the arena, we ought to strive.

Nevertheless, it is HOW we conduct ourselves IN this physical arena that gives us immortality.

Imagine a great football play, a heroic moment, that gets captured on film, and replayed forever. The team might have lost the game... or won the game, lost the season. The expression of manhood in that moment lives on. Immortality is like that. Sure, you play to win. But the game provides the framework in which character is revealed.

[Jester]

...I believe moralism is a man made construct to keep a civilization running smoothly.

Sadly, many believe this. But no. The existence of our conscience is real proof that morality is an objective element of the universe, not our own invention.

[Jester]

Children are essentially being raised by the ZOG in captivity with most of the stuff they depend on being provided as a free good from the stored surplus accumulated by previous functional societies. Once the ZOG collapses or cuts them loose they will really be up shit creek. This is good in a way, but unfortunately the rest of us risk being dragged down with them.

Hard truth.

[Teal Lantern]

If a man has children and grandchildren, but none of his grandchildren ever have children, isn't his "line" still a dead end?
If his "line" ends 100 years AFTER his death, does that retroactively diminish the worth or quality of his life?

IMO, materially speaking, yes it does.
And God did make us in physical form, in a physical world, So this is our arena. And while in the arena, we ought to strive.

Nevertheless, it is HOW we conduct ourselves IN this physical arena that gives us immortality.

Imagine a great football play, a heroic moment, that gets captured on film, and replayed forever. The team might have lost the game... or won the game, lost the season. The expression of manhood in that moment lives on. Immortality is like that. Sure, you play to win. But the game provides the framework in which character is revealed.

Maybe that's why men build things (tools, houses, cars, roads, farms, etc.), because we don't directly have kids. Some houses and castles are hundreds or years old, the original builders long gone.
Thing is, teh wimminz want to keep the kids and take the house, too.

I'd rather be defined (if at all) by something I built rather than defined by what my descendants do.

What if these were your great-great-granddaughters?

You call that a "success"?

[NorthAmericanguy]

"For men,the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.Their lines were dead ends."

If a man has children and grandchildren, but none of his grandchildren ever have children, isn't his "line" still a dead end?
If his "line" ends 100 years AFTER his death, does that retroactively diminish the worth or quality of his life?

I failed to mention that you have many guys walking around who think their kids are biologically theirs, but are not. They say something like 38% (+or-) of men are raising kids that are not biologically theirs.

What's going on is that you have women who have one night stands with the neighborhood player and then go home to their boyfriends/husbands and get them to unknowingly raise the kid(s). I have seen on female forms where some women say they want a kid by such and such guy but they want another guy to raise it. And mind you, this has been going on for 1000's of years and it's only recent that men can scientifically confirm the child is really theirs.

I knew of one such guy that I met 5 years ago who found out after 18 years of child support payments that his daughter was not biologically his. He told me his wife admitted it to him when they were going though a nasty divorce.