~ archived since 2018 ~

Ironic Enough

JustinSimens

June 11, 2020

93 upvotes

/r/MGTOW2

https://i.redd.it/klzjg5nnv8451.jpg

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Ironic Enough
Author	JustinSimens
Upvotes	93
Comments	11
Date	June 11, 2020 8:50 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW2
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW2/comments/h0vgyp/ironic_enough/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW2/ironic-enough.807760 https://theredarchive.com/post/807760

Comments

[–]CuriousIncel2 11 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]retal1ator 4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]birdperson_c137 15 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]retal1ator 4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women obviously have the baseline advantage of carrying eggs, but men in society do have a value just because they are men. And it's because men are capable of doing things women simply can't. Without men and their skills society would fucking collapse and women would eventually die.

What you are describing is that fact that women generally are considered valuable by default (and will almost always do okay), while men need to prove themselves therefore some men end up failing more than the average woman and some end up being considered more valuable than the average woman. Science supports this as men have more variance than women in terms of skills, proficiency, social status, etc...

The single man has to scale the social ladder if he wants to gain a good position, but men as a group do definitely have an intrinsic value. Manhood has value. The post refers to manhood and therefore I disagree that manhood has no value intrinsically.

But it's true men have to prove themselves more if they want to bang bang.

[–]birdperson_c137 5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

men in society do have a value just because they are men. And it's because men are capable of doing things women simply can't. Without men and their skills society would fucking collapse and women would eventually die

The entire point of men is to kill yourself trough scaling the hierarchy so optimal male would protect the woman.

Imagine thinking your "intrinsic value" is to be an evolutionary dead end and to die so some guy "can scale the ladder". And that is all driven by necessity of his positioning to acquire pussy.

"intrinsic value" my ass lmao

Consider this. Let's asume you're 22, average looking male. We don't know about your personality, success, etc. Both you and your 22 yo looksmatch are stranded on a piece of debris following the Titanic incident. There's only enough space for one of you to float away.

Now ask people which one of these people are disposable and should suffocate in order for another to survive. 99 percent will say kill the penised individual. It's because it's the point of the penis to die. Scaling the hierarchy (ie. dying) for the benefit of woman is literally your job description. Woman should be saved due to her intrinsic value, which you do not have at all.

See? Intrinsic value and performative value are completely different concepts. Had a man been Elon Musk or someone who actually feeds thousands of women that makes a difference. But thats performative. In just intrinsic judgements, man are just not designed to win the contest. The point is to create contests between themselves which secure the value for the winners.

[–]Yami-no-Kami 4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Talking about value and being disposable.

When I was a child, I was at a facility, that specialized itself in keeping endangered, native species alive and avoiding their potential extinction. We had a guide showing us around and he explained quite a few things about their job. One thing he said was, that male individuals are more disposable in the eyes of nature, than female ones. If a male one dies, it isn't such a drama for the species since there'll always be another male to impregnate the females (as long as said species isn't too endangered or about to be extinct). But if a female dies it's more critical, because then a whole new generation including their offsprings have no chance to ever exist and keeping the species on this planet.

So I think it makes sense to have instincts, that prioritize the life and well-being of female individuals.

But in our modern society with all of its advantages you could definitely ask yourself if they're still needed. After all, women can get jobs as well and survive on their own without the help of a man and vice-versa. The only thing that women would need from a man is a strong body to do things that they're usually too weak for. And of course women would still have the "burden" of reproduction and taking care of their children. But with enough money from the state they can stay at home for 1-2 years and then return to work.

[–]retal1ator 1 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]birdperson_c1373 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I were stranded on a life boat and I knew only one could be eventually saved, I would make sure I am the only one left when people come to the rescue. And being a strong man, I am positive I would have more chances than a woman.

Performative value.

You strangling a foid so you'd be the one out doesn't have much to do with intrinsic value assigned. If anything it proves my point, you'd have to eliminate the woman by any means necessary if you don't wanna get second grade citizen treatment.

I purposefully created a scenario where the intrinsic value is showing. Defined as non-performative value of subject by the society; the example is perfect: I asked you how many of people in a sample (eg. 10k) would save a woman over you without any insight into personality/background/success et cetera. Many would choose the woman because scenario is crafted in a way that only intrinsic value matters, you have no other variables.

Your idea that men need to scale the social ladder otherwise they won't reproduce is correct, but that doesn't dispute that men do have collectively an intrinsic value.

Again trouble with the terms. The intrinsic value is assigned by virtue of existing, and men collectively have none. Men have value by performing, and that's a value yes, but it's not intrinsic. It's awarded to the contest winnner.

Without men you have no inventions, no civilization, no order.

Again, performative. The males collective performative value pitted against each other creates the 'Eureka spark'; the invention, the order out of chaos or however you wanna frame it. The performance being key contest in acquiring the interest of a woman, who posses the intrinsic value.

I am merely saying men are not worthless by default

Depending on the default you choose. In the evolutionary sense, they are. Men are born worthless, and pitted in a quest to prove their worth. Women are born with value, and their quest is to secure a highest status male. This was and is true for a vast time periods. Inventions, order and everything else is just the side product of men competing for pussy. Or being a solitary monks and philosophers considered lunatics by most, but still managing to survive. Also the variability of iq and the individuality curves being much more flat for males also help create offbeats.

It's only the Christian default which was yesterday by evolutionary standards that changed that dichotomy.

It's not supposed to be true though, it's supposed to be a good building block for society. The Christian view benefits the communities like states etc. because of high variability in existing hierarchical structures, therefore adopting a view which assigns everyone intrinsic value yet pushes for self actualization and performance for both sexes seems like the most stable way to frame culture on. It doesn't make it physiologically true though, just practically true.

perhaps society nowadays thinks so because men's role has been replaced by safe daddy gov.

Sure, socialism and welfare policies have their fault in this, but I'd say the issue runs couple of stories deeper on evolutionary and metaphysical level, not necessarily on the political and economical plane where the ramifications are usually felt.

Sorry if I went too philosophical on ya.

[–]retal1ator1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdperson_c1371 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]F3daykin 2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link