Jul 272009
 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot asked me:


I understand why you think the best way to live in this world is MGHOW, but I am curious about how you picture a perfect world. How would women behave? What would be the roles of men and women? Would government intervene in or regulate what women are allowed to do? I would love to see a post from you regarding this.


All right, but this has the caveat the perfect world will never exist.

The short answer is that women would act in such a way that they supported civilization not attacking and threatening civilization like they do now. Women’s behavior isn’t just outrageous or noxious. It threatens to destroy what has been built by men over the last 6000 years. Even being neutral so that women didn’t advance but didn’t threaten civilization would be an improvement.

I’m not really that concerned about what the roles of women should be. The reason why their roles were controlled by culture/society was because it was understood the damage that they could do to civilization. However, as we see now that isn’t sustainable. Think about how many centuries of civilizational advancement were lost because women destroyed various historical civilizations.

Similarly, government regulation of women doesn’t matter to me that much either for the same reason. It could possibly work, but it isn’t sustainable either (besides having its own problems). Civilization is made up of people and when 50% are effectively against civilization the rest are constantly going to be involved in a rear guard action to keep civilization from collapsing. This is much of the history of the last 6000 years.

Barring any real options to get women to stop trying to destroy civilization (since the perfect world doesn’t exist), we have to take away their power to do so. That’s where technology comes in. Through technology we can remove women’s power to destroy civilization. Women can go back to the caves if they so wish and the rest of us can continue to develop civilization unimpeded. This also means the use of idea of MGTOW to protect ourselves from women.

  7 Responses to “The Perfect World”

  1. Civs are built, they prosper, and they decline and are destroyed by outsiders. It's part of the normal cycle. And yes women are a big part of bringing them down. Hopefully the next group that takes over will learn from our mistakes.

  2. But what if another civilization doesn't take its place? We haven't had that happen yet, but it could. This is why I say this is about fighting for civilization, not any particular civilization.

  3. I think you are missing a key point: Men built civilization for our women and children. Men would be the happiest going back to hunting every day and hanging out friends and screwing around the rest of the time. That's our natural state. We broke our backs in the field and killed ourselves with stress climbing the ladders of power for our women and kids, not for ourselves.

    Women are men's motivation for doing the great things we have done. Without that drive why would we waste the energy on it? Yes women try to bring it down, but not due willful malice. They are often too shortsighted to see the destructiveness of their actions. Few women have the sense of the consequences to the larger group of their actions. Men build systems that work for the long term. Unless they are restrained women build systems only for the short and will break down longer running systems in favor of the short.

  4. They are often too shortsighted to see the destructiveness of their actions. Few women have the sense of the consequences to the larger group of their actions.
    I would have to agree, as my desire for "security" certainly has the potential, if I am not cautious, to compel me not to look as far into the future as I need to. Seeing as security requires a lack of innovation and thus change, systems and solutions for social problems would tend to stagnate and not flourish as they would if being undertaken by those who are less fearful of risk taking.

    This desire for security is likely why women tend to have more liberal political leanings than do men. My husband and I both have strong libertarian leanings, but I can tend to see the "value" in handout gov programs that my husband (or my father, grandfather, FIL, or probably you yourself ;o)) would not see, as you'd see through the short term benefit of "security" and instead appreciate a solution that would provide benefits long term. Think of the "teach a man to fish" proverb.

    This reality is among the reasons why I have personally questioned the wisdom of universal suffrage as we have now (along with men having the *right* vote and the *responsibility* of conscription, whereas women have the right sans the responsibility). As Benjamin Franklin said, we have a "“A Republic, if you can keep it” and sometimes it seems our voting system might be a grave threat to keeping the republic…or getting it back as the case may be currently.

  5. May I add the desire for security is among the numerous reasons why my parents have always said that women, from the time they are young girls, need to be taught how to better handle their feelings and emotions, to make better choices in their personal lives and in the public sphere, when they reach the age to do so. If I know I have leanings toward being overtly emotional or irrational, I can then acknowledge the fact that I need to step back, cool down, and think something through before I make a decision, open my big mouth, and so forth. Or even have the humility to admit that perhaps x or y isn't something I should be doing anyway. ;o)

    My Dad was strict when it came to my sister and I expressing our "feeeelings" when we were young, forcing us to apply reason and rational thinking to choices & in hindsight when we were attempting to understanding something. There were even a few occasions in which my punishment was writing a paper about why a choice I made was wrong, reasons that had to be beyond "because my parents said not to" but rather taking the time to reason out why my parents had the rule I broke to begin with. He has stated on numerous occasions that he believes many women my age were never taught these important lessons because either they were treated liked princesses or they likely did not have a father in their lives full time, or at all, to provide the important balance necessary to raise children of both sexes into the best adults they can be. If one contemplates the reality not only of the two parent household that was more plentiful in ages past, but also the survival skills and hard work that life required even from children, there wasn't as much time for "feeelings" to take over and run amok as there are today.

  6. Interesting thoughts, Amy.

    It kind of relates to something Carol Gilligan has said in her infamous book "In a Different Voice". She basically argued (with mostly anecdotal evidence) that women innately tend to reason, in moral terms, based on context and relationship, rather than hard-and-fast rules, whereas men are the opposite. Her goal was to criticize some other psych studies which had pointed out that women seemed less apt to consistently enforce hard-and-fast moral rules in a wide variety of situations than men are. Her point was that women are different in this respect, and of course she was advocating either that the female approach was equal to or (as I read her) superior to what I think she considered the "blunt" tool of objective rules.

    I wonder if Gilligan is simply the academic reflection of what you've written here. Namely, I wonder whether what she describes in her book is another manifestation of perhaps an innate wiring that encourages women to think more in terms of relationships, context and so on — which is more security-oriented and shorter in term, generally — than abstract rules, which are less security oriented and more long-term in perspective.

    Regardless of whether what Gilligan said is correct about women, I do think women are *capable* of learning and applying abstract rules. There are many capable women lawyers who do just that very well. But I wonder if the same reasoning is easy for them to apply in their personal lives as well.

  7. Men did not create civilization for women. It was created for survival (as in being able to avoid getting eaten by sabertooth tigers), to get access to women (not for women), and to have children survive (not for children).

    Men have many reasons for doing things, money, power, altruism, it feels good, etc. What we are seeing now is evidence of how women are holding men back. Women aren't responsible for men advancing civilization.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this:
Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys