Education and Men without Work

@theflyinghorse, Thank you.

To begin, it's not about what they DO, it's about what they'll GET. First, we need to acknowledge that we have a hole to dig ourselves out of, this is a societal issue. The pendulum has swung far into the liberal side, and it was originally for a good purpose. It was to stop taking a shit on the weak. Except the pendulum is now parallel to ground-level, and we're glorifying the weak. Trump was the country's collective middle finger to this phenomenon - the fact that he was even considered.

So the solution here is for us to all step back and stop discussing genders and new ways to play with butt plugs. We need to stop worrying about hurting feelings. Let's get scientific. This change in attitude will at least get us better conservative candidates to keep this train from derailing further. We are in desperate need of societal structure that promotes character strength, grit, perseverance, stoicism - traditional man qualities. For lack of a better resource, we need to more closely adhere to the system that extremely smart people came up with a long time ago, religion, minus the heaven and hell. I don't know how to enforce this system, but I am sure there is a way to have law compensate for the fairy tale.

Secondly, the fact that these men are unmotivated isn't necessarily because they're too dumb to learn productive skills, it's because there's no fucking point. Some of them might get a PHP coding job at some big corp running some internal legacy web app. They'll make $55k a year, but they'll have no marriage prospects, because sitting next to him is another girl making $60k doing an iOS internship.

She DEMANDS a man who is at least equal or more financially capable. He bites. He gets all athletic and he plays nice, takes her out, they get married. Over the next 7 years, her natural tendencies of hypergamy make her feel like she can do better, or that he's not doing ENOUGH. This puts stress on him and the relationship. They get divorced.

He obviously also feels his polygamous drive, but he already had a hard enough time finding the first chick. He feels like he can't act on his desires, but she feels justified that he's simply not enough, she wants more/better, which she can get as a single woman making $60k a year. She thinks she can get a guy who makes 5 mil a year who has time and patience to have an amazing physique. She believes that man will marry her, because of all the love stories on Netflix.

How do you fix this? You tell the woman if you she gets divorced, she can't legally remarry. You tell the man that if he cheats, he's a sex offender, which is basically an extreme of what happens today, but it places a check on men's polygamous tendencies. Restricting a woman's capacity to remarry should place a check on hypergamous tendencies.

I just came up with this in 5 minutes. It's a shitty system. It builds on an already shitty system called marriage. But the point is we can implement laws to take account for these natural tendencies that we've been blatantly ignoring. Other cultures around the world that have existed for tens of thousands of years have words in their lexicon that English can't even translate, like "eeb" in Arabic which roughly means "shame" or other words pertaining to couples' behaviors that literally have no direct translation. Maybe we can learn from them and the US can actually begin its first venture to building real CULTURE with families and stuff!

If you don't want to participate, fine, don't get married. But don't get married unless you fucking mean it, because then you are ruining children when they grow up in broken households and the cycle of broken people continues.

Basically, the question you are asking is not the right one currently, because there are bigger forces at play with regards to society as a whole right now. We need to start with that.

I agree with you, but given the current culture the most likely outcome here is continued grinding hopelessness of men in Western society. Women may fare better briefly for one or two generations by moving into and evicting men from the remaining roles, but within another few generations automation will put both men and women back into the home. However, not as a family unit, but as wards of the state.

> Being useful is very important for mental well-being.

I really think ultimately this is rooted in trying to impose a transactional or "karma bank" nature on things beyond humanity. "If you are good, the world will be nice", but the world/God/what is beyond humanity doesn't obey human rules, because it isn't human. You'll impress other human beings with this mindset, and that's extremely useful and will definitely reduce anxiety if you are among a group of people that recognize that, but if you are dealing with something beyond humanity, it's invalid.

For example, someone gets cancer/murdered, and they/their loved one think(s) they are being punished, or someone knows someone else who has cancer/got murdered/suffered X great loss purely at random, and they try to live a good life thinking on some subconscious level they can avoid it. It's tempting, because no one likes to be scared or out of control, but it's false and doesn't even work.

For companies to swoop in and be allowed or even encouraged to advantage of that--let's soak a third of your precious free time on this planet so you can pay a guilt/fear debt imposed by others out of fear and uncertainity--is terrible.

>> When you tell him "society only needs a small percentage of men."

That looks to be a fairly near quote of something I posted earlier and I want to point out that was not what was said (in case you were quoting that).

Biologically (not socially) we only need a small percentage of men. Which ties in to the rest of what you are saying directly. Men (biologically) have a greater impetus to try to conquer and to take risks because their deaths are inconsequential to the task of propagating the species. We see this all over the animal kingdom and I don't think humans are much different at the end of it all.

> Men generally have the biological need to go do and wander and discover things. I don't know whether it's hormones or what. Debate all you like elsewhere (I'm not trying to debate that point here).

I'd drop biological here. Because it might just as well be a cultural or social cause. The important observation is that men have the need to have adventures and women don't. The rest of your argument stands without needing to assert this is about biology.