Incel and Lonely Men Debate thread - Defend men giving up or tell them otherwise

[Scipio Americanus]

Your line of thinking is absurd on a fundamental level, because men and women aren't competing for the same position. Any guy who believes women have it "easier", women are probably right to avoid because it suggests some pretty troubling things about how he sees relationships and his role and obligations within them.

When I said that, I meant it in the context of the dating market. Further down, I say:

I think the big picture balance between male advantages and female advantages was fairly even until recently, and it's now tilted towards women.

I should clarify it isn't a major tilt, but the fact of the matter is that men are still expected to retain the positive qualities of their masculinity while getting rid of their negative ones. Men and women have achieved effective parity in terms of pay, but a lot of women still expect the man to bear the financial burden of the relationship. Shouldn't these kinds of expectations die off in a society where men and women are equal? Why is it that we elevate femininity and pick and choose the bits we like of masculinity and discard everything else as toxic?

I don't mean to sound petty, nor do I want to get into a detailed debate about the advantages of men and women. I don't care. I accept my place in society and what I have to do. All I'm saying is that I understand why men get frustrated by the place women occupy in the dating market.

I don't see why this line of thinking is absurd. It applies on a fundamental, natural level. Males in most species have to compete with other males to earn the right to mate with a female. Humans are animals too, and much of our core animal programming hasn't changed, its just adapted to civilized life.

You're right, they don't have the traits and value...so why are they trying to pursue these relationships? What are they exchanging with the woman in question? In fact, what the fuck is even the point?
They aren't established enough to start a family, they can't provide security since they aren't confident/socially graceful, they aren't socially connected, they aren't strong or streetwise, and aren't economically well off; if you have nothing to give each other, why are you even wasting each others' time?

If we were to actually tally it all up, I don't think your argument works, either. Our primitive male monkey brains place far too much value on a woman's physical traits. A lot of it comes down to genetics, some of it is work. A woman's value derives from her genetics much more so than a man's. It's not like we chose who we were born to. Is this something we should just ignore in the day in age when everyone is obsessed with talking about oppression and social justice? Where's the social justice in that?

I'm of the opinion that we either shut up about social justice or we apply it equally. I'm fine with either course of action, but I think its foolish to think that everything is being handled justly.

These incels want to fulfill a male role in a relationship, where a woman gives herself over to him, without fulfilling any male obligations.

This is precisely why I think the incel movement is very stupid and many men within it are delusional, egotistical clowns who spend all day wallowing in their self pity. They don't even come close to meeting their own standards.

 

[Groon]

Whats bother me in incel worldview is this thought that women have a easier time to find a partner.

Fuck, male-female ratio is 1:1. Since I don't saw too much polycules around, surely for each incel there are one loner bitter cat lady.

 

[Land of Noz]

Whats bother me in incel worldview is this thought that women have a easier time to find a partner.

Fuck, male-female ratio is 1:1. Since I don't saw too much polycules around, surely for each incel there are one loner bitter cat lady.

More Men Than Women Are Now Single. It's Not a Good Sign

Almost a third of adult single men live with a parent

time.com

It's an official statistic that there are more single men than there are single women. The official explanation is there are more women in lesbian relationships or something but I definitely think there's a lot of polyamory that is hidden. Being polyamorous today is basically like being gay in the 90s. It's largely tolerated but still not mainstream and most people think it's pretty weird

 

[YourFriendlyLurker]

It's an official statistic that there are more single men than there are single women. The official explanation is there are more women in lesbian relationships or something but I definitely think there's a lot of polyamory that is hidden

In my student years, we studied demography and our professor explained that the number of boys born is always more than a number of girls, because men are designed to supply food, risk, go to war, etc. The nature kinda knows that more boys are gonna die and that appears to be true almost in all countries regardless of what they are (I heard once that Aphghan was exception but perhaps it's only bullshit). Hence if we look at the bertween young single men and young single women, there will be more "incels" than "femcels". With time the ratio changes visa-versa as more men die and in old age there are more single women that single men. The article though mentiins ppl up to 54 which is not so young, however in the US an average men is expected to live to 75, so 54 is rather "young". I don't think that lesbians or poly-shit is the only asnwer, it's also that our world became safer and less men die young.

Spoiler: PL

In Russia it is especially evident because here having a granddad is a rare case while many have grandmas. Each year more boys and than girls are born, but the male mortality is so high that expected age of a man is around 60.

 

[awoo]

In my student years, we studied demography and our professor explained that the number of boys born is always more than a number of girls, because men are designed to supply food, risk, go to war, etc. The nature kinda knows that more boys are gonna die and that appears to be true almost in all countries regardless of what they are (I heard once that Aphghan was exception but perhaps it's only bullshit). Hence if we look at the bertween young single men and young single women, there will be more "incels" than "femcels". With time the ratio changes visa-versa as more men die and in old age there are more single women that single men. The article though mentiins ppl up to 54 which is not so young, however in the US an average men is expected to live to 75, so 54 is rather "young". I don't think that lesbians or poly-shit is the only asnwer, it's also that our world became safer and less men die young.

Spoiler: PL

In Russia it is especially evident because here having a granddad is a rare case while many have grandmas. Each year more boys and than girls are born, but the male mortality is so high that expected age of a man is around 60.

Like you said in your spoiler your numbers are from a nation with an unusually low male life expectancy. Most nations (except for weird ones like China gov policy and wartorn nations) have almost exactly equal number of men and women.

 

[Groon]

More Men Than Women Are Now Single. It's Not a Good Sign

Almost a third of adult single men live with a parent

time.com

It's an official statistic that there are more single men than there are single women. The official explanation is there are more women in lesbian relationships or something but I definitely think there's a lot of polyamory that is hidden. Being polyamorous today is basically like being gay in the 90s. It's largely tolerated but still not mainstream and most people think it's pretty weird

I know there are several wealthy men who have an official wife and keep one or more side chicks, but I bet there aren't so many of them enough to blast statistics.

My take is immigration. Developed countries faces massive waves of young, poor, mostly male immigrants who are barely recognizable as human beings by native females, what could lead to imbalances in dating pool.

And, of course, we must take into account what exactly women understand by being in a relationship. Women often engage in sex with some Chad in a steadily way and thinks that something meaningful is going on, but from the Chad point of view, they are just “friends with benefits”.

 

[Puff]

Whats bother me in incel worldview is this thought that women have a easier time to find a partner.

Fuck, male-female ratio is 1:1. Since I don't saw too much polycules around, surely for each incel there are one loner bitter cat lady.

People don't pair off one to one and leave the market anymore. People date or just fuck. We have traditions and cultural standards to try and keep the available ratio even, but those have been dying since the 60's.
The real problem is starting to rear it's head with the mass shooters. In polygamous societies you get a LOT of violence by the less desirable young men. The traditional way to deal with restless young men is to constantly send them to war to die (a great way to run a country, really, if you're only concerned with economics and genetics... send the bottom 20-40% of men to die and the top half get all the mates) but we're doing nothing of the sort being civilized and whatnot.

 

[Little oak tree]

send the bottom 20-40% of men to die and the top half get all the mates)

it's very concerning people as stupid as you roam around freely

 

[Puff]

it's very concerning people as stupid as you roam around freely

What's wrong? Plenty of societies ran like that for centuries. I didn't say it was good.

 

[Little oak tree]

Look up dating site statistics, faggot. Or at least tell me what you thing is wrong.

If being on the bottom percent means being poor, then yeah, we send the bottom percent of the males to die in pointless wars

 

[Puff]

If being on the bottom percent means being poor, then yeah, we send the bottom percent of the males to die in pointless wars

I edited before you replied (or the refresh anyway) I didn't read your reply correctly so I was changing up my response.
We really don't anymore. Our mortality rate in our wars are fuck-all in the USA.

 

[Little oak tree]

We really don't anymore. Our mortality rate in our wars are fuck-all in the USA.

The traditional way to deal with restless young men is to constantly send them to war to die (a great way to run a country, really, if you're only concerned with economics and genetics... send the bottom 20-40% of men to die and the top half get all the mates)

very traditional of your part

 

[Puff]

very traditional of your part

You're going to have to be more clear. I'm really not following what your criticism is.

 

[Little oak tree]

You're going to have to be more clear. I'm really not following what your criticism is.

Bro we've never sent people to war because they have dangerous traits haha, people who have to go to war go because they don't have rich parents. Pretty simple.

The traditional way to deal with restless young men is to constantly send them to war to die (a great way to run a country, really, if you're only concerned with economics and genetics... send the bottom 20-40% of men to die and the top half get all the mates)

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

What's wrong? Plenty of societies ran like that for centuries. I didn't say it was good.

Name some.

 

[TypicalSemite]

There is no cure to inceldom because it's a made up problem. No one owes you women.

 

[hellogoodmorning]

Encourage students to talk about their feelings with the school shrink on a regular basis

Unfortunately two things will happen: the role of 'shrink' will become politicized, and any portrayal of genuine loneliness or anger will be interpreted as the potential for a school shooting. Only private shrinks are worth the time, because their incentives lie with you and not your dysfunctional high school.

 

[Puff]

Name some.

All of them before Rome. The entire middle east still.

Bro we've never sent people to war because they have dangerous traits haha, people who have to go to war go because they don't have rich parents. Pretty simple.

Not what I said. Societies have killed off men with wars indiscriminately in the past and it partially solved the imbalance due to polygamy. Being rich is one of the high value traits for marriage too, so it supports my point.

There is no cure to inceldom because it's a made up problem. No one owes you women.

I'm sure that's a good point to the incel activist types, but there's a real problem right now with disaffected young men. You have too many and you get rebellions, historically at least.
There's entitlement in some spheres, but this thread isn't where you'll find it, by and large.

 

[cigint]

The real problem is starting to rear it's head with the mass shooters. In polygamous societies you get a LOT of violence by the less desirable young men. The traditional way to deal with restless young men is to constantly send them to war to die

It's true that large numbers of despondent young men (inceldom being just as good of a trigger as, say, recession and general idleness) can get destabilizing for a society, but sending them to die in wars in the past was really incidental rather than a deliberate move to exterminate them. If they were just becoming a domestic rioting or rebelling movement, the ruler would just send in an army and slaughter them directly. I don't think you were necessarily implying the former, but maybe that's the misunderstanding that was making everyone get all up in arms over your post.

Our weapons are too destructive to have medieval-style low-stakes slow-burn warfare between realms for 100 years. And there are no new frontiers for people who don't "make the cut", whatever that cut is and whoever makes the determination (pick whatever offends your sensibilities least, dear reader), to go off to tame or die in.

The rat paradise is full, now we're just watching the extra males go insane and the females become incapable of caring for their young which will die.

 

[Puff]

It's true that large numbers of despondent young men (inceldom being just as good of a trigger as, say, recession and general idleness) can get destabilizing for a society, but sending them to die in wars in the past was really incidental rather than a deliberate move to exterminate them. If they were just becoming a domestic rioting or rebelling movement, the ruler would just send in an army and slaughter them directly. I don't think you were necessarily implying the former, but maybe that's the misunderstanding that was making everyone get all up in arms over your post.

That's pretty much the gist of it. I might not have been clear, but I wasn't proposing it as a solution, nor saying it was deliberate, just that it was a thing that happened.