Jump to content

Incels:


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Toth said:

Well, he did say that in his correction, sure, but I wanted to express that he's just vaguely implying things without making it clear what it means and how it solve the issue. And how it can solve the issue in the first place. If I am absolutely charitable then I interpret it as saying that we should all shame women for changing their partners. And then what? How does that solve anything? At all? It is just a sophisticated way of saying "Dating sucks, we should abolish dating. Then women have no choice but to appreciate me." Once again: And then what? The only thing I can think of is arranged marriages, having your parents decide your partner so that you don't have to get off your ass. With all the drawbacks that comes with it.

I get the point you're making, and respectfully disagree. I don't think Peterson's statements could or should be read as encouragement of women-shaming or or forcing arranged marriages, especially not it their intent. We can agree to disagree here.
 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

Okay, then let me take a shot at it: I do agree that society and media has quite a factor in it, but only in terms of raising false expectations of how life works. And I think it has a lot to do with the mindset of people being stuck in the 60s till 80 and that's important. Just look at this chart: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/young-adults-moving-from-parents-age-data-2-5d948d0906396__700.jpg

...

This truly is an fascinating topic to ponder, and I thank you for sharing your perspective. I admittedly know little about impact of post-WWII western economic boom (grew up in different culture) on generations of young men and would be interested in hearing about it (and learning a lot in the process).

I do however suspect you're erring on a side of attributing too much value on media's and culture's influence on this particular phenomenon. The core of the issue is, IMO, men's natural desire for stuff like love, romance or sex. Some men don't have any and become frustrated, and with certain percentage of those this frustration turns to toxicity and anger. That's widespread - universal even - and it applies to all societies regardless whether your grew up in baby boom culture or somewhere completely different. Add to the mix (which you reference in last paragraph) that globalization and social media make it easier for such individuals to connect across the globe - and you've got the basis for the problematics of "incels" which we witness nowdays. Lonely and toxic men around the world converged into lonely and toxic subculture shielded inside its own bubble.

I'll note that there's something I find quite appealing in your rhetoric and mindset - wand that is general emphasis of individual rather than societal change. What incels expect is generally no different than what many other groups expect: for society to conform to their ideas of what should or shouldn't be - and then getting furious when society doesn't conform; all the while not realizing how delusional this entire line of thinking is. "and decided to scream bloody murder at society for not conforming to it" - as you put it.

@Heartofice

While I can't be sure, what I think Varysblackfyre is asking is following: in Peterson's view, what exactly constitutes "enforced monogamy"? If a society were to embrace it, what sets of ideas, norms and policies should it adopt? Like you, I don't think it does or should encompass stuff like arranged marriages or forbidding divorce - but it does leave the question of what does it encompass? I'm not sure if I saw definite answer to that, from Peterson or anyone else.
 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I do think society could have more empathesis on the idea that you’re not less than if you don’t have romantic partner. It doesn’t mean your bad, or worthless. If you never find someone to spend your life with in such a way, and that’s okay.

Societal change of such a grand scale is impossible, at least in a short term. And even if it were possible, it would solve exactly 0% of this particular problem. The root cause of incels' bitterness and frustration is their own inability to be sexually attractive to women - and that wouldn't change even if if everyone around them would start patting them on the back assuring them that everything is just fine. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:


@Heartofice

While I can't be sure, what I think Varysblackfyre is asking is following: in Peterson's view, what exactly constitutes "enforced monogamy"? If a society were to embrace it, what sets of ideas, norms and policies should it adopt? Like you, I don't think it does or should encompass stuff like arranged marriages or forbidding divorce - but it does leave the question of what does it encompass? I'm not sure if I saw definite answer to that, from Peterson or anyone else.
 

Well firstly, from what I've read and seen of Peterson on this topic, I don't think he is suggesting it as a solution. He is not saying we should enforce monogamy on society. What he has said is that Monogamy has been a solution to an age old problem of what to do with young sexually frustrated men, because that can really destabilise things if sexual capital is in the hands of a small number of men , in much the same way that we get more unstable when small numbers hold all the wealth. 

So he isn't suggesting it. From what I can tell he is saying that monogamy being encouraged over some sexual free for all would lead to better outcomes. As I mentioned, on the whole we do have quite a lot of elements of enforced monogamy in our society already. Cheating is discouraged, we vilify adultery, we value long term relationships. That is really it. You could say we've moved away from it by making divorce much easier and encouraged couples to quit relationships when they could continue to work on it. 

In general Peterson tends to point out that societies changes have created a number of problems that we just aren't obviously aware of, and when he tries to point that out there is a backlash against him because he gets Cathy Newman'd (so what you are really say is...)

Just for the record, I am not a big fan of his, I didn't like his book, I think the way he talks is frustratingly careful and vague (usually because he is fed up of being misrepresented) and his religiousness I find offputting. I don't however believe him to be some enormous sexist or the devil incarnate as many of those in the media would have you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m in a monogamous relationship.  I have been in it for 20 years 18 of which we’ve been married.  

If others want to be “polyamorous” who the hell am I to shame them or say they’re making the wrong choice for themselves?  

The choice of how to engage in sexual relationships is no ones business but the consenting adults engaging in those relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m in a monogamous relationship.  I have been in it for 20 years 18 of which we’ve been married.  

If others want to be “polyamorous” who the hell am I to shame them or say they’re making the wrong choice for themselves?  

The choice of how to engage in sexual relationships is no ones business but the consenting adults engaging in those relationships.

Not sure how this relates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Not sure how this relates?

If Peterson is claiming we should use social pressure to shame those who do not choose monogamy, he’s wrong.  Other people’s choice of sexual partners, so long as those partners are consenting adults, is no one else’s business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

First question, do you understand what is meant by enforced monogamy in Petersons context? It doesn't appear you understand it any more than someone talking about arranged marriages?

Can you read?
I’ve literally and repeatedly said I do not believe he was referring to arranged marriages when he waxed poetically about enforced monogamy.

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again arranged marriages least ones where the men of women’s family are the ones to legally decide her husband probably aren’t the expressed goal.

 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Am I saying he wants government issue every man a bride?

No.

Am I saying he literally wants arranged marriage brought back?

Not especially.

 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He is not insisting government issue incels girlfriends.

Or Literal arranged marriage.

Agreed.

 

How clearer do I have to be that I know he’s not referring to literal arranged marriage?

And that there are plenty of horrible shit that has been used to ”enforce monogamy.” besides that?

Ex.Slut shaming, shaming women for not marrying young, allowing for workplace sexism in terms of hiring, wages, promotions.

Do you understand these are ways monogamy had been ”enforced” in the past?

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Really pretty much everything you have written, as usual is a bizarre meaningless tangent that doesn't really have any relation to what Peterson has said or what is being discussed. It's just some strange strawman world.  Thats why I constantly find your posts so confusing. I could go through sentence by sentence everything you've said that is largely irrelevant but it would be utterly time consuming.

Huh. Disagree on most except on the part on you being confused on something.

I can always believe that.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

This is probably the only thing you've said in 2 pages worth responding to. I do agree that as a society we shouldn't try to punish those who are alone.

I've said this multiple times in this thread.
Sometimes to you.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Or as you suggested up thread, maybe they should just be happy wanking into a sock or spending all their money on prostitutes? Does anyone seriously believe anyone who does that is happy?

Oh to the bolded to be happy?

Not for everyone. To relieve sexual frustration?

Yep.
To be happy? Not devaluing yourself as lower for not getting a girlfriend can certainly help with that.

Or at least the physical stimulation from another sexually frustrated male in a similar plight can help.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

They will still see other women in real life, and see that other men don't have to resort to wanking themselves dry, and are able to pretty much sleep with any woman they want, and it drives some men crazy. That doesn't really appear to be a solution either.

To the bolded eh.
Yes there will always be some sad men who want a wife to reaffirm their masculinity, or in hopes of them getting praised.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

However, at the same time I don't think that is really what is happening. Young frustrated men aren't frustrated because society tells them they should be getting laid... they are frustrated because they are young males with young male hormones and they really really want to get laid and be loved by women. That isn't going to just go away because society tries to banish "Toxic Masculinity". It's part of being a young male.

And here’s the problem with Peterson and his misogynistic asshole fanboys. They push Gender traditionalism forth as a solution for a problem it fuels.

Young males frustration is compounded by society telling them they are a loser for not getting a woman.

And yes trying to do away with toxic-masculinity will help, and something people who are actually concerned with men’s wellbeing should strive for.

The happiest places on earth tend to be the most gender egalitarian. They're not the most socially conservative even in regards to Europe.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Well firstly, from what I've read and seen of Peterson on this topic, I don't think he is suggesting it as a solution. He is not saying we should enforce monogamy on society. What he has said is that Monogamy has been a solution to an age old problem of what to do with young sexually frustrated men, because that can really destabilise things if sexual capital is in the hands of a small number of men , in much the same way that we get more unstable when small numbers hold all the wealth. 

To the first bolded Please stop misinterpreting Peterson’s words to fit your PC head canon 

To the second that comes with women less as human beings and more prizes to be won.

We as society should try to clamp down on such thinking.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Just for the record, I am not a big fan of his, I didn't like his book, I think the way he talks is frustratingly careful and vague (usually because he is fed up of being misrepresented) and his religiousness I find offputting. I don't however believe him to be some enormous sexist or the devil incarnate as many of those in the media would have you believe.

 ”He speaks so carefully and vaguely, because everyone’s out to get him saying something rational!”

Not really, no.

He speaks vaguely because he and the misogynistic assholes who like him can cry ”You’re misinterpreting me/him!” when he does get blowback for the actual content of his words.

When he gives specifics it often just confirms the bigoted trek he was criticized for was terrible and deserved criticism.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So he isn't suggesting it. From what I can tell he is saying that monogamy being encouraged over some sexual free for all would lead to better outcomes. As I mentioned, on the whole we do have quite a lot of elements of enforced monogamy in our society already. Cheating is discouraged, we vilify adultery, we value long term relationships.

You could say we've moved away from it by making divorce much easier and encouraged couples to quit relationships when they could continue to work on it. 

 I can tell you’re trying desperately to repackage Peterson’s words to sound less horrendous while the actual content isn't really changed.

He's not advocating for enforced monogamy.

Just saying saying society should push it as  as opposed to just allowing people(especially femoids), to have multiple sexual partners with no drawback.

Cheating is clearly still stigmatized(though those things can happen in polygamous relationships), so what else can be used that won't be terrible.

Give specifics.

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Societal change of such a grand scale is impossible, at least in a short term. And even if it were possible, it would solve exactly 0% of this particular problem. The root cause of incels' bitterness and frustration is their own inability to be sexually attractive to women - and that wouldn't change even if if everyone around them would start patting them on the back assuring them that everything is just fine. 

I wasn't suggesting an overnight fix.

But it would help it.

The root cause of incels bitterness and frustration is compounded with society saying you're a loser if you’re a guy and a virgin because sexual conquest is seen as a way to measure true manhood.

Truth be told, some of them will not find a long-term romantic relationships with women in a manner they find timely.

Even if they're clean, or ”nice”.

And that's okay.

 

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Hes not. 

He is. Stop misinterpreting him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Hes not. 

He is. ‘social enforcement’ sounds like peer pressure at best and ‘slut shaming’ at worst. He’s basically saying ‘this (monogamy) should be the norm’. 
the collory of that is that anything else is abnormal. Or weird. And people who are ‘weird’ get ostracised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Can you read?
I’ve literally and repeatedly said I do not believe he was referring to arranged marriages when he waxed poetically about enforced monogamy.

Irony of you writing that without actually reading the sentence you quoted closely.:D
My point is your awareness of what Peterson means by Enforced Monogamy seems pretty low, close to zero going by what you have written. You are making a bunch of assumptions which are no closer to the truth than the posters who talked about arranged marriage. 

So are we clear that actually you don't know what he is talking about, you are just taking a literal interpretation based on your own ignorant understanding?

 

Quote

 I can tell you’re trying desperately to repackage Peterson’s words to sound less horrendous while the actual content isn't really changed.

He's not advocating for enforced monogamy.

No I'm just going by what he has said elsewhere on the topic, where he clarified his opinion outside of the horrendous editing of the NY Times article. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Irony of you writing that without actually reading the sentence you quoted closely.:D
My point is your awareness of what Peterson means by Enforced Monogamy seems pretty low, close to zero going by what you have written. You are making a bunch of assumptions which are no closer to the truth than the posters who talked about arranged marriage. 

What have I listed that cannot be looked as having been a tool to enforce monogamy?

Please make a case for how Slut-shaming, sexism in the workforce, shaming women for not marrying young, haven't been used in ”enforcing monogamy” in many societies to make women settle for any semi-functional man that would have them?

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No I'm just going by what he has said elsewhere on the topic, where he clarified his opinion outside of the horrendous editing of the NY Times article. 
 

Nah. 

You're just trying to play apologetics for a man called a bigot by evil twitter sock justice warriors again 

Now I'm not saying he's wrong and a terrible person. I'm just saying he's not right and not not-terrible person. See I'm trying to be all vague and cute Peterson and his fanboys are.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Please make a case for how Slut-shaming, sexism in the workforce, shaming women for not marrying young, haven't been used in ”enforcing monogamy” in many societies to make women settle for any semi-functional man that would have them?

Why would I?

 

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

evil twitter sock justice warriors again 

At least your right once in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only social -- and LEGAL -- enforcement of monogamy is for WOMEN.  Punishing women is how it is done.  There is nothing else to say about 'enforced monogamy'.

Within enforced monogamy, social and legal, they are forced into being literally punching bags for these violent self-hating men, and so do the children.  Criminalized reproductive medical care and pharmaceuticals is part of the LEGAL enforcement, so the children are also punching bags for these guys.  Married or not, they are violent.  But certainly make women carry all the blame and at the same time be the redemptors for them.  Gods you can't get more incoherently 19th century sentimental genre fiction than that!  The love of a good woman changes a man.  No it does not.  A man of this sort kills the good woman and the 19th century was filled with those kinds of prolonged murders -- and then he marries another one.  For men in enforced monogamy it is also serial monogamy.

There cannot be enforced social monogamy without legal enforcement of various kinds.

No more than there can be slavery without the legal recourse to the lash and even murder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O ya, let's talk classic engagement with the text!  :whip::read::P

The problem is of course women's problem to fix and go away no matter what it does to them.  Fer pete's sake in the good days of 'socially' :P enforced monogamy (only for women of course -- look how often right in this thread even 'prostitutes' have been invoked as a solution --  and it wasn't male prostitutes that were meant and nobody seems to even consider how much male violence is committed upon sex workers), (white) men always were able to violently, coercively get sex from Black women (yes, blahblahblah, Black men raped and beat Black women too Blahblahblah -- it is still infuriated and outraged men committing violence sexual and otherwise on women).  But now Black women, like women from all other groups are stronger, more powerful, more autonomous and can even LEGALLY fight back in courts against white men raping and beating them.  Course if one is a cop and kills a Black woman chances are still that this frustrated, outraged, self-hating man has done so without punishment of any kind.

But it really does still infuriate and frustrate men of every kind that women are getting -- uppity -- and self-hating men can't bear it that all around him are satisfied, hard-working, intelligent, achieving women who don't give a shyte what he thinks about himself.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

What in the actual fuck did I just walk into?

Dontcha know? You have a genetic dependency on estrogen-influenced animals to keep you from murdering everything you see.

Please enforce a monogamous relationship on me so that you and I will both be safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...