Incels:

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

What issues are you claiming that men face (other than not getting the sexual partners they want, because that is not an issue men face. Pretty much all of humanity has wanted to fuck someone they didn’t get to and did not become a red pill MRA or an incel). Your points are exactly parroting a “rational man” video I watched recently which was some guy sitting in an expensive car with some dumb shades spinning the same unsourced facts about hard wiring and how men and women are different (according the the ideology, not scientific study). If you’re going to cite biology, show us the science.

While I do not agree with the premise that women seek men that are paid more than they are, if I did, I would present to you ***THE PAY GAP*** Because women are paid less than men are for the same work at the same experience and skill level, perhaps for a woman to partner her equal in a career she would end up with a man who made more money. Not because women are gold digging or looking for a provider, but the men of eligible age and compatible interests she is most likely to be exposed to will make more than she is- because she is being discriminated against.

I would say that’s a reasonable postulation as a part for many women still marrying up.

That and the realization there’s still an expectation of them either abandoning a career they may like, or sticking with career but having their ambitions curbed to do domestic chores in marriage,

The trend of of women marrying men who make less is going down however. Over thirty percent of marriages do have have women making more than their husbands.

Most women in the US are willing to be with a man who makes less than them.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915005462

Marriage tends to heavily skew in men’s favor in terms of not being expected to do a lot of the domestic chores their wives are expected to do now that they were married.

When heterosexual couples aren’t married, even if their cohabiting, even when they’re engaged women earning more than their male partner doesn’t cause as nearly as much problem for either of them.

[DanteGabriel]

7 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

While I do not agree with the premise that women seek men that are paid more than they are, if I did, I would present to you ***THE PAY GAP*** Because women are paid less than men are for the same work at the same experience and skill level, perhaps for a woman to partner her equal in a career she would end up with a man who made more money. Not because women are gold digging or looking for a provider, but the men of eligible age and compatible interests she is most likely to be exposed to will make more than she is- because she is being discriminated against.

Damn it, how is the wage gap supposed to magically disappear when people keep mentioning it? Complaining about it just riles up the unexamined feelings of the people responsible for such conditions. Society would be much better off if we just patiently rely on the benevolence of the power group to eventually, in the fullness of geological time, share their advantages with the less powerful. At least, that's how HoI says ending racism is supposed to work.

[Week]

The entire discussion, which I believe was mentioned before, is entirely focused on the some existence of cis-hetero folks. Somehow cis-hetero men (speaking as one too) are both the victim here and also the primary antagonist to all other groups of people. We aren't bullied or marginalized by LGBTQIA folks - we do the terrorizing (by a large margin). Perspective, education, and maturity is needed. Not sex. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Damn it, how is the wage gap supposed to magically disappear when people keep mentioning it? Complaining about it just riles up the unexamined feelings of the people responsible for such conditions. Society would be much better off if we just patiently rely on the benevolence of the power group to eventually, in the fullness of geological time, share their advantages with the less powerful. At least, that's how HoI says ending racism is supposed to work.

“Trust the market; it’ll self-correct the wage gap.”

- Moses

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Most women in the US are willing to be with a man who makes less than them.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915005462

Doesn't that article just prove my point? It shows that women have a very strong preference for a man with a steady income, a strong preference for men with high incomes, or potential to make a high income, a strong preference that men should have a good career there was a good number of women who wanted their partner to make at least as much as them.
 

The same doesn't apply to men who are largely more concerned about physical appearance. So a question is, in a much more equal society, why haven't these values changed? Why are men not more interested in a woman's job and why are women still so interested in a mans income and job?

 

23 hours ago, VigoTheCarpathian said:

I do not really see any viable society-based interventions for this, if you are putting it this way.   No one I have seen here is pointing fingers specifically at men and saying “you are at fault” and advocating for mass re-education or something targeted at all men.  And I do not think that “toxic masculinity” is a byline for “all men need to grow up/shut up”.  What it does is articulate a lot of the attitudes held by men and women in society that are causing this angst.

Sure, I don't think there is an obvious solution to it, and my point from the beginning of this thread was that generally Incels are responding to problems and pressures in society that are very real, but they respond to them in very damaging, self defeating ways, and the solutions they talk about to fix their problems are bad ones, mostly entirely backwards. No legit person should be suggesting we go back in time and chain women to cookers. So again, not defending Incels here, my focus is really in finding ways to prevent men getting to the point where fall down that hole.

And sure, it's partly a problem with capitalism, we associate money with virtue in some ways, which is pretty backwards. If we had a new system, men would probably be judged on their social value in some other hierarchical way. 

It might be that as we move away from a worker society and add in more automation, lots more of our values will have to change, because far fewer men will have jobs, and we will need to judge people's social values by different metrics. It hasn't happened yet though, and men are failing in education, are dropping out of the workforce, more are living with their parents into their 30s, more are commiting suicide. So I think it is an issue we need to deal with in some way. 

[Fury Resurrected]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Doesn't that article just prove my point? It shows that women have a very strong preference for a man with a steady income, a strong preference for men with high incomes, or potential to make a high income, a strong preference that men should have a good career there was a good number of women who wanted their partner to make at least as much as them.
 

The same doesn't apply to men who are largely more concerned about physical appearance. So a question is, in a much more equal society, why haven't these values changed? Why are men not more interested in a woman's job and why are women still so interested in a mans income and job?

 

Sure, I don't think there is an obvious solution to it, and my point from the beginning of this thread was that generally Incels are responding to problems and pressures in society that are very real, but they respond to them in very damaging, self defeating ways, and the solutions they talk about to fix their problems are bad ones, mostly entirely backwards. No legit person should be suggesting we go back in time and chain women to cookers. So again, not defending Incels here, my focus is really in finding ways to prevent men getting to the point where fall down that hole.

And sure, it's partly a problem with capitalism, we associate money with virtue in some ways, which is pretty backwards. If we had a new system, men would probably be judged on their social value in some other hierarchical way. 

It might be that as we move away from a worker society and add in more automation, lots more of our values will have to change, because far fewer men will have jobs, and we will need to judge people's social values by different metrics. It hasn't happened yet though, and men are failing in education, are dropping out of the workforce, more are living with their parents into their 30s, more are commiting suicide. So I think it is an issue we need to deal with in some way. 

You still haven’t answered any of my questions to you (or some that others have asked as well). You just keep repeating yourself without anything to back up your claims.

[Fragile Bird]

As this thread is close to ending, I’d just like to update a bit of news about the trial in Toronto of the incel who drove his van up the sidewalk specifically to kill and injure as many women as possible.

His lawyers are trying to bring a twist to the insanity defense (not being mentally capable of understanding the nature and effect of your actions ie that it’s wrong) saying he wasn’t able to judge right from wrong because he has autism. The Crown has led expert witnesses to refute that defense, while his lawyers have trotted out an American professor from Yale‘s School of Medicine’s Law and Psychiatry division, Dr. Alexander Westphalia, to claim it is a valid defense. That defense has rarely been accepted, and I don’t think it’s been successfully argued in Canada.
 

The cases I saw where the defense was accepted involved pretty sad situations. One defendant had to be masked and restrained in a chair during his trial for murdering his mother, because he spat at everyone. Minassian, the Toronto man, is described as a “high functioning” person with autism.

Canadian autism groups are very upset at the defense.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You still haven’t answered any of my questions to you (or some that others have asked as well). You just keep repeating yourself without anything to back up your claims.

Like what?

[DanteGabriel]

23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

As this thread is close to ending, I’d just like to update a bit of news about the trial in Toronto of the incel who drove his van up the sidewalk specifically to kill and injure as many women as people.

His lawyers are trying to bring a twist to the insanity defense (not being mentally capable of understanding the nature and effect of your actions ie that it’s wrong) saying he wasn’t able to judge right from wrong because he has autism. The Crown has led expert witnesses to refute that defense, while his lawyers have trotted out an American professor from Yale‘s School of Medicine’s Law and Psychiatry division, Dr. Alexander Westphalia, to claim it is a valid defense. That defense has rarely been accepted, and I don’t think it’s been successfully argued in Canada.
 

The cases I saw where the defense was accepted involved pretty sad situations. One defendant has to be masked and restrained in a chair during his trial for murdering his mother, because he spat at everyone. Minassian, the Toronto man, is described as a “high functioning” person with autism.

Canadian autism groups are very upset at the defense.

Throwing a whole group of people under the bus to avoid taking responsibility for your actions, yeah, sounds about right for an incel piece of trash.

[Fury Resurrected]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Like what?

Use the scroll up and find out, perhaps?

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Doesn't that article just prove my point?

 

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It shows that women have a very strong preference for a man with a steady income, a strong preference for men with high incomes, or potential to make a high income, a strong preference that men should have a good career there was a good number of women who wanted their partner to make at least as much as them.

To the bolded I wonder if you’re being deliberately vague on this. 
Oh I’m sorry. Of course you are. Because acknowledging 56%-a majority of women-are fine with  being with a man who makes less doesn’t fit the incel-like narrative you’ve trying to craft in these about women, dating, and relationship in general.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So a question is, in a much more equal society, why haven't these values changed? Why are men not more interested in a woman's job and why are women still so interested in a mans income and job?

Perhaps why the values your bemoaning not dropping fast enough—and I know this may seem totally shocking you—we are not as equal of a society as you like to pretend. Thousands of years of patriarchy(yes that dreaded femanazi term) still has large residual effects in how people see the obligations that come with having a romantic relationship with the opposite sex.

Now I just have to ask what is motivating your misandry? I mean over and over again continuously insinuate  that men are beasts that need to dominate a woman in their life to be civilized, or feel self-actualized. It’s So man-hating. 

Is it possible you only bring up the negative ramifications men face due to gender roles placed on them just to  bludgeon those elitist feminists into shutting up about equal rights for women?
I don’t know. I mean based on how you’ve continued to act it’s possible. But I don’t know.

Hey did you see what I did there? I asked loaded questions meant to strongly hint at ideas I believe without explicitly saying my position on them.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Sure, I don't think there is an obvious solution to it, and my point from the beginning of this thread was that generally Incels are responding to problems and pressures in society that are very real,

And just like a nice glove you slip into talking about social pressures motivating the misogynistic behavior and attitudes.

It’s not just nature anymore.
It’s society’s fault pressuring men to conform to certain a masculine ideal.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

but they respond to them in very damaging, self defeating ways, and the solutions they talk about to fix their problems are bad ones, mostly entirely backwards.

Yes we can describe men destroying themselves over angst over not conforming to a masculine ideal as toxic masculinity.

But you don’t like that term. Or actually want to change the traditional social views of what makes a man. 

You-like most virulent anti-feminists-just want to bring these issues up as some gotcha to feminists then accuse them of just wanting to help rich women.

While ignoring all the shit so many feminists have done and said on many of the issues you pretend to care about concerning men.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No legit person should be suggesting we go back in time and chain women to cookers. So again, not defending Incels here, my focus is really in finding ways to prevent men getting to the point where fall down that hole.

The bolded is probably the most reasonable thing you’ve said this entire thread.

No legit person  should or would be suggesting a return to more patriarchal gender norms to fix the problem of incels.

To the other stuff.
You’ve outright defended pretty much all of their of their world-view.

On how it’s unfair that men have to deal with the knowledge of other men having more sexual partners because women getting to choose sleep with.

To arguing for the ludicrous idea of a few good looking men having a monopoly on sex which they use to further commodify women. With a clear disregard for what a monopoly actually is.

I acknowledge you are not an incel.

Just a typical anti-feminist whose social and political views  aren’t significantly different from incels. I get more of a pick up artistry feel from you with the venom you’ve spewed at the prospect of men and boys finding themselves in the tragic that position  of just being a woman’s friend.

And suggestions on self-improvement to obtain a sexual partner, but not really changing any of their views of how women and what relationships mean beyond a point of status for them.

If and probably for a lot when the methods they spent a couple hundred bucks fail to reap success, or gets them in legal trouble they’ll just see themselves as the losers they had already thought themselves as.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It might be that as we move away from a worker society and add in more automation, lots more of our values will have to change, because far fewer men will have jobs, and we will need to judge people's social values by different metrics. .It hasn’t happened though yet.

It has.

Tell me how big a majority of women who’d be with man who’d make less than them in the 1950 would be? 

I would wager around five percent if such questions would even be considered back then, and lower in terms of having a career.

A third of marriages in the US have women as the breadwinner today.

The trend of women willing to be with men of lower economic, educational and social status is It’s going up.

You don’t want to see this change because you don’t actually want this change to happen. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Throwing a whole group of people under the bus to avoid taking responsibility for your actions, yeah, sounds about right for an incel piece of trash.

Yep. Don’t judge this little fascist killer harshly on his vile beliefs that led him to murder people.

His life wasn’t perfect. Autism could be a real struggle.

Sarcasm.

10 hours ago, Week said:

The entire discussion, which I believe was mentioned before, is entirely focused on the some existence of cis-hetero folks. Somehow cis-hetero men (speaking as one too) are both the victim here and also the primary antagonist to all other groups of people. We aren't bullied or marginalized by LGBTQIA folks - we do the terrorizing (by a large margin). Perspective, education, and maturity is needed. Not sex. 

This should be noted.

We don’t hear about nonheterosexual men even when they’re in a environment where society is actively hostile, going out and murdering lots of straights.

Or of feminist men going out and murdering lots of people because he hates the lack of gender equality in society.

Or trans people.

The types people who incels denigrate-which is admittedly everyone, but anyone whose a not a white heterosexual man is denigrated a bit more.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 11/18/2020 at 4:06 AM, Rippounet said:

Maybe I'm speaking for myself here (a bit), but I don't think it's about image or money, but about chores and family life.

Except in some specific cases, earning more money entails more work, which means the partner earning less is also the one who will do more at home, like cooking, cleaning, or taking care of the kids.
While most guys today don't mind sharing such tasks evenly, finding yourself in a situation where you have to do more than than half of those tasks can be a different story. The mere perspective of that happening is enough for many men to run away.
And of course, the worst-case scenario is if this wasn't anticipated, i.e. if the couple did not properly discuss how the household tasks could be unevenly shared/split, and/or if this was not the initial situation/deal.

On some level, the issue isn't even about sex. Women who work a lot don't like having to take care of the household on top of that either. Which is why many females with a demanding career choose not to have kids.
The only difference is that males tend to not really consider the possibility of having to deal with both their career and their kids because their partner has better opportunities/pay (it's still not that common), and that when the perspective appears, they tend to react very poorly. A different way of putting it is that guys seldom realise/understand that their partner can end up working a lot too.
OTOH, if things are clear from the start (i.e. from the beginning it's clear that the female will spend more time at work, and the male will take more time at home), it may work. In fact, some guys are totally ok with that. But again, it's usually when things were clear from the start.

In the long run, as more females become high-earners, the logical consequence is that fertility rates will drop, because males will not develop the nurturing side that females have in the past millenia.
Please note, that doesn't mean that I see females as naturally nurturing (I think much less of it is innate than we tend to believe), just that men will strongly resist the move from patriarchy to matriarchy (obviously, many men are already rejecting equality, which is telling).
And climate change will mean that a drop in fertility rates is a good thing anyway, and our civilization will porbably collapse before we can achieve a matriarchy, so it's all moot really.

You know I thought of this post in reading an article about declining birth rates not being a totally bad thing given the advancements of automation. Which in a couple decades render a lot of professions today as irrelevant.

So the traditional gender roles may not simply be an option for a lot of men who’d rely on those jobs to be the breadwinner of a potential family

Many anti-feminists don’t seem to acknowledge this.

They assume surving off a single-income household is an option for many families, but don’t strive to push government to assist poor families in ways that could make the nuclear family dynamic they so love.

And bash women for not readily adopting it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

I think its’ fair to think that incels by themselves aren't the biggest threats to women's rights in the west at least.

Incels are too explicit and honest about their hatred of women and objectification of them.

It's not enough for many men to secure ownership of a woman. 

They need to have this view of the dynamic ultimately being in the woman’s interest. For them to feel big and strong by protecting their little women from the big bad world—particulary the other men in the world. 

Far-right wing figures and groups in the West often talk about abuse towards women in a particular country(particulary less white ones), in discussions for the need to limit immigration from the countries. They(the white men), are the ”nice guys” protecting women from those ”assholes” at the end of the bar who’d be mean to them. Who don't treat them as equals. Even if they routinely mock gender equality. It's not surprising that white-supremchists find incel forums fertile recruitment ground.

Those entities have a far greater chance of getting a world incels would more prefer than they’ll ever likely will by themselves.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Huh don’t know where to this mushing would be appropriate, but I guess it would be here.

I’ve seen a lot  pushback towards the idea of Patriarchy being a real thing by many anti-feminists.

I just got into a discussion with someone online who was determined to even say Saudi Arabia can’t be called patriarchal because men are expected to be the bread winners for their family.

Even the fact that women were only granted the ability to go outside without their male guardian’s permission was summarily excused as not patriarchal because the male guardian could be liable for the criminal actions of women they effectively have dominion over in literally all faucets of their life.

It was kinda interesting to see the same logic many anti-feminists use to summarily dismiss patriarchy as having ever existed even be used for Saudi Arabia.

 

[Soylent Brown]

Why are you actively seeking these articles out?

[Heartofice]

I doubt many people would claim Saudi Arabia isn't some patriarchal den of misogyny. In fact I'd say the opposite, the common argument I've seen against many feminists is that they spend too much energy claiming everything in the west is 'The Patriarchy', and very little dealing with genuinely terrifying misogyny and handmaids tale stuff happening in the middle east. 

Anyway, don't think I should really be fueling this thread any more.

[broken one]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

In fact I'd say the opposite, the common argument I've seen against many feminists is that they spend too much energy claiming everything in the west is 'The Patriarchy', and very little dealing with genuinely terrifying misogyny and handmaids tale stuff happening in the middle east.

You cannot help anyone against one's will. Most people in the Saudi Arabia (most women too, I guess) seem to be OK with how the things are. It is another world, so minding our own business and backyard is rather logical.

It reminds me of another argument Ive seen against anti-clericals in Poland. Why do they attack Catholic church, clergy and mock holy symbols (out of the sudden many convenient objects turn out to be holy and any criticism or travesty is brutal attack)? anti - clericals should attack Islam and mock the prophet (Islam is much worse and everyone knows it). Probably the anti-clericals are cowards - parish wont cut off your head. My answer is - why the #@$% should I care about Islam and Saudi Arabia? it is not Muslim clergy trying to turn my country into "Franco's Spain" wet dream. There are 38 000 Muslims in Poland (0,1% of the whole population) and the argument is used only to distract.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 12/29/2020 at 9:03 AM, broken one said:

You cannot help anyone against one's will. Most people in the Saudi Arabia (most women too, I guess) seem to be OK with how the things are. It is another world, so minding our own business and backyard is rather logical.

It reminds me of another argument Ive seen against anti-clericals in Poland. Why do they attack Catholic church, clergy and mock holy symbols (out of the sudden many convenient objects turn out to be holy and any criticism or travesty is brutal attack)? anti - clericals should attack Islam and mock the prophet (Islam is much worse and everyone knows it). Probably the anti-clericals are cowards - parish wont cut off your head. My answer is - why the #@$% should I care about Islam and Saudi Arabia? it is not Muslim clergy trying to turn my country into "Franco's Spain" wet dream. There are 38 000 Muslims in Poland (0,1% of the whole population) and the argument is used only to distract.

 

To the first bolded eh on that. 
I’m not going cry for the US to topple the government in some military coup or whatever, but I’m fine with helping give a global spotlight and attention to those within the society trying to change it. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/she-s-very-courageous-saudi-women-s-rights-activist-loujain-n1252463

These people should not be ignored. They should be given respect and resources where they ask for it.

And if some people want to flee these places because they fear for their safety they should be accepted.

But—and this is big But—the acknowledgment of oppression being much more sever in other places doesn’t mean you’re wrong for seeing and wanting to fix things you see wrong in your community.

In the U.K. the age of consent for same-sex relations was higher than heterosexual relations until 2003. And group sex between those of the same sexual could also get you sent to jail.

In the US there were 13 states where same sex relations could get you thrown in Jail.

The fact the state wasn’t literally killing gays doesn’t suddenly make any of that stuff not absolutely terrible.

Focusing mostly  on how to fix the problems the closest to you, where you have the most impact, and are the most impacted by is not wrong.

Me putting more effort to reform the prison system in the US isn’t wrong because I’m not putting more effort to fixing the prison systems that are worse in other countries.

 

And to be clear many feminists in the Middle East and in the West have done far more to actually help girls and women struggling for equality than the far right  who’d point to the misogyny in other cultures to support their xenophobic politics, but offer no real support for the victims they’re pretending to care about.

A feminist from Pakistan was literally shot in the head as a little girl because she tried to have an education and has been dead set on getting little girls and women to have the opportunities men had tried to kill her for trying to have.

Women like this to many anti-feminists in the West can’t be acknowledged. Many anti-feminists would rather just keep the image of feminists just being spoiled rich white women, who just need to shut up.
To the second bolded partially true.

It is effectively a whataboutism.
The far-right does love to pretend they give a fuck about women’s rights when disparaging people from other cultures—particularly men—they want to be bigoted to.

Take this; 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/30/netflix-has-indias-ruling-party-outraged-about-love-jihad-plot-what-is-love-jihad/

India is country where marital rape is still not a crime. The right wing ruling party has no grievances with that. They’d much rather fear monger at the prospect of Muslim men forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam after their married.

Though this use idea of protecting women’s rights often is used to roll women’s rights back as well.

An easy Example of this banning women a particular style of dress; My favorite example of this is banning the Burkini. Because nothing says gender equality than the state-trying to dictate what a girl or woman can wear.

Many hardcore Islamic extremists would prefer women not be at the beach at all much less in a Burkini. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 12/29/2020 at 6:41 AM, Soylent Brown said:

Why are you actively seeking these articles out?

Eh. Just kinda wanted to see if I could find some articles from a far right news outlet using the same logic many western anti-feminists use to dismiss patriarchy in the West in even places like Saudi Arabia.

To be honest It’d be more consistent for them.

The suicide rate for Saudi Arabia is double for men in comparison to women. The expectation and pressure  for men to provide for their families is also there. The amount of workplace deaths for men is even higher given women are mostly not apart of the workforce. Men are the only ones allowed in the military and thus are the only ones expected to fight.

The gender-gap in higher education is even higher 

These are kinda of the biggest reasons many anti-feminists give to dismiss the idea of patriarchy existing in the West  as the bleating of privileged women who don’t realize how good they have it.