There can be some rotten apples in either group, but the media have definitely latched onto targeting and exaggerating how "dangerous" or "nefarious" incels are.
And the media's attempts to keep gaslighting and harassing them is only going to create monsters worse than the stories they've been fabricating.
Which is likely the intended goal. Along with the "No wrong tactics, only wrong targets." mentality.
Its just the "virgins lol" repackaged for a new generation, as calling someone a virgin that openly was starting to get them heat back regarding their "someone's sexual history is not your business!" lines.
Elliot Rodger just made it easy to connect the two dots, as the Columbine stereotype was getting old and they needed a new "young white males are evil" boogeyman.
Mumkey Jones's videos pointing out what a specifically pathetic individual he was were great. I wonder if they're part of why he got taken down so hard....
It's because society determines a man's worth on his ability to attract a mate. It's one of the key aspects of social status that is found attractive in men and makes up the concept of pre-selection.
Incels can not do that because every woman he has met he could date finds him repulsive. They are written off, outcast from society and told they are beyond help (in some regards, this is actually correct, but not in the ways that most people think). Only a very small percentage commit violence to others, more commit violence to themselves and for the rest, you've probably heard of MGTOW - men going their own way. In black pill circles there is the concept of MSTOW - men sent their own way. Instead of it being a voluntary decision, a man is rejected universally and so is involuntarily sent his own way.
Inceldom goes so much deeper than simply 'not getting laid' it's the feeling of being absolutely rejected by society and feeling like they're too ugly to even be noticed by women.
The Black Pill. That is probably my biggest disagreement with the "incel community". Most of these guys aren't that ugly, they're just socially awkward & lack charisma at the bare minimum, also some may be lacking in the money department to even do a cheap first date.
Society will tell you "women are equal to men" but if you're a man having trouble geting dates, they will tell you "you need to learn to talk to women" as if women are different than men, society is only right on the 2nd part because they're wrong on the 1st part.
Saying the right things, the right way (with confidence & no social awkwardness) wows a woman. A woman needs to be wow'd to even want to give an above average guy a chance, much less an average guy or below average guy. Women aren't as visual as men, and will generally only note a guy's looks on the extreme ends of handsome & ugly. By extreme end of ugly, I mean has a birth defect or was in a major accident, not just "really ugly".
The thing that makes them truly an incel, is the psychologically poisoned response of defeatism and resentment where they've stewed in their madness so thoroughly that they can't even be asked to try to improve themselves. That's what actually makes them so toxic. I can't tolerate someone who is dedicated to destroying themselves and taking others with them.
I've even gone on here to explain that the mentality of "no man below a 4 is capable of being in a relationship with a woman, even with a six figure salary" is both reductive, not based in evidence, and simple defeatism. My normal citation is that I have a married friend who is a 1 and he married a 1. That's entirely normal. People actually pair bond to similar attractiveness. There's a lot more women who are getting run through, and some that are taking i polygyny; but your average unattractive woman doesn't have more than a couple sexual partners a year, if that. It's true, they just don't want to get it.
There will always be a small minority of men and an significantly lower minority of women who will be single and childless through their lives. If I recall from a Norwegian study, around 25% of men are childless at 40 compared to 15% of women. Was the case prior to the Internet and will be the case forever more. These people are simply not capable of finding partners, a significant proportion of which is genetic or medical and can't be fixed by telling them to "lift" or "touch grass". The only difference now is that prior to the Internet, these people would keep themselves to themselves at home and would not communicate with other like minded people, which they can now do online and worldwide, that equates to many millions of people.
First I think those numbers are way to high. 25% of men being childless doesn't sound like it would fit in any environment except the modern one. That is an extreme number, and normally, it would lead to massive population loss. The real numbers are probably both well below 10%. In earlier epochs, being childless was genuinely abnormal and rare. Even the Boomers would have told you that number was high. This is why when we see stats from Japan saying 40% of men under 35 haven't had a sexual partner is catastrophic. That is an extreme aberration that is not replicated at any other point in human history. Same with the suicide rate among young adults. It's telling when a modern western man meets with an isolated tribal people, and that those people have almost never heard of suicide, and find it unfathomable.
Second, most of these people who were childless did not just isolate themselves at home, that is a also sickness of post-modernity. (Not even modernity was that bad).
Many of those childless people would have been productive members of society in one way or another: men who worked remote and on the fringes of society who could not settle down due to the work: like pioneers, explorers, sailing merchants, etc. Many of them would have been deeply involved in other work that would be otherwise relatively self-isolating, but community supporting: monks, priests, craftsmen, fishermen, truckers, etc. Except for the monks, prostitutes actually had a moderately wholesome role of being a kind of mimic to those more isolated men who couldn't settle down and raise a family due to the circumstances of their work. I remember an NPR documentary covering over a strip-club that was in a pretty remote part of Minnesota. Most of the clientele were truckers who were older and quite well behaved. This includes more than one of them dropping off a full turkey... to the strip club. It was an attempt to mimic something akin to a family due to circumstances. They would not have been "incels", or even really sexless at all.
This is a far more serious pathology of the modern era.
But there have always been individuals who contribute to society but remain alone. The loneliness epidemic is novel but life-long lonely people have always been a thing.
There's a video yesterday by Wheat Waffles who is one of the prominent voices around the black pill (spoiler alert - the black pill is more aligned to what evolutionary psychologists are finding about human nature because mating and nature is brutal and doesn't care about your feelings) where he provides a paid service rating men's looks with university students.
One of his conclusions was that women will reject you for one fundamental flaw as opposed to doing a cost/benefit analysis to see if you would be a net positive or negative. Which makes sense as women (even older, unattractive women) have lots of options and the majority of men have little to none.
One of his other conclusion is that if you're average looking (not that ugly) or below, he may as well have rated them as zero. The women he asked wanted nothing to do with these men and subsequently that equates to zero, rather than the 1-9 scale he used.
Actual incels have self defeating responses to their issues, and I don't think that should be defended. Still, I have way more respect for them than I do the male feminists. The latter aren't any more sexually successful than the former, but at least the former know that something is fucked up.
People think that the solution is to tell them to "lift" and "touch grass". But how does that make them get to six feet in height or cure their autism or solve their speech impediment, fix their balding or deal with half their personality traits that are genetic and inherited?
This advice is like telling someone with a 1970s hatchback that if they just try hard and believe, they can turn that car into a 2023 sports car. You can tweak that car, improve its performance or even put a sports car manufacturers badge on it to delude yourself but you're not fooling anyone. It's still a 1970s hatchback underneath that veneer and always will be. In the same way, you can call yourself a woman but you'll always have XY chromosomes and will never produce large gametes (eggs) but only small gametes (sperm).
Life is inherently unfair and everyone has a different pack of cards when they are born. Incels were given the jokers in the real world game of poker. That's not defeatist or negative, that's reality regrettably. Stardusk The Thinking Ape described it aptly - life is cope.
Pursuing superficial women for superficial relationships is where all that comes into play. Being obsessed with being a degenerate, as if the "chads" are somehow something to aspire to instead of being a whore with a harder bar for entry than females, is foolish.
A high class whore is still a whore. Male whores are still degenerates.
I could have told them all this shit for free but it's good there's a real legitimate study being done on incels that isn't just Canadian glowies and the ADL sperging out to the FBI.
A recent prominent study by the University of Swansea on Incels has been funded by the UK Government's Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE). The CCE commissions research that then feeds back their findings to the Government to inform legislation and strategy.
Bear in mind that Incels were identified as a target for the UK's CONTEST 2023 counter-terrorism strategy.
linked to an objectified view of women that degrades women
The outcome sounds reasonable (why would the opposite be popular belief?) but I've grown doubtful of the whole "objectification" theory and must reject this frame entirely, unless the authors have explicitly defined what "objectified view" means and how it's quantified for this study.
I'm sure they also defined the other terms in the screenshot, right? Misogynistic? Machiavellianism?
While this does smack a little of 'Democrats are the real racists' style copium(IE, it's true, but doesn't work as an arguement), it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Like other said, incel-dom is less 'hatred of women' and more 'hatred of what modern society enables'. Dig deep enough, and you stop to realize that these guys would be married with families a century ago, you have to pause and consider how the flying fuck we got to this point.
...still, modern malaise and ruin aside, the real black pill is realizing that being treated like a piece of meat and a slave to be traded and tossed away at a whim by violent men is what women reward.
Something that women are desperate to deny, when men point this out. I'm sure many men have that tale of 'assholes who constantly get rewarded with beautiful women', and while you could argue selection bias, I'd respond with 'stereotypes exist for a reason'.
I describe the world and everything that has been invented, built and we take for granted as the biggest peacock feather display in the universe. Because that's what everything basically boils down to.
The stats I saw were 83%, but I believe that's from prehistory. Civilization requires that the vast majority of men have access to women and family life, because it turns out that if a society tells non-Chads to fuck off and die it gets that same energy back in return. Civilization can't function without betas, and they won't participate in a society that hates them. The feminist experiment of replacing positive incentives for betas to participate with shaming is what we're seeing play out right now, and it's not pretty.
That point about men not reproducing seems suspect. Do you have any more details on that claim? A society where half the free men (assuming you're not counting slaves and prisoners) can't mate sounds like a failed state, or an ingredient for war and famine.
"Average men" in Western developed nations now and "average men" over all time and cultures are not the same either. Hypergamy leading to inflated standards among women is something we often discuss. (that's helped out by birth control, no doubt)
'Modern aberration' in a sense of the past 500 years, perhaps.
There is no more terrifying force than a single male, with young being debatable. Most societies that want to last will find something to do with them, and while the 20th century alone has had some serious population bottlenecks, I'm always just a little skeptical at the idea of 'we've always gotten rid of roughly 50% of men one way or another.'
As far as birth control goes, it's arguably worse - it's been proven that it literally alters what women see as attractive.
Women have a deformed view on what's attractive -> men respond to it -> get married -> get off birth control -> divorce.
I doubt hormonal birth control will ever be seen on the same level as lobotomies as far as medical procedures go, but maybe it should be.
Most societies that want to last will find something to do with them, and while the 20th century alone has had some serious population bottlenecks, I'm always just a little skeptical at the idea of 'we've always gotten rid of roughly 50% of men one way or another.'
The answer to this problem has always been give them a reason to participate in society. This will never get better unless we stop catering to feminists who are determined to coerce them into doing something that doesn't benefit them.
Besides the social damage in the form of the "sexual revolution" that hormonal birth control brought about, I think that there's also significant medical issues caused by the pill that is glossed over thanks to feminism and big pharma. Lots of women experience adverse reactions (like reduced long term fertility) to hormonal birth control that's just glossed over. I also suspect that the precipitous decline in testosterone is linked to birth control in the water supply.
Inceldom in its worst forms isn't a pure hatred of women. Its a hatred of what they become. Its a disgust at their whorish behaviors and emotional mindsets.
You can't have that fall from grace without an initial high value to begin with, compounded by the fact that their interactions with women are always social (not sexual) so they get to only see the best face women try to put on until the crack forms.
Chads know that AWALT and there isn't some pure angel being corrupted, that's just what women are.
I regret my past, but I know this study is true because this has been my #livedexperience.
I had a horribly abusive girlfriend when I was in my 20s. She'd regularly get drunk and get physically abusive with me, she'd cheat on me, etc. The whole works. At this time I had previously only had sex with a few other girls, so being with someone as...experienced as her was something I'd never been through before. She'd constantly tease me about my "lack of experience" and call me "boring" because I wasn't a massive slut. When she offered to open us up to threesomes with her friends, my mind and heart both rejected it and I told her no because I didn't feel like our relationship was strong enough to weather something like that. I was completely in love with this horrendous person and she just wanted frivolous experiences with as many people, drinks, and drugs as she could. When we inevitably broke up (she with me, then she immediately went off on a fuckfest), I was extremely suicidal for almost an entire year. I'll spare the details, but on the tail end of that year I decided that I would never be the victim of a "woman's bodycount" ever again.
I got swole, I bought better clothes. I got out more. I took dance lessons and met girls there. I worked as a bartender. Basically, I did everything I could do to fuck as many girls as I could. Turns out I was incredibly successful and my final bodycount stands currently at 52, with the last being my now-wife who I met when I was 30. I could easily have continued and unironically could have broken the 100 mark. It really wouldn't have been hard. I went from ~4 while I was dating that girl to 52 in about 6 years, and most of those came in the last 2.
And therein lies the entire conclusion of this study and why I wrote this blog entry. What did I learn from all this? That women are mostly retarded and selfish, frivolous and hedonistic. Yes it was city girls who I was living around, yes I wasn't specifically looking for a "based trad housewife," but the one commonality that I still think about to this day is how little women actually think about anything important, including their own actions. I grew to absolutely loathe them, when before in my sub-3 bodycount state, I adored them. I thought women brought grace, charm, and beauty to life in a way that men never do. The reality that I've learned is that they can, but only when guided specifically (usually by a man) to do so. On their own, women are savage, heartless, dionesian animals who quite literally only operate decently when brought in line. "Trad women" are just women who hold structure and order slightly above their own pleasure, and their number is dwindling by the day. Given the right inputs, they'd do exactly what their slutty friends do -- and I know this because I've put my dick in them.
When people call me incel for my beliefs I just laugh. Women are just as fucked by modernity as everyone else, maybe moreso, and no amount of namecalling is going to change my mind about that.
There is nothing wrong with misogyny. Misogyny is simply the hatred of women. It is not defined as the unjust hatred of women but simply the hatred of women. Forget men and women for a moment, if someone breaks into your home, steals your belonging then murders your dog, would you hate them? Possibly. If you did, no one would think any lesser of you. In fact if you didn't hate them some might see you as a pussy. Hatred can be justified and if the emotion is justified then there is nothing wrong with it. Why are Chads the most "misogynistic" of men? Because Chads experience women the most and likely have more real reasons to justly hate women. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. Incels on the other hand tend to have limited experience with women so Incels only hate women insomuch as the fact that women don't spend time with them. A lot of Incels believes some women could be just like the women in their anime or fantasy books so they might only hate some women but not all. Chad has had enough experience with women to know there are no women like the characters in anime or fantasy books that Incels pine for so Chad hates all women given his experience.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with hating women if your experience has taught you that hating women is justified and given the way women treat men in society, I think hating them is the justified response. If you don't hate women in modernity, I question your actual understanding of life or your experience with women.
There's a lot to be said about the advice being given by women to men that may be given in good faith but is terrible advice (it would be described as a fisherman asking the fish how to catch them) and the fantasy concepts including the concept of the "soul mate" in dating programmes, fictional stories and general parlance. In the same regard we don't speak frankly about the dark truth of our mortality so we developed the concept of the after life, we do the same thing about mating and dating. The problem is, it fools men and messes them up for life.
I agree that women give terrible advice and that it is similar to the fish giving advice to the fisherman on how to catch them.
I don't agree that much of the "advice" messes men up for life because it fools them. I think what messes men up is that once men understand how the game works between man and woman what men want is generally impossible to get. It's a no-win scenario for most men no matter what they do. There simply will not be a way for most men to get what they want from women. This often builds anger/resentment toward women. And it's not about men expecting something women cannot give to men because women do in fact provide some men with what they want, just for most men they will never be this kind of man.
Depends on how the man proceeds and whether he sees the actual truth and reacts accordingly. I've seen too many videos and comments who took advice, even on self-improvement, and got to their forties with good health and fitness, independence and a job but no partner and warning younger men about the consequences.
These men were never going to get a woman no matter what advice they followed and they just haven't realized that and accepted it yet.
It's like imagine if every 40yo who wasn't a billionaire tried suggesting the only reason they weren't a billionaire is because they didn't make the right decisions. No matter what decisions some people make, they were never going to be a billionaire.
No that sounds about right, they're surrounded by whores, degenerates, and gold digging women, they've seen the worst so probably telling the incels 'sometimes the sex ain't worth it!'
I saw this from Rolf Degen and I knew the second I saw it, that jimmies were going to be rustled. You have someone who only gets a few replies and a number of retweets go viral because feelings were going to get hurt.
And it isn't surprising that if you have very successful men with the dark triad personality traits, they are not going to treat women with the upmost of respect but rather see them as bed notches and conquests or at best, the current option before a younger, lesser aged option comes along.
But that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of Chad good, Virgin bad. Society places a value judgement on men based on their ability to attract a mate and we look at men who succeed in finding a partner in a better light than the man who consistently fails. We deem the former to be successful and the latter to be misogynistic. Which is why we are starting to see a push to outlaw many acts and behaviours aimed and performed by single men that are seen as misogynistic, devoid of a woman in presence or exploitative of women and a redefining of a consensual and legal act to be between (a minimum of) two consenting adults in private without payment post MeToo, Brand and the Incel moral panic.
And the real kicker, the study used to measure what was deemed misogynistic? Elliot Rodger's own definition!
But that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of Chad good, Virgin bad. Society places a value judgement on men based on their ability to attract a mate and we look at men who succeed in finding a partner in a better light than the man who consistently fails
"Society" didn't do this until it became dominated by female values. The whole "men are valued by the ability to attract a women" is basically applying female sexual preference as a core value to the whole population.
It's a bullshit value, of course, but very few people understand it for what it is. As a female value, it corrupts men in many ways in their attempts to become "attractive to women", ultimately turning them into servants of women. From being pussy-worshipping Chads who spend hours of their time becoming better that "gaming" women to obtain a bunch of empty sex to satisfy female sexual urges, to pussy-worshipping incels who take everything women say at face value and fall flat on their faces, but in doing so providing emotional tampons and plenty of other free services to women.
This is why the concept of MGTOW is so powerful - it completely undermines this female-imposed value system and allows men to start valuing themselves for other reasons.
I note at least one prominent evolutionary psychology researcher has condemned the study and insists that misogyny is linked to women's attraction and perception of that man and his success in dating.
A few replies are suggesting that Chads sees the true nature of their conquests and that might be why the original study came to the conclusion they dispute.
That seems to correlate with what feminists claim, that sexism is linked to women's perception of that man. That men who are "creeps" or give the "ick" are perceived as sexist.
This isn't totally surprising. Chads are seeing the same thing everyone else is, just from a different angle. When a Chad racks up a triple digit body count and a nontrivial proportion of the women he railed were "taken", he's not going to be optimistic about being able to find a loyal partner if he ever does want to settle down.
It's funny to me that this somehow is news to people. Of course "chads" view women as disposable holes. Because that's how they act (willingly) in order to get attention. Maybe women should change how they act, and everyone else should wake up and realize women are largely vapid whores.
IMO this is one of those "no shit" studies. Any man who doesnt have experience with women but wants to [an incel] will think much more highly of them than some man who has a lot of experience with women and intimate knowledge and understanding of them.
Honestly I have zero idea where the woman hating incel comes from... desperation breeding hate or something?
Yeah it's much more likely incels are desperate for pussy and thus put women on a pedestal. It's why so many fedora lord atheist types became feminist.
I note prominent speakers in the field of evolutionary psychology are condemning the outcome of this study after Rolf Degen published it on his X account by stating that it goes against their understanding and findings that women's perception of men and their attractiveness to women determines misogyny - ie. less attractive and successful, more misogynistic.
The nice guys finish last, or who are colloquially called the "beta bux". We're now seeing the first tentative signs that as childless women now outearn their male peers and with community/state raising of children and financial support through welfare, such men no longer have a place in these women's lives. It's no longer a case of nice guys finishing last, it is now increasingly likely they'll never finish. Cue the beginning of the loneliness epidemic.
There can be some rotten apples in either group, but the media have definitely latched onto targeting and exaggerating how "dangerous" or "nefarious" incels are.
And the media's attempts to keep gaslighting and harassing them is only going to create monsters worse than the stories they've been fabricating.
Which is likely the intended goal. Along with the "No wrong tactics, only wrong targets." mentality.
Its just the "virgins lol" repackaged for a new generation, as calling someone a virgin that openly was starting to get them heat back regarding their "someone's sexual history is not your business!" lines.
Elliot Rodger just made it easy to connect the two dots, as the Columbine stereotype was getting old and they needed a new "young white males are evil" boogeyman.
Mumkey Jones's videos pointing out what a specifically pathetic individual he was were great. I wonder if they're part of why he got taken down so hard....
Mumkey Jones did a lot of dumb shit and made a lot of enemies across many sectors, all of which could have got him taken down on their own.
It's because society determines a man's worth on his ability to attract a mate. It's one of the key aspects of social status that is found attractive in men and makes up the concept of pre-selection.
Incels can not do that because every woman he has met he could date finds him repulsive. They are written off, outcast from society and told they are beyond help (in some regards, this is actually correct, but not in the ways that most people think). Only a very small percentage commit violence to others, more commit violence to themselves and for the rest, you've probably heard of MGTOW - men going their own way. In black pill circles there is the concept of MSTOW - men sent their own way. Instead of it being a voluntary decision, a man is rejected universally and so is involuntarily sent his own way.
The Black Pill. That is probably my biggest disagreement with the "incel community". Most of these guys aren't that ugly, they're just socially awkward & lack charisma at the bare minimum, also some may be lacking in the money department to even do a cheap first date.
Society will tell you "women are equal to men" but if you're a man having trouble geting dates, they will tell you "you need to learn to talk to women" as if women are different than men, society is only right on the 2nd part because they're wrong on the 1st part.
Saying the right things, the right way (with confidence & no social awkwardness) wows a woman. A woman needs to be wow'd to even want to give an above average guy a chance, much less an average guy or below average guy. Women aren't as visual as men, and will generally only note a guy's looks on the extreme ends of handsome & ugly. By extreme end of ugly, I mean has a birth defect or was in a major accident, not just "really ugly".
And for all the "tolerance" they preach, when it comes down to it, they sure aren't very tolerant to men who have social anxiety, autism, etc.
The thing that makes them truly an incel, is the psychologically poisoned response of defeatism and resentment where they've stewed in their madness so thoroughly that they can't even be asked to try to improve themselves. That's what actually makes them so toxic. I can't tolerate someone who is dedicated to destroying themselves and taking others with them.
I've even gone on here to explain that the mentality of "no man below a 4 is capable of being in a relationship with a woman, even with a six figure salary" is both reductive, not based in evidence, and simple defeatism. My normal citation is that I have a married friend who is a 1 and he married a 1. That's entirely normal. People actually pair bond to similar attractiveness. There's a lot more women who are getting run through, and some that are taking i polygyny; but your average unattractive woman doesn't have more than a couple sexual partners a year, if that. It's true, they just don't want to get it.
There will always be a small minority of men and an significantly lower minority of women who will be single and childless through their lives. If I recall from a Norwegian study, around 25% of men are childless at 40 compared to 15% of women. Was the case prior to the Internet and will be the case forever more. These people are simply not capable of finding partners, a significant proportion of which is genetic or medical and can't be fixed by telling them to "lift" or "touch grass". The only difference now is that prior to the Internet, these people would keep themselves to themselves at home and would not communicate with other like minded people, which they can now do online and worldwide, that equates to many millions of people.
I disagree.
First I think those numbers are way to high. 25% of men being childless doesn't sound like it would fit in any environment except the modern one. That is an extreme number, and normally, it would lead to massive population loss. The real numbers are probably both well below 10%. In earlier epochs, being childless was genuinely abnormal and rare. Even the Boomers would have told you that number was high. This is why when we see stats from Japan saying 40% of men under 35 haven't had a sexual partner is catastrophic. That is an extreme aberration that is not replicated at any other point in human history. Same with the suicide rate among young adults. It's telling when a modern western man meets with an isolated tribal people, and that those people have almost never heard of suicide, and find it unfathomable.
Second, most of these people who were childless did not just isolate themselves at home, that is a also sickness of post-modernity. (Not even modernity was that bad).
Many of those childless people would have been productive members of society in one way or another: men who worked remote and on the fringes of society who could not settle down due to the work: like pioneers, explorers, sailing merchants, etc. Many of them would have been deeply involved in other work that would be otherwise relatively self-isolating, but community supporting: monks, priests, craftsmen, fishermen, truckers, etc. Except for the monks, prostitutes actually had a moderately wholesome role of being a kind of mimic to those more isolated men who couldn't settle down and raise a family due to the circumstances of their work. I remember an NPR documentary covering over a strip-club that was in a pretty remote part of Minnesota. Most of the clientele were truckers who were older and quite well behaved. This includes more than one of them dropping off a full turkey... to the strip club. It was an attempt to mimic something akin to a family due to circumstances. They would not have been "incels", or even really sexless at all.
This is a far more serious pathology of the modern era.
23% of men at 45 and 13% of women at 45 in Norway in 2013. I've seen similar numbers for other countries. And the trend is steadily upwards.
https://sciencenorway.no/childlessness-fathers-forskningno/a-quarter-of-norwegian-men-never-father-children/1401047
Just under a quarter of US men and just under 16% of US women according to a 2014 report.
https://apnews.com/article/c61402fa463b4406a9eccad079fc49df
It isn't the norm but it is not rare.
But there have always been individuals who contribute to society but remain alone. The loneliness epidemic is novel but life-long lonely people have always been a thing.
There's a video yesterday by Wheat Waffles who is one of the prominent voices around the black pill (spoiler alert - the black pill is more aligned to what evolutionary psychologists are finding about human nature because mating and nature is brutal and doesn't care about your feelings) where he provides a paid service rating men's looks with university students.
One of his conclusions was that women will reject you for one fundamental flaw as opposed to doing a cost/benefit analysis to see if you would be a net positive or negative. Which makes sense as women (even older, unattractive women) have lots of options and the majority of men have little to none.
One of his other conclusion is that if you're average looking (not that ugly) or below, he may as well have rated them as zero. The women he asked wanted nothing to do with these men and subsequently that equates to zero, rather than the 1-9 scale he used.
Actual incels have self defeating responses to their issues, and I don't think that should be defended. Still, I have way more respect for them than I do the male feminists. The latter aren't any more sexually successful than the former, but at least the former know that something is fucked up.
People think that the solution is to tell them to "lift" and "touch grass". But how does that make them get to six feet in height or cure their autism or solve their speech impediment, fix their balding or deal with half their personality traits that are genetic and inherited?
This advice is like telling someone with a 1970s hatchback that if they just try hard and believe, they can turn that car into a 2023 sports car. You can tweak that car, improve its performance or even put a sports car manufacturers badge on it to delude yourself but you're not fooling anyone. It's still a 1970s hatchback underneath that veneer and always will be. In the same way, you can call yourself a woman but you'll always have XY chromosomes and will never produce large gametes (eggs) but only small gametes (sperm).
Life is inherently unfair and everyone has a different pack of cards when they are born. Incels were given the jokers in the real world game of poker. That's not defeatist or negative, that's reality regrettably. Stardusk The Thinking Ape described it aptly - life is cope.
Pursuing superficial women for superficial relationships is where all that comes into play. Being obsessed with being a degenerate, as if the "chads" are somehow something to aspire to instead of being a whore with a harder bar for entry than females, is foolish.
A high class whore is still a whore. Male whores are still degenerates.
A recent prominent study by the University of Swansea on Incels has been funded by the UK Government's Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE). The CCE commissions research that then feeds back their findings to the Government to inform legislation and strategy.
Bear in mind that Incels were identified as a target for the UK's CONTEST 2023 counter-terrorism strategy.
https://psy.swansea.ac.uk/suric/
The outcome sounds reasonable (why would the opposite be popular belief?) but I've grown doubtful of the whole "objectification" theory and must reject this frame entirely, unless the authors have explicitly defined what "objectified view" means and how it's quantified for this study.
I'm sure they also defined the other terms in the screenshot, right? Misogynistic? Machiavellianism?
It's a Western academic study so it's brainwashed leftism by default.
While this does smack a little of 'Democrats are the real racists' style copium(IE, it's true, but doesn't work as an arguement), it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Like other said, incel-dom is less 'hatred of women' and more 'hatred of what modern society enables'. Dig deep enough, and you stop to realize that these guys would be married with families a century ago, you have to pause and consider how the flying fuck we got to this point.
...still, modern malaise and ruin aside, the real black pill is realizing that being treated like a piece of meat and a slave to be traded and tossed away at a whim by violent men is what women reward.
Something that women are desperate to deny, when men point this out. I'm sure many men have that tale of 'assholes who constantly get rewarded with beautiful women', and while you could argue selection bias, I'd respond with 'stereotypes exist for a reason'.
And people wonder why Incels can get bitter.
I describe the world and everything that has been invented, built and we take for granted as the biggest peacock feather display in the universe. Because that's what everything basically boils down to.
The stats I saw were 83%, but I believe that's from prehistory. Civilization requires that the vast majority of men have access to women and family life, because it turns out that if a society tells non-Chads to fuck off and die it gets that same energy back in return. Civilization can't function without betas, and they won't participate in a society that hates them. The feminist experiment of replacing positive incentives for betas to participate with shaming is what we're seeing play out right now, and it's not pretty.
That point about men not reproducing seems suspect. Do you have any more details on that claim? A society where half the free men (assuming you're not counting slaves and prisoners) can't mate sounds like a failed state, or an ingredient for war and famine.
"Average men" in Western developed nations now and "average men" over all time and cultures are not the same either. Hypergamy leading to inflated standards among women is something we often discuss. (that's helped out by birth control, no doubt)
'Modern aberration' in a sense of the past 500 years, perhaps.
There is no more terrifying force than a single male, with young being debatable. Most societies that want to last will find something to do with them, and while the 20th century alone has had some serious population bottlenecks, I'm always just a little skeptical at the idea of 'we've always gotten rid of roughly 50% of men one way or another.'
As far as birth control goes, it's arguably worse - it's been proven that it literally alters what women see as attractive.
Women have a deformed view on what's attractive -> men respond to it -> get married -> get off birth control -> divorce.
I doubt hormonal birth control will ever be seen on the same level as lobotomies as far as medical procedures go, but maybe it should be.
The answer to this problem has always been give them a reason to participate in society. This will never get better unless we stop catering to feminists who are determined to coerce them into doing something that doesn't benefit them.
Besides the social damage in the form of the "sexual revolution" that hormonal birth control brought about, I think that there's also significant medical issues caused by the pill that is glossed over thanks to feminism and big pharma. Lots of women experience adverse reactions (like reduced long term fertility) to hormonal birth control that's just glossed over. I also suspect that the precipitous decline in testosterone is linked to birth control in the water supply.
research-
https://psyarxiv.com/wsvq8/
Inceldom in its worst forms isn't a pure hatred of women. Its a hatred of what they become. Its a disgust at their whorish behaviors and emotional mindsets.
You can't have that fall from grace without an initial high value to begin with, compounded by the fact that their interactions with women are always social (not sexual) so they get to only see the best face women try to put on until the crack forms.
Chads know that AWALT and there isn't some pure angel being corrupted, that's just what women are.
I regret my past, but I know this study is true because this has been my #livedexperience.
I had a horribly abusive girlfriend when I was in my 20s. She'd regularly get drunk and get physically abusive with me, she'd cheat on me, etc. The whole works. At this time I had previously only had sex with a few other girls, so being with someone as...experienced as her was something I'd never been through before. She'd constantly tease me about my "lack of experience" and call me "boring" because I wasn't a massive slut. When she offered to open us up to threesomes with her friends, my mind and heart both rejected it and I told her no because I didn't feel like our relationship was strong enough to weather something like that. I was completely in love with this horrendous person and she just wanted frivolous experiences with as many people, drinks, and drugs as she could. When we inevitably broke up (she with me, then she immediately went off on a fuckfest), I was extremely suicidal for almost an entire year. I'll spare the details, but on the tail end of that year I decided that I would never be the victim of a "woman's bodycount" ever again.
I got swole, I bought better clothes. I got out more. I took dance lessons and met girls there. I worked as a bartender. Basically, I did everything I could do to fuck as many girls as I could. Turns out I was incredibly successful and my final bodycount stands currently at 52, with the last being my now-wife who I met when I was 30. I could easily have continued and unironically could have broken the 100 mark. It really wouldn't have been hard. I went from ~4 while I was dating that girl to 52 in about 6 years, and most of those came in the last 2.
And therein lies the entire conclusion of this study and why I wrote this blog entry. What did I learn from all this? That women are mostly retarded and selfish, frivolous and hedonistic. Yes it was city girls who I was living around, yes I wasn't specifically looking for a "based trad housewife," but the one commonality that I still think about to this day is how little women actually think about anything important, including their own actions. I grew to absolutely loathe them, when before in my sub-3 bodycount state, I adored them. I thought women brought grace, charm, and beauty to life in a way that men never do. The reality that I've learned is that they can, but only when guided specifically (usually by a man) to do so. On their own, women are savage, heartless, dionesian animals who quite literally only operate decently when brought in line. "Trad women" are just women who hold structure and order slightly above their own pleasure, and their number is dwindling by the day. Given the right inputs, they'd do exactly what their slutty friends do -- and I know this because I've put my dick in them.
When people call me incel for my beliefs I just laugh. Women are just as fucked by modernity as everyone else, maybe moreso, and no amount of namecalling is going to change my mind about that.
incels are the victims here, not the women.
Fair enough, but $1000 says that the people who ran this study would also advocate that a woman's body count shouldn't matter to anybody.
Men wanting many partners = misogyny
Women putting out for anybody that makes them tingle = empowerment
I'm not surprised. What they call misogyny is mostly knowing how women really operate and think
There is nothing wrong with misogyny. Misogyny is simply the hatred of women. It is not defined as the unjust hatred of women but simply the hatred of women. Forget men and women for a moment, if someone breaks into your home, steals your belonging then murders your dog, would you hate them? Possibly. If you did, no one would think any lesser of you. In fact if you didn't hate them some might see you as a pussy. Hatred can be justified and if the emotion is justified then there is nothing wrong with it. Why are Chads the most "misogynistic" of men? Because Chads experience women the most and likely have more real reasons to justly hate women. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. Incels on the other hand tend to have limited experience with women so Incels only hate women insomuch as the fact that women don't spend time with them. A lot of Incels believes some women could be just like the women in their anime or fantasy books so they might only hate some women but not all. Chad has had enough experience with women to know there are no women like the characters in anime or fantasy books that Incels pine for so Chad hates all women given his experience.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with hating women if your experience has taught you that hating women is justified and given the way women treat men in society, I think hating them is the justified response. If you don't hate women in modernity, I question your actual understanding of life or your experience with women.
There's a lot to be said about the advice being given by women to men that may be given in good faith but is terrible advice (it would be described as a fisherman asking the fish how to catch them) and the fantasy concepts including the concept of the "soul mate" in dating programmes, fictional stories and general parlance. In the same regard we don't speak frankly about the dark truth of our mortality so we developed the concept of the after life, we do the same thing about mating and dating. The problem is, it fools men and messes them up for life.
I'm not sure if I fully agree with this.
I agree that women give terrible advice and that it is similar to the fish giving advice to the fisherman on how to catch them.
I don't agree that much of the "advice" messes men up for life because it fools them. I think what messes men up is that once men understand how the game works between man and woman what men want is generally impossible to get. It's a no-win scenario for most men no matter what they do. There simply will not be a way for most men to get what they want from women. This often builds anger/resentment toward women. And it's not about men expecting something women cannot give to men because women do in fact provide some men with what they want, just for most men they will never be this kind of man.
Depends on how the man proceeds and whether he sees the actual truth and reacts accordingly. I've seen too many videos and comments who took advice, even on self-improvement, and got to their forties with good health and fitness, independence and a job but no partner and warning younger men about the consequences.
These men were never going to get a woman no matter what advice they followed and they just haven't realized that and accepted it yet.
It's like imagine if every 40yo who wasn't a billionaire tried suggesting the only reason they weren't a billionaire is because they didn't make the right decisions. No matter what decisions some people make, they were never going to be a billionaire.
No that sounds about right, they're surrounded by whores, degenerates, and gold digging women, they've seen the worst so probably telling the incels 'sometimes the sex ain't worth it!'
I saw this from Rolf Degen and I knew the second I saw it, that jimmies were going to be rustled. You have someone who only gets a few replies and a number of retweets go viral because feelings were going to get hurt.
And it isn't surprising that if you have very successful men with the dark triad personality traits, they are not going to treat women with the upmost of respect but rather see them as bed notches and conquests or at best, the current option before a younger, lesser aged option comes along.
But that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative of Chad good, Virgin bad. Society places a value judgement on men based on their ability to attract a mate and we look at men who succeed in finding a partner in a better light than the man who consistently fails. We deem the former to be successful and the latter to be misogynistic. Which is why we are starting to see a push to outlaw many acts and behaviours aimed and performed by single men that are seen as misogynistic, devoid of a woman in presence or exploitative of women and a redefining of a consensual and legal act to be between (a minimum of) two consenting adults in private without payment post MeToo, Brand and the Incel moral panic.
And the real kicker, the study used to measure what was deemed misogynistic? Elliot Rodger's own definition!
"Society" didn't do this until it became dominated by female values. The whole "men are valued by the ability to attract a women" is basically applying female sexual preference as a core value to the whole population.
It's a bullshit value, of course, but very few people understand it for what it is. As a female value, it corrupts men in many ways in their attempts to become "attractive to women", ultimately turning them into servants of women. From being pussy-worshipping Chads who spend hours of their time becoming better that "gaming" women to obtain a bunch of empty sex to satisfy female sexual urges, to pussy-worshipping incels who take everything women say at face value and fall flat on their faces, but in doing so providing emotional tampons and plenty of other free services to women.
This is why the concept of MGTOW is so powerful - it completely undermines this female-imposed value system and allows men to start valuing themselves for other reasons.
wait - what was eliot rodger’s definition?
Quoting the study paper (ie. their words direct from Elliot, not mine):
"Table 1
The Extreme Misogyny Scale derived from Elliot Rodger’s manifesto My Twisted World
I have uneasy feelings of nervousness and fear around girls.
Evil acts are rewarded by women.
The power that beautiful women have is unbelievable. They can temporarily turn a desperate boy’s whole world around just by smiling.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed.
Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.
Women’s sexual attractions are flawed.
Women are incapable of reason or thinking rationally.
Women are like a plague that must be quarantined.
Women’s rejection of ugly men is a declaration of war.
You need to attract girls at an early age to avoid your life to fall into a miserable pit of despair.
If a man is all alone, people get the impression that girls are repulsed by him, and therefore he is a worthless loser.
The meanest and most depraved of men come out on top, and women flock to these men.
To see another male be successful with females is torture."
Thanks! Not sure how that scale is increasing or decreasing in severity though
I note at least one prominent evolutionary psychology researcher has condemned the study and insists that misogyny is linked to women's attraction and perception of that man and his success in dating.
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/datepsych/status/1706063501859475959
A few replies are suggesting that Chads sees the true nature of their conquests and that might be why the original study came to the conclusion they dispute.
That seems to correlate with what feminists claim, that sexism is linked to women's perception of that man. That men who are "creeps" or give the "ick" are perceived as sexist.
😂 Feminists claim that?
I once saw a comedy sketch of two men treating women identically. They reported the average looking man to HR for harassment while adoring the chad.
Misogyny doesn't exist.
You'll find plenty of it from feminists against women who reject the feminist narrative.
This isn't totally surprising. Chads are seeing the same thing everyone else is, just from a different angle. When a Chad racks up a triple digit body count and a nontrivial proportion of the women he railed were "taken", he's not going to be optimistic about being able to find a loyal partner if he ever does want to settle down.
It's funny to me that this somehow is news to people. Of course "chads" view women as disposable holes. Because that's how they act (willingly) in order to get attention. Maybe women should change how they act, and everyone else should wake up and realize women are largely vapid whores.
IMO this is one of those "no shit" studies. Any man who doesnt have experience with women but wants to [an incel] will think much more highly of them than some man who has a lot of experience with women and intimate knowledge and understanding of them.
Honestly I have zero idea where the woman hating incel comes from... desperation breeding hate or something?
Yeah it's much more likely incels are desperate for pussy and thus put women on a pedestal. It's why so many fedora lord atheist types became feminist.
funny thing is.. women allow chads to treat them like shit lol.
I note prominent speakers in the field of evolutionary psychology are condemning the outcome of this study after Rolf Degen published it on his X account by stating that it goes against their understanding and findings that women's perception of men and their attractiveness to women determines misogyny - ie. less attractive and successful, more misogynistic.
I knew it would rustle jimmies.
The nice guys finish last, or who are colloquially called the "beta bux". We're now seeing the first tentative signs that as childless women now outearn their male peers and with community/state raising of children and financial support through welfare, such men no longer have a place in these women's lives. It's no longer a case of nice guys finishing last, it is now increasingly likely they'll never finish. Cue the beginning of the loneliness epidemic.
Yes Its really obvious.
But I share it to empower everyone against the anti-incel propaganda