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.
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.