On The Distribution of Spouses

[Costa Fierro]

It does not become irrelevant insofar as it is quite relevant to universal statements. You know, speaking in absolutes, saying "literally everyone", as opposed to "as a general rule" or "most everyone".
Again: P and ~P don't admit a state of kinda P. The state of P does not indiciate P 9/10 times and ~p for 1/10, it's P.

It does become irrelevant. Scraping the barrel isn't a very good argument, that's why it's called scraping the barrel.

[Kubra]

It does not become irrelevant insofar as it is quite relevant to universal statements. You know, speaking in absolutes, saying "literally everyone", as opposed to "as a general rule" or "most everyone".
Again: P and ~P don't admit a state of kinda P. The state of P does not indiciate P 9/10 times and ~p for 1/10, it's P.

It does become irrelevant. Scraping the barrel isn't a very good argument, that's why it's called scraping the barrel.

oh, I wasn't aware that pointing out the difference between universal statements and averages and statistical significance. is scraping the barrel. I would I have called it undergraduate education, but you do you.
Take this statement of yours

It's not a factor for some women, it's a factor for everyone.

let us consider the problems here. deviation from a statistical trend means one is, in your words, irrelevant from a data perspective. For your benefit, we'll run with it. I understand everyone to, in context, mean "every person within a particular category". In this case, the category of "women". Now: you've admitted it is possible to deviate from an average or correlation. In short, it's possible for those in the category of women to not value attractiveness. They are women who do not. But they are everyone. QED, everyone=~everyone. That's of course pure contradiction, so let us go with an easy explanation: women who do not are, in fact, not women. The category of "women" must include in its definition: "an organism with such and so sexual characteristics that values attractiveness".
I can therefore safely say: no one has ever committed suicide. Ever. Because by doing so, they leave the category of "person", as we define person as "such and so organism with such and so intelligence that does not commit suicide".

Or we can ignore that nonsense and simply take an even easier explanation: that you have 0 idea what the terms "everyone" and "hardwired" means, and did not actually glance at so much of the abstracts of the citations of your psychology today article.
Really now, I tried to help you, you could have done the simplest thing and said "while it is true not everyone can be accounted for, as a general rule attractiveness is a factor in the selection of mates", I've more or less myself admitted that such is correct, but instead you've doubled down.

[Costa Fierro]

oh, I wasn't aware that pointing out the difference between universal statements and averages and statistical significance. is scraping the barrel. I would I have called it undergraduate education, but you do you.

It is scraping the barrel as a debating tactic. A statement is universal when no other factors contradict it. There are no factors that contradict it. Asexual people are not statistically significant, therefore they do not matter in the context of this argument. Arguing otherwise is scraping the barrel, because you cannot find a counterargument beyond "but x group of people exist".

Really now, I tried to help you, you could have done the simplest thing and said "while it is true not everyone can be accounted for, as a general rule attractiveness is a factor in the selection of mates", I've more or less myself admitted that such is correct, but instead you've doubled down.

So what you've essentially done is agree with me, but don't want to be seen agreeing with me, so instead you're engaging in pointless pedantry. That's not particularly constructive. But seeing as you have already agreed with me, it's irrelevant now.

[Katganistan]

It would be hilarious were it not so pathetic.

[Fahran]

My apologies for the delayed response. I had quite the busy weekend between all my obligations and the general frenzy of life.

Marriage isn't advantageous for men at all. That would imply the positives outweigh the negatives and that simply isn't true.

My article on the relative happiness of married men versus unmarried men would seem to rather neatly dispel that assertion.

Married people are no more healthier than single people.

Your article stated that the health benefits have decreased to the point that married people as an average are not about as healthy as unmarried people as an average. This begs the question: why were married couples healthier in the past? My argument would probably hinge on a relative decline in the quality of diets due to the gradual decline of the housewife as a social role and the general decline in health across society in many respects. It has nothing to do with marriage being intrinsically worse than being single. In fact, a marriage predicated on more traditional mores will probably make you both happier and healthier.

Single people are almost always better off financially than married couples. Married couples have tax advantages but this is effectively cancelled out by having more expenses than single people, which expand considerably if the married couple has children.

The article you posted appears mostly to reference disposable income, and that argument has a number of weaknesses. Married couples, according to your article, are too busy saving for retirement, purchasing houses, and starting families, all previously deemed commendable social goals, rather than blowing on ephemeral personal wants. This might explain the higher degrees of happiness mentioned in my previous article.

Being married also isn't a factor in life satisfaction. Quality of life often depends on having a good support network and if you have a poor support network, whether or not you are married doesn't affect life satisfaction. In fact, single people are now doing better than married people for the first time in a lot of areas.

The first article admits that the study in question had a limited and biased scope. The second article stretched its criteria a bit to spin the lack of marriages, sexual relationships, and isolation from the family unit that are occurring as positives. The problem is that practically all of these studies are examining relatively young people and a deterioration in our marital culture rather than the long-term projected effects of these significant cultural shifts. Our fertility rates are declining, our suicide rates are increasing, the number of people living alone is increasing, etc. We can expect demographic contraction and debilitating loneliness in the future.

And that's not even getting to the part of divorce. Contrary to popular belief, divorce isn't on the decline, as rates differ between different groups of people. Some groups have experienced declines, other groups have not. Divorce rates are called "crude" for a reason: they often look at the ratio between marriages and divorces and use that to form the divorce rate. Often that doesn't account whether a person is marrying for the first, second, or third time (both of which have divorce rates of 60% and 73% respectively) or doing the same thing with divorce. And if divorce happens, you can guarantee you will be taken to the cleaners in terms of what the judge grants to women in terms of alimony, child support, property, etc. And with the likelihood of divorce staying at 50% in the United States, should any man who knows the risks and the benefits of remaining single get married? My answer would be no.

High divorce rates are largely a myth at present. The vast majority of marriages actually turn out quite happily for men. They aren't especially likely to get divorced, they manage to move into a house earlier, they get to enjoy family life, they begin saving money for retirement, and several studies suggest that they're happier in the long-term than men who stay single in perpetuity. If anything, women actually tend to be somewhat less happy in their marriages, and that probably has a lot to do with things like the second-shift and the general malaise that has crept into society.

Source.

Now, onto address your other arguments.

Please do.

I don't believe there's bitterness in men at all. More and more of them are looking at what women are offering these days, the pitfalls of being marriage and, by extension, being in relationships and deciding that it's not worth it anymore.

You sound quite alienated from women if anything. Your description of us strikes me as a touch bitter and sardonic. Given that a substantial number of incels do describe themselves as bitter, I don't think it's unfair to employ that term, especially if my intention isn't to scold or belittle them. And, again, I didn't exclude women from feeling bitter either.

For women, bitterness does exist insofar in that there is a small but increasing group of women who are not finding male partners. These women are often highly educated and have good careers, but cannot find partners simply because they have standards which still dictate the man has to have equal or superior education and income.

Again, this does not surprise me. I would also attribute this to the increasing decadence and frivolity of our culture, but some trends do suggest that hook-ups are on the decline. My main concern is that this might suggest that sexual relationships are on the decline more generally. Rapid population contraction is not a good thing in the slightest.

However, women outnumber men in universities and women are increasingly earning more than their male graduates. This shrinks an already small pool of potential partners, resulting in women who are bitter because they're essentially leftovers.

Does this not impact men at all? Your argument would suggests that it doesn't. That said, I'm inclined to point out that female incels aren't committing high profile terror attacks at present. While I'm certain there are many bitter women, I'd argue that just as many, if not more, bitter men are about. In any case, addressing their problems is a worthwhile consideration. You might be fine with being single forever, but many people aren't.

Incels do not know how to behave as traditionally masculine men, do not know how to adjust to the modern dating scene, lack social/emotional support networks and foundations in their communities, and often have never had a meaningful conversation with a woman that was predicated on some sort of limerent attachment.

Incels behave, or at least believe in, ways that are converse to your assumption; the are often very, very conservative.

Being anti-feminist or prudish isn't quite the same as being conservative, and conservative political proclivities do not necessarily correlate with traditional masculine virtues, social aptitude, wittiness, and confidence in a way that will get potential partners to take an avid interest. A lot of incels are well to the political left of me for instance in that they're liberals and progressives who just dislike feminism.

Therefore they do not believe the modern dating scene is "moral" and want nothing to do with it because of perceived degeneracy.

There are plenty of women who prefer to meet their partners at church and go on formal dates. I met my ex in the library for instance. He then bumped into me reading a book at a party later and asked me to go to a museum with him. Traditionally, men have had a lot of power in selecting the sorts of dates they want. They just have to ask. Many incels never even get to that point because they've convinced themselves that it won't work and that they need to be overly cautious.

You are right in that they lack social and emotional support, but this is largely due to a combination of society not being willing to offer assistance to the kinds of disabilities and mental health conditions that many incels have, as well as their own lack of willingness to seek out help due to, again, their conservative beliefs of masculinity.

Their beliefs about masculinity often aren't conservative. I've heard a number of "nice guys" say rather nasty things about "meatheads", "frat boys", and "jocks" throughout my life. Essentially, people who are seen as possessing physical prowess, a traditional masculine virtue. Incels fall into an awkward space in regard to masculinity by and large, and, no, it's not necessarily their fault. Society has been sending them mixed messages, boys aren't taught to discuss masculinity in any meaningful way, and dads are often peripheral of late. A movement is needed to address it all, and it should be a men's movement. Preferably one that doesn't hate women or marriage.

If you wanted to fix the problem

You'd start by promoting the idea that self satisfaction, self esteem and personal happiness comes from within and not from external validation.

While those are important, a fully realized life necessitates more than being by yourself forever. No man, or woman, is an island. We're social creatures and we crave affection, partnership, and the achievement of certain social goals. These perpetuate society as well.

[Costa Fierro]

You sound quite alienated from women if anything. Your description of us strikes me as a touch bitter and sardonic.

Now that I know this valuable information, this will be my last response to you. Marriage is not beneficial for men.

[Fahran]

You sound quite alienated from women if anything. Your description of us strikes me as a touch bitter and sardonic.

Now that I know this valuable information, this will be my last response to you. Marriage is not beneficial for men.

And you’re wrong. I hope you realize that one day or else that you can be happy on your own in perpetuity. You have always struck me as a decent person in our conversations and I’m sorry if I spoke too freely.

[Hatterleigh]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

[Threlizdun]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

Because feminists aren't really that lonely and we don't want to date men who feel entitled to our bodies and who kill us if we don't give our bodies to them.

[NeoOasis]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

I don't recall feminists being lonely, and frankly the alternative sounds pretty scary. "Learn to be cooperative" sounds like someone is about to be broken in a relationship.

One thing I can see here is swingers are probably gonna become the norm in this kind of society. Why be faithful if you don't care about each other beyond throwing out the trash... honestly it sounds like my first year at uni when I was forced to live with a roomate I didn't get to choose.

[The Free Joy State]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

Well, isn't this one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Which is saying something.

A. Being a feminist does not equate with being lonely.
B. Many feminists are in actually functional, committed relationships with people who value them, and so are not "available" to be given as a placatory chew-toy to incels.
C. As has been said, "learn to be cooperative" sounds like a nice way to try to avoid saying "be broken". While there are feminists who have been in abusive relationships, I don't even want to know why anyone would suggest putting people into relationships that would be abusive by default, seeing as incels do not see women -- any women, and least of all feminists -- as human beings, but merely as sexual objects to be owned.

[Geneviev]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

Yeah... no. Feminists specifically don't want that and incels don't deserve that.

[Katganistan]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

Yeah... no. Feminists specifically don't want that and incels don't deserve that.

I think you mean feminists don't deserve that.

[Geneviev]

Yeah... no. Feminists specifically don't want that and incels don't deserve that.

I think you mean feminists don't deserve that.

And don't want it.

[Isilanka]

Why don't we just give all the incels the lonely femenist women? Then they'll either learn to be thankful that they are lonely or learn to be cooperative with their spouse.

Because feminists aren't really that lonely and we don't want to date men who feel entitled to our bodies and who kill us if we don't give our bodies to them.

I'm under the assumption that for many incels - and people from the manosphere as a whole - feminists are some kind of ugly creatures that never get laid and hate men because they don't know better, or something like that.

[The Free Joy State]

Because feminists aren't really that lonely and we don't want to date men who feel entitled to our bodies and who kill us if we don't give our bodies to them.

I'm under the assumption that for many incels - and people from the manosphere as a whole - feminists are some kind of ugly creatures that never get laid and hate men because they don't know better, or something like that.

Incels blame feminism, as far as I can tell, for women having any kind of self-worth and so not sleeping with them.

This thread (not an incel thread, it's a (probably-)feminist thread pointing out some of the BS they say) opens with an image of an incel diatribe that should tell you just how they think.*

All I can say is... the lack of self-awareness... Egads!

*Language warning. (not stronger than NS, but -- exercise caution)

[Saiwania]

I'm under the assumption that for many incels - and people from the manosphere as a whole - feminists are some kind of ugly creatures that never get laid and hate men because they don't know better, or something like that.

Well, that depends where on the feminist spectrum, they fall. There are plenty of feminists who're otherwise perfectly well rounded and functioning people and there are a minority of feminists who go overboard with man hating and wanting society to operate like a femdom. The sort to purposely dress more masculinely and etc. to try to outwardly project power and strength and put their career advancement before anything else.

Pregnancy generally speaking, is the worst possible thing in their view. They'd get an abortion near 100% of the time because chances are, it'd be a severe setback for them.

These sort of women usually don't get too much male attention, except for the ones that're absolutely "whipped" figuratively speaking.

In any case, Incels and Feminists are diametrically opposed and as such, can't and would never get along.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm under the assumption that for many incels - and people from the manosphere as a whole - feminists are some kind of ugly creatures that never get laid and hate men because they don't know better, or something like that.

Well, that depends where on the feminist spectrum, they fall. There are plenty of feminists who're otherwise perfectly well rounded and functioning people and there are a minority of feminists who go overboard with man hating and wanting society to operate like a femdom. The sort to purposely dress more masculinely and etc. to try to outwardly project power and strength and put their career advancement before anything else.

Pregnancy generally speaking, is the worst possible thing in their view. They'd get an abortion near 100% of the time because chances are, it'd be a severe setback for them.

These sort of women usually don't get too much male attention, except for the ones that're absolutely "whipped" figuratively speaking.

In any case, Incels and Feminists are diametrically opposed and as such, can't and would never get along.

While I'm glad you at least accept there are many different types of feminists, I don't even know where to begin with the rest of this doozy.

1. Feminists who are "otherwise" perfectly well rounded and functioning? Your meaning being, aside from being a feminist I assume?

2. And if a man wants to put his career advancement before other considerations, I assume this would also be a bad thing?

3. I'd like statistics to say that feminists would get an abortion nearly 100% of the time. Please consider that half of British women and 7 out of ten young women identify as feminists and, yet, only 1/3 British women has had an abortion, making a substantially higher percentage of women being feminist than have had an abortion. So I call shenanigans on those stats.

4. What do you mean by "whipped"? I've always seen it as a rather ugly and demeaning word, used to mock men who actually listen to, rather than talk at, women. Few women, whether feminist or not, want or would accept a dictatorial partner. And no decent man would be a dictatorial partner.

I agree, however, that feminists and incels would not get along. And no feminist deserves to suffer marital misery with an incel.

[Costa Fierro]

This thread (not an incel thread, it's a (probably-)feminist thread pointing out some of the BS they say) opens with an image of an incel diatribe that should tell you just how they think.*

Ah, /r/IncelTears: the sub filled with women who bully incels and then wonder why incels hate women.

I'd like statistics to say that feminists would get an abortion nearly 100% of the time. Please consider that half of British women and 7 out of ten young women identify as feminists

Really does explain a lot about the current state of affairs in the UK. Now I know where the government idea to have a database of porn users came from.

[The Free Joy State]

This thread (not an incel thread, it's a (probably-)feminist thread pointing out some of the BS they say) opens with an image of an incel diatribe that should tell you just how they think.*

Ah, /r/IncelTears: the sub filled with women who bully incels and then wonder why incels hate women.

"Bully" incels.

Did you read what was posted. It was hardly a poor picked on innocent breaking and lashing out. It was a man who was angry that women didn't consider themselves his inferior.

For which he was mocked.

I'd like statistics to say that feminists would get an abortion nearly 100% of the time. Please consider that half of British women and 7 out of ten young women identify as feminists

Really does explain a lot about the current state of affairs in the UK. Now I know where the government idea to have a database of porn users came from.

FFS! There are many, many different types of feminists. Not all of them against sex or the sex industry.

There is sex-positive feminism.

And kindly do not remove my links; they provide context. Most women surveyed, when asked why they were a feminist, replied this:

that both sexes simply deserve the same opportunities.

No grand plot against men (either socially, or the incel obsession that feminists are attempting to deprive them of sex). Just simple equality for both sexes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This thread (not an incel thread, it's a (probably-)feminist thread pointing out some of the BS they say) opens with an image of an incel diatribe that should tell you just how they think.*

Ah, /r/IncelTears: the sub filled with women who bully incels and then wonder why incels hate women.

You're confused, ma frere. Incels started to hate women first, then people started mocking them for their out-there irrational hatred for women.

[Costa Fierro]

"Bully" incels.

Did you read what was posted. It was hardly a poor picked on innocent breaking and lashing out. It was a man who was angry that women didn't consider themselves his inferior.

For which he was mocked.

You're confused, ma frere. Incels started to hate women first, then people started mocking them for their out-there irrational hatred for women.

You two really need to go back to the incels thread and look through my posts. Also I've often lurked through /r/IncelTears and they're not nice people. They are the kinds of people they hate.

[Costa Fierro]

FFS! There are many, many different types of feminists. Not all of them against sex or the sex industry.

I'm sure there are.

And kindly do not remove my links; they provide context. Most women surveyed, when asked why they were a feminist, replied this:

that both sexes simply deserve the same opportunities.

So they're egalitarians. Not feminists.

No grand plot against men (either socially, or the incel obsession that feminists are attempting to deprive them of sex). Just simple equality for both sexes.

Which is what we would be seeing if everyone embraced egalitarianism. I shall refer you to the recent discussions in the Feminist Thread for why your claims about feminism are wrong.

[The Free Joy State]

"Bully" incels.

Did you read what was posted. It was hardly a poor picked on innocent breaking and lashing out. It was a man who was angry that women didn't consider themselves his inferior.

For which he was mocked.

You're confused, ma frere. Incels started to hate women first, then people started mocking them for their out-there irrational hatred for women.

You two really need to go back to the incels thread and look through my posts. Also I've often lurked through /r/IncelTears and they're not nice people. They are the kinds of people they hate.

Look, I lurked on the Incels thread. IIRC, I even posted a little. I know you have theories on Incels. So do I. I would love it if there was more social support for men, and better mental health care for men, and groups that focused on that rather than hating women.

If there was a group dedicated to all that for men -- without any element misogyny or anti-feminism -- I, and probably many feminists, would be shouting and flag waving and all for it. You know why? Because men's health matters, and -- despite what a small number of people would have you believe -- most people accept that.

However, the particular highlighted post does say -- specifically -- that women are men's inferiors. That's not me hyperbolising or reading into things. It's there, for the world to see:

Below -- spoilered, because it's not pleasant -- is just one of the sentiments in the linked post, from an Incel, and it really does prove my point about Incels seeing women as inferior:

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/com ... _feminism/

Oh, and it promotes the idea that men and femoids are equal - which is not true - but a distorted dream. Any sane person knows that men are more superior to the femoid in every way.

I think that, once someone holds that kind of opinion, nothing is going to change their mind. Preventative action -- stopping someone becoming an incel -- is the only real way forward.

And kindly do not remove my links; they provide context. Most women surveyed, when asked why they were a feminist, replied this:

that both sexes simply deserve the same opportunities.

So they're egalitarians. Not feminists.

Not quite. Feminists can be egalitarians. But true egalitarianism also covers a belief in true equality for everyone, regardless of race, class and economic status.

It is possible to believe (for example), if we're talking semantics, in absolute gender equality, but not in racial equality. That person would be a feminist, but definitely not an egalitarian.

No grand plot against men (either socially, or the incel obsession that feminists are attempting to deprive them of sex). Just simple equality for both sexes.

Which is what we would be seeing if everyone embraced egalitarianism. I shall refer you to the recent discussions in the Feminist Thread for why your claims about feminism are wrong.

I am a feminist, and yet you're going to tell me that my claims about feminism are wrong?

How, specifically? I'd be fascinated to find out how I could have been apparently so mistaken in my own ideology for my whole adult life.

Please tell me here, though, seeing as -- last time I looked -- the feminist thread appears to have degenerated into anti-feminist men complaining about feminism, and I don't feel like shouting in order to be heard.

EDIT: But if you plan to insist that there is a grand feminist plot to deprive men of sex and rule the world... Don't tell me that. I've heard it. Many, many times. And hearing it once more won't magically make me believe it.

[Alsheb]

"Distribution of spouses" sounds a lot like forced marriage and sexual slavery to me.
You do realise that The Handmaid's Tale is not supposed to be a guidebook, right?