On The Distribution of Spouses

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"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.

The people on /r/inceltears are incels too? We should laugh at them too.

[Purpelia]

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.

At the risk of sounding edgy: Hating other people makes you a bad person? You don't say!

[Costa Fierro]

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.

The question is, did you actually get what I was saying? Because that will go a long way to understanding incels and their ideas and beliefs.

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.

Why no anti-feminism? Why not actually calling out the movement that, if it isn't the cause of social problems that negatively affect men, certainly acts in a way that stops these issues from being addressed. I mean you can sit there and hashtag #NotAllFeminists until the proverbial cows come home, but the fact remains that liberal feminists have done three fifths of fuck all for men and have done absolutely nothing to stop the radical elements from becoming mainstream. Nothing actually happens.

Same thing with men's mental health. Nothing actually happens because the general public doesn't give two shits about what happens to men. Society sees us as disposable so when a man kills himself for whatever reason, it's something to go "gee, that's sad" and continue on with your life. Those very few that do give a shit are fighting an uphill battle to get recognition and funding because one side of the political argument think that mental health is admitting weakness and the other side only cares if it affects women.

However, the particular highlighted post does say -- specifically -- that women are men's inferiors. That's not me hyperbolising or reading into things.

I'm supposed to be shocked by this?

Not quite. Feminists can be egalitarians.

In theory. In practice, this is far from the case.

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

In exactly the same way I've told others that have said exactly the same things to me: it's nothing more than a pointless deflection, an attempt, on your part, to disassociate yourself from the bad apples in the proverbial basket and portray yourself as a moderate without actually addressing the criticisms or doing anything to actually make the movement like what it says on the tin.

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.

Perhaps it's time for you to consider the arguments being made in the feminist thread? If the criticisms and evidence presented makes you uncomfortable, then consider the reasons as to why it does.

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.

I don't believe that at all.

[Kernen]

I cannot see how assigning women and men their partners is better than letting them choose for themselves.

[Costa Fierro]

It would be hilarious were it not so pathetic.

You're still wrong.

[Cappuccina]

The funny thing is that even if this were to become law, the incels would complain about the wives they got.

[Fahran]

The funny thing is that even if this were to become law, the incels would complain about the wives they got.

Probably.

[Isilanka]

The funny thing is that even if this were to become law, the incels would complain about the wives they got.

Of course, because it would confront them to the reality that not all women are stunning submissive wives who enjoy being treated like shit by their husband.

[Cappuccina]

The funny thing is that even if this were to become law, the incels would complain about the wives they got.

Of course, because it would confront them to the reality that not all women are stunning submissive wives who enjoy being treated like shit by their husband.

Yup, incels fail to understand that women are actually people, not pets.

[Hurdergaryp]

Of course, because it would confront them to the reality that not all women are stunning submissive wives who enjoy being treated like shit by their husband.

Yup, incels fail to understand that women are actually people, not pets.

Having a pet might be a better idea, come to think of it.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yup, incels fail to understand that women are actually people, not pets.

Having a pet might be a better idea, come to think of it.

Sorry, I'm already taken

[The Free Joy State]

Yup, incels fail to understand that women are actually people, not pets.

Having a pet might be a better idea, come to think of it.

You mean, you'd wish an incel on any innocent dog or cat?

For shame!

[Cappuccina]

Having a pet might be a better idea, come to think of it.

You mean, you'd wish an incel on any innocent dog or cat?

For shame!

Oh, no poor kitties and puppies!!! Though, I wouldn't doubt incels would be desperate enough to try the zoo-zoo boom-boom!

[United Muscovite Nations]

You mean, you'd wish an incel on any innocent dog or cat?

For shame!

Oh, no poor kitties and puppies!!! Though, I wouldn't doubt incels would be desperate enough to try the zoo-zoo boom-boom!

And people wonder why incels feel that they would be shamed for being virgins.

[Cappuccina]

Oh, no poor kitties and puppies!!! Though, I wouldn't doubt incels would be desperate enough to try the zoo-zoo boom-boom!

And people wonder why incels feel that they would be shamed for being virgins.

Why are they so worried about what others think? They're the ones making a big deal about it.

[Hurdergaryp]

[Cappuccina]

(Image)

^this

/thread

[Fahran]

And people wonder why incels feel that they would be shamed for being virgins.

There's no shame in being a virgin. Actually, on average, women remain virgins a bit longer than men. That said, in all fairness, men and women tend to have different rule-books assigned to them by society. Men are expected to be sexually aggressive, macho, and whatnot. We see men who don't get "conquests" or notches in their belt as defective - and this social perception is engendered by both their fellow men and women. Women, on the other hand, are often shamed if they're not sexually passive and chaste. Again, enforced by both men and women in our society. Additionally, incels are under the false assumption that there problems are unique and not capable of being solved by time and effort. They're largely wrong, and no one ever tells them that in a constructive way. They either get coddled or bullied.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And people wonder why incels feel that they would be shamed for being virgins.

Why are they so worried about what others think? They're the ones making a big deal about it.

Social acceptance is very important for mental health, despite what self-help books say.

[Cappuccina]

Why are they so worried about what others think? They're the ones making a big deal about it.

Social acceptance is very important for mental health, despite what self-help books say.

Self confidence is more important, incels are lacking in that badly. If you need sex to make you comfortable in your own skin, you have other more pressing personal issues to work out.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Social acceptance is very important for mental health, despite what self-help books say.

Self confidence is more important, incels are lacking in that badly. If you need sex to make you comfortable in your own skin, you have other more pressing personal issues to work out.

It's not about sex, a quick glance at incel boards like /r9k/ will reveal that most incels are mostly or completely socially isolated, with most even going as far as to say that if you have a single friend, you can't consider yourself one. That kind of isolation is indeed very damaging to mental health.

[Fahran]

Self confidence is more important, incels are lacking in that badly. If you need sex to make you comfortable in your own skin, you have other more pressing personal issues to work out.

It's not about sex, a quick glance at incel boards like /r9k/ will reveal that most incels are mostly or completely socially isolated, with most even going as far as to say that if you have a single friend, you can't consider yourself one. That kind of isolation is indeed very damaging to mental health.

I would argue that in most cases it's the result of mental health disorders as well. If you have extreme social anxiety, severe autism, or a plethora of other conditions, it's going to be difficult for you to build a social network. Most incels are latching onto a single part of the problem and expressing their anger towards people who often aren't responsible for it.

[Kubra]

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.

So I am right, the statement "no one has ever committed suicide" is a true statement?

Agreeing with you? Sure, if you're unable to distinguish between universal and general statements. You see, this difference makes the difference between true and false in the statement "katganistan does not factor attractiveness in mate selection". If we say "all women factor in attractiveness in mate selection", the first statement is false. if we state "attractiveness in mate selection is observable to great degree in many observed women", the first statement is neither true nor false, as nothing is said about katganistan in particular. One could say "Katganistan is likely to factor attractiveness in a mate", but one could not make any definite statements on the matter of Katganistan, only statements of probability.
I mean, keep up. The arguement is about whether Katganistan in particular can exclude attractiveness from mate selection, not if all women do. "but x group of people exist" is extremely significant here, because it means we can take people at their word when they claim such.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not about sex, a quick glance at incel boards like /r9k/ will reveal that most incels are mostly or completely socially isolated, with most even going as far as to say that if you have a single friend, you can't consider yourself one. That kind of isolation is indeed very damaging to mental health.

I would argue that in most cases it's the result of mental health disorders as well. If you have extreme social anxiety, severe autism, or a plethora of other conditions, it's going to be difficult for you to build a social network. Most incels are latching onto a single part of the problem and expressing their anger towards people who often aren't responsible for it.

Yes, I agree completely, incels are wrong about the causes of what happens to them; however, I think that what we should do is try to make social networks more expansive and inclusive so that fewer people are left behind. I think religion is a good first step to this, but there should be more done than just passive measures.

[Fahran]

Yes, I agree completely, incels are wrong about the causes of what happens to them; however, I think that what we should do is try to make social networks more expansive and inclusive so that fewer people are left behind. I think religion is a good first step to this, but there should be more done than just passive measures.

Religious involvement, compulsory participation in extracurricular school clubs, volunteerism for adolescents and young adults within neighborhoods, and a more vigorous communal proclivity within our culture would all ameliorate the problem significantly, I think. Most of these would have additional benefits as well. I believe that'd have to come down to local communities and grass-roots movements though. A top-down approach won't work for this. Perhaps a FLOTUS cause might.