Ka-pi96 said:
Nope, still not a fact. If you want to add in an "on average" there then it would be arguable based on what you mean by "aggressive", but suggesting that all men are more aggressive than women simply isn't true. Edit: I don't think your other "well known fact" is a fact either, considering the male vs female suicide rates. And even if you had the evidence to back it up as a "fact" I don't think it's well known either... |
You know what? You are actually right, I should've framed that more clearly.
Like I said don't take my comment at face value, I just vaguely remember reading about women being more prone to depression, also I think women do attempt more suicides than men, it is just that men are more successful at such grim task.
I'm incel and I don't feel the need to murder anybody. The problem isn't women, it's me. I am the common denominator.
Some men simply refuse to accept responsibility, blame the women who reject them, and channel their frustration into violence.
I've been "incel" for years in France, and it is something considered shameful. A man unable to get a woman is considered a failure, a loser. So I always avoided that kind of talks.
And when I arrived in Japan, with mostly other Asian students around me (China, Vietnam...), I became all of a sudden like a mini rockstar at my school and work, with girls asking to take a selfie with me, coming all blushing to ask for my number, and everyone saying "You're so good looking, you can get a girlfriend here anytime you want!". I was shocked and didn't even know what to do about all of that. I consider myself average looking, but I'm short, which is a huge issue in Europe, a lot less in Asia. With the really popular white skin and light hair, it's enough to be considered "beautiful" here, even if it's ridiculous.
But even with that, I was unable to find a girlfriend for months, because I was just unused to the dating world. I then tried online dating, had maybe 70+ matches in a month, met a dozen of girls and I've been dating one for 5 months now.
But I'm still really insecure and shy anytime I talk to an unknown woman, even more if she begins to compliment me. But when I compare with my life in France, first of all I understand now that a couple of women tried to hit on me at that time and I was too stupid to get it, and second I just didn't try anything like here. I'm pretty sure I was "incel" only because of myself. I wasn't a loser because of the lack of results, I had a loser mentality and turned myself like this. I didn't do anything and usually didn't care at all, and sometimes asked myself "Why can't I find a GF?". Stupid. I've never been angry at women because of it, thankfully, I never fell that low.
And it's surely the same thing with all those other losers. It's their own fault. They can hit the gym, start going out, get any social life and meet people, and if they still can't get anyone, they can lower their expectations and start again (I would still be single if I only tried to date idols...). Women want to find a man as much as us, and in a lot of countries you have more women than men. They just won't settle for a guy making himself a loser. And killing them because of it surely won't help, they will just become more and more uneasy around other incels each time.
We'll in a society that gives sex too much importance, anyone who doesn't get some is considered weird or an outcast basically. Now these same people had they been born in an eastern culture wouldn't have that issue as sex isn't worshipped. They measure their value through sex just like how people measure it through wealth or power but ultimately all these trappings don't matter. They want it, they should work for it. And not having any of it aka virgin is not a bad thing either. The society they grew up in stigmatizes Virgins. Plus they are most likely socially awkward which is off putting to the better half. They should much rather own it than whine and kill people for it.
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
"It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy. For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above - even a very little above - are as far out of reach as the moon. The reasons are not worth discussing, but there is little doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves.
A tramp, therefore, is a celibate from the moment when he takes to the road. He is absolutely without hope of getting a wife, a mistress, or any kind of woman except — very rarely, when he can raise a few shillings — a prostitute.
It is obvious what the results of this must be: homosexuality, for instance, and occasional rape cases. But deeper than these there is the degradation worked in a man who knows that he is not even considered fit for marriage. The sexual impulse, not to put it any higher, is a fundamental impulse, and starvation of it can be almost as demoralizing as physical hunger. The evil of poverty is not so much that it makes a man suffer as that it rots him physically and spiritually. And there can be no doubt that sexual starvation contributes to this rotting process. Cut off from the whole race of women, a tramp feels himself degraded to the rank of a cripple or a lunatic. No humiliation could do more damage to a man’s self-respect."
― George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London, 1933
| VGPolyglot said: Well, unfortunately though there are men who just cannot be swayed by the advantages that it gives to women, so if it comes to it we may have to inform them of the advantages, especially if you're trying to speak to a primarily male demographic. In getting rid of the stereotypes for women it will hopefully lead to the elimination of stereotypes for men too, and those that are considered "weak" or "feminine" in today's standards will be much more comfortable. Also, with women being able to reach their full potential, we'll hopefully also get many more ideas, inventions and improvements that we wouldn't be able to get otherwise. |
| Nymeria said: I am grateful for the victories feminist won and I will never apologize for seeing it as progress. I dealt with deeply patriarchal structures growing up, the kind with 19th century mentalities on women. I never excused the end behavior, ultimately if a guy calls me a cunt or threatens to rape me or gropes me I don't much care about his background, he should be held accountability for his words and actions. I have spent a lot of time in my life helping women and been part of groups that support them. I know very well the challenges we still face as a society. My point is how we achieve the next step of progress. We don't compromise an inch on what we want as women, but we can work with men. We're not conquering them, we're asking for equal treatment and opportunity. I've found you win a lot more people over to the cause framing it this way and I never want to be like the men I knew growing up who told me over and over how my sex was a deficiency that limited my potential. We can do better, we are not like the patriarchs. |
I've dialogued with enough men on the topic of women's lib enough times over the years to know this much: we are kidding ourselves if we believe that most men are ever going to be feminists. At the end of the day, relative to women, men are a privileged social group and privileged groups don't give up their privileges voluntarily or happily. That's why the women's movement has be a women-centered movement. There's no ill will toward men implied in saying that. I've just come to believe that it's naive to think otherwise.
We cannot compete with what the men's movement can promise men. They can offer men all of our money, all of our property, and of course our bodies. We, in contrast, can offer men social permission to cry and cross-dress and become nurses and join the cheerleading squad; you know, just the sort of freedoms you hear most man clamoring for all the time. You see my point here? We can't out-offer the men's movement. We can't compete on their terms, so we'd better not count on attempts to working out. We have to be our own movement, not just an appendage of their's.
This is a bit of pet peeve of mine; an issue I have with modern, "third wave" feminism. It's too compromising and men-centered and it's not working out. By most measures, we are tangibly losing ground as a class.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 25 May 2018
I subscribe to the "cry for help" from the oppression of unchecked wealth and power of our society theory. Some would say it is the failures of capitalism itself that causes by-products such as senses of no control and thus mass shootings. I believe capitalism can work but it has to be aggressively regulated. For example, I think the HillaryCare of the 1990s was a better health care system reform idea package than the Obamacare of the 2010s. However the unchecked wealth and power structures flexed their muscle and shot down Hillarycare and it looks like Obamacare may also eventually be totally dismantled if pro-business conservatives keep getting elected into office. I would not agree that the public-option is the solution because the role of the government should not be to provide health care.
| Jaicee said: I've dialogued with enough men on the topic of women's lib enough times over the years to know this much: we are kidding ourselves if we believe that most men are ever going to be feminists. At the end of the day, relative to women, men are a privileged social group and privileged groups don't give up their privileges voluntarily or happily. That's why the women's movement has be a women-centered movement. There's no ill will toward men implied in saying that. I've just come to believe that it's naive to think otherwise. We cannot compete with what the men's movement can promise men. They can offer men all of our money, all of our property, and of course our bodies. We, in contrast, can offer men social permission to cry and cross-dress and become nurses and join the cheerleading squad; you know, just the sort of freedoms you hear most man clamoring for all the time. You see my point here? We can't out-offer the men's movement. We can't compete on their terms, so we'd better not count on attempts to working out. We have to be our own movement, not just an appendage of their's. This is a bit of pet peeve of mine; an issue I have with modern, "third wave" feminism. It's too compromising and men-centered and it's not working out. By most measures, we are tangibly losing ground as a class. |
Yes, but not all men are enemies, there are feminist men too that can really help advance the movement and it's important not to alienate men that are sympathetic to the movement. However, I do see a problem in making feminism a gender-neutral movement, as it ignores the fact that women are typically at a bigger disadvantage than men, so it's a balancing act that I don't exactly have the answer to.
wow so everyone here thinks this is all social and has nothing to do with testosterone for example causing higher aggression and sexual drive in men?
i mean obviously there's a social component that includes the idea that you're a loser if you aren't sexually successful as a man, but i think its a mistake to simply reduce it down to that entirely
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
