Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Inceldom was the historical norm

Angry_runt

Angry_runt

Cursed OGcel
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
11,645
No paywall:
The gist of it is that inceldom was a historical norm and that this changed only in the 20th century. Now we're sliding back to how things were for nearly the entirety of human history.

Thus, the consensus narrative seems to be that traditional patriarchy had for ages ensured men’s access to sex, until feminism came along and gave women a choice in the matter—the only disagreements being over whether this is a positive development and whether the men “left behind” are to be pitied and accommodated or mocked and restrained. A closer look at history, however, suggests that the real question is not why incels exist, but why there aren’t more of them.

By about 6000 BC, the ratio of females reproducing versus males had risen to a staggering seventeen to one. Recent centuries have seen a more reasonable reproductive ratio of four to one, but no matter how you slice it, the fact remains that of all the men who have ever lived, the majority of them have left no trace in the human gene pool.

In a broader sense, war has functioned as a disposal mechanism for a society’s excess men. Contrary to both traditionalist conservative myth and popular feminist narrative, for most of history patriarchy was not a privilege one benefited from simply by being born male, but a brutal racket in which millions of men destroyed each other and the world around them for the benefit of a fortunate few.

When incels talk about the “traditional norms” supposedly eroded by feminism, they are actually referring to a brief historical window in which a number of political and economic currents converged to create an incredible wave of stability and shared prosperity in much of the developed world, giving millions of relatively unskilled and unremarkable men the means to sustain a nuclear household on a single income and reap the rewards of patriarchy. They pine for “traditional” eras in which, in all statistical likelihood, they would find themselves serving as cannon fodder in some lord’s army, wasting away from scurvy at sea, or hauling stones under an overseer’s whip.
 
I don't mind so much about not reproducing.

However I mind about being cucked.

It's one thing to see Chad forming a harem, it's an other to be forced to pay for his offspring. That just takes the cake.

Also, if I can't enjoy female company for free, could I, at the very fucking least, be allowed to pay for it FFS ?
 
Last edited:
Exactly, that's why reactionarism makes no sense. There's no past for us to looks towards, only the (improbable) destruction of the social pyramid may give us a better future
 
Last edited:
Foid propaganda
Based.
This article is just a few of a line of articles in recent years that's been hinting at some people's eagerness to deal with a large sexless male population through means of sending them to war. It's also trying to paint all past wars as having that purpose, trying to build consensus that maybe it or something similar should be tried again and that such men if left alone are a threat that need to be neutralized.

https://archive.vn/lrwrH

https://archive.vn/m1R2q

https://archive.vn/pzkW4


https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-public...rorism-sexual-deprivation-as-security-threat/

"Others take on a slightly different but equally misogynistic flavour, such as the sentiment of how military conscription sets men back in their career whilst self-serving and career-minded women are given a step ahead to advance in life. This sense of male victimhood is something which is universal and could find resonance and manifest violently in an Asian context through something that might look like Incel violence."
 
I don't mind so much about not reproducing.

However I mind about being cucked.

It's one thing to see Chad forming a harem, it's an other to be forced to pay for his offspring. That just takes the cake.

Also, if I can't enjoy female company for free, could I at the very fucking least be allowed to pay for it FFS ?
:feelsjuice: :feelsokman:
 
Get your information from real historians not some incel-hating faggot who wrote his first article ever.

If countries are always at war and people are dying off all the time wouldn't you need new people to do jobs and go to war for you? Where do you think those come from the Chads?
 
Exactly, that's why reactionarism makes no sense. There's no past for us to looks towards, only the (improbable) destruction of the social pyramid may give us a better future
 
Get your information from real historians not some incel-hating faggot who wrote his first article ever.
I don't know what you think you're arguing here. Historically more women reproduced than men and the incel men died off in wars or were ground down by work without leaving any offspring. The average man wasn't Homer Simpson, but rather an incel who died quietly without anyone noticing or caring.


If countries are always at war and people are dying off all the time wouldn't you need new people to do jobs and go to war for you? Where do you think those come from the Chads?
I don't know what you were trying to say here. Yes, chads or the rich and powerful reproduced at a far greater rate than the average man (who on average didn't reproduce at all).


trying to build consensus that maybe it or something similar should be tried again and that such men if left alone are a threat that need to be neutralized.
Where are you getting this? It's not in the article I linked.
And it's not that the wars were caused by an excess of men. Conflict is natural, but the scale of wars and the willingness to fight them were caused by an abundance of men that were simply not needed.
 
Where are you getting this? It's not in the article I linked.
"Moreover, in contrast to previous eras, today’s low-status men are not so easily disposed of. Although news headlines show a world torn apart by violent conflict, the truth is that war itself now has a much smaller impact on the social fabric. Two decades of war in the Middle East have claimed the lives of nearly six thousand American troops. But the Seven Years’ War alone saw nearly a million combatant casualties at a time when the world population was one-tenth its present size. Globally, armed conflict today accounts for only about 3 percent of annual deaths, and as traditional battlefields have given way to internal strife and irregular warfare, that body count has become largely civilian and thus less heavily male-skewed. Recently, an academic journal article titled “Drone Disorientations” received a healthy heaping of ridicule for its claim that drones are “genderqueer bodies” that “queer the experience of killing in war.” But buried beneath the self-parodying post-structuralist jargon is the more simple and obvious truth that technology has fundamentally transformed both the nature of war and the soldier’s role in it. The automation and professionalization of war have reduced its effectiveness as a meat grinder for processing vast quantities of surplus masculinity. So while feminism is not to blame for the exclusion of large numbers of men from family life, incels can blame modernity for the fact that, unlike their ancient counterparts, they remain alive to stew in their discontent."

"If the consequences were limited to an occasional unhinged manifesto and a few more entries in the depressingly frequent list of mass shootings, we could perhaps content ourselves with occasionally mocking incels while ignoring them the rest of the time. But they are only the tip of the iceberg. Given that incels tend to be drawn from white (or white-adjacent) portions of the suburban and exurban middle class, there is a tendency to dismiss their predicament as one of privilege and entitlement. Yet it is also possible to see them as a local variant of a global crisis of masculinity that unites their fates with those of less “privileged” men. In the United States, men make up over 90 percent of the prison population. In South Sudan, the combination of polygamy and bride prices has contributed directly to civil war. ISIS has recruited frustrated Muslim men with the promise of wives. In countries like East Germany, the disproportionate emigration of women better adapted to seek work in Western cities has left behind a population of angry men who form the primary base for Far Right movements. And in India, the same phenomenon, exacerbated by a gender imbalance stemming from sex-selective abortion, has exploded into a violent religious fanaticism. As the Economist writes, “The world’s most dysfunctional people are nearly all male.”

Understood in this way, the incel’s predicament is a bitterly ironic one. For in addition to the targets of their rage, incels victimize themselves by supporting the very same ideologies that lie at the root of their immiseration. They decry the materialism and shallowness of “gold-digging” women who only care about men’s wealth and social status while in the same breath opposing feminist equality and upholding the gender norms that enshrine men as providers. They extol marriage while opposing the sorts of economic redistributionist policies that would make it easier for men like them to attain and sustain it. They adopt white supremacist ideologies that demonize black and immigrant men instead of recognizing their common plight. And with their view of history hopelessly distorted by consumer media, they pine for “traditional” eras in which, in all statistical likelihood, they would find themselves serving as cannon fodder in some lord’s army, wasting away from scurvy at sea, or hauling stones under an overseer’s whip. But one need not have any sympathy for incels to recognize that simply admonishing them to “be better” and less entitled is an inadequate response to a confluence of technological and demographic change, and that the conditions that breed them create a more dangerous world for us all."
And it's not that the wars were caused by an excess of men. Conflict is natural, but the scale of wars and the willingness to fight them were caused by an abundance of men that were simply not needed.
I wasn't arguing this but the author seemed to try to advance this premise.

Willingness is a misnomer. Many of these men were drafted. They had no choice but to fight or be imprisoned and face death anyway for 'cowardice' in evading war.
 
Well if you look at the states when marriage and fertility rate are at its highest , what are some factors that correspond to this?
 
"Moreover, in contrast to previous eras, today’s low-status men are not so easily disposed of. Although news headlines show a world torn apart by violent conflict, the truth is that war itself now has a much smaller impact on the social fabric. Two decades of war in the Middle East have claimed the lives of nearly six thousand American troops. But the Seven Years’ War alone saw nearly a million combatant casualties at a time when the world population was one-tenth its present size. Globally, armed conflict today accounts for only about 3 percent of annual deaths, and as traditional battlefields have given way to internal strife and irregular warfare, that body count has become largely civilian and thus less heavily male-skewed. Recently, an academic journal article titled “Drone Disorientations” received a healthy heaping of ridicule for its claim that drones are “genderqueer bodies” that “queer the experience of killing in war.” But buried beneath the self-parodying post-structuralist jargon is the more simple and obvious truth that technology has fundamentally transformed both the nature of war and the soldier’s role in it. The automation and professionalization of war have reduced its effectiveness as a meat grinder for processing vast quantities of surplus masculinity. So while feminism is not to blame for the exclusion of large numbers of men from family life, incels can blame modernity for the fact that, unlike their ancient counterparts, they remain alive to stew in their discontent."

The callousness of this author is not even funny, since we have indeed plenty of guys here literally wishing for someone to kill them.
 
But where was he suggesting that something similar should be tried again? If he's making any policy argument, it's that 50s were great for men because the average man could support a family thanks to increase in workers rights, higher taxes on the rich and less income inequality.

Willingness is a misnomer. Many of these men were drafted. They had no choice but to fight or be imprisoned and face death anyway for 'cowardice' in evading war.
I didn't mean willingness on the part of these men (although this was very much evident at the start of WW1), but the willingness of society as a whole to fight these wars by sending these men to die.
 
I don't know what you think you're arguing here. Historically more women reproduced than men and the incel men died off in wars or were ground down by work without leaving any offspring. The average man wasn't Homer Simpson, but rather an incel who died quietly without anyone noticing or caring.

I don't know what you were trying to say here. Yes, chads or the rich and powerful reproduced at a far greater rate than the average man (who on average didn't reproduce at all)
Even if that's true, which I don't know if it is because I don't trust the guy who wrote this article, I want to see a real historian who cares about the truth say it, preferrably one who also has the balls to say something red/blackpilled.

All people were Christians back in these times, I just don't see how they can form harems and impregnate all the village girls if they believe in god and the sanctity of marriage. Besides you want more people, people are dying like flies and you're at a constant risk of war, there's no "hehe I'm gonna fuck with the incels and fuck their sister" they'd probably be begging incels to find some wife and make new soldiers/workers before they would be shipped of to die somewhere. This is just me thinking out loud so maybe I'm wrong but, wouldn't just take some random guys word for it.

The point being made by this guy is that we should just stfu and accept our faith which seems very IT to me.
 
But where was he suggesting that something similar should be tried again? If he's making any policy argument, it's that 50s were great for men because the average man could support a family thanks to increase in workers rights, higher taxes on the rich and less income inequality.
You have to read inbetween the lines.
This article is very contemptuous of incels and says they should be mocked but that also there needs to be a way of dealing with a large population of such men now that war doesn't suffice. It really does suggest the author thinks maybe something similar should be tried again.
I didn't mean willingness on the part of these men (although this was very much evident at the start of WW1), but the willingness of society as a whole to fight these wars by sending these men to die.
True but society like today usually went along with what the rulers of the time decided without much opposition. The rulers at the time considered the people they ruled their subjects that were supposed to die for them in glory of them and their empire.
 

Similar threads

fukurou
Replies
2
Views
142
Fire.
Fire.
AshamedVirgin34
Replies
8
Views
249
lazy_gamer_423
lazy_gamer_423
AsiaCel
Replies
1
Views
165
idiot_cel
idiot_cel
AsiaCel
Replies
4
Views
154
wereq
wereq

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top