Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

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.

Serious If you attack men but refuse to attack women, you don't have morals. You're a benevolently sexist hypocrite.

E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
This is something that many people believe in. People get way more outraged by a man mildly slapping a woman than a man viciously beating another man. The phrase "never hit a woman" instead of "never hit anyone" is stupid and it is benevolent sexism. In case you don't know, benevolent sexism is a form of sexism against women that cherishes them but in a way that marginalizes them, typically by infantilizing them. The idea that men need to be protect women or provide for them. The idea that men should pay the entire bill. The idea that women are unsafe walking alone at night unlike men, even though statistics show men are far more likely to be victimized in the streets or by a stranger. These are examples of benevolent sexism. Most sexism is benevolent sexism.

In fact, many criminals refuse to attack women due to "chivalry". Even the Mafia had their "women and children are off limits" code of honor, but lots of evidence shows they actually secretly broke that code of honor and used it as a facade to look like good guys to society. In fact, in many interviews with street robbers and muggers, many mentioned they refused to rob or mug women. Apparently in street robbery culture, it was considered "badass" or "masculine" to attack men in the streets and steal their wealth/resources because of hunter-gatherer mindsets they had and women were excluded from the street game because women historically weren't supposed to do that. In fact, sometimes they believed even hitting a woman was wrong. One even mentioned how they'd rob a couple, but they attacked the man but left the woman alone. Inmates also had a code of honor, and a woman who worked with inmates in Australia says many inmates told her they think it's wrong to hit women and men who attack a random woman on the street are hated in prison. Inmates, at least nowadays, will give domestic violence offenders a pass, but back in the day, domestic violence was a frowned-upon crime in prison, too. Men who frown upon hitting women might still give an exception for their girlfriend/wife.

In fact, not only is intimate partner violence a gender symmetrical crime, but men are more likely than women to beat up people of the same gender whereas women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner violence. Research shows men are more likely to beat up other men than beat up their girlfriend. In fact, a lot of evidence shows that men who commit domestic abuse often have criminal records, and many were found to be generally violent, including towards other men. Men who were only violent towards their girlfriend/wife were found instead to be more remorseful about their actions, less accepting of violence, progressive in their attitudes toward women, and were a lot less violent than most domestic abusers. They often had usually satisfactory relationships with her. The more severe abusers were often generally violent and almost a third of them had antisocial personality disorder. The ones who were only violent towards their wife had a low acceptance of violence typically. That's why they did not attack other men or even other women, not because they're "cowards". The more violent male domestic abuser, however, isn't some coward who is afraid to pick on people his own size. He often does. He's just a generally violent criminal.

This shows that these guys usually have attacked other men, too.

If you refuse to attack women but you attack men, you are a HYPOCRITE. Either both are bad or both are fair game. You cannot argue "but women are vulnerable and it's cheap" for refusing to attack a woman, because many of your male victims could've been vulnerable. These same criminals don't mind attacking a small, scrawny guy. These same guys will attack a guy with a gun. If you use a gun on a big muscular dude with MMA fighting skills, he's 100% vulnerable. He moves a muscle, he dies. He's more defenseless and helpless than attacking a woman with your bare hands. Hell, if you attack a bigger guy with a knife or an object, he's vulnerable, and this is certainly true if you use weapons and objects against a guy your size. If you AMBUSH someone, they are vulnerable or if you attack a drunk guy, or a guy when he was caught off guard (e.g.: suckerpunching) or kill him in his sleep, they are completely defenseless/helpless. CIRCUMSTANTIAL VULNERABILITY IS EVEN MORE OF A PREDICTOR OF VULNERABILITY THAN PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY. In fact, even if you have a 50/50 chance of winning because he's your size, completely awake and sober, facing you, and prepared to fight with both of you unarmed, he was still vulnerable during that very specific, individual fight where you won because he needs to be vulnerable for you to win, so you're still a hypocrite. He still was brutally attacked and it's still just as injurious as the same exact thing happening to a woman, which means it's just as bad. The brutality of a crime determines how bad it is, not the likelihood of success, so that "unfair fight" argument is dumb. In fact, if a woman attacks a man and he's afraid to fight back because he cannot hit women, he's vulnerable as it gets. That's circumstantial vulnerability.

Many people will argue that women are more likely to be victims of crime, but if you look it up, MEN are more likely to be crime victims. Not to mention that not only is domestic abuse gender symmetrical, so is rape. Women rape men just as much as vice versa, but male victims of rape are so much less likely to report a rape or even tell ANYONE about it, that whenever we hear about rape, it's always a man raping a woman. Just as many men are forced to penetrate a woman each year as women are raped.

Many people will argue that if you hit a woman you could inflict worse injuries. Nope. It depends on how hard you hit them. Just like how if you attack really violently, you can easily injure a guy. The only reason people think women will suffer more injuries is due to benevolent sexism and people viewing women as fragile. Although some evidence shows female domestic abuse victims are more likely to suffer injuries, some studies show male victims are more likely to instead and victims who suffer injuries often can be male, but many male victims might not admit their injuries were done by a woman like their girlfriend. In fact, many female domestic abusers use weapons/objects to compensate for size differences.

TL;DR

I can understand not wanting to hurt young children (I MEAN REAL CHILDREN NOT SOME TEENAGER IN HIGH SCHOOL). That's because young children are actually innocent and are supposed to actually be protected more than men and women. But refusing to attack a woman? As long as you frown upon attacking a man JUST AS HARSHLY as you frown on attacking a woman, whatever, but otherwise, you're a benevolently sexist hypocrite. The reason society frowns upon hitting a woman is NOT because they are weaker. they don't give a fuck if you beat up a small scrawny guy. The phrase "don't hit women" exists SOLELY due to benevolent sexism. Don't be a hypocrite. If you attack men, you must also attack women. But don't attack little kids.
 
SayanimCel

SayanimCel

You guys are the real heroes
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Posts
1,018
Online
21d 22h 36m
Equal rights and equal lefts :feelsokman:
 
InMemoriam

InMemoriam

Secret Schizoid
★★★
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Posts
3,297
Online
46d 5h 7m
you will never find women complaining about this type of sexism unironically:feelshaha:
 
W

wei#3959

Wizard
★★
Joined
Dec 13, 2020
Posts
4,111
Online
182d 16h 46m
i remember being intimidated and sized up by grown ass men when i was a child. and not rly in a joking way.

because they so believed in this mentality and so believed in male competition that i was already a male competitor despite being a child.
 
H

HateCurry

Legend
★★★
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Posts
3,721
Online
20d 8h 30m
TL;DR

I can understand not wanting to hurt young children (I MEAN REAL CHILDREN NOT SOME TEENAGER IN HIGH SCHOOL). That's because young children are actually innocent and are supposed to actually be protected more than men and women. But refusing to attack a woman? As long as you frown upon attacking a man JUST AS HARSHLY as you frown on attacking a woman, whatever, but otherwise, you're a benevolently sexist hypocrite. The reason society frowns upon hitting a woman is NOT because they are weaker. they don't give a fuck if you beat up a small scrawny guy. The phrase "don't hit women" exists SOLELY due to benevolent sexism. Don't be a hypocrite. If you attack men, you must also attack women. But don't attack little kids.
Honestly women are built different. Honestly, I wouldn't justify hitting children either. I feel like there should be some amount of beating for women and children but reduced, depending on what they do and what they do only.

I agree with the other parts but I just see this as same. Life is indeed unfair and intelligence and access to education depends from person to person.
 
StayFrosty

StayFrosty

The Watchman
★★★
Joined
Dec 21, 2021
Posts
255
Online
4d 30m
while foids worry about men fucking them up, we have to worry about women AND men fucking us up. yet foids are still the victims. clown world
 
E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
while foids worry about men fucking them up, we have to worry about women AND men fucking us up. yet foids are still the victims. clown world
Women get bullied more by other women than by other men
 
E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
Honestly women are built different. Honestly, I wouldn't justify hitting children either. I feel like there should be some amount of beating for women and children but reduced, depending on what they do and what they do only.

I agree with the other parts but I just see this as same. Life is indeed unfair and intelligence and access to education depends from person to person.
Women are built different so are some men

But circumstantial vulnerability is way more determinant if vulnerability than physical vulnerability
 
Man

Man

Verified Rapist
★★
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Posts
1,187
Online
15d 2h 6m
OP is right.

All my life I have been fighting men, never once have I decked a foid.

I'm starting my journey to equality at the battered women's shelter.

Wish me luck, I have a history of hand sprains.
 
Deleted member 42309

Deleted member 42309

Genetically Deformed.
-
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Posts
3,031
Online
28d 14h 32m
If i had a wife I'd probably beat the life out of her if she didn't obey my orders :feelsLSD:
 
E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
OP is right.

All my life I have been fighting men, never once have I decked a foid.

I'm starting my journey to equality at the battered women's shelter.

Wish me luck, I have a history of hand sprains.
Even attacking a woman in self defense is frowned upon
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
6,306
Online
147d 21h 26m
In fact, many criminals refuse to attack women due to "chivalry". Even the Mafia had their "women and children are off limits" code of honor, but lots of evidence shows they actually secretly broke that code of honor and used it as a facade to look like good guys to society. In fact, in many interviews with street robbers and muggers, many mentioned they refused to rob or mug women. Apparently in street robbery culture, it was considered "badass" or "masculine" to attack men in the streets and steal their wealth/resources because of hunter-gatherer mindsets they had and women were excluded from the street game because women historically weren't supposed to do that. In fact, sometimes they believed even hitting a woman was wrong. One even mentioned how they'd rob a couple, but they attacked the man but left the woman alone. Inmates also had a code of honor, and a woman who worked with inmates in Australia says many inmates told her they think it's wrong to hit women and men who attack a random woman on the street are hated in prison. Inmates, at least nowadays, will give domestic violence offenders a pass, but back in the day, domestic violence was a frowned-upon crime in prison, too.
Don't know if it was real.

Gulag 41200x800 q90
 
Autistic Uggo

Autistic Uggo

Officer
★★★★
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Posts
843
Online
13d 4h 41m
you will never find women complaining about this type of sexism unironically:feelshaha:
They also don't demand the draft either. It's almost like they want all the perks of being male but none of the responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
They don't also demand the draft either. It's almost like they want all the perks of being male but none of the responsibilities.
Feminists cried misogyny when they had thoughts about making women register for the draft
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,877
Online
263d 20h 35m
Basically normies are stupid
 
Balding Subhuman

Balding Subhuman

dogpill supremacist
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 4, 2021
Posts
2,992
Online
49d 22h 34m
I think its okay to punch women if they punch you first, apart from that it can be fucked up. I will add, that I wouldn't punch a child either if one got a random tantrum and started kicking me in the ankles. I don't respect women and I consider them very childlike so I would only punch them in self-defense
 
E

Edmund_Kemper

Disregard my larping efforts. I can’t change it.
-
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,335
Online
298d 9h 9m
I think its okay to punch women if they punch you first, apart from that it can be fucked up. I will add, that I wouldn't punch a child either if one got a random tantrum and started kicking me in the ankles. I don't respect women and I consider them very childlike so I would only punch them in self-defense
but non-reciprocally punching men is ok?
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
6,306
Online
147d 21h 26m
They also don't demand the draft either. It's almost like they want all the perks of being male but none of the responsibilities.
No one is upset if woman want to save her life from danger while men are deemed cowards. 'Equality.'
 
1337hikki

1337hikki

Seize the means of procreation!
★★
Joined
Jan 22, 2022
Posts
2,131
Online
20d 20h 42m
Usually cuckservatives that do this and it's y I hate them
 
D

dietoiletdie

i am german- So I'm worth more than you shit Not G
★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2022
Posts
111
Online
1d 8h 9m
[UWSL]you are 10000% right. But for the stupid cunts what you say would be sexism when it's justice. I dream of beating up a woman. They deserved it.[/UWSL]
 
Mellatt

Mellatt

Have a rotten day!
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 4, 2022
Posts
8,801
Online
15d 3h 7m
This is something that many people believe in. People get way more outraged by a man mildly slapping a woman than a man viciously beating another man. The phrase "never hit a woman" instead of "never hit anyone" is stupid and it is benevolent sexism. In case you don't know, benevolent sexism is a form of sexism against women that cherishes them but in a way that marginalizes them, typically by infantilizing them. The idea that men need to be protect women or provide for them. The idea that men should pay the entire bill. The idea that women are unsafe walking alone at night unlike men, even though statistics show men are far more likely to be victimized in the streets or by a stranger. These are examples of benevolent sexism. Most sexism is benevolent sexism.

In fact, many criminals refuse to attack women due to "chivalry". Even the Mafia had their "women and children are off limits" code of honor, but lots of evidence shows they actually secretly broke that code of honor and used it as a facade to look like good guys to society. In fact, in many interviews with street robbers and muggers, many mentioned they refused to rob or mug women. Apparently in street robbery culture, it was considered "badass" or "masculine" to attack men in the streets and steal their wealth/resources because of hunter-gatherer mindsets they had and women were excluded from the street game because women historically weren't supposed to do that. In fact, sometimes they believed even hitting a woman was wrong. One even mentioned how they'd rob a couple, but they attacked the man but left the woman alone. Inmates also had a code of honor, and a woman who worked with inmates in Australia says many inmates told her they think it's wrong to hit women and men who attack a random woman on the street are hated in prison. Inmates, at least nowadays, will give domestic violence offenders a pass, but back in the day, domestic violence was a frowned-upon crime in prison, too. Men who frown upon hitting women might still give an exception for their girlfriend/wife.

In fact, not only is intimate partner violence a gender symmetrical crime, but men are more likely than women to beat up people of the same gender whereas women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner violence. Research shows men are more likely to beat up other men than beat up their girlfriend. In fact, a lot of evidence shows that men who commit domestic abuse often have criminal records, and many were found to be generally violent, including towards other men. Men who were only violent towards their girlfriend/wife were found instead to be more remorseful about their actions, less accepting of violence, progressive in their attitudes toward women, and were a lot less violent than most domestic abusers. They often had usually satisfactory relationships with her. The more severe abusers were often generally violent and almost a third of them had antisocial personality disorder. The ones who were only violent towards their wife had a low acceptance of violence typically. That's why they did not attack other men or even other women, not because they're "cowards". The more violent male domestic abuser, however, isn't some coward who is afraid to pick on people his own size. He often does. He's just a generally violent criminal.

This shows that these guys usually have attacked other men, too.

If you refuse to attack women but you attack men, you are a HYPOCRITE. Either both are bad or both are fair game. You cannot argue "but women are vulnerable and it's cheap" for refusing to attack a woman, because many of your male victims could've been vulnerable. These same criminals don't mind attacking a small, scrawny guy. These same guys will attack a guy with a gun. If you use a gun on a big muscular dude with MMA fighting skills, he's 100% vulnerable. He moves a muscle, he dies. He's more defenseless and helpless than attacking a woman with your bare hands. Hell, if you attack a bigger guy with a knife or an object, he's vulnerable, and this is certainly true if you use weapons and objects against a guy your size. If you AMBUSH someone, they are vulnerable or if you attack a drunk guy, or a guy when he was caught off guard (e.g.: suckerpunching) or kill him in his sleep, they are completely defenseless/helpless. CIRCUMSTANTIAL VULNERABILITY IS EVEN MORE OF A PREDICTOR OF VULNERABILITY THAN PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY. In fact, even if you have a 50/50 chance of winning because he's your size, completely awake and sober, facing you, and prepared to fight with both of you unarmed, he was still vulnerable during that very specific, individual fight where you won because he needs to be vulnerable for you to win, so you're still a hypocrite. He still was brutally attacked and it's still just as injurious as the same exact thing happening to a woman, which means it's just as bad. The brutality of a crime determines how bad it is, not the likelihood of success, so that "unfair fight" argument is dumb. In fact, if a woman attacks a man and he's afraid to fight back because he cannot hit women, he's vulnerable as it gets. That's circumstantial vulnerability.

Many people will argue that women are more likely to be victims of crime, but if you look it up, MEN are more likely to be crime victims. Not to mention that not only is domestic abuse gender symmetrical, so is rape. Women rape men just as much as vice versa, but male victims of rape are so much less likely to report a rape or even tell ANYONE about it, that whenever we hear about rape, it's always a man raping a woman. Just as many men are forced to penetrate a woman each year as women are raped.

Many people will argue that if you hit a woman you could inflict worse injuries. Nope. It depends on how hard you hit them. Just like how if you attack really violently, you can easily injure a guy. The only reason people think women will suffer more injuries is due to benevolent sexism and people viewing women as fragile. Although some evidence shows female domestic abuse victims are more likely to suffer injuries, some studies show male victims are more likely to instead and victims who suffer injuries often can be male, but many male victims might not admit their injuries were done by a woman like their girlfriend. In fact, many female domestic abusers use weapons/objects to compensate for size differences.

TL;DR

I can understand not wanting to hurt young children (I MEAN REAL CHILDREN NOT SOME TEENAGER IN HIGH SCHOOL). That's because young children are actually innocent and are supposed to actually be protected more than men and women. But refusing to attack a woman? As long as you frown upon attacking a man JUST AS HARSHLY as you frown on attacking a woman, whatever, but otherwise, you're a benevolently sexist hypocrite. The reason society frowns upon hitting a woman is NOT because they are weaker. they don't give a fuck if you beat up a small scrawny guy. The phrase "don't hit women" exists SOLELY due to benevolent sexism. Don't be a hypocrite. If you attack men, you must also attack women. But don't attack little kids.
And yet foids say THEY'RE the ones that have to worry about being attacked in the streets and that we have nothing to worry about.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top