At first, I wrote this post because I read in the paper that said “incels are an extreme male-dominated organization”. Since I didn't agree with this, I used the term "patriarchy", but this term might be incorrect. Maybe replacing it with a more general term like "society" would be more accurate. Foids, normsies, and others jointly contributed to the tragedy of incels
I won't dispute your other statements because they are all well-grounded, but this accusation is completely unfounded. If I merely say that incels are pitiful - not only because they are bullied by foids, but also by normies and face social discrimination- this tired cliché that has been repeatedly used on the .is is criticized as foid worship, then any incel who want to ascend is engaging in foid worship.
This is way too simplistic and imited to the current gynocentric frame. "Men are the disposable gender" is a true sentence but as i explained on this thread there's much more nuance to it than people think. I'll take the war register again to make my point.
Again you seem limited to the current gynocentric frame and to a precise era while we're examining the patriarchy as a concept, as it was the initial subject.
this obviously goes beyond the privilege and duty of men to be the sole breadwinner, it's also about being the figure of authority or regality, and any pro male voice that's observing soyciety should acknowledge this : men today lack any type of positive symbolical weight which is a direct attack on their dignity given that we are an intelligent species. Egalitarianism obviously reduces men to nothing - women are very clear about it but soyciety tries to ignore it. To a woman, being equal to a man means being superior to him, that's why men nowadays, as a collective, have no strong and healthy self-narrative nor external-narrative ; everything is repackaged in positive or toxic masculinity (women setting the standards for us) while women are extremely brazen about being women (muh god is a woman, muh the future is female). It's like the exact opposite of patriarchy when men set the standards for women and were brazen about being men. Funny how that works huh ?
Without social roles men have no purpose and society lacks organization. I see this confusion even in the aforementioned PMC and it's pathetic : they will say how men working or something is unfair to men but in the same breath they'll advocate for men having easier access to jobs in order to be eligible for relationships etc. CityCrusher is a patriarchal man in disguise. I remember a vid of him wherein he acknowledges that a man being accused of pedophilia just cause he reserved a room for him and a minor family member is something that "wouldn't have happened in the past because men were more respected". Gee i wonder why ? Little details often fall through the cracks, when even non-essentialists like him say stuff like that i know i'm right.
Towards PMCs, I maintain the "eat-the-fish-spit-the-bone" type of attitude. The fact that they think men should "restore gender equality" by emulating what the feminists (foids) do (failing to recognize foids have state protection when they smear men in the name of "smashing the patriarchy") in counter tells me everything about what kind of out-of-date thinking they are operating on. I believe they are merely infatuated with their theory that muh men have always been dominated by foids (socially). They resort to all kinds of fallacious arguments to maintain their theory.
Towards PMCs, I maintain the "eat-the-fish-spit-the-bone" type of attitude. The fact that they think men should "restore gender equality" by emulating what the feminists (foids) do (failing to recognize foids have state protection when they smear men in the name of "smashing the patriarchy") in counter tells me everything about what kind of out-of-date thinking they are operating on. I believe they are merely infatuated with their theory that muh men have always been dominated by foids (socially). They resort to all kinds of fallacious arguments to maintain their theory.
I decided to join one of these PMCs' discord servers the other day, where I said that the economic independence of foids greatly contributes to their social dominance over men. It's so fucking obvious that even my high-school self was able to recognize it. But no, in their opinion, IT HAS TO be some 69D mind-game shit from foids.
Their fallacious response was, "NO! It's not economic independence. Akshually, nobody has economic independence." They couldn't accept that argument. It goes against their belief of having foids in the workforce, so they resorted to something so hyperbolic for a counter.
These are supposedly the self-proclaimed most rational males of our time when it comes to foids and their evil nature.
Exactly ! In the end they do the same shit feminists do, committing the mistake of egalitarianism through a false premise (a supposedly historical-systemic oppression of men). It's not only erroneous but it's ugly, plain and boring. The dialectic of the sexes is nuanced and both have their strenghts and weaknesses ; women DID always have a lot of power in the public sphere and a lot of historical documents attest of that, but those guys see it as proof of some occult and complete female dominance throughout history, which is quite a stretch.They're super cultish, they seem like a bunch of nutjobs. CC is kinda annoying too, extremely dogmatic at times (like when he says that lookism doesnt exist) but i'd put it on his old age and good nature, i think he's not willing to stare into the abyss like we do.
It’s simple not simplicistic. Men look bad compared to women. Higher accointability higher disposability. Foids want you to be disposable. End. The “male supremacy” shit is just utter retardation
People are genetically retarded and I blame pretty people poor brain growth genes
He meant men aren't disposable in any logical sense.
They are not but their looks make them seen as targets/non worth of protection beings hence disposable. Of course men who look like foids do not suffer from this
