https://resett.no/2018/06/29/menn-i-ufrivillig-solibati/
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Spitznogle
This is notable because out of the hundreds of news articles from normies on incels I've read, this is the most honest, and it's from someone credentialed so it can be used on wikis and in academic debate. She seems to suggest evolution is a rational sorter of what genes are good for the future which is bad, but otherwise a good article.
From Kristin Spitznogle,
"Almost every fourth man is involuntarily childless due to social selection, and more do not get access to sex,"
"With women's liberation came a resolution of earlier standards. Women can now support themselves and their children. They are no longer dependent on the resources men offer. Ergo releases the ties that have been put on women's quest for the best genes for their children. Women are keen on appearance, status and capital, but surveys show that they emphasize physical attractiveness far beyond what we might have thought before. If you ask them, they may deny this, but this is just a matter of political correctness. Surveys show that women are in no way different from men. They want attractive partners, and now that they are in a position to be more selective, they are just that."
"Back to pre-civilization - Women have been equated with nature and men with the regulating culture. With or without valuables, it is clear that the increase in the number of sexless men confirms this as regards the sexual market. In the absence of normative monogamy and supportive social structures, Bateman's principle [that there is greater stratification in access to a partner among men than among women] seems to apply to humans too. Is this desirable?"
"For those who do not quite compare with appearance, status and capital, [Tinder] is also more disappointing. As a practicing therapist, I would like to say that the gender market seems to be hard. It is a cynical "dog eats dog" individualism that prevails."
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Spitznogle
This is notable because out of the hundreds of news articles from normies on incels I've read, this is the most honest, and it's from someone credentialed so it can be used on wikis and in academic debate. She seems to suggest evolution is a rational sorter of what genes are good for the future which is bad, but otherwise a good article.
From Kristin Spitznogle,
"Almost every fourth man is involuntarily childless due to social selection, and more do not get access to sex,"
"With women's liberation came a resolution of earlier standards. Women can now support themselves and their children. They are no longer dependent on the resources men offer. Ergo releases the ties that have been put on women's quest for the best genes for their children. Women are keen on appearance, status and capital, but surveys show that they emphasize physical attractiveness far beyond what we might have thought before. If you ask them, they may deny this, but this is just a matter of political correctness. Surveys show that women are in no way different from men. They want attractive partners, and now that they are in a position to be more selective, they are just that."
"Back to pre-civilization - Women have been equated with nature and men with the regulating culture. With or without valuables, it is clear that the increase in the number of sexless men confirms this as regards the sexual market. In the absence of normative monogamy and supportive social structures, Bateman's principle [that there is greater stratification in access to a partner among men than among women] seems to apply to humans too. Is this desirable?"
"For those who do not quite compare with appearance, status and capital, [Tinder] is also more disappointing. As a practicing therapist, I would like to say that the gender market seems to be hard. It is a cynical "dog eats dog" individualism that prevails."
Last edited:
