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.

So is the patriarchy all men's fault and if so were women just powerless and silent for all of human history?

wgm24

wgm24

This Thing of Ours
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Posts
2,539
I constantly see on IT the argument that men suffer from loneliness/ impossibly high standards from women/general male issues because of the patriarchy men created. Therefore they refuse to sympathize with men's issues because "you created them" but that is then contradicted by them calling the view that women have always been supported by men and that society was created by men misogynistic. They'll reference things females invented and the impact they've had on history but what's the truth? If men have to take full responsibility for patriarchy like women havent existed and influenced power structures all throughout human history ,then we also have to take the credit for building up society and protecting women through that society as well. Or are women strong girlbosses that have never been powerless and always contributed? Doublethink like this is very common on IT
 
that is then contradicted by them calling the view that women have always been supported by men and that society was created by men misogynistic
The problem arises when you say that it should be the norm or that it's a natural, unquestionable order of things. That is misogyny.
Feminists want "equality", which, of course, would be wildly experimental.
 
Patriarchy is essentially "chad rules all" which foids actually love and support:
Chad (5% men) > Chad's harem of whores > . . . . . . > Rest of men


When they complain about the "patriarchy" they are either upset chad didn't pay them any attention or they want the 95% already oppressed men to be marginalized even harder.
 
Last edited:
The problem arises when you say that it should be the norm or that it's a natural, unquestionable order of things. That is misogyny.
Feminists want "equality", which, of course, would be wildly experimental.

What's your position on inceldom in general? Serious, I think this forum should allow sympathetic non-incels. It's good to have your views challenged and that's why I like r/purplepilldebate.
 
What's your position on inceldom in general? Serious, I think this forum should allow sympathetic non-incels. It's good to have your views challenged and that's why I like r/purplepilldebate.
The fuck? :lul:
No pussy for my height. You probably mog me in that alone.
 
The problem arises when you say that it should be the norm or that it's a natural, unquestionable order of things. That is misogyny.
Feminists want "equality", which, of course, would be wildly experimental.
But what is equality? Thats the fallacy in their argument. Men doing the heavy lifting to maintain a first world country and women benefiting sounds pretty equal to me
What's your position on inceldom in general? Serious, I think this forum should allow sympathetic non-incels. It's good to have your views challenged and that's why I like r/purplepilldebate.
Just have one of the last incel forums not be for incels theory
 
But what is equality? Thats the fallacy in their argument. Men doing the heavy lifting to maintain a first world country and women benefiting sounds pretty equal to me

Just have one of the last incel forums not be for incels theory
I'm guessing that the end goal doesn't matter, but the constant action does. You know, the limiting of male power, boosting of female power.
 
I constantly see on IT the argument that men suffer from loneliness/ impossibly high standards from women/general male issues because of the patriarchy men created. Therefore they refuse to sympathize with men's issues because "you created them" but that is then contradicted by them calling the view that women have always been supported by men and that society was created by men misogynistic. They'll reference things females invented and the impact they've had on history but what's the truth? If men have to take full responsibility for patriarchy like women havent existed and influenced power structures all throughout human history ,then we also have to take the credit for building up society and protecting women through that society as well. Or are women strong girlbosses that have never been powerless and always contributed? Doublethink like this is very common on IT

Op, a certain centrist but Trump supporting cartoonist (alright, the Dilbert guy) said that on some issues it's just easier to treat women as children, and I think he was describing the attitude of boomer men such as himself in the anglosphere. This attitude of "treat them like children" has led to the echo-chamber in feminist circles that allows for the above type of contradictory thinking feminist discourse that's more about foids rationalizing their privileges and the double standards they want preserved which benefit them and basically getting their way on every issue. He deleted the full article but it had sentences like this:


Screenshot 2021 12 24 103642


Side note, those reading this who might take (more?) dislike to Scott Adams should at least give him some props for fighting the good fight on twitter re Covid against the MAGA-hordes he gained as followers in the Trump years...
 
Last edited:
I don't believe the patriarchy is real, but I don't see any contradiction in their views, since they are not implying that all the impacts society had are a result of patriarchy (they are just implying that the impacts caused by the patriarchy are men's fault).

And they also aren't implying that the patriarchy retains, completely, foids from having an impact on society
 
Last edited:
I constantly see on IT the argument that men suffer from loneliness/ impossibly high standards from women/general male issues because of the patriarchy men created. Therefore they refuse to sympathize with men's issues because "you created them" but that is then contradicted by them calling the view that women have always been supported by men and that society was created by men misogynistic. They'll reference things females invented and the impact they've had on history but what's the truth? If men have to take full responsibility for patriarchy like women havent existed and influenced power structures all throughout human history ,then we also have to take the credit for building up society and protecting women through that society as well. Or are women strong girlbosses that have never been powerless and always contributed? Doublethink like this is very common on IT
Feminist whores always want to blame men for everything:foidSoy::foidSoy:
 
I don't believe the patriarchy is real, but I don't see any contradiction in their argument, since they are not implying that all the impacts society had are a result of patriarchy (they are just implying that the impacts caused by the patriarchy are men's fault).

And they also aren't implying that the patriarchy retains, completely, foids from having an impact on society
I can literally link you to a post from a foid on reddit where I reposted this that again claims women had no power or say in how society was ran. Thats not even what the argument is. Their argument is that society is inherently patriarchal and that this patriarchal society was created by men. So if that were true and women are so capable and 50% of the population how could they possibly not have had any impact in creating that patriarchal society?
If the patriarchy doesnt retain completly women from having a say then why claim that none of the responsibility for the patriarchy is women's fault as well? Youre making a different argument that what most feminists on reddit argue. They argue that society and how it is built is completely the result of mens bias towards women not that only certain bad parts of the patriarchal system is mens fault
 
I constantly see on IT the argument that men suffer from loneliness/ impossibly high standards from women/general male issues because of the patriarchy men created. Therefore they refuse to sympathize with men's issues because "you created them"
this is funny considering foids are 100% the root cause of inceldom and incel ''radicalization'' for numerous reasons, yet they don't want to take any responsability for it nor make the bare minimum effort to change the situation for better, instead, they do all the effort to do the opposite.

anyway, it was thanks to male feminist that they started their pathetic movement, foids are too useless to do things on their own. also, apparently having to be a loyal wife and cook food was ''opression'', lol. it's also ironic how foids are more miserable than before thanks to them bitching about ''muh opression'' for decades.

nowadays in top of being miserable, foids still have the audacity to cry about ''muh patriarchy'' when they have the same rights as men in top of privileges for them while so(y)ciety, media and goverment constantly simps and caters to their first world non-issues 24/7.

lastly the argument that foids hold no control over their actions while blaming ''muh patriarchy'' is clear indication that they admit they are so retarded and useless they aren't capable of doing things in their own, let alone have thoughts of their own. ''i jumped off a bridge because the patriarchy brainwashed me'' :foidSoy:, just fucking lol
 
Last edited:
I can literally link you to a post from a foid on reddit where I reposted this that again claims women had no power or say in how society was ran. Thats not even what the argument is. Their argument is that society is inherently patriarchal and that this patriarchal society was created by men.
I never exactly what their argument says, I said that their argument doesn't imply that (from what you said they've said).
So if that were true and women are so capable and 50% of the population how could they possibly not have had any impact in creating that patriarchal society?
Not relevant to the point, the point is if that there is a contradiction between believing patriarchy (which, according to them, would retain women from power) and also believing that foid's already made something impactful to society (not to it's creation). We are not trying see if those positions are true or false (because I believe that anyone here see them as false), just to see if they contradict each other.
If the patriarchy doesnt retain completly women from having a say then why claim that none of the responsibility for the patriarchy is women's fault as well?
Because they aren't claiming that patriarchy is a result of women's actions.
They argue that society and how it is built is completely the result of mens bias towards women not that only certain bad parts of the patriarchal system is mens fault
[UWSL]If they argue that society and everything inside it is the result of men's bias, then you are right, there is a contradiction. If they argue that how society was built and the perspective society have is based on a man's one, then there is no contradiction, since they can create something that has a meaningful impact, but not enough to change this perspective[/UWSL]
 
Last edited:
I never exactly what their argument says, I said that their argument doesn't imply that (from what you said they've said).

Not relevant to the point, the point is if that there is a contradiction between believing patriarchy (which, according to them, would retain women from power) and also believing that foid's already made something impactful to society (not to it's creation). We are not trying see if those positions are true or false (because I believe that anyone here see them as false), just to see if they contradict each other.

Because they aren't claiming that patriarchy is a result of women's actions.

[UWSL]If they argue that society and everything inside it is the result of men's bias, then you are right, there is a contradiction. If they argue that how society was built and the perspective society have is based on a man's one, then there is no contradiction, since they can create something that has a meaningful impact, but not enough to change this perspective[/UWSL]
I probably didn't word my original post as well as I should have but once again I think you're kindve moving goalposts is to what the original argument was. Anyway whatevrr
 
I probably didn't word my original post as well as I should have but once again I think you're kindve moving goalposts is to what the original argument was. Anyway whatevrr
I agree they just created a scapegoat (patriarchy) that they also use to avoid talking about men's problems, if that's your main point
 
Well, yes and no…
Men have created a patriarchal society which has (enforced) monogamy at the center of it. Monogamy is basically THE most effective tool to stop sexual selection or “female choice“, by saying one woman per male and vice versa. Women will be forced to settle with the worse alternatives to Chad but also they have to settle with inferior genes. Cuckoldry was a counter strategy to monogamy, but it was so rarely practiced, that inferior male genes were still passed on. With these genes being passed on for thousands of years, you can say that there’s some kind of aggregation of inferior genes in humanity. Now that they’re set free from monogamy, they have to select these genes out, it won’t be a proper bottleneck, but still a considerable amount of males that have to be selected out.
So if human males hadn’t installed monogamy in order to protect themselves against female choice, we might have an all chad population by now, and a lot of us might not have been ince…

tl;dr: Monogamy is patriarch, monogamy hinders sexual selection, we end up with inferior genes --> we face a high selection pressure due to our leftover inferior genes from monogamous periods.
 
Well, yes and no…
Men have created a patriarchal society which has (enforced) monogamy at the center of it. Monogamy is basically THE most effective tool to stop sexual selection or “female choice“, by saying one woman per male and vice versa. Women will be forced to settle with the worse alternatives to Chad but also they have to settle with inferior genes. Cuckoldry was a counter strategy to monogamy, but it was so rarely practiced, that inferior male genes were still passed on. With these genes being passed on for thousands of years, you can say that there’s some kind of aggregation of inferior genes in humanity. Now that they’re set free from monogamy, they have to select these genes out, it won’t be a proper bottleneck, but still a considerable amount of males that have to be selected out.
So if human males hadn’t installed monogamy in order to protect themselves against female choice, we might have an all chad population by now, and a lot of us might not have been ince…

tl;dr: Monogamy is patriarch, monogamy hinders sexual selection, we end up with inferior genes --> we face a high selection pressure due to our leftover inferior genes from monogamous periods.
Complete cuck bullshit. The traits women want in men are not automatically superior genes. When women pick chad they don't pick the smartest men or even the most capable. They pick someone with nice facial features which is completely meaningless to survivability. It's like them picking which birds have nicer feathers it's completely meaningless. Are genes aren't inferior, women are just retarded
 
It's a stupid take that men created patriarchy to control foids. I do think patriarchy is a thing, but the social construct existed because men and women both supported and spread it. Misandrists who can't be bothered with trying to think critically never go far enough to question how it is that men are somehow solely responsible for establishing patriarchy over every continent with so little resistance.

Wanna know who some of the most misogynistic people out there are? They're foids. If foids want to defend their rights, they need to clean up "their side" like they so gleefully tell us. The whole thing is just bad takes from every angle.

Complete cuck bullshit. The traits women want in men are not automatically superior genes. When women pick chad they don't pick the smartest men or even the most capable. They pick someone with nice facial features which is completely meaningless to survivability. It's like them picking which birds have nicer feathers it's completely meaningless. Are genes aren't inferior, women are just retarded

Female sexual autonomy is almost always based on weird, arbitrary traits. Once a critical mass of the foid population has the gene to desire a specific trait, Fisherian Runaway takes over and you get peacocks and bower birds and all that. Patriarchal restrictions on female sexual autonomy means that fathers got to pick, and they picked whoever would earn them the most money/power, up until individualism was developed in the mid- to late-1800s. Since then it's a weird avalanche of change. It's my belief that pretty much the only good time to be an incel was in the 1910s-1950s, since individualism was strong enough that asshole patriarchs couldn't keep us away, but patriarchy was also strong enough that foids were willing to settle for anything, us included. Now that individualism is strong and patriarchy is weak, female sexual autonomy is in the driver's seat and it's just a matter of time before fisherian runaway takes effect.
 

Similar threads

Destroyed lonely
Replies
28
Views
552
nystagmuscel
nystagmuscel
ForeverGrey
Replies
47
Views
2K
stalin22
stalin22
Destroyed lonely
Replies
68
Views
3K
faded
faded
Dusk
Replies
10
Views
407
Namtriz912
Namtriz912

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top