Serious We were born too early; lookism will eventually be recognized, but not so quickly

[Fontaine]

Nobody who has looked at the studies on the subject can deny that lookism exists, and is, in the 2010s, perhaps even more hurtful and pervasive than racism, homophobia and sexism.

However, you should also be aware that the recognition of racism, homophobia and sexism as problems to be solved is very recent, and has faced a lot of opposition/criticism before winning and becoming mainstream. I think lookism is currently at the "early ascent" stage and that explains why we face so much hatred and opposition.

Well until the 1960s, Blacks were treated as second-class citizens and you could find many people to support this. Well into the 1980s, the New York Times used to run anti-gay pieces, and gays were widely seen as disgusting or inferior. It took time for public opinion to evolve.

I believe the mistreatment of ugly/fat people in modern society is very similar to these past cases. CuckTears and anti-incel journalists are exactly like those who supported the Jim Crow laws or were against gay prides.

Academics are only starting to realize lookism exists. Until it trickles down to the media, and then to the masses, it will take decades more. We are also unlucky in the sense that Hollywood may not become our ally as much as it was for blacks and gays. I've noticed subtle blackpills have started to appear in movies and TV series, though. Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones is one such example.

 

[Red Shambhala]

The question is just if the effects of anti-lookism will also trickle down to men. I mean, lookism is already an established term in Academia and liberal media outlets. But so far it basically boils down to ugly women demanding the right to access Chad. "Saying that I should settle for a short man just because I'm fat is sexist!"

And, of course, anti-feminism so often just being a gateway drug to a broader right-wing ideology also brings with it many problems ... because if you would try to speak about, say, the effects of having a small dick, male machismo, false bravado, TRP stuff etc. would result in at least half of the backlash you would get.

Ugliness is part of status, low-status. Usually, one leads to another. Poverty and low-status has a negative physical effect; bad optics have a negative effect on your career etc. etc. So it's a vicious cycle, really.

And both feminists as well as anti-feminists hate low-status men with a raging passion.

 

[EyesAreSoCold]

Lookism was recognized in the beginning of society thousands of years ago, successfully solved by patriarchy and the suppression of female rights. Now as they are dying the problem resurfaces but will eventually be solved again, unlucky we were born just in the brief time window where females are fully free and religion is dead.

 

[Untermenschcel]

the only way to speed things up is by having more incel hERo's

 

[Fontaine]

The question is just if the effects of anti-lookism will also trickle down to men. I mean, lookism is already an established term in Academia and liberal media outlets. But so far it basically boils down to ugly women demanding the right to access Chad. "Saying that I should settle for a short man just because I'm fat is sexist!"

I think you're exaggerating a lot. In academia, lookism is most often discussed in terms of impact on employment and hiring discrimination.

Ugliness is part of status, low-status. Usually, one leads to another. Poverty and low-status has a negative physical effect; bad optics have a negative effect on your career etc. etc. So it's a vicious cycle, really.

Oh, I definitely agree. Ugliness is a form of poverty out of which you can't get out even with many efforts. As such, it is perhaps worse than economic poverty. One of the reasons I don't take either liberals or the modern Catholic Church seriously is because they deny physical ugliness can cause more misery than lack of money.

And both feminists as well as anti-feminists hate low-status men with a raging passion.

That's probably also an exaggeration on your part. I understand the appeal of these categorical statements, but reality is always more nuanced. Female social workers and mental health workers don't, in my experience, necessarily hate low-status men. They wouldn't take them as sexual partners, sure; but they sure are able to show empathy.

 

[Creep]

Well into the 1980s, the New York Times used to run anti-gay pieces

I will never understand why the NYT has such a high reputation as a news source despite never even hiding their own bias.

 

[Fontaine]

I will never understand why the NYT has such a high reputation as a news source despite never even hiding their own bias.

Beats me. You can indeed hardly create a more opinionated and subjective newspaper. The quality of the writing is also often inferior to Vanity Fair (their long-winded pieces are always a pleasure to read).

I think it all comes down to the political success of liberalism post WW2. The New York Times was the newspaper of liberalism per excellence, so its rise as a "respected neutral newspaper" mirrored the rise of liberalism in academia. Truly sad how most people aren't even aware of their own biases. The New York Times was "neutral" alright, but merely because the ideological center of gravity was so much to the Left.

 

[NeiboltStreet]

Nobody who has looked at the studies on the subject can deny that lookism exists, and is, in the 2010s, perhaps even more hurtful and pervasive than racism, homophobia and sexism.

However, you should also be aware that the recognition of racism, homophobia and sexism as problems to be solved is very recent, and has faced a lot of opposition/criticism before winning and becoming mainstream. I think lookism is currently at the "early ascent" stage and that explains why we face so much hatred and opposition.

Well until the 1960s, Blacks were treated as second-class citizens and you could find many people to support this. Well into the 1980s, the New York Times used to run anti-gay pieces, and gays were widely seen as disgusting or inferior. It took time for public opinion to evolve.

I believe the mistreatment of ugly/fat people in modern society is very similar to these past cases. CuckTears and anti-incel journalists are exactly like those who supported the Jim Crow laws or were against gay prides.

Academics are only starting to realize lookism exists. Until it trickles down to the media, and then to the masses, it will take decades more. We are also unlucky in the sense that Hollywood may not become our ally as much as it was for blacks and gays. I've noticed subtle blackpills have started to appear in movies and TV series, though. Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones is one such example.

Hopefully it's true and we'll get our rights in the next decade.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

Nobody who has looked at the studies on the subject can deny that lookism exists, and is, in the 2010s, perhaps even more hurtful and pervasive than racism, homophobia and sexism.

However, you should also be aware that the recognition of racism, homophobia and sexism as problems to be solved is very recent, and has faced a lot of opposition/criticism before winning and becoming mainstream. I think lookism is currently at the "early ascent" stage and that explains why we face so much hatred and opposition.

Well until the 1960s, Blacks were treated as second-class citizens and you could find many people to support this. Well into the 1980s, the New York Times used to run anti-gay pieces, and gays were widely seen as disgusting or inferior. It took time for public opinion to evolve.

I believe the mistreatment of ugly/fat people in modern society is very similar to these past cases. CuckTears and anti-incel journalists are exactly like those who supported the Jim Crow laws or were against gay prides.

Academics are only starting to realize lookism exists. Until it trickles down to the media, and then to the masses, it will take decades more. We are also unlucky in the sense that Hollywood may not become our ally as much as it was for blacks and gays. I've noticed subtle blackpills have started to appear in movies and TV series, though. Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones is one such example.

Boom. This again. High IQ.

 

[Life Wasted]

While we are second class citizens in the sexual realm I highly doubt society will accept lookism as something that needs redress.

The reason blacks, gays and other similar groups won out was because hey had women In their ranks that made society feel more sympathetic towards them. We don't have that, what we do have is a bunch of negative stereotypes working against us.

Our situation is uniquely hopeless I'm afraid. We'll just be told the typical self improvement BS and platitudes. As the saying goes, it's over.

 

[Hunter]

high IQ. we are like the blacks or jews or gays of the future.

 

[Fontaine]

Lookism was recognized in the beginning of society thousands of years ago, successfully solved by patriarchy and the suppression of female rights. Now as they are dying the problem resurfaces but will eventually be solved again, unlucky we were born just in the brief time window where females are fully free and religion is dead.

I understand the appeal of a return to patriarchy for incels, because it's more ego-flattering than trying to be seen as a low-status protected class, but a return to patriarchy is never gonna happen. I see no realistic scenario of that happening in the near future. For starters, you can't enslave 50% of the population in a democratic setting. So a return to patriarchy also implies a return to autocracy/monarchy; good luck with that.

The reason blacks, gays and other similar groups won out was because hey had women In their ranks that made society feel more sympathetic towards them.

From a chronological perspective, Blacks seem to have won mostly because they had the genuine, good-hearted support of white college students and white journalists back in the 60s. Gays have won because Hollywood started to advance a gay agenda in the 1990s.

 

[landlessincel]

Academics are only starting to realize lookism exists. Until it trickles down to the media, and then to the masses, it will take decades more. We are also unlucky in the sense that Hollywood may not become our ally as much as it was for blacks and gays. I've noticed subtle blackpills have started to appear in movies and TV series, though. Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones is one such example.

jfl movies espacially hollywood is full of bad boy chad winning and incel randy raping and being mean since idk

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

What makes you think this will help us

 

[Fontaine]

jfl movies espacially hollywood is full of bad boy chad winning and incel randy raping and being mean since idk

That's a blackpill statement in itself.

What makes you think this will help us

We may successfully push for a few advantages like blind job interviews, secluded school environments, better screening programmes for depression in ugly youths, criminalization of slurs and mockery related to ugliness, a reduced tax rate, or even government help for plastic surgery. This is all much more realistic than a "return to patriarchy". This is also much more humiliating, I guess, which is the reason most incels hate what I'm advocating and push for a "return to patriarchy" instead.

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

the problem is that lionizing us serves no purpose to anyone, except a warlord hoping to muster a quick army.
cleaning up and improving the image of blacks and gays took some serious time, effort, and help from businesses like hollywood. it wasn't just studies slowly but surely leading to a revolution. for someone to lay down the same amount of effort for ugly males most of whom are light-skinned and straight...you can't help but ask who would actually profit from this or have an interest in going through with all that effort.

there seems to be very little to gain. i can't see lookism ever becoming "hot", it would have to become something sexy, shocking and exploitable, not just talking about hollywood, and the plight of ugly males just doesn't quite reach the shock value and intensity of interracial sex or whatever. i can't take seriously the idea of a more inclusive lookism for both sexes becoming popular, because honestly we can all see women that look like fat ugly pigs having the time of their lives, they don't need it. they are fortifying a females only anti-lookism stance with their fat acceptance movement.

 

[Fontaine]

the problem is that lionizing us serves no purpose to anyone, except a warlord hoping to muster a quick army.
cleaning up and improving the image of blacks and gays took some serious time, effort, and help from businesses like hollywood. it wasn't just studies slowly but surely leading to a revolution. for someone to lay down the same amount of effort for ugly males most of whom are light-skinned and straight...you can't help but ask who would actually profit from this or have an interest in going through with all that effort.

there seems to be very little to gain. i can't see lookism ever becoming "hot", it would have to become something sexy, shocking and exploitable, not just talking about hollywood, and the plight of ugly males just doesn't quite reach the shock value and intensity of interracial sex or whatever. i can't take seriously the idea of a more inclusive lookism for both sexes becoming popular, because honestly we can all see women that look like fat ugly pigs having the time of their lives, they don't need it. they are fortifying a females only anti-lookism stance with their fat acceptance movement.

And yet, transsexuals, less than 1% of the population, have been lionized! It didn't serve the interests of anyone except perhaps those pushing an anti-Christian agenda and an attack on the traditional family. In the same way, I guess ugliness could get leveraged against Christianity. Because if the world isn't fair at all, most Christian theodicies would cease to work. We just have to wait until an ugly Jewish billionaire takes up our cause.

 

[lntestine]

lookism exists within each culture
thats why its horrible and worse than racism

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

And yet, transsexuals, less than 1% of the population, have been lionized! It didn't serve the interests of anyone except perhaps those pushing an anti-Christian agenda and an attack on the traditional family. In the same way, I guess ugliness could get leveraged against Christianity. Because if the world isn't fair at all, most Christian theodicies would cease to work. We just have to wait until an ugly Jewish billionaire takes up our cause.

i think trannies are almost like a combination of gays and blacks. they're very exploitable, have shock value, heavy and disturbing sexual implications.
don't forget there is an epidemic of people masturbating to tranny porn, and the most attractive trannies are pushed to the forefront.
the phenomenon of underaged attractive individuals swapping gender and broadcasting sexualized images is also guaranteed to attract all sorts of intense and grotesque attention. the kind that leads to lots of carefully organized file folders.

but yeah, you're right on the money with the last remark, you could say they're already doing it with the porn industry. it's basically a soft way of telling ugly males with no options to give the finger to religion and abandon hope for a traditional relationship. guess they love us after all.

 

[GeneticDysfunction]

We are bottom of the barrel genetic trash we die loveless on the verge of insanity and alone. Yes life is that cruel

 

[Welcumtotherealworld]

high IQ. we are like the blacks or jews or gays of the future.

 

[Robtical]

The internet will help kick start things.

 

[incelgration]

Nothing will change as it is ingrained in human nature and human nature evolves very slowly. Leftist claims they are pro ethnics, they are even trying to force ethnics into job positions by affirmative actions but same feminist screaming diversity won't even consider dating them. To eliminate lookism sexual market place has to be regulated and it is only possible by return to patriarchy. Which won't happen any time soon and you even claimed in different thread that it will never happen.

 

[Robtical]

Nothing will change as it is ingrained in human nature and human nature evolves very slowly. Leftist claims they are pro ethnics, they are even trying to force ethnics into job positions by affirmative actions but same feminist screaming diversity won't even consider dating them. To eliminate lookism sexual market place has to be regulated and it is only possible by return to patriarchy. Which won't happen any time soon and you even claimed in different thread that it will never happen.

Men need to get blackpilled and stop allowing themselves to be cucks. Then single moms and homeless femoids won't get free shit from the government anymore, and won't be able to rely on bluepilled simps, so they will have to settle for their looksmatch to survive because they are dumber and weaker.

 

[Fontaine]

Nothing will change as it is ingrained in human nature and human nature evolves very slowly. Leftist claims they are pro ethnics, they are even trying to force ethnics into job positions by affirmative actions but same feminist screaming diversity won't even consider dating them. To eliminate lookism sexual market place has to be regulated and it is only possible by return to patriarchy. Which won't happen any time soon and you even claimed in different thread that it will never happen.

The patriarchy did not eliminate lookism fully. Read some books about the period of patriarchy to understand. Adultery was widespread, so were separation (because divorce was uncatholic) and unhappy marriages.

 

[incelgration]

The patriarchy did not eliminate lookism fully. Read some books about the period of patriarchy to understand. Adultery was widespread, so were separation (because divorce was uncatholic) and unhappy marriages.

It did not eliminate fully but at least limited it to reasonable levels. If something works not in 100% but e.g. in 80% it still very good solution.

 

[Collegeincel98]

It did not eliminate fully but at least limited it to reasonable levels. If something works not in 100% but e.g. in 80% it still very good solution.

Women still wanted chad, they were just were forced into unhappy marriages with ugly dudes, no different than betabuxing. All a patriarchal society did was hide the problem, not fix it.

 

[Robtical]

Women still wanted chad, they were just were forced into unhappy marriages with ugly dudes, no different than betabuxing. All a patriarchal society did was hide the problem, not fix it.

They were more happy back then than they are now. Femoid's nature is to be subservient and controlled by men, that's how they can truly be happy.

 

[VirginWithStache]

It's not the same case. Ugly people aren't beaten and laughed at in
media. Ugly people just can't get popular and get laid and these problems can't be solved because person's SMV cannot be forced, neither women whom to fuck.

 

[Collegeincel98]

They were more happy back then than they are now. Femoid's nature is to be subservient and controlled by men, that's how they can truly be happy.

Highly doubt it, no woman can truly be happy with an ugly humanoid. Only with a good looking guy.

 

[Robtical]

Highly doubt it, no woman can truly be happy with an ugly humanoid. Only with a good looking guy.

That's only because society tells them chads are important. If we go back to shaming whores, and stop giving single moms our tax money, foids will settle for their looksmatches.

 

[incelgration]

Highly doubt it, no woman can truly be happy with an ugly humanoid. Only with a good looking guy.

Research shows happiest and most stable relationships are when couples are looksmatched and statusmatched. It make sense as there is balance of power in relationship. 5/10 foid can crave 9/10 Chad but when it is impossible to get him, she will be happy with her 5/10 looksmatch. And patriarchy makes it impossible as Chad is already matched with Stacy.
As Robotical said, foids level of happiness is currently at lowest point in history. They are victim of their own feral nature.

 

[Collegeincel98]

That's only because society tells them chads are important. If we go back to shaming whores, and stop giving single moms our tax money, foids will settle for their looksmatches.

Society itself doesn't do that directly, females just have the freedom and the means to pursue chad since it is in their biological nature to pursue the best looking guys or guys with the best bodies.

Females are happier than ever now that they can go above their looksmatch. Tons of ugly ethnics girls in relationships with above average looking white guys, this wouldn't happen in a patriarchal society.

 

[Incellectual]

Experts already accept lookism tbh. In my sociology class my professor talked about lookism and how it effects everyone. It was nice hearing a blackpill in class for once.

 

[Collegeincel98]

Research shows happiest and most stable relationships are when couples are looksmatched and statusmatched. It make sense as there is balance of power in relationship. 5/10 foid can crave 9/10 Chad but when it is impossible to get him, she will be happy with her 5/10 looksmatch. And patriarchy makes it impossible as Chad is already matched with Stacy.
As Robotical said, foids level of happiness is currently at lowest point in history. They are victim of their own feral nature.

If that were true then we should be ok "betabuxing" since she's gonna be "happy" with her looksmatch anyways.

 

[Deleted member 265]

Lookism was recognized in the beginning of society thousands of years ago, successfully solved by patriarchy and the suppression of female rights. Now as they are dying the problem resurfaces but will eventually be solved again, unlucky we were born just in the brief time window where females are fully free and religion is dead.

 

[Robtical]

Society itself doesn't do that directly, females just have the freedom and the means to pursue chad since it is in their biological nature to pursue the best looking guys or guys with the best bodies.

Females are happier than ever now that they can go above their looksmatch. Tons of ugly ethnics girls in relationships with above average looking white guys, this wouldn't happen in a patriarchal society.

It doesn't have to be patriarchal, men just need to shame whores and not wife up used sluts, and the government has to stop giving single moms men's tax money, then foids will go back to their looksmatches. When sexbots and male birth control comes out, then femoid smv will decrease even more.

 

[incelgration]

If that were true then we should be ok "betabuxing" since she's gonna be "happy" with her looksmatch anyways.

No because she is alpha widow and she thinks she deserves more.

 

[Collegeincel98]

It doesn't have to be patriarchal, men just need to shame whores and not wife up used sluts, and the government has to stop giving single moms men's tax money, then foids will go back to their looksmatches. When sexbots and male birth control comes out, then femoid smv will decrease even more.

Men also need to blindfold females, that way looks don't matter. It doesn't matter how much we do to change their behavior because it does not change their inherent nature, they could be with their looksmatch but they'll always want more.

No because she is alpha widow and she thinks she deserves more.

Inherently that's how females will always be.

 

[Robtical]

Men also need to blindfold females, that way looks don't matter. It doesn't matter how much we do to change their behavior because it does not change their inherent nature, they could be with their looksmatch but they'll always want more.

Men can be with their looksmatch and want to cheat too, but society will shame femoids and men into settling instead of having the free for all degeneracy we have today. Cutting it down it better than nothing.

 

[Collegeincel98]

Men can be with their looksmatch and want to cheat too, but society will shame femoids and men into settling instead of having the free for all degeneracy we have today. Cutting it down it better than nothing.

Maybe, but it certainly isn't going to make women happy. Just like how we're cut off from women because of societal restraints (height, face, body, etc) we can live just fine without women but we still have a strong desire to be with them, such a strong desire that it can sometimes (or always) make us feel unhappy.

 

[Robtical]

Maybe, but it certainly isn't going to make women happy. Just like how we're cut off from women because of societal restraints (height, face, body, etc) we can live just fine without women but we still have a strong desire to be with them, such a strong desire that it can sometimes (or always) make us feel unhappy.

Our happiness outweighs the whore's happiness to chase chad dick.

 

[Bronzehawkattack]

You can't change femoid nature, they hate ugly men by default, especially ugly ethnics. The most society can do is make them more willing to settle for average looking men.

 

[ColdLightOfDay]

The question is just if the effects of anti-lookism will also trickle down to men. I mean, lookism is already an established term in Academia and liberal media outlets. But so far it basically boils down to ugly women demanding the right to access Chad. "Saying that I should settle for a short man just because I'm fat is sexist!"

Can you give me an example of this? I’m genuinely curious. I’ve seen examples of ‘body shaming’ getting huge attention from the left but nothing so far gone as this. I’ve never seen it expressed, even from the left, that it’d be sexist to suggest that low smv women are expected to settle for low smv men.