Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Title. I think 2060s should be well beyond a reasonable guess. As someone who posts a lot about how foids were either never really historically oppressed, or it was much different and milder than we are told, and how the popular image of what the past was is mostly just fantasy, I wonder when the time we live in right now will begin to be seen that way. This tweet that I saw recently made me think about this again.
Because this is exactly the type of stuff that would be used to claim so, based on the precedent of how we already determine stuff like that. People will see this, be like, "Wait, why his sons and not his daughters?" and to that, "Historians" will begin explaining that it was because 2020s were a patriarchal era when men ruled and made all decisions while foids were second-class citizens, if not actual property, and that's because only his sons were included, because nobody would even think of women needing something like that as they didn't have any power and didn't make any decisions.
It might sound ridiculous, but that's exactly how historians talk about foids' supposed oppression for all of history. Roman Empire had gender-equal inheritance laws in case of intestacy, female business owners, and divorce on demand by either spouse with no intervention by the legal system required. Historians' verdict on its society? "Whaman was oppressed and had no rights, becuz no female senators and XYZ." In large amounts of medieval Europe, you could find egalitarian and semi-egalitarian inheritance systems along with women voting in urban assemblies along with men, working in a wide range of professions, and freely migrating between cities and even countries for work and personal reasons. Historians' verdict on those societies? "Whaman was oppressed and had no rights, it was a Christian version of the Taliban, becuz fewer single ruling queens than kings and XYZ."
And so on. Since all of history up until maybe very recently is always just brushed off as "Whaman was oppressed and had no rights, becuz XYZ," and since "very recently" is always moving forward in time, it's only a question of time when the same will happen to the time we live in. And it will happen, because it always happens. There are already people trying to claim that the 90s and early 2000s were time periods when foids were "trad", "submissive", and "went for their looksmatch", after all.
You might think that that can't happen anymore. Sure, it has happened with literally every society that has existed so far, no matter how diverse they were, they are all just blankedly painted as patriarchal societies where whamans was oppressed, but our current society has simply moved too far for that, right?
Nah. It's already happening. Notice how far feminists are already moving the goalposts for when foids supposedly stopped being oppressed. I've stumbled back on this great thread by @hghcel yesterday:
There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true. Most of these exaggerated claims can be...
incels.is
While searching for some of the quotes in the Reddit threads there, I found this bullshit in reaction to one of the threads linked there:
Note for the curious: We don't find whether GPT could debunk it, since nobody there actually does any debunking.
Turns out, if the top comment is anything to go by, the new meta for how long whaman was oppressed and had no rights is up until the 90s and beyond, because that's when marital rape went from something not addressed by the law for both genders to something men started being criminalized for doing while foids aren't:
Not that they would ever see it that way, of course:
Damn, if only they had any proof for that apart from snarky appeals to societal consensus, they'd be unstoppable.
Then, there's the main thing. Absolutely kek-worthy, "Trust me bro"-tier stories of foids totally being oppressed and trated like children.
Notes from husbands when foids were sick in the 80s. Foids unable to buy cars on their own.
That second one is so good. So good. Either this person is like an 80-year-old, and in that case probably have their actual memories of what their mother had told them about her life experiences completely mixed with their own imaginations, dreams, and general brainfarts, or they are just completely making shit up. If only we had something that could clearly debunk it, something that would show that foids buying cars was completely socially normal decades in the past, maybe something like literally one of the most popular movies of all time from 1960 where a foid character buying a car by herself in a couple of minutes is a notable plot point:
Psycho is a classic 1960 psychological thriller horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. One of Hitchcock's most well-known works, it is also regarded as among the most important and influential films ever made, for reasons which include setting …
tvtropes.org
No comment.
And that just perfectly moves into another thing I want to bring up. Seriously, look at movies from 80-90+ years ago, and how they portray society, how the people living in those times actually imagined their society to be and what they thought were completely normal scenarios that could happen.
Blondie Johnsonâs (Joan Blondell) been kicked around by the depression: her mother is dead, and she canât find a job anywhere without some schmoozing boss trying to take advantage of her. Her main drive becomes …
tvtropes.org
A foid sluts it up with dozens of men after divorcing her husband:
The Divorcee is a 1930 film directed by Robert Z. Leonard, starring Norma Shearer, Chester Morris, Conrad Nagel, and Robert Montgomery. Shearer is Jerry, a carefree young woman in the New York upper-crust. All the young eligible bachelors in New …
tvtropes.org
A female company president freely fucks all of her Chad employees until she falls for one:
Female is a 1933 American drama film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Ruth Chatterton. It is a good example of the more "adult" tone struck by Hollywood films in The Pre-Code Era—any film produced after The Hays Code was enforced in …
tvtropes.org
All 1930s movies. Where exactly is any of that supposed crippling oppression of foids, which you would've expected to at least be a plot point in some drama, is a mystery. And with how things are going, that's what 2020s entertainment will likely be in the future. Stuff you show people to make them go "Damn, I didn't know those super trad puritans made stuff like this!" all the while the current period and the way it actually is gets completely reinterpreted.
A great irony in all this is that women tend to have more power in strictly patriarchal societies than matriarchal ones where they technically have more rights. Since in patriarchal societies women can influence their partners sexually and they do very well at this, but in matriarchal societies women are almost always controlled by relatives like their uncles or their mother in laws who they have little influence over. Like in Rome, India, and China women were legally "unfree" but had immense respect and power in society.
You. Are. Wrong. I am from the great and progressive country of germany and we basically had germanic feudal sharia law until the 80s. If a woman tried to buy something without permission from her father, she would be punished by corrective rape. Feminists had to fight tooth and nail change this, so I am told.
Jokes aside, this was one of the main talking points of german feminists between the 70s and 90s, the so called "rape paragraph" in german law that made marital rape impossible, or so they claim. It was changed in the 90s. It is hilarious that women can just change government laws and have always done so in all of history, but still claim to be oppressed. I saw an article on the german governments website about incels where she referred to "patriarchial oppression" of women in germany as if that is a real thing. This was posted by the government on their own website, let that sink in. Imagine having one of the most powerful nations on earth support your ass and still claiming oppression.
Imagine your government posted an article written by an incel advocate about the "dogpill" on their website. Insane.
The 2nd part about the movies, I love that. Yes exactly. There are so many examples of this, you could spend a lifetime citing them. I once read an old Rudyard Kipling short story, famous english author of the late 1800s. And he describes one of the characters as a chad who juggles multiple women. How did Rudyard know about this concept in the 1800s? I thought they were all prudes.
From "The Courting of Dinah Shadd" published in 1890.
In the days av my youth, as I have more than wanst tould you, I was a man that filled the eye an’ delighted the sowl av women. Niver man was hated as I have bin. Niver man was loved as I—no, not within half a day’s march av ut! For the first five years av my service, whin I was what I wud give my sowl to be now, I tuk whatever was within my reach an’ digested ut—an’ that’s more than most men can say. Dhrink I tuk, an’ ut did me no harm. By the Hollow av Hiven, I cud play wid four women at wanst, an’ kape them from findin’ out anythin’ about the other three, an’ smile like a full-blown marigold through ut all. Dick Coulhan, av the battery we’ll have down on us to-night, could drive his team no better than I mine, an’ I hild the worser cattle!
What did the colonel’s lady think? Nobody never knew. Somebody asked the sergeant’s wife An’ she told ’em true. When you git to a man in the case They’re like a row o’ pins, For the colonel’s lady …
www.kiplingsociety.co.uk
Another thing, condoms were not invented in 1970. Condoms were invented in the later half oh the 19th century. By WW1, condoms were available and sold everywhere.
This is also a brutal thread I come back to all the time:
The book is City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920 by Timothy Gilfoyle. You can find it on LibGen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gilfoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis Chapter 3: "The Whorearchy", the best JBpill chapter...
incels.is
TLDR: In 1800s New York and other places, young teenage girls would run from home, survive by being whores for fun and then just return to normal lifestyle later. Some were even from wealthy families. Again, how is this possible based on the 21st century account of the 1800s where girls were kept in cage at home and sold to the highest bidder right after getting their first period?
A pair of middle-class sisters from Westchester, for example, routinely visited Chatham Street saloons and brothels, "remaining there for a week or two, and then returning home, the parents believing that they had been visiting friends." Upon their arrest, they agreed to stop and reform. To Ellington's surprise, they later married "well and happy. Their parents or friends never heard of their adventures in the 'big city.'"
Also notice the parallels between 1800s girls playing whore for fun and then moving on like nothing happened and this little birdie we are all familiar with:
Femme Fatale and meme in the flesh, Kelly Balthazar, photographed moments before total pussy obliteration.
Another thread that I don't frequent as much is this one about ww2 germany. Essentially teenage girls would have orgies in public with soldiers to the point that the public began complaining about parks being littered with used condoms. I am sure my trad and chaste grandma did not partake in such vile activities, she is a good woman!
At the same time, an official in Augsburg commented on the "sorrowful appearance of the immoral actions among young persons, especially females who, though hardly 14 years old, chase after the soldiers and have sexual intercourse with them." Residents of Dachau complained that "one could no longer take a walk through the park, because the benches and some ofthe grassy areas were taken over by soldiers and girls." Another complaint was that the park near the military base was littered with used condoms.58
Shocking. Water is wet. It isn't "Toxic Femininity", but I guess, it fits the most. One of the latest nazi post had an interesting link, which brought me to the following study of teenage sexuality in Third Reich. https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3704872 First I I want quote a...
incels.is
Again, how is this possible according to mainstream view of history.
Related to this of course, are the claims made by all sides that millions of women were raped in ww2 and many impregnated. The numbers are really crazy and the interpretation inconsistent. When up to 200000 or 300000 french women get pregnant with german babies, then they say it was consentual relationships. When it's german women fucking russian soldiers, it is rape. It occurs to nobody that maybe women are just liars and larpers that turned their consentual sexual adventures with russian soldiers into "rape" later to save face.
I mean, how dare anyone question if rape is real or as harmful as they claim! We all know that mere contact with unwanted dick can drive one of the high elves mad for life! Sub5 penises tarnish their soul forever and condemns them to a life of psycho-spiritual torment until they finally are graced by the sweet release of death!
Another great source is wikipedia. Yes. On wikipedia you can find porn from the early 1900s that includes creampie, 69 and other oh so degenerate acts that I have heard right wingers claim were invented by the jews to destroy society. I have seen black and white fisting videos from the 50s or earlier.
This section contains all the antique porn videos and clips from the 1940s and earlier. A unique collection of rare vintage porn on allclassic.porn.
allclassic.porn
So, every time you see a friendly old grandma in public, rememeber she was once young and full of sexual energy. Society is a larp, people have debauched sex all the time, they do hard drugs all the time and most people that do these things experience zero negative consequences for them. The ones that do get caught and experience consequences are then used as examples to "prove" that the whole thing is inherently harmful.
Just as 1800s people loved to claim that all prostitutes would end up desolate and dying in some gutter (bullshit), people in our time claim that once a girl has done porn, OF, drugs etc she is ruined forever, will never have friends again, is mentally destroyed etc. None of this is true. Also of course the claim that women only resort to porn and prostitution out of poverty or manipulation.
This could be another example of how our time will be viewed in the future: "The economic decline forced millions of poor working class girls to bolster their meager incomes by selling pictures of their bodies, OH THE HUMANITY!"
Then it will show some moralfags on podcats and larpers talking about how porn destroys your brain, how society has porn addiction issue and so on and that will be used to support the idea of this being some sort of widespread societal ill that affected women and that men somehow took advantage of OF girls poverty by forcing them to sell feet pics.
Remember that shit about how 1000s of women owned businesses in the 1800s? How tf did they own businesses without a bank account? Nigga we are debating single cell organisms at this point, these people are retarded.
The comprehensive information provided in the trade directories allows the creation of an extensive database gathering data on over 30,000 female-owned businesses in the two industrialized cities,
Another great example I found recently: The east india company. There was an significant amount of women that owned stock in the east india company in the 1800, around 12-15% of the stock was held by women. How tf did women that couldnt leave their home, that couldnt buy or sell and were basicaly sex-slaves, engage in stock trading?
This guy wrote a bunch of shit on it but hes posting on a forum with literally five active users. In general, it is worth to check out his post history and read all of it. I learned from this nigga that in the 1800s, 90% of the paraquay male population was killed but women most affected kicked in anyway. This really happened, 90%.
Just some interesting starting links on his stuff:
The "peer review" one is particularly interesting because he posts evidence that women and soys are ACTIVELY falsifying history, not just out of of unintional bias, but proactively messing with data to advance their shit.
The white feather movement, idk if I saw a thread here on this or on that forum but it's completely downplayed now just how impactful it was. Men comitted actual suicide over being shamed by these cunts. They would literally physically drag men to the recruitment office, even men that had ALREADY ENLISTED, and the recruiter would be like, why tf are you here and the guy would just say, well ask the woman idk.
The thread I was reading pointed out that current interpretations of the white feather movement downplay that women were aggressively PRO war and instead make them seem positive.
This is also completely ignored by right wingers and history: Before ww1 there were massive demonstrations in London and other places AGAINST THE WAR. In germany, the alleged all-surrounding pro-war sentiment ("haha we gon be back before xmas") was also exaggerated after the fact. In reality this war was top down imposed on people and women participated in incetivizing the war and undermining male anti-war sentiment. They make it seem as if men in particular wanted to go to war and kill other men for sport.
This btw is a completely untouched topic: The whole idea that men are inherently more violent and aggressive due to testosterone and this is why men play violent video games etc. Basically it reduces men to violent brutes, monkeys that are all on brink of going ER unless they can release their pent up aggression through sportsball or call of duty. Nobody even considers that men, you know, just arent violent.
Or that men's aggressive behavior is a result of a cultural bias against men, perpetrated by women and men against other men due both genders worshipping women. They do not even accept alterantive explanations for men comitting most violent crime, they simply reduce it to natural law: Men are more aggressive because nature made them so. Think about how disgusting this is, how denigrating. They are saying you are a violent monkey that needs to be contained and that it's just your nature to be violent, untrustworthy etc. They won't even allow for an alternative view, that male aggression may just be a reaction to society hating men and men hating themselves and other men.
They will point to studies about men being more competitive but none of that explains why they are competiive. Why do they have to beat up other ment to gain status? In other data, many men report that if possible, they would like to work less and be stay at home dads. How does that jive with the "inherently competetitive aggro male" idea? It doesn't. Think about how insane this is. It means there is no clear reason to believe that men are more aggressive than women at all. Comitting more violence or crime does not at all indicate a higher inherent potential for violence in men. To claim that men are inherently violent becaues they comitt more violence is a non-sequitur fallacy.
Another way to expose this is to simply introduce gender-swapping. The "inherent male competitiveness" magically disappears if the competition is female. If men were biologically wired for violence and competition, why would they only be violent and competitive against other men but not women? The implication is that if a man even just looked like a woman (say, passing troons), men would instantly stop competing with them lmao. How does this make sense?
When it comes to race, they debate acknowledges this suddenly and left and right wingers engage in a tuck of war. The right claims blacks and whites level of respective violence or non-violence is just inherentl and genetically caused. The left claims that the cause is socio-economic instability and general lower social status of blacks, caused by racism. But they don't argue this for men in general, although racial bias becomes insignificant when compared to gender bias. People of all genders and races prefer women of any race over men of any race: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202503.1307
Who perpetrates this myth of inherent male aggressoin though?
A 2007 survey by the employment web site monster.com found that 68% percent of fathers would be a stay at home parent if money were no object. [1]
Warren Farrell reported in “The Myth of Male Power” that 80% of men he surveyed said that if they could stay at home with no loss of income and their wives approval, they would. Only 3% said they would prefer to work full-time. [2]
87% of men who did quit their job after having a child to stay at home say they are glad they did. [3]
63% fathers say they don’t spend as much time as they want with the kids, compared to 35% of mums. [5]
They ignore data liike that and jump from the observation that a miniscule fraction of men comitt most of the violent crime to the claim that because of this, ALL men are latent violent criminals because of testosterone or something. In reality the vast majority of men will never ever engage in violent behavior in their lifetime. By contrast, feminists are peddling insane stories such as that 30% of men will beat up women in their lifetime lmao.
Graham-Kevan's paper raises the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment
modality could have persisted for 30 years and still persists, despite hundreds of studies
which provide evidence that PV has many causes, not just male-dominance. The answer is
that it emerged from a convergence of a number of different historical and social factors.
One of these is that gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence is inconsistent with
male predominance in almost all other crimes, especially violent crimes. Another is the
greater injury rate suffered by female victims of PV brings female victimization to public
attention much more often. Although there are many causes of the persistence of the
patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of
feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence.
And for the last time here: None of the things mentioned in this thread could have happened if women were low-agency peons controlled by men for 1000s of years. All of this is only possible if the near opposite is true: Women dominate men, men are sacrifical lambs for society. They need your ass in the coal mines. That is why they are now going after porn and other male copes. They current surge of right winger larper foids popping up everyhwere is basically the 21st century precursor to a new white feather movement. Both sides advance the idea that "masculinity" is identical to sacrifice, violence, war, provision and protection of women and country.
This is the foundation for shit like the draft coming back. All the shit they push now, porn censorship, anime censorship, draft - they justifiy it by claiming they need to protect women and children (look up international new legistlation for internet censorship under "woman and children protection acts"). But what does this imply. Please think. What or who do these women and children need to be protected FROM according to this logic? It's men. They are saying that they need to censor male copes because men are like a disease that needs to be quarantined.
This is getting too long but once I start writing I usually cant stop. Ok one final thing: Notice that men are currently trapped in a pincer movement by all sides. One one hand they are constantly told they are subhuman garbage who do all the violence and rape. This comes from women and left wing. The right wing however pushes the exact same story but inverted: That men are low garbage now with no "masculinity" and that true masculinity is to beat up other men and destroy them in war, in particular the "violent migrants" that are "raping all the women."
So you get a pincer movement that forces only one conclusion: Men must regain their masculinity by being violent again, but the violence has to be directed at the right group of men and also men must worship women. Both sides push this. Funnily enough, the violent migrants and criminals right wingers rant about have all the "masculine" traits they adore: They allegedly have tons of kids and huge families, they work out, they are outside all day touching grass, they are not conflict avoidant, they stand up to their ideals to the point of being imprisoned because they dont give a fuck about the law, only their own will. Nobody lives closer to the nietzschean ubermensch ideal espoused by right wing larpers than the criminal negro repeat offender.
Anyway, my point was, men are being slowly encircled by groups that only pretend to be opposed to another but are actually in complete agreement on this: Men are the problem, women are victims, therefore men need to be "fixed." This fix involves killing or displacing certain men and having the other men culturally castrated by depriving them of all copes that don't serve society like porn, video games and male community that is not strictly approved of by women. Example would be how nobody cares about women using AI boyfriends but there is always huge outrage about men using AI girlfriends. You must worship REAL women and give them REAL attention and money, or you are a looser. Your money and time does not belong to you according to these people, it belongs to women. You are a serf, tied to the land. The land is owned by women.
This pattern goes back centuries: The only gender debate in society is this: What's the best way to worship women and exploit men. @The Notorious SLAV put it nicely here:
Question for you: Do you think the current "trad foid" vs "hoe foid" thing is just another expression of this? Basically women fighting over how to best exploit men?
Almost certainly. You can see the same types of dynamics and arguments that already seem to have been present in those discussions a century ago. "There's some nasty stuff that only men should handle on the sides of taking care of us, that's the best way forward for us" vs "There should be no limits in any way, that's the best way for us to get what we want from the world ".
video View: https://youtu.be/WQpC_5Ha7Ng PDF from video is attached here: https://mega.nz/file/8vdG0JqK#0_5wwaI_fB_wgON5h3wwM8utFrk-YwENUoWs7YtlJA4 TLDR - women know their privileges and power. Voting rights for women seemed to take that power from them, and make them equal to men...
meanwhile my drunk grandma admitted to whoring around and my aunt just said "that was before you met dad tho" and she said yeah and that was it lmao. Basically in rural german village my grandma grew up in, girls would go out to party to masked balls. You would dress up in mask or costume, get drunk and fuck. My mom has stories of my grandma coming home drunk af and vomiting. Oh the trad and chaste 50s, how we yearn for ye. Other people that grew up in the 50s have stories about guys just plowing through women like a tank:
It was OK for Scotty. He was six foot two, fourteen stone and he didn’t get drunk like I did. He could always pull nice birds. The fucking times I’d helped him sneak them out next morning, I should know. It was a mystery to me, birds used to be very friendly with me, even invite me in and give me tea. But they did all their fucking with Scotty or someone else. Fuck him.
from biographical book "the grass arena" by John Healy
So whos anecdotal evidence am I supposed to believe? John Healy or someone redditors grandma? But hey, it is totally plausible that human nature did a complete 180° in the last 50 years and everyone before 1970s just didn't have sex drive, boners were invented by jews and men kept women on a chain back home and they had to eat slob from a bowl on the floor after cooking his majesty a five star dinner. Thank god for the brave feminists that gave their lives to end the millennia of total oppression where women were treated like the poor girls in those disgusting hentai stories, bent over, fucked, incapable of resisting as male sperm invaded their long-suffering wombs, sore and stretched from all the pregnancies they had to endure at the hand of their ever-horny captors, who, lest we forget, were also sexual prudes that would explode in rage if they saw as much as a womans ankle.
Very interesting points. However I do wonder whether the fact that everything today is video-recorded and well documented would change the way future generations see this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
!" all the while the current period and the way it actually is gets completely reinterpreted.
