• @luftballooneyegouge Yeah, I’m not buying it. It lists Pakistan, Russia, Romania and India as having lower crime rates than the US and Australia. I’ve lived in Romania. There’s a lot of crime and theft there. Not to mention crimes against women and little boys in India and Pakistan. I mean, we all know that in India they pay off the police, or the…[Read more]

  • This has so many confounding factors, though, that I don’t think one can confidently say that correlation indicates causation.

    Jear talked about Japan – is their concept of hell valid? Pakistan has a huge crime rate, yet they are very much religious. Does the Islamic version of hell not count? Even more problematic: are we talking about crimes…[Read more]

  • @griz I agree with the broader picture you are painting, but I disagree with a lot of details – and those details are exactly what those incel forum-goers are convinced of (I should note – you are not an incel unless you are an active incel forum-goer and you call yourself an incel. It’s a name you choose for yourself, not a label others place on…[Read more]

  • @ladybarbara I see. All three had more or less the same treatment, all became more or less gay because of how they were treated, but they had different coping mechanisms and one of them basically failed to cope at all and went on a violent rampage. So probably personality also plays an important role.

  • @ladybarbara Wow. You have the weirdest life stories. I think that guy had way more than just sexual frustration going on, though. I get what your saying, but I think it was also just general rage at the hurt he had experienced that led him to commit those acts of murder. Not to mention who knows what happened in Vietnam. I think he was doing it…[Read more]

  • What do you think about the idea that a man can involuntarily be celibate and that that may be a source of sexual frustration?

    Incels are apparently a group of young mostly white males on internet forums that

    • There’s always been guys who couldn’t get laid.

      I think there’s a new realization thanks to access to information that humans have a horrific historical record of behavior, and , I think, this is one of the reasons towards why they would shoot the people they do.

      If humans can be classified in the mind as ‘evil creatures’ then the idea of an ‘innocent victim’ starts to evaporate.

      Alot of the heroes of us humammals just recently died or were revealed to be villains.

      We really don’t even have sports heroes anymore.

      We hate us.

      • @luftballooneyegouge
        Humans are capable of both great good and great evil. A classification of just one or the other is unbalanced.

        We are asking the wrong question in “How is it that some people are evil?”

        A better question is “How is it that anyone is good?”

        If we could ask a better question we could come up with a better answer.

        • @griz blurted out in a high pitch squeal that pops up doggie ears for miles,
          “We are asking the wrong question in “How is it that some people are evil?”

          So now you’re against finding motives?!?!?!?!?
          Did the F.B.I. toss your truck once or something?

          • @luftballooneyegouge
            That’s proven a dead-end thus far.

            We know a few of the things that can cause criminality to be selected for and enforced in the thought processes. But we are really no closer to discovering what causes them to be there in the first place. The same processes are there in all of us.

            We are socialized by learning to inhibit the more unsociable primitive aspects of the hypothalamic brain. Much of the purpose of the cerebral cortex is inhibitory. Criminal Behavior tends to result with these inhibitions are lessened.
            But the clincher is that they don’t always!

            The best way to figure out why a complex machine is malfunctioning, is to compare it against one that is not!

            So it is no less a search for motivations, in asking why so many people remain motivated to not lapse into criminal behavior despite similar or even greater stressors in their life.

            (And all the doggie hippocampus’ send out a serotonin message that the ears can return to the all’s well position)

            I really am studying this stuff, and not just making assertions out my asshole!

            Would you care to step up to the plate and improve your education level so you’re not firing out of your asshole? I can hook you up with the same free on-line lecture series.

            No time to proofread right now.

    • There may be something to this…when kids marginalize others for being different. Kids can be cruel. The “popular” kids will inevitably find someone to dump on and everyone else joins in on the cruelty to avoid being labeled as the weird kid. Eventually, the “weird kid” either learns to live with it, leaves the society, or snaps and goes on a rampage of revenge.
      This doesn’t exactly define the mental state of the rampaging weird kid, rather it displays the mental attitudes of the Chads & Stacy’s who drove the weird kid, (we’ll call him Billy), to act out his frustrations with violence. This of course does not negate responsibility of either party involved in the resulting violence manifesting from the bullying by a group of children towards another child.
      Now, sole responsibility for all of this doesn’t necessarily lie at the feet of Chad & Stacy or even poor weird Billy. A great deal of responsibility falls on the parents, or perhaps the lack of parental guidance that kids today have missing from their daily lives.
      Children raised in an environment of participation trophies and the misguided belief that the world owes them something simply because of who they are, grow up to be self entitled ass holes and bullies. Chads daddy works for a big corporation making a 6 figure income and is screwing his secretary on the side, while Chads mother is fucking the pool boy and the gardener out of shear boredom.
      Stacy is just as fucked up as Chad, her father owns the corporation where Chads daddy works and he’s screwing all of his employees on a daily basis…Stacy’s mother, the prom queen in her day, has found solace in the bottom of a bottle of gin because she too had been fucking the pool cleaner but time and copious amounts of alcohol have robbed her of her former youthful looks.
      The poor weird Billy’s grew up in a single parent home where dad was never there to instill moral values, and mom was always working more than two jobs at any given time simply to put groceries on the table and keep the lights on. But she did the best she could with what little she had…

      • @immortal_pirate Wow!!! I pays to be a pool boy pool cleaner !!!! He gets laid !!!

        • @ladybarbara
          a.k.a. the women at the top end of the female dominance hierarchy have decided to select for these genes to be passed into the future generations.

      • @immortal_pirate
        An astute symptomatic analysis!

        I think a more complete analysis needs to go into a better educated understanding of the dominance hierarchy where all these games play out.

        Disastrous exercises like “everyone gets a trophy”, “you are special just because you breathe”, “you deserve the same outcome even if you put less effort into it”, “bully-proof zones”, and even the hand sanitizer fetish come from gross misunderstandings of how the dominance hierarchy has worked for the betterment of all social structures for 7 billion years.

        Pushes have come in just the past 50 years wanting to just delete the dominance hierarchy, because it’s icky and unfair and makes our emotions feel bad. But that’s uneducated, unintelligent and short-sighted. Our brains are physiologically wired and structure for it.

        And a valid secondary point is that in a way, too much of a push towards conformity convention and conservatism (fitting in, not rocking the boat, radical egalitarianism of outcome) has sparked a real thirst for more chaos in the system as a balance.

        A revolutionary social change, unprecedented in 190 million years, happened just 50 years ago. And the social (and perhaps even the racial?) structure of humanity is rocking back and forth trying to find equilibrium.

        But radical destabilizing elements instead have us pushing deeper and deeper into factionalizing tribal warfare. (Which actually the Bible predicts as part of the species’ downfall)

    • You could have a point there. The personalities of some of the shooters would fit in that groove. I won’t say all, because I did not care enough to do a study on it.

      I have known men and boys like that. I am a bit attracted by that aspect of their personality ——- until I stopped trying to “fix” such people.

      In high school, I had a big crush on a boy that for some reason that I couldn’t figure out, was shy about sexual matters. His name was Billy. Billy was popular and charismatic, charming, personable, and yet shy and not outgoing. He was quiet and other students liked to be with him. I liked to be with him. Many, many years later, I found out what it was that gave him that sexual aloofness and fear of having a normal sex life. At 4 years old, his Grandfather raped him anally almost every day. His mother needed to get her 3 boys away from their Grandfather and get away from his house. She could not afford to support her boys and put them in a local orphanage. In the orphanage the boys were anally raped. Billy began to get in fights, and involved with theft. He was placed in a reform school —- where anal rape was a daily routine. He was a pretty boy with the singing voice of an angel. He became an alter boy in the Catholic church. The Catholic minister raped Billy. His mother reclaimed her boys and moved to California. This is the point where I met him. He was sexually shy.

      I tried to make him “boyfriend” material, but one day I made fun of him and he violently beat me and raped me. Within a week, I convinced him to be more tame and “boyfriend-ish” and I thought I was introducing him to “normal” sex. I tried to ignore that he was gay. I was trying to “fix” him. Other girls found him attractive and he was straight arming them and aloof. He was in love with a guy named Ray and we were like a strange threesome. At 18, Billy and I got married and his mother protested our marriage and broke up our marriage after only 20 minutes. We went our separate ways. Billy went into the Army. He was a cook and became a helicopter machine gunner in Vietnam. —- I went on with my life and got married to someone else.

      Billy returned from Vietnam as a brutal person. He could still be charming and charismatic, but he viewed other humans as his victims. He went to prison a few times ( for 4 years per conviction) for molesting and raping little boys. He liked the prison life and wanted to stay in prison. When he served his time and was freed, he swore to the Judge that he would start to kill, so that he may return to prison. In that next year he managed to murder 44 young men and boys —- while anally raping them and strangling them with their own t-shirts. He was known as William Bonin The Freeway Killer. He spent 13 years on San Quentin State Prison’s Death Row. When all his paperwork was gathered to sum up his life —- his one marriage at 18 was never annulled and never divorced. I witnessed his execution, had him cremated, and dumped his ashes in the sea just outside of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.Perhaps he was not an “incel”, but was a closeted gay. Society never allowed him to be the gay that he was and he reacted with lethal anger against society. That has to be as ugly as it gets. The sexually frustrated man strikes out and becomes a killer.

      • @ladybarbara Wow. You have the weirdest life stories. I think that guy had way more than just sexual frustration going on, though. I get what your saying, but I think it was also just general rage at the hurt he had experienced that led him to commit those acts of murder. Not to mention who knows what happened in Vietnam. I think he was doing it to “give back to the world” what the world had given to him. I know he was a serial killer but… poor guy.

        I bet he would never have been gay if he hadn’t been raped so often in the first place. But who knows

        • @Georockstar09 Billy had two brothers. They had the same treatment from their Grandfather. They went to the same Orphanage and had the same sexual abuse. All three boys had angelic singing voices and ended up as Alter boys and in the boy’s choir —- and sexually used by the Minister or Priest. All three boys had that …. David Schwimmer or Jessie Waters look that is so handsome. When they were moved to California (and I met them) they were sweet boys that shied away from having sex lives. Girls fawned around them and they couldn’t care less. Billy’s older brother became a “Mama’s boy”. He always helped his mother. She was like the Mom on Happy Days, a Marion Cunningham type, that worked as a waitress. The younger brother was “Mama’s Baby” and also sexually shy. The point is that all three brothers were abused in the same way.

          They all went to Vietnam. Returning home, the older brother was an introvert and ended up with a gay lifestyle and devoted to his mother. His life was celibate. He was attracted to other men —- so he chose not to have sex at all, so as not to disappoint his mother. Billy’s younger brother was also attracted to men, but forced his self to select a nice woman and settle down to marriage and raising a family. Neither the older brother, nor the younger brother struck out in anger at society. One forced himself to be normal and the oldest silently suffered a celibate life. Like turtles, they all tucked their heads in their shells when Billy became California’s most hated serial killer. The press was always at their door!!! Society threw rocks at them. They clung to their rolls in life —- the suffering mother, the mother’s boy (without a sex life), and Mr. “Normal”.

          After Billy was executed, cremated and his ashes were in the sea, their mother was old, took sick, and died. The younger brother is living a normal life with wife and kids. That older brother came out of his celibate shell at the age of 55. He found a nice man to settle down with and he is an excellent housewife!!! Life became what it should be for the brothers.

      • @ladybarbara
        His life’s tragedy does seem to be evidence that gay can be “acquired”. Youngsters are very malleable, capable of becoming exactly what the adults around them crave.

        The feminine hero story (archetype) is something similar to Beauty and the Beast: something that is dangerous and needs to be tamed. A man who is already tamed is no fun or challenge. (The top searches for female pornographic literature on Google fall into four archetypes: the vampire, the pirate, the werewolf, and the surgeon!).
        Plus there’s no evidence that a pre-tamed man will be able to confront the dragon of Chaos should it arise; with the ability to transform into something stronger each time something tries to slay him. (The masculine hero archetype is something akin to Hercules or Jesus Christ).

        Heroic women want and deserve competent heroic men; selecting for the species to be stronger and stronger with each generation.

        But the reverse is also true. And right now the natural selection seems to be towards unheroic cowardly men.

        And I don’t hear a lot of people asking why this might be.

        • @griz In my life adventures, I had a few months stay at a shelter for battered women.

          (Yes! Some women are battered! And all this time most men just eat them plain and unbattered.) —————— (joking)

          Anyway, life in a battered shelter included psych counseling. The women who picked out partners that batter were looking for a high voltage man that fill some kind of drama need. They needed a man that was testosteronie (the San Francisco treat.) Such a man lives on the edge of high passion and a volitile temper. Drama in the houshold is always high and the battered woman is addicted to high drama. Something always has to be going wrong, or life is not normal for them. Yet, when questioned, the battered women wanted a man who was calm and a strong leader, but “nice” in character. Yet, when she finds such a guy ——- he is boring!!!! He doesn’t want high drama. He wants a nice woman, a calm household, nice children and a peaceful life. The kind of man that these women need —– in order to turn their life around —– is “Mr. Boring Nice Guy”.

          The trouble is that when these high drama women find Mr. Boring Nice Guy, they find him to be so un-exciting that Mr. Boring Nice Guy is invisible to high drama women. She passes him up and gets herself back into a high drama situation with a hot tempered man ——- and the high drama cycle of abuse goes on and on.

          The most desirable man IS Mr. Boring Nice Guy!!! He had a boring life and may have been the kid that was picked on and the “incels” of this world. That guy who could never get a date and never went to the Prom. That nerdy guy is the real Mr. Right. He is not full of muscles. He is either skinny, or pudgy, even fat. But, his life is on a peaceful treadmill. That is the kind of guy women should be looking for. Such a guy like this, would find a wonderful woman a true treasure in his life and he would cherish her and treat her right.

          Mr. Boring Nice Guy is low drama and boring, but he is steady and strong. He has had a boring sex life. He is trustworthy and faithful. This is what I needed to turn my life around. He is not a volatile volcano. He is not a Pirate. He is milk-toast and predictable.

          What I have ended up finding is a man who lives a life of Boring Nice Guy, but can handle any volatile situation with hostile precision. He can bring a bad-guy to the ground in split seconds! He is the hero that can become lethal in a moment’s notice. THEN, he is back to being Mr. Boring Nice Guy again. When occasion arises that he can dress up, he is like a butterfly emerging from his cocoon and dresses to the hilt in finery of the Pirate or the Highlander. ——— Women swoon around him and want their picture taken with him. When we get back home —— he changes back into Clark Kent aka Boring Nice Guy. He is a treasure in my life. Mr. Low Drama.

          • @ladybarbara
            The joking is imho just the right goofy “seasoning” to an otherwise very serious topic.

            The “drama need” is tied to the feminine hero archetype — the “taming” of the “dangerous guy”. (Beauty and the Beast). A guy dangerous enough to confront the dragon of chaos should it arise while the woman is otherwise occupied tending to the genetic heritage of the species.

            But this also ties into what given women the edge in “maternal instinct”: something from what behavior psychology calls “The Big 5” Human behavior traits. There is one trait called “agreeableness” that preps a mother to be “exploited” by a baby. Much effort is given and personal sacrifice done for the sake of hoped-for good future potential. (It’s also tied to a woman’s tendency to fall in love with what a man might be transformed into — whereas men tend to fall in love with something they hope won’t transform!). But when agreeableness is not in proper balance, it preps a woman to be exploited by a “big baby”.
            One that itself may be unbalanced unto being a volatile volcano with fists, relying on instinctual physical lashing-out as first (and last?) recourse.
            Imbalance attracts imbalance.

            “Nice boring guy” might be that (and nothing but that) through and through. But as you’ve pointed out “nice boring guy” might just be the glasses that Clark Kent removes to become Superman!

    • Yin replied 2 days ago

      Not being able to get a partner happens sometimes. There is no reason to be a misogynistic jerkoff, or flat out terrorist, due to it though. Just learn to be better, more appealing, skilled at something. I mean, I lost this genetic lottery and haven’t learned any skills or talents. It’s my fault. Why would I blame someone else for that? Dumb as hell. Does this stuff have any relation to that MGTOW crap? I remember hearing similar stuff with that group, but this incel stuff seems new-ish.

      • @Yin
        Actually there are statistical studies showing that men fail to pass on their genes as often as they succeed. (50/50).

        That is Evolution’s way of making sure there is a lot of variance in the species, with a maximum number of permutations for natural selection to work upon. The men “test” the evolutionary ideas, and the women “test” the men.

        There shouldn’t really be any blame or fault assessed for this. It’s simply a vital part of our species evolving into the top dominant predator on the planet.

        (Well, excluding saporophytes which ultimately “prey” upon all!)

        • @griz But how many of those times are about people who don’t ever want kids (like me) or are sterile? Also, if people want children bad enough, they can try adoption. I mean, when it comes to animals, we have the “don’t buy, adopt” motto, but we crank out children with no questions while many are up for adoption.

          What I am faulting is guy’s who can’t get someone and then complain and blame an entire gender because some of the women don’t want to be with them. I’m faulting the guy’s that take a vehicle and run over people or take a gun and shoot up schools because of rejection. They need to calm down and try to learn something (talents, skills) that can be attractive.

          No one is entitled to someone else’s body. Being misogynistic or downright violent because of that feeling of entitlement is sickening.

          • @Yin
            I don’t remember hearing any exceptions stated in the study; but I also wasn’t thinking to look for any. But even if it was just a pure number crunch of census data, the number excluded by sterility and lack of stated desire would would still leave a lot of men who wanted to pass on their genes unable to.

            I understand the adoption scenario; but really that is not passing on your genes. There is a very good reason why stepchildren are at at 10 times greater risk of abuse and or neglect. Even if the consciousness won’t admit it the subconscious knows that these are not your genes.

            Let’s remember that most of the games we play in modern society are just frilly overlays on behaviors that are hundreds of millions of years old.

            I think most people know that I am a big fan of personal responsibility and accountability, especially for men. But we may need to face the fact that 50 years of social tinkering has perhaps failed the young men to the point where they just don’t have the traditional personal resources to deal with the Beast Within; and decades of feminist blame and shaming has just caught up with us.

            And there really is no sign that more blame and shame is going to fix this. We are at the point where it’s probably only going to make it worse.

            I agree that the processes you described are repugnant. But again I don’t see my repugnance as resolving this problem.

            The men doing this have been pushed and pushed and pushed into more and more marginalized positions by social forces. And I see neither an intelligent nor an easy way out.

            Because there’s no chance for reform and lots of media spotlight for those who make one heinous retaliatory statement against postmodern society, then commit death-by-cop suicide.

            It is with great sadness that I would have to observe that we may just have to ride this out, and hopefully chalk it up to learning that victimhood identity politics . . . Is pure socio-toxin.

    • There’s a lot to unpack here.
      But first a caution against identity politics and the accompanying virtue signaling that happens when one group is set aside for special scorn as “the snake in the garden Paradise”. Like it or not we all arrived here together, with plenty of blame to go around if that is the game one wants to play.

      For starters genetics is a lottery. One that’s stacked 2:1 against the guys. Statistically speaking, every woman passes her genes along at least once; whereas only half of the men get to. This is the natural consequence of two revolutionary changes our ancestors happened on around 190 million years ago: concealed ovulation and selective breeding.
      A few months ago I put a thought out on the group that evolutionarily speaking, men test ideas and women test men. In the backlash to it was almost comical. The reality that women are the Vanguard of human genetic evolution is anathematic to current feminist dogma that wants to place the the blame for all of Humanity’s woes totally upon the oppression of the evil white European patriarchy. (By default that makes them the saintly oppressed, in “righteous backlash”.

      A lot of young men have absorbed a very toxic dosage of this. It’s indoctrinated into them as early as Elementary School — and even at home as feminist at single mothers lash out at men in general for almost every conceivable problem. Boys are overdosing on white male shame; and this has twisted the natural responses that Evolution has groomed into them through eons of hegemony (the tendency for women to select across and up dominance hierarchies).

      The way men got noticed for breeding selection, was to be assertive, dominant, risk-taking, and more than a little bit dangerous.

      These “incels” are just a frustrated symptom of a greater problem. The natural selection process that has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, took a radical turn in the 60s. And this social Revolution not only changed all of the rules of the genetic game, it set about attacking and sabotaging young males (socially, psychologically and biochemically), unto trying to make them “the snake in the garden” — responsible for all the evils bestowed upon the victims.

      And in a way, Evolution has mandated for the men to become what the women want; and to do so with a vengeance.

      Now add to this the fact that the Victorian gentleman theme has been effectively sabotaged and replaced with the modern femi-man theme (adding to the stress young men feel in needing to become something unnatural to them), women selecting increasingly poorly in men who will not stay around to properly socialize the boys . . . And we really should not be that surprised we ended up at such a place.

      This is not intended to be the latest volley in the “blame and shame game” in what now passes for the battle of the sexes.
      It is simply a broader socio -evolutionary perspective than many are willing or able to entertain.

      A huge evolutionary shake-up came in the 60s. And both sides need to recognize this and pull together that which various ideologies want to deconstruct ( with zero notion of how to put things back together in a stable structure!)

      The future doesn’t bode well for the species if we keep playing these factionalizing demonizing tribal warfare blame games.

      I will do my best to respond to all intellectual discussion on this. I know it’s an intricate analysis with a lot of points to consider. But we are an intricate species with a lot of points to consider!

      • @griz I agree with the broader picture you are painting, but I disagree with a lot of details – and those details are exactly what those incel forum-goers are convinced of (I should note – you are not an incel unless you are an active incel forum-goer and you call yourself an incel. It’s a name you choose for yourself, not a label others place on you.)

        Some technicalities:
        Concealed ovulation started around 2 million years ago (maybe you meant 1.9 million?). 190 million years ago, we had giant crocodiles roaming the earth in the Triassic and mammals still had reptilian features, though they looked like rats. They may have still been laying eggs. Concealed ovulation is a rare thing that occurs in only a few primates, including us, and it may be simply a result of bipedalism and monogamy (no use advertising ovulation to the world if you have sex very often with only one guy). Besides, if you’re a woman, ideally you’d mate with and marry the one guy you deem most fit, and don’t risk damaging that relationship via cheating. Likewise, the man will only provide for kids he makes with one woman, because usually that’s all he can afford (in original, hunter-gatherer societies).

        Other thing: So I’ve mentioned this before, but both men and women sexually select each other in humans. Men for hips and breasts (they serve absolutely no function in non-lactating women); women for strength and status (men will tussle over a mate, though not to the same extent that gorillas do). Most of the sexual selection is on the women, though, I think. As a woman, I definitely got out-competed (several times) for the attention of a crush or other that I had when a gorgeous fellow-female walked in. That being said, ancestrally, monogamy is the norm, so even the less desirable left-over men and women (e.g. overbite, small breasts) then pair up as well.

        So ideally it’s 1:1, not in any way 2:1. I’m not sure where you are getting that statistic from, so maybe you can expand. One woman does NOT want to be anyone’s second wife, nor concubine. She wants a man with no prior children, who will provide his all for her own (and his) children (that he has with her). We can discuss cheating, but men who are cheated on unknowingly are not celibates so they don’t exactly count for this discussion.

        You say only 50% of men reproduce. I quickly googled it – only 50% of women between the ages of 15-45 have children. That statistic does NOT mean that only 50% of women EVER have children; ideally one would look at 70 yo women who already finished their reproductive lives to see who did and did not have children. So I’m wondering if it’s the same for that 50% of men (if it’s taken from 15-45 yo’s, when we know most 15-30 yo’s don’t have children yet and bog the statistics).

        We do not “lose” the genetic lottery unless there is some kind of sudden drastic change in our environment making us die off (there isn’t; I’m talking as a paleontologist). Unless we have down syndrome or malformality, we did not lose any lottery. All our ancestors were fit, and passed that fitness down to us. Even in deer – the does mate with the strongest, usually oldest males – at some point most males will be the head of a harem, just that they’ll only be in that position for a short time before they’re overthrown.

        HOWEVER, men who call themselves incels very much believe this idea that they lost the genetic lottery. And these guys are so recent, they can’t have anything to do with evolution but everything to do with messed up beliefs about how evolution works.

        (parenthesis here – I take issue with “women selecting increasingly poorly in men…” no. It’s men’s fault that they don’t stick around to raise their own sons (those MEN’S OWN GENES) properly, not the women at fault for choosing the wrong man. Women aren’t psychic to know what men will do. It’s a complex socioeconomic issue, mostly among the poor, it’s not always entirely the man’s fault, but you can’t heap the blame on the woman for the deed of the man. That’s exactly like blaming a poor guy whose wife cheated on him, for not selecting the right woman. I’ts victim blaming) Anyway, back to the topic. It’s not that the man chooses not to “stick around,” it’s as Immortal Pirate says, socioeconomic situations result in single moms or both parents working several jobs. That being said, it may indeed be an interesting contributing factor, like in lady barbara’s example about the serial killer.

        ANYWAY, one thing I do agree with is that young men are often demonized (especially black men, but most incels are white). It may or may not have to do with feminism, it may have more to do with men who ARE demons who rape or shoot schools and are blown up by the media, but they (incels) seem to be convinced that (all) women somehow rule the world (as a woman whose bosses were always men, I doubt that) (all great bosses). Maybe their worldview may be skewed by particularly loud and annoying feminists whose ideas not all women are on board with? I’ve known a few. So while society may have been evolving (I don’t know what happened in the 60’s in N Am, and N Am is not the whole human world), human evolution has been much the same as ever from a biological standpoint (we have not been struck by a devastating meteorite, though that one in Siberia a few years ago was pretty cool).

        After posting this question, I did a bit of research on Youtube about incels, and one guy broke it down pretty nicely, showing examples of what “nice guys”, “nice girls”, “white knights”, and “incel” posts are like (I know you try to avoid social political terms, but these are names they call themselves). What happens is that these people get into these echo chambers that are these forums and convince themselves of these extremely pessimistic lies about natural selection. It’s fanaticism, plain and simple. You look at their faces and they (incels) are handsome men. But when they talk or write, all that comes out of them is poison, echoed back and forth from other forum-goers, and unknowingly MAKE THEMSELVES undesirable to women (I mean, I’m not going to marry a man that talks about enjoying seeing women suffer, because we have it so easy and we deserve to suffer. Even if we do have it easy. That’s what one incel wrote). But they feed each other these lies and sink into this dark spiritual black hole, when all they have to do is step out and get involved in their communities outside of the internet in mom’s basement. Which to me is odd, their solution so simple, and that’s why I posted this topic.

        And from all these comments, it seems like the answer is: how you socialize a boy before he becomes a tween determines his tendency towards violence to vent off over-emphasized and obsessed-about sexual frustration.

        • @Georockstar09
          Yes, my dates are off. I’m studying a University-level psychology course from the U of T and partaking of the lectures and reading assignments online and on the road means my notes are not what they should be. When you were not active on group I let them know that I would be “using” the groups to help me memorize and learn to articulate what I’m learning.
          I have a good prof, who has said some startling things that I’ve then gone and checked his facts on. Even on things relatively “trivial” to the actual course material that he’s introduced just to bolster a point he’s been dead-on every single time — so I tend to trust most of what he teaches as scientifically corroborated fact.

          Remember that I said the 2:1 ration was a statistical construct, based just on unfulfilled desire to breed. Googling how many women vs men actually do wouldn’t account for those who have multiple children, those who want to but can’t, those who elect not to etc.
          But it might be good to consider what has to happen for a woman to wants to breed vs a man who wants to breed . . . to do so?
          Ages weren’t really presented as part of the statistical study.

          Most cultures still give the “final say” to the woman, and the man just has to deal with it. Cheating still accounts for her genes in the next generation . . . and not her “official” mate’s. So she is represented yet again in future gene-sets. Men perhaps cheat for the same reason — even if only the subconscious knows (mwa ha haa!). But they still have a lot more leg-work to do before finding an agreeable accomplice, where women may not have to if simple procreation is the goal. It’s sleazy, but walk into any single’s bar and ask, “Who wants to have sex with me right now?”. But what genes are being selected? God only knows.

          You are talking about losing the genetic lottery as a species (meteor, climatic change etc). I think the issue I was discussion was the same as the “incels”, a personal loss — as in one loses out on the only game that really matters from a Darwinian perspective — passing on one’s genes. All of our ancestors were “fit” in relation to the physical and social environment at the time. But those who were not . . . it’s as if they never existed. And it remains that a woman would have far more say in this than a man. Still the 2:1? I’m not sure how we would test that — as they are all dead and gone as if they never were! That makes polling difficult!

          But a perverse psychological notion with these incels. They are convinced (conceivably at a very young age) they “have lost the lottery” — whereas the reality is that they are in the process of never buying a ticket. To identify themselves has having already lost . . . actively works towards the inverse outcome. These victimhood identity groups are a toxic thing — circa the echo-chamber grooming of “members”. As women are likely excluded from their group, what would be a work psychologically for a woman end up mating with one of these self-professed (and likely bitter?) genetic rejects? As you’ve said, they may be physically hansom. But psychologically (and spiritually if one believes), they are hideous.

          A factor to consider in women who find themselves raising a child by themselves is that there are a lot of men out there who want to stay, but who are nagged out of the household by unrelenting women taking advantage of the fact that emotional and psychological assault don’t leave marks one can show a jury: men who opt to leave before they are pushed over the edge and strike out physically. A lot of women are VERY relentless in pushing this advantage over men who’s evolution-groomed response tends to be physical. This most CERTAINLY is not just a one-sided phenomenon as modern feminism like to paint it.
          Yes, there are a reprehensible group of men — feasibly a minority — who even after extended courtship vetting and engagement period callously (or even maliciously) walk out on their social and genetic responsibility.
          But can you see that not every women who ends up with an absent spouse . . . was a “pure victim” who played no part in the outcome? Equal rights has to mean equal responsibility. Which is not trying to heap the blame on one or the other. But by Mother Nature’s decision, women very much are the genetic Vanguard of our species. They have a lot more necessary (and prolonged) investment in Human procreation than the men do — and perhaps need to bear a responsibility (the same one they always have) with greater care. Modern “movements” seem to be out to weaken or write-off this responsibility that naturally comes from being the birthing mothers and early nurturers of our race.
          The future success of the species does seem to rest more on their shoulders than on the mens’ (perhaps 2:1 more? That tie-in just came to mind — but it worth considering).
          And this then has tie-ins to why most societies have men more represented in their governing and maintenance (ie, the “”Evil Patriarchy””). For millions of years . . . the mothers were otherwise occupied with a far more important mission. So the men busied themselves with all the other affairs of society and state.

          Your example of faulting the guy with “poor selection” who’s wife cheated on him is an interesting point. But there are considerable psychological differences between men and women at the get-go — AND that manifest over time in a relationship. The male hero archetype is to defeat the dragon of chaos and return with the prize (Hercules, Jesus). The female hero archetype is to tame “the beast” of a man who is capable of doing such (Beauty and the Beast) — especially when she might be occupied taking care of the future of the species and need someone capable of taking on the evil dragon — even unto being reborn stronger if they are defeated. But then “once tamed”, much of the feminine “hero story” is over. A tamed man leaves little gratification of this need. That is why romance stories almost always involve some kind of “dangerous” guy that needs to be tamed.
          And there remains a minority of women — perhaps similar in size to the minority of unfaithful men — who want to play the heroine and tame the beast just one more time, cuz the guy at home is just “too tame”.
          Again, “equality” means both sides need to own their side in the Human drama.

          BTW, an aside. One of the “Big 5” psychological character traits where women tend to rank higher than the men, is in “agreeableness”. It is the maternal aspect of personality and essentially prepares them to be exploited by a baby. When this is too far out-of-balance, it makes them vulnerable to exploitation by “big babies”.

          Current social realities make it VERY hard — especially for a guy — to advance the notion that modern waves of feminism are a strong causal factor. Not the push for the right to equal possibilities regardless of gender — because that is good. Equal representation in all aspects of society? That one’s perhaps not so noble — because men and women have different assets, preferences, ways of arranging the world around them. In societies at the forefront of gender equality like Norway and Finland, freedom to pursue what one wants has actually resulted in a greater distinction between the sexes in certain jobs.

          I hear what you are saying about the men/boys who ARE demons and do these reprehensible things. But I wonder if toxic feminism is actually generating MORE of them? For eons we men have been told we are not that complex compared to the women and hey, we’ll own that! We do have a “beastly” side — and if it’s not properly handled in childhood by enough competent quality men around to teach them to become gentlemen — their only choice, raised by women, is to become femi-men. And this sets up a psychological dissonance within them that too-often boils over in time.

          We have this whole social boondoggle (actually more of a tribal war) going on where each side feels the other is more in charge, more in control (but then we have to increasingly factionalize the measuring parameters to come up with this assertion). One side makes a good (but necessarily narrow) argument for why “the other side” is almost totally to blame on some issue, shaming goes on (intrinsic or extrinsic), the balance tips . . . and then the other side takes their turn.
          But at each “turn”, symptomatic toxins spin off and find a place to “metastasize” within the society. (Cancer analogy).

          Annoying feminists are a singular problem. A singular female problem. There are already social “rules of engagement” for men to deal with annoying men. And while we’ve mostly done away with physical violence, we still rely heavily on the threat of possible physical violence. And it’s proven a stable hierarchical structure over long spans of time.
          Those “rules of engagement” are totally short-circuited and do not work with women. One mis-handled or misinterpreted word or action could end a man’s career for all time and even find him in jail.
          So the annoying toxic feminists are entirely in the ladies court! Have fun fixing that one.
          But the problem is that most normal and sane women, are already busy beyond belief doing normal sane woman stuff! But hey, your crazy harpy sisters are doing a number on society and you’re the only ones who can do anything about it. Pity the poor man who even tries.

          Actually what happened in the 60’s is another thing men broach at their own peril. What happened, was the effective female contraceptive. For the first time in (check myself!) 1.9 million years, women have had great control over their reproduction cycle. But there have been huge unforseen social AND behavioral side-effects. It’s not feasible to suggest turning back the clock. But we do need to understand and perhaps own, just what this revolution has meant — and what it has cost (and has yet to cost). It was far more of a pivotal Human event, than the harnessing of the atom, the internet or even squeezie-cheeze. It is very much a changing of Human evolutionary direction.

          With “social political terms” it’s not so much the terms as the darkness lurking just underneath the drive to separate into such power-factions.
          The prof I study with looked back in History, and with a rather impressive grasp of philosophy came up with the term “postmodern neo-Marxist”. It’s proven stunningly accurate to date. These “echo-chambers” function off of almost exactly the same “saintly oppressed vs evil oppressor” dynamic as Marxism (Proletariat vs Bourgeoisis). Original Marxism focused just upon socio-economic factors — but managed to devastate every culture that experimented with any aspect of it, often in just 1 cycle. Neo-Marxism uses the same “engine” but applies it to almost everything else — sex, race, “the dating game”, sexual preference, poly-sexuality . . . unstopped it will likely spread to just about everything else where application of “oppressed vs oppressor” might gain political, social or psychological power.
          The “postmodernism” is the “slippery skin” that lets them ignore logic, reason, science, make up their own science, alter terms on-the-fly etc. The claim is “deconstruct to reconstruct something better”. But then this is where it ties back into Marxism. There is no wisdom relating to how the “reconstruct” might happen — beyond just “oppressed and oppressors” switching roles: leaving just the “deconstruct”, and this based on “victimhood”.
          This may represent the most critical present threat to modern society. (It’s big in the West, but invades most other areas of the world . . . save those who choose not to abandon their traditional religious values! Interesting racial dynamic at work there!)

          This is already a huge response. I value your input, but long responses like this are hard to track and hard to respond to without dropping a good point made.
          Your last question is perhaps paramount. Perhaps we should re-start it as it’s own thread?

          “How do you properly socialize a boy so natural aggressive and domineering male traits don’t spin off into psychological and sexually frustrated socio-toxicity?”

          (I’ll give you first crack at starting the thread. If none is noticed in a few days, I’ll start it.)

    • Never heard of it. Don’treally watch the news.

      In regards to my opinion: they need to broaden their horizons. They have tge ability to take things into their own hands (masturbatio). Maybe pick girls (and i use the term loosely) who aren’t popular. Pick the fat ugly ones. Maybe pick the unpopular ones. Or maybe not care about gender (and nit to be crude) – there’s a reason for the saying ” a hole’s a hole” after all and look to their own gender to get off.

    • Food for thought…

    • Sounds like someone is just creating another classification for a mental illness or possibility for victimization in order to not blame violence on people who are evil, but instead place the blame for violence on some intangible, unmeasurable, and fictitious nonsense.

    • Boys need to quit blaming girls for their problems.
      Men need to quit blaming women for their problems.

      AND, @gerorockstar09 – you are a scientist, true? I am surprised you think you can TURN gay.

  • @griz There was a previous conversation a while ago started by Spitfire, where we were talking about how the Bible was basically written by ordinary people with more or less good intentions, trying to record history, and that maybe some of it was later taken to be something else, in the wrong way. I don’t remember if you were part of that conversation.

  • @griz
    “As for dominating, oppressing, killing? It’s what we do; even when starting with the best of intentions.”

    Except for “Thou shalt not kill.” But they broke that commandment and pillaged and plundered and claimed to be the people of God in order to justify their pillage and plundering. Except Jesus Christ would never do such a thing. In f…[Read more]

  • @griz “As for their being highly edited consider this:
    For thousands of years cultures that we would consider primitive, lived in dire “fear of the Lord” if they should alter something they considered sacred and holy.”

    I don’t know. That NIV translation of the Bible, compared to the Henry James Bible, has quite a number of disturbing lit…[Read more]

  • @griz Thing is, I think that 1) they’ve been HIGHLY edited, and 2) to the point that they can be dismissed. There are some stories in there of historical significance, but not spiritual. There are stories of massacres portrayed as good things, when it was clearly a greedy grab using the banner of God as an excuse, when there is no evidence He…[Read more]

  • @Jear77
    There are other kinds of reproduction besides copulation. You can raise a nephew, for instance. That way you would be perpetuating not 1/2 of your genes but at least 1/4, which is something.

  • @five2one And why don’t you believe what I said? He did say He would return.

  • The armed officer wasn’t any ordinary “good guy with a gun”, he was a security guard doing his job. He was NOT a civilian.

    Also, the girl that got shot just died. So yeah, it’s getting media coverage. That kid that entered the school should with a gun not have had a gun, but he did.

  • @griz Funny how I was thinking of the story of Adam and Eve this morning. Learning the difference between good and evil is a GOOD thing. But that story portrays it as bad, I don’t know why. Must’ve got twisted in the endless re-translations.

  • Interesting question. I once took a biology class and learned that every single aspect of our body is the way it is in order to maximize our chances to perpetuate our genes. That made me a little depressed for some reason. It undermined the meaning of family love.

    On the other hand, it shed a light of realism on the whole affair, and now that I…[Read more]

  • Load More