I disagree with the analysis. Because many young women are also very single and very alone; unable to find a mate or a husband. I see this as a result of the death of the family; children are put into daycare at 12 weeks old and then institutionalized for 18 years; breaking bonds with other children and adults ever year, then every class period in school, then every semester; different schools in elementary, middle, and high school. Children never experience or replicate true emotional attachment or the model of close relationships; these skills must be taught. Throw in media generated unrealistic expectations, smart phones, porn, drug use, endocrine disruption, and declining male sperm counts and it is no wonder that humans have forgotten how to form relationships, mate, and build family. If sex ratios were the issue every available woman would have a man, but instead something like 30% of women are single and childless.
well it’s a bit off, the feminist state imports millions of men and suddenly there are more men so you have a manufactured incel crisis because duh there are now more men than women but women don’t care because now they are getting attention along with the rape and murder but it’s women who aren’t deep thinkers, get rid of immigrants and get rid of the pill and the incel crisis vanishes.
Yeah, it's literally women on mass saying "Don't ask me out because that's sexual harassment but you must make the first move." but nice epic effort post, lol.
Yeah, it's literally women on mass saying "Don't ask me out because that's sexual harassment but you must make the first move." but nice epic effort post, lol.
Location was the key factor for me. I actually lived in a city but guys like me were uniquely in a surplus in that area. Literally everywhere else in the world was easier for dating.
I think other factors are collectively more important but location is probably the most important single factor.
This is a well-written article, and is very neutral in tone, but still acquiesces to the problems we face as a society. The fact that this is even a question means we still have all the work ahead of us. Of course women shouldn't be allowed in politics, the military, or any form of policing. As the article states, it is against their nature, but the number of women who "could meet the standards of men" is as close to zero as makes no difference.
The answer to the question "can women do these things" has always been "no," and it's only in the modern day with the fanatical cult of equality that allows us to pretend they are.
Concerning women in combat: the post reminded me of when a naval ship of New Zealand ran aground (hit a reef) and sunk. The HMNZS Manawanui sunk due to "human error". Yet check out the headlines about it: all about how it's not the responsibility of the captain, and certainly does not call into question the suitability of women in command. As the NZ government said: "this is 2024" as I suppose only progessive governments on the "right side of history" really know women were not allowed these positions before because of the "misogamy of the heteronormative patriarchy". Thus the sinking is entirely the fault of the crew; the same crew that is entirely the responsibility of the captain.
Another example is the demotion of Captain Holly Graf. Graf was fired, I mean demoted, because she would just shouted insults at her crew and even assaulted some. Yeah, I'm sure none of these characteristics were known before her receiving her command.
Now I'm not saying that no man has run his ship into a reef, or assaulted his own crew. What I am pointing out, in particular with the NZ case, is the immediate defensiveness of the media/government to any question of the soundness of women being given command of sailors and ship.
I give this article 5 Bro Stars. Finally, lots of great information here instead of fucking theories.
The solution is wife bots
I disagree with the analysis. Because many young women are also very single and very alone; unable to find a mate or a husband. I see this as a result of the death of the family; children are put into daycare at 12 weeks old and then institutionalized for 18 years; breaking bonds with other children and adults ever year, then every class period in school, then every semester; different schools in elementary, middle, and high school. Children never experience or replicate true emotional attachment or the model of close relationships; these skills must be taught. Throw in media generated unrealistic expectations, smart phones, porn, drug use, endocrine disruption, and declining male sperm counts and it is no wonder that humans have forgotten how to form relationships, mate, and build family. If sex ratios were the issue every available woman would have a man, but instead something like 30% of women are single and childless.
well it’s a bit off, the feminist state imports millions of men and suddenly there are more men so you have a manufactured incel crisis because duh there are now more men than women but women don’t care because now they are getting attention along with the rape and murder but it’s women who aren’t deep thinkers, get rid of immigrants and get rid of the pill and the incel crisis vanishes.
Great essay
Yeah, it's literally women on mass saying "Don't ask me out because that's sexual harassment but you must make the first move." but nice epic effort post, lol.
Yeah, it's literally women on mass saying "Don't ask me out because that's sexual harassment but you must make the first move." but nice epic effort post, lol.
Germany, UK, Sweden, sounds like an all-male immigrant problem. Years on end of seeing only men coming off the boats.
unbelievable denial of female nature. women aren't monogamous naturally.
Location was the key factor for me. I actually lived in a city but guys like me were uniquely in a surplus in that area. Literally everywhere else in the world was easier for dating.
I think other factors are collectively more important but location is probably the most important single factor.
Location, location, location! As with the job market, so is the dating market.
The majority of the migrants are young men. There’s your gender percentage disparity.
Internet Pornography. That’s the explanation. Before porno video libraries became a common feature of young men’s lives, they were called bachelors.
There Are No Incels. There are only celibates, married people and oversexualized degenerates.
The explanation is simple, Women Hate All Men Who Aren’t 11/10 Super-Chads.
This is a well-written article, and is very neutral in tone, but still acquiesces to the problems we face as a society. The fact that this is even a question means we still have all the work ahead of us. Of course women shouldn't be allowed in politics, the military, or any form of policing. As the article states, it is against their nature, but the number of women who "could meet the standards of men" is as close to zero as makes no difference.
The answer to the question "can women do these things" has always been "no," and it's only in the modern day with the fanatical cult of equality that allows us to pretend they are.
Incels is a stupid term.
NO one is involuntarily celibate.
Everyone makes personal choices about themselves of their own volition.
No one is required to admire, celebrate or desire, anyone else.
Only a narcissist thinks otherwise.
If the opposite sex is rejecting you,
Simple honest self examination is required.
Concerning women in combat: the post reminded me of when a naval ship of New Zealand ran aground (hit a reef) and sunk. The HMNZS Manawanui sunk due to "human error". Yet check out the headlines about it: all about how it's not the responsibility of the captain, and certainly does not call into question the suitability of women in command. As the NZ government said: "this is 2024" as I suppose only progessive governments on the "right side of history" really know women were not allowed these positions before because of the "misogamy of the heteronormative patriarchy". Thus the sinking is entirely the fault of the crew; the same crew that is entirely the responsibility of the captain.
Another example is the demotion of Captain Holly Graf. Graf was fired, I mean demoted, because she would just shouted insults at her crew and even assaulted some. Yeah, I'm sure none of these characteristics were known before her receiving her command.
Now I'm not saying that no man has run his ship into a reef, or assaulted his own crew. What I am pointing out, in particular with the NZ case, is the immediate defensiveness of the media/government to any question of the soundness of women being given command of sailors and ship.