Worst. Pickup. Line. Ever. (Courtesy of Jordan Peterson)

It’s the incels who insist on the division of people into alpha and beta and whatnot. It’s also the incels who believe that getting laid or not is one of the defining factors of a person’s identity (hint: it’s in the name). You seem to be somewhat confused as to which group you’re currently addressing. Maybe it’s that tiredness Valentine mentioned taking it’s toll on you?

Is virginity such a crime? Does it really make a man a useless loser or a creep or does he remain a human being?

No, and you’ll have a hard time finding any feminists who believe that. But you’ll find plenty of incels who believe it. Don’t worry, though, feminists are working to dismantle the societal structures that make people believe in bullshit like this.

@alan

These are objective states rather than just words. Is it not surprising that the victims talk about it more than the victimisers?

If they were only words we could leave it to the chattering classes and ignore it all.

London Pilgrim/Richard Ford wrote:

These are objective states rather than just words.

I don’t have a lot of confidence that you understand what constitutes an objective state. Please define the parameters of “Alpha” and “Beta” as it relates to male humans.

…and please note that an objective state is true regardless subjective filters.

At this point, it’s beyond clear that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

@London Pilgrim

What do you hope to achieve by being here? Serious question. Why are you here, commenting?

You’re not going to sell your viewpoint to us. I am a woman who earns her own money, owns her own home, and gets to pick the people she shares a bed with. You are suggesting that I should sign on the line to give up those rights. Please explain, in what way does your idea of a society benefit me?

TBH there is no point answering that, because the world you are describing does not benefit me in any way whatsoever. My life will not be better, and I don’t do shit that doesn’t make my life better. So I’m not going to sign up for it, because why would I? And why should I? And why are you even bothering to try and convince me?

Or do you just like having your ass kicked 🙂

@London Pilgrim
I’m challenging you.

I’ve got some things to say about your comments here but first I need to take a measure of your honesty. This determines how I choose to proceed with you.

In you first comment you typed,

Why not let them read it? If he is as wrong as you say then he will discredit himself.

…and so far you have not acknowledged the responses you got about this. This is not brave or honest of you. If you have the guts to make an accusation you have the guts to back that shit up.

Did you or did you not misrepresent the blog post and/or commentators? (you diddn’t quote who you were accusing).
It was criticized. No one was stopping anyone from reading anything or even trying to. People were criticizing things.

If you have evidence that anyone here was trying to to stop anyone from reading anything present it.

If you don’t respond I’ll feel no need for politeness (though there really is no way of being polite about incompetent at tasks, it’s more like I’ll include extra unflattering but accurate characterizations that I might not otherwise).

We need to start valuing people as human beings independent of the number of notches on their bedposts.

You need to be saying this on incel forums, not here. Everyone here came to this realization long ago. But at least we agree on something.

Does your definition of “people” include women, or only men?

An incel is not approved of on the most basic level by a woman and therefore the incel has no value as a human being under this system.

Can you elaborate on “approved of”? What does a woman’s approval look like?

If you mean “allows you into her bed”, then I think we’re done here, because you’ve just violated your quote above, about valuing people independently of what they do in bed.

EDIT: Went longer than I thought. Edited down a bit. The punchline is in the last few paragraphs, for the impatient. Get yourself a coffee.

Okay! @London Pilgrim. You’re well-spoken enough, though fractally wrong, so I’ll do you the service of responding by the numbers. We can start at the top and work our way down. First, the general case for free speech.

I am not sure why finding value in free speech makes me a ‘traditionalist. I wish free speech as the tradition throughout the world. In fact it is quite radical in many places.

You’re free to say what you like about Jordie P. So are we. We’re free to mock him and to call him harmful, damaging, and fractally wrong, and we are free to share evidence for our beliefs.

Again, you confuse criticism and censorship.

Seriously, though. Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better? We have seen insults, threats and one woman who broke into his lecture hall with a garrotte, presumably with murder on her mind.

Just tell us where he is wrong.

Same reason I don’t bother telling Nazis why Jewish people are just normal people like anyone else. Arguments have been made against his opinions in many forms; the true believers are insulated from them by the strength of their convictions alone. We’ve told you that Jordie P’s premises are flawed and built upon science that was discredited decades ago – to such a degree that you can’t even take a first-year University course in Peterson’s own field without learning that. We’ve told you that his enforced monogamy has force right in the fucking name.

You’re convinced that enforced monogamy is going to make everyone happy, on zero evidence, and I’m highly dubious that anything will budge you from that. So I don’t see any purpose in trying to use argument to do so; you can’t argue someone out of a position they didn’t argue themselves into, as they say.

To wit:

100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.

Monogamy was simply the way things were. So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all.

When people confront Peterson supporters on his enforced monogamy quote, it’s invariably pointed out that the term is a scientific term referring to cultural practices. Which is true – it’s from behavioural biology, a field parallel to Jordie’s. It refers to a species’ mating habits. Birds are famously monogamous, as example. So are humans.

As in, we are, right now. Our society enforces monogamy – the fact that we have emotions like jealousy, protectiveness, and the like are indicative here. Our species is monogamous, and we have behavioural traits that enforce that monogamy.

But this isn’t what Jordie P was talking about. He was talking about it as a reason for Incel violence and general violence against women. Which has nothing to do with the actual enforced monogamy, and everything to do with the definition Alan so helpfully provided you. Peterson, ever vague and mendacious, uses the term in its biological form when confronted, while using his own malicious definition when talking to his believers.

You’d know this if you did your fucking homework. I’ve said this a dozen times to various Peterson fans who’ve stumbled into these forums, punch-drunk with victorian rationalia. Not once have they responded to it by looking up what the actual terms are, or recognizing their error. Usually they deflect or ignore the point. This is what I suspect you might do as well.

We just need to get back to what works and most people will soon forget about being lesbian squirrels or transgender donkeys or whatever the latest gender fad is.

They will not miss it at all.

I’m going to ignore your hostile minimization of the suffering of others here, otherwise you’ll fixate on how mean I am to deflect from my actual point.

Historically, those people would be imprisoned or dead, or medicated on laudanum or alcohol. That, incidentally, should make a very clear point of why we fight. Compassion is our guiding star. Our hostility is reserved for the hostile, our intolerance is reserved for the intolerant.

Men have far more social pressure to ‘man up and get married’ not least on this site. A MGTOW is assumed to hate women when more often they do not wish to support one.

I agree that men have unfair pressure to get married. It’s quite unfair and regressive. That is, incidentally, a feminist position. Feminists don’t want men to feel pressure to get married. We would rather you marry when you choose, to who you choose, no matter their sex, gender, race, or social role. We want your freedom. I know that’s pretty much the dominant sentiment here. As WWTH pointed out, that’s a problem with traditional society, not feminism.

I have to sorta laugh here, though, Mr London. You know what an anthropologist would call this horrible pressure to be married, and the negative social ramifications to the unmarried? They call that enforced monogamy. Social pressure to pair off, with punishment for those who don’t want to.

Back to the days when men and women (especially women) reported being far happier than they do now.

Citation please.

No, really. Back then, surveys weren’t done on peoples’ happiness. No one knows how happy people were. It’s pointed out above how common domestic abuse was reported, though. And we’ve also talked about how common it was for people to self-medicate with laudanum, cocaine or alcohol.

Do you really think that they’d care whether women were happy, back then? You refer to a fantasy world.

As for people writing poetry – sure, people did. They still do. Peel open your eyes and open your heart, and you’ll see outbursts of love between people. It’s everywhere. But you’re in love with the victorian age, and don’t consider those modern expressions to have the same depth. You’re in love with the past, with ideas that don’t exist, and you want to drag us back to that dusty grave where women were silent and the non-conforming were locked away in hospitals.

It is probably impossible to tell is someone is happy or not with perfect certainty. All we can do is ask them which is why I said reported happiness. Women, in particular get less happy under feminism unless we are to assume they are all lying.

In this you reply to lovely Buttercup with some actual true facts – women, particularly white women, report lower happiness since the 70’s. That’s a real thing, documented in a few places. I’ve read the paper that introduced and discussed it, it’s “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.”

You make the same mistake as many novice science readers. The author made a number of conjectures about why this might be possible. You, or the source you learned about this from, read those conjectures and took them to be proven, whereas the real reason it’s happened is unknown. The author suggested what you suggest – that greater equality has led to lower happiness. This they suggested from the top of their head and made sure to point out that it’s just a conjecture.

Know what else might cause that? Women, having to work a job and being expected to uphold the traditional duties of a hosuewife. Unlike the conjecture of the author, this is well documented as being the case – persistent harassment and sexism in the workplace is ongoing to this day, and the expectations of being the sole keeper of the home and tender for children have not significantly abated.

The latter has evidence, the former is a conjecture. Which of the two do you prefer for an explanation? You make it obvious which you like more:

It may be that people ask themselves ‘compared to what’ when asked the question. In other words a woman asked 100 years ago if she was happy might be happy because quite limited expectations are met.

Her husband is kind, a good provider and so on. True, he is a bit ugly and he farts a lot but how much can one person expect?

You presume the best possible outcome of an instance of enforced monogamy here – that the match isn’t ideal for her but that her husband is inherently good. You also make it clear that you think women are unhappy just because their expectations are too high, and that if they were to just accept a man who’s just “a bit ugly” they’d be happy. This is so comically wrong I’d need a much longer post to address it to any depth.

You paint an idyllic picture of the past which has nothing to do with the way it actually was.

If I were a feminist and you were a man I would call you a rapist for asking that question.

Stuff that feminist-suit full of straw a bit more firmly, the bale’s peeking out.

Very odd when you think I want to ‘go back’ to anything. These things are cyclical as you should know, claiming to be a historian and all.

Things were pretty ‘progressive’ around the fall of Rome. Then they got all reactionary as Europe left the dark ages. Sophisticated thinkers such as yourself no doubt think it a coincidence…

Feminists simply want to recreate Nero’s Rome. Not an ambition I share.

There’s a broad distance between the satisfying mathematical synchronicities of the various social cycle theories in sociology and the history as golden-age metaphor propagandistic cheerleading you advocate. Don’t confuse the two.

I mean, you have confused the two, very deeply. But you shouldn’t do that.

Now, as I’ve been typing this, you’ve been having a nice row with WWTH. I won’t get too deep into that, WWTH is more than capable and I love to read her writing. But I will make one little point here:

For some bizarre reason you have decided to oppose the notion that large groups of disenfranchised men with no stake in the current system is a bad thing. You admit that it actually makes feminist points in a strange way. Feminists like to pretend ALL men are savages while I contend that many men are capable of becoming one.

Feminists don’t pretend all men are savages – many of the people on this board are men, and almost all of us love men, like men, and are thrilled to have them in our lives. What we dislike are those elements of masculinity which hurt women.

Jordie P’s point that “many men are capable of becoming savages” is nothing more than a blatant threat, with “enforced monogamy” as his solution. Behave, women, threaten ye, else your man-folk will grow angry with you, and an angry man will destroy the world to have his revenge.

I say the same as I would to any bald-faced threat; molon labe.

And here you are repeating that threat at us, unwitting or not, and ask us why we’re angry.

There are certain common factors within empires that fall. One is sexual indulgence and gender confusion. Greece Rome Egypt and possible all others.

Debt and welfare seem to be in the mix too. It certainly was with the British empire.

Of course we cannot say with certainty these were the causes- but so far the coincidence seems to be 100%.

Slightly higher than chance.

lol

I mean, I know that most people don’t really understand statistics, but usually they don’t try to pretend that they do.

Like, I won’t even get into the whole “gender confusion” and “sexual indulgence” part of it; though books have been written on the reverberating wrongness of your position. I’ll just point out that you can also correlate global economic health to the fat content of Wisconsin cheese.

Finally, you did address me directly back there; I’ll give you a direct reply.

There is something I genuinely do not understand. Why are the feminists who post here so often angry about things? You are the establishment now and have been for 60 years. You have the media, acedema ext ext on your side. Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.

Why not simply enjoy your good fortune?

We’re angry because people keep telling us we’d be happier in the kitchen, with a nice husband and nice traditional role. People keep telling us that we’re in charge of the world, while we continue to suffer disrespect and abuse for the crime of existing in public. We’re angry that men keep talking over us and then saying we’re too angry when we get upset over it. We’re angry that there are tens of thousands of rape kits sitting in police stations, untested, because they can’t be bothered. We’re angry that those rapists are still out there raping, with 98% of them walking free. We’re angry that people say we’re wealthy and eating bonbons in luxury while we’re also paid less and have worse access to good paying jobs. We’re angry that peopel say we have the media – the media might have women in leading roles now, but those roles are straw-characters soaked in misogyny more often than not, and they’re almost always white, beautiful standards to which few mortal women can aspire. We’re mad that men get angry at us for ignoring them because they’re ugly, while those of us who don’t meet their fucking standards are the skapegoat of jokes at best and victims at worst.

I’ll say that I am happy that academia is on our side to some extent – the scientific and social evidence for the feminism is overwhelming, even if the public at large thinks it’s a dirty word. Academia is still steeped in sexism and racism of course, but at least the community is rational enough to accept the data and theories to some degree.

We’re angry for you, too – we’re angry for the very same thing you’re angry about. Angry at the expectation that men must have sex or be lesser. We’re angry about that because that fucking affects us too, jackass. Those men are pressured to have sex, who do you think has to endure the attention of those desperate men? We’re angry about it because men are human beings who don’t deserve that sort of mistreatment.

Everything you’ve said is infuriating and, deeply, baffling.

It baffles me that you can’t see this. You rail against how society enforces monogamy, all the while talking about how we need socially-enforced monogamy. You’re upset about society punishing virginity in men, while at the same time your suggestions socially punish virgin men. You claim that the presence of these angry men bothers you, but you argue in support of the very things that make them angry.

The only interpretation of your argument that makes any sense is for women to willingly give up their freedoms and give themselves to these angry men. The only palliative you provide is a vague suggestion that we’d be happier.

You’ve painted pictures over your windowpanes, and mistake the bright brush-strokes you’ve made of our yard for the beleaguered reality.

So yeah, I’m a bit angry about it. You see me with my pittance and ask why I can’t be happy with my good fortune. You see me not being harassed on the bus and ask why I’m not happy being the establishment.

I have a lot more to write on that, and maybe I will, but this has already gone on far longer than I wanted. In short – your perspective on the world is blind, your stated goals are at direct odds with the actions you suggest, and your evidence is so shoddy as to be absent.

Do reply where you like; where you think me strongest or where you think me weakest. I hope you bring a challenge.

– Scildfreja, Free From Anger

@buttercup

Yes. Men and women are both people. You realise this is a very ‘feminist’ thing to ask, right?

Approval is approval. It really is no more complicated than that.

@Richard Ford

I am not sure why finding value in free speech makes me a ‘traditionalist. I wish free speech as the tradition throughout the world. In fact it is quite radical in many places.

Who said anything about freedom of speech? There isn’t a freedom of speech issue here.

Seriously, though. Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better?

Because after all the other JP garbage that we’ve had to slog through this one isn’t about a substantive response. We’ve simply no reason to take it seriously based on past experience and aren’t inclined to.

We have seen insults, threats and one woman who broke into his lecture hall with a garrotte, presumably with murder on her mind.

Which has nothing to do with this post or these comments here.

So far this looks like you’re characterizing mockery as a freedom of speech violation, telling people to take something seriously when they don’t have a reason to (seriously, the “girls” alone is sexist and insulting), and suggesting that mocking sexism leads to violence.

By all means expand on your assertions if you think I’m wrong. I’ve seen nothing to respect so far.

Just tell us where he is wrong.

No. We aren’t your trained monkeys. Your actual goal is to get us to stop using our freedom of speech to engage in mockery, and you are doing it by way of demanding we demonstrate something that you should be demonstrating if you actually cared about the issue at all. You came here. If you don’t like it you can go away.

I’m also going to need a citation on the claim that once is are rejected by society. Has anyone ever actually studied them? Not that I know of. They are most certainly a very small segment of the population and all we have to go on is their own account of their lives on online communities. What we do is they claim to be ugly and then post pictures of themselves that reveal that they’re not conventionally unattractive at all. We also know that they make outlandish claims about how many partners women have and what those to our labia.

They’re not exactly reliable narrators.

@makroth

You should not approve of the shrivelled ghoul (nice term).

Approve of a kind man, a man of good intentions who does great things in the world and yet women just ‘do not see him that way’.

He may never become a ghoul