The following passage is taken from part 2 of Andy Nowicki's serialized work, A Final Solution to the Incel Question).
Part 1 may be purchased here.
Before there were “incels,” there were “losers,” “dorks,” and “nerds.”
Semantics are forever shifting. But has anything underlying language truly changed?
In fact, yes, things have changed, and not for the better.
One significant shift is in the sheer number of men who are now largely deemed socially undesirable. Studies bear out the fact that, at a time period in which sexual liberation is ostensibly the reigning philosophy, young men are in fact having sex less often than ever before. In fact, it seems that around 30 percent of men in their twenties might essentially be “incel-ish” or “incel-lite,” given what appears their distinct dearth of prospects.
Is this cultural shift, with its attendant dramatic and dire consequences, due to some sort of decline in handsomeness and suavity among men? No, not likely. Instead, it is attributable to something quite different: a transformation in attitudes, fostered largely in a top-down manner by influencers, opinion-shapers, and nefarious social conditioners of all stripes, possessed seemingly of a common desire to bring havoc, despair, and suffering to the lives of as many poor souls as possible.
The societal upheavals that they have contrived, which have led to the conditions which created the burgeoning of the incel population, have been largely based in ideologies that are as unnatural as they are depraved. However, in selling these notions in order to corrupt normal people, these influencers play upon certain very real weaknesses and flaws in human nature.
Many have discussed the so-called “80/20 rule,” which refers to indications that 80 percent of women are mainly interested in what they perceive to be the “top 20 percent” of men. I covered this phenomenon in a previous publication, wherein I coined the phrase “malignant hypergamy” to categorize instances of especially egregious female behavior, whether it manifests in a total absence of commitment, or a proclivity to “monkey branch” to a more desirable partner at an opportune time… essentially, to cases of “social climbing” or “gold-digging” run amok.
In a healthy culture, a woman’s natural desire to be with a man that is above her station, so that she and her offspring may be better looked after, is no vice in and of itself. It is, however, properly tempered by the type of commitment that is mandated under monogamic norms. She cannot, that is, just willy-nilly fling away a boyfriend or a husband once she believes she has come upon a “better” one, without incurring the wrath of the culture-at-large; likewise, she cannot steal away a married man of a higher station without being (correctly) branded a “home-wrecker.”
But monogamic norms have now been nearly entirely eroded. And due to the erasure of monogamy, healthy stigmas against such despicable behaviors as these have largely vanished. What now gets stigmatized, in fact, are efforts to shame women against acting shamefully. Female promiscuity is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Women’s infidelity is winked at and indulged, if not openly celebrated.
Because of the all-but-forcible erasure of monogamy, and the enforcement of the tenets of the ongoing sexual revolution, which undermined all underpinnings of health and normalcy and replaced them with confusion, dread, and shameful indulgence whilst concomitantly castigating restraint and continence as harmfully “repressive,” a new paradigm has emerged which has (surely not coincidentally) had the effect of upping the “misery index” for all but those at the very top of the societal food chain: that is to say, the top-status men, who essentially are permitted to keep harems of willing females, due to the fact that female hypergamy has been allowed to run amok, without restraint, since demanding that a woman restrain her impulses is imputed to be offensively sexist).
These new strictures do not ultimately work in a woman’s favor, since no woman truly wants to be in a harem indefinitely, no matter how handsome, wealthy, and desirable her man might be; having to share him with other women may be tolerable or even exciting at first (since the fact that other women want him showcases the height of his status, and thus being one of his mistresses strokes her sense of egoic validation), it eventually turns sour once the “Chad” in question shows himself singularly uninterested in making her his one and only lady.
For all but the top-tier females, who have the best chance of landing top-tier men, this arrangement is bound to lead to frustration and unhappiness in the long run. But for the “average” men, even short-term bliss is denied. Increasingly, due to widespread societal indulgence of, if not facilitation of, malignant female hypergamy, such men find inceldom forced upon them.
No comments:
Post a Comment