Mar 6, 2020, 4:40 PM
—“Curt, How do we solve the incel problem? Do we must accept as a natural fact that 80% of women go to 20% of men?”–
That’s not true. It’s that 30% of men are less desirable b/c they’ve been deprived of necessary male training, education, and fraternity in order to accomodate (the frailties of) women’s intolerance for dominance play. Yes, 1/3 of men are undesirable, but b/c dysgenia – fix both.
—“You mean we have 30% of good quality men who can’t find partner( marriage,children) because of feminist waves( freedom of women and its consequences).”—
I am saying that (a) people in general are having a lot less sex for reasons we understand, (b) women no longer need men for economic support or reproduction, ( c) incentives (education, taxes, immigration pressure) are hostile to marriage, (d) this is producing expected results.
And yes, (e) the expected results mean that we have returned to the HISTORICAL NORM where 1/3 under monogamy, 2/3 under poverty, and as few as 1 in 17 men during prehistory have access to sex.
These men are de facto, by the evidence, not of sufficient quality that women will defer other consumption in order to consume those men. Claiming they are of sufficient quality is simply demonstrably false.
Fix men (product) or fix the incentives (market). Latter is easier.
So – if you want to fix the problem fix men (product) fix incentives (markets).
I suspect that incels are insufficiently manly to solve the problem as have their ancestors – and therefore are demonstrating the truth of the market condition.
In other words, the gene pool is selecting incels out of it, unless incels demonstrate that they are manly enough not to be selected out of it.