TURNS OUT INCELS DON’T EXIST?
(and further thoughts)
Causality: “low socio-economic status.”
50% live with parent vs 27%
17% not in ed, employ or training vs 9%
36% high school ed or lower vs 20%
Tiny percentage of the population tho.
No evidence IMO this varies from traditional numbers.
Only that marriage is extending the time frame.
And social media and dating sites are creating visibility.
The only bits I can contribute to the discussion are:
1) It’s not necessarily JUST un-paired males that create revolutions but that un-paired males with low socio-economic status that *anticipate* permanent low socio-economic status and therefore being permanently un-paired.
2) The demographic collapse caused by feminism vs compatibilism-and-familism is largely by women having no children, since the distribution of the number of children women have if they do have children remains postwar-normal.
3) Girls, Women, are more agreeable, more socially coercible, more prone to social construction (magical thinking), more conforming than boys and men – and less likely to self-reflect and correct social coercion by social construction. So the virtue-spiral effect of feminism (sex marxism) won’t correct until market failure causes incentives to do so.
So the material problem is intersexual conflict, the collapse of the family, the collapse of reproduction, and the long-term economic and political consequences of all three.
In other words, we’re oversensitive to the tiny incel issue because of technology. And we’re insufficiently conscious of the collapse of the market and institutions of intergenerational persistence (reproduction and family). And both problems are caused by oversaturation in media (mythology) in the moment, rather than evidence (empiricism) over time. The left created ‘presentism’ which is the marxist term for ‘intertemporal ignorance and irresponsibility.’
HOPE
When I retired (early due to illness) in ’09 to work on theory full time, I considered law; economics until I understood law was the problem with econ; and ‘the market for affection’. In the latter, I wanted to solve the problem of intersexual conflict inspired by the postwar Jewish feminists (sex Marxists). But the early manosphere (masculinism) was getting started, and was negative rather than constructive, and I’d have been whistling in the wind.
But we can already see the Dating, Mating, Marriage, Reproduction, and Family markets crashing hard because of feminism (sex marxism). And markets tend to correct over time. And this one will correct, or population collapse will correct the economy so severely that the returns (consumption) on workforce participation and the demands of the workforce will drive women out of it, as they have in the past.
I anticipate, given demographic contraction (given that immigration is economically, socially, and politically destructive) resulting in the population’s incapacity for inter-generational redistribution, that the only solution is automation and returning to younger and older employment, which in (I assume) turn returns us to socialization.
If not, I expect that taxes on those who don’t reproduce will have to be increased to pay for the high cost of the children who do reproduce. Or some other similar scheme.
This isn’t to say that slowly decreasing populations is a bad thing, because every problem we observe in the world is due to overpopulation (yes), and dysgenia via asymmetric class reproduction. There are just too many of us. And the human consequences that mirror the mouse utopia experiment are emerging everywhere.
So. If you’re part of the present young generations, it’s probably not fun. You’re the mice in the experiment. But markets correct. Evolution corrects. It’s just that when those forces of nature correct us it’s more painful than if we choose to correct our behavior ourselves. And as far as I can see, there is no incentive for present generations to correct until market failure is complete.
Cheers