Jump to content

Is Pillars of Eternity II men hating pro feminist game.


Recommended Posts

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
 

  • Like 1

"Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!"

 

ringoffireresistance.gif *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Xoti is a bit of an exception, because she's warm. I think she might be the only warm or vulnerable female NPC I encountered in the game. For whatever reason though, she's very flirty but I was never able to produce a full romantic relationship with her. Might be a bug, IDK, or perhaps you need 5 reputation or something or maybe that's how they intended it. But warm and or vulnerable is a big no no in feminist inspired writing, so it's not _entirely_ progressive. 

There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender.

 

Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube. 

 

 

Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case. 

 

I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it.

 

But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters".

 

Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s. 

 

It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game. 

 

That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to?

 

 

That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters.

Strong female characters are one of the driving facets about the Game of Thrones novels. If anything, the women in the books are *stronger* female characters, with more things to do and more people to do it to--this is especially notable with the Sand Snakes. The only female character in the books who displays typical markers of femininity is Sansa, and...well, that doesn't go well for her.

 

 

 

The first pillars was correct on this point: no intense SJW propaganda IMO (maybe just the Sagani' story with her role of hunter and her husband who stay at home for the children but it's light) and I LIKE THAT SO MUCH.

What the ****?

 

So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda?

 

But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children?

 

Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something?

 

im-confused-m08wjd.jpg

 

 

I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age. 

 

Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing.  

 

Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all.

 

That's on top of the fact that modern archeology has shown that pre-Neolithic homo sapiens were quite a *bit* less patriarchal than used to be thought. Modern anthropology considers the division of labor/housekeeping along sex lines to have originated around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture brought an excess of stored food such that half the population *could* be kept out of food production without everybody starving to death.

 

Honestly I think this is an area where having studied, in an academic setting, comparative cultural anthropology has done me some big favors. A *lot* of things people think of as universal human behaviors--like the men hunter/women gatherer division--simply isn't anywhere *close* to universal.

 

 

That sounds like an interesting case study. I wonder what they hunt? Maybe their population is abundant/stable, and the prey generally not dangerous. They do seem to have iron weapons, and using dogs as a domestication practice changes things a bit. Obviously there must be no survival anxiety related to hunting hazards, or tribal warfare - the fact they are isolated would help there. 

 

Anyway, more broadly -If that was the case, what you say about the Neolithic - why would we be sexually dimorphic at all? Testosterone for example makes men less anxiety prone, and studies have shown women have lower pain tolerance. Oxytocin makes one more inclined to bond and be social. The absence of testosterone accelerates social and language development, and the presence of it accelerates systemic reasoning - special logic for example. Recent studies of personality metrics, show that all personality differences accounted for - there is around 10 percent overlap. That's quite a bit of psychological and behavioural differences. 

 

The Neolithic is too late for genetic evolution to have occurred. If there was no role specialisation in the paleolithic, where did all the biological differences come from? Primates? And why did they have no impact on stone age society? Agriculture certainly could have deepened gender roles - before industrialisation and machinery, it was pretty much dependant on male labour. In the same way the industrial revolution has minimised gender roles - there's still role diversity, large amounts of it, on aggregate (say nurses versus labourers, or engineers versus biochemists), but we live in safe times, with no fertility threat and little warfare - and a lot of labour can be machine assisted. 

 

I think a similar thing happened when we first started building cities, and even in the late stone age, where there was a deeper abundance and safety - you can see the goddess cults in the late paleolithic, and there's some very matriarchal accounts of the Babylonian era. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard. 

 

*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation. 

Edited by drael6464
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Xoti is a bit of an exception, because she's warm. I think she might be the only warm or vulnerable female NPC I encountered in the game. For whatever reason though, she's very flirty but I was never able to produce a full romantic relationship with her. Might be a bug, IDK, or perhaps you need 5 reputation or something or maybe that's how they intended it. But warm and or vulnerable is a big no no in feminist inspired writing, so it's not _entirely_ progressive. 

There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender.

 

Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube. 

 

 

Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case. 

 

I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it.

 

But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters".

 

Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s. 

 

It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game. 

 

That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to?

 

 

That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters.

Strong female characters are one of the driving facets about the Game of Thrones novels. If anything, the women in the books are *stronger* female characters, with more things to do and more people to do it to--this is especially notable with the Sand Snakes. The only female character in the books who displays typical markers of femininity is Sansa, and...well, that doesn't go well for her.

 

 

 

The first pillars was correct on this point: no intense SJW propaganda IMO (maybe just the Sagani' story with her role of hunter and her husband who stay at home for the children but it's light) and I LIKE THAT SO MUCH.

What the ****?

 

So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda?

 

But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children?

 

Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something?

 

im-confused-m08wjd.jpg

 

 

I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age. 

 

Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing.  

 

Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all.

 

That's on top of the fact that modern archeology has shown that pre-Neolithic homo sapiens were quite a *bit* less patriarchal than used to be thought. Modern anthropology considers the division of labor/housekeeping along sex lines to have originated around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture brought an excess of stored food such that half the population *could* be kept out of food production without everybody starving to death.

 

Honestly I think this is an area where having studied, in an academic setting, comparative cultural anthropology has done me some big favors. A *lot* of things people think of as universal human behaviors--like the men hunter/women gatherer division--simply isn't anywhere *close* to universal.

 

 

That sounds like an interesting case study. I wonder what they hunt? Maybe their population is abundant/stable, and the prey generally not dangerous. They do seem to have iron weapons, and using dogs as a domestication practice changes things a bit. Obviously there must be no survival anxiety related to hunting hazards, or tribal warfare - the fact they are isolated would help there. 

 

Anyway, more broadly -If that was the case, what you say about the Neolithic - why would we be sexually dimorphic at all? Testosterone for example makes men less anxiety prone, and studies have shown women have lower pain tolerance. Oxytocin makes one more inclined to bond and be social. The absence of testosterone accelerates social and language development, and the presence of it accelerates systemic reasoning - special logic for example. Recent studies of personality metrics, show that all personality differences accounted for - there is around 10 percent overlap. That's quite a bit of psychological and behavioural differences. 

 

The Neolithic is too late for genetic evolution to have occurred. If there was no role specialisation in the paleolithic, where did all the biological differences come from? Primates? And why did they have no impact on stone age society? Agriculture certainly could have deepened gender roles - before industrialisation and machinery, it was pretty much dependant on male labour. In the same way the industrial revolution has minimised gender roles - there's still role diversity, large amounts of it, on aggregate (say nurses versus labourers, or engineers versus biochemists), but we live in safe times, with no fertility threat and little warfare - and a lot of labour can be machine assisted. 

 

I think a similar thing happened when we first started building cities, and even in the late stone age, where there was a deeper abundance and safety - you can see the goddess cults in the late paleolithic, and there's some very matriarchal accounts of the Babylonian era. 

 

1) There's a lot of reasons that those physiological differences could have evolved, and because of the extent of those distinctions, their nature, and the way evolution works the vast majority of them are virtually guaranteed to pre-date the evolution of homo sapiens. Testosterone for example--and it's associated physiological distinctions--is a gender-hormone found in a wide variety of animals including *all* vertebrates, and probably evolved first among jawed fish many hundreds of millions of years ago. It's interesting to note that homo sapiens are *considerably* less sexually dimorphic than all the other great apes, so we've clearly evolved towards a *more* egalitarian biology.

 

2) Evolution *has* occurred just since the Neolithic; lactose tolerance among Norther Europeans and certain enzymes responsible for rice metabolism among East Asians are solid examples. Also note the Sama-Bajau, a sea-dwelling indigenous people of Southeast Asia who have used free-diving as their main form of sustenance for around 1,000 years and in just *that* time have evolved spleens half-again as large as that of other ethnic groups, allowing them to store oxygen-rich blood and then dump it into their bloodstream and thus dive for much longer periods.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing. 


 


In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like an interesting case study. I wonder what they hunt? Maybe their population is abundant/stable, and the prey generally not dangerous. They do seem to have iron weapons, and using dogs as a domestication practice changes things a bit. Obviously there must be no survival anxiety related to hunting hazards, or tribal warfare - the fact they are isolated would help there. 

 

Anyway, more broadly -If that was the case, what you say about the Neolithic - why would we be sexually dimorphic at all? Testosterone for example makes men less anxiety prone, and studies have shown women have lower pain tolerance. Oxytocin makes one more inclined to bond and be social. The absence of testosterone accelerates social and language development, and the presence of it accelerates systemic reasoning - special logic for example. Recent studies of personality metrics, show that all personality differences accounted for - there is around 10 percent overlap. That's quite a bit of psychological and behavioural differences. 

 

The Neolithic is too late for genetic evolution to have occurred. If there was no role specialisation in the paleolithic, where did all the biological differences come from? Primates? And why did they have no impact on stone age society? Agriculture certainly could have deepened gender roles - before industrialisation and machinery, it was pretty much dependant on male labour. In the same way the industrial revolution has minimised gender roles - there's still role diversity, large amounts of it, on aggregate (say nurses versus labourers, or engineers versus biochemists), but we live in safe times, with no fertility threat and little warfare - and a lot of labour can be machine assisted. 

 

I think a similar thing happened when we first started building cities, and even in the late stone age, where there was a deeper abundance and safety - you can see the goddess cults in the late paleolithic, and there's some very matriarchal accounts of the Babylonian era.

1) If you seriously think sexual dimorphism only started appearing in humans during the lithic eras of hunter-gatherer societies, I seriously advise you to look up some basic evolutionary information, because it's WAY more complicated than that. Not to mention humans are already notably less dimorphic than other apes, so in a way there IS a clear evolution in this direction.

 

 2) Genetic divergence since the neolithic is one of the main reasons europeans can for example properly digest lactose, and can process alcohol quicker than certain asian etnicities. Not to mention genetic markers can spread ridiculously quick: breeding between neanderthals and modern humans is a main cause for certain genetic quirks and defects in Eurasian people, as in everyone from Eurasian descent. They're also believed to be the source of red hair, though we're less certain of that. Not to mention divergence in skin colour, the larger presence of fat in the musculature of etnicities who lived in colder areas of the world e.g. europe, the spread of blue and green eyes from a small population in the Levant without it having any evolutionary advantage/disadvantage at all.... there's tons of examples of evolutionary genetics working in overdrive.

Edited by Taevyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

I found this highly educational: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=incel

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we live in the era of Ultra feminism and internet is full of SJW #metoo stuff. I have to ask is this game pro feminist men hating propaganda, because almost all of the gods and powerful figures are depicted as female and ugliest god skaen in his rotting appearance is male. Narrative is also voiced by woman. Sure if those roles were reversed that almost all of the gods and powerful figures were male and those few ugly ones were female, all pro feminist SJW would be up in arms and polygon and some other medias would be twittering accusing this game of women hating chauvinism . :getlost:

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my initial post was deleted, it seems, but not before at least 9 people saw it and liked it. But I am going to say it again, if you are that ultra-sensitive, you shouldn't play this game or hang out in these forums. Because reality doesn't really matter at that point. You will be unhappy and see what you want to see. Find another game and another forum. Why the mod decided the OP was worth saving but not my response is beyond me. It is unfortunate a troll gets to speak but simple sarcastic hyperbole does not.

 

Joe

Edited by JFutral
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. 

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/involuntary-celibacy-incel

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. 

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. Perhaps that's just a boy who cried wolf thing - I've heard it so much, I don't really believe it any more, even if it is true. 

 

I'd like to hear less emotive accounts, and primary sources, before I make my own mind up. Either way it's definately used as an insult, in the same fashion "virgin" was. 

Edited by drael6464
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing. 

 

In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates? 

 

Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.

 

There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

I'm sorry, but you're *dead* wrong about this. The term "incel" derives from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website from 1997, whose first newsletter was titled "INVCEL". The term is self-derived within the founding of the subculture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up incel on urban dictionary and laughed my ass off. I totally know the types of guys they are talking about and it describes them perfectly. It's not hard to have sex. Go to the gym a few times a week, get a job, and don't be an ass. Someone, maybe not the hottest chick at the bar but far from the fugliest, will want to bang at some point. Stop whining. 

Edited by PatrioticChief
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

I'm sorry, but you're *dead* wrong about this. The term "incel" derives from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website from 1997, whose first newsletter was titled "INVCEL". The term is self-derived within the founding of the subculture.

 

 

Well it's definately used as an insult for men who can't have sex in the same way virgin was.  And I don't think that it's only use these days is people who self-describe as incels and have a particular ideology. That's not how I see the word used - it's generally used by people to describe other people, not people to describe themselves. As you can see, chad and stacy are not incel inventions:

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chad-thunder****

 

Maybe I don't attend the right websites, but I've never seen anyone ask if someone identifies as an incel before they use the word to describe other people. 

 

Chad came from the bodybuilding community, same as "soyboy". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing. 

 

In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates? 

 

Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.

 

There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.

 

 

I thought it would be size differences. Maybe theres a greater difference in prenatal testosterone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

 

Source? Because this article claims something completely different. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/woman-who-invented-incel-movement-interview-toronto-attack

 

Summarized. The term is coined by a woman for herself and to look for like-minded people. Wasn't meant as an insult, nor focused solely on men.

Edited by Hybridsalmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

I'm sorry, but you're *dead* wrong about this. The term "incel" derives from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website from 1997, whose first newsletter was titled "INVCEL". The term is self-derived within the founding of the subculture.

 

 

Well it's definately used as an insult for men who can't have sex in the same way virgin was.  And I don't think that it's only use these days is people who self-describe as incels and have a particular ideology. That's not how I see the word used - it's generally used by people to describe other people, not people to describe themselves. As you can see, chad and stacy are not incel inventions:

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chad-thunder****

 

Maybe I don't attend the right websites, but I've never seen anyone ask if someone identifies as an incel before they use the word to describe other people. 

 

Chad came from the bodybuilding community, same as "soyboy". 

 

Just because it's used as an insult doesn't mean that's how it started or originated. As the incel community has gained prominence, they've been derided and insulted, as their own word for themselves has been taken and used as an insult for a large group of people whether they're a part of the subculture or not.

 

It's a not-uncommon thing for a word to be taken out of it's original context and used as an insult later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

I'm sorry, but you're *dead* wrong about this. The term "incel" derives from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website from 1997, whose first newsletter was titled "INVCEL". The term is self-derived within the founding of the subculture.

 

 

Well it's definately used as an insult for men who can't have sex in the same way virgin was.  And I don't think that it's only use these days is people who self-describe as incels and have a particular ideology. That's not how I see the word used - it's generally used by people to describe other people, not people to describe themselves. As you can see, chad and stacy are not incel inventions:

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chad-thunder****

 

Maybe I don't attend the right websites, but I've never seen anyone ask if someone identifies as an incel before they use the word to describe other people. 

 

Chad came from the bodybuilding community, same as "soyboy". 

 

Just because it's used as an insult doesn't mean that's how it started or originated. As the incel community has gained prominence, they've been derided and insulted, as their own word for themselves has been taken and used as an insult for a large group of people whether they're a part of the subculture or not.

 

It's a not-uncommon thing for a word to be taken out of it's original context and used as an insult later.

 

 

I can see the logic of this argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.

Who is the villain?  Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.

 

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically.  But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing.  There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael. 

Then you look at faction leaders.  There are technically six potential faction leaders.  Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol. 

 

Four of them are women.  Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women.  Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place.  Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two.  I will let guess which two.  Also the leader of the slavers?  Yeah, it's a man.

It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions.  Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum.  All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.

So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here.  I don't think there is, but I can see it.

For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods.  Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.

The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint.  The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.

 

It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.

 

A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

 

The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."

 

If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.

 

 

Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.

 

It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.

 

You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes. 

 

Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.

 

Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.

 

It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.

 

 

Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad. 

 

These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.

 

When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. 

 

 

Source? Because this article claims something completely different. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/woman-who-invented-incel-movement-interview-toronto-attack

 

Summarized. The term is coined by a woman for herself and to look for like-minded people. Wasn't meant as an insult, nor focused solely on men.

 

 

I think know your meme is generally pretty accurate. According to this: 

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/involuntary-celibacy-incel

 

It says the word does originate in an online community in 1993. But it became popular as an internet meme (at least partly for virgin shaming), AND THEN, in 2013 the subreddit was created where people expressed toxic ideas. Then that subreddit was parodied, and then the attacks took place, which thrust the idea into the public awareness. 

 

So I think on this basis, there is some truth to the idea that it is/was "a community", with certain ideas AND that it is a derogatory word used for virgin shaming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people accused me of creating this thread just for trolling, i want to clarify that i'm not trying to troll here. I'm giving my point of view and labeling it as trolling wihtout giving our own point of view or counter argument is just lazy.

 

There is nowadays a lot of feminist and lgbt backlash through social media and some gaming websites. So in my opinion some games are trying please these groups by creating characters or storylines that fit the world views of these particular groups. Most of the time it's done with annoying "in your face" style. For example Bioware has pushed in my opinion a lot of feminism and lgbt characters in their recent games and many for those characters feel forced and not genuine. There's gay or lesbian character here, feminine male and strong boy'ish female characters there not because they are important to the story, but because they just must to have them to cover all the bases and please feminist and lgbt communities.

Just to be clear, i'm not chauvinist, homophobic or any of that stuff so those arguments can be left out immediately.

I dont give a rats a... if character is gay, lesbian, straight, green, blue or alien as long as they are good characters and not in the game just because you must have one character of particular group or you want to force you own agenda to players face.

 

There is lot of good posts here and many of you have pointed that i am wholly or partially wrong and i am "seeing" stuff that isn't there or misunderstood stuff, but comparing me to cancer like one user here did is just stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing. 

 

In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates? 

 

Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.

 

There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.

 

 

I thought it would be size differences. Maybe theres a greater difference in prenatal testosterone. 

 

That's an interesting question for a study. In general I would postulate that human beings have generally lower levels of testosterone as compared to the other apes, because this would correlate with a more highly cooperative, less aggressive setting especially among the male population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which gods get the most screen time by far?  The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female.  Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah.   Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.

 

Maybe it is related to the fact that Rymrgand and Galawain are going to get their own DLC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...