/lit/ - Literature

>>18272229
>This misogyny can make reading Houellebecq an ordeal, and he ought to be read with the suspicion and resistance that his ideas deserve
No he oughtn't to because hypergamy and 80/20 rule are solid scientific facts and denying them in 2021 brings you down to the level of a flat earther or creation "science" believer and should exclude you from any civilized intellectual debate. That being said, acknowledging that incel science is correct and irrefutable is far from supporting the measures some incels have proposed to mitigate ramifications of sexual revolution and rampant hypergamy.

>>17965176
>his "explanation" was implying that the incel ideology is based in any real concern and not schizophrenic delusions. incels are mentally ill and there beliefs are not rooted in reality.
Our beliefs have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology and psychology and are very much rooted in reality.

Any philosophy that allows them to exclude bottom 80% of men from the dating market

Both sexes have their imaginary ideal partner of the opposite sex. The difference is men can distinguished between fiction and reality, they know that fictional characters belong to fiction. Women enact their unrealistic expectations in real life and they refuse to consider anyone worse than their ideal male. About 80% of men fail to meet their expectations as is evidenced by this graph.
>>17702826
Based and blackpilled

>>17673666
You wouldn't want to read a book like this because female point of view is basically
>I am entitled to a 10/10 chad with 10 inch cock and an ABS
There. That's all there is to it. Try writing a book from a female perspective.

>>17671935
women find bottom 80% of men unattractive

>>17638172
I'm surprised you said it so lightly, women consider 80% of men to be average or below average in attractiveness. It's over for non-chads in 2021.

Do the math

>>17609085
based

>>17587134
There's nothing wrong with enforced monogamy. Hypergamous preferences of females lead to a sexual utopia where top 20% of men get everything and the rest of us gets nothing.

>>17565341
If you're in the top 20% of men you can read fucking Mein Kampf and women will still be flocking to you. If you're in the bottom 80% you can read complete works of Kristeva, bell hooks, Butler and Dworkin and your presence will insult women. Simple as.

>>17562001
>Why do lookism fags act like they're brave iconoclasts promoting a radical theory.
Maybe because you have no idea what lookism/blackpill is? Realizing that looks matter and that handsome people lead better lives is the baseline level for me to even begin conversation with you, if you have problems comprehending or acknowledging this you're Disney movie levels of bluepilled. Blackpill is far more radical than that - among other things it posits that women consider bottom 80% of men to be below average in attractiveness. This fact is corroborated by numerous studies and is the source of the famous 80/20 rule

>>17356030
based, spread the blackpill brother

>>17344672
As an incel I agree with parts of your assessment but definitely not all of it.
> Men do the exact same thing. It's actually literally the thing incels complain about -- they don't just want an average gf, they want a hot gf like Chad has
I can't speak for all incels, this certainly isn't true for me. Even if it were true, take a look at this statistic which has circulated in incel circles for some time. Contraty to what you've asserted, there is no symmetry between the male and female perspectives because women evaluate men much more strictly than vice versa

>>17206319
>It's true that there is an underclass that doesn't get laid, know a few of them but those I know are 1. rather unattractive
cope, f*moids regard bottom 80% of men as unattracive
>>17206434
> I feel like guys actually tend to have the upper hand in relationships past 30, and that they instinctively know so.
f*male hands typed this point, you didn't need to make it so obvious though
>This seems pretty sad, but in a sense they guy they cared most about were the sweet one in those cases
Absolutely delusional, it was a pain to read this bullshit

Literature about female hypergamy and modern day sexual market?

>>17052458
cope

>>16991386
>I don't want to read this but I think I have changed because of the internet. I don't respect women any more whereas in the past I would put them on a pedestal.
Good, pic related was written by a dumb feminist butthurt that men are starting to wake up
>Any books to cure these bad thoughts?
Imagine policing your own thoughts because some stupid foid wrote a book, the absolute state of liberalism

>>16968779
>Even your dumb ass would get laid in a anarcho-communist world
For a materialist (weren't Epicurus, Stirner and Nietzsche materialists?) you seem very fond of idealistic wishful thinking. Pic very much related

>>16919194
>Do you disagree? Do you, philosophically, not imposing any order to society, believe that relationships based out of monetary gain or proprietary benefit is better than marriage based on love and dhared interest?
yes /thread
>>16920916
it's more than that. Engels is a very cunning thinker, more far reaching than any liberal. he applies the principles of historical materialism to anthropology and argues that since families as they exist in the West are founded upon mutual economic dependence (during Engels' time dependence of the mother and children on the father, during our own times dependence of children on their parents). people are unfree in this arrangement according to Engels because economic dependence always implies potential for abuse and exploitation (e.g. parents can make their faggot son repent and change his sinful lifestyle or otherwise they'll throw him out of their home). the only way to counter this unfreedom is by raising children in a communal manner, rendering all familial bonds completely voluntary (remember that for M&E freedom means conciousness of necessity as it does for Hegel)
>>The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.
except we know this to be incorrect, in reality because of women's naturally skewed preferences a social system based on purely matrimonial interests would result in 80% of men being disposable to women - pic related

>>16886425
Unironically yes. By all estimates the scale of the incel phenomenon in the Western countries will reach unprecedented heights in years to come. Granted the vast majority of those afflicted (including myself) will be boring losers but many will channel their sadness into producing great art.

>>16854451
it isn't sustainable because femoids regard bottom 80% of male population as unattractive, if you were to tear down the little social norms and tradition that are remaining you'd have incited a civil war

>>16851024
>attempting any form of chivalry
>writing love letters/poems
>approaching
LMAO the absolute state of bluepilled failed normies

Literature that refutes the sexual revolution and/or discusses the potential ramifications of a society where bottom 80% of men are considered disposable by females?