Ive been seeing a rise lately in this weird narrative from normies even about how incels are just "natural selection" since infant mortality is down, there just needs to be a percentage of the population that needs to get filtered. This is their way of justifying their hate for this group. Now the question becomes, why arent women dealing with this too? If they were truly about "natural selection" we would see equal amounts of women to men single. But we dont. Instead men are hit with obscenely high GENETIC standards(face, height, race, IQ) while women are basically given nothing. Fat? You still reproduce. Genetics for being short? Still get to have kids. Iq below 100? Guess what, still have kids. Multiple genetic disorders? You guess it, kids.

The razor sharp focus on men seems to not be put on women at all. Imagine if it was. 60% of women are just completely alone. No sex, no physical contact, no nothing. They are told they are genetic failures and this is deserved. They are put down in the work place, they are put down in public, everyone totally ignores them for the good of the human genome. Their suicide brings mockery, their misery brings pleasure, to those who naturally fit the bar. Whose up bringing allowed them to make use of every single advantage they had to not be a part of that 60%.

If normies were truly about natural selection they would encourage this. If they were truly about that eugenics life they would encourage people to seriously filter all dating prospects towards the health of their future kids and leave large swaths of them to die totally alone. In my own life my dad passed the genetic bar. Nice face, 6'4, 250lbs, but my mom was 90lbs, weird face, and 4'11. Guess what my build is now? 5'7, 115lbs, weird face. Filtered. Natural selection candidate. That wouldnt have happened if we put equal filters on women too.

This anon gets it. Even robots talk about eugenics in relation to men, but never women. A lotta women have shit genetics and need to be culled from the gene pool.

Society is gynocentric. More news at 11.

>>81689959 (OP)
>Why dont we use natural selection on women?
We do. You just don't get it.

>>81690087
Exactly. I think it speaks volumes to the fact men are seen as the disposable gender all the time. Women complain but in all reality they would kill themselves en masse if they were put under the same standards as us. They would be the same incels they make fun of and they dont even realize how merciful society, the one they claim is "against women" actually is. As a woman you have naturally born value, as a man you have to spend 20-30 years making that same level of value.

>>81690097
no society does not lmao

>>81690106
>disposable gender
You're helping to enforce this by not giving a shit about your fellow men, 50% of women in the US won't reproduce, therefore they are far more disposable than most of the male population. Men will stop being disposable as soon as you start giving a shit about them.

>>81690114
Yes it does. It absolutely does. Looks aren't everything.

>>81689959 (OP)
Yes op you figured out the secret. Normies just use it as an excuse. Women are the main drivers of dysgenics because there are no longer any natural bottlenecks to kill them off for being unfit.

>reproduce with a man whose a deadbeat or who leave
The state will provide for her and her offspring
>not strong enough to handle childbirth
Modern medicine will preform a c section saving the life of mother and child

>dumb enough to reproduce with a psychopath or other violent male
The state will put him in jail and provide for you

>ugly
Makeup and plastic surgery can hide your flaws

>stupid weak unhealthy
Pussy inflation is so high that there will still be simps willing to settle for you

>>81690087
This. Both parties need to contribute.

>>81690124
>50% of women in the US won't reproduce

By CHOICE. THEIR CHOICE. With men its OTHER peoples choice. Women arent having kids because they cant find anyone to have kids with they arent having kids because they were taught from birth that if they had kids their lives would be over. They were told their bodies would be ruined too. Plus theres probably a genetic thing behind it too, where they dont want to have kids with a vast majority of men. They have a choice now, and now we are seeing 50% or so of them not having kids. But they arent alone. They are still with someone, still having sex, still getting love. A man in a similar situation is considered worthless by society.

Also i do help my fellow man tf are you talking about. I am talking about how society at large views them though

>>81690131
So why are the statistics so skewed then? Shouldnt we be seeing 60% or more women being chronically alone if we are filtering men that hard now? We arent.

>>81689959 (OP)
Normies are two faced retards, who don't realize the biggest source of incels, is low tier women with shit genetics birthing them out

>>81690131
Women can at any given moment choose to reproduce, even without a man if they go to a sperm bank for it. Men biologically do not have that ability

>>81690161
>By CHOICE. THEIR CHOICE.
So? Still makes them worthless.
>They are still with someone, still having sex, still getting love.
I think you overestimate and overstate this. They're not having the grand time you'd imagine.

>>81690242
>So? Still makes them worthless.

Cope. The fact another human being can see them as a baseline useful for that means they have a higher value than the below average male.

> I think you overestimate and overstate this. They're not having the grand time you'd imagine.

Every statistic on the matter shows this. They are getting laid more, going on dates more, and have a more active social and sex life than the average guy, much less the average below average guy. They arent being filtered unless its by themselves chosing to filter themselves. A guy has no control at all. All i am getting from women(idk if you are a woman) is that they are ungrateful for how merciful society is on them. If it wasnt for the psyop of sexual liberation and feminism they would be easily able to find a man who would be with them, far FAR easier than a man could. Women basically have free range pickings of any guy they want, the issue is they go for the guy every girl wants and then get pissed and claim they are under the same level of standards as a guy who got rejected by a deadpan 2/10 and hasnt had a gf his entire life.

>>81690442
You just see it like because we live in a weak gynocracy. In nature, we men are violence, and violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. If we werent pussies we could be the ones choosing and having all the women we want, because for them to have a sexual choice we would have to relinquish our violent choice first.

I personally laugh at all of you, including the normies too, you have condemned yourself to be garbage eating cucks or incels, which is what the majority of men are, and well deserved, for being such pussies.

>>81690596
I think this is going to change in the future as women completely fail to uphold their social contract. Their contract was simple, have kids, have families with men. The contract with men was simple, dont abuse women, dont rape and murder. Act like a civilized adult. Issue is one side has completely and UTTERLY blown a hole in this contract while the other has for some reason upheld it not realizing how bad things have got. Either women get back to what they were doing for thousands of years, or men get back to what THEY were doing for thousands of years before civilization was created.

>>81689959 (OP)
natural selection is always happening whether you want it to or not

>>81690688

Not to this degree for men, and not for reason this petty. Not for thousands of years.

>>81691341
it just selects for different things and considering that infant mortality was like 50% for a long time, yes, it was to this degree
as for the reason, sure but that is an opinion
what you can objectively say is that humans have never had such direct control over their own evolutionary pressures before

>>81691398
So only male babies died then? Lol my point is women aren't being put under the same level of scrutiny and as a result reproduce at a higher rate or at a very bare minimum are picked more for relationships than young men do today.

The infant mortality excuse doesn't work when it's only affecting one gender lmao

>>81691556
you don't understand evolution
while the sexes do diverge the pressure is applied to the entire species
if your assertion is correct then we will steadily select more and more for a disproportionate birthrate and also homosexuality (the parents of gay men tend to have more daughters too) and this is just one aspect
men and women aren't different species
however, i think there will be increasing stratification of society and diverging classes which are genetically distinct as time goes on: this is historically precedented (india is a good example but so is japan)

>>81689959 (OP)
Because men are the ones that need to improve. They are shit.

>>81689959 (OP)
Correct, but society is pussy-whipped so it won't happen.

>>81689959 (OP)
It's lies. There is nothing natural about the current order, any more than a communist country has "natural selection."

>>81692302
literally all ecologies undergo natural selection
even if we had gattaca gene editing natural selection would still be occuring; it's just the pressures would be largely human in origin
the only way natural selection could stop would be if genes were complete rng at birth

>>81689959 (OP)
This is a perfect distillation of what I've been noticing as well
what does chatGPT say if you ask about this?

humans have not been naturally selected for thousands of years. you're dumb as hell.

>>81690688
Natural Selection doesn't discriminate on sex grounds. The fittest males and fittest females reproduce. It's not like Natural selection only applies to men and unfit females reproduce. It's a razor that doesn't discriminate against male or female.

>>81692237
If anything it makes it so shitty genes are never being culled tho. Just because men die virgins doesn't mean their genetic line is dying. It is simply being passed on through female genes.

Because Chad will bitch you back into your natural place.

>>81692247
According to who, women?
Well if I ask men here they say women need to improve because sleeping around with dozens of guys before settling down is unacceptable
how do you resolve a dispute where each party insists it is the other that needs to improve?

>>81692890
Unfit females reproduce all the time. Go outside. The amount of couples I personally know where the woman has a shitload of family genetic defects or is just in general super unhealthy is insane. Men on the other hand are put under a fine lense constantly. If you are so much as short you're fucked.

>>81692925
They don't consider a large part of males "men" and the ones who are men have so many options women have bad experiences with them. That's the comment on why they are shit.

Also if a woman can sleep with dozens of guys while a guy has to bust his ass for 20 years to get anywhere near(if he's lucky, sometimes money isn't enough) that with women that tells me they aren't put under nearly the same standards. Womens bar is far far fucking lower than a guys

>>81689959 (OP)
If you're a man people will naturally hate you for reasons beyond your control and that's why you should stop giving a fuck or do stuff to give off the appearance of not giving a fuck. This epiphany has inspired me to stop caring and do what I want. Thanks, OP.

>>81692914
Chad ain't bullet proof. If we were still swinging clubs sure. But in the words of big L "you look kinda big but they make coffins your size too". Chad might be able to warlord it for a bit but eventually someone's gonna get sick of his shit and off him. Or you could get a group of frustrated men to band together and just dome the fucker for his harem.

For some reason this is the world women want with their behavior. Idk why.

>>81692897
yes but that means those genes aren't shitty
evolution does not prioritize being strong, smart, fast, or healthy: all it cares about is making babies
if your genes enable you to make babies then they are "good" genes and anything which influences making babies (which was historically often those other listed traits) is influenced by genetics
right now we are selecting for low impulse control, poor planning, criminality, being stupid and uneducated, being a rapist, and having tattoos - these are some of the biggest predictors in having kids
since there are broadly not the normal pressures of scarce resources, disease, etc all the classically "good" traits are no longer relevant

however, they are relevant in circles which care about being humans and not primates which is why i assert that there will be more and more divergence between the lower classes and the upper classes with an increasingly thin middle class and increasingly difficult social mobility
we are some of the last people in this epoch for which it is still possible to transcend your childhood status - in the future state schools will be so much more like zoos that we will consider contemporary ones to have been a great standard before a terrible decline
education will be reserved for those who can afford private, even more than it already is, and an inability to go will lock you out of civil society

>>81689959 (OP)
Natural selection promotes traits that support survival rates and reproduction in general. In humans, due to plummeting mortality rates, sexual selection, which specifically leads to the success of mating, eclipses nat. selection. Especially in a society where males vie for mates.

It was long known for males to experience stronger selective pressures than females, male deers with large antlers, or male peacocks' fancy shit, for example.

It doesn't even make sense how female's favors work. These showy traits attract risks that aren't even worth it.

Males. Females. Did you really think there's such thing as gender indifference?