> Targeted for interventions
Someone needs to brush up on their ho3_m4th
Someone needs to brush up on their ho3_m4th
The paper’s point is it’s an imagined contract. Being a somewhat-attractive, middlingly-wealthy man child was never a path to reproduction.
what has changed is the percentage of ppl living in big metropolitan regions where competition is higher and interactions plentiful and hence shallow making it more difficult to bond.
Small-town shop owner working sunup to sundown isn't a manchild, they're a hard-working professional. To my impression, this doesn't describe incels. Take their personality a few centuries back and you have the decent-looking but insufferable child whose parents can't merely be somewhat wealthy to overcome his misgivings.
Part of the problem is "the 1960s," a cultural waypoint for America, "were an exceptional period with respect to marriage behavior" [1]. In fact, between 1870 and 1960, we were at much higher fractions of the 45 to 54 age bracket of men who had never been married. Selection pressure was higher a century ago, not lower.
[1] https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggl001/Articles/Fitch_and_Ruggl...
Jane Austen's men were rich bachelors, often coming to the country from London, often written as charming for being open to women of a lower (upper class) standing. They were the opposite of incels.
Yes and often not rich and often not charming. One of the key points of her writing was to contrast these characters in a context where women had very high stakes (not marrying did not end well for most women, including her) and limited options.