Mancels, just like others in the manosphere, tend to view the 1960s sexual revolution in a negative light. When asked, most malecels of the incelosphere will tell you that the event had several negative consequences. Along with the stick of feminism, the pill, and gynocracy, the revolution has brought about levels of female hypergamy unseen since the hunter-gatherer era.
The sexual revolution refers to the period of time between the 1960s and 1980s, when it became socially acceptable for girls to act like sluts, and pre-marital cohabitation and casual sex was normalized. The proponents of the sexual revolution claimed it would bring more sex to society, but in reality it only brought more sex to most women and higher status males (chads). The increase in (mainly) female sexual freedom brought on by the sexual revolution is argued to have unleashed female hypergamy, hence leaving most below average males incel.
- 1 Causes
- 1.1 Feminism
- 1.2 Female workforce participation
- 1.3 Technology
- 1.4 Declining birth rate
- 1.5 Birth control
- 1.6 Welfare State
- 1.7 Paternity testing
- 1.8 Earlier puberty
- 1.9 Religious attitudes
- 1.10 Horny management
- 1.11 Women-are-wonderful effect
- 1.12 Feedback loop: Sneaky males and simps
- 1.13 Feedback loop: Greedy parents
- 1.14 Conclusion
- 2 Effects
- 3 See Also
- 4 References
Causes[edit | edit source]
Feminism[edit | edit source]
Feminism has undeniably contributed greatly to the corruption of the gender roles and sexual degeneracy, which leads antifeminists to blame the sexual revolution entirely on feminism. However, as discussed in the sections below, there are possibly a number of other factors that facilitated the sexual revolution, some of which even predate feminism. Feminism appears to be mostly a movement that piggybacked upon societal changed (e.g. women in the workforce) and technological changes (e.g. birth control) and amplified them.
Female workforce participation[edit | edit source]
There is a strong economic incentive to include women in the workforce. Female emancipation causally increases economic productivity and the size of the workforce which in turn increases economic growth and gross GDP overall. Some traditionalists argue that this mass inclusion of women into the workforce has actually decreased prosperity however, as the increased labor supply depressed wages and made it impossible for families to be maintained on a single income, thus necessitating work for many women.
Countries and economies also inevitably engage in competition regarding workforce size. Just as ecological crises like global warming resulting from economic competition, this is difficult to regulate due to Prisoner's dilemmas.
The egalitarian ideology that underlies feminism is in line with female workforce participation, and hence, feminism could rather naturally gain popularity in a global economic rat race.
Natural economic incentives aside, the widespread use of female workers in the munitions and arms industry during the two World Wars of the first half of the twentieth century is widely argued to be a key causative factor in the eventual mass inclusion of women in the labor force. It is argued that many women's role in this period, working in wartime industrial jobs while their husbands were off fighting the war, served to erode traditional gender roles that saw women as weak, passive, and incapable of strenuous labor and that many of the women who entered the labor force during the Second World War remained part of the workforce after the conflict.
Examining the effects of the Second World War on women's employment in the US, Gloudin (1989) found that the effects of the Second World War on the rise in women's employment in the second half of the 20th century may have been overstated. She found that in the United States, only 20% of married women in the workforce in the 1950s had entered it during the Second World War. 50% of those who had been employed in various wartime industries were found to have dropped out of the workforce altogether after the end of the conflict. She concluded that the role of the Second World War was exaggerated, and it was not a primary direct cause of women's increasing labor force participation.
Technology[edit | edit source]
Throughout history, women have participated the workforce, though primarily in tasks close to home like cooking. Lower class women have also often been employed in menial agricultural work, throughout human history.
Some of these sex roles are arranged voluntarily, such as men instead of women typically driving cars. Men are not forced to do the driving by society, but in the marriage, the men and women come up with an agreement that the man should drive. Throughout much of history, women were not "forced" to do manual labor work. This is probably because women could get married and do housework instead. There were not washing machines, wrinkle-free clothing, dishwashers, and vacuum cleaners back then. Before the advent of technology, women did have a job. Also, before machines replaced many manual labor jobs, men were forced to do manual labor instead. Before machines, men, women and children all had to do manual labor work to earn a wage.
Technology had made housework easier, so women no longer have to do full-time housework. The result is that marriage at an early age has become less useful.
Declining birth rate[edit | edit source]
People were having fewer children, eliminating the amount of time necessary for women to stay at home to raise children, making the role of the housewife redundant. Some cases includes high cost of living for raising a child increases this burden.
Birth control[edit | edit source]
With the widespread availability of birth control and abortion, women are able to have casual sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy.
Welfare State[edit | edit source]
In developed countries with a welfare system, women don't need to sexually commit to a man in order to obtain resources. The welfare system forces all men to pay taxes to sustain unrelated women, which in turn reduces the disposable income a men can command to attract females, further lowering the relative attractiveness of marriage vis-a-vis the bachelorette lifestyle.
Paternity testing[edit | edit source]
Reduced the negative consequences of casual sex (increased disputes involving paternity). This relaxed the legal attitudes against infidelity, despite controversy regarding the authentication and originality of the DNA samples collected occured.
Earlier puberty[edit | edit source]
Premature puberty has also made women more slutty. In the 1900's, girls typically had puberty at around age 14. In 2010, girls tend to have puberty at age 10-11. This means that their sex drive begins earlier, leading them to have sex at an earlier age. In 2010, women on average began having sex at age 15 rather than the 1900's where women had sex later because puberty occurs later. In the 1900's it was easier for women to be virgins until they marry at 22 years of age. In the 2010's, it's much harder both due to earlier puberty and later age of marriage (women in 2010 in the US marry at age 26, allowing more time for them to be sluts until they marry).
Religious attitudes[edit | edit source]
Studies show that religious people are more against casual sex.
The majority of Americans are still Christian. This suggests that it was more of a moral shift rather than a religious shift. Nobody really follows the bible 100% strictly, not even in the past, so it was more of a moral shift (in addition to the technological and cultural shifts described above).
Horny management[edit | edit source]
Managers have some incentive to lure in female workers who can sweeten their otherwise grey, bureaucratic lives which are often times outright sausage fests. Hence they have an incentive to push for female education and employment in higher positions. This also applies to the presence of Sugar Daddies, whom rewards his "sugar baby" i.e. females with money, education and position in exchange for sex.
Women-are-wonderful effect[edit | edit source]
Women are generally evaluated as more positively. They are weaker and more neotenous looking and it is easy to see them as victims. As the definition of what counts as aggression becomes ever more sensitive, people started to associate even the simple subordination of women as aggression and equate it with e.g. beating a child, or dresses modestly upon her husband's request.
Feedback loop: Sneaky males and simps[edit | edit source]
Liberated, choosier women result in more sexually frustrated men. The gynocentric notion that men need to be nice causes sexually frustrated men being nice to women in order to get sex. This includes promoting pro-feminist values, emancipation and sexual revolution. This, however only increases men's sexual frustration because it is unnatural behavior and women can see through such sneaky behavior as women's entire sexuality consists in sneakiness.
Feedback loop: Greedy parents[edit | edit source]
As women get pushed by affirmative action, it incentivizes parents to push their female offspring into careers and to promote feminism. This in turn increases affirmative action.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
As you see, many of the changes throughout society (like women being sluts, women in the workforce, etc.) were not solely the product of feminism.
Effects[edit | edit source]
Standards for modesty[edit | edit source]
Single women don't have boyfriends or husbands who tell them to dress modestly. Thus they tend to wear whatever they like, as long they didn't breach the law.
Consumerism[edit | edit source]
Maintaining a positive sex image wasn't taboo anymore due to the minimized consequences. Women dressing in an overly revealing manner and sexualizing themselves was stigmatized before birth control but not much after birth control, as such behaviors are less likely to cause negative consequences that result from "immoral" sexual behavior, such as unintended pregnancy and cheating.
Men also buy expensive cars and own expensive properties to impress women. E.G. This problem occurred in Hong Kong where housing properties were expensive and limited.
Language[edit | edit source]
Words like "badass" and "pussy" are used as praises and insults. "Badass" is attractive to women. But "pussy" isn't attractive to women. Why are such words used more often? It's due to our increased obsession with maintaining a positive sexual image.
Behavior[edit | edit source]
Women put on makeup and buy clothing in attempt to maintain a positive sexual image. Men work out to maintain a positive sexual image.