Incel: the Strange Identity That Became a Weapon Against Feminism

The incels are coming. Hide the socks.

The word incel means different things to different people, which makes for dangerous discussions. On the surface, all it takes to qualify as an incel is to be involuntarily celibate, a fairly common turn of fate that most people experience at least once, and yet a community of homegrown extremists and terrorists have taken up the label incel to describe something darker: a defeatist mentality asserting that women (and especially feminists) have doomed a large percentage of men to implacable misery.

If by “incel”, one means a misogynist or extremist, than nothing is acceptable but an utter desire to end that culture. Of course, to attack incels as people risks association with one of the oldest pillars of patriarchy: virgin shaming. This is why I don’t like the term incel: the extremists began using it to sympathy, but also to recruit, because although pathological misogynists are uncommon, people suffering annoying dry spells (and in the ages of 15–25, when people are most susceptible to propaganda, they are mostly men) are not.

Make no mistake about the incel identity, though: whatever the word meant once, it has lately been used as a self-identification by a culture and ideology so frightening, retrogressive, misogynistic, and downright insane that it takes a strong stomach to look at it square-on.

In an age of proliferating identities, where personality traits become labels, and we have terms like demisexual, otherkin, wagecuck and NEET flying about, the identity of incel is perhaps the strangest, because it fixates on what is, for almost everyone in fact, a transient frustration. Sexually speaking, there’s an order of magnitude more demand for young (18–23) women than men of that age, and so this period of time is unpleasant for most men. It’s so much so that societies have to invent ways to deal with it: prostitution is an old one, and martial culture (giving young men a source of worth) is another. College is yet another technique that tries to handle it, by culturally and geographically isolating 18–22 year olds so young men have a chance. Mostly, though, this problem is managed privately using wealth transfer, especially around social and cultural capital where there’s enough ambiguity to make it socially acceptable. Young men from privilege get set up, by their parents and inherited networks, with precocious career advancement to give them esteem, build their confidence, and make maximize their “eligibility” when they hit the golden score of male sexual attractiveness (25 to 44) and look for marital partners. The rest of the young men can go die, as far as conservative patriarchal societies like our late-stage corporate capitalism are concerned.

That’s what’s so weird about incel rage. These men are blaming women for something that patriarchy did to them. Women didn’t create the Hollywood narrative under which only young sex counts (quite opposite from the truth) and a man is a loser if a virgin at 25. Women didn’t crash the job market. Women didn’t drive up college tuitions. Patriarchy– and about 90 percent of the people running it are men– did that.

Inherent in the incel worldview is the notion that this transient state– an unfavorable sexual power balance, since women reach high levels of sexual attractiveness so much earlier than men– will last forever. Average- and even above-average-looking incels declare themselves “ugly” based on facial bone structure traits that haven’t been fetishized as much since the racist pseudoscience of the late 19th century. Male grievance culture isn’t new; it’s been around forever. What is new is the degree of despair and violence. It wouldn’t have been able to hit a critical mass until recently. Male grievance culture– from mainstream sexism in the 1950s and ’60s, to the rakish porn-star chauvinism of the 1970s and ’80s, to the pickup artistry of the 1990s and ’00s, to the raving misogyny of incels today– has been increasingly cult-like with each iteration. What gives a true cult its ultimate hard-on? Apocalypse. What did it take to bring the incel phenomenon about? Socioeconomic collapse.

The economic changes of 2008 were managed well-enough to protect the wealthier and older people by keeping asset prices up. Socioeconomically, however, they were cataclysmic and most of society is underappreciative of the damage that has been done. We’ll be reeling from this, fifty years from now. The shithole we let our society become, that’ll kill people in the future even if we fix everything now. For example, people will die in 2060 because of anti-medical prejudices and bad habits developed, right now, in this era of unaffordable, lousy care, atrocious coverage, and adversarial behavior by employers and insurers who’ll break a social contract (and often a legal one) as soon as there’s a dollar in it. The world changed; an apocalypse actually happened.

What does this have to do with incels? Well, they are a post-apocalyptic creature. What makes them unnerving and sometimes disgusting is their complete lack of insight into the nature of the apocalypse inflicted upon them. They blame women for a social calamity– one that has left them hurting and miserable– that was, in fact, caused by corporate capitalism.

Incels believe that priapic creatures like “Chads” (the male entitlement figure of yesteryear) and “Tyrones” (an offensive African-American stereotype) scour the wasteland of modern human sexuality and fight over the last remaining “pure” women like junkyard animals. Names that Chicagoans and Twin Cities residents used to describe less-sophisticated Midwesterners who gave the region a bad name– Trixie, Chad, Becky and Cam– have mutated into supposed creatures one would expect to fight in the 2300 AD world of Chrono Trigger. Anyway, in this post-apocalyptic, over-fucked and semen-drenched world, everyone’s having lots of sex– frequent, amazing sex, because that totally happens at 18, and also inexplicably stops around 23– except them.


I’ve spent months studying human sexuality, in part as background research for Farisa’s Crossing, since I’m having to build characters with sexualities different from my own. You’d think there’d be data to support this sexual apocalypse, if one were going on. Nope. For example, infidelity and marital failure are becoming less common, as is participation in high school and college casual sex. The culture’s healing, not falling apart. What’s driving it? It turns out that feminism is a good thing, especially for so-called “beta” males who lack the glib charm, aggressive presence, irresponsible risk-seeking and financial resources to succeed at high-frequency casual promiscuity.

It’s patriarchy that drives women into the arms of boorish alpha males– the sorts who climb corporate hierarchies– not feminism. When women don’t have to marry early out of economic necessity, and when they choose their husbands instead of having those choices made by their fathers or economic forces, so-called “beta” males win (contrary to “Chad” phobia) more often than the aggressive, boorish men our society deems “alpha”.

Incels and MRAs halfway acknowledge female maturation, but because they’re so obsessed with casual sex, they’ve built up another toxic narrative to explain it.

The worst men seem to win at casual sex. No one disputes this. Even if decent men are having casual sex– and one must be careful about terminology here: does it count as casual if it becomes a legitimate relationship? what about if it happens between two close friends?– it is most often the case that the indecent are loud about it. Perhaps normal people are doing all kinds of stuff only they know about, but the loudest cultural narrative one sees in casual sex is that of macho, entitled men taking advantage of women with low self-esteem (often, victims of abuse) with copious alcohol in the mix. This is unhealthy; it’s hideous. Is it the sexual mainstream? No.

There is no sexual apocalypse. Terminological debates aside, casual sex and in particular stranger sex (to which incel fantasies about hyper-aggressive demonic men absconding with superficial women might apply) seem to be going down. This variety of sexuality, perhaps deserving of its vilification for its superficiality and tendency to spread disease, isn’t common at all. Most women have no casual encounters; or they have one, don’t like it, and never do it again; or they only have them when led to believe (often by unscrupulous men such as “pickup artists”) that romantic relationships are forming, which is not their fault. Few women knowingly have causal sex and they don’t enjoy it: only about 10 percent of women orgasm on a one-night-stand. In this light, the incel mythology about women pining for selfish “Chads” is a bit absurd to anyone who understands sex. Monogamous relationships, which women overwhelmingly prefer (with a few exceptions), are very much in, and feminism is no threat to them.

There’s a difference, of course, between a dry spell and an apocalypse: between weather and climate collapse. Like most 20-year-old men, I was socially and romantically unsuccessful compared to what I wanted to be at that age, but I knew it would get better. At that age, women have all the options and men have maximal competition; it improves. Incels, on the other hand, have tied themselves to the mast with an extreme notion that there’s no hope. Most of these guys aren’t unattractive or seriously disabled (except, perhaps, for often-treatable mental illnesses) and they come overwhelmingly from the middle class of the English-speaking world. They live in diverse countries where they could easily meet women from all sorts of cultural backgrounds. It is not hopeless, at least sexually speaking, for them at all; if they evicted the misogynistic, cultish garbage from their heads, they’d be fine.

They just need something better to do with themselves. See, the way we handled dry spells, back before the 0.1 percent trashed the economy, was to focus on our careers. Those existed back then. There was a time– in 2018, it’s hard to imagine this– when applying for jobs actually worked. Transiently sexless men had something to do other than stew about experiences they weren’t having.

We are not in a sexual apocalypse caused by feminism. We are in a socioeconomic apocalypse caused by corporate capitalism– also known sometimes as “the patriarchy”, though I dislike this term because it demonizes fatherhood, and it gives too much credit to an oppressive system. We must know who our true enemies really are. Incels have allowed themselves to become useful idiots, who blame the malfeasance of corporate patiarchy on women.

Incels aren’t miserable because of women. They’re not miserable because they aren’t getting sex, because it’s always been hard for young men to get sex, and because sexless doesn’t always lead to such rage. To wit, most 60-year-old widows become involuntarily celibate, but don’t fall into rage. These men are miserable because society has subjected them to a long con. They’ve been swindled. Society has stuffed their minds full of rotten ideas that are leading them down a bad road.

When a corporate-capitalist society such as Mussolini’s Italy or Corporate America perceives peace, it does not go out of its way to differentiate gender roles: for example, in overt governmental fascism, men and women are both told they must support the state; in our covert employer-nucleated fascism, the directive is to support a manager’s career and hope to be invited to ride his coattails. When such a society perceives war, though, gender roles emerge: the woman becomes a soldier factory, favored for her ability to produce children of the master race; men become sacrificial and are told to accept posthumous glory, for not all will survive what the society decides it must do.

Our time is unique, in that peace and war have become one, like the gas and liquid phases of a supercritical fluid. Most Americans do not sacrifice, as we would in war– meat and sugar are not rationed, gas prices of $3 per gallon are cause for complaint– and the wealthiest quarter of us can live in peaceful prosperity. At the same time, war surrounds us: two campaigns we started (with unclear intention) last decade still rage in the Middle East; our appetite for drugs has financed violence and upheaval from Juarez to Medellin; and social media drama can render an individual unemployable (and blacklisting is, I would argue, an act of war). In what state are we? A peace with pockets of war, or a war that looks like peace? If war, who is fighting whom?

Patriarchal and fascistic societies ramp up toxic masculinity in preparation for war, especially when they intend to be the aggressor, and wind it down (into smoldering chauvinism, as in the 1950s) during peace. So what’s our state today? We live in a mostly-peaceful but tenuous time of asymmetric economic war. Overt acts of aggression (health insurance denials; negative employment references and blacklisting; social-media harassment campaigns; poisoning of public water resources) are fairly uncommon, but terrifying, rapid in their onset, and hard to prevent or control. We live in a time where 140 characters from a powerful person can send fifty unconnected strangers to harass any target in the world. We live in a time when workers get fired, quite literally by computers whose sole purpose is performance surveillance; the manager’s only function is to read the monthly print-out and deliver the bad news.

It’s important to understand that, while this war is different from any other, it is a real war. The 0.1 percent has not been waging “class war”, some inferior category thereof, against the rest of us. It is, and has been for a long time, an actual war. People have died because of it.

Incels get the nature of this calamity wrong. They’re too young to know about health insurance, and they haven’t gotten in the corporate world yet, which is why they think it’s only women who are capable of maltreating people. It’s impossible to sympathize with the militant incels, because they lash out at innocents, but they are perceptive of the fact that an apocalypse is underway. Their mistake is that they mischaracterize it. Millennials really have been fucked over by previous generations.

Had the upper class not stabbed us in the back, we know what society would look like, and we know because this is what was like, forty years ago: if you had a car and a college education, you could talk your way on to a job anywhere in the country. You’d call an executive on Thursday, have an hour-long lunch with him on Friday, and start on Monday. If you were 27 or older, you’d get a management-level job. If you were 32 or older, you’d get an executive job. If the job required an advanced degree, the company would send you back to school. If it was 1:30 in the afternoon and you were still working, you were a go-getter who’d get every promotion. This is the country we used to have, and our elite took it from us, and we should be willing to fight them– to die, and even to kill, if necessary– if we stand a chance of getting it back.

What killed our society, starting in the 1970s? The right wing wants people to believe that social advances (feminism, gender liberalism) had something to with the economic degradation that began around the same time. That could not be farther from the truth. In fact, the situation for women and racial minorities has been declining of late, specifically because of worsening economic inequality and job prospects. So what did go to hell in the late 1970s? Again, the culprit is toxic masculinity.

The elite of the 1940s–70s saw themselves as a national elite and took pride in making the country better: building libraries and museums, supporting progressive causes, and making education more available. To the extent that this can be gendered (and at the time, it was) this was a productive masculinity that brought society (and, over time, women) forward. Toxic masculinity never took a break, but in economics, it was on defense for a solid forty years, only to rage back into focus in the 1980s. Why?

One might be tempted to pin our society’s self-created decline on “the Reagan Era”, but I don’t think one conservative politician can be blamed for everything that happened. Rather, as we became increasingly connected, our national elite re-polarized. This ties in to our hatred for Baby Boomers. Most Baby Boomers aren’t the privileged assholes we love to hate on– the traditional Boomer narrative ignores black Boomers, gay Boomers, dead-in-Vietnam Boomers, and Boomers who fought for the rights of minorities or engaged in the (alas, losing) battle against corporate supremacy. But the Boomer 1% deserves its horrible reputation. These were the guys who compared themselves to oil sheikhs, third-world despots, narcotraficantes, and (after 1990) post-Soviet kleptocrats and decided that the American CEO– making $400,000 per year, and having to follow his country’s laws– was the short man in the group.

The lesson from the Boomer 1% is to forget Milton’s comparison of reigning in hell versus serving in heaven. From a material perspective, it is even superior to reign in hell over reigning in heaven. The 1980s is the decade when our elite began intentionally de-civilizing us in order to join the slurry of kleptocratic garbage that is the global elite.

It is hard to imagine reversing the above. The national elite, as it once was, is dead. After selling us out, it was subsumed into the malevolent global one. Toxic masculinity runs the world again– to everyone’s detriment. It’s the force that drives a man with $1 billion to want $10 billion, or a man with a beautiful wife to cheat because he has decided that the world owes him 10 (and then 100) beautiful women. It is not enough for him to drink and enjoy his milkshake. He must drink all the milkshakes, even if he throws up afterward.

Incels are not the men running the world, of course. They’re not drinking any milkshakes. In fact, they’re triple-threat losers. They’re sexual losers because of their social alienation and self-sabotaging tendencies, perhaps inherited from our puritanical culture’s views of sex as dirty (amplified by an envy of the mature and less inhibited). They’re social losers because toxic masculinity says in no uncertain terms that low-status, unsuccessful men are worth less than garbage and ought to be viewed with suspicion. They’re economic losers because the high-autonomy middle-class jobs (which would be fantastic plum positions by today’s standards) have been replaced by technologically surveilled and menial subordinate work. They exhibit toxic masculinity in their odious attitudes toward women, but they’ve also been crushed by it.

The logical fallacies of the male grievance culture are too numerous to list– each one could get an essay of its own– but the most prominent (no pun intended) is the apex fallacy. An apex fallacy exists when one compares the most successful or fortuante of one group against the average-case performance or outcomes of one’s own. Reactionaries and nostalgists often indulge in apex fallacies, comparing their lot as average people today to those of kings, knights and ladies– not peasants who die at 33 of typhoid. Likewise, incels believe that women drown in male attention because they’re hyperfocused on the white, blonde, young “Stacies” that so many other men are chasing. Apex fallacies exist, likely, because it is advantageous to observe the most successful individuals. When the pinnacle of a society is corrupt, calamity is likely to follow for that reason– bad examples are being set– and we should be scared for that reason. Incels look at the top of society and see people devoid of virtue– the unaccountable, unscrupulous, self-indulgent “Chads”, almost always from well-connected families– winning. Their most noted reaction, “Why can’t that be me?”, is hardly sympathetic, but their problem is. In terms of male role models, our society is in dissolution.

Corporate capitalism, and other forms of dysfunctional patriarchy, cannot keep themselves afloat without using various narratives to manipulate people’s desires and therefore allay the resentment that would otherwise accrue to the corrupt top. For example, it is patriarchy (not feminism) that tells men they are worthless if they cannot support a family on one income. To be a “basement dweller”, under patriarchy, is to be less than human. The system tells men to derive their sense of worth from capability, especially as expressed in competitive endeavors– even if those contests are dehumanizing or stupid. In high school and college, one of the most fetishized (but also most detrimental to personal growth) competence metrics is the ability to procure sex when one wants it. (And, further according to this narrative, men always want sex; or else there is something wrong with them.) When incels struggle with a normal, benign thing– that it is difficult for men under 25 to find sexual partners– they begin to see themselves as useless incompetence, doomed to fail in all other areas of life. They shut down; they lose contact with their friends, their grades drop, and they become addicted to video games and internet trolling– living out their power fantasies behind a keyboard.

What does patriarchy think of this massive waste of male talent? Patriarchy couldn’t be happier. See, virgin shaming is what keeps men going into work, in order to procure those pictures of dead people, that can be traded for social experiences like overpriced meals and recreational neurotoxins, that may on occasion lead to sexual access.

There’s a response I can imagine coming from incels and MRAs, which is that women, as much as men, can participate in virgin shaming, gold digging, and various other behaviors that keep toxic masculinity in place. Of course, that’s true. See, feminism doesn’t require a conviction that women are innately morally superior to men. I am a feminist and hold no such belief. I think the distributions of moral character are most likely equivalent across genders. And just as there are good men aligned with feminist causes, there are plenty of women who lend their support to patriarchy, who enforce its doctrines, and even who prefer to live within it. Women actually exist who uphold toxic values by making themselves available to the sorts of malignant, aggressive men running our civilization into the ground. It is not acknowledge of their existence that makes MRAs and incels problematic; it is their inaccurate believe that immature, damaged women are somehow representative of the gender (they are not) that makes this dangerous. The truth is that, in a world with billions of people within it, you’re bound to find everything.

What is feminism? I think it has two components. One is the belief that women ought to have equal political and economic rights to men. That, on itself, doesn’t need to be called feminism. If this were all there were to the feminist cause, I’d have no issue with people who say, “I’m not a feminist; I’m an equalist”. The second component pertains not to biological femaleness but to femininity. This gets tricky, because it’s not clear that any of the differences between “masculine” and “feminine” nature exist in any innate way. Any discussion of masculinity and femininity must be relative to a cultural frame. There’s a lot of virtue– compassion, judgment, quiet competence, collaboration over competition, sexual restraint– that lives in what out culture construes as feminine. What makes toxic masculinity so virulent is that it’s built to destroy the feminine. It does not necessarily hate females; it hates femininity in women, but especially in men. What we’re learning, as our late-stage corporate capitalism destroys the planet ecologically, culturally, and socially as well as economically, is that in order to survive for another century, we’re going to have to become more feminine. It is not about women as superior to men (I do not think they are) but the need for us, as humans, to evolve in a more feminine direction and, while retaining masculinity’s virtues, purge it of its aggressive and toxic elements.

Feminism also has tons of historical support. Making things better for women also makes the world better for men. Gender is not a zero-sum game.

Self-indulgence is often marked by misogynists (most likely, a case of projection) as a female vice, but it’s actually the core of toxic masculinity. This is not to say that female self-indulgence and toxic femininity don’t exist– every woman who demands an expensive carbon crystal before she’ll marry is engaging in an instance of toxic femininity (manufactured by toxic men in the diamond industry)– but it seems to be toxic masculinity that is most capable of metastasis. Toxic masculinity says: one must grow up and acquire, acquire, acquire; one must do it fast; and one who acquires less than other men is inferior and not really a man at all. Accrued wealth and paid work– the influence of family contacts, though it accounts for almost all of what actaully happens in the career game– become the sole, numerical metric of male value. One cannot criticize the might-makes-right corporate system, either, unless one wants to risk being called “whiny”, “weak”, “a snowflake”, or (who can forget this classic?) “a fag”.

Corporate capitalism and toxic masculinity are cruel, and there’s no moral justification for shoehorning 50 percent of the population into it (and forcing the other 50 percent to clean up). But is this brand of masculinity a con? I don’t think it always was. In the 1950s, there was real work to be done, and people could make a living by doing it. Competence and merit actually mattered: there were more small businesses, it was easier for a skilled person to escape a reputation problem and reinvent himself, and there was high federal investment in R&D, resulting in 4–6 percent annual economic growth. For all the flaws of that era– I can’t think of anyone sane who’d want to restore 1950s gender or race relation– it was a time when work worked.

Keynes predicted that, by now, we’d be working about 5–10 hours per week. That turned out to be right. So where’s our leisure society? Nowhere, because of the Graeberian imperative to hold position. People now spend 10 hours to work a 2-hour day, the rest of the time full of useless anxiety in open-plan offices that exist largely to humiliate them. If the bosses figure out how little work is necessary, they’ll cut jobs and workers will lose, so it must be hidden. The work being done almost never matters; it is mostly a commodity, and little respect accrues to people who do actual work. Instead, we’re a nation of professional reputation managers. If you’re not disgusted by the notion, you’re not human. Of course, this means that the winners of the new economy are those people (mostly, physically imposing men, because even though such violent confrontations have been rare for thousands of years– it’s now how we like to do business– it is just easier to ask for favors when one could physically end the other’s life) who can force others to manicure their own personal reputations. Neofeudalism sets in: those who have permanent staffs of reputation managers (of course, the firms that employ them fully believe real work is being done, and occasionally it is) become lords, and those who support their campaigns for relevance in a blandly decadent, pointless economic system become the vassals.

One can see this most prominently in that people do things that are more work-like for their hobbies– gardening, hunting, hiking, learning new fields, writing– than the stupid, sedentary, humiliating subordinate bullshit they endure in under the proto-fascist corporate regime of status reports about status reports they call “work”. Men (and women) used to go to work and do things, but now they go to work and subordinate to other, almost always completely useless, men.

Isn’t this ancient, though? Hasn’t work always been about subordination? Well, yes and no. This topic requires more words than I can give it, but complex endeavors always require operational subordination. That is, some people have to take direction from others, and apprentices need more direction than seasoned masters. There’s nothing wrong with operational subordination; we do it every day, to our benefit, when we stop at a red traffic signal. It is better to follow a sound order and wait two minutes than to disobey it and possibly die in a preventable traffic accident. Operational subordination isn’t humiliating; it’s just something we need to do. In today’s corporate climate, though, the demand has gone beyond lawful operational subordination into personal subordination. It is not enough for the worker to take direction; he must fully accept the total superiority of the manager. It is not enough to do the job well; he must pretend to like it, he must ask for more grunt work when he is underutilized, and he can never for a second allow anyone to hold the suspicion that he might be smarter than the mediocre apparatchik doling out the tasks.

Here is where I offend some leftists: it may be entirely due to socialization, but men and women are different. Women are, to put it bluntly, better actors. They learn how to be pleasant to people they dislike, to mirror emotions without feeling them, and to engage in the ceremony of personal subordination while, in fact, avoiding major compromise. They’re socialized to put a crumple zone between them and abuse that is coming from uphill. Perhaps that’s why, even though corporate culture is terrible for women, it’s devastating to men. Women can play a humiliating, stupid game– powdering the bottoms and attending the whims of adult babies called “executives”– without total personal collapse, whereas men seem unable to do so. I don’t think the explanation is that men are weaker; I think we are not socialized as well to be actors– to be able to play a humiliating, subordinate role for 8 hours per day without internalizing it– and that we are also pushed to identify with paid work (a problem, in an economy where humiliation is the only thing left most people will pay for) more than women are.

If you tell men that the highest expression of masculinity is to go into a workplace and subordinate to other men– not the temporary operational subordination of the apprentice, but a permanent personal subordination to better-placed, my-daddy-made-a-call mediocrity– you’re going to have a masculine crisis on your hands. And we do. While I won’t get into detail about Jordan Peterson, his appeal seems to derive from his willingness to address the masculine crisis head-on, without fear. (This is not to say that he knows how to solve it.) But here’s the truth: our masculine crisis will not be solved until we eradicate artificial scarcities (which exist to manipulate men into working hard, on the promise that those proxies for female sexual attention– job titles, higher salaries– actually mean something) and corporate capitalism itself. To kill corporate capitalism, we’ll need to institute a more compassionate society– one that takes care of people, sending them to school if they wish, paying favors forward without expecting immediate return– and that would be, traditionally, more feminine. So we have the odd-sounding-but-true conclusion that the solution to our masculine crisis is (in part) feminism.

What was done to these incels was not done by women. It was done to them by patriarchy: a system that has inculcated the notion of women as sexual objects and rewards for participating in an economic system that professes to be meritocracy but that, on closer inspection, is no further along an evolutionary journey than might-makes-right barbarism. They are just entitled-men-the-enemy. They have been infected by terrible ideas and they are suffering intensely. And while their expressions of rage, both on and off the internet, are often unacceptable, we must raise our focus away from this particular element, and smash the woman-hating, racist, elitist, proto-fascist corporate system that created them in the first place.

39 thoughts on “Incel: the Strange Identity That Became a Weapon Against Feminism

  1. I’m sorry for responding without reading the entire article. I disagree with some points.

    1) > patriarchy: a system that has inculcated the notion of women as sexual objects

    Sexual objectification is not purely social construct. It’s primarily a biological instinct.

    Women and men are biologically wired to view each other as sexual objects.
    In addition to that, women view men also as success objects.

    Researches show that when men see scantily clad sexy women, the brain parts responsible for handling tools activate. In other words, they think about whether those women are sexually inviting or not. They don’t try to read those women’s mind. It’s probably called intoxicating femininity.

    To be honest, it’s true to me, too. When I see sexy women who are scantily clad, my mind is so distracted that it takes mental gymnastics to not savor the visual stimulation.

    Women are less susceptible to visual stimuli, but they still are seen to sexually objectify men a lot. When 2018 olympic was held in korea, many korean women reportedly said “I want to trap those handsome foreign male athletes by burning their passports and keep them in my house.” Those foreign male athletes said “those women are creepy”.

    Have you ever read fanfics written by women? They depict sodomy between male TV stars. They not only write fanfics but also draw them.

    When both sexes sexually objectify each other, I see little problem in doing that as long as certain shared rules are not broken. e.g., no stalking, no touching, …..

    2) My impression on your feminism

    Your feminism looks very different from the feminism of mainstream politics. Actually, there is barely nothing left of the mainstream political feminism which is filled with a lot of hatred, bullshit, and lies.

  2. Also, I think incel is probably not important. In japan and korea, there’s a phenomenon called grass eater. In USA and some other english-speaking countries, there’s MGTOW.

    grass easter and MGTOW are very different, but they are basically voluntary celibates.

    While it was true that incels were societal problems in the past, I think technological improvements pacified men to the point where men flock to porn and games instead of readying another violent revolution out of anger toward women who wouldn’t have sex with them.

    Why would men feel grudge and sexual frustration when they masturbate to porn on a regular basis? Porn and game turned the vast majority of otherwise dangerous incels into harmless creatures.

  3. I think you have a branding issue. Since there is almost nothing left of the mainstream feminism in your feminism, you might as well call it something else. You seem to have developed your own personal ideology which is a different thing from mainstream ideologies which are usually mostly bullshit and lies.

  4. I respect your talent as a thinker and writer.

    “I’ve spent months studying human sexuality”

    Nice. I’ve spent years. I don’t say this to pull rank, but rather to counter a rank pull. This is a complex issue, and it takes a long time to understand all the moving parts and assumptions of context. Surely someone with your respect for nuance and lateral thinking can appreciate that.

    Here are some drive-by’s to ponder:

    1) Infidelity and divorce going down are good things in isolation. But they have been accompanied by a drop in marriage at all. Want to increase college graduation rates? The most straightforward way to do that is by rejecting more applicants.

    2) “When women don’t have to marry early out of economic necessity, and when they choose their husbands instead of having those choices made by their fathers or economic force, so-called “beta” males win”

    This ignores the fact that women are more desirable partners when young. Everyone knows this, whether to worry about it, rage at it, or mock women because of it. Under that assumption, it is reasonable to ask if betas are actually winning. It must also be acknowledged that “unmarried,” does not usually preclude “sexually active” for most young women. This matters to men for a variety of reasons, not least because divorce risk for women increases with # of prior sexual partners, especially at lower numbers.

    3) “Monogamous relationships, which women overwhelmingly prefer (with a few exceptions), are very much in, and feminism is no threat to them.”

    It all depends on your timescale. Can we really say that a feminism that supports divorce is unambiguously no threat to monogamous relationships? We can say that someone who marries at 23, divorces at 27, then remarries at 29 is monogamous. But we could also say they are practicing rotating polyandry

    Some meta notes:

    1) I am not an “incel,” though I probably rub shoulders with them in some laterally-related communities. They are dumb, because everyone is dumb. Sociological analysis is frickin’ hard, no matter who you are. From my view from the outside, incels get a lot of things wrong.

    2) However, “getting a lot of things wrong” is the norm. And not through the easiest to spot and correct, factual inaccuracy, but through incorrect mental models. Causation, context, reductivism, etc. Particularly differences of context are interesting in that they can cause something you might call “flips.” One small change can change the interpretation of everything else. Thus, incels shouldn’t be dismissed, not because they don’t make mistakes (everyone makes mistakes), but because they make different mistakes—but succeed in avoiding some that others don’t. Those who truly believe that everyone’s viewpoint is valuable should perk up at finding a new subculture, however distasteful.

  5. You couldn’t be more wrong. Allow me to set you straight.

    The world operates on gynocentrism, male disposability and cultural misandry.

    Who built and maintained all you see when you drive down the road? Men. Whose lives were trafficked, exploited and disposed of in war for women’s and the state’s safety and welfare? Men’s. Men were socially conditioned by women and the state to be the providers and protectors (human sacrifices) of women and the state. That’s not the fault of the ‘evil patriarchy’ as you’re told by feminists. That’s men at the top and women colluding to dispose of common men’s lives for women’s and the state’s benefit. These were expectations placed upon men by women and the state. That’s literally brainwashing and socially conditioning common men into HUMAN SACRIFICE.

    If men are privileged, then why do men pay the vast majority of alimony, asset division and child support? Why do men get far harsher punishments for equal crimes? Why are men the vast majority of suicides? Why have men always worked the most dirty, dangerous, life shortening, life threatening jobs? Why do men live the shortest lives? Why was there no ‘female only draft’? Why was there was no ‘women last in the life boats’ policy? Why do women get the majority of state and federal spending on health, education and welfare when men do now and have always paid the majority of taxes?

    Women are the privileged now and always have been. They vote for and support those men who throw common men under the bus for women’s and her state husband’s benefit. Women didn’t have the right to vote in the past because men were socially conditioned by women and the state to care for women as if women were children – BECAUSE WOMEN ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF GROWN CHILDREN. Men were expected to lay down their lives for women and the state through “provision and protection”. Once again – these were social expectations placed upon men by women and the state.

    If women want to own and rule over civilization, then why don’t they just build, maintain, fight and die for said civilizations, like men did, rather than colonizing and appropriating the achievements of men & masculinity? Why are men expected to protect themselves from rape and sexual assault while women expect protection from the same via the sacrifice of men and masculinity? Why can’t women defend themselves and stop demanding that men sacrifice themselves for women’s safety and welfare? Why do women march upon the streets, towns, cities, states and nations men built and maintained and demand dominion over what women did not build nor maintain? Why do women colonize and appropriate all of the institutions with which men built, maintained, fought and died? Why does Hollywood continue to socially condition and psychologically program men into disposability with films depicting male human sacrifice, gynocentrism, male disposability and courtly love – all gynocentric paradigms in which men’s safety and wellbeing is pushed down in favor of women’s and their state pimp’s wellbeing and safety?

    Women’s sexual revolution wasn’t men’s doing. Feminists encouraged women to go out and ‘have sex like men’ and feminists encouraged women to become sexual objects.

    I was falsely accused once decades ago but it went nowhere. Why? You had to have proof that someone did something back in those days – or the prosecution wouldn’t prosecute. You couldn’t just claim something occurred without proof and prosecute someone with no evidence. Not any more. All you need to destroy a man’s life these days is an accusation and collusion by multiple women. Feminism now rules the courts and has effectively stripped men of presumption of innocence and due process. From the moment a man is accused, the marxist -> leftist – feminist -> socialist -> communist MSM drags his name and face through the mud without so much as the slightest confirmation that the accusations might be true. To the extent possible, I’ll deny women and their state lover any peace or cooperation whatsoever. I’ll make their lives as difficult as possible simply by not playing their preferred games. What we need is a female only draft in reparation to all those dead boys who were socially programmed by women and the state to lay down their lives for the same. What we need is a ‘women last in the life boats’ policy so that women can wake up and stop expecting men to sacrifice their lives and welfare for the women that hate them.

    The objectification of women as sex objects was the doing of the socialist left and their feminist daughter’s doing – not the ‘evil patriarchy’. Feminists encouraged women to become sex objects – not men. Suddenly, women became even more entitled, more predatory and even more emotional than they already were. Marriage began its steady decline. The hypergamous search and destroy mission by women for ‘Mr. Big’ (Sex and The City reference) went into full gear. Hollywood has tremendous influence over the weak minded, childlike and ‘perpetually victimized’.

    Only when jobs became far less laborious, far safer, higher paid and potentially glamorous did women enter the workforce. Up until then, women were content to let men sacrifice their longevity and health providing for and protecting women in the mines, factories and battlefields. That’s right – when most jobs sucked and took a terrible toll on one’s health and longevity – women were fine remaining homemakers – because they could simply use men to do all their dirty work. Under any other context, that would be considered human sacrifice, but because it’s only men’s lives sacrificed, no one cares.

    NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers, a feminist organization) came up with no-fault divorce, alimony, asset division and child support. In one fell swoop, total life destruction was unleashed upon common men through marriage and millions of men were discarded whilst being forced by women’s state husband to continue to pay their X wives handsomely for the sex they’d never again have. If you drop the illusions and enchantments, marriage is just men paying for exclusive sex. Marriage is simply a more complicated and exclusive form of prostitution. What’s more, boys and men are socially conditioned into accepting this man-destroying con game.

    Imagine a world in which women are gathered up and sent off to fight and die in war on men’s behalf – lest they be thrown in prison for cowardliness, become ostracized from society as useless ‘cowardly little girls’ and be deemed unworthy of love and affection from men for their failure to sacrifice all on men’s behalf and to ‘women up’. Imagine if women remained with the sinking ship whilst men sailed safely away in the life boats. Imagine if men rejected women in marriage unless women could effectively and consistently provide for and protect men in all circumstances, including world wars and great depressions/recessions. Imagine a world in which women, not men, were expected to build and maintain all upon the earth, whilst men simply demanded ownership and rulership over all that women built and maintained. Imagine a world in which men falsely accuse women and collude en masse to put women away in prison. Imagine a world in which women pay the vast majority of alimony, asset division, child support and civil suit payouts. Imagine a world in which women become the vast majority of suicides and get far harsher prison sentences for equal crimes.

    Why are the number of women and girls lives affected in global tragedies highlighted in news reports but the number of men and boys lives lost aren’t even considered an afterthought? Why are women in the military being positioned in behind the lines support roles – so that more common men can be pushed to the front lines as human sacrifices and cannon fodder?

    Feminism is a diversion. Feminism is a deflection. Feminism is a deception. Feminists simply distort human history to make it appear as though women are perpetual victims – all at the sacrifice of men and boys lives at the altar of gynocentrism and male disposability. The only systemic, institutionalized, legally codified discrimination is anti-white and anti-male. There was no female-only draft. There was no ‘women last in the life boats’ policy.

    Western civilization will fall due to male disposability, gynocentrism and cultural misandry. Ironically, women will suffer the greatest tragedies. Karma.

    • I do not support a male-only draft. I think that conscription should be extremely rare, only used to defend the homeland, and should involve men and women when it is used. In fact, there should be no exemptions: no student deferments, no cushy positions/exceptions for the connected, etc. But conscription should be extremely rare, seeing as the likelihood of a serious threat against the US homeland is very rare.

      You are correct that patriarchy only benefits a small percentage of men at the top, and that some women also benefit from or support the system. It is not some black-and-white system where all men are oppressing all women. This is one of the issues around “male privilege” or “white privilege”. Privilege only accrues to the psychopaths in the top ~5%; not all of them are white and not all are male, and it is more accurately described as douchebag privilege. I believe incels call such guys “Chads”, who are (though few would admit it) the same force that feminism calls “the patriarchy”.

      No one can guarantee that having more women (and more feminine men) in power would lead to a better world, but the current male-run system is completely dysfunctional; the U.S. is falling apart so quickly that I’m certainly inclined to give it a try.

      • Forcing those out that historically (and still do) built, maintained, fought and died for your nation and rights, all to achieve a sense of equity (theft), is not only incredibly monstrous and unjust, but it’s the reason why socialism always ends with re-education camps, gulags, and millions slaughtered either by war or starvation. Equity is socialism and socialism is theft both on paper and in reality. If women wish to rule nations, then they should get up off their butts, build, maintain, fight and die for their own, rather than disposing of men’s lives for the same. If the situation were reversed, women would certainly be calling men monsters and claiming such ‘equity’ the human sacrifice of women’s lives. The gyno-double-standard must cease.

        • Women do a lot for society, and even though women don’t carry guns as often as men, plenty of women die in wars. Most war deaths are from starvation and disease, which aren’t restricted to the front lines or even the region of war at all.

          The idea that women do less for the world, writ large, is a bit off the mark. Women seem to do the bulk of the unpaid and least appreciated work in every society. And there are plenty of women serving in the military– not that that’s the only job that has merit.

          Women go through pregnancy, and then do the bulk of society’s childcare labor. Oh, and in 2018, they’re getting about 55% of college degrees.

          Obviously, there are lazy women as much as there are lazy men in the world, but the idea that women need to “get off their butts”, as if they weren’t already doing their share as much as we are, doesn’t seem to hold.

          • Of course it doesn’t. That’s the power of gynocentrism and male disposability. That’s the power of anti-male social conditioning. I’m not buying what you’re selling chief. Sell it to your fellow gynocentrists.

          • Oh, and in 2018, they’re getting about 55% of college degrees.

            thanks to affirmative action.

            oops! the biggest beneficiaries of AA are….

            ….WHITE WOMEN!

            the bottom line is that F. Scott Fitzgerald had the number of the average woman in The Great Gatsby: Myrtle. Myrtle, who doesn’t care about her devoted husband and instead only cares about the POWER and STATUS offered by Tom.

            And it still rings true.

            Women still offer the majority of their concern and ‘care’ to the privileged few at the top and largely exclude, chastise, and MISTREAT everyone else.

  6. Brilliant essay. Ties it all together, and helped me puke out the last few bits of bullshit floating around in my head from my old Game reading. I wish I never knew about this stuff, but I do, because for a brief period I was in a personal and financial situation that made me feel weak and unappealing to women, and I sought help. And to be honest, I find it morbidly fascinating.

    You point this out, but it warrants saying again. What I never liked about Game was that it took a few things that were patently true, but then fixated on these things and produced a world-view that is dark, superstitious, and evil. What are these true things? (a) don’t take people at their word unless you can be sure of them, (b) don’t take shit from people, even women, (c) work on your body to stay healthy and attractive, and (d) work on your personality and mind to stay interesting. If you do this things, you will be more attractive to women. This was the original Game that you see with Neil Strauss and Mystery – a set of canned behaviors to convince women that you have these qualities. They were not exactly deep ethical thinkers, but their antics are forgiveable.

    But then, with Heartiste and to a lesser extent, Roosh, Game creeps into darker realms – stating that women are fundamentally weak, cruel, and amoral. In this view, women need a strong patriarchy to hold back their worst tendencies, but even when you see femininity or sweetness in a traditional woman it’s a charade. Heartiste loves to say that the most attractive men are serial killers, because women are by nature sociopathic, and can only respect sociopathy in men. And from this comes a political world-view, one that is closely linked to that of the alt-right, that Cultural Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism, and immigration have destroyed the white American man’s dignity. Then come flirtations with anti-Semitism, because there has to be someone behind it, who has goaded on gays, Muslims, Blacks, and Latinos …

    The final turn to racism and anti-Semitism is ironic, because some of original Game guys (like Strauss) were Jewish, and the term “Game”, as an uncountable noun meaning the ability to skillfully manipulate a social situation, has its origins in Black English.

    The incels are at the tail end of this trajectory.

    While I do not want to evoke Godwin’s law, Game always had erie parallels to fascist movements, if we understand fascism as a fetishization of masculine strength by people who feel humiliated and vulnerable. It starts with truth, and then ends with fantasy, hatred, and cruelty. A Weimar German had is life and community destroyed – true. He has to work together with his compatriots to rebuild his country, community, and economy – true. But does this mean he should go invade Poland and build the camps?

    • Men’s rights, MGTOW and other reactions to feminism (or neoliberalism confused for feminism, if you accept Michael’s argument) seem today particularly susceptible to recuperation from fascist movements. Not surprised that Game can be added to the list.

      The Weimar German did what was natural. Germany was kept down. Turned out that it was stronger than the boot that kept it down. I don’t think there is any controlling the outpouring of energy that happens when the correction arrives. Intellectualism and self-consciousness come later during the maturation of a society, and a new one was just being born.

      Michael probably smells that a similar kind of unpleasantness might happen again, and with this post, to his credit, seems to want to do his part to prevent it. AD on the other hand just notices it without any apparent agenda.

  7. > They blame women for a social calamity– one that has left them hurting and miserable– that was, in fact, caused by corporate capitalism.

    A central part of Patriarchy is a duty to care for women, and a duty to punish those who hurt women. In contrast, modern feminism explicitly disavows duty to others: “I must do whatever makes me feel good and fills my cup with joy.” I might identify as an incel since I haven’t had sex in awhile, but I can easily get sex (and have in the recent past) by dating women who I would never consider marrying. This is a grave sin under Patriarchy values, but encouraged under Feminism values. I used to trust that women wanted to get married, and trusted that women knew that the men who boldly asked them out had already decided never to marry them. Experience has shown me that most women aren’t particularly interested in marriage, and prefer the selfish guys with options who will never marry them. I agree the real culprit is what you would call corporate capitalism, but if women have agency then they share equal blame for believing and voting for the lies of what you would call corporate capitalism.

    > And while their expressions of rage, both on and off the internet, are often unacceptable, we must raise our focus away from this particular element, and smash the woman-hating, racist, elitist, proto-fascist corporate system that created them in the first place.

    I’m still struggling to imagine what “smashing the system” looks like in practice. From doing engineering I know that it’s really easy to smash machines and very difficult to make them work again. Re-engineering a machine requires looking at past examples and understanding in detail the mathematical laws governing its working. When I hear “smash the system” I think of the the Cambodian Marxist intellectuals who dutifully smashed the patriarchy and then had their skulls removed and piled in pyramids, or the Venezuelan Marxist intellectuals who dutifully implemented price controls and then had their food redistributed away, or the Chinese Marxist intellectuals who were publicly shamed and then sent to farms for re-education. Or, looking at other eras, the French intellectuals who were guillotined, or the Roman or Greek intellectuals who were put to the sword. From these examples, it appears that “the system” is made of people, and “smashing the system” in practice consists of sending people into fire and death. I trust you see things differently.

    As Kipling wrote a century ago: “And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins; When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”

    I still think the system you call “corporate capitalism” is continuously creating new social issues and then funding both sides of the debate, as a distraction from economic issues (viz. real wages are the same as 50 years ago; land and medicine and college is 4x the price it was then; stocks are 8x the price it was then). The game is to keep the people’s rage channeled in economically profitable directions (viz. increasing the labor supply by the Left; decreasing corporate taxes by the Right).

    It seems that politicians typically have public opinions that they share with voters, and (opposite) private opinions that they share with donors. In such an environment, any “Smash the Patriarchy” movement will be run entirely for the benefit of capital owners.

    • There are several thoughts coming up as I read your comment.

      First, you’re right that not everything that has aligned itself with the feminist cause has been positive. There has been a certain wide berth given to female self-indulgence– lowering the female moral standard instead of raising the male one– but, despite the fixation that element of feminism draws from the conservatives, it seems to be mostly at the fringe. Middle-of-the-road women don’t want their friends to be “slut shamed” (whether for misunderstandings or actual promiscuity) but they don’t necessarily want to be promiscuous, either. 85–90 percent of women prefer monogamy. While about half of women will try casual sex, most of them don’t like it and only do it once or twice. And the “Dual Mating Strategy” theory doesn’t hold either: just as most men would prefer to find a woman who’s a good mother and a good wife, most women wait for men who are good dads and good lovers. The alpha/beta dichotomy is largely bullshit.

      With regard to the French Revolution, it did (as you note) go off the rails. What’s often missed is that, in fact, far more poor people were killed (deliberately) in the Terror than rich, as the resentment toward the upper class metastasized into general authoritarianism. There are a lot of reasons the French Revolution went bad toward the end; chief among them was that its neighbors took advantage of the unrest, so it found itself at war. Making Austria a sworn enemy (Marie-Antoinette was Maria Theresa’s daughter) didn’t help. A U.S. overhaul (I prefer to avoid the word “revolution”) wouldn’t likely have those issues. We’re not surrounded by other absolutist monarchies, like France in the 18th century. Rather, our sphere is full of countries that would be sympathetic to our transition to social democracy. “About time,” they’d say.

      You are absolutely right that most of these cultural rifts– red states versus blue, various racial schisms, feminists versus MRAs, 95 percent versus 4.9 percent– have been created by the elite in order to keep the governed from uniting. I think people are getting smarter and less divisible. Uniting is certainly possible. I remember in 2008 when so many people said Obama would never get more than 30% of the Latino vote because Latinos (who, of course, are not a monolithic group) and blacks “don’t like each other”. Wrong. 67 percent.

      • > most women wait for men who are good dads and good lovers. the alpha/beta dichotomy is largely bullshit.
        that’s what women want you to believe. for myself, i’m tired of being lied to by women. many women i dated lied by saying they were virgins when they weren’t (while I was holding up my end of the traditional deal by being interested in marriage and not pushing them for sex before marriage…causing me to waste years due to the double bind of not marrying a stranger and not being enthusiastic about sex before marriage). Many women i dated lied by lining up other men before dumping me, by stringing along other men while in a relationship with me, and by being open to cheating with a much more good-looking and successful man if the option came up. Furthermore, many married women I know personally divorced when it benefited them, while many married men I know personally stayed married when it would have benefited them to leave. Sure, maybe a young “incel” will feel like he’s doing better if he waits until age 30 to date a 30-year-old woman in need of security who lies to him about her past, or a foreign woman in need of a green card who lies to him about her past…but that’s not marriage. Again, marriage is for life and to a virgin woman. Anything else is an anti-social lie. Sure, many incels are undesirable, but they were betrayed by a society that lied to them…that told them it was OK for them to be themselves, while the truth is that their survival and happiness depends on how much better than other men they can be…how much power over other men they can acquire.

        > social democracy
        I’m still not sure what you mean by “social democracy”. I assume it means “universal healthcare and welfare, which will be mostly used by people different from me who hate me because they see me as their racial and economic oppressor, mostly paid for by people like me, and mostly benefiting a handful of elites who control the flow of government benefits to vote themselves more power while remaining invisible to the proles”. I trust this isn’t how it works in practice?

        > unity of the proles under the open-borders increased-govt-spying capitalist (Obama) instead of the lower-corporate-taxes increased-govt-spying capitalist (Bush)…
        Whose interests did Obama really serve?

      • > While about half of women will try casual sex, most of them don’t like it and only do it once or twice.


        Have you spent any amount of time at all in the dating markets of LA/NYC? If I had to wager, I’d say this is absolutely, positively not true for a very significant chunk of women in these and most major cities in the US, and arguably the world.

  8. “Red pillers” are the male equivalent of third-wave feminists, working for their sex-specific interest…. just without the support of NY Times, Bustle, Jezebel, Women’s Studies departments, social media,or anything public. Those guys seek in the social and interpersonal realm, what women seek in power and money (“equal median pay day”, “first female X”, etc). Relationships range the gamut outright dysfunction (See: Girls, Sex In The City) to perfectly OK.

    These incels are the equivalent of radical feminists, writing long treatises full of bullshit that amount to “everything is men’s fault, I hate men” (See: and then either jerking off for the rest of their lives, or going asexual. All relationships are cancerous.

  9. You discuss moving towards a more feminine world. I’m not seeing that in today’s feminist movement. The ‘feminism’ I seems to be a movement towards women embracing corporate jobs, where they suck up to the elites. Gloria Steinem dated Herny Kissinger and worked for the CIA. Should we look at Sheryl Sandberg’s lean-in philosophy? Do you consider these legitimate feminists?

    The women may be acting when they suck up in corporate roles, but when the men see the women sucking up, it angers the men. It puts more pressure on men in corporate roles to suck up like and put up with bullshit if there are women around, who suck up effectively. This is true even if the women are just acting. Thought of this way, if women boycotted corporate life, this would potentially put more pressure on the system. Feminist thought seems to oppose that.

    • I do not think “Lean In” counts a legitimate feminism.

      The corporate persona is a third gender that combines the worst elements of men and women both. It’s effeminate, sycophantic, and passive-aggressive… but also self-indulgent, hegemonic, and brutal. It combines toxic femininity and toxic masculinity into a weird gender identity that neither (non-psychopath) women nor men enjoy playing out.

      So, fuck “Lean In” and fuck the idea that it’s somehow feminist to encourage women to behave like the worst 5% of men. For example, do I think our society goes overboard on slut-shaming? By far. That doesn’t mean, either, that we should go out and put forth the lie that it’s healthy for women to engage in promiscuity. Most women find it unpleasant, and by its nature it’s dangerous, and it puts expectations on both genders that are unreasonable– on men, to seek and acquire casual sex; on women, to “put out” early or be dumped.

      • What do you consider ‘legitimate’ feminism? Who do you consider legitimate feminists? The only feminism people I know seem to talk about is the corporate feminism.

        I’ve had corporate executives go and on about how much they believe in empowering women to explain how great and enlightened they are. Of course, it was all phony. However, it then gets integrated into various PR campaigns along with professional ‘feminists’ to promote loving working for big corporations as the greatest ideal. I suppose #metoo has exposed some of the hypocrisy behind a lot of it. Still, it is hard for me to think feminism outside the context of promoting corporate ideology.

        I suppose it probably plays into divide and conquer tactics in some respects. Executives are able to rally women to go after men they dislike under the pretext of ‘feminism’. Then, I suppose they can accuse the women they dislike of being radical feminists or such. I suppose other things like racism and anti-semitism are also used, similarly.

        • This is spot on. See, we still desperately need a lot of what the feminist movement offers– the election of a president who bragged about sexual assault shows us how far we are from where we ought to be– but, as you noted, corporate feminism and political correctness are essentially divide-and-conquer schemes.

          The point of PC is to take something good and necessary (anti-racism, anti-sexism) and turn it into the toxic emotional leftism– the “go after his job” lynch mobs that pop up whenever someone says something stupid once– of social justice warriors. Eighty-five percent of people could be convinced easily of moderate leftism and of the necessity, even now, to oppose racism and sexism… but the corporate system seems almost designed to convert sensible leftists into polarizing SJWs who care more about offense-taking as performance art than actually solving these problems.

        • I think feminism means something different in USA than Europe, As in Europe it only means fighting abuse and subjugation of women. Such as women didn’t have as many rights and were less represented in their own country. It wasn’t until recently women had the right to not be raped by her husband. In USA it seems to be men who hate women, who spend their time searching out examples of idiots who talk nonsense to say all women who fight against abuse are like that. Funny how they spend to much time online whinging against women, filling comment sections no matter what the subject as an excuse to whine on against feminists and saying what women should want, but no woman finds an abusive misogynist who feels threatened by women who have rights against them to be a turn on

    • if women boycotted corporate life, this would potentially put more pressure on the system. Feminist thought seems to oppose that.


      Female choice is very powerful.

      If women CHOSE different types of men to associate with and date, etc. they could change society for the better in an instant. But what we see is that most are more interested in preserving the old way and gaining more power for themselves under that broken system.

  10. I think I have worked out what feminism means now, and why so many men are on the internet whining on about women. I think European Women just wanted the respect and rights they already had before the Romans started bringing the old testament to Europe. Feminism originally just meant to not abuse women with slavery and abuse. Even though Europe turned Christian, most of north Europe kept their Pagan culture and only really followed the new testament. Then USA vulgarised the idea of what feminism is, from being against abuse of women, to where misogynists spend their time online finding examples of idiots talking nonsense, to say that’s why women should be mistreated. Men and women in the USA dislike each other. They aren’t western society, while they follow the middle east way of non medical circumcism on baby boys who grow up trying to take out their issues on women, because women don’t like whiny Woody Allen Incel types, and prefer hero gentlemen

  11. I find quite funny that you say you wouldn’t restore race and gender roles in the 1950s, in the same paragraph where you romanticize about the 1950s job market.
    Does the irony not dawn on you?

    Do you not see the relationship between job availability and the the social context of the time?

    A good chunk of the black population did not have access to the workforce, in the aftermath of Jim Crow laws. Most women were also not part of the workforce back then.

    Furthermore, a lot of the people that remained did not have access to education. So it’s not surprising that well-educated white men had their pick when it came to good jobs. It was a time of inequality indeed.

    Later on, when all these groups entered the workforce, together with a larger and larger population of immigrants, the supply of good / great jobs could not keep up with the demand.

    It’s disappointing that you don’t see this and keep blaming the 0.1% or whomever. The state of the US is a consequence of globalization and a more egalitarian society.

    Sure, some have lost a lot of their priviledge, but others got access to lives they could only dream of.

    • The mistreatment of blacks and women was a loss to society. Yes, it gave white men a *relative* advantage. However, it also made the country poorer.

      Productivity, per capita, has only gone up. There isn’t a fixed amount of work to go around. Although sudden increases in labor availability can take wages, the gradual extension of civil liberties only made the US, and the world, richer.

      If globalization were inherently bad, or if the more egalitarian society were the reason most people are getting poorer, then we’d see a productivity drop in the US. The pool of total new wealth would be growing less than the labor force. That’s not what we’re seeing, though. The country has got richer, but all of the gains have gone to the top.

      • We are not contradicting each other here.

        Yes, the number of jobs has gone up and yes productivity has gone up and also yes, the US is richer.

        But job growth in the US did not keep up with demand growth. Productivity growth in the US did not keep up with productivity growth in developing countries. And the US is richer than before, but not relative to the rest of the world.

        What I’m saying is that this wealth is now distributed across more people. So it’s no wonder the educated white male of the 50s no longer “lands” into executive positions. As a self-proclaimed socialist, you should be glad. And stop complaining about how capitalism failed because getting a glamorous job is not as easy as 60 years ago.

        • > So it’s no wonder the educated white male of the 50s no longer “lands” into executive positions. As a self-proclaimed socialist, you should be glad. And stop complaining about how capitalism failed because getting a glamorous job is not as easy as 60 years ago.

          I suppose this debate depends on one’s objective function.

          If one defines a good job by the ability to tell people what to do, that’s zero sum, because for every person who has authority over 10 people, there are 10 people who don’t have authority over themselves. So, yeah, it’s a good thing when such jobs disappear or become rarer. If that’s what “executive position” or “glamorous job” means, then it’s a good thing for the world that those are going away.

          On the other hand, if one defines having a good job as having control over one’s time, freedom from needless stress, the absence of onerous work demands, and high compensation, there’s no reason those can’t be a lot more common than they are. They’ve become rare because the rich are stealing too much of the resources, and squeezing everyone else. This can be fixed.

  12. I’m sorry, but this is silly:

    ” These men are blaming women for something that patriarchy did to them. Women didn’t create the Hollywood narrative under which only young sex counts (quite opposite from the truth) and a man is a loser if a virgin at 25. Women didn’t crash the job market. Women didn’t drive up college tuitions. Patriarchy– and about 90 percent of the people running it are men– did that.”

    So, the women who in lockstep enforce patriarchal notions of masculinity get a free pass? Keep in mind, many of these same women will demand all of the freedom from traditional gender roles that feminism affords them while at the same time ruthlessly (yes, I mean exactly that) keeping men locked in their traditional roles by capitalizing on their status as sex objects (and willfully stepping into that role)?

    As has been shown and documented time and again, in the dating (and by short extensions social) world, women are (1) extremely racist, (2) extremely focused on traditional male gender roles, i.e. such as height, appearance, status, etc. and (3) primarily focused on physical appearance.

    At what point can we start pointing the finger at women?

    Incels blame women for what WOMEN have done to them: exclude and shame them for failing to live up to a masculine ideal and insulate themselves from any reproach via rhetoric that comes from feminism and ‘female empowerment.’

    And it’s not even just incels.

    The men women like do not seem to like women that much.
    The men women do not like do not seem to like women that much.
    Women do not even seem to like other women that much.

    At what point can we say that we need to start focusing on the behavior of women?

    Feminism does not mean that women get a free pass for trying to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. deploying feminist rhetoric when advantageous for them and relying on the patriarchy when it serves them.

  13. Hate to break it to you. This could be the aftermath of Roe v Wade. Aproximately 600,000 abortions a year, 50% females, peaking into the 90″s. It would help to have bigger populations.
    Women civilize men and when there are not enough women to create households, men do what men do. Society pays the price.

  14. Pingback: Incel Out | Technology as Nature

  15. There was never a golden age when jobs were easy to find and careers could be grown indoors like orchids. The same evil stuff that goes on now went on in 1930 and 1960 and 1980. I read your list of how awful the workplace has become, and I hear myself when I was a young man, in the 1970’s. The has been no great change in the awfulness of work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s