These are all gross generalizations but so far as I can tell, mostly true. I haven’t dug too far into the incel community because I don’t have time for that nonsense but I am concerned about the demographic collapse, so I wonder why young people are having fewer children and less sex in general.
Part of it is that women are doing better economically than they used to, compared to men. More women are getting college degrees than men. If they are maintaining a standard that their husbands should be at least as well educated and make as much money, then this decreases their pool of available men. But men with good educations and high paying jobs have always been at a premium.
Some men are simply unmarriagable: high school dropouts with no steady incomes for example. I have three relatives that are ex-cons who don’t really bring much to the table. Not surprisingly, they are unmarried and fatherless - as far as I can tell - and have no prospects. They all have some pretty serious personality defects. They are “incels” but probably would have been in any time. I have another relative who is mentally ill, on disability, but takes his meds and does a good job keeping his mental and physical fitness and is a kind person. He has no problem dating, all single mothers as far as I can tell. He is divorced and has a daughter he is raising by himself. He is not an incel but he brings the minimum to the table: at least enough money to not be a burden and a willingness to do his share and more of the difficult and thankless work of keeping a household and raising children.
Then there is the other kind of “incel”, the kind that has a job and is not an ex-con or mentally ill and complains that women his age won’t lower their standards. Ironically enough, he refuses to lower his standards as well. There are plenty of women who are single moms who would love to date and marry a man who would hold up his end of the relationship. Most of these incels believe that they should be able to marry a woman who is educated (like they are), attractive, and modest. These women are able to be choosy and they will pick men who bring some combination of money, fidelity and willingness to do housework to the relationship. Unfortunately, these men have tended to steer themselves in the “red pill” direction and expect traditional gender roles on their relationships. If you can’t make as much money and are not as educated and expect your wife to do most of the housework, why would a woman want to raise children with you?
There is also the general society wide issue that marrying later is approved of, having fewer children is the norm and it is acceptable to not have children at all. All these issues have a cascading impact, leading to low and declining birth rates.
The declining birth rates also have to do with people just not wanting kids, let's not forget that. As far as both sexes not wanting romantic relationships I think a large part of that is the fun, excitement and dopamine hits that used be supplied by romantic relationships is increasingly being supplied by the internet. That's also why friendships are in decline as well. People are easily entertained online.
I am not so sure about that. I am older, but I have spent a lot of time around young women, and none of them seemed too interested in spending forever on their phone/computer. Furthermore, I have been into PC gaming for the last forty years or so, so I am a wee-bit aware of their appeal. Besides, if the young people were all into dopamine, there would be far more cocaine around.
From what I hear from the female side, too many young men are delusional. They seem to have crawled out of a hole. I was lucky enough to be raised with a loving mother and a not-entirely psychotic father, so luckily I make the cut.
It does appear that the young men are where the problem lies. I am not some hunk. I am old and fat, but I am polite and I can be presentable enough. From what I hear, many men are far from that. It is sad. They were raised by distracted single parents and they fell through the cracks. One can play StarCraft2 all night and still hold a job and and be polite with women. Many of these poor souls never learned that. They listen to that Afro-British rapist/online star who promotes weight lifting, misogyny and some kind of wealth gospel. I can never remember his name, but he lives in Dubai and obtained his fame on British reality television, yet he speaks with an American accent.
Needless to say, these troubled young men can easily hate women, whereas getting a job and getting promoted is truly difficult and requires great effort. The silliness of these young men imagining that they would have done better in an earlier age displays their inability to understand life. In an earlier time they would have been raised to be real men, not the sad, weak neutered beings that they are today.
Every aspect of life for American boys has been turned soft, resulting in pathetic males who lack the will to become men. These young men are the greatest sign of failure of modern American culture. We need to find another way. I increasingly think that we need to reinstitute a universal military draft to turn these poor souls into men.
I lean to thinking the issue is far more with men than women. Men have always been ambiguous about having children/ commitment. They have no biological focal point beyond sex drive. Women on the other hand, even delusional/ideological ones, can never entirely bury their profound drive to reproduce and become mothers
I have never seen any data sets reinforcing what you describe. I have seen data suggesting that many childless women intended on having children but never met the right man. Similarly, many men do want to have children and often cannot find a woman. I am fine with people who choose not to have children. What is a problem is that so many people who want children often are unable to do so, or they thought they did not want children only to regret that decision when to was too late. I have met many people who fall into that category.
This is a real crisis. I do not want to see Korean or Italian culture disappear because of the ridiculous ideologies forced on young people. So long as we have immigration, the US will be fine, but other societies lack that safety mechanism. We have lost too many cultures already. I do not want to see any more fade away.
We waste far too much time assigning fault and not enough time trying to do better. I think a lot of this is class-based, and there may be some issues at play, but I have found two ideas that perhaps play a part. The first was explained to me by a successful African-American executive who is active in his church. He claims that young men are constantly told that they are victims, and they hate so much that they instinctively react with outsized masculinity, with predictable consequences. I have never read anything like that, but when I have shared it with black male friends, they have agreed to a man.
Another suspicion I have is that many young men are raised without male role models while their mother and her friends constantly say that all men are worthless and that all men are terrible. They internalize it and become depressed, self-hating individuals who feel utterly alone in the world. Their early desperation later turns into fear and anxiety until they are permanently trapped in their mother's basement.
The changes that have occurred in elementary education have obviously made life worse for so many boys because so much of it appears to be designed to humiliate and belittle them. In general the US has massively strayed from global best practice in K-8 education. Our finest universities have maintained effective teaching methods, but massive segments of K-12 education have been testing grounds for bizarre, poor-quality experiments in teaching. The worst of it has been dished out tot minority children in urban school districts, usually at the direction of highly-paid education consultants who peddle snake oil. It also does not help that so few elementary school teachers are male. I suspect that more male teachers in schools with high-risk pupils would have an outsized impact, but no school would dare to promote something so terrible and to imply that male students would benefit by being taught by someone like themselves. The grievance studies outlook is pervasive and too many administrators are incapable of accepting that male students could benefit from male teachers.
In general, entire sections of the American educational system along with harmful cultural effects have deeply harmed boys. Their desire to transform these boys into harmless men has created a suicide machine. Pornography and online bullying might reinforce this, but those are only influential in those who are already beaten-down and insecure. Carole Hooven and Christina Hoff Summers have written about different aspects of this.
The results are everywhere from prisons to the massive hole in the labor market. School shootings are an example of what a hopeless young man might do in rage and despair, yet the automatic response tends to focus on absurd policy recommendations like adding guns to our failed War on Drugs. At first I thought the people pushing such nonsense were delusional, but then I was corrected. They are pushing to get funding for their organizations. Rich white ladies love running charities and NGO's. Massive amounts of corporate giving are directed to these organizations so rich white ladies can travel and have fun while pretending to work. My ex-wife was in that world. It is basically legal corruption on behalf of the Washington and New York elite. That is how the US fixed corruption. We legalized it.
In the end, I have no good answers. We can hope that this problem will magically disappear with falling birth rates, but I believe that is a misplaced hope. Those who have tried to reach out to troubled young men (Jordan Peterson comes to mind), for reasons unknown they have been vilified. I have yet to find any article explaining why. Those that clearly hate the man seem incapable of explaining why, outside of lists of anger and unrelated problems. They remind me of old Angela Davis polemics about how the solution to racism is to nationalize the steel industry or cut off all trade with Asian countries. Apparently she had considerable influence on our current president.
I think it's generally under-appreciated what a ginormous social change equality for women has been and how many unintended consequences it's had. That's not to say it was a bad idea; rather, when we collectively decide to undertake a significant social change, we should be aware that we're going to break things and will need to respond with yet more changes. This is the intellectual position that I wish were central to conservatism. Not being anti-change, not being wedded to a fairy-tale past that never really existed, but approaching social change with humility and moderating its pace so the inevitable consequences can be sorted out.
America desperately needs a conservatism that is based on traditional values and is willing to offer appealing alternatives to the often bizarre and extreme stances that the left takes on so many issues. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a MAGA currently that is a modern freak show, with leaders who are men who have fathered children with multiple women, ignoring their family responsibilities and generally glorifying some of the worst impulses in human nature.
Diane isn't like that, which is why she is worth following. I hope for a conservatism that puts families, responsibility, and respect for institutions back on the agenda.
She shows a complete lack of understanding of any of the issues. Not a single person makes th it's all women's fault and men don't improve themselves. We know this because young men are more likely to be physically fit than young women. Also the idea that men that who treat women badly have less success with women is just laughable. Over the last 10 years or so 2/3 of men are now single but the amount of women being mudered by their boyfriends or husbands has barely changed.
Yup, Complete and utter lack of understanding on her part for sure. Frankly, SHe should stick to Race topics. SHe's so far out of her depth on discussions such as this, and it showed.
"Not a single person makes the claim it's all women's fault"
--- Oh there's more than just one single incel claiming that. I don't want to promote them so won't include the links but there are plenty of online spaces that make precisely that claim.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I also feel it is very convenient for you to say you don't want to supply links because you don't want to promote them. You must know the opposing writers didn't put in writing, "men not being able to get women is 100% the female’s fault" . . . You are simply exaggerating a little. That's okay--a lot of what you say is valuable and substantive.
Do you think there's the problem of degree here? For instance, it is incorrect to say that all women only care about male status: tall, rich, handsome, charming, et cetera. But is there a degree of truth in that? Is there not some truth to the notion that many women today are indeed very picky?
One noteworthy recent development is that there seems to be a new kind of dating advice for young men, that is, the "how to get a second date" mode of analysis. Dating advice about how to approach women is not new, and dating advice about to manage a relationship is ancient ("what do I do when my wife has a dispute with my favorite slave?" is probably in the Code of Hammurabi). But dating advice about all the reasons you didn't get a *second* date despite being nice (you were too nice!) and presentable (you were overdressed!) and confident (you were borderline arrogant!) really seems to be new. Maybe this suggests that to some extent women are exceptionally picky these days?
"it is incorrect to say that all women only care about male status: tall, rich, handsome, charming, et cetera. "
--- There is absolutely nothing wrong in being attracted to handsome men and wanting them for partners. Is it wrong for men to be attracted to beautiful women and desiring a beautiful partner? As far as "rich" - rich people are a minority. Smart women hope to get with men who can at least support themselves well and can at least contribute his part in a 50/50 relationship. Women who are not using their smarts get with men who can't even do that and end up in a bad spot. As far as "rich" men - there are so few of them on our planet that even finding an upper-middle class man (by USA standards) who can afford for his wife to stay home during pregnancy and their child's babyhood is not common. As women risk their lives to carry and give birth to children, it is only natural for them to think longterm about resources and financial security.
"Is there not some truth to the notion that many women today are indeed very picky?"
--- In the past it was women's parents who were picky for them. The term "hypergamy" was invented by the British rulers in India when they saw how parents were arranging their daughters' marriages.
Today smart women are picky and those not using their smarts to be picky (a lot of them) end up regretting it.
I disagree with the premise at the end that states "Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether redpill generalizations about women are true or not.". If these generalizations are true, they have some rather massive implications. The truth is never about being happy.
I’ve always thought incels are so stupid as pathetic juvenile men. Who in their right mind would want to go near any of them?
If you literally reverse everything they think and say you just about end up with a sane, rational person who maybe you might want to have sex with. They are ugly outside and most definitely inside.
They completely embody every accusation is a confession.
It’s their insane and cruel misogyny at the heart of their juvenile objectification that is truly disgusting.
from a market perspective incels are ineffective. they are trying to convince the people with power (women, the sexual supply) to just give something to them, and through entirely unpleasant means, trying to convince women they are unhappy, immoral, stupid, threatening them with vision of an terrible future.
and the women can just stand there and laugh and ignore them because they arent lacking for buyers, should they even want to sell. if it ever comes to pass they regret certain choices, and the demand for them becomes low, and they lower their market value well so be it, apparently not enough are suffering now to shift the overall power dynamic.
men must compete and rise above to bring enough value to entice this supply. the women have the upper hand in the negotiation as long as they care less, which they definitely seem to about sex.
hey. cool article, i really liked it. one thing i wanted to comment on (not that it was requested) was this bit here:
They hate birth control and abortions because these remove the consequences of women having sex as casually as men do.
as a guy, i don't think it's good how casually men are able to have sex. so i think there's room here to apply the casual sex is not a great thing to both sexes, not a 'i resent women for attempting to have as much casual sex as much'.
You're quite confused. More women are having casual sex than men. CLose to 2/3 of men have been celibate for at least 3 months. For women, this number is Less than half. You let her convince you with the mumbo jumbo
"CLose to 2/3 of men have been celibate for at least 3 months."
--- At least 3 months? 3 months to 1 year is a short time to be celibate. I would even say 5 years is. Why be so sex obsessed? Good for them for being celibate. Whether celibacy is voluntary or involuntary, it's still a good thing. In the past, and in some cultures even today, incels could become volcels by joining ashrams, monasteries, convents, etc.
Those choses are still available. Failing that why not take the time to work on oneself, develop a spiritual practice, strengthen your bond with other men. create community with them, and live your best life?
ur telling me men dont participate in a sizeable percentage of casual sex ? 🤔 also im a 27 year old man i have my own personal experience with the gender
THat's exactly what I'm telling you. less than a third of single men 18-34 are sexually active, but more than half of all women are. THat should tell you everything you need to know about the current relationship dynamic
"THat's exactly what I'm telling you. less than a third of single men 18-34 are sexually active, "
--- Are you expecting single men to be sexually active?
Anyway, celibacy is good for us and 18-34 is the prime age range for working on ourselves, building our careers and creating the life we want. Celibacy, whether voluntary or involuntary, frees up our time and energy to allow for that.
This isn't an argument. You didn't address anything. You said "Nuh uh" and ran away like a small grade school child when faced with something they don't like. Do better, you're a grown ass man.
No one wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves "I want to be an incel" any more than they think to themselves "I want to be an alcoholic / drug addict."
You can hate the responses and behavior of these guys, but don't blame them for suffering the societal conditions that put them there in the first place.
Drug addicts are addicted to a substance, they are physically sick due to their addiction to a physical drug their body needs.
Hating women is a sickness of the mind, a choice, no one made the incels hate women. They chose it, for what ever twisted reasons they care to make up for themselves.
Hating more than half the human population is just idiocy on a grand scale.
Everyone of us came from a woman. We all are part female in the wrestle to become male or female in utero hence all men have nipples.
All incels have to take a very hard, deep and long, long, long look at themselves as they are the problem here, not women or the rest of the world.
I think some of the comments have went off at a tangent a little, the post is about identifying incels, not relationship dynamics. Most of the categories Diane mentions could be used as a means of identification if a person displayed several of these characteristics. The last one I disagree with slightly. I don’t think feminism is an issue, but I think some people correctly have an issue with extreme feminism. In many ways this extreme feminism is the female equivalence of inceldom when men are being incorrectly blamed for all their problems and would be a red flag to any self-respecting man.
I don't know that women have to be warned to stay away from incels. Incels typically don't have much interaction with women in the first place and in the event they do, women aren't going to be drawn toward them. This being said I think celibacy is good for many people and incel men should create real life bonds of brotherhood with other incels and create their own communes where they can live together, grow food, sterward the land, become one with nature and all that.
Not originally pejorative. The term was invented over a decade ago by a woman writer to refer to herself because she couldn't get a date. Recently it's been appropriated by men to refer to themselves. It's become an online "community" of sorts. Sometimes not a very healthy one.
--- Just a single date is not it. I worded it wrong, assuming context on your part where there is none.
"Ever hear of the internet? They could get any thing they want anytime they wanted it."
--- No, we can't get whatever we want anytime we want it from the net. Sex work can be purchased from the net but most incels don't want to pay for sex, they want sex in the context of mutual attraction, desire, connection and relationship.
These are all gross generalizations but so far as I can tell, mostly true. I haven’t dug too far into the incel community because I don’t have time for that nonsense but I am concerned about the demographic collapse, so I wonder why young people are having fewer children and less sex in general.
Part of it is that women are doing better economically than they used to, compared to men. More women are getting college degrees than men. If they are maintaining a standard that their husbands should be at least as well educated and make as much money, then this decreases their pool of available men. But men with good educations and high paying jobs have always been at a premium.
Some men are simply unmarriagable: high school dropouts with no steady incomes for example. I have three relatives that are ex-cons who don’t really bring much to the table. Not surprisingly, they are unmarried and fatherless - as far as I can tell - and have no prospects. They all have some pretty serious personality defects. They are “incels” but probably would have been in any time. I have another relative who is mentally ill, on disability, but takes his meds and does a good job keeping his mental and physical fitness and is a kind person. He has no problem dating, all single mothers as far as I can tell. He is divorced and has a daughter he is raising by himself. He is not an incel but he brings the minimum to the table: at least enough money to not be a burden and a willingness to do his share and more of the difficult and thankless work of keeping a household and raising children.
Then there is the other kind of “incel”, the kind that has a job and is not an ex-con or mentally ill and complains that women his age won’t lower their standards. Ironically enough, he refuses to lower his standards as well. There are plenty of women who are single moms who would love to date and marry a man who would hold up his end of the relationship. Most of these incels believe that they should be able to marry a woman who is educated (like they are), attractive, and modest. These women are able to be choosy and they will pick men who bring some combination of money, fidelity and willingness to do housework to the relationship. Unfortunately, these men have tended to steer themselves in the “red pill” direction and expect traditional gender roles on their relationships. If you can’t make as much money and are not as educated and expect your wife to do most of the housework, why would a woman want to raise children with you?
There is also the general society wide issue that marrying later is approved of, having fewer children is the norm and it is acceptable to not have children at all. All these issues have a cascading impact, leading to low and declining birth rates.
The declining birth rates also have to do with people just not wanting kids, let's not forget that. As far as both sexes not wanting romantic relationships I think a large part of that is the fun, excitement and dopamine hits that used be supplied by romantic relationships is increasingly being supplied by the internet. That's also why friendships are in decline as well. People are easily entertained online.
I am not so sure about that. I am older, but I have spent a lot of time around young women, and none of them seemed too interested in spending forever on their phone/computer. Furthermore, I have been into PC gaming for the last forty years or so, so I am a wee-bit aware of their appeal. Besides, if the young people were all into dopamine, there would be far more cocaine around.
From what I hear from the female side, too many young men are delusional. They seem to have crawled out of a hole. I was lucky enough to be raised with a loving mother and a not-entirely psychotic father, so luckily I make the cut.
It does appear that the young men are where the problem lies. I am not some hunk. I am old and fat, but I am polite and I can be presentable enough. From what I hear, many men are far from that. It is sad. They were raised by distracted single parents and they fell through the cracks. One can play StarCraft2 all night and still hold a job and and be polite with women. Many of these poor souls never learned that. They listen to that Afro-British rapist/online star who promotes weight lifting, misogyny and some kind of wealth gospel. I can never remember his name, but he lives in Dubai and obtained his fame on British reality television, yet he speaks with an American accent.
Needless to say, these troubled young men can easily hate women, whereas getting a job and getting promoted is truly difficult and requires great effort. The silliness of these young men imagining that they would have done better in an earlier age displays their inability to understand life. In an earlier time they would have been raised to be real men, not the sad, weak neutered beings that they are today.
Every aspect of life for American boys has been turned soft, resulting in pathetic males who lack the will to become men. These young men are the greatest sign of failure of modern American culture. We need to find another way. I increasingly think that we need to reinstitute a universal military draft to turn these poor souls into men.
I lean to thinking the issue is far more with men than women. Men have always been ambiguous about having children/ commitment. They have no biological focal point beyond sex drive. Women on the other hand, even delusional/ideological ones, can never entirely bury their profound drive to reproduce and become mothers
I have never seen any data sets reinforcing what you describe. I have seen data suggesting that many childless women intended on having children but never met the right man. Similarly, many men do want to have children and often cannot find a woman. I am fine with people who choose not to have children. What is a problem is that so many people who want children often are unable to do so, or they thought they did not want children only to regret that decision when to was too late. I have met many people who fall into that category.
This is a real crisis. I do not want to see Korean or Italian culture disappear because of the ridiculous ideologies forced on young people. So long as we have immigration, the US will be fine, but other societies lack that safety mechanism. We have lost too many cultures already. I do not want to see any more fade away.
"In an earlier time they would have been raised to be real men, not the sad, weak neutered beings that they are today."
So whose fault is that?
We waste far too much time assigning fault and not enough time trying to do better. I think a lot of this is class-based, and there may be some issues at play, but I have found two ideas that perhaps play a part. The first was explained to me by a successful African-American executive who is active in his church. He claims that young men are constantly told that they are victims, and they hate so much that they instinctively react with outsized masculinity, with predictable consequences. I have never read anything like that, but when I have shared it with black male friends, they have agreed to a man.
Another suspicion I have is that many young men are raised without male role models while their mother and her friends constantly say that all men are worthless and that all men are terrible. They internalize it and become depressed, self-hating individuals who feel utterly alone in the world. Their early desperation later turns into fear and anxiety until they are permanently trapped in their mother's basement.
The changes that have occurred in elementary education have obviously made life worse for so many boys because so much of it appears to be designed to humiliate and belittle them. In general the US has massively strayed from global best practice in K-8 education. Our finest universities have maintained effective teaching methods, but massive segments of K-12 education have been testing grounds for bizarre, poor-quality experiments in teaching. The worst of it has been dished out tot minority children in urban school districts, usually at the direction of highly-paid education consultants who peddle snake oil. It also does not help that so few elementary school teachers are male. I suspect that more male teachers in schools with high-risk pupils would have an outsized impact, but no school would dare to promote something so terrible and to imply that male students would benefit by being taught by someone like themselves. The grievance studies outlook is pervasive and too many administrators are incapable of accepting that male students could benefit from male teachers.
In general, entire sections of the American educational system along with harmful cultural effects have deeply harmed boys. Their desire to transform these boys into harmless men has created a suicide machine. Pornography and online bullying might reinforce this, but those are only influential in those who are already beaten-down and insecure. Carole Hooven and Christina Hoff Summers have written about different aspects of this.
The results are everywhere from prisons to the massive hole in the labor market. School shootings are an example of what a hopeless young man might do in rage and despair, yet the automatic response tends to focus on absurd policy recommendations like adding guns to our failed War on Drugs. At first I thought the people pushing such nonsense were delusional, but then I was corrected. They are pushing to get funding for their organizations. Rich white ladies love running charities and NGO's. Massive amounts of corporate giving are directed to these organizations so rich white ladies can travel and have fun while pretending to work. My ex-wife was in that world. It is basically legal corruption on behalf of the Washington and New York elite. That is how the US fixed corruption. We legalized it.
In the end, I have no good answers. We can hope that this problem will magically disappear with falling birth rates, but I believe that is a misplaced hope. Those who have tried to reach out to troubled young men (Jordan Peterson comes to mind), for reasons unknown they have been vilified. I have yet to find any article explaining why. Those that clearly hate the man seem incapable of explaining why, outside of lists of anger and unrelated problems. They remind me of old Angela Davis polemics about how the solution to racism is to nationalize the steel industry or cut off all trade with Asian countries. Apparently she had considerable influence on our current president.
I think it's generally under-appreciated what a ginormous social change equality for women has been and how many unintended consequences it's had. That's not to say it was a bad idea; rather, when we collectively decide to undertake a significant social change, we should be aware that we're going to break things and will need to respond with yet more changes. This is the intellectual position that I wish were central to conservatism. Not being anti-change, not being wedded to a fairy-tale past that never really existed, but approaching social change with humility and moderating its pace so the inevitable consequences can be sorted out.
America desperately needs a conservatism that is based on traditional values and is willing to offer appealing alternatives to the often bizarre and extreme stances that the left takes on so many issues. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a MAGA currently that is a modern freak show, with leaders who are men who have fathered children with multiple women, ignoring their family responsibilities and generally glorifying some of the worst impulses in human nature.
Diane isn't like that, which is why she is worth following. I hope for a conservatism that puts families, responsibility, and respect for institutions back on the agenda.
She shows a complete lack of understanding of any of the issues. Not a single person makes th it's all women's fault and men don't improve themselves. We know this because young men are more likely to be physically fit than young women. Also the idea that men that who treat women badly have less success with women is just laughable. Over the last 10 years or so 2/3 of men are now single but the amount of women being mudered by their boyfriends or husbands has barely changed.
Yup, Complete and utter lack of understanding on her part for sure. Frankly, SHe should stick to Race topics. SHe's so far out of her depth on discussions such as this, and it showed.
"Not a single person makes the claim it's all women's fault"
--- Oh there's more than just one single incel claiming that. I don't want to promote them so won't include the links but there are plenty of online spaces that make precisely that claim.
Who is saying men not being able to get women is 100% the female’s fault?
It's all over the internet. I won't supply links because I don't want to promote those spaces but they are easy to find.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I also feel it is very convenient for you to say you don't want to supply links because you don't want to promote them. You must know the opposing writers didn't put in writing, "men not being able to get women is 100% the female’s fault" . . . You are simply exaggerating a little. That's okay--a lot of what you say is valuable and substantive.
Do you think there's the problem of degree here? For instance, it is incorrect to say that all women only care about male status: tall, rich, handsome, charming, et cetera. But is there a degree of truth in that? Is there not some truth to the notion that many women today are indeed very picky?
One noteworthy recent development is that there seems to be a new kind of dating advice for young men, that is, the "how to get a second date" mode of analysis. Dating advice about how to approach women is not new, and dating advice about to manage a relationship is ancient ("what do I do when my wife has a dispute with my favorite slave?" is probably in the Code of Hammurabi). But dating advice about all the reasons you didn't get a *second* date despite being nice (you were too nice!) and presentable (you were overdressed!) and confident (you were borderline arrogant!) really seems to be new. Maybe this suggests that to some extent women are exceptionally picky these days?
"it is incorrect to say that all women only care about male status: tall, rich, handsome, charming, et cetera. "
--- There is absolutely nothing wrong in being attracted to handsome men and wanting them for partners. Is it wrong for men to be attracted to beautiful women and desiring a beautiful partner? As far as "rich" - rich people are a minority. Smart women hope to get with men who can at least support themselves well and can at least contribute his part in a 50/50 relationship. Women who are not using their smarts get with men who can't even do that and end up in a bad spot. As far as "rich" men - there are so few of them on our planet that even finding an upper-middle class man (by USA standards) who can afford for his wife to stay home during pregnancy and their child's babyhood is not common. As women risk their lives to carry and give birth to children, it is only natural for them to think longterm about resources and financial security.
"Is there not some truth to the notion that many women today are indeed very picky?"
--- In the past it was women's parents who were picky for them. The term "hypergamy" was invented by the British rulers in India when they saw how parents were arranging their daughters' marriages.
Today smart women are picky and those not using their smarts to be picky (a lot of them) end up regretting it.
I disagree with the premise at the end that states "Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether redpill generalizations about women are true or not.". If these generalizations are true, they have some rather massive implications. The truth is never about being happy.
I’ve always thought incels are so stupid as pathetic juvenile men. Who in their right mind would want to go near any of them?
If you literally reverse everything they think and say you just about end up with a sane, rational person who maybe you might want to have sex with. They are ugly outside and most definitely inside.
They completely embody every accusation is a confession.
It’s their insane and cruel misogyny at the heart of their juvenile objectification that is truly disgusting.
Big issues these frothing online incels.
from a market perspective incels are ineffective. they are trying to convince the people with power (women, the sexual supply) to just give something to them, and through entirely unpleasant means, trying to convince women they are unhappy, immoral, stupid, threatening them with vision of an terrible future.
and the women can just stand there and laugh and ignore them because they arent lacking for buyers, should they even want to sell. if it ever comes to pass they regret certain choices, and the demand for them becomes low, and they lower their market value well so be it, apparently not enough are suffering now to shift the overall power dynamic.
men must compete and rise above to bring enough value to entice this supply. the women have the upper hand in the negotiation as long as they care less, which they definitely seem to about sex.
She cracked the code
hey. cool article, i really liked it. one thing i wanted to comment on (not that it was requested) was this bit here:
They hate birth control and abortions because these remove the consequences of women having sex as casually as men do.
as a guy, i don't think it's good how casually men are able to have sex. so i think there's room here to apply the casual sex is not a great thing to both sexes, not a 'i resent women for attempting to have as much casual sex as much'.
Great read though, enjoying the content.
You're quite confused. More women are having casual sex than men. CLose to 2/3 of men have been celibate for at least 3 months. For women, this number is Less than half. You let her convince you with the mumbo jumbo
"CLose to 2/3 of men have been celibate for at least 3 months."
--- At least 3 months? 3 months to 1 year is a short time to be celibate. I would even say 5 years is. Why be so sex obsessed? Good for them for being celibate. Whether celibacy is voluntary or involuntary, it's still a good thing. In the past, and in some cultures even today, incels could become volcels by joining ashrams, monasteries, convents, etc.
Those choses are still available. Failing that why not take the time to work on oneself, develop a spiritual practice, strengthen your bond with other men. create community with them, and live your best life?
This comment was written by a woman with no concept of dating dynamics.
If celibacy is so laudable, why aren't you encouraging mre women to practice it? Y'know, the 80% that are all sexually active with the 20-30% of men?
Both men and women would do well to practice celibacy. And there's always self-pleasure if one can't hack it longterm. Win/Win.
ur telling me men dont participate in a sizeable percentage of casual sex ? 🤔 also im a 27 year old man i have my own personal experience with the gender
THat's exactly what I'm telling you. less than a third of single men 18-34 are sexually active, but more than half of all women are. THat should tell you everything you need to know about the current relationship dynamic
"THat's exactly what I'm telling you. less than a third of single men 18-34 are sexually active, "
--- Are you expecting single men to be sexually active?
Anyway, celibacy is good for us and 18-34 is the prime age range for working on ourselves, building our careers and creating the life we want. Celibacy, whether voluntary or involuntary, frees up our time and energy to allow for that.
W.D. That is literally just wrong. Please, do a little research from sources that are ridiculously biased before you start spouting nonsense.
arent*
This isn't an argument. You didn't address anything. You said "Nuh uh" and ran away like a small grade school child when faced with something they don't like. Do better, you're a grown ass man.
This is retarded
I agree. Seems like incels project the way they objectify women onto women. A theory of mind error.
No one wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves "I want to be an incel" any more than they think to themselves "I want to be an alcoholic / drug addict."
You can hate the responses and behavior of these guys, but don't blame them for suffering the societal conditions that put them there in the first place.
Your comments are problematic.
Drug addicts are addicted to a substance, they are physically sick due to their addiction to a physical drug their body needs.
Hating women is a sickness of the mind, a choice, no one made the incels hate women. They chose it, for what ever twisted reasons they care to make up for themselves.
Hating more than half the human population is just idiocy on a grand scale.
Everyone of us came from a woman. We all are part female in the wrestle to become male or female in utero hence all men have nipples.
All incels have to take a very hard, deep and long, long, long look at themselves as they are the problem here, not women or the rest of the world.
Pathetic. Wake up.
I think some of the comments have went off at a tangent a little, the post is about identifying incels, not relationship dynamics. Most of the categories Diane mentions could be used as a means of identification if a person displayed several of these characteristics. The last one I disagree with slightly. I don’t think feminism is an issue, but I think some people correctly have an issue with extreme feminism. In many ways this extreme feminism is the female equivalence of inceldom when men are being incorrectly blamed for all their problems and would be a red flag to any self-respecting man.
I don't know that women have to be warned to stay away from incels. Incels typically don't have much interaction with women in the first place and in the event they do, women aren't going to be drawn toward them. This being said I think celibacy is good for many people and incel men should create real life bonds of brotherhood with other incels and create their own communes where they can live together, grow food, sterward the land, become one with nature and all that.
Diane Yap for President
Not originally pejorative. The term was invented over a decade ago by a woman writer to refer to herself because she couldn't get a date. Recently it's been appropriated by men to refer to themselves. It's become an online "community" of sorts. Sometimes not a very healthy one.
"Anyone who can’t get a date is sorely mistaken"
--- Just a single date is not it. I worded it wrong, assuming context on your part where there is none.
"Ever hear of the internet? They could get any thing they want anytime they wanted it."
--- No, we can't get whatever we want anytime we want it from the net. Sex work can be purchased from the net but most incels don't want to pay for sex, they want sex in the context of mutual attraction, desire, connection and relationship.
"Involuntary celibate is really voluntary. "
--- For some, certainly.