May 19, 2019

"It is a horrible thing to feel unwanted—invisible, inadequate, ineligible for the things that any person might hope for."

"It is also entirely possible to process a difficult social position with generosity and grace... These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad. Our newest sex technologies, such as Tinder and Grindr, are built to carefully match people by looks above all else. Sexual value continues to accrue to abled over disabled, cis over trans, thin over fat, tall over short, white over nonwhite, rich over poor. There is an absurd mismatch in the way that straight men and women are taught to respond to these circumstances.... Men, like women, blame women if they feel undesirable. And, as women gain the economic and cultural power that allows them to be choosy about their partners, men have generated ideas about self-improvement that are sometimes inextricable from violent rage.... In the past few years, a subset of straight men calling themselves 'incels' have constructed a violent political ideology around the injustice of young, beautiful women refusing to have sex with them.... Incel culture advises men to 'looksmaxx' or 'statusmaxx'—to improve their appearance, to make more money—in a way that presumes that women are not potential partners or worthy objects of possible affection but inconveniently sentient bodies that must be claimed through cold strategy. (They assume that men who treat women more respectfully are 'white-knighting,' putting on a mockable façade of chivalry.)"

"The Rage of the Incels/Incels aren’t really looking for sex. They’re looking for absolute male supremacy" by Jia Tolentino (in The New Yorker).

91 comments:

rhhardin said...

Inside: Men even worse that previously thought.

mikee said...

"I once had to wait nearly four weeks before a girl I wanted would let me have her."
"And you felt a strong emotion in consequence?"
"Horrible!"

Brave New World
Chapter 3

MadisonMan said...

New Yorker reports that people are shallow.

rhhardin said...

Waste not, want not.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

these gals are getting testy!
at least she didnt say men colonized dating.

rhhardin said...

Nobody loves me, nobody cares (bluegrass)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgXau_-b-I

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

...just looking for absolute male supremacy

alanc709 said...

It takes either a fool or a very courageous man to initiate a relationship with a woman in our current environment. Did the MeToo women think there would be no consequence to their constant vilification of men? Funny how that karma's a "bitch".

Craig said...

men have generated ideas about self-improvement that are sometimes inextricable from violent rage

Bullshit. Equating ideas and speech with violence is what allows them to justify censorship. We must push back against this dangerous line of thinking.

Automatic_Wing said...

It's outrageous that there are guys out there improving their appearances and making more money. Something must be done!

rcocean said...

"They assume that men who treat women more respectfully are 'white-knighting,' putting on a mockable façade of chivalry.)"

False "White Knights" treat women with EXAGGERATED respect, and indiscriminately feel the need to protect and Champion ANY woman, not just their relatives or friends. They usually come in three main varieties. Old Boomer male chauvinists who think we men have look after " the little ladies" who are just harmless cuties. Idiots who think every woman is just like their daughter, wife or sister. And pathetic losers who think if they rush off to protect a woman, they will somehow get sex or some brownie points for it.

That's why they are mocked. Its not 1819 - its 2019.

rhhardin said...

Taken (2008) Taken II (2012) and Taken 3 (2014) show that no matter how much damsel rescuing you do, you don't get laid.

My name goes here. said...

Aristotle Onassis could not be reached for comment.

rcocean said...

BTW, I wouldn't trust the New Yorker to accurately report on anything. Everything they do is political - and if the subject is "Left" they whitewash and "Push It". And if its right, they attack and demean it.

If they ever objectively report on anyone, its by accident.

Lewis Wetzel said...

I am tired of having my traditional and appropriately male heterosexual spaces colonized by feminists & LGBTQ assholes.

Lewis Wetzel said...

rhhardin said...

Taken (2008) Taken II (2012) and Taken 3 (2014) show that no matter how much damsel rescuing you do, you don't get laid.

5/19/19, 9:15 PM

In one of the Taken movies, Liam Neeson advises his kidnapped daughter to throw hand grenades randomly off of a building top in the middle of a city so he can find her by following the noise.
My God was that funny.

tim maguire said...

Automatic_Wing said...It's outrageous that there are guys out there improving their appearances and making more money. Something must be done!

Fortunately, there are journalists out there willing to complain about it for a dollar a word.

narciso said...

Same for a good day to die hard, (2008) luc besson has a red sparrow type auctioneer next month, anna.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MikeR said...

Article about men concerned that women are merciless, insensitive, and cruel. Article is by a woman, and is merciless, insensitive, and cruel.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"... throw hand grenades randomly off of a building top in the middle of a city so he can find her by following the noise."

maybe that is what Jia Tolentino is doing, metaphorically, to garner attention

Sebastian said...

Wait, beta male losers want absolute male supremacy?

"in a way that presumes that women are not potential partners or worthy objects of possible affection but inconveniently sentient bodies that must be claimed through cold strategy"

Wait, women don't care about looks and status?

bleh said...

“And, as women gain the economic and cultural power that allows them to be choosy about their partners ...”

Lmao what? And right after claiming Tinder “carefully matches” people? Make no mistake, women are less able to be choosy now about who they sleep with. Sex is cheap and is a baseline offering.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Crazy harkens to crazy. It isn't surprising that The New Yorker is fascinated by these dudes.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Something tells me that a cultural custom of men who don't want children coupling with women who don't want children will not last for generations.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Incels:
Hateable Men, and the Women Who Hate Them

actually, at the end of her piece, she claims: "In spite of everything, women are still more willing to look for humanity in the incels than they are in us."

buwaya said...

There are still much healthier cultures in this world.
For a great many Americans I think the best advice is to leave, if they can.
There really is true life and true families to be had out there.

Just do not bring these mind viruses out of the US.

Lewis Wetzel said...

At least it takes some courage to admit that modernity has not solved the problem of unequal sexual power. When I read an article like this I start with the assumption that it's foundation is poorly established. When reading this article, for example, I find the first linked statement "Men, like women, blame women if they feel undesirable." The link is a dead link to a twitter post. The next linked statement, "These men often subscribe to notions of white supremacy." goes an NYMAg article by a freelance essayist named David Futrelle.
So we aren't talking rigorously grounded argument, here. It should be read as entertainment, more of an op-ed than a serious discussion of a social issue.

Otto said...

Tag this “female kvetching “. A lot of recent AA posts fall under this tag. Whole lotta kvetching going on .

Michael K said...

Just do not bring these mind viruses out of the US.

Or out of NY and LA. Keep them in blue states and cities ,lest they escape into normal territory

DavidUW said...

Summary: losers frustrated chicks dig winners.

SGT Ted said...

“And, as women gain the economic and cultural power that allows them to be choosy about their partners ...”

That unleashes their innate hypergamy. Of which, the author appears to be spectacularly unaware of.

Yancey Ward said...

Is The Handmaid's Tale descending on us again?

0_0 said...

rcocean- no, only your 3rd example is whiteknighting. The first two are chivalry

When someone figures out a female's Facebook ID, sends mock messages to her friends, and posts photos from her albums, there is always at least one person who will alert the victim. This person is mocked,, as they are assumed to hope the victim will start up a personal relationship with the person out of gratitude.

This is the origin of online whiteknighting.

doctrev said...

Sadly, it's increasingly common that magazines continue to destroy the arguments they put forth, WITHIN the article itself. If white able-bodied men are that desirable, then surely incels would be a minority movement, and the New Yorker would enthusiastically back them?

My lack of surprise at America's defeat in Iraq continues. The USA in general, and the media in particular, can't even address radicalism at home- and the incel movement is such a feeder to the alt-right that they'd be stupid not to see it as radicalization. How on earth could they ever address radicalism in a foreign ethnic and religious context?

tim maguire said...

As usual, both sides suck.

Narcissistic rage is not attractive. But “incel” is a fake, made-up movement. I know there are men who are angry and dejected because the cheerleader wouldn’t sleep with them, but the only reason we think it’s some new and dangerous thing is that social media lets them talk to each other (a qualified good thing) and journalists think they can get clicks by pretending they are some kind of new and growing threat (an unqualified bad thing).

lgv said...

The incel ideology has already inspired the murders of at least sixteen people.

Being legally able to own guns is what caused these murders, so I've been told.

If what incels wanted was sex, they might, for instance, value sex workers and wish to legalize sex work. But incels, being violent misogynists, often express extreme disgust at the idea of “whores.”

While some incels may express disgust, I would like to know what percentage of hooker clientele are incels. I'm guessing it is high and despite not liking the idea of whores, it is the largest market share of the whore market.

Incel culture advises men to “looksmaxx” or “statusmaxx”—to improve their appearance, to make more money—in a way that presumes that women are not potential partners or worthy objects of possible affection but inconveniently sentient bodies that must be claimed through cold strategy.

They do it because it works, or else there would be no market for it. That's what a lot of women want. You never see an attractive female with an older guy who is poor.

Tommy Duncan said...

Lewis Wetzel said: "It should be read as entertainment..."

Like "The Three Stooges Go To Mars"?

whitney said...

This is BS. Women have a tendency to go for the best man and now the they can sleep with whoever they want, one hot guy out of 20 average or below guys is getting a lot of action the other 19 aren't getting any. And if any of the 19 hit on the women they are told that they are creepy and sometimes they even call their bosses or the police. The unintended consequence of feminism is it creates polygamy.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Tommy Duncan said...

Lewis Wetzel said: "It should be read as entertainment..."

Like "The Three Stooges Go To Mars"?

Maybe Mars Wants Women?

Temujin said...

What the hell is it with New Yorkers and what they spend their time thinking about? Or, to put it another way: Whatever happened to New York? Would you look at them to lead this country in anything these days?


FIDO said...

Althouse is usually right on the button calling out logical phallussies (sic) but as she is very down on sex, somehow her Crewl Newtrality™ wasn’t triggered.

To wit:

1). Author chides people for being so ‘picky’ as to not prefer tranny, disabled poor loser POC over better fare.

2). It then acknowledged that Women rejected in the sexual marketplace ALSO feel hurt.

When the MEN got hurt, they supposedly formed a terrifying political union to abuse women by...um...trying to be better looking and more successful while resentful at women

But not a moment is spent on what political reaction WOMEN engaged in when they realized they were the sexual losers in the ‘Free Love’ culture.

We know what that movement is called.

3) The ‘hyperefficient’ sexual marketplace acknowledges that women are now able to be even more picky.

Would an Althouse have settled down with a Meade when he was not the best guy in the few thousand she knew but one man in a MILLION she had legitimate access to?

The dating statistical situation has vastly changed and women have become both more visual and shallow...but men resenting this is somehow scary evil.

(Roll eyes). Sure. Men upset at not getting a girl is a story literally as old as Gilgamesh.

The only difference is that social media lets the MEN to start forming the same social networks that women have long enjoyed and the ability for men to ‘listen in’ on girl talk.

So when some woman admits to going on dates merely to cadge meals, men pay attention. When women are openly and vastly ambivalent on romantic gestures and efforts, we hear that too.

Some morally flexible beautiful women will profit greatly from the ‘incel’ movement. The rest of the women...not so much.

At the end of the day, this is an article which is scared a) at losing the weapon of chivalry against men and b) women losing ‘female privilege’,

This is society breaking stuff here! And yet women just poked their fingers in and mucked about without a care in the world until the social ‘check engine’ light came on...and the male mechanics are all too busy to fix it for them.

I am glad Althouse shared this myopic unreflective bit of drivel for us.

Robert Cook said...

Incels are just big fucking crybabies taken to the point of emotional illness.

MayBee said...

tim maguire said...
As usual, both sides suck.

Narcissistic rage is not attractive. But “incel” is a fake, made-up movement. I know there are men who are angry and dejected because the cheerleader wouldn’t sleep with them, but the only reason we think it’s some new and dangerous thing is that social media lets them talk to each other (a qualified good thing) and journalists think they can get clicks by pretending they are some kind of new and growing threat (an unqualified bad thing).


This this this for a million different issues, this.

Robert Cook said...

"BTW, I wouldn't trust the New Yorker to accurately report on anything. Everything they do is political - and if the subject is 'Left' they whitewash and 'Push It.' And if its right, they attack and demean it."

Said, I'd bet, by someone who never reads the New Yorker.

Robert Cook said...

"Wait, women don't care about looks and status?"

Most do, some don't. It's true in the animal kingdom, as well: females have to be sure their offspring will carry good traits, and will be protected/provided for. (Males care about attractive women because "good looks" indicate the female is healthy and will bear healthy children.) It's all about reproduction and survival of the species. Individuals are insignificant.

MayBee said...

Eliot Rodger was mentally ill, not just emotionally ill.
Perhaps an interesting study would be, how does today's out and open sex morality affect people who are mentally ill? Or why do we just expect men to be able to handle their feelings of being sexually unappealing well, like men? What would we do with a similar group of women who feel sexually unwanted? We'd probably make a Dove commercial featuring them.

I would also add Eliot Rodger killed more men than women, and stabbed his Chinese roommates hundreds of times. Women are not interested in the Chinese men who were killed that night (actually the night before) because perhaps selective women would not have chosen to mate with them, either.

dbp said...

Attractive women can be choosy. Why would they choose otherwise than attractive and successful men?

Regular men: I guess I should get in shape, excel in my work and learn how to dress, then maybe I'd have a chance with an attractive woman.

Reporter woman: I have a convoluted theory which does three things: It ignores the simple logical strategy guys will figure out and it somehow absolves women from any responsibility for this situation and blames men.

MayBee said...

"It is also entirely possible to process a difficult social position with generosity and grace.

I mean, the men could put on pussy hats and march on the streets of major cities. That's generosity and grace, I suppose.

Roger Sweeny said...

Some frustrated men want to dominate women. Some frustrated feminists hate men. That doesn't make it true of all men or all feminists.

I am getting really tired of hate masquerading as analysis.

Fernandinande said...

Small groups of weird people use reddit!

Google "looksmaxx" and the first result (of only 70) was from a "femcel", so:

In the past few years, a subset of straight women calling themselves 'femcels' have constructed a violent political ideology around the injustice of young, wealthy men refusing to have sex with them.... Femcel culture advises women to 'looksmaxx'.

chuck said...

I'm too old to care about the raging seas as progressivism sinks beneath the waves of contradiction. Perhaps The New Yorker should publish other entertaining fictions for its readers.

Roger Sweeny said...

The bluegrass cited by rhhardin is wonderful. A different way or dealing with the fact that Nobody loves me, nobody cares. "When I die, I'll go up yonder. Someone [Jesus/God] will love me, someone will care".

Lewis Wetzel said...

So lemme get this straight.
Before feminism, beautiful girls would throw themselves at overweight, sloppy guys with job and no money?
Is there an actual point to being an incel? What is the end goal? Shoot pretty girls and handsome guys? So they go to prison & spend the rest of their life with ugly, brutal men?

Saint Croix said...

It takes either a fool or a very courageous man to initiate a relationship with a woman

That's almost a country song.

SGT Ted said...

One of the grossly dishonest thing this writer does is to conflate incels with those who use "Game" to attract women and bed them. Incels are that precisely because they don't have "game" to attract women.

"Game" is merely an applied analysis of what triggers womens unconscious sexual responses to a man that displays all the right biological mating cues. Women like the author are resentful and frightened that certain men have figured out the mechanics of how to effectively seduce a woman without necessarily possessing the actual traits that trigger the biological responses.

Nevermind that women have figured out what to do and how to seduce men for thousands of years and have magazine racks full of periodicals with articles on precisely how to do so sold in grocery stores. That men are now discussing how to do this with women openly cannot be tolerated, as it entirely destroys the idea of "Feminine Mystique" that has been carefully cultivated.

So, they use typical female shaming language directed at these men; Incel, misogynist, creep, etc. The usual raft of hate speech directed at men that women have designated too lowly or ugly to fuck.

SGT Ted said...

"Is there an actual point to being an incel?"

Openly displaying a mental illness appears to be primary.

FIDO said...

Before feminism, beautiful girls would throw themselves at overweight, sloppy guys with job and no money?
Is there an actual point to being an incel? What is the end goal? Shoot pretty girls and handsome guys? So they go to prison & spend the rest of their life with ugly, brutal men?



In Laura Ingall's day, she lived in a town of about 400 people and she had to choose between creepy black haired kid, idiot bully, a couple of boring but hard working farmers or hope a stranger rolled into town (Manley) or a 'good catch' like the shop owner died so she could cozen a good match with someone.

What is that, 12 guys to choose from? Which is why girls dressed so pretty at the fair: to have a wider selection than the 12 guys she actually grew up with and knew ALL their manifest flaws.


Althouse probably went to a high school that had 400 people in it. She went to a University which had maybe 10,000 people in it, half girls. My high school and university were about that size.

How many people do you actually know from work? A few hundred? MAYBE a thousand?

So statistically, unless a woman was in the top tier, by status, money, or looks, who generally hooked up with the top tier men in status, money or looks, an Althouse would have to pick from 500 men to marry on average. And not all of them were cut, gorgeous or rich. In fact, NONE of them had those statistics (at least until she went into the law profession).


But then again, the boys had the same selection limitations.


So yes, some fat guys got women prettier than 'they deserved' whatever that means.

But now, a woman can garner attention by just wearing tight and low cut outfits on Instagram to garner COPIOUS attention from men (instead of doing it only in high school by wearing miniskirts).

So the 'Althouse' or Laura Ingalls of today can Tinder up almost every man in a 50 mile radius easily. In my city, that is about a million men to choose from.


So, math. One million men. Call it 40% married, so 600,000. Half of these men are 'below a five', so we are down to 300,000. Racial identity is a thing so 40% are disqualified 'for reasons because I am not a racist', and so it is 180,000 men.

Hmm...minus 5% because they are a bit 'light in the loafers', 171,000.


(If women want to apply economic metrics, that self sabotage is all on them)

That is far above the 12-500 people that women before social media had to choose from and the market has adjusted accordingly.


So statistics are a killer here.

FIDO said...

"What woman wouldn't rather be the second wife of JFK instead of first wife to Bozo the Clown?" Some Feminist I am not looking up.

Rae said...

Remember, gender is a social construct.

Caligula said...

What's changed is that many women have decided that having the occasional and shared attention of high quality men is better than having the exclusive attention of a lower-quality man. And where these lower-quality men might once have captured the interest of at least some less attractive women, now even these women can be choosier (long as their 'relationship' is limited to respondin to occasional booty calls). And so, the death of even serial monogamy may well leave little if any female attention available for many less attractive straight men.

And, indeed, the less attention these men get the less confident they become, thus causing them to become even less attractive (e.g., Matthew 25:29).

No doubt some of these always-rejected men do become enraged while others sink into a profound depression and still others find better solutions, such as improving themselves and/or finding other ways to have a good life.

Yet somehow I doubt that mocking these losers, or calling for more social controls on them, is going to make anyone more secure (or even more protected against the unwanted advances of these unattractive men).

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"Incel culture advises men to 'looksmaxx' or 'statusmaxx'—to improve their appearance, to make more money"

When women do things to improve themselves, they hear a chorus of "You go, girl!" When men do it, it's somehow misogynistic, creepy, and pathological.

Martin said...

If one were to have a debate on the proposition that "Readers of 'The New Yorker' are idiots," this article would clinch it for the affirmative.

Gospace said...

whitney said...
This is BS. Women have a tendency to go for the best man and now the they can sleep with whoever they want, one hot guy out of 20 average or below guys is getting a lot of action the other 19 aren't getting any. And if any of the 19 hit on the women they are told that they are creepy and sometimes they even call their bosses or the police. The unintended consequence of feminism is it creates polygamy.


Not really. Polygamy, like monogamy, is a more or less permanent relationship. The so called "alpha males" getting the women for most part aren't establishing any kind of relationships. They're using the women, period, while the women they're using delude themselves into thinking they'll be the one who captivates and keeps him. If you leave the incel community and read the manosphere blogs you'll see something entirely different.

There have always been "incels", or in pre-internet terms, losers around. Pre-internet, they couldn't find each other and were simply losers. Now they organize- but to what purpose? They're still losers in life.

Not all women, not all men, play the game in this manner. Somehow or other there are young men and women meeting, getting married, having kids, and raising families, even as popular culture says that's degrading to women. But there are women intelligent enough to realize that 10 or 20 women throwing themselves at Mr. Right or Mr. Perfect in the hope that one of them will catch him will leave 9 or 19 of them unhappy, if not all of them. Even 41 years ago meeting a potential mate was hit or miss. I met my wife more or less through pure random chance. Asked her to dance- she said yes.

Fen said...

Wierd how so many women suddenly find me interesting once they learn I'm slated to inherit $45 million in the next 10 years.

The wife just laughs. She didn't know before she married me.

PM said...

Been married to the same woman for 35 years. First thing I ever said to her: "You have the best ass at this party." She laughed.

Bruce Hayden said...

I was going to quote something from above, then saw something better... So just going to wing it.

In the past there was pressure on women to acquire a semi permanent mate, a husband. Much of this was because the survival of her children went up significantly if she had a guy going out hunting for her and their kids. And his incentive was that those were his kids. Thus, over am extended period of time, monogamy was born, or maybe more accurately the tendency was somewhat genetically selected. Darwin at work. And probably later social pressure, most I think by the women, grew up pushing in that same direction. Older women didn’t like younger women poaching their men, because that meant that they might be set aside for them when they got older and lost their bloom. Perfect solution was roughly one each, each man gets a woman, and each woman gets a man, dedicated to each other to raise their shared kids together.

A lot of factors have in the last half century or so intruded to disturb that balance. Medical advances have freed women from having to spend their fertile years to replace themselves genetically. Socialism, in the form of welfare, has freed women from starving, along with their children, if they don’t have a man in the house providing for them (because they are his kids too). Birth control (including abortion) have freed women from the threat of pregnancy outside wedlock if they screw around too. Ever wonder why women tend to be more progressive than men? Much of it, I think, is that it allows them to appropriate the fruits of male labor, without being tied in any way to the men they appropriated those fruits from.

In the past, we would somewhat self sort, with 10s pair up with 10s, 6s with 6s, and 3s with 3s, with the 1s and 2s mostly left out. Interestingly, experimentally, this has been shown to happen automatically, with any group of roughly even numbers of both sexes. But, with low consequence sex for women, and the ability to easily hook up through modern technology, we find maybe 9 and 10 guys sleeping with bunches of maybe 5-10 gals, and 7-8 guys sleeping with fewer maybe 4-7 gals. Less desirable guys then get little access to sex. The only people happy here are to most desirable guys, though the next rung down may be getting more than their fair share.

One big problem for women is that most of them really do want to mate with a guy on a more permanent, or at least much less temporary, basis. What the feminists don’t tell them is that every different guy they sleep with reduces a bit their desirability as a permanent mate. Just male nature, wired through millennia of worrying about the paternity of the kids that they are helping raise. We just instinctively know that the more guys a woman has slept with, the more likely it is that she will sleep with another guy during marriage, and reduce the assurance of paternity that marriage is supposed to bring.

loudogblog said...

"a violent political ideology"? I think that they're just complaining that they don't have women to have sex with. Some of them might blame women, but I suspect that most of them know the true reason. They're, ultimately, the ones who are responsible for not being sexually satisfied in their lives. And whining about it will only make things worse. But some people really like to just sit there and complain. It's almost like pity has become a substitute for intimacy for them and they crave it.

Bruce Hayden said...

I guess I get overwrought here on occasion. I know guys in their 60s who are physically fit, multimillionaires, who would have made good husbands, and would have been married off in a previous generation, but for luck, they didn’t really date after their 20s. And I see more and more women of my generation, and even the next, without husbands, and wanting them desperately as they face old age. Talked to one of the guys today about his taxes. They probably support several women and their children on welfare. Children fathered by men who mostly don’t bother paying for the raising of their children, often by multiple women. This is, in my mind, immoral.

I look back and say, there, except for luck, I might well have been. I got lucky in college. Freshman year, I was seduced by a more experienced woman (whom, last I knew, had never married), and sophomore year met a woman that I ended up living with until graduation. And somehow the confidence that came from that helped me with other women, and now have been with a 10 for the last 20 years (elected homecoming queen, and turned it down, etc). One of these guys headed down a similar path, seriously dating a woman his sophomore year, only to be dropped for a fraternity brother of his with a nice trust fund. His next serious girlfriend screwed several of his friends while they were living together. And nothing serious since then in maybe 40 years. Nice guy, top physical shape, multimillionaire, and he is happy to live alone with his cat or two. Would have made a good husband and father. No interest, of course, anymore. I think that it was almost completely about confidence around women, and knowing that for the most part they are more insecure than we are (with some exceptions, such as my partner). And, as I said, it is in many cases just blind luck. I got lucky, and he didn’t.

PM said...

Not sure of their problem but recommend adding in Jin San sex dolls to portfolio.

FIDO said...

If these men are so undesirable, and women won't date them anyway, than what is the problem except that once in a LONG while, one of them loses his shit and kills a woman? It is exceedingly rare, but, of course, anything bad happening to a woman ever is not to be borne!

Men die in much larger numbers and no one gives a shit.

So I am not getting cranked up about the incel community.

Bruce Hayden said...

Continuing my tirade, there are makers and takers in life, and in particular, in a country this size. The makers create wealth, and the takers consume it. Democratic socialism means that the takers can bond together and take the wealth of those creating it for their own use. But we find ourselves in a situation now where a large percentage of the male population is essentially working their lives, mostly without the aphrodisiac of sex, to support the women who do have sex with guys who don’t bother to support the kids that they help create. The women raising their kids on welfare, and the guys not supporting the raising of their own kids are the takers. In terms of the intel situation, what we have are guys working their lives to support the genetic legacy of guys who are screwing the women, instead of working to support the resulting children, while leaving the incels without any genetic legacy.

There have always been some men who failed to produce a genetic legacy, and it turns out, quite a few more men than women in that category. But the mismatch was not significant until fairly recently in history. This makes for an unstable situation, with the more guys not having sex, and not reproducing, esp compared to the female ratio, the more unstable it becomes. And keep in mind, we are talking genetic legacy here, the drive for such being one of the most powerful forces in nature. I should add that more and more young males seem to be voting with their feet, forgoing decades of hard work for immediate gratification, realizing that the resources that they create are going to be seized for the indirect benefit of the guys getting much of the sex.

Bruce Hayden said...

“If these men are so undesirable, and women won't date them anyway, than what is the problem except that once in a LONG while, one of them loses his shit and kills a woman? It is exceedingly rare, but, of course, anything bad happening to a woman ever is not to be borne!”

One answer to that is that it means that more and more guys seem to be dropping out of the rat race and spending their lives creating wealth that will be appropriated for the women who won’t sleep with them and their kids.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It is also entirely possible to process a difficult social position with generosity and grace

Hey, isn't that roughly what people said about closeted homosexuals back in, say, the 50's?
An Incel Pride Parade must be just around the corner!

Bilwick said...

"These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad."

You know, because inefficient and hyper-regulated markets make people feel SO good! Like Bernie Sanders. this genius would have loved the Soviet Union at the height of its Bradline Era.

rcocean said...

"What's changed is that many women have decided that having the occasional and shared attention of high quality men is better than having the exclusive attention of a lower-quality man. "

Which means those women weren't worth having in the first place. If a woman is willing to settle for the being the 2nd or 3rd wife of Mr. Rich guy, that's there lookout.

Bilwick said...

"What's changed is that many women have decided that having the occasional and shared attention of high quality men is better than having the exclusive attention of a lower-quality man. "

Gee, I wonder what is the primary characteristic of the "lower-quality" man? Can you guess?

I remember way back at the dawn of the Yuppie Era, a female friend of mine was talking to a couple of us guys when she said something like, "Well, women these days don't see why they should dare a man below them." On further questioning. she clarified that the primary characteristic of being "below" her was not being affluent. This from a woman with lifelong weight problems who always hated what would later be called "lookism."

FIDO said...

There have always been some men who failed to produce a genetic legacy, and it turns out, quite a few more men than women in that category. But the mismatch was not significant until fairly recently in history.


This is not entirely accurate. Large numbers of men have been shot, enslaved, killed by disease, work, or war. The men stuck in a silver mine by the thousands.

The Inca has 10,000 wives/mistresses. That means that there were 9,999 men who did not have a 'match'. Add the 'extras' that all the polygamous societies had and there are millions of men who did not have a mate.

I can't find the study but it was something alarming like 20 to 1 for a man to have had a genetic legacy for longer than a few centuries.

Bilwick said...

I meant "date" a man of lower economic status, not "dare."

Jaq said...

It takes either a fool or a very courageous man to initiate a relationship with a woman

My favorite quote is from a German philosopher whose name I can’t remember who was a friend of Nietzsche.

“Marriage is like reaching into a bag of snakes hoping to pull out an eel."

Jaq said...

I can't find the study but it was something alarming like 20 to 1 for a man to have had a genetic legacy for longer than a few centuries.

Like racehorses. they are all descended from Northern Dancer. OK, I exaggerate.. a little.

Jaq said...

“Gee, I wonder what is the primary characteristic of the "lower-quality" man? Can you guess?”

The vast majority of women are looking for a real man, strong and caring, and they don’t measure it with a ruler, either.

bagoh20 said...

A man without money is like a woman without a vagina. They might as well be the opposite sex.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Bruce Hayden wrote:
One of these guys headed down a similar path, seriously dating a woman his sophomore year, only to be dropped for a fraternity brother of his with a nice trust fund. His next serious girlfriend screwed several of his friends while they were living together. And nothing serious since then in maybe 40 years.

Where are the New Yorker stories that begin with anecdotes about a women screwing over multiple guys (or one guy getting screwed over by multiple women), with sympathy for his plight offered, and the blame being put on all women everywhere. The matriarchy must be destroyed!
I've had a standard life for a working guy my age. All my girlfriends, live in or otherwise, made less money than I did. I picked up most of the bills. I fixed cars, did all the household maintenance, sometimes for two households. I'm not bitter, I wasn't used. It was a mutually agreed upon arrangement, and when we parted, there were (and are) no hard feelings.
When I married, my wife made about half my income. We used my savings, acquired before we married, to buy a house. Because I have a decent job, she was able to retire at 58 and devote herself to her passion, which was feeding the hungry. When we bought her a new car (my car was fifteen years old) She was ecstatic. She had never owned a new car before. My wife was diagnosed with cancer a year and a half ago and died a few months later. Those were the hardest months of my life, watching her slowly die while I could do nothing to stop it. Great insurance, loads of money in the bank, but nothing stops metastatic cancer. I loved her and she loved me.
And when I turn on the television or pick up a magazine, it's smart girlfriends and dumb boyfriends, angelic, responsible wives and oafish husbands who can't work the TV remote. I've had it. You have earned my enmity, elite culture (and our media culture is manufactured by the elites). Screw 'em all. They are pathetic weasels who have never lived a real life.

n.n said...

Perhaps the first month, but every month that passes raises a question of emotional and intellectual viability. Women don't want Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent men. The guys need to stop missing the trees for the forest. Stop indulging their ideologically-induced bias for diversity (i.e. color judgment). Deal with any socially liberal orientation and make a commitment. Grow up.

Jaq said...

BTW, Incels *ARE* actually looking for sex. Love too.

Is the New Yorker going to publish a “think piece” on what women are really thinking written by a man that cites other opinion pieces by men as support evidence next? I kid, I kid. Of course not.

libertariansafetyguy said...

Or, it could be that we have multitudes of redundant, hardwired biological process which drive us to propagate the species. Being obsessed with sex is how our species grew. Nature doesn’t have morals and ethics. Nature doesn’t care how we feel. If we’re not fulfilling this need to propagate the species, it makes perfect sense that our brains would trigger all sorts of negative thoughts to get us back to the mission. It also makes sense that men would be triggered to create and build wealth for “security” to attract a mate. For women, think about how you feel during menopause and then realize that for some socially undesirable men, that feeling is their entire life.

Joe said...

My growing theory is that the women who want stability are largely getting it, leaving behind increasingly bitter, shallow women who are very focused on the superficial. As you move down into the late twenties, early thirties, you increasingly find people who believe their are entitled to whatever they desire and are getting very bitter at being denied.

Going up in age, the dating scene has become so impersonal and depressing that men and women who would get along have given up and there is no social replacement. (In other words, despite or because of, the electronic age, meeting people interested in permanency has actually become harder.)

Jaq said...

My growing theory is that the women who want stability are largely getting it, leaving behind increasingly bitter, shallow women who are very focused on the superficial.

That rings true. Women who are content don’t spend their days vocalizing their contentment on the internet.

FIDO said...

It is 'too many options' and 'the grass is always greener'. Also a goo dollop of 'lack of empathy' Maybe lack of intelligence.

To wit: a quote from a panel of women: "For a girl in her twenties, men are like subways at noon. If you miss or jump off one, another will be by in ten minutes. When you hit your mid thirties, men are like a subway at midnight. You are never sure which will be the last one."

This author came from the 'feast' mentality of dating. A twenty year old girl gets a soft approach/flirt about 20 times a day and the only thing keeping her dance card from constantly being full is her own picky standards.

She does not have any conception that for the majority of men, it takes hard work and multiple asks, almost in the hundreds, to get a single date.

So there is little this woman can tell me about either incels or dating.

Roger Sweeny said...

Lewis Wetzel, I'm so sorry. But it sounds like you lived an honorable life. I hope that eases the pain.