So I was reading an article about incels written by some dude, a self-proclaimed 24yo virgin feminist (J F L). As you can imagine he quickly dismisses "incel theories", such as restoring the patriarchy to ensure a more equal sexual market, as absurd.
Anyway, he then proceeds to admit how his sexlessness "has affected my life in the past and still does" and how reluctant he was to hit on foids "because I was already sure of rejection".
More interestingly, he also states how tired he is of incels analysis coming from "happily married male feminist philosophers" let alone seeing "glorified libertarian male figures who always brag about their sexual conquest" that represents "the repetition of a strong hierarchy between Alpha people and Beta people [...] marking a fundamental difference between themselves and the others, between winners and losers".
His solution to this? More feminism to dismantle the cult of machismo and toxic manliness (yes, the poor bastard is coping hard). Despite that, fellow feminists weren't too happy about the article in the comments. You could sense how annoyed they were at him for implying that sexlessness isn't exclusive to Women-hatingUnwashedBasement-dwelling incels, but could also affect bona fide feminists. There were also two other reasons, although not outspoken, why they were upset:
- Suggesting that, despite sexual looseness pushed by feminists, when it comes to sex there's still a strong inequality "between Alpha and Beta [...] between winners and losers"
- Degrading a noble cause like feminism by associating it with something earthly and mundane like young men's sexual struggle, as it was some kind of blasphemy. As a religion, feminism has its dogmas that can't be questioned.
Today we are in a transitional period from a patriarchal society to a gynocentric one, so you can clearly appreciate both faces of feminism and its hypocrisy: the one that claims the urge to destroy the unequal world of yore but also the other that strongly stigmatize any attempt to highlight the inequalities of modern society.
Just like religion pushed people to accept wealth inequalities on Earth in exchange for a greater reward in Heaven ("The Last Shall Be First"), feminism also dismisses one's woe for his sexlessness as a collateral damage for a greater end (gender equality, meaning foid supremacy) who simply needs to be accepted, lest he be targeted as a women-hating psychopath or reminded of his "male privilege", which are the modern version of an excommunication
Anyway, he then proceeds to admit how his sexlessness "has affected my life in the past and still does" and how reluctant he was to hit on foids "because I was already sure of rejection".
More interestingly, he also states how tired he is of incels analysis coming from "happily married male feminist philosophers" let alone seeing "glorified libertarian male figures who always brag about their sexual conquest" that represents "the repetition of a strong hierarchy between Alpha people and Beta people [...] marking a fundamental difference between themselves and the others, between winners and losers".
His solution to this? More feminism to dismantle the cult of machismo and toxic manliness (yes, the poor bastard is coping hard). Despite that, fellow feminists weren't too happy about the article in the comments. You could sense how annoyed they were at him for implying that sexlessness isn't exclusive to Women-hatingUnwashedBasement-dwelling incels, but could also affect bona fide feminists. There were also two other reasons, although not outspoken, why they were upset:
- Suggesting that, despite sexual looseness pushed by feminists, when it comes to sex there's still a strong inequality "between Alpha and Beta [...] between winners and losers"
- Degrading a noble cause like feminism by associating it with something earthly and mundane like young men's sexual struggle, as it was some kind of blasphemy. As a religion, feminism has its dogmas that can't be questioned.
Today we are in a transitional period from a patriarchal society to a gynocentric one, so you can clearly appreciate both faces of feminism and its hypocrisy: the one that claims the urge to destroy the unequal world of yore but also the other that strongly stigmatize any attempt to highlight the inequalities of modern society.
Just like religion pushed people to accept wealth inequalities on Earth in exchange for a greater reward in Heaven ("The Last Shall Be First"), feminism also dismisses one's woe for his sexlessness as a collateral damage for a greater end (gender equality, meaning foid supremacy) who simply needs to be accepted, lest he be targeted as a women-hating psychopath or reminded of his "male privilege", which are the modern version of an excommunication
