IMO this just comes across as Feminist tailism. Are incels (as in the original definition of incels, not Tate adjacent men) failed by the patriarchy? Yes. Is it correct to still reject them, keep them away due to the danger they pose? Also yes. To any degree to which incels have ever organized with each other as communities of men who are frustrated with being denied their slice of the pie, they’re a reactionary force and opposing them has been the right move.
Incels represent a crack in the reality of Patriarchy. They are a reactionary departure from its logic. In rejecting the project of claiming women, abusing them, and upholding their place as men, they negate patriarchy, yet they are far from a progressive splinter since they still define themselves in the shadow of what they actually expect masculine self actualization to mean, doing those exact same things. The negation of the negation of the original incel is the current incel, the Tate adjacent types, that actually come back to hegemonic masculinity with redoubled force, the “sigma males” who are even more antisocial than the prototypical patriarchs the original incel failed to become.
If the feminist movement attracted incels through its promise of abolishing the patriarchy, they would have to abandon the label and radicalize their view of gender. It’s on them to catch up; slowing down and trying to make space for them inside feminism is putting the cart before the horse.
Did you actually read the article here, or just the headline/first couple lines?
The actual conclusion presented by it, honestly doesn’t seem that distinct from your own.
long quote
The current violent incel communities frame themselves as despised sons, who have been denied the fruits of patriarchy. And anti-incels…frame incels as despised sons, who have been denied the fruits of patriarchy. Incels think they’ve been treated unfairly and anti incels think they’ve been treated fairly. But that’s a cosmetic difference. The core agreement is that men who aren’t racking up points in patriarchy by dating women are failing as men.
That core agreement is false. The problem with incels is that they are violent misogynists who have created an identity around violent misogyny. The problem with incels is not that they have failed as men.
Because, contra patriarchy, there is no way to fail at being a man. There are lots of ways of being a man, and none of them leave you being more or less of a man. You can fail at being a good person by trying to be patriarchy’s idea of a man—but that’s a significantly different issue.
I did read the whole article and found the conclusion to be pretty decent, but I wrote my comment because it didn’t sit right with me that the article never explicitly rejected the idea that feminism needs to carve out space for incels now.
It’s kind of sickening me that people on this forum will quote bell hooks in favor of forcibly carving out spaces for potential mass murderers in metaphorically-crowded theaters tbh. The more what you said about “not rejecting the idea” rattles around my brain the more it’s sticking out to me
“The devil can cite scripture to his own purpose”, but theoretical instead of theological
Take out the weaponised socialist rhetoric from a lot of comments in this thread and it boils down to:
“If you don’t let incels into women’s spaces and tolerate our irrational misogyny/victim complex then you’re actually the bigot” like they’re the biggest victims on the planet 🤣
Letting people who built their identity (and still cling to it clearly) around hating and blaming women into women’s spaces. How could that go wrong?
But incels will always race any other group or minority to the bottom because they don’t have the self awareness to realise they need to self crit and grow the fuck up 🤷♀️
Yeah I mean I guess people just have that Christian redemption/forgiveness itch that makes for a good story and feels nice, but is atrocious when you try to apply it as a tactical approach in a political movement. For every incel the left can gain by going back and pandering to them, it loses a dozen women or enby folks. Those guys can join the left if some good smaritan helps them deal with their own issues but it’s so wild to land at the conclusion that it’s somehow feminists’ responsibility to put themselves in danger with them.
For every incel the left can gain by going back and pandering to them, it loses a dozen women or enby folks.
That’s literally happened cos of this thread.
Plenty of people are beaten down by society, only a small group of misogynistic men who felt entitled to a woman by birth congregated to that ideology.
Society failed them and they still chose to despise women for it. That was their personal choice. Not radicalisation.
Even now they clearly see us as objects still.
And then they think it’s normal to apologise for it and call themselves the victims of “grooming” and how we need to understand them?
No lmao, they hated women and blamed us, then an ideology that legitimised their irrational misogynistic hated of women appeared and they jumped on it and now they’re remorseful cos they’re justifiably despised and lonley as a result. Fuck around find out. Boohoo cry for me I don’t fucking care.
They chose to cling to something that legitimised them. Something that has been ruining women’s lives since day 1 and potentially traumatised an entire generation (not single women i know isnt worried about being killed by an incel or something that spawned off it) and now they want us to give them a chance?! Hahahahahahahaha
Maybe they should do some self crit but that’s asking way too much of people who are addicted to feeling sorry for themselves and playing the victim.
Lmao next hexbear be strugglin’ over whether we should let men who assaulted women into the gang cos they “were victims of radicalisation” (oh wait we are).
In rejecting the project of claiming women, abusing them, and upholding their place as men, they negate patriarchy
Do they actually reject these things? My impression is they yearn for those things but have convinced themselve it’s not for them (in a I am not one of god’s chosen sort of sense).
IMO this just comes across as Feminist tailism. Are incels (as in the original definition of incels, not Tate adjacent men) failed by the patriarchy? Yes. Is it correct to still reject them, keep them away due to the danger they pose? Also yes. To any degree to which incels have ever organized with each other as communities of men who are frustrated with being denied their slice of the pie, they’re a reactionary force and opposing them has been the right move.
Incels represent a crack in the reality of Patriarchy. They are a reactionary departure from its logic. In rejecting the project of claiming women, abusing them, and upholding their place as men, they negate patriarchy, yet they are far from a progressive splinter since they still define themselves in the shadow of what they actually expect masculine self actualization to mean, doing those exact same things. The negation of the negation of the original incel is the current incel, the Tate adjacent types, that actually come back to hegemonic masculinity with redoubled force, the “sigma males” who are even more antisocial than the prototypical patriarchs the original incel failed to become.
If the feminist movement attracted incels through its promise of abolishing the patriarchy, they would have to abandon the label and radicalize their view of gender. It’s on them to catch up; slowing down and trying to make space for them inside feminism is putting the cart before the horse.
Did you actually read the article here, or just the headline/first couple lines?
The actual conclusion presented by it, honestly doesn’t seem that distinct from your own.
long quote
I did read the whole article and found the conclusion to be pretty decent, but I wrote my comment because it didn’t sit right with me that the article never explicitly rejected the idea that feminism needs to carve out space for incels now.
It’s kind of sickening me that people on this forum will quote bell hooks in favor of forcibly carving out spaces for potential mass murderers in metaphorically-crowded theaters tbh. The more what you said about “not rejecting the idea” rattles around my brain the more it’s sticking out to me
“The devil can cite scripture to his own purpose”, but theoretical instead of theological
Take out the weaponised socialist rhetoric from a lot of comments in this thread and it boils down to:
“If you don’t let incels into women’s spaces and tolerate our irrational misogyny/victim complex then you’re actually the bigot”
like they’re the biggest victims on the planet 🤣
Letting people who built their identity (and still cling to it clearly) around hating and blaming women into women’s spaces. How could that go wrong?
But incels will always race any other group or minority to the bottom because they don’t have the self awareness to realise they need to self crit and grow the fuck up 🤷♀️
Yeah I mean I guess people just have that Christian redemption/forgiveness itch that makes for a good story and feels nice, but is atrocious when you try to apply it as a tactical approach in a political movement. For every incel the left can gain by going back and pandering to them, it loses a dozen women or enby folks. Those guys can join the left if some good smaritan helps them deal with their own issues but it’s so wild to land at the conclusion that it’s somehow feminists’ responsibility to put themselves in danger with them.
That’s literally happened cos of this thread.
Plenty of people are beaten down by society, only a small group of misogynistic men who felt entitled to a woman by birth congregated to that ideology.
Society failed them and they still chose to despise women for it. That was their personal choice. Not radicalisation.
Even now they clearly see us as objects still.
And then they think it’s normal to apologise for it and call themselves the victims of “grooming” and how we need to understand them?
No lmao, they hated women and blamed us, then an ideology that legitimised their irrational misogynistic hated of women appeared and they jumped on it and now they’re remorseful cos they’re justifiably despised and lonley as a result. Fuck around find out. Boohoo cry for me I don’t fucking care.
They chose to cling to something that legitimised them. Something that has been ruining women’s lives since day 1 and potentially traumatised an entire generation (not single women i know isnt worried about being killed by an incel or something that spawned off it) and now they want us to give them a chance?! Hahahahahahahaha
Maybe they should do some self crit but that’s asking way too much of people who are addicted to feeling sorry for themselves and playing the victim.
Lmao next hexbear be strugglin’ over whether we should let men who assaulted women into the gang cos they “were victims of radicalisation” (oh wait we are).
Do they actually reject these things? My impression is they yearn for those things but have convinced themselve it’s not for them (in a I am not one of god’s chosen sort of sense).
They don’t reject them as goals worth pursuing in general, but generally have given up hope of ever achieving them for themselves.