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.
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.
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.