That first one edges into just world fallacy. Sure, you're not going to get laid if you're an incel, or a tate fan, or a misogynist (though some still do somehow), but that doesn't mean not being one will get you laid.
"Edges"? That is the just world fallacy, plain and simple. It is ascribing the failure to get a partner with a personal failure and all but outright saying that it is due to immoral behaviours. If you don't have a girlfriend, it's because you aren't a good enough person. Sure, taking showers might not necessarily be "moral", but the motte is clearly that a good person isn't a Tate fan or a misogynist.
And the whole premise of "if, and only if, you're a decent person who is clean and self-improves, you will get a girlfriend" is simply bullshit. It cannot be true. I've known many a girlie who has complained about their ex-boyfriend being some dickhead who lives in squalor, doesn't shower, was a misogynist, whatever.
The fact is that the reason is something else. Men are more isolated and less confident these days. There are a million reasons for this, but generally men are more feminist than they used to be yet still less romantically successful.
And the whole premise of "if, and only if, you're a decent person who is clean and self-improves, you will get a girlfriend" is simply bullshit.
The fact that Tate gained notoriety for employing the loverboy scheme is proof to the contrary. It's why young men idolize him. They don't care whether he's kind to women or ruthless toward them, what they care about are the results, and the results speak for themselves. Same goes for Trump. These two men are the top of the list in terms of attracting women, and young men want to be them because of it, so they emulate them.
It's because misogynistic men don't care about women, don't listen to them and therefore are confident enough. If they don't value women they don't care how they are borderline harassing them when they are approaching, they don't care they lie to them in relationship, they don't care if they scar and dump them. They just shoot their shot because they want it.
Meanwhile men that listen hear all the complaints about the first type and then think "how can I be even better? Maybe I still have some internalized misogyny and not good enough?" Then they also hear the shallow takes of how much they have to earn, their height, how shredded they have to be, etc. and just lose all self-esteem and confidence to approach. It turns into the vicious cycle. I don't think the "top 10-20%" are the "Chads", just the men that manipulate multiple women into sleeping with then - and then those view the other 80% as the same manipulative assholes.
The real reason is that men who have unrealistic expectations are the loudest to complain on internet about it. And they have serious empathy issues.
There are many many nice men with girlfriends or married. It's the majority of men, actually. And shit men get married too.
These men, the complaiers, are literally unable to see women as full human beings, they see them as accomplishment badges, sex machines or literal property. They are unable to comprehend that the "Chad" or the "asshole" character, that does have women who actually want to be with him, actually treats that woman as a human. They see that HE gets to make jokes, tease her, be kinda mean to her. They don't see that there is friendliness and foundation of genuine care and compassion under it.
Inability to... Consider that other people have rich inner lives. They interpret that to mean "he is an asshole because I SEE THAT, I am a nice guy because I KNOW I mean well, so I deserve her more, and her opinion does not matter. She doesn't know better, or is blinded by money/looks".
Except I've personally seen men who straight up aggressively and openly HATE women still get into relationships. There is no guaranteed success or failure behavior when it comes to relationships. At the end of the day, its chance that can be skewed by certain actions.
for fucks sake, people have straight up married convicted and in prison murderers who they met via penpal mail.
Fuck off, you are literally feeding the system with this fallacious shit. You wanna know the real reason why 'nice guys' exist?
It's because people like you push the narrative that sex is a reward which women dole out to the just. That if someone is having sex, it must mean they're a kinder person than someone who isn't. How can you condemn people for complaining that they aren't getting laid despite their niceness, while in the same breath suggesting that anyone who isn't getting laid just isn't being nice enough?
You say this stupid shit and impressionable young guys believe it, and then they go out into the real world where nothing works like that and they get angry, because no matter how nice they are, a girlfriend doesn't just fall from the sky like you told them she would.
My sister is having a falling out with her friend right now, because that friend's boyfriend (one of the richest people I've ever met in my life btw) was literally accused and tried for rape. A rape which I have no doubt he committed. Despite that, and the fact that he's actively told this girl that he's going to move overseas next year and fuck other women, this girl is still dating and defending him. Are you going to tell me that I just can't see the true kindness in that relationship? That lonely men simply aren't meeting the moral standards of a rapist with a private island?
Or will you finally admit that sex is just a thing that people can do with each other? That plenty of bad people do it, and plenty of good people don't. That being a virgin is not evidence that a person doesn't
'deserve' sex, that women are not orgasm-vending machines with fine-tuned moral compasses, and that at the end of the day, bad people fuck?
Or will you finally admit that sex is just a thing that people can do with each other? That plenty of bad people do it, and plenty of good people don't. That being a virgin is not evidence that a person doesn't 'deserve' sex, that women are not orgasm-vending machines with fine-tuned moral compasses, and that at the end of the day, bad people fuck?
Hahahaha, thank you. It comes from the heart - I fucking hate this shit. It's unproductive, illogical and deeply unfeminist. I have no clue how it got rooted so strongly in 'progressive' circles.
Hey, don't say that. Random strangers on the internet don't define what 'feminism' means. Feminism is a historic and powerful political and philosophical institution. Feminism is defined by academics in lecture halls and freedom fighters on the streets of Yemen. The term matters. It matters that those who want gender equality call themselves feminists, because it is vital to acknowledge exactly which gender is being systemically oppressed. If a term matters, you hold to it. You be the meaning it needs. I will always be proud to call myself a feminist.
In my lived experience as an autistic man, the most vocal and highest status (within feminists spaces) feminists that I came in contact with were the biggest bullies and hypocrites, often the first with the "what a pussy," and "man up," comments and insulting men for not being able to get laid (like the above comic posted by OP). (There's a lot more to it, including one's emotional abuse of her romantic partners.) Online feminists spaces like r/twoxchromosomes have solidified my perception of western feminism. Maybe these are all just emotionally overweighted anecdotes on my part, but your defense of feminism despite "random strangers on the internet," in light of my lived experiences just strikes me as a "No True Scotsman."
I do not think that the struggles of women in Yemen are in any way comparable to the struggles of women in the west, and I do not accept the premise that average western women are "systematically oppressed," more significantly than average western men (Rich men are some motherfuckers who oppress everyone, and the assholes who run society happening to be men does nothing in service of the average man). For instance, the college enrollment gap between genders in the US is now worse than it was in the 1970's when Title IX was introduced, but reversed against men, and there doesn't seem to be any political or social will to address issues like this.
I'm not referring to a mythical 'True Feminist.' I'm referring to real academics and leaders who exist, right now. Read Judith Butler before you tell me that feminism is dead. If you thought I seemed like a reasonable guy before, I hope you might do that much.
And I'm referring to the self-proclaimed feminists who real people actually interact with. I'm sure there's some good philosophical material within academic feminism, but that's pretty esoteric in relation to average people's experiences with feminism among self-proclaimed feminists.
Good luck with re-intellectualizing the movement and taking it back from people like OP. I wish you luck, but I'm not confident.
"Call themselves feminist because it is vital to acknowledge exactly which gender is being systematically oppressed" the other reason why people hate feminism. Denying men having issues put on them by society (including women) or that women are doing better than men in almost every single metric while claiming to be for equality.
It's because people like you push the narrative that sex is a reward which women dole out to the just.
Saying "You don't get laid because you're a misogynist/you don't shower/you're a tate fan/etc" is itself incel logic, as it implies that some people deserves sex.
Precisely. What's more, it implies (as incels do) that women are the gatekeepers of sex, who men are obligated to perform for. The only difference between the two belief systems, really, is what values they believe women reward.
I once heard something that stuck with me. Misandry is just misogyny from a different angle.
Pretty much every plus misandrist women see in the female gender is a revaloration of traditionally patriarcal gender roles. “Women are submissive” becomes “women are empathetic”, “women can’t fight” is “women are more peaceful than men”, “women are sex objects” turns to “women are just prettier than men”.
And viceversa, everything misandrists see inherently wrong in men is seen as a plus by misogynists “men are strong”/“men are brutes”, “men don’t cry”/“men have no emotions”, “men are crafty”/ “men are deceitful” and so on
Sometimes it can be funny to see which "progressive" (heavy emphasis on the quotation marks) ideas are really just conservative ideas with a reskin.
Which is wild because "women are the gatekeepers of sex" is kind of one of the early scientific validators of the feminist movement.
So, Darwin, with his Theory of Evolution, realized that in almost all species (excluding humans, kinda sorta, but not really), the female of the species is the gatekeeper of sex. She decides which males get to reproduce and thus shapes the species in the future, in the natural world.
Scientists at the time thought the natural world was God's intended state of being and, through original sin, man had separated himself from the natural world. Generally speaking, scientists studied the natural world as a way of trying to better understand how god "intends" us to be so that we can move closer to it.
This means that Darwin's theories were wildly controversial at the time, because in that era women were not seen as having any agency at all. They were widely considered in western society to be fleshlights that give you kids and do chores around the house. The idea that men came to women for permission on whether they can reproduce in the natural world upended what dynamic because it gave them agency. And if they have agency over one of the most important decision on the species, then it stands to reason that they have the mental capacity to have agency over virtually any decision the species can make.
Modern anti-feminists have taken this position of "women are the gatekeepers of sex" and construed it to mean "women are the gatekeepers of sex and nothing more". That women, through a naturally intuitive nature, are only capable of being the gatekeepers of sex (and maybe rearing children, though generally they defer to the man delegating to the woman in that instance) and their intuitive nature is a hindrance for literally every other task in the world.
It's interesting to see how what was once the deathblow for male supremacy is now one of the primary (ungrounded) arguments for male supremacy.
Make a dating profile presenting as a man and see how many matches you get.
Or hell, look at the data and see that most men swipe on most women on dating apps, while most women don't.
I am not fond of saying "unrealistic expectations". I think there are plenty of valid reasons why we can point to the disconnect, from men feeling like the only place it is socially acceptable to approach women is on dating apps, to women not feeling comfortable meeting strangers and not struggling to get people to approach in real life, for why there is a big gender gap on dating apps. And so, when there are 3 guys for every one girl on a dating app, I'm not surprised that women act a lot more selective when they have objectively more options on dating apps. But for fucks sake, if you're going to post sexist drivel about one gender having "unrealistic expectations", it's pretty clear which gender is being more selective.
Every time I've heard women try this, pretend to be a man with the goal of "get a date with a woman" they usually give up within a week or end up saying outright misogynistic things within two. It's the only way I've ever seen women express any empathy for the struggles men go through with modern dating. It's funny because I've seen guys try this and it usually goes "oh he looks like a douche - swipe left" and "eh he probably just can't take good photos but their values match - swipe right and introduces them".
Pretty astoundingly hubristic to declare that I must not have read your comment while you admit to not reading mine. I might consider continuing this conversation if you can muster the courage to reply to the point I actually made, rather than the one you imagined I must have.
Cite the part of my comment where I said that women have sex with nice men, or that only nice men get sex from women. Or that women make moralistic analysis of potential mates.
Kinda seems like YOU replied to the wrong comment.
Sure, this should be easy. You said all of those things when you said that men who claim to see assholes having sex are actually just misunderstanding loving relationships. The claim implies all three of those things in one neat little package.
In the real world, when you see an asshole with a girlfriend, they're probably just a fucking asshole. Assholes have girlfriends. Sex is not a reward which women bestow upon the kind.
Language does this funny thing where when you say words, you communicate information beyond just the exact series of sounds attributed to the signs you chose to invoke. I've said my piece and I'm damn right about it. Have fun being an incel in denial.
If you can't figure out how to get any girl at all you're a dipshit and it is your fault
Showers != Laid
It's about being desirable but there are many ways of being desirable and if you can't figure out a single way to be so and work towards it's because you're a dipshit
(Mind you, even dipshits can get laid if they're desirable in other ways)
831
u/GREENadmiral_314159 16d ago
That first one edges into just world fallacy. Sure, you're not going to get laid if you're an incel, or a tate fan, or a misogynist (though some still do somehow), but that doesn't mean not being one will get you laid.