Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..
Ah yes, that explains why women had to fight for the right to vote (even by the early 20th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold office in most of the US and Europe), weren't able to open up their own bank accounts until around the 1970s, and are right now having their reproduction rights taken away in certain states. Women being denied the right to own property, study, or partake in public life in medieval Europe? Women being barred from receiving an education? Women not being allowed to conduct business without a male representative? Women now having to deal with dudes who literally demonize us for not wanting to date them and advocating for our downfall? Being constantly sexualized from a young, being seen as just objects for male pleasure rather than as human-beings? You continually reducing our value down to our reproductive parts? Yep, I would say that women definitely have it good. Not like we are the one's disproportionately more likely to be killed off by our partners, that's for sure!
You need to open up a history textbook if you genuinely believe the bullshit you spewing out right now. I'm not even joking, this is some next level bullshit right here. Women are considered to be an oppressed demographic, both historically and even today. A lot of the issues that men go through, while valid, are not as a result of a specific system looking to push them down. Rather, it's as a result of the same system that allows for them to hold power over women. For the patriarchy to work, there are certain things that need to be upheld and some of those things do end up causing harm to men in the name of providing them with power and status. A good example of this is seen when talking about abuse. A large part of why male abuse victims in straight relationships aren't taken seriously is because it goes against the image that this system paints in order to justify and uphold its existence. Men are expected to be strong and dominant while women are expected to be weak and submissive. This particular situation goes against that expectation, leading to the victim being made fun of for failing to meet those societal standards.
You are whining about standards that are in place because of other men, not because of women. Women historically would not have had the power to create this dilemma you are now complaining about.
To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.
Yeah, no. It's not based in biology. This is just bioessentialist nonsense. Being an incel largely stems from a mixture societal issues (the patriarchy) along with how those people decide to deal with them.
From my original post:
Most people aren't a huge fan of those who are openly misogynistic and who advocate for things, like violence and rape against women. It makes it so that they are hard to sympathize with. While I understand that there is a lot of pressure on men to lose their virginity as soon as possible, even at the cost of their well-being and safety, this reaction to being unable to fulfill those societal expectations is disgusting. Even here, we have already had two instances of members who happened to be incels using men who committed hate crimes against women as their profile pictures.
Incel has gone from a term to simply refer to those who are involuntarily celibate to a full-on hate group promoting violence against women. Rather than confronting the actual systems at play, the ones that put pressure on them to be dominant and to have as much sex as possible lest they fail to be a "true man", the one that forces them into this role because it needs to to keep the illusion of men being all-powerful and dominating because if it doesn't then others will realize that it is all a sham then they will start to rebel against those in power, they instead double down.
They blame women, viewing them as disobedient servants, unwilling to stand down and know their place in the world. We are not people to them, but instead, we are objects that only exist for their pleasure. I don't fully blame them for this, surprisingly enough. From a young age, boys are taught that women belong to them and that they are entitled to our bodies. As a result, when reality comes to bite them in their asses, showing that women will refuse to have sex with them if they don't want to, they get mad. I don't think that incels would exist if we didn't live in a patriarchal society. Still, none of this excuses their behaviour. Everybody suffers under the patriarchy, but most don't go out of their way to advocate or do any of the shit that these people are doing. Incel hate is completely justified.
Most people don't like incels because incels are misogynists. Incels have gone out of their way to even advocate for and actually harm women and girls.
I'd recommend reading
this article before you continue on with your spiel about those 'poor wittle incels'.
Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.
Most men don't want to get their female friends. This just tells me that your interactions with the opposite sex are likely few and far in-between. Again, you are trying to use bioessentialist arguments while ignoring other social factors. Specifically pretending to be nice to someone with the idea being that this means that you'll be entitled to their body is gross and demeaning. You are trying to excuse their actions, but considering the fact that most men don't this shit and know better, I would say that "biology" isn't an excuse here.
And yes, they turn hostile. How are going to disagree with that when you can find plentu fo women online who have openly talked about this?
Your unironic use of the term "soyboy" also just making you look worse dude. I can't even take you seriously now.
With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.
Again, you are reducing women down to their reproductive parts whilst simultaneously trying to create the image that we are the ones with all the power, as though part of that power wouldn't come with the benefit of being view as a fellow human rather than being reduced down to our wombs and fertility, something that men don't typically have to go through. You would think that with this supposed power would also wouldn't have had more options in life, historicially speaking, instead of being seen as subjects of our husbands and not having the option to live independently. You would also think that, in todays world, it wiuld also mean us not having to work harder to be taken seriously, esepcially in the workplace. To add onto this, there have been societies in the past that did out a lot of emphasis on the role men played in reproduction, so it's weird to try and act as though this supposed praise went one way. You constantly scream about men being disposable your weird obsession with our wombs goes on to also highlight another thing, which is that women are also treated as being disposable. Women's value generally tends to be based on age, looks, and fertility, with women unable to meet those standards being treated poorly or even thrown to the side. This is one of the reasons why people warn women to be careful when going into "traditional relationships", as there are a lot of cases of husbands cheating on and even trading their wives for younger women.
You keep on going on about biological truths when these issues are more sociocultural rather than biological. A lot of how our society is structured today isn't based on biology and is very different from how a lot of societies were structured pre-agricultural era. Again, a lot of what you complain about is due to other men, not women. Along with that, women back then were (and still are to varying degrees throughout the world) treated like objects and had very few rights in comparison to men. The owning of things, like resources, wealth, and status, go back to the the idea of men needing to be dominant and powerful, and image created by and upheld by men.
Also, women don't exist in a vacuum. We also are not all a fucking hivemind (again, showcasing the clear biases you have against us). Women, in the past especially, would have had to care about the wealth of their partner because they would have been completely reliant on them. Back then, women were expected to be homemakers. This type of "traditional lifestyle" costs a lot of money to maintain and that money is being provided from one source. As a result, the wealth of your partner would have mattered. This, funnily enough, doesn't tend to matter nearly as much anymore, as now a lot of women are in the workforce. This is part of why male beauty standards have been going up as of late. Because men can't as easily rely on thing, like income and status, to score a partner they instead now have to try relying more things, such as looks. (*It is important to note that male beauty standards are still not as bad a female beauty standards, though they are getting higher)
A lot of women don't care about height and there are a lot of men who do care about things, such as height. A lot of what you've said can actually be argued in the reverse, as men will typically go after good-looking women as a means of showing off to others.
Anyway, I'm probably not going to bother with responding to you again. A lot of your arguments are literally just you repeatedly trying to push the narrative that you are oppressed for being a man while also being sexist towards women. All of your arguments are just the same bioessentialist bullcrap being stated over and over again. It's like you've never read a history textbook before...
