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.
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.