I don't think the distinction between the two matters all that much for this article's purposes. Men not having access to high value women to incentivize the labor that society needs means society gets less of that labor, regardless of why the men don't have that access.
I do agree with you that the writer is using the term "incel" when MGTOW is more fitting. It's probably one of those rare misapplications of the term that isn't malicious. I also agree that MGTOW is a much bigger threat to the feminist project than incels are. Incels make for useful bogeymen, but at the end of the day they're just an optics problem that the feminists need to sweep under the rug. They can still theoretically be controlled because they still desire female attention (although in practice that would require a far more credible carrot than the feminists are willing to offer). That's why driving them off mainstream sites like Reddit was enough. MGTOW on the other hand has the potential to derail the entire clown show if enough men adopt the lifestyle. That's why they're going scorched earth on MGTOW. It's really easy to see what the regime really sees as a threat by looking at how hard they go after different dissident communities.
It's actually some white soy sucker. I dug around.
And more to the point the men have to have an incentive to get and stay busy. Feminism replacing those incentives with shame won't work, as the article discusses.
Only if you take what they say at face value, which you shouldn't. When gender studies types like this faggot talk about men "freeing themselves" or "liberation" it's from "toxic masculinity", ie a refusal to submit to feminsm. Their whole narrative is based on the false idea that the right rigidly polices masculinity and persecutes anyone who deviates from the norms they set. It's grade A projection of course, but that's what they're talking about men "liberating" themselves from. Not the liberation from feminism that men sorely need.
If I was insecure I'd hop on this retarded bandwagon in a futile attempt to get the shaming to stop. I'm very secure in my distain for anti-male garbage and pathetic simps who try to shame me into doing what the regime tells me.
Despite right-wing warnings to stay away, 40 percent of the opening weekend theatergoers to Barbie were men and boys.
The right doesn't have the kind of social power the left does. Even if the right wanted to organize a boycott it wouldn't be able to, and on the off chance it succeeded they would be told to fuck off anyway. The Bud Light situation is the exception that proves the rule. The reason so many males (I refuse to call those sorry fucks men) attended is because our sick society is filled to the brim with simps willing to degrade themselves for a whiff of pussy. If only they would realize that it doesn't work.
But the idea that feminism has many deeply insightful, constructive and hopeful things to say to men and their struggles presents a direct threat to the right.
I'd say it's the other way around. Men get red pilled when they realize that the feminist system that's been in place since before they were born has done nothing but hold them back. Men aren't going to stay on the feminist plantation if the right is offering them something better. Hence the attempts to destroy the right using every dirty trick in the book.
Since the 1990s, there has been an explosion of scholarship and writing about men’s lives that has been informed by intersectional feminist ideas about masculinities and power.
Yes, and it's all about demonizing the group they're "studying". The pattern is always the same: <ingroup> studies take it as a given that <outgroup> is bad, then a few decades later <outgroup> studies is invented to "prove" that <outgroup> is bad to justify their persecution.
Shockingly enough not really. The thesis is that young people are taking a longer time to grow up and that sex and relationships aren't really a priority over things like education. It's all from a woman's perspective of course, but it doesn't exactly contradict what we all know to be true: They spend their prime years on the CC, then find some cuck to pay for their mistakes and raise their bastard children in their 30s.
I just started and I'm already impressed with the first sentence. This is going to be a breathe of fresh air.
Anything to avoid talking about out of control female hypergamy, right?
In an age where hook-ups might seem as unlimited as a right swipe on a dating app, it’s easy to assume that Gen Z “should be having the time of their lives sexually
That's only true for women, Chad, and Tyrone. Bottom 95% men are being left out in the cold until their 30s, and by that point they're asking why they should have to jump through hoops to get what Chad and Tyrone got for free.
And she pushes back against the notion that shying away from sex is some sort of societal problem that needs to be “fixed.”
Of course she does. Societal problems are always left to fester until women are inconvenienced by them. That's why no one gave a shit about the epidemic of lonely men until Andrew Tate came along and threatened their betabux grift.
Maybe it's time to grant that sub's based users their very own board here on the wins. Just no more allowing the same jannies to shit up the new board.
Pretty much. They make rules for betas and break them for alphas. If a woman dumps her boyfriend over something like this she had him pegged as a beta and was cucking him the whole time anyway.
It seems that by trying to make Ken the villain they accidentally made him based because of their fucked up worldview, but that's just what I read from people in communities like this since I refuse to watch it as well. Even excluding all the feminist crap it didn't look interesting and I'm not in the target demographic, so it's not like I'm doing anything different than I would otherwise.
pretending to want a real relationship at a certain age
Funny how that certain age is always the same age as when she gets kicked off the CC.
They only care about packing courts with partisan hacks who rubber stamp everything the regime does.
It's always nice when the trash takes itself out.
History did prove Hamilton right about one thing. Had we focused on agrarianism the industrialized powers would have eaten us alive. And that may yet happen since we sold all our industry to Winnie the Pooh. Also Burr was a traitor himself unless that telling of history is wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).
Maybe I'm looking at that era with rose tinted glasses on but it seems that all the Founders contributed something of value to the country, even if they were dead wrong about other things. The same can't be said about today's Democrats or their Republican enablers. Which is especially ironic considering Andrew fucking Jackson founded the modern incarnation of that party. Jackson's opponents hated him for the same reason the elites today hate Trump: He actually gave a shit about the common man. Jackson probably did more for the common man than any other 19th century president.
Was he always this retarded or is his age catching up with him?
Depending on how long he can delay the trials he could just order his AG to drop the charges. Of course that just became far less likely since they picked a judge who's out to fry him in the DC case.
Would certainly be an interesting scenario if, for example, Georgia, was holding prisoner the president of the country.
It would make it even more obvious that Kemp is a leftist plant when he refuses to put an end to the madness so he can continue his vendetta against MAGA.
Or the vax considering how quickly they found out it causes myocarditis and the coverup afterwards.
None of my Reddit accounts are on that list. I feel insulted.
I always defined it as a guy who can't get laid without explicitly paying for it via prostitution. Betabux doesn't count since he did "the normal way". You wouldn't qualify under that definition. The attractiveness of the woman is irrelevant as long as he's pulling in an actual woman (ie not a homosexual tranny). Of course these days the term is used to slur anyone who questions the feminist narrative, and everyone who posts here falls under that umbrella.
It kind of is. They can't go a single day without making everything about themselves.
Those are suspicious numbers. The fags running YouTube must be cooking the books on her subscriber count.
Yeah, I read about that. I figured it was a mass chimpout but I didn't bother digging around to confirm it. The influencer got arrested for inciting the riot, which is well deserved since he didn't plan on following through. He'll probably just get a slap on the wrist. It's not like he challenged an election that the Democrats stole or anything.