3 ms·

No, I'm not an incel, as that it was you seem to imply. I'm happily in a relationship for 15 years. I'm not on board with characters like Tate and Jordanson, th

by fleddr 4y ago

No, I'm not an incel, as that it was you seem to imply. I'm happily in a relationship for 15 years. I'm not on board with characters like Tate and Jordanson, they opportunistically exploit a symptom: a total lack of care or interest in men's wellbeing. "Men shouldn't be in touch with their emotions to attract women - they should be in touch with their emotions for their own well being." And the point of this discussion, what started it, is that they can't. Those feelings are ignored, dismissed and ridiculed.

throwaway11823 4y ago
I'm glad to hear you aren't an incel, and you have my sincere congratulations on 15 years of marriage, that's wonderful. I 100% agree with you about Tate & Peterson. I think it would be worth considering that the ideas you were describing are axiomatic in incel ideology. If you dug through some Andrew Tate videos, you wouldn't have any trouble finding him make the same case as you've made. The crossroads here is, once one observes these critiques of masculinity - do you accept them fatalistically, attributing them to some indelible aspect of biology (this is the Peterson route), or do you seek to change it? Do you place the blame on women (the incel route), or do you observe that there is a power structure (the patriarchy) that is simultaneously oppressing and privileging both men and women in different ways, so that they both enforce the rules of the patriarchy on one another? There is a problem here, absolutely, we're on the same page there. But it doesn't stem from biology, it is a set of social constructs and expectations; artifices created by humans and which can be abolished by humans, no more immutable than the concept of the divine right of kings.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
I agree with the person who said that men should be in touch with their emotions for their own well being. The relationship that one has with oneself shouldn’t be dependent on others ‘ignoring/dismissing/ridiculing’ them. Then it is a relationship they have with the outside world.

by fleddr 4y ago

throwaway11823 4y ago

I'm glad to hear you aren't an incel, and you have my sincere congratulations on 15 years of marriage, that's wonderful. I 100% agree with you about Tate & Peterson. I think it would be worth considering that the ideas you were describing are axiomatic in incel ideology. If you dug through some Andrew Tate videos, you wouldn't have any trouble finding him make the same case as you've made. The crossroads here is, once one observes these critiques of masculinity - do you accept them fatalistically, attributing them to some indelible aspect of biology (this is the Peterson route), or do you seek to change it? Do you place the blame on women (the incel route), or do you observe that there is a power structure (the patriarchy) that is simultaneously oppressing and privileging both men and women in different ways, so that they both enforce the rules of the patriarchy on one another? There is a problem here, absolutely, we're on the same page there. But it doesn't stem from biology, it is a set of social constructs and expectations; artifices created by humans and which can be abolished by humans, no more immutable than the concept of the divine right of kings.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

I agree with the person who said that men should be in touch with their emotions for their own well being. The relationship that one has with oneself shouldn’t be dependent on others ‘ignoring/dismissing/ridiculing’ them. Then it is a relationship they have with the outside world.