Read on Twitter
Incel (involuntary celibates) is the new N-word used by sex bigots to shame men for their victimhood
A thread
https://newsofx.com/2021/04/25/incel-involuntary-celibates-is-the-new-n-word-used-by-sex-bigots-to-shame-men-for-their-victimhood/
A thread
https://newsofx.com/2021/04/25/incel-involuntary-celibates-is-the-new-n-word-used-by-sex-bigots-to-shame-men-for-their-victimhood/
Alan Lee Millard
Women are not held accountable for a condition they are responsible for creating. They feel no responsibility or obligation to men, although the opposite is true when it comes to men and women's expectations of them.
Let's take away some basic needs of women that they have relied upon men for, as money/sustenance, as was the case in the past, and put them down for the consequences of their deprivation.
Misandry, combined with selfish monetary/financial demands for men when women have taken half, consists of the core contributors to the problem. To apply the derogatory term incel to men is therefore hypocritical.
According to Wikipedia, it's due to men's failures to secure sex and convince women to have sex with them? What kind of horsecrap is this, that a man is reduced to a mere beggar for his sexual fulfillment and must appease a very poor female quality in character to get it?
Ironically these sex-bigots recognize the male need over the female's exists by using the sex-shaming reference.
But to be fulfilled it has to go through the female's approval, and this now depends on, besides a poor female character from which to acquire it, societal conditions that never existed in the past.
The sex for money trade-off is well represented by the oldest profession--one reason men in the past needed more money as a trade-off to acquire women. But hypocritically women still place this expectation upon men.
The newly developed bigotted term incel is the new N-word--a sex-bigotted term shaming men for negative social conditions women have imposed upon men through popular misandry.
With fewer men having the financial credentials to secure sex, men are left with a further disadvantage (inequity) that adds to the problem. Outside of forcing sex against women's will, prostitution is the only solution.
And even subsidizing that would help men out just as down and out women are helped.
Elliot Rogers is used as an example to blame men rather than have understanding and empathy for them. But Mr. Rogers was also bullied and shamed. He is a case that resulted in him going to extreme measures.
But that does not mean the problem does not exist or should be dismissed, just that being so predominant it just surfaced in a very violent way in his case. Not harming others, many males commit suicide instead.
Is that destiny any better, more acceptable, since they are males, not killing others due to the same prognosis?
Since it's a problem exclusively attached to males that seems to be the case, with shaming based on some subjective female condition that males fail to meet as the sexist standard.
If the sex need were equal, this and the many other condemnations against the male sex drive (often deliberately denied by feminists to avoid any consideration for men) would not exist.
Men are shamed and ridiculed for their sexual needs and then further ridiculed for their deprivation. Let's blame the victim, with men's sexual fulfillment only reserved for those men who have certain credentials approved by women.
Why should the fulfillment of a male's needs be arbitrarily dependent on his ability to appease women, and especially now when women are using sex per law to entrap men?
Instead of blaming all men for suffering from this condition (incel), don't we think there might be a problem in society with boys/men not having their sexual needs met? When women don't have their basic needs met we don't condemn them for it.
Some claim that prostitution is immoral, but this condition is much more immoral than prostitution would be.
What males are offered now, even when they do come in sexual contact with a woman are newly defined rape laws and false allegations or pregnancy that are all designed to persecute and entrap males.
Besides pay, men also risk rejection, sexual harassment, rape allegations, and entrapment. Given that men are still expected to approach women, despite supposed equality standards, that arrangement also sets men up to all these charges at the female's discretion.
Why has this social phenomenon (sexual deprivation and resulting suicides) never happened before? Because girls liked boys and didn't treat them like crap due to a much better female character existing in the past than now.
And this is despite splitting the financial resources men needed and had in the past to their disposal, ironically, FOR women. Money originated through men as manual skills and labor which was then later converted to government currency.
The quality of women and their values have gotten worse yet they openly tease men to ensure men feel even worse about what they are deprived of.
If we admit to, "sex is a need" we are then shamed as to it being a weakness because then women would have to acknowledge it as a male need, and that would threaten a power women exclusively have over men.
Alan Millard has been a prominent men's equality advocate for several decades, beginning in the early '80s. He began writing his first book, Equality: A Man's Claim, in the Spring of 1983.
He has been thereafter continually affiliated with the major men's rights organizations and has contributed many articles, radio, and some television broadcasts.
His work includes research conducted through his graduate and doctoral coursework and knowledge acquired through his independent studies and colleague associations as a university professor. He heads the group Men's Equality on Facebook.
He is the author of three books addressing men's equality concerns. His most recent book, A Flaw From Within: How Women's Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men and Destroys Society, is available through Amazon.
