https://archive.vn/gaKZw
Key areas of the article relevant to/dismissing people concerned about male issues
"Men’s rights advocates have often attempted to weaponize facts like these against feminism, on the basis that men “have it worse” than women. But male expendability and female subjugation are two sides of the same coin. The same logic that keeps women and their sexuality under jealous guard and treats them as a prize to be awarded is also what casts the majority of men into a Hobbesian struggle for that prize—ensuring continued reproduction of a social order governed by a predominantly male elite. Contrary to both traditionalist conservative myth and popular feminist narrative, for most of history patriarchy was not a privilege one benefited from simply by being born male, but a brutal racket in which millions of men destroyed each other and the world around them for the benefit of a fortunate few."
"If the consequences were limited to an occasional unhinged manifesto and a few more entries in the depressingly frequent list of mass shootings, we could perhaps content ourselves with occasionally mocking incels while ignoring them the rest of the time. But they are only the tip of the iceberg. Given that incels tend to be drawn from white (or white-adjacent) portions of the suburban and exurban middle class, there is a tendency to dismiss their predicament as one of privilege and entitlement. Yet it is also possible to see them as a local variant of a global crisis of masculinity that unites their fates with those of less “privileged” men. In the United States, men make up over 90 percent of the prison population. In South Sudan, the combination of polygamy and bride prices has contributed directly to civil war. ISIS has recruited frustrated Muslim men with the promise of wives. In countries like East Germany, the disproportionate emigration of women better adapted to seek work in Western cities has left behind a population of angry men who form the primary base for Far Right movements. And in India, the same phenomenon, exacerbated by a gender imbalance stemming from sex-selective abortion, has exploded into a violent religious fanaticism. As the Economist writes, “The world’s most dysfunctional people are nearly all male.”
Understood in this way, the incel’s predicament is a bitterly ironic one. For in addition to the targets of their rage, incels victimize themselves by supporting the very same ideologies that lie at the root of their immiseration. They decry the materialism and shallowness of “gold-digging” women who only care about men’s wealth and social status while in the same breath opposing feminist equality and upholding the gender norms that enshrine men as providers. They extol marriage while opposing the sorts of economic redistributionist policies that would make it easier for men like them to attain and sustain it. They adopt white supremacist ideologies that demonize black and immigrant men instead of recognizing their common plight. And with their view of history hopelessly distorted by consumer media, they pine for “traditional” eras in which, in all statistical likelihood, they would find themselves serving as cannon fodder in some lord’s army, wasting away from scurvy at sea, or hauling stones under an overseer’s whip. But one need not have any sympathy for incels to recognize that simply admonishing them to “be better” and less entitled is an inadequate response to a confluence of technological and demographic change, and that the conditions that breed them create a more dangerous world for us all."
[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]person_w_personality19 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwawayincelacc 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]person_w_personality27 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 13 points14 points15 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (25 children) | Copy Link
The part about incels and how they should be shamed and the lackadaisical way the article talked about men being sacrificed in the past and how it's not as feasible to do that today came off to me as misandrist.
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Sad thing is this article was written by a male. You'd think it would be written by a bitter female radical feminist.
Also more disturbing is that the place that this piece was published in is the American Affairs, which describes itself as a quaterly journal of public policy and political thought.
American Affairs appears to be a rightwing journal connected to the ideologies propagated by the intellectual darkweb (IDW; American Affairs is described as connected to Trumpism in the link below but I'm sure what is being termed as Trumpism is more IDW related).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/arts/american-affairs-journal-donald-trump.html
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
The article has a contemptuous tone that imo goes past sarcasm and irony.
I don't think it has to be as severe as advocating mass killing to show this article is misandrist. Making light of or downplaying the past mass killing of men in wars and saying there's no real way to do that presently to deal with the problem of incels and unsuccessful men that are alive in large numbers today still comes off as misandrist.
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Not on this issue no. I don't think it's a thing to joke about while writing an article about this kind of social issue. It sets a bad precedent.
I think people with this view tend to have even worse ideas and proposals affecting low status men than even a lot of feminists in a way.
I'm not saying that the person that wrote this is irredeemable but that what they wrote is making light of a very serious issue in a misandrist way and it's eerily similar to the kind of tone but across by many articles in the past few years about this issue of 'excess' males.
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Please note that by incels and involuntary single men the author is probably not referring to just official self proclaimed incels but single men that have expressed displeasure at women and society, which many MRAs have. So I don't think the article is referring to just talking about and shaming and mocking self proclaimed "incels". See the part where "men's rights advocates" are mentioned.
This article does more than misses the point. It muses on and downplays the past death of men in war and tries to posit that perhaps all wars in the past were a way of getting rid of men and unfortunately society doesn't have the means to do that now with this current "excess" group of unsuccessful men. That goes beyond admittance of how sexual strategies of men and women differ. Also keep in mind this about life and death situations we are talking about here not just sexual strategies of men and women. You may say that sexual strategies can involve life and death. Yes but that is only when taking it to the extreme. It should not mean that it should be accepted for someone to muse about the lives of "excess" males and how to perhaps get rid of them.
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't think so.
For one the idea of a tribe being able to survive if it loses a lot of its men but not women is imo based on faulty, short sighted thinking that ignores the effects of inbreeding from having only a few males alive (ie stemming from the "one man can impregnate many women" hypothesis), the risk of an all female or majority female remaining tribe being conquered or wiped out by a stronger more male majority competing tribe and low genetic variation from not enough DNA in a smaller remaining population leading to eventual die out anyway of the tribe (since male disposability is often "justified" through appeals to keeping the human species alive).
Such die out of species due to lower genetic variation and a smaller population is thought to have happened with mammoths according to some studies
https://www.nature.com/news/dying-woolly-mammoths-were-in-genetic-meltdown-1.21575
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17457561
Furthermore the idea of eggs being expensive and sperm being cheap is more of a recent one that has been advanced by PUAs like Chateau Heartiste to imo justify cutting down male competition for mates. Same with the idea of war being used to cull males.
The reason males were conscripted to fight in war is that on average males are physically stronger than women and are thought to be better able to handle combat in battles. I don't think it's good to advance the notion that males were conscripted to get rid of the "excess" population of males. It may have been an unintended byproduct that this was the case but it's jumping to conclusions that this was the purpose and was deemed necessary in the past is faulty on the part of the author and reveals their own biases.
A lot of the idea of men being sacrificed for the tribe is instilled in media and pop culture and is accepted as is instead of being questioned. I think this should change as its implications are potentially very damaging to many men, most of all physically weak males (that are ignored in these kind of discussions but have been forced to fight in wars in the past anyway) that have little to gain from this idea being advanced and a lot to lose.
[–]Blauwpetje1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]person_w_personality1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Talik1978 6 points7 points8 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Talik1978 6 points7 points8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Talik1978 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Talik1978 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alataire 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mhandanna 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]earthdweller11 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]person_w_personality1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Journalists and editors don't always take those complaints seriously and often use those complaints as a way to justify them publishing such material in the past with excuses such as "starting a conversation" or "bringing up difficult points that have to be addressed".
The purpose of me sharing this on several men's rights oriented subreddits was specifically to raise awareness about these kinds of articles so that it can be seen how these type of articles and the callous sentiment conveyed in them about men's lives seems to be getting more common. I think it's especially important to do this with the recent Iran versus US draft scare that came up in January of this year, which showed that contrary to what feminists that dismiss this issue have to say, the possibility of a military draft is not something that will probably never be brought up again.
[–]mhandanna 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Levixius 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]HeadPersimmon292 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm quite interested in what exactly the author means when they say "white-adjacent."
[–]AdamChap 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Omar-Elsayed 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AdamChap 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MealReadytoEat_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link