During an interview about incels on my Substack with Naama Kates, creator of the Incel Podcast, I referenced Donna and Denise during a side conversation about femcels. Kates (somewhat rhetorically) repeated the opinion that they couldn’t really be compared to incels for the usual reason: with better grooming and maturation, such unlucky girls could eventually get some, even if they had to wait well into adulthood. “I doubt it,” I replied. “I mean, these girls were UG-ly.”
The simple-minded heartlessness of my words appalled me when I listened back to the audio; heartless and too simple because while these words were accurate in junior high, I was saying that they would always be accurate; I was saying it reflexively. Even though everything about me in junior high was off, including my looks, things changed a lot for me quickly in a few years. Yet here I was, mentally consigning my classmates to permanent loneliness based on what they, too, were like between the ages of 13 and 16. I dropped into this mindset even though in the course of my life I have seen physically unattractive women make good marriages and raise happy families; I have also seen pretty, even beautiful women who, while they can get sex, are unable to pair up at all. I went right back to the crude hierarchy that had imprinted on me as a pre-teen.
This dynamic of raw pain and dumb, ruthless response is palpable on “The Pink Pill” when women share their experiences, and visible in the disgusting online mocking of femcels for their supposed lack of hygiene and social grace. In the face of such pain and cruelty, the measured analysis of the media so far feels essentially kind but too rational, too polite, too normie. Elle postulated a “femcel revolution”, by which the author meant that some of them have chosen celibacy over being sexually demeaned; The Atlantic first set up incels as reactionaries with actual political goals (inaccurately I think, but that’s another story) and then wondered “what new world are femcels dreaming about?” I hope I’m not being presumptuous to say that I don’t think they are dreaming at all; I think they want to face reality.
Femcels themselves can be ruthless in their rejection of “average” women trying to give them hopeful positive messages about overriding conventional beauty standards and finding themselves beautiful as they are. (As one online forum moderator wrote last year: “Reminder to femcels, people who LIE to you and tell you that ‘you look fine the way you are’ are NOT on your side. They BENEFIT from you remaining ugly and not fixing your looks.”) They want the freedom to “talk about being ugly”; they want, in other words, freedom from bullshit.
This may sound dismal. But let’s face it: hope can be painful, especially when you see no basis for it. Femcels use a lot of incel language, and one phrase both groups share is “lie down and rot”, meaning: just give up. Sounds terrible! But I know from experience with despair that giving up like that can be a relief after continuous striving that hasn’t worked; it’s a relief to know that you have the option to just withdraw. At the same time, once I’ve lain down, I eventually find myself restless and bored; it’s actually hard to just lie there, and it takes a long time to rot. Something in me always wants to get up again and try, though maybe not the same thing in the same way. This is, of course, just me. But I can’t believe I’m the only one.
More than that, though, “owning” a negative identity is a kind of power. It’s oddly more dignified than trying to keep pushing the curse away; there is strength and confidence in calling it as you see it. And confidence can give attractiveness beyond beauty.
Perhaps this sounds like another species of bullshit. But while I have respect for anyone who wants to face brutal reality, it has to be acknowledged that there is more than one reality. As I wrote above, I’ve known plain and basically ugly women who married well. I don’t mean to say that marriage is the only or even best indicator of desirability and social success. But it’s one that many people recognise; it’s one that requires deep connection and emotional integrity, at least if it is going to be any good.
This is where it gets complicated and hard to talk about. One of the ugly women I knew who married well was also a classmate at high school. She was a friend, though not a close one. Cassie had some better physical traits than Donna or Denise — thick, wavy hair, a deep, warm voice and decent clothes, by which I mean not from Goodwill. She wasn’t popular with the cliques and, during the time I knew her, didn’t get one date in high school. But that did not impair her confidence, physical presence (she was a jock) and sense of humour. She was solid in herself in a way that many pretty girls are not. This has been true of every plain or ugly woman I’ve known who’s had relationship success, and it ultimately held Cassie in good stead.
For impossible to articulate reasons, I understand why Donna and Denise couldn’t be like that in high school. I think their trouble was psychic as much as physical bad luck; they both may have been complicated, sensitive people susceptible to a confluence of negative influences that overwhelmed their spirits and affected their appearance as much or more than their actual features. It is hard to develop confidence when you’ve been hurt so badly so young, when you’ve been told hundreds of times in hundreds of ways by the world around you that you are shit. You can “looksmax” all you want, but even if that is successful, if you are crushed and “ugly” inside, people can sense it and be wary or even contemptuous of the dissonance. Which is a whole other, more subtle problem.
But it isn’t impossible to find another way. Not always and forever. I finally found the old yearbook for my freshman class and looked up both Donna and Denise. I was touched to see that actually Denise had every chance of growing up to be a conventionally attractive woman. Although her height didn’t work for her back in the day (because of her stooped, cringing posture) she was, after all, thin and tall, with large dark eyes, full lips, a high forehead and naturally black hair combined with pale skin. Her protruding teeth could be fixed and her slightly bulbous nose overlooked; a good haircut would’ve worked wonders.
But what was most affecting: her sweet, gentle personality was so visible. Alone with a camera, she was not too scared to smile and it was adorable.
Donna was another story. I couldn’t see how she could ever become attractive. But she might have become something as good or better. She was smiling too, with actual pleasure plus the hint of wicked disgust that I remember — disgust at the cruel social order that had consigned her to such a low position. The strength of that smile was, to me, a better predictor of a possible happy outcome even than an improvement in her looks. Not because of the disgust but because of the vibrancy. How could I have thought these girls had no chance?
Even more, how could I have forgotten that, despite the mania for simple, predictable Sexual Market Value metrics, the reality of how people respond to each other and what influences us is complex and unpredictable.
A story: one of the physically ugly women I knew who married and had a son was 63 and divorced when I met her. She wasn’t a friend, but she was an extremely talented physical therapist who I got to know well enough to be introduced to her nice-looking 40-something boyfriend. I don’t know how long this relationship went on but I could tell by seeing them together that he really liked her. I mentioned this somehow during a dinner with mostly male friends of my husband, resulting in sarcasm all around — especially when they asked me what she looked like and I said: “Frankly, she’s ugly.”
One of them snorted and said: “She must be good at something.” And I said: “Yes, she is. She has an extremely powerful and skilled touch. And she’s naturally dominant. A lot of men secretly want to be dominated. And there are very few women who are willing or capable of doing that. She is both.” Not one guy argued with that statement; there was no snorting or sarcasm. There were a few beats of silence and then the conversation moved on.
I don’t tell this story to say femcels need to be dominant. My point is that there’s more than one way to roll and that this woman found hers.
Another story: a homely young woman used to work as a cashier at a grocery store where I live. She wasn’t ugly, but very plain and somehow too matronly for her age; she had an aura of hurt and hopeless loneliness about her. She never smiled. She barely spoke. She made minimal eye contact. For years, every time I saw her she was the same. I felt sad for her.
Then one day I went in with my face covered in red pustules. It was a disfiguring skin infection called folliculitis and I had it for about a week before I could see a doctor. The only upside about it was watching how people reacted to it. Most people averted their eyes; one actually gawked. But this sad young woman had a reaction that I still clearly recall, even though it was almost two decades ago. She was the only person to meet my eyes with a look of pure compassion.
It was very brief, but unmistakable; I felt her kindness directly in my heart. This lonely, plainly unhappy woman had the most loving response of anyone. I felt more than sad for her. I felt sad for the world. This woman had a reserve of goodness and care that is needed by so many people. And it wasn’t being tapped. What a waste of a precious resource. What a waste.
Main Edition
US
FR
“These women had to form their own team because….”
I’m only guessing here, given that I haven’t been on any of the incel fora, but I think you’d probably need to add a fourth reason why these apparently un****able women aren’t welcome in incel fora. It’s simply that the resentment of these men isn’t really founded on an inability to get a woman at all: it’s founded upon an inability to attract desirable women.
The last thing these men want is to permit their online rant spaces to be turned into a dating pool, and then have it proved to them that their problem all along was just that they were playing in the wrong league, and not that there is an implicit conspiracy amongst women generally to deprive them of intimacy.
Yes. The ‘desirable’ part is essential. To both sexes.
The age-old female complaint ‘Where have all the good men gone?’ is more correctly rendered ‘Where have all the men I find desirable gone?’
Desirable is in the eye of the beholder. Mary suggests that she was plain and could be called ugly but photographs of her as a young woman suggest she was in fact perfectly attractive, although she might have put off a few admirers by a somewhat challenging stare that appears in many photos. I don’t know if she simply had an inaccurate assessments of her attractiveness like an anorexic who thinks her normal weight is grossly fat, or paints herself as plain from some female solidarity with her less attractive peers and to enable her to discuss her subject with less embarrassment than might otherwise be the case. She is certainly no less attractive than a woman journalist who used to write in the Mail about the downsides of being a very beautiful woman with as little objective judgement on her attractiveness than Mary displays.
‘Where have all the men I find desirable gone?’
They all have boyfriends.
Absolutely this! They can find women…just not women that will make other men jealous. And that’s what they want.
Indeed, part of it is the validation, not just the companionship (or the sex). Not sure ‘they’ could find women, though – depends on who ‘they’ are.
And to be fair, I don’t blame them, since I too am only attracted to attractive women. It’s just one of the ways life is unfair: everyone’s attracted, but not everyone is attractive.
What matters is how one interprets and responds to life’s challenges. Joining groups that turn emotional pain into indefensible misogynistic hatred is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
I don’t want a woman that makes other men jealous. Not woke and no nagging is all I want.
Your comment reminds me of when I was at college. There was a Down syndrome chap on our course who developed a crush on nearly every female in the class. When we pointed out that he would have better luck with the female Downs, he recoiled in horror.
Completely wrong. Many of the so-called “incels” would even like that. In fact, many of these men are sensitive guys who have trouble interacting with women. An unattractive, but friendly and warm woman would be a good fit for them, and would be a nice change from the average, arrogant “basic b*tch” that makes dating an unenjoyable experience.
I don’t know what the idea of incels is that fascinates people so, probably the fact that they can easily be dismissed as “bad”, and as such they do not need to be understood and the environment that created them does not have to be questioned.
Seriously, go and talk to some young single men that make a good impression on you about their love life. Ask them about the effort they are making, and what they are getting in return, and how fair they believe today’s dating world is, and why. Your prejudices might actually vanish into thin air.
There’s a difference between ordinary young lads who are struggling to get their leg over, and the incel community who spout angry drivel on online forums. The first group is lamenting their bad luck, the second is aggressively blaming women for not finding them attractive. Funnily enough if they spent a bit less time on misogynistic chat rooms and more time talking to your average women they might actually get somewhere.
Look at the angry drivel spouted by the likes of the Guardian against incels. They were described as a terrorist threat if I recall correctly. The situation reminds me of Orwell’s two minutres of hate.
Well it is clearly not “completely” wrong: you’re missing the somewhat obvious point in the article itself that women have failed to join these incel fora because they’re not welcome in them.
My argument, whether you like it or not, does at least take the point and try to explain it, which you do not.
Better still if the ‘sensitive’ incels got off their asses&away from their screens..and just WENT OUT..&repeat till they meet someone.
Actually the author does address this point in a brief paragraph later on, search “literally anyone”.
Yes, true, but I think it’s more than just incidental in the manner implied by the argument, that’s all.
A very thoughtful piece by Mary. I think we have all felt a little left out at times. I could never find a girfriend apart for just one day but didn’t have the confidence to continue. I put it down to being an orphan with all the internal problems that often come with it. . When I became a christian everything changed and the thing was to keep oneself pure until marriage. Getting laid talk just seemed plain wrong after that. My character was improving by leaps and bounds. There was a girl who fell in love with me and couldn’t eat properly because of it. I didn’t know about it for two years but the pastors wife did. Eventually the pastor was allowed to tell me. I started going out with her but not touching her as she kept herself pure as well. I had a murky past but she had kept a virgin. We are now married and have been very happy together for decades. She has the best legs I have ever seen and one would call her attractive. Over the years the physical attractiveness gradually fails (apart from the legs) but love is established and attractiveness is not the priority. She is attractive to me because of who she is. Everyone gets old but love can endure forever.
From my understanding, many ‘femcels’ still have sexual intercource. ‘Incels’ do not. There’s a big difference. As is the ages of most of these women. ‘Incels’ are usually conceived to be younger.
As for the single 63 year old, well I’m sorry that should be expected. The cashier is impiled to be lonely but is never confirmed to be one.
I wonder if these types of articles (filler for the most part) will be regarded in the same way as a 90s teen wearing his cap backwards shouting ‘Rad!’ every five seconds.
Loneliness is a concern, but I think these needless terms of ‘incels’ and ‘femcels’ only serve to abstract people further. They do not capture any meaning beyond the author’s preconceived conclusions. Most lonely young men or virgins do not think themselves incels, as is the case with women. The term is tailored for the internet’s alienated, people suffocated enough by abstractions and words divorced from reality.
Many femcels don’t have sex either as they have zero interest in a series of casual sex encounters with any man that would have them.
Ditto incels who could pay or focus on their league.
If one is not lonely there is not much incentive to get married. I am glad I married a lonely virgin. Not to say that she was that lonely socially but lonely in the sense of wanting to share intimately her life with someone and not just to get laid as the media imply you should..
Genuine question, why was her being a virgin important to you? It’s not something I’ve ever asked any girl I’ve got lucky with, it’s not something that interests me in the slightest.
“Got lucky”..?
Strange turn of phrase.
Let me help you understand it, Phil: “Got lucky” as in “this person has lower value, so was graciously gifted an opportunity to touch this other person of higher value”. The implication is that the “lucky” one should be thankful for the fleeting yet invaluable oversight of his unbearable imperfection. I trust you realize just how insulting the whole thing is. The list of similar insults is as endless as it is predictable – “she is out of your league”, “you need it, so you do the legwork”, etc. Until people honestly examine just how demeaning their own language is to people that don’t “pass the grade” is, we will keep perpetuating gender-based resentment and a bad outcome for all but a few select people that have won the genetics lottery. Not to mention the fact that the “failed” ones are invariably lectured on what they should feel, what is correct for them to desire, etc. while the genetic lottery winners get a hall pass to feel and want whatever they wish – with zero criticism. Ain’t that amazing?
What a pretentious reply to a bog standard phrase. I’ll assume spouting long winded nonsense such as that makes you feel intelligent. However seeing as the phrase said that I got lucky, wouldn’t that mean that the ladies were better than me? Therefore I’m not sure how what I said is demeaning
I don’t think you understood what I wrote. And in case you failed to notice in the headline, I was not even responding to what you wrote in the first place.
Relax.
Fairly standard round my way to be honest
So very true.
The Internet has created a long list of ‘casualties’..with their permission.
The sad fact is that most ugly women can fix it with clothes, makeup, diet and if necessary surgery. Men predominantly need income to fix unattractiveness. If you are poor and ugly and male I would imagine your options are very few. Females will openly show contempt. This lack of respect is the factor that drives the anger. In the past in smaller communities this would be recognised as a dangerous issue and matches made or the guy made to conform with usually actual violence by other men who understood the danger to their women. In our woke world men are not given the opportunity or respect for making sure that the world is safe for women. So Incels and other undesirable men thrive and are largely unchecked because we live in a world of woke morals. Everyone hates the society that our new (largely female) values have produced but nobody is willing (yet) to take the steps necessary to kill the woke liberal cancer that has infected everything it has touched.
I think we are at the tipping point because we now are approaching a perfect storm of rapidly declining incomes and deep woke non functioning public sector (especially the police). What happens next? Weimar or the Soviet Union may give us some clues.
“ The sad fact is that most ugly women can fix it with clothes, makeup, diet and if necessary surgery. Men predominantly need income to fix unattractiveness. ”
This is untrue. Genuinely ugly women cannot change that with the things you mention and poor men get married and have kids every day. Some of the most prolific “baby daddies” are in the underclass.
Although “having an income” really is just a basic tier of adulthood.
Actually reading the remainder of your rant…the entire thing is unhinged. You cannot force women (or men) to date people they are not interested in. So this is not a “problem” than can be “fixed”.
I would contend that men in both of those categories, while poor (financially), would not also be unattractive (physically). It’s the need for men to have either looks or money which makes the “So what first attracted you to multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?” ‘joke’ question put to Debbie Mc Gee by Caroline Quentin’s Mrs Merton character so archly funny.
Caroline Aherne. But you’re basically right.
“This is untrue. Genuinely ugly women cannot change that with the things you mention and poor men get married and have kids every day. Some of the most prolific “baby daddies” are in the underclass. “.
You haven’t been to Asia. Complete faces are changed, bodies restructured. Almost everything can be significantly upgraded on a woman. Most men would either not notice or not care that it not “natural”
I would suggest that in the case of prolific, underclass ‘sperminators’, these men, at least within their own peer group, are actually high status.
Yeah, as stated, they’ll usually be physically attractive and/or have a certain swagger. Swagger alone is often enough to “dupe” a woman into having sex with you, frankly.
Boy, is that true! Just think about all the extremely ugly male rock stars to prove your point. If Keith Richards can get laid, then anyone can based on looks only.
Traditional masculine confidence is very sexually attractive to most women whether they admit it or not. Usually they get ahead in life because of it. When I was single I didn’t require wealth but did ambition.
Actually, yours is the “rant”.
Men can actually fix a lot by putting in work. Yes, young women judge extremely harshly, and some things like body height can’t be “fixed”. But, building up some muscle and having a healthy (low) body fat, developing storytelling skills and humor, as well as having hobbies, interests and being passionate about one’s work can make a huge difference. If anything good comes from today’s effed up environment, it’s that men really have nothing much to do besides “manning up”, not for women but for themselves, and becoming actual leaders who do not care about the opinions of others (and especially the opinions of women). This is exactly what we need in an environment of feminized wet rags – strong, independent men who are ready to build a new society based on rational thought and open and honest communication.
A leader who doesn’t care about the opinions of others is at best a bully.
Since when has “manning up” involved not caring about other people, especially women?
Manning up means taking responsibility, not becoming an arrogant pr**k who abuses females. If that’s your idea of being a decent bloke no wonder the incels can’t get any action
I read that Russia is now outlawing sodomy and reducing mass abortion. Opposite to woke. Although I detest their attacks on Ukraine I think that their direction on woke is encouraging.
I’m sure that will stop it. There were never any gays around before it was decriminalised everywhere else after all
I just wish there was a compromise and honest conversations about the lifestyles and habits. Portraying the majority of them as the old frumpy married couple on ‘modern family’ is not realistic.
I’ll give you plenty of respect for protecting women! We need all the help we can get, especially those of us who are in the gender critical movement and wish to safeguard children from predatory males.
The biggest irony today has got to be how Left’s destruction of society hides in plain sight. Left-wing policies have denied men’s primary role as care-taker of a family. Aligning with that sexual liberation caused men to refuse committing to raising families. Women facing a lonely poor end, demanded income equality with men so they can look after themselves. These dynamics together drove some women to sex work and some men to crime. The Left celebrated the former as liberation, and highlighted the latter as further evidence that men’s role as care-taker is not valid. Yet when one is asked about the harm the Left did, most will be clueless as to what that means thinking of the Left as the “good guys”.
Surgery costs money, doesn’t it?
If you’re not blessed with with natural beauty, then you need to shell out a lot of money to fix it.
Do you think money grows on trees for ugly women? What if such women have to work as hard as men because they have no hope of a sugar daddy?
Personally, I decided to focus on my career. For me, this is easier than shredding and torturing my body in the illusory hope that someone will finally want to put their seed inside me.
There have always been sad, lonely people, both male and female.
But in the past, there was back-up for them from extended family and community spirit. Or they could be religious (without being marginalised).
All these ameliorating factors have now evaporated.
Women basically need to look attractive and have a nice character. Mostly this can be fixed by surgery makeup and effort. Men need money and a nice personality but money is the most important criterion. Women have spent 60 years reducing the income potential of men. Now some men are left behind physically and more important, financially.
They are angry and they see it as a legitimate response to a deliberate government policy, that makes them losers. I can see it, they can see it. Nobody is interested in fixing the problem. No votes in it for them
How have women reduced men’s earning capacity? And why do poorer communities have higher birth rates than richer ones if what you claim is true?
Women have reduced men’s earning capacity by a combination of higher personal and family taxes and increased competition for higher paying jobs
Unfair competition at that. But for now many men are still too chivalrous or naive–when not intimidated–to see what’s going on.
Higher unmarried birth rates.
Women want a man who can “provide” for her and her children when they’re very young and she has to give up income to do the majority of the work–she usually loses years of career potential, years of social security income, skills, networking, etc. Most men in their 20s or 30s who don’t have a steady income don’t seem like the men who’d do all of the child-rearing, home management, home repairs, etc., while the woman earns all of the money (and they can’t get pregnant and do the breast-feeding anyway.)
Women want men with ENOUGH money. I’ve turned down SO many really wealthy guys in my life, probably stupidly I guess, but the men I did choose always had careers and therefore some kind of “status” I guess, but not millions. Just enough to provide security.
If women are now expected to support ourselves if we don’t have children, I certainly think men can do the same thing, esp. since they still until recently had a lot more help in college and networking than women did. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
I think incels who blame everything on those greedy women are just not taking responsibility for themselves. I used to model and had lots of options and I’d take the guy with character and a career that helped humanity over millionaires every single time. But a cashier at 30? Um, no.
Refreshing honesty.
You needed it spelled out that many women come with a price tag and the need to have their self-serving fantasies indulged?
Now YOU’RE sounding like an incel.
I don’t know what an incel is, but the tone I was aiming for was refreshing honesty!
Fair enough!
Interesting description. Now try and reverse the genders of your own description and see how you feel upon reading it…
So looks and money matter? I know I am attractive enough but lack significant money. Somehow over the course of my 80 odd years, I’ve never lacked companionship and marriage, sadly serially up to my last 20 some years with one now passed. I’m not pleased about being single again but can still enjoy meeting ladies with neither of us demanding much where looks hardly matter anymore. I suspect an interest in others is about all that’s necessary – seeking and finding. .
I’ve never had any money, and I’ve got a face Stevie Wonder would be upset to see. Luckily for me alcohol was invented, I’ll assume it has the same effect on women as it does men making the opposite sex look much more attractive after a skinful otherwise I’d have been really struggling
This idea that woman are obssessed with money is just absolutely untrue. Look at the way women think of Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. They were nerdy kids now they are nerdy incredibly rich adults. The women don’t exactly flock to them.
Very good article. Especially for making the point that much of the attractiveness for both sexes is confidence and personality (which of course both get damaged by being unwanted). It is not all about looks, by any means. Still, it remains the case that the terms of trade are against men. At its worst, a woman who is desperate and willing to have sex can swap the sex for attention, at least (like some of the groomed girls we hear about). A (heterosexual) man does not have the same option – in fact one of the drivers for becoming a trans woman might be that it allows you to see yourself as desirable, and desired.
The old feminist quip that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” is a proud statement of empowerment. Swap the genders and it becomes pathetic an ridiculous.
As a woman I don’t see how trading sex gets you “attention”? There are enough men who will have sex with women they are not attracted to to make casual sex fairly meaningless. I definitely would not feel desirable solely because a guy was willing to have sex with me.
No some would have sex just to use you and build up their own egos. It’s meaningless in the end. But some women do the same thing it appears.
You’d have to be pretty desperate. But I think it one of the things that some of the grooming gangs use to snare girls – who indeed are that desperate. I just picked it as the extreme example of the fact that for women (but not for men) sex is a resource that can be used to gain attention (and cash), or to contribute as your part to a relationship where you have little else to offer. It will not buy you love or happiness , of course, but having choices – even bad choices – still leaves you better off than not having them. And for all that I do believe in love and the meeting of minds, I also believe it works better in the long run if each party feels he/she is getting something from the other.
Wow really? You must not know many fatherless daughters…
This is a wonderfully compassionate but honest article by a true writer. Thank you.
This is a sad article to read but it’s the result of 50+ years of irrational thought. The sexual revolution turned sex into a stand-alone recreational activity divorced from love & commitment. Not having sex is now no different than being cut from the team or cheerleading squad. A very lonely generation is the result.
But for now, talk of a sexual counterrevolution isn’t done. A recent Unherd article claimed, in so many words, that to critique the sexual revolution is tantamount to calling for the “repression” of women. (Who these days seem to be repressing themselves just fine without men’s help. . .)
The idea of a hope chest is now derided. But in the past, making a pair of mittens that showed your manual dexterity, aesthetic sense, ability to make a household, and contribute to your husband surviving the winter, was a way of determining your value in the marriage market that seems less superficial than todays criteria.
I agree and I’m sure you adhere to that age old observation about successful unions, “the most beautiful site in the world is a woman pushing a lawn mower”. Bonus points if she can overhaul it.
The article is not helpful. What is ugly? How have people survived in the past?
The stories about ‘ugly’ and ‘red postules’ come from a generation which is obsessed with physical appearance. Everybody takes selfies and sends them to friends. So, if you’re ugly you can’t join in and take selfies and you become an outcast.
I look around me and see plenty of ugly people and they just get on with life. ‘Beauty is in….’
This article has really upset me. To refer to anyone as ugly because of their appearance is sad and shallow. I was born with a cleft lip and palate, I didn’t ask for it, and I’ve struggled with it all my life. I could weep at the idea that an educated writer can class me as “ugly’ I’m married with three sons and five grandchildren. I have a degree from a prestigious university, and am an accomplished musician. Why am I unacceptable?
I agree with you, the way the author writes about “ugly” women strikes me as shallow, arrogant and patronizing. The author regrets saying that Donna and Denise would never be able to find a sexual partner, but why dwell so much on their appearance? Why describe them as “UG-ly”? The article is unfortunately yet another example of today’s obsession with people’s looks and physical attractiveness.
Also hilarious how the author reads so much into arbitrary things like the cashier’s expression. Some people just have “resting b***h face” but are perfectly content and nice. Borderline physiognomy/phrenology which reflects more on the author’s feeblemindedness and judginess in succumbing to this shallow world and communities and ideas which further that shallowness and submit instead of truly attempting to question and change. Can’t expect more from circlejerks of losers who dwell in their own self pity and misery but the author can do better. Is this woman the NSA or a fortune teller who can see the inner being of every person? Worthless navel gazing and projection, I wonder what this author has to show in her life
Because you have to be reasonably attractive for someone to invest time and effort in you. Not everyone has the same beauty standards. Flies…honey
You obviously have been accepted and are honoured in your family. That is the most important thing. One can be accepted by the crowd but lose out in marriage and family which are the important things in the end.
Don’t put any faith in “the educated” (sic). They got us in the mess we’re in in the first place.
Femcel here. In my experience, plenty of men want sex, and even an incel does. But they want the beautiful woman and immediately denigrate you, so who would be interested?
I had unhappy thirties and forties but then adapted. It is odd to look back and remember when you last had a date, or when you can say that was probably my last kiss. As I get older, I feel unsafe, and would like a partner in my home and even to walk with. Never did I want to abase myself just for momentary comfort. (Gat a teddy bear when you have a sales trip.)
I wish I were a Christian earlier and had met a Tony Conrad sort. Now, not here to reply, but just to say a woman can tell when a man hates you for not being the trophy they want. There is a lot of choice. I made peace that I would not get chosen.
Ridiculous article. It’s based on the idea of an “incel”, which is a vaguely defined concept to begin with. In a sexual marketplace where 90% of women chase after 5-10% of men, and 80% of all men are classified by women as “below average”, the mere concept of an “incel” is just a cheap distraction. More than 28% of young males do not have regular sexual intercourse, a number that has almost doubled ever since we started to have online dating and “social” media. No such development is seen with young women – they still enjoy regular sexual activity. You ask how this is possible? It’s quite simple – the sexually active, young women are now sharing a few “hyper-attractive” men, who however they cannot possibly keep or draw into a relationship. This guarantees that these girls will end up as very frustrated single women, and it keeps the average men sexless. An incel – involuntary celibate – can be found in most average, young men. Which is why I said it is a ridiculous concept to begin with. And the word “femcel” doesn’t even make sense, not least because an incel is not defined as a male.
The author seems to just come to terms with the fact that unattractive women have something that is called a “low sexual marketplace value”, meaning that they stand a bad chance in today’s sexual marketplace. This was, however, always the case, as women have always been prized for their looks. And it is also no surprise that attractive women (and men) have less of a necessity to develop something like a personality, and some actual character, owing to the fact that everyone is nice to them anyway on account of their good looks. There is not enough hardship for them to forge their souls in the fires of adversity, to put it in a slightly more poetic manner. As such, the less good-looking individuals generally have better humor and a higher social intelligence.
I must conclude that this article does not add value in any kind of way, because it sets out with the concept of incels, promptly refuses to understand the actual raison d’être of this very concept, and instead shifts the “problem” to women. In the same manner as “1 in 4 homeless people are women” tries to feminize a predominantly male problem. No matter what happens, women are always the victims. And men are bad because they don’t want to sleep with women who are unattractive. Well, newsflash for you dear author, the insane amount of sexually frustrated young men has actually been a boon for unattractive women, as average men today are not exactly spoiled for choice. I can tell you this for a fact based on my own personal experience, having been rejected by various below-average-looking girls, who clearly have had other options open to them. Ask any average-looking young man, and they will tell you that indeed they are competing for women with below-average looks. This can only be the case in a female-dominated, hypersexualized and extremely shallow sexual environment, which coincidentally is exactly where we find ourselves today.
It may not be true that a woman can have sex whenever she wants, but much can be achieved with a healthy lifestyle, and a nice choice of clothes as well as some make-up, paired with a warm smile. Just as with the male so-called incels, hard work does pay off. The problem these people – both males and females – have, is that they think they should be “loved for who they are”. Now that’s not a wrong thought, but it’s no excuse to refrain from constantly trying to improve in every area of life. A man can build muscle – he will look stronger and more attractive. A woman can also build muscle – she’ll look toned and will have much nicer curves. Both should have a healthy (low) percentage of body fat. Being overweight not only looks unattractive, it also suggests an unhealthy lifestyle and lack of self-respect and self-control. A healthy mind lives in a healthy body. The same goes for being creative and having different skills. Men can be handy – building and fixing stuff. Women can be artsy – play the flute or sing. Never underestimate the power of effort.
**
Lots to chew on here.
Not many men actually want to be dominated but a woman who is a confident partner during sex, knows how to press a man’s buttons and doesn’t wait to be asked to press them scores lots of free points, whatever she looks like. I think that’s a big part of the attraction of porn and sex workers – for heterosexual men – not so much what the women look like.
I think it’s ‘harelip’ by the way. Hair lip means something else!
Aren’t porn actresses mostly attractive??
May I respectfully suggest that women journalists should stop writing about women and their angst for once in a while and write about something else: carburettors or the Peninsular War, or something.
Quite right – people should only write about what you want to read. What a flounce, mate.
Your sense of humour button seems to have been switched off. Please consult a qualified technician.
I can’t believe nobody has mentioned the overall decline in sexuality and interest among both men and women among younger generations compared to older ones. It’s fairly well documented that the global birthrate is plummeting and while birth control access is still the largest factor, it isn’t the only factor. Declining sexual activity is the other and it’s been well documented. Some nations and cultures have this worse than others (Japan is the most extreme example I’m aware of), but it’s happening to a varying extent in most of the west. The usual explanation one hears from incels themselves is that feminist values undermine the evolutionary basis for attraction and pairing, men seeking youth, fertility, attractiveness, with women seeking security, social status, and confidence. It makes sense logically from an evolutionary standpoint, but there are other theories. For example, other modern values have reduced social pressure to marry/reproduce. Divorce and single motherhood are now acceptable in a way they once were not. So is remaining single. Still further, in our busy modern world, there are many other concerns, pursuits, and entertainment options to compete for attention that might otherwise have gone towards mate seeking. There are also more obscure hypotheses like pollutants causing testosterone level decreases or population density reaching a critical level that causes a breakdown in human behavior (look up the mouse universe experiments of John B. Calhoun for this one). On a more practical note, I feel bad for the people who want relationships but can’t find them, but I have to wonder if there’s not an element of ‘grass being greener’ for many of them. Having seen an incel forum or two, I have to believe most of the relationships these people would form would be of the unsatisfying and unhappy variety, so is having a lot of unsatisfied and unhappy singles really any worse than having a similar number of people in bad and abusive relationships? I tend to think not.
The unhappy single people are not single because the sole alternative is a “bad and abusive” relationship. (Taking seriously women’s ever-changing, subjective and self-serving definitions of what constitutes “abuse” is one factor leading to distrustful or adversarial relations between the sexes, by the way.)
If you can’t afford children or trust your mate to stick around when you do have children, why have a relationship? Yes people put forth this or that reason but those reasons aren’t compelling enough for increasing numbers of young people. And what relationships do exist among those who think a career and material satisfaction is more important than having children, tend to be temporary and unfulfilling.
You don’t have to visit and incel or femcel support group to see it.
People endlessly virtue signal about racism, but racism is completely insignificant compared to the discrimination we all practice all the time based on physical attractiveness. It’s worst for women – men can often overcome these handicaps by being funny or brilliant.
What a stupid comparison. Racism is not insignificant and refusing physical intimacy with somebody you are not attracted to is not “discrimination.”
Nobody will die from lack of sex. Facing racial discrimination in housing, jobs etc absolutely will cause you physical hardship.
Yes, well, not being able to have the advantages of PARTNERING with someone, for reasons of shared economy, mutual support and safety, and making a family, DOES lead to economic and health and life disadvantages, too.
ohmigosh. I am posting comments “too quickly” for Unherd. I wrote one two line reply above and now have been trying to post this for a half hour. I waited ten minutes since the last time I tried. Thank goodness I don’t want to date Unherd. It can “get” Mary Harrington, and my time is not worth worrying about. Must I really wait a whole hour to try to post, Unherd?
Discrimination based on looks can limit people’s job opportunities and lead to unfair treatment in many other areas. It is not only about access to sexual partners…
You also forget that the “lack of sex” is not the only problem of people who keep being rejected as potential partners. Nobody will die from lack of sex, but repeated experiences of feeling rejected have an impact on people’s self-esteem and can lead to depression. Loneliness is another problem faced by many “involuntary celibate” people.
“Nobody will die from lack of sex”
I would go so far as to assert that a lack of sex kills a hundred times as many people in the UK as racial discrimination. Loneliness is an absolutely gigantic co-morbidity and Britain is one of the least racist nations in the world. Serious physical hardship caused by racial discrimination affects perhaps dozens, but a lack of sex and relationships is killing thousands of young (mostly) men.
Well companies are stupid if they don’t pick the best people.
100%! I find our cultures obsession with race and sex (or should I say gender?) as bizarre as it is fascinating. I am inclined to believe that physical attractiveness, particularly at the upper and lower end, is extraordinarily impactful in terms of how we experience reality. This does not necessarily mean that attractiveness results in someone being “happier”, or “more successful”, in the broadest sense but it obviously affects how others treat us, and therefore how we understand ourselves. Thankfully, a large number of us are in a sort of undifferentiated middle area when it comes to attractiveness.
You know, I have been re-reading all my Jane Austen and George Eliot novels trying to look through the social mores of the era to the humans being dispayed.
And do you know what I have decided? Just this.
No. Thing. Has. Changed.
Humans are still the klueless klots they always were.
Let’s just take Miss Noble of Middlemarch who was always snitching food to give to the poor. In the 19th century she was a spinster. Would she be a femcel today?
You tell me.
I’m like you. At 10, I was called the “ugliest girl in school,” thanks to the boys rating all of us. My appearance and health were really neglected by my family and I had matts in my hair and holes in my clothes. I also was the “Brain.” At 12, some girls took pity on me and gave me a makeover. Four years later, when I’d managed to get into a top college a few years early, I was literally modeling. Most of being a “beautiful woman” has to do with working at it and a certain attitude, not entitlement. I wasn’t given anything–in fact, I had to work extremely hard at it, but that didn’t’ stop plenty of women (who wouldn’t put the work in themselves, including female relatives) maligning me behind my back as if I’d been given some great privilege and power. Beauty is no more a type of power than being a 14 point stag, but it does enable you to attract the kind of mate you want. That’s it. Otherwise, the price you pay is constant harassment and resentment and, at least in my day, being treated like you’re stupid when you might be the smartest in the room (which was my maddening situation, having gone from “brain” to “beauty”).
If you want to be attractive to men, either work hard at it while also choosing men who care about _you_ as a human being, or get the f**k over it or try to be a lesbian. I tried and failed. Just too straight at heart, damnit. It’s not fair, but what in life is? Femininity has always been an art form, as French and Italian women know very well.
It always did shock me how vicious women could to be women who are particularly attractive. I cannot really think of a male equivalent of it.
Men compete with each other in different ways that’s all. The more financial success they achieve the more high status women they will have to choose from.
Female beauty does not develop linearly. Wether a 12yo girls looks beautiful or not is only weakly predictive of how she will lonnk 10 years later.
To judge by birth rates in Italy, feminity must be an art Italian women no longer practice very well.
Yes, “trying” to be a lesbian remains something of a rite of passage for young women. And then those who succeed in the effort are so often disappointed in the result.
Life ain’t fair, but it can be made to be fairer, both in subjective perception and reality. Joke of a situation this world is in, such unnecessary strife
Can we please stop using the word celibate for people (m/f) who are simply not having sex while they actually want to? Especially when this leads to or comes from frustration. It is called sexual frustration. Celibacy is in fact the complete opposite: a deliberate choice to abstain from all sexual behaviour, which often includes activities with the opposite sex, flirting etc etc. Celibacy is aimed at a relief while ‘incel/femcel (sexually frustrated people) are in fact suffering from their unsatisfied craving. You can rationalize sexlless life as a social phenomena as much as you want but to use the word celibacy without the proper context is ridiculous and contributes to self victimizing.
You’re right of course but I fear the term is too catchy and has been established.
Haha yeah, sort of corporatism. Put some catchy words on a ppt and thy shall have ‘crowd’. Crowd equals respect and income. Job done.
I agree with you, but the I think the idea of Incel is the “Involuntary” Celibacy.
Is this a parallel universe to mine?
It’s not one I inhabit. Maybe it’s true people create their own reality.
It’s an interesting piece, particularly about the cruelty of adolescence. I have a memory of a science lesson, 40 years ago, when I was with a few cool boys and I wasn’t cool. They had a debate about who was the ugliest girl in the class and they all agreed it was me. You really can’t forget something like that.
They sound like assholes, Helen. Personally, I was always attracted to a woman with a fit, strong body (hit the gym) and a dirty mind (daydream a little) and a warm smile (choose to look on the bright side). Thus equipped, any woman can be attractive, and the physical perfection of youth that a pretty woman has is a short-lived affair tbh.
Of course but honestly what are you expecting of teenagers? Girls were just as bad even to each other.
As a father, I think girls are actually worse to each other.
Goodness me what a sad piece for its commodification of both sexes. Whatever happened to the beauty of kindness compassion intelligence sense of humour as ways to judge others (of either sex), not talk of “fixing” by surgery and expensive clothes. Lots of us women have plenty else to do than waiting around for a man to notice them, “ugly” or not!!! And if the incels think it’s their looks that women hate it’s more their personal hygiene and entitled attitudes!
As a male, I’m not keen on the use of the term ‘ugly’ to describe people’s looks as I feel character supersedes looks. My wife of thirty odd years has a serious lifelong illness and it’s her character that she developed from youth in dealing with that illness that I found so attractive.
I know I may have developed that opinion at a young age because I was a gawky introverted youth and had to rely on developing character and humour by adulthood to attract women – and it was reasonably successful as I’ve had plenty of close relationships with women. In a room full of attractive people I can always use wit and empathy to get on very well with anyone as a consequence – it’s an old cliche but poor looks, in blokes at least, often develops interesting character.
However I recall as a young teenager that a particular girl let it be known that she liked me, and I found her unattractive, ugly I have to admit. So I created nasty rhymes and jokes about her, learned and rendered by those around me (despite me not being in the popular clique), and these plagued her schooldays for a good few years. I feel very guilty, as I should, every time I remember that behaviour. My only salve is that I hope it helped develop her character.
It would be interesting to know if ´Denise´ had a father who loved her. My guess is that she did. So many women have confidence because they know they are loved by their family and so many attractive women feel insecure because they know they are not.
Genuinely moving. Thank you.
“ This lonely, plainly unhappy woman had the most loving response of anyone.”
How on earth did you know she was “lonely and plainly unhappy”?!
In my hometown I would see an elderly couple sitting by a bench at the local pond at least once a week. They often were holding hands or at the very least sitting close together. It was clear that they loved each other. They were also both ugly to the point of being deformed. It used to warm my heart to see them – to know that they had overcome the odds and found each other and made a happy life.
Beautiful essay, Mary.
The thing that I found really difficult as a teenager was talking to women. I was shy and lacking in confidence. Add to this was the fact that I had no idea how to act or ask a girl out other than lame attempts that usually ended up in failure. The odd thing was that as I left Australia and traveled, I had to at times travel with others which included women. This is where I cut my teeth so to speak. I ceased to see women as something to obtain and started to form friendships with them. Occasionally this went further but it was no big deal if it didn’t. This was essential for me to begin to have long term relationships, the last of which ended in marriage and still going strong after 20 years
I do not know any incels, and I do actually feel sorry for the poor buggers. Societies lack of empathy for them is typical of our modern woke society where certain sections our community have become our untouchables. We are conditioned to have disgust towards them and no sympathy for them. This is the first time that I have heard the term femcels. This is at first a bit weird, but once I thought about it, it was not so hard to believe that they exist. Women are more prominent in our society today. We hear their voices and opinions. They still have a form on protection that seems to permit them to speak with impunity. Women are nowhere as kind and empathetic as they are made out to be. I have met more kinder men than women recently. Still, I take each person as they come because gender is no guarantee for almost anything.
FEMCEL? Wow … They love to invent new words for imaginary victim sub-groups. So we can expect mascels, gaycels, lesbcels, trancels, etc coming shortly.
Do the cultural origins of arranged marriages where the two people only meet after they are wed derives from the need for babies from all the fertile women and for fathers committed to provide and protect the children?
No incels or femcels there?
Loads of Indian incels.
Lots of domestic abuse though
I wonder if it’s possible to upvote an entire comment thread. And really nice article as well, even though it veers into the familiar trait of painting an entire group based on a bad few apples, as long as they are a permitted group like “incels”.
“My point is that there’s more than one way to roll”
My take based in decades of life is men (despite stereotype) are more likely to be appreciative of women beyond mere beauty, at least beyond those awful teen and early twenties age.
But women tend to be a lot less appreciative of men who lack wealth/ income. Of course its a biological thing, not because women are greedy, but it does mean that the lower quartile or two of men do indeed have it worse than almost any women.
“But this sad young woman had a reaction that I still clearly recall, even though it was almost two decades ago. She was the only person to meet my eyes with a look of pure compassion.”
Lovely. Like putting on a warm jumper in winter. And so, so true.
Sympathy is not the same as empathy. The former is words. The latter can be, as in this case, an unspoken look.
I like the honesty in this article. How we judge each other and people we barely know. How we assess the quality of their physical appearance but are encouraged not to talk about these mental processes occurring.
Although this piece is thoughtful and sensitive, I am afraid that is misses an essential point. The men referred to here as incels primarily want sex and they are faced with the problem that the women they want will not have sex with them. The women referred to in this piece (i.e., femcels) appear to primarily want relationships that include sex but are based on affection. These are two different agendas, and the issues they reflect and the obstacles they entail are fundamentally different – as are their solutions. Once again, the need to obscure a fundamental difference between men and women seems to blind and otherwise intelligent person from a simple truth.
That should be “hare lip”
I’ve never heard of femcel. It sounds like yet another unwelcome feminine hygiene product on TV. Everything must be labelled now. L, B, G…A list, B list, C2, D, E, in order for us to decide who we scorn or admire.
I see the TV adverts are increasingly full of overweight unattractive but jolly women as if they are on some self esteem therapy. They are not, they are a cynical marketing opportunity to increase clothes and makeup sales via virtue signalling.
Looking around, stunning physically attractive wives are in a minority. The second glance is at the value of their or their partner’s car, so superficial are our judgements.
Like others, I thought this was a moving piece. There’s a passage in a Kingsley Amis novel – maybe “Take a girl like you” – where a character who is unattractive talks about how different and hard life is for the unattractive. A compassionate insight from a writer who was himself attractive and sexually successful.
But personality does go a long way – “she has a great personality” is not a backhanded compliment.
Reading this article, I could not escape the feeling that these estranged people need to grow up, view the world as, and behave as adults, rather than as adolescents. Disney has a hell of a lot to answer for, the Dysnyfication of relationships of love is a road to madness. I belive that this article is a witness to that statement.
Actually, um, lack of sex? Um, kinda stinks? Like basically It is a form of soft torture.
Thanks so much for this beautifully written article. Few could have wrote with such intelligence, sensitivity and compassion on this topic, which like you say is hard to write about.
To offer an explanation for Elle’s “weird attempt at positive spin”, there is in a sense 3 types of heterosexual femcels. 1) True femcel which this article focusses on, women whos suffering is fully comparable with male incels. 2) Aesthetic femcels – this might seem extra weird to folk not familiar with internet aesthetics like dark academia, goblincore, etc; but for some women the femcel identity is essentially a temporary style choice. 3) There’s a large proportion of women (maybe over 30% in some places like Japan) who are de facto femcels, but *dont* identify with the label. These are women who are largely choosing to avoid sexual relationships. The male term incel is a contraction of ‘involuntary celibate’ – while femcel is just a contraction of ‘female celebate’, so they dont technically have to be involuntarily sexless. Elle are in a sense right to celebrate those voluntarily single women. From a liberal perspective it’s great that economic development has given them the option to be financially independent of men. This is feminist analyses but studies suggest its largely true – for many women, being married or in other committed sexual relationships gives them less benefits & demands more sacrifice than is the case for men. So given there are a limited supply of ‘good’ men – who e.g. dont expect their partner to do more than a fair share of the house-work in cases when they both work the same hours – then many women are better off on their own.
With true femcels it’s different, they are far more socially isolated than the type 3) women and probably would be far happier even in a relationship with a moderately bad man. I think one of the reasons femcels find it difficult to link up even when they reach out to incels is suspicion caused by the incels blackpill ideology – when taken to the extreme that makes them believe looks are literally the only thing that matters for attracting female sexual interest, and so any apparent approaches must be fake. (The blackpill also states that looks are less important for men, so even the most ugly women are able to form relationships with average men). Lots of other reasons why the Blackpill has a -ve impact on relationships & relationship formation chances.
The Economist released an interesting 11 minute Youtube on Incels yesterday – ‘Incels: how online extremism is changing’. It included the fact that in 2018, the number of referrals for potential terrorists to the UKs prevent programme for mixed ideology (which includes incels) overtook referrals for Islamic extremeists. And by 2021 such referrals outnumbered those for Islamic extremists by over 2:1. So Prevent & other agencies round the world are getting increasingly serious about de-radicalising incels. It could be effective if they allocated teams to countering the Blackpill. Which possibly can only be done by Pros – thousands of amateurs have tried but they just re-inforce incels & fellow travellers belief in the blackpill because they mock it and counter with platitudes that are even less true than the blackpill itself. To challenge the blackpill, its probably necessary to acknowledge the incels do have some legitimate reason for grievance, and that parts of the blackpill are true, society really has became considerably more lookist these past few decades. But then patiently assemble & deploy evidence based arguments to show the false parts of the blackpill and how believing those are not in incels best interests (or at least not in the interests of mosts – for some they are comforting lies). Maybe Im being too optimistic here – the brilliant Naama Kates seems to have became dissalusioned with the prospects for the CVE community to have much of a +ve impact on incels & femcels, and shes been involved with them much more than I have. Still , there are other reasons to be hopeful that things will improve for the true femcels…
“number of referrals for potential terrorists to the UKs prevent programme for mixed ideology (which includes incels) overtook referrals for Islamic extremeists.”
Yes, plenty of incels going around stabbing people for making fun of them, running trucks over civilians, bombing concerts, or joining murderous militias.
That’s the main terror threat for the UK.
Beyond ridiculous, the state of this country today
You meant ‘harelip’? Unless ‘hair lip’ was part of that weird joke?
I’ve been reading some of these comments and I just find them baffling. Is the divide between men and women so great that each are seen only in terms of personal gain? So it’s not the effects of technology and narcissism, that was suggested in another article, that’s responsible for the breakdown of relationships and the ability to care about others.
Back in the day, “femcel” was referred to as “Bless her heart, she’s trying too hard!” or, “That’s ok honey – the good lord will find you someone,” or my personal fave, usually emanating from an increasingly worried mother: “There’s somebody for everyone out there…”
But alas, now deeply ensconced within our culture wars, everyone has to be labeled and/or categorized, e.g., “if you’re this, then you must think that.”
I’ll continue to think that incels are just today’s bad bowlers of yesteryear who never want women bowlers on their company team. And I’ll continue to think of “femcels” as today’s version of “Everybody looks good at 3am just before last call.”
Not everyone wants a one night stand. Who wants to be Ms. 3 a.m.? A man might not respect me, but I will respect me.
“ It may be true what incels say, that if femcels “lowered their standards” (that is, if they would have sex with anyone), they could. But I think this is probably true of young men as well: that they, too, could have sex if they would accept literally anyone. But surprise: just about no one of any gender wants to have sex with literally anyone.”
So very true! This is what the “lower your standards” crew often forget!
I understand why these groups spring up but we are talking about a minority of male and female humans here . You only need to attend any shopping centre and you’ll see the most unattractive of people pushing prams with other children running wildly around them.
So, is the basic message here that women who are 3-5 on the attractiveness scale have to accept being with men who are 3-5 on that scale and vice versa? Because if that’s it, my grandmother could have told you this and saved you all 50 years of angst and suffering.
Ugly men can get the girl if ‘they have got what it takes’ – just Google famous ugly male film stars’ for the answer…..I’ve fancied a few ugly but mesmeric men in my lifetime – but they’re always ‘taken’ ….go figure!
If it wasn’t for the internet many of these people would have made the best of their lives..instead of seeking daily reminders of their ‘defects’.
Until recently I had a female lodger who turned out to have a dominant and controlling personality. I’m not by nature particularly dominant myself, but absolutely do not tolerate not being in control in my own home, and ended up evicting her a few weeks ago.
“My point is that there’s more than one way to roll and that this woman found hers.”
+1
The real true beauty of any Woman (or Man) lies within her heart and her personality, see this beauty and you have a lovely wife for life, how good are your eyes?
People who lack social skills have problems with their social lives? Who’d’a thunk it!
Hmmm.
From my perspective, incels and femcels and the like are, in reality, mostly “voluntary celibates” because, as the article admits, these people do have potential partners available to them in both cases, but are not attracted to them, and therefore choose not to avail themselves of these opportunities. In other words, what we are talking about are people who are attracted to people who are not attracted to them, and not attracted to the ones who are.
I am not sure what there is to do about that, really.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and it’s true that not everyone is a good candidate to attract someone into a relationship — regardless of their character or personality. Attraction is, after all, a critical part of relationship formation, even if its importance tends to decline over time in very long-term partnerships (but never completely, as people of both sexes who “let themselves go” tend to learn the hard way).
If you’re less attractive, you will have a harder time attracting someone into a relationship, and the people you do attract may not be attractive to you. In that situation, you basically have four options: (1) become more attractive, (2) adjust your criteria for whom you are attracted to, (3) change location/pool/area or (4) sit out and find other things to focus on in life.
Becoming more attractive is something most can do to some degree, but in many cases of people who are really unattractive it probably still won’t let them attract people that they, themselves, are attracted to. Adjusting one’s criteria is much more easily said than done, for most people, I think, and choosing a relationship with someone to whom one is only somewhat attracted to is disastrous for both people and should be avoided. Changing location can be helpful for some (some places really are different and “harder” places for less attractive people than others are), and it can also be helpful to seek a larger pool if one is trying in a smaller pool and failing (such as small religious pools). And finally, sitting out is fine as well — it requires, however, that you accept that you’re simply not a person who is well set up to attract someone you also find attractive, and you need to accept that, internalize it, and focus on other aspects of your life that you find engaging and fulfilling — that’s true for both men and women who find themselves in this kind of mismatch situation (attracted to people who are not attracted to them — which, as noted above, is really what this is for the most part). In all cases, bitterness and alienation need to be avoided, and this is the key to embracing this reality in a positive way for yourself. Far from being a “waste” there are many other ways that empathy and warmth and compassion can be productively expressed for self and others that do not involve an intimate partner for those who are in this situation of not being attracted to the people who are attracted to them.
One final note — I found the passing reference to the unattractive older “femdom” with the attractive young boyfriend a bit odd. If the point wasn’t that this was an option for femcel women (which I don’t think it is, since it is something they already are or are not), then why raise it? As an example that unattractive women can find other vectors to attract men? If that’s the point, it’s a singularly terrible example to use, and one which calls into question the premise it would be trying to support, precisely because the “option” is so rare among women, which explains its effectiveness in this case. Again, if a femcel had something about her that was both rare and attractive to men she would likely not be a femcel to begin with (as this femdom is also not … she is not conventionally attractive, but she is not a femcel), because she would be well aware of that aspect of her that is attractive to men. It’s kind of like saying to a femcel: “well, it’s okay to be not conventionally attractive if you have this other thing that is super rare among women and which has a significant fanbase among men” … again, if she had something like that, she’d know it already, and she wouldn’t be femcel. I have known quite a few dominant women over the years who fit the “not conventionally attractive” profile (often very overweight, sometimes other aspects are not conventionally attractive as well) and they all had a long line of interested men precisely because they were femdoms, but … they were also very, very well aware of this from a young age, from teenage years in most cases, based on how they interacted with boys when younger. So, yeah, a puzzling reference.
True beauty is within the body and mind, find this in a partner and you have a possible wife (or husband) for life.
This piece of conventional wisdom is true without any doubt. But at the same time quite superficial and theoretical, even hypocritical. Or, to say it bluntly, easy to talk about and hard to achieve. Think about it long and hard enough and you get down to the bottom of human inadeqacy and unhappiness.
Socrates was the ugliest and poorest of all human beings. Alcibiades was the most beautiful and richest of all human beings. Yet Alcibiades lusted for Socrates and Socrates showed his palm to Alcibiades. The rich and beautiful suffered for want of the poor and ugly, but the poor and ugly did not suffer for want of the rich and beautiful.
Do these femcels want sex, romance and intimacy, or do they NEED them?
If people’s needs are not being met then of course they are going to respond in some way, including assembling with other people who are having the same experience.
Instead of splitting hairs over the existence of femcels, the personal and social dynamics of their experience, and how they contrast with incels we should be recognizing unmet needs and asking why they aren’t being met.
Must we sociologize everything like we are writing a college textbook?
If femcels have unmet needs I suggest that they look everywhere humans live and see how much unmet need there is. My guess is that if such an investigation is done honestly and thoroughly their problems will look like part of something bigger and will no longer feel so personal. It won’t solve anything, but recognizing the real problem is a good first step.
Reminds me of the Guardsmens ” Grimmy Run”….
Funnily enough the term “incel” was coined by a woman to describe herself and her challenges dating with a disability. Unfortunately it was taken over by misogynist men.
Also as a correction it is not and never has been hard for women to find sex. But most women aren’t looking for just sex, or at least if they are still want respect and to feel safe.
That’s why the term “femcel” like “incel” is nonsensical. Incel now really only refers to online spaces of allegedly single men who violently hate the women they want for not wanting them.
I think precious few people are actually involuntary signal. They just not have found something with whom they are a right fit and share a mutual attraction with.
The Trufemcels subreddit was banned for violating Reddit’s rule against promoting hate.
I was simply suggesting a (partial) solution.
I’m ugly. It doesn’t bother me much now that I’m older. I’ve avoided some of the pitfalls of better looking men I know.
How is this? Mary Harington’s thoughtful and highly entertaining piece drew 17 comments up to this moment .
Not a single one by a female reader. I wonder why.
I have two intimate lady friends. One is tall, thin, beautiful and socially adept. The other is none of those things but I prefer the latter. Sure, I’m a good looking guy and have many attractive traits (but a few that aren’t for sure, like most). Why do I prefer the 2nd lady? Because she is my soulmate and stunningly beautiful on the inside! There is so much more to a person than looks. The older I get the more I appreciate that: but I always wanted much much more than looks…
Seriously. You are writing about other people’s perceived attractiveness. Do you have anything to say about other shit going on in the world?
People are attracted to who they are attracted to. Yes, you can become more physically appealing, but can that really determine wether or not you get someone to keep talking to you past the initial hello, stay with you through sickness or awful family dynamics, or “get you”? Attractiveness in itself doesn’t guarantee happiness.
If your classmates at highschool were sad and unattractive, who cares. Incel or femcel or damstel in destress, just let people be who they are and worry about yourself.
Strange that the author refuses to pass the good news to femcels which puts this whole article under question. And that is by facial surgery an ‘ugly’ can be made beautiful. I am sure this is psychologically a very painful process for an ‘ugly’ — but that is being shortsighted.
Another point is that as men get older they stop being so fetishized by external beauty, and start looking to the inside of a woman. This is not so much because they are now past their good-looking years, but because they are now wiser.
The solution to both the incel and femcel problem is the legalisation of brothels. Prostitution based in a secure working environment with verified absence of coercion and regular health inspections makes sense, but archaic moral outrage stands in the way of progress. Many western countries have addressed this issue quite successfully and present a model for the industry in the UK.
Incels still exist in countries where sex work is legal. So that won’t solve it. Many incels hate the idea of paying for sex. They want to be desired by desirable women.
Men always pay for sex, one way or another. Watch some of the interviews on YouTube and you’ll see that even some of today’s feminists, when asked, admit that they expect the man to pay for dates and, if he doesn’t, he doesn’t stand a chance of getting anywhere amorously. Most men know and accept this exchange of resources for sex.
If some incels don’t want to pay for sex then obviously some do, so it’s a partial solution at least. The rest may change their minds as the practice becomes socially accepted..
You use the UK as an example but we had an incel mass shooting in Plymouth so evidently legalising prostitution does not stop incels.
…does not stop ALL incels.
Nobody has a 100 percent solution to anything.
Paying a fee to rape a woman or girl is not, has not ever been, nor ever will be a solution to anything. If this is what you deem to be ‘archaic moral outrage’ then your hard drive needs checking.
There’s plenty of evidence that many women do this voluntarily.
Supervision and inspections could help stamp out any abuse.
You called it “rape”. So of course it sounds bad. But you should know by now that there are many women who are not ashamed to be “sex-workers. And it is obviously a solution to men who visit them. You don’t have to like it but don’t misrepresent it to suit your feelings.
And how would this help the women about whom Ms Gaitskill writes?
There are people, of both sexes, who have no interest in a having romantic relationship or dating, no interest in having a partner, and no intention of getting married. However, they may still want to have sex and when they do the availability of regulated, safe and healthy prostitution would fulfil their needs.
You’ve made the nonsensical assumption that this is just an issue of sexual intercourse and not committed relationships.
It’s hardly nonsensical, and you are interpreting the femcel movement through your own feelings. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
They are incels, are they not? Involuntary Celibate.
That term doesn’t say anything about a lack of a committed relationship, it describes a lack of sex.