X Close

The year of the femcel Why are women struggling to find sex and love?

'I could’ve become a femcel' (Crying Girl, Roy Lichtenstein)

'I could’ve become a femcel' (Crying Girl, Roy Lichtenstein)


December 28, 2022   10 mins

You may have already forgotten, but 2022 is supposed to be the year of the femcel. In case you have forgotten or never knew, a femcel is the female counterpart to an “incel”, or involuntarily celibate male, a woman who can’t find a partner because she is (again, supposedly) too ugly and/or weird. These women had to form their own team because they weren’t welcome in the largely online gatherings of deeply aggrieved guys who (I suppose) couldn’t accept their shy female counterparts because: 1) they are really pissed at/estranged from women generally, 2) incel sites are places where men can vent about women with mind-crushing hostility, which could be awkward if they were co-ed, and 3) incels mostly don’t believe it’s even possible that a female can’t get sex if she wants it.

Yes, that’s right. Women who want romance showed up on sites for men who want sex and they were not welcome, actually suggesting that these women couldn’t even get sex with self-identified desperately horny men. It’s like the sad, sad joke about a lonely man with a wooden eye who can’t get a girlfriend. He goes to a dance and sees a woman with a hare-lip standing alone. He thinks: no one wants her, she won’t refuse me! He asks her if she would like to dance; overcome, she presses her hands to her heart and says: “Would I? Would I?” Mishearing her, and thinking he’s being mocked (wood eye?), he backs away jeering: “Hare-lip! Hare-lip!” Insert weeping emoji face here.

Femcels differ from incels in significant ways: they are not as given to florid bluster and while they may express anger and contempt for men as well as for clueless pretty girls, they don’t shit-post about rape and murder. The femcel site I’m familiar with, “The Pink Pill”, is temperate and welcoming to “unattractive” lonely women; it signs off on its mission statement of mutual support with a heart emoji.

The media were publishing think pieces on femcels even before 2022, and some of them were even thoughtful. The Atlantic wondered what they really want. Elle, in a weird attempt at positive spin, announced that they are “reclaiming celibacy” as opposed to being forced into it. (Many publications took this stance, apparently agreeing with incels that it just isn’t possible for women to not have sex if they want it.) The Evening Standard described the tension between “really dark” homophobic/transphobic femcels and “TikTok” femcels for whom it was more about “an aesthetic than an ideology”.

I had become aware of femcels years before all this because, like many, I was fascinated with the incel phenomenon (unlike many, I had an unseemly sympathy for the motley crew). And in the barrage of articles and podcasts about incels, femcels would occasionally be mentioned in a sideways, sceptical or pitying tone that made me visualise a modest, tentative creature once again being slapped down as she tried to join the group. This image was amplified on learning, through conversations with friends and acquaintances, that most people seem to doubt their very existence, sometimes repeating the old and strange idea that no matter how ugly, a woman can always get sex.

What I find especially strange about this opinion is that most of these people, I’m pretty sure, have no trouble with the concept that gender is fluid — yet they seemed unaware that what we somewhat grossly call “sexual capital” is now also fluid. Actually, it seems some men have always been more desirable than some women. But it is even more that way now. In the past, when most women in most societies would not have sex before marriage, men were in the position of coming hat in hand; this hasn’t been true in America for a very long time. And so there are women who have trouble getting sex and love. At least with the men they want. And not all of them are ugly.

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: I’ve known women in this situation. I admit that I don’t know if they couldn’t for their entire lives. At least one of the women who fits the profile had sexual relationships with two men when she was in her twenties — disastrous, disrespectful, borderline abusive (in one case) relationships — but then nothing for the next 40 years of her life. I didn’t know the other women as well, but well enough to know that they were
 not having a good time. And there are others who I don’t know but feel like I can identify through a certain aura/facial expression/body language that tells me a woman is hurting in this way. Because that is what it is: hurting. Just like incels are hurting.

I can readily identify this kind of hurt because, very early in life, I came very close to it. If a few key elements — mostly social and developmental elements — of my life had been different, I could’ve become a femcel.

I have never forgotten — never stopped feeling heart-pain for — the two ugliest girls in my junior high school; I will call them Donna and Denise. I was going to describe them feature-by-feature so that you would know when I say “ugly” I don’t mean merely plain. But I can’t bring myself to do it. Even now it seems unnecessarily cruel. I was merely plain, and so socially awkward and ineptly dressed that I was sometimes called ugly. I was part of a whole gaggle of unpopular girls like that. But Donna and Denise were different.

Their physical ugliness was compounded by extreme social dysfunction (even worse than mine!), poverty, poor grooming and non-existent fashion choices. Donna, who was at least physically robust, seemed rightfully enraged at her situation; Denise, who was more delicate, looked like a wounded, frightened doe. (The one positive thing I can recall about them is that they seemed to have a genuine friendship; in my memory, Donna was subtly protective of Denise.)

They were treated worse than me or any other girl in that school. They were completely shunned. Even during the horrible school show, when boys jeered at or cat-called unpopular or slutty girls, Donna and Denise were stared at in total, hostile silence, as if they were too freakish to connect with even via insult.

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.

***

This article was originally published on 31 October 2022.


Mary Gaitskill is an American novelist, essayist, and short story writer. Her Substack is called Out Of It.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

20 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
1 year ago

There’s loads of women out there who won’t find a partner. It won’t be because they are too ugly or too ‘weird’, it will be because they simply have no concept of masculinity and have zero respect for any man who displays it.
They want a wife, not a man.
Sadly, that would almost certainly be a sex-free existence.

MĂŽnica
MĂŽnica
1 year ago
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Does it mean being a wife is so awful that no sane man would want to be seen as behaving like one (subdued, voiceless, obedient)? If not, what are these wifely attributes you want no part of – but think women should want for themselves?

MĂŽnica
MĂŽnica
1 year ago
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Does it mean being a wife is so awful that no sane man would want to be seen as behaving like one (subdued, voiceless, obedient)? If not, what are these wifely attributes you want no part of – but think women should want for themselves?

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
1 year ago

There’s loads of women out there who won’t find a partner. It won’t be because they are too ugly or too ‘weird’, it will be because they simply have no concept of masculinity and have zero respect for any man who displays it.
They want a wife, not a man.
Sadly, that would almost certainly be a sex-free existence.

Karim Ayoubi
Karim Ayoubi
1 year ago

I tried, but I couldn’t read past the first 4 paragraphs – you just can’t help yourself, can you? You just cannot discuss an issue that women are facing without shitting all over men for several paragraphs first. And that is precisely why men and women are becoming increasingly estranged from each other.
Unherd put out some of the best interviews during covid, but the written “journalism” I’m seeing from them since then is truly AWFUL.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

And yet… you’re free to disagree with it, and expand your views on why you disagree at length if you wish. Isn’t that the point? Articles are there to be taken as an expression of democratic opinion, and should vary as widely as possible in an environment where free speech is at least encouraged, even if it’s not always possible to be practised due to online publishing requirements. Anyone finding their posts blocked can, however, attempt to re-write them in such a way to avoid the moderation trap.
The only fair criticism from a journalistic point of view should concern articles that are simply badly written, rather than ones you disagree with. It could well be that such articles are written expressly with the intention of emphasising a particular meme, to gauge the reaction.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Terry Davies
Terry Davies
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The points you make re difference of opinion is one of the main reasons I subscribe to Unherd. I want to be challenged and I want to understand.

Terry Davies
Terry Davies
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The points you make re difference of opinion is one of the main reasons I subscribe to Unherd. I want to be challenged and I want to understand.

Michael Upton
Michael Upton
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

One thing which is estranging to all decent folk is charmlessly characterizing an opinion that one does not share as amounting to “shitting all over” its subject.

Ben Flenderson
Ben Flenderson
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

Wow. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could read this as “shitting” all over anyone. And if you’re so sure that the remarks about incels vs femcels are inaccurate, why don’t you pull up the first 50 posts on the relevant sites and see who is more likely to viciously abuse the opposite sex? Oh, of course you won’t do this, you’re too committed to equating genuine evidence based criticism with “shitting”.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

Only the people who consume too much media (and thus think the world is ending) are becoming increasingly estranged from each other. The rest of us happy people out here are having a blast!

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

And yet… you’re free to disagree with it, and expand your views on why you disagree at length if you wish. Isn’t that the point? Articles are there to be taken as an expression of democratic opinion, and should vary as widely as possible in an environment where free speech is at least encouraged, even if it’s not always possible to be practised due to online publishing requirements. Anyone finding their posts blocked can, however, attempt to re-write them in such a way to avoid the moderation trap.
The only fair criticism from a journalistic point of view should concern articles that are simply badly written, rather than ones you disagree with. It could well be that such articles are written expressly with the intention of emphasising a particular meme, to gauge the reaction.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Michael Upton
Michael Upton
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

One thing which is estranging to all decent folk is charmlessly characterizing an opinion that one does not share as amounting to “shitting all over” its subject.

Ben Flenderson
Ben Flenderson
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

Wow. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could read this as “shitting” all over anyone. And if you’re so sure that the remarks about incels vs femcels are inaccurate, why don’t you pull up the first 50 posts on the relevant sites and see who is more likely to viciously abuse the opposite sex? Oh, of course you won’t do this, you’re too committed to equating genuine evidence based criticism with “shitting”.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Karim Ayoubi

Only the people who consume too much media (and thus think the world is ending) are becoming increasingly estranged from each other. The rest of us happy people out here are having a blast!

Karim Ayoubi
Karim Ayoubi
1 year ago

I tried, but I couldn’t read past the first 4 paragraphs – you just can’t help yourself, can you? You just cannot discuss an issue that women are facing without shitting all over men for several paragraphs first. And that is precisely why men and women are becoming increasingly estranged from each other.
Unherd put out some of the best interviews during covid, but the written “journalism” I’m seeing from them since then is truly AWFUL.

James Wills
James Wills
1 year ago

I truly bleed for the involuntarily celibate of both sexes, but to my eye at least much of the problem can be traced to two places: online dating and Western divorce law. Having been stung twice by gynocentric “family courts” in America, I’d never consider marrying again. There is a Very Good Reason, as Pooh might say, that over 80% of American divorces are initiated by the woman: she has no incentive to stay married whenever she gets her knickers in a twist or just gets that well-known hypergamous wandering eye, and every incentive – financial and otherwise – to bail out at any time.
Secondly, it’s instructive to look at online dating data: first, most “dating” nowadays is done online, but most interesting is the “swipe” rate. Eighty percent of women swipe right, meaning approve-of, just 20% of the men; eighty percent of the men are ignored, as nearly all women try to hook-up with the “Chads” – the hot-bodied, chisled-chin studs. Of course, those men are in a target-rich environment, and they use that attention to slice through those silly women like a chainsaw. News flash, girls – they ain’t going to marry you or enter an LTR – long term relationship; you’re just another warm, wet field for them to plow.
No, Western men are wising up, ladies. If you want to get married and have families, I have a few bits of advice for you: first, do it in your ‘twenties; thirty is “The Wall” and too late. Second, advocate for a repeal of the “no-fault divorce” laws; as long as men face the current Family Court system, only the dumb ones will marry. Third, try to get your hypergamy under control; nowadays men see through you like a windowpane.
Otherwise, enjoy your cats. Cheers.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  James Wills

I do enjoy a good rant!

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  James Wills

I do enjoy a good rant!

James Wills
James Wills
1 year ago

I truly bleed for the involuntarily celibate of both sexes, but to my eye at least much of the problem can be traced to two places: online dating and Western divorce law. Having been stung twice by gynocentric “family courts” in America, I’d never consider marrying again. There is a Very Good Reason, as Pooh might say, that over 80% of American divorces are initiated by the woman: she has no incentive to stay married whenever she gets her knickers in a twist or just gets that well-known hypergamous wandering eye, and every incentive – financial and otherwise – to bail out at any time.
Secondly, it’s instructive to look at online dating data: first, most “dating” nowadays is done online, but most interesting is the “swipe” rate. Eighty percent of women swipe right, meaning approve-of, just 20% of the men; eighty percent of the men are ignored, as nearly all women try to hook-up with the “Chads” – the hot-bodied, chisled-chin studs. Of course, those men are in a target-rich environment, and they use that attention to slice through those silly women like a chainsaw. News flash, girls – they ain’t going to marry you or enter an LTR – long term relationship; you’re just another warm, wet field for them to plow.
No, Western men are wising up, ladies. If you want to get married and have families, I have a few bits of advice for you: first, do it in your ‘twenties; thirty is “The Wall” and too late. Second, advocate for a repeal of the “no-fault divorce” laws; as long as men face the current Family Court system, only the dumb ones will marry. Third, try to get your hypergamy under control; nowadays men see through you like a windowpane.
Otherwise, enjoy your cats. Cheers.

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago

I became a widower a wile ago and as I am the sort of man who does not do well single; I worked hard at dating. What I found is you can have dates with woman you do not want, but not with ones you do.

One of the main issues is I am one of the more eccentric kind of men, my life has been so out of sync with the normal world that I suspect I am like one of those fantastically scarce varieties of lemur running around the forests of Madagascar, which are full of the common kinds….so we look at each other, and I think… no, not really – and the common female looks at me and says, no way, and so we pass on by.

It is not even an attractiveness issue for the main part – I just spent so many decades off living in weird places and unconventional ways, that my reality is not much like the normal person’s reality is – and I see it in them, and they see it in me. It is rather dreadful, this inability to find a mate when it is a genetic imperative I cannot ignore.

I do meet a few women I would love to be with – but they do not feel the same for me, I am just too far beyond the pale I suppose….. it is just life, the Great Wheel…..

I always liked the line in the movie ‘Castle Keep’, a very surreal WWII movie with Peter Falk. Two GIs are talking in a fox hole about women… one tells what the eternal problem between the sexes is as he sees it…paraphrased

”You see a man and a woman, they can never really get along – they want opposite things in life’….and the other solder asks him what he means, and so the first solider explains…
‘See, a man wants a woman, but a woman wants a man – opposites; and so they can never really get along’…..

haha….

life……

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

You’re the third contributor to Unherd who cannot spell ‘while’: the others were an Aaron – and a Galetti -. Wile is a noun meaning ‘cunning plan’ or a verb meaning ‘to entice’. Happy New Year.

Philip Stott
Philip Stott
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Black

They’re all the same person – Sanford Artzen.
And yes, sorry for your loss Sanford.

Philip Stott
Philip Stott
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Black

They’re all the same person – Sanford Artzen.
And yes, sorry for your loss Sanford.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Sorry for your loss, Tavis.

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

You’re the third contributor to Unherd who cannot spell ‘while’: the others were an Aaron – and a Galetti -. Wile is a noun meaning ‘cunning plan’ or a verb meaning ‘to entice’. Happy New Year.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Sorry for your loss, Tavis.

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago

I became a widower a wile ago and as I am the sort of man who does not do well single; I worked hard at dating. What I found is you can have dates with woman you do not want, but not with ones you do.

One of the main issues is I am one of the more eccentric kind of men, my life has been so out of sync with the normal world that I suspect I am like one of those fantastically scarce varieties of lemur running around the forests of Madagascar, which are full of the common kinds….so we look at each other, and I think… no, not really – and the common female looks at me and says, no way, and so we pass on by.

It is not even an attractiveness issue for the main part – I just spent so many decades off living in weird places and unconventional ways, that my reality is not much like the normal person’s reality is – and I see it in them, and they see it in me. It is rather dreadful, this inability to find a mate when it is a genetic imperative I cannot ignore.

I do meet a few women I would love to be with – but they do not feel the same for me, I am just too far beyond the pale I suppose….. it is just life, the Great Wheel…..

I always liked the line in the movie ‘Castle Keep’, a very surreal WWII movie with Peter Falk. Two GIs are talking in a fox hole about women… one tells what the eternal problem between the sexes is as he sees it…paraphrased

”You see a man and a woman, they can never really get along – they want opposite things in life’….and the other solder asks him what he means, and so the first solider explains…
‘See, a man wants a woman, but a woman wants a man – opposites; and so they can never really get along’…..

haha….

life……

Michael Upton
Michael Upton
1 year ago

Surely the heart of the matter is when Mary Gaitskill writes, above, that “In the past, when most women in most societies would not have sex before marriage, men were in the position of coming hat in hand; this hasn’t been true in America for a very long time. And so there are women who have trouble getting sex and love. At least with the men they want. And not all of them are ugly.” Throughout all our recorded history until the 1960s, most women were members of a trade union called Christian Respectability, and men got sex by obeying the union’s rule: Marriage. Then the 1960s brought independent bargaining, and one could be forgiven for thinking that Mary Gaitskill is right that it hasn’t served women well. The moral seems obvious. But never mind what’s moral; consider what is expedient. Insofar as women (or men) are denied heterosexual sex, their line will tend to die out. They will be buried by the children of the people who have other ways and customs. I suspect they will be buried by the offspring of the women who are still members of the trade union. You can say the names that the trade union goes by now in our lands, if you want to be ethnically or religiously controversial.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael Upton
Michael Upton
Michael Upton
1 year ago

Surely the heart of the matter is when Mary Gaitskill writes, above, that “In the past, when most women in most societies would not have sex before marriage, men were in the position of coming hat in hand; this hasn’t been true in America for a very long time. And so there are women who have trouble getting sex and love. At least with the men they want. And not all of them are ugly.” Throughout all our recorded history until the 1960s, most women were members of a trade union called Christian Respectability, and men got sex by obeying the union’s rule: Marriage. Then the 1960s brought independent bargaining, and one could be forgiven for thinking that Mary Gaitskill is right that it hasn’t served women well. The moral seems obvious. But never mind what’s moral; consider what is expedient. Insofar as women (or men) are denied heterosexual sex, their line will tend to die out. They will be buried by the children of the people who have other ways and customs. I suspect they will be buried by the offspring of the women who are still members of the trade union. You can say the names that the trade union goes by now in our lands, if you want to be ethnically or religiously controversial.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael Upton
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Errrr…. they are not.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

“Elle” announced femcels are “reclaiming celibacy.” This logic is redolent of Naomi Wolf, darling of third-wave feminism, who praised the chadoor and niqab as enhancing women’s sexuality by privatising it, and removing it from the degrading experience of male sexual objectification. It is putting necessity in the service of promoting an ideological argument, which is that masculinity is toxic, and so anything that removes women from it is inherently positive.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

“Elle” announced femcels are “reclaiming celibacy.” This logic is redolent of Naomi Wolf, darling of third-wave feminism, who praised the chadoor and niqab as enhancing women’s sexuality by privatising it, and removing it from the degrading experience of male sexual objectification. It is putting necessity in the service of promoting an ideological argument, which is that masculinity is toxic, and so anything that removes women from it is inherently positive.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
1 year ago

What was the point of writing all this? This article is the worst I have read yet. One of your paragraphs gave me a complete mind f… and I have no idea what the point of it was. Sorry I wasted my time .

Nancy Kmaxim
Nancy Kmaxim
3 months ago

????????? !!!???????

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago

Then why did the not so handsome or very brainy, though he was a prince, the current King Charles iii, reject the idolized pretty Diana for the average looking Camilla. One might assume Diana was hard as a brick, unable to hold an intelligent conversation & a behind doors ‘B’. However despite her outward dumb blond sexuality she seems to be worshiped by feminists and portrayed by bisexual actresses in her bios. There always has been a war between the sexes; now it seems there is a generation choosing not to fight; becoming incel, femcel, homosexual or even transexual or binary.
A relationship between opposite sexes does take a lot of effort. Is there a new laziness afoot ?

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago

Then why did the not so handsome or very brainy, though he was a prince, the current King Charles iii, reject the idolized pretty Diana for the average looking Camilla. One might assume Diana was hard as a brick, unable to hold an intelligent conversation & a behind doors ‘B’. However despite her outward dumb blond sexuality she seems to be worshiped by feminists and portrayed by bisexual actresses in her bios. There always has been a war between the sexes; now it seems there is a generation choosing not to fight; becoming incel, femcel, homosexual or even transexual or binary.
A relationship between opposite sexes does take a lot of effort. Is there a new laziness afoot ?