The year of the femcel [female version of incel] | unherd.com

Scott

Verified User
Today, I read an article with the same title as this thread and found it to be pretty moving. I suspect part of the reason is that I haven't had a girlfriend for most of my 48 years of being on this earth and so I can certainly relate with people who haven't had many if any heterosexual romantic relationships due to not being able to find someone you 'match' with.

For anyone who doesn't know, incel stands for "involuntarily celibate". Wikipedia has a long article on it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

Here's a bit from Wikipedia's page on Incels:

**
History

The first website to use the term "incel" was founded sometime between 1993 and 1997.[30][9][31] The website was created by a university student living in Toronto and known only by her first name, Alana, to discuss her sexual inactivity with others.[30] Titled "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", the website was used by people of all genders to share their thoughts and experiences.[9] During 1997, she started a mailing list on the topic that used the abbreviation INVCEL, later shortened to "incel", for "anybody of any gender who was lonely, had never had sex or who hadn't had a relationship in a long time".[32] During her college years and after, Alana realized she was bisexual and became more comfortable with her identity.[31] She stopped participating in her online project around 2000 and gave the site to a stranger.[33][34] In 2018, Alana said of her project: "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years".[32] When she read about the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and that parts of the incel subculture glorified the perpetrator, she wrote: "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it".[35][31] She expressed regret at the change in usage from her original intent of creating an "inclusive community" for people of all genders who were sexually deprived due to social awkwardness, marginalization, or mental illness.[28]

**

Anyway, this is all just background for the article that shares the title of this thread. Because the article isn't about incels, which has basically become almost exclusively about men who can't find romantic partners, but rather of women who can't find romantic partners. Quoting a bit from that article:

**
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.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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.

**

The year of the femcel | unherd.com
 
First of all, libido gets a lot of people in trouble.
Learning how to suppress it when suppressing it is wise
is one of the first things everybody should learn upon reaching puberty.

Second, for those who are content to, or feel that they need to,
share physical intimacy without genuine affection,
sex should be commercially available on a legal basis.
 
femcels do not exist. this idiot author is only trying to paint a bullshit image that dating for women is just as hard as it is for men. Any reasonable person knows this to be demonstrably false.
 
First of all, libido gets a lot of people in trouble.
Learning how to suppress it when suppressing it is wise
is one of the first things everybody should learn upon reaching puberty.

Second, for those who are content to, or feel that they need to,
share physical intimacy without genuine affection,
sex should be commercially available on a legal basis.

I agree with all of this. I think we might also agree that we need more education on how to have relationships with genuine affection though. The last bit that I quoted in the opening post on the "homely young woman" really brought a tear to my eye.
 
femcels do not exist.

The author of the article brings up plenty of evidence that this isn't the case. Note that she brought up an important point that I quoted- most if not all people don't want just -anyone- for a partner, and I think that's a good thing. I definitely believe there are potential partners who are worse than not having one at all. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied that we are not in the worst of all worlds.
 
Last edited:
The author of the article brings up plenty of evidence that this isn't the case. Note that she brought up an important point that I quoted- most if not all people don't want just -anyone- for a partner, and I think that's a good thing. I definitely believe there potential partners who are worse than not having one at all. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied that we are not in the worst of all worlds.

the author of the article is trying to wipe hypergamy, and it's inevitable issues of loneliness, out of the minds of people, like it never existed. That it's mens fault, again, for their inability to have realistic standards.
 
the author of the article is trying to wipe hypergamy, and it's inevitable issues of loneliness, out of the minds of people, like it never existed. That it's mens fault, again, for their inability to have realistic standards.

I'd never heard of the term hypergamy, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia:

**
Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "dating up" or "marrying up"[1]) is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person dating or marrying a spouse of higher social status or sexual capital than themselves.
**

Mary Gaitskill, the author of the article that this thread's name is based on, never mentions the term. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see any evidence that the femcels she talks about are only alone because they will only date someone that is higher up in social status or sexual capital.

She -does- mention sexual capital, but I think the context is very important:

**
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.

**

Mary continues with the paragraph I'd already mentioned:

**
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.
**
 
I'd never heard of the term hypergamy, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia:

**
Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "dating up" or "marrying up"[1]) is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person dating or marrying a spouse of higher social status or sexual capital than themselves.
**

Mary Gaitskill, the author of the article that this thread's name is based on, never mentions the term. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see any evidence that the femcels she talks about are only alone because they will only date someone that is higher up in social status or sexual capital.

She -does- mention sexual capital, but I think the context is very important:

**
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.

**

Mary continues with the paragraph I'd already mentioned:

**
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.
**

all of the above blah blah you posted just tells me that you know nothing about human nature
 
I'd never heard of the term hypergamy, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia:

**
Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "dating up" or "marrying up"[1]) is a term used in social science for the act or practice of a person dating or marrying a spouse of higher social status or sexual capital than themselves.
**

Mary Gaitskill, the author of the article that this thread's name is based on, never mentions the term. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see any evidence that the femcels she talks about are only alone because they will only date someone that is higher up in social status or sexual capital.

She -does- mention sexual capital, but I think the context is very important:

**
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.

**

Mary continues with the paragraph I'd already mentioned:

**
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.
**

all of the above blah blah you posted just tells me that you know nothing about human nature

I make a strong effort to get your angle, post a long post addressing some of your points and I get a sound bite in response -.- I'd expected that someone with "smart" in their name wouldn't be so prone to soundbites. Guess I'll have to lower my expectations.
 
Back
Top