Saturday, May 19, 2018

Opinion from a Jewish feminist former incel

Economists view money as the fundamental commodity of our society. Money is used to buy everything else. Leftist economists see money as something to be redistributed in the name of fairness.

Not everyone else views money as so essential. Many view other things as more important, such as happiness, power, influence, social status, and spiritual well-being.

Some view sexual gratification as the dominant commodity of our society. Money is just something ppl work for in order to get the sex and love that they really crave.

In this sex view, the wealthiest are the young pretty women, and the poorest are the incel men. 21st century America is a paradise for young pretty promiscuous women. They seem to get whatever they want.

A leftist with this view should logically seek to alter society to distribute sexual satisfaction more equitably. But leftists have done the opposite.

Under traditional marriage, everyone gets married young, and then gets plenty of sex in marriage.

Now that has been abandoned in favor of unrestricted individual female sexuality, human nature is at work. Most women desire to be a mistress to an alpha man, rather than committed to a beta man. So alpha men get all the sex, and attractive women get lots of flings with alpha men. The big losers are the incel men.

Women who want lasting relationships are also big losers.

Leftist feminist Trump-hater Zionist Jewish atheist professor Scott Aaronson addresses this issue:

I hold the bodily autonomy of women — the principle that women are freely-willed agents rather than the chattel they were treated as for too much of human history; that they, not their fathers or husbands or anyone else, are the sole rulers of their bodies; and that they must never under any circumstances be touched without their consent — to be my Zeroth Commandment, the foundation-stone of my moral worldview, the starting point of every action I take and every thought I think. This principle of female bodily autonomy, for me, deserves to be chiseled onto tablets of sapphire, placed in a golden ark adorned with winged cherubim sitting atop a pedestal inside the Holy of Holies in a temple on Mount Moriah. ...

A week ago, alas, Robin [Hanson] blogged his confusion about why the people most concerned about inequalities of wealth, never seem to be concerned about inequalities of romantic and sexual fulfillment — even though, in other contexts, those same people would probably affirm that relationships are much more important to their personal happiness than wealth is. ...

For the record: I think that Robin should never, ever have made this comparison, and I wish he’d apologize for it now. Had he asked my advice, I would’ve screamed “DON’T DO IT” at the top of my lungs. ...

Here’s the central point that I think Robin failed to understand: society, today, is not on board even with the minimal claim that the suicidal suffering of men left behind by the sexual revolution really exists — or, if it does, that it matters in the slightest or deserves any sympathy or acknowledgment whatsoever. Indeed, the men in question pretty much need to be demonized as entitled losers and creeps, because if they weren’t, then sympathy for them—at least, for those among them who are friends, coworkers, children, siblings — might become hard to prevent. ...

In exactly the same way, there are “incel extremists,” like Rodger or Minassian, spiteful losers who go on killing sprees because society didn’t give them the sex they were “owed.” But they’re outnumbered by tens of millions of decent, peaceful people who could reasonably be called “incels” — those who desperately want romantic relationships but are unable to achieve them, because of extreme shyness, poor social skills, tics, autism-spectrum traits, lack of conventional attractiveness, bullying, childhood traumas, etc. — yet who’d never hurt a fly. These moderates need not be “losers” in all aspects of life: many have fulfilling careers and volunteer and give to charity and love their nieces and nephews, some are world-renowned scientists and writers. For many of the moderates, it might be true that recent cultural shifts exacerbated their problems; that an unlucky genetic dice-roll “optimized” them for a world that no longer exists. These people deserve the sympathy and support of the more fortunate among us; they constitute a political bloc entitled to advocate for its interests, as other blocs do; and all decent people should care about how we might help them, consistently with the Zeroth Commandment.
Aaronson is a former incel who is now happily married with two kids to a nice Israeli girl.

If he weren't Jewish, he would be a right-winger. He has been brainwashed by Jewish feminism to recite all sorts of nonsense that is contrary to his experience. He hopes that his fellow leftists will see him as reasonable, but they don't. They despise him.

He is right that today's feminist policies favor promiscuous young women owning the sexual marketplace and getting as much sex as they can, and that those leftists and feminists have no regard at all for those left behind. If the feminists had total power, Aaronson would be scheduled for castration.

So why is he a leftist feminist?

No comments: