From IncelWiki.org, the incel encyclopedia

Feminism is a movement which seeks to

  1. Expand the role women have in spaces that contain more powerful men than women
  2. Give women more control over reproductive affairs
    1. Decrease the amount of situations where women experience coercive or unwanted sexual attention from men

The originators of the movement falsely though women would voluntarily de-commodify themselves solely through increased work representation in market economies.[1][2][3][note 1]

Feminism could be manageable for incels in the hippiepilled anti-markets the originator of the term, "feminism" (Fourier) imagined. However, tradcons have not only enforced market economies, but tried to make them as incelizing as possible by creating extreme status disparity in society while at the same time discouraging men sharing women.

Feminism could work for incels[edit]

Main article: Feminism 5.0

If feminists dropped their work obsession, developed automated hydroponic farm communities with nukes, and became hippiepillers, their movement might succeed for incels and themselves.

A 100% feminist universe would be better for incels than a partial feminist universe, because feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that male intra-sexual competition becomes smaller.

The Less Difference Between the Sexes, the Less of a Problem Feminism Becomes[edit]

Otto Weininger argued that in humans, the less sexually dimorphic the genders, the less of a problem female sexual liberation becomes. Whereas, if there is high sexual dimorphism in humans, female sexual liberation leads to agitation, domestic abuse against husbands, and corruption of the arts and science by feminine women expressing vanity and seeking male attention.

The problem is that sexually liberated women naturally promote sexual dimorphism, which is widely known as the gender equality paradox. So obviously, freeing the sexual marketplace isn't the first step to a free sexual market without civilizational decline. In order to establish women a free sexual market peacefully, if such a thing were desirable, first attention should be paid to reducing sexual dimorphism or sex differences, even if that means reducing female sexual choice temporarily. If such a change were made permanent, and there was very little sexual dimorphism between the sexes, to the point of almost not being able to distinguish between the sexes, female sexual liberation would probably not lead to civilizational decline, or at least the kind that we see now.

Pick-up aritve Roosh V found that Denmark was not sexually dimorphic for him to exercise “game”

Incelphobic feminists[edit]

Inside the incelphobic mind.

Despite the fact that feminism hasn't achieved it's goals, modern feminists still imply sexual decommodification is coming in our current society, or at least already here for certain groups. "Feminism works already" stalwarts often imply (falsely) that female sexual choice in an environment with high social inequality is, “trickling down”, to poorcels who visit licensed talk therapists.[4]

Feminists today believe women (and often society) should never assume collective responsibility for the distribution of women's affection towards men (unless it has to do with a vogue racial issue), usually on the basis of some neoliberal argument. This non-altruism feminists exhibit with regards to men (which incels react to) is deeply sociopathic and combative.

Modern, millennial feminists in the USA regularly celebrate and promote male disposability in social life and dreephilia with regards to inceldom, at the same time that they claim they are the only valid representatives of male issues.

Incel-hostile "feminist" campaigns[edit]

Modern "feminists" have created campaigns against the increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not having sex with, with the most extreme advocating androcide. Movements like:


Anti Catcalling Movement: aka “Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public”

Anti Manspreading Movement: aka “Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk”

Metoo movement: aka “Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists”[5]

Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands[edit]

A world where young women make the same or more money than young men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of male feminist MRAs in the 1960s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless.

Even in a country where feminism is institutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, “the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby (note, not the wife) has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket”.[6]

Early 20th century, anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax's quote still remains true, “Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband.”[7]

And as the 21st century, right-wing provocateur named, “Eggman”, put it, “Talk to any US woman and they’ll tell you about men offering and buying them all sorts of things: vacations, houses, cars… When was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?”[8]

Most women say that, in theory, they would love to have a house-husband but other factors are preventing them from truly desiring a househusband.

However, when women attain higher wealth than most men, women tend to not want to date down, even if they are feminist.

Fifteen feminists leaders, when asked what traits they sought in a man, regularly used words which connote high status: “very rich” or “brilliant” or “genius”. Large tips, lavish dinners, stunning suits, and so forth were regularly referred to. In short these (feminist) women wanted superpowerful men.[9]

It seems that women therefore, naturally recoil at the idea of not using a man to financially provide for her, calling such men who are poor or who don’t live up to masculine gender roles as, “manchildren”, no matter how generous the welfare state she is in or how much money she makes.

Feminists aren't prioritizing incels[edit]


Penis Shaming[edit]

As mentioned before, feminists regularly celebrate male disposability

Feminists in the United States take it as almost axiomatic that human penises are disgusting. Modern US millennial feminist posters relentlessly shame penises as being “abundant and therefore low value and not important”, implying that male sexuality should be evaluated on a fwee mawket demand/supply curve rather than society adjusting for inequality. Men are taught from a very early age to be ashamed of their genitalia by religion, but once they enter the adult world, this shaming is also partly institutionalized by feminism. The process of making men ashamed of their own sexual organs is part of the “neutering” process critics of feminism reference. Penis shaming also probably contributes to perverted forms of male exhibitionism, which is often done in desperation of female recognition. The goal of penis shaming is to lower the value of men, and it's working.

Science versus Feminism

The Patriarchy myth[edit]

The patriarchy is the false theory that men as a class enslaved and dehumanized women throughout history. Feminists often use the fact that women couldn’t vote, go to school or work, etc. as, “evidence for patriarchy”. However, the first time a woman graduated with a degree was in 1237, which is a long time ago. During the 1800s, women had direct access to university and coed studies were implemented 200 years ago in most countries.

Also, women had jobs since the dawn of time. Even in ancient civilizations (as is shown on Wikipedia). In fact, it was common for women to have jobs in all societies throughout history. Back in the 1870s 2/3rds of teachers were female.

The third and final point is voting. Working class and poor men didn’t get to vote either, so that's not “male domination”, that's chad domination.



In general, feminists hate any studies which have to do with mating, including, but not limited to, studies from sociology, social psychology, and evolutionary biology. The main nemesis of feminism in the social sciences is evolutionary psychology, which many feminists regard as a pseudo-scientific veneer over its practitioners misogyny, despite there existing a minor trend in feminism that attempts to integrate some of its findings as they pertain to women and the relations between the sexes.

There is also a trend in modern feminism that regards the very Aristotelean foundations of Western empirical though as being a mere artefact of the patriarchy; a male imposition of rigid logic in opposition to the supposedly superior “female intuition”.


Rather than just stopping at freedom and calling it a day, feminism went further and posited that traditional male workers weren't slaves, but instead independent actors seeking happiness.[10] Adherents to modern feminism ("feminists") believe becoming a wageslave makes one happy and powerful.

So women decided to enter the traditional male workforce. They soon found themselveses too overworked to enjoy life or sex, and demand for sex rose among the population, particularly among NEETs. While a minority of feminists offer free sex for male NEETs, the other feminists are overworked to the point where frequent sex is taxing. Additionally, being a wageslave doesn't provide much resource security, quite the opposite, as if you lose your job, you lose the roof over your head. So feminists continued commodifying themselves to stay afloat in market economies, and thus self-sabotaged their own feminism.


  1. Academics are weirdos and actually have no idea why they credit Fourier as coining the term feminism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238363178_On_the_French_origin_of_the_words_feminism_and_feminist Regardless, he did write that he believed liberated women would voluntarily give up sexual commodification, and without much consideration for the overarching social organization. Fourier's ‘Degradation of Women in Civilization,’ in Théorie des Quatre Mouvements et des Destinées Générales, (originally published in 1808) is considered a foundational feminist text, if not the foundational feminist text.


See also[edit]

External links[edit]

This page contains text from an editor (Altmark) who released his text under CC-BY-4.0. If using the material under this license, you may credit it as: Altmark, William et al, unless stated to credit otherwise. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.
This page has been deemed a quality article! It's one of our best articles