Thread by @EudaimoniaEsq

Massive thread (sorry, I’m a wordcel).

Much attention has been given to how men are single later into life, how they aren’t having sex.

The lowering rate at which men have sex is a problem, but it’s also an indicator of a broader social problem that others have discussed.

The problem isn’t, in and of itself, that men are having sex at lower rates. The problem is *why* this is occurring. Hint: it’s not the death of the patriarchy. A coalescence of factors has led to all young people, but particularly men, being socially atomized and alienated.

A considerable number of young men don’t have a single friend. Of those that do, it’s often a childhood or college friend who now lives far away. Working 40+ hours a week, for wages that barely sustain, leaves little time to cultivate meaningful relationships with others.

It’s hard to join new social groups, clubs, etc. It’s hard to work in a healthy faith life. It’s hard to go on dates and cultivate romantic relationships. It’s growing ever-harder due to the coalescence of our modern economic and political order. Lockean liberalism, capitalism.

It’s created a chunk of people—disproportionately men—who are not only single but also nearly or entirely alone: friendless, isolated, atomized, hopeless.
These men are, by the actual definition, “incel.” They are involuntarily celibate. They want a partner, but can’t find one.

We need to distinguish incels in this sense from “capital-I Incels” (the woman-haters). This former group is comprised of otherwise normal men—educated, kind, perhaps even sociable—men.

They just are atomized, alone, or unable to find time. Maybe they’re kinda weird, or kinda shy, or feel defeated by a culture that’s increasingly glorifying casual hookups so that the top 20% of men sleep with the top 80% of women (in terms of just physical attractiveness).

You can’t deny this reality. It’s easy to just shame these men, but
don’t be surprised when they turn to dark places in response. I’m not talking JBP—JBP is kinda goofy, I don’t agree with him, but he’s not that bad.

I’m talking darker groups and voices that hate women, society, etc. These men, the “lowercase-i incels” need support, need to be
understood. They need their issues to be treated as if they’re human. They are human, and not everything happening to them is their fault.

They’re not owed sex, but they are owed care and attention to social ills that affect them—atomization. The same for women.

And this leads to the bigger point: I see many responding to these issues, usually either women or feminist-as-mating-strategy men, saying “this isn’t my problem.” Well, a few things: 1) on a human level, you should just care about others; 2) it absolutely is your problem.

You just don’t know it yet. What happens when those top 20% of men, sleeping around with most of the sexually active women, finally pair off and settle down? That’s a lot of single women who will suddenly complain about how they’re 36 and single.

On a selfish level, they should
care. But also, more broadly, it’s all of our problem that a huge chunk of our working population—young men—feel detached and disillusioned by their country. And then their concerns are met with snark and disdain.

How can you say “it’s not my problem” but then turn around and
complain about potential violence from the “capital-I” Incels? Clearly you recognize this is our problem—it’s all of our problem. And it’ll only get worse.

When you have voices as disparate as Vaush on one hand and Gladden Pappin on the other all lamenting the same social ills, we should wake up and listen. This is a problem.

It’s only going to get worse if we don’t start treating human beings as human beings and listening to their problems. Nobody is entitled to sex, or even to romance. But all people are entitled to the conditions that could make these things a reality for them.

They’re not guaranteed the outcome, but they ought to be afforded the opportunities. Right now, our economic, social, and political order don’t afford them these opportunities, and instead people collectively attack these young men for lamenting this fact.

You’re not one of the good guys for ignoring this issue. You’re not working to make anything better. You’re contributing to the problem while thinking yourself a good feminist/good ally. In the long-run, you’re being the exact opposite.

We must foster communities, we must foster a care for time and place—rootedness and permanence. This goes deeper than “walkable cities” but rather involves an understanding of culture and the long arc of time.

We must understand ourselves to be stewards of what we inherited
from those who came before us, in preparation for those who will come after us. It’s not just hokey “retvrn” talking points—it’s our only hope.

We must help young men realize there is such a thing as good and healthy masculinity that doesn’t become a toxic caricature.

Indeed, Aristotle warns us against excess and deficiency, and (you’d think) common sense does as well. Toxicity occurs at either end of the spectrum, from weird macho culture to soyboy nonsense. Allow men to be good men: good fathers, good husbands, members of community.

We need to do something, and we need to do it fast—not just for the sake of currently disaffected young men, but for everyone. The societal ills we will encounter if we don’t will be perilous.

Thanks for reading. End of thread. True EudaBros will know that I actually tweeted this months ago, but lost it in a tweet-delete.