About a year ago I created two posts:
This one where I introduced the word "inspin" to give a name to the phenomenon of women who can't get commitment (the counterpart to "incels"... who are men who can't get sex), and...
This one where I examine rites-of-passage from childhood into manhood, and how that process has been transferred from men to women, to the detriment of all.
I'd like to expand on those thoughts here, because the language we use to describe things affects how we view those things, and reveals a lot about what we value. Before I proceed I want to define a few terms.
- Man - an adult human male.
- Boy - a pre-adult human male, or a young male who has not yet undergone his rite-of-passage into manhood.
- Incel - involuntary celibate: a man who would like to be in a sexual relationship but does not have a willing partner (for any reason).
- Inspin - involuntary spinster: a woman who would like to be married but is not (for any reason). The female counterparts to incels. Recent widows do not fall into that category.
- Coward - a man who lacks bravery.
- I will further specify that both incels and inspins can be perfectly nice, well-adjusted people... their plights are often the result of simply losing the genetic lottery, and being ugly is not a moral failure. It's how they react to their situation that speaks to their character. Words like "femcel" have no meaning because 1) any woman with a smart phone can get sex any time she wants, so there is no involuntary aspect to a woman's celibacy, and 2) since women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment, incels (men who can't get sex) and inspins (women who cant get commitment), are the two sides of the same coin.
Before the west abandoned rites-of-passage from boyhood into manhood, those rites were under the control of men. The men of a particular community decided when a boy was worthy of joining the ranks (often literally) of men. There was usually some sort of test involved, often involving the display of physical prowess and/or courage in the face of danger. There's a reason for that... the men at your side were the ones who determined whether you lived or died when threats appeared. The boys were left in the rear (women and children were kept out of danger as much as possible)... so the most important traits for a man to possess were prowess and courage. Once a boy became a man there was really only one way to "lose his man card"... to be branded as a coward.
Back in the days of black-and-white television there was series called "Branded" that centered around the plight of a cavalry officer who was the sole survivor of a battle. Although he had fought bravely, the fact that he alone survived resulted in him being court-martialed for cowardice and drummed out of the Army. Listen to the theme song, and pay particular attention to the last few lines. In short, the worst insult one can level at a man is to call him a coward. The infamous White Feather Campaign was so wildly successful (and now notorious) because it empowered young women to fling the charge of cowardice at young men who were not at the front lines (in the most pointless war ever fought, by the way). The book, "The Red Badge of Courage" is the story of a man who initially ran from battle, but in his shame he sought out danger later in order to get wounded, and his wound "proved" that he was a man... not a coward. Even now the (US) military gives "Purple Heart" medals to those wounded in combat, and special badges to designate those who were involved in "close" combat. US Army soldiers who have served in war are allowed to wear their unit patch on their right shoulders under the flag patch. (Soldiers who have not deployed just wear the flag patch, and by around 2010 the absence of a combat patch on a senior Army soldier's right shoulder would be noticed.) Men will go to great lengths to avoid the charge of cowardice because to be a coward is to surrender one's right to be thought of as a man... even to the point of taking on missions that are certain to result in death.
We've entirely done away with rites-of-passage whereby men earn recognition as "not-boys," and since military service is no longer common (nor exclusively male), few people think of cowardice as a way (much less the only way) for a man to "lose his man card."
Now a man (any adult human male) can have his man card rescinded by being an "incel." Note that the only thing that makes a man is his ability to find a willing sex partner. It shows you what "we" value when women are left in charge. No longer is courage the measure of a man... sexiness is.
Under the old rules physical prowess was important, but if a man was wounded and lost his legs (and thus his ability to fight) he was still considered a man. In fact, his debilitating wounds were proof that he had manly courage. Likewise if a man aged out of his ability to fight he retained his status as a man even after his prowess was gone. But under the new rules presided over by women, a man is only a man to the extent that he's sexually desirable right now.
The modern counterpart to Chuck Conner's character in "Branded" is not a man who is unjustly accused of cowardice, but any man who justifiably criticizes a woman. We get it here all the time. You non-mods don't see most of it, but people come into the r/whereareallthegoodmen sub and call us "InCeLzzz!" nearly every day. The implication is that we're not men because (they falsely think) that the reason we criticize the decisions of some women is because we cant get any women. Just like the White Feather girls called men cowards for not being in uniform in order to get them to throw themselves into the teeth of 8mm Maxim guns, the charge of "incel" is used to shame men into great displays of service on behalf of women no matter the cost... including the requirement to never, ever hold any woman accountable for her actions. If a man will charge a machine gun to avoid being branded a coward and having his manhood questioned, what will a man do on behalf of a woman (who can destroy him with the courts) to avoid being branded an "incel" and having his manhood questioned?
Remember that the next time somebody calls you an "InCeL," and treat that with the same contempt that a brave man would feel about someone who called him a coward.

Aldabruzzo Mod 5y ago
Yes. There is no such thing as a female incel.
Mindless-Rewards 4y ago
There is an equivalent. Which is the femcel. A woman who can't get a man to commit to her and marry. Aka whores. These women die lonely and single because they never get over who hurt them.
Aldabruzzo Mod 5y ago
There are very few rites of passage for boys now. In my opinion, this is mostly because women:
1) Didn't like the way the men did it
2) Demanded a say in, and then to supervise, how boys became men.
3) Demanded the right to define "boy" and "man".
Most of the time, rites of passage included things like fending for yourself alone away from civilization and ready access to provisions; handling and shooting firearms; learning a martial art or hand to hand combat skills; throwing a punch, taking a punch; working on projects; then supervising projects and younger boys; and accomplishing certain things or tasks and then subjecting them to men's evaluation.
If you screwed it up or it was wrong, you were told to fix it, practice more, do it again, or start over. If you pushed back or otherwise acted like a prick or a pussy during this process, you were taken to a private place ("behind the woodshed") and Dad or whatever man was supervising you chewed you a new asshole or knocked you around a little. (This is exactly where the phrase "taken behind the woodshed" or "woodshedding" comes from - take the boy somewhere private out of eyeshot and earshot, and you correct and rebuke him, physically if necessary.) You do it this way because you're going to shame him and maybe hurt him, and there might be tears, and he needs to preserve his dignity in front of his peers, and he needs a chance to pull it together privately so he can get back out there and get back on the horse. You get knocked down, you get back up - because YOU HAVE TO.
And all of this took place away from women - ESPECIALLY away from his mother and sisters. The womenfolk had nothing to do with any of this.
Boys got hurt during this process - physically, mentally, emotionally. They needed to experience that hurt without being coddled or comforted. They needed to learn to take some pain and discomfort without Mommy rushing to his aid to fix his boo boo and soothe him. No. Now is not the time for that. Now, he needs to learn to bear up under it, handle it, and overcome it. He can't do that with Mommy showing up to help. It needed to happen without girls giggling and doing that idiotic "point and snicker" thing they do.
Mommy won't be here to help him when he's fucked up at his job. Mommy can't help him when he's lost his job and needs to find another one. Mommy can't fix it when he's doing hard work, he is exhausted, but he can't stop and needs to keep going whatever the cost. HE needs to handle it HIMSELF. HE needs to fix it ON HIS OWN.
And, yes, sometimes, they involved sex, possibly with a prostitute. It was for him to redeem his V-card, to show him that women are for fun and a side dish and are not the focus of his life, that sex was not "all that" and was not the be-all end-all of male existence, that women were not to be taken all that seriously; and that women are everywhere and if you can't have this one, you can get another one. Agree, disagree, but that was part of the rites of passage - you dated, you had sex, maybe you paid for a hooker or two, you got your heart broken, you got the F over it and moved on.
The men decided when a boy became a man. The men decided when he had gone through the rites satisfactorily. The men decided when a boy could take his place among the men of the community as a man. Men defined who the boys were, and who the men were. Men decided whether you were a boy and needed more training; or were a man and worthy of respect.
Again - women and girls saw none of this.
There is nothing like this for boys and men now. Many, if not most, boys are how they are because their mothers demand to do all the child care how they want. They interfere with their husbands' fathering of their sons. They bitch and nag and complain and object to a father's sometimes strict and harsh treatment of a son who needs hard correction and stern rebuke. They kick their sons' fathers out of their lives. Or they make sons with shitbag men who don't do any fathering.
Fathering a child this way is borderline illegal now. Fathering a child this way is "child abuse" now. Someone will call CPS if they see you fathering a son this way. Shit, even raising your voice at your son can get some nosy busybody's hackles up and he or she will call CPS and say you're "abusing" your son.
These things are why men can't father their sons, can't take them through rites of passage, cant correct and rebuke them, and throw up their hands and walk away. Under the old system, becoming a man was based on earning the respect of fellow men. Now, becoming a man is based on women's notions of "love". Becoming a man is based on how pleased Mommy is. Whether a male is a "man" is now premised on what kinds of and how much pleasure, help, or provisioning he can give to women.
goodmansaysfuckyou Mod 5y ago
I read a book a few years ago that dealt with the concept of men's rights of passage.
While it had a religious theme and was published for the intent of raising boys into men in church, it was very interesting how the author listed many of the different world cultural aspects of 'becoming a man' and how we have robbed our boys of these milestones in life. I think the title was: Raising Modern Day Knights
Men don't know how to be men anymore because that aspect of hanging out with men and learning from men has been taken from them and they are now forced to be women in a man's body with male hormones and aggression but not having been taught how to control them. Ian Ironwood also had some good writing on the topic back when he was still posting things.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 5y ago
Fully concur. This strikes me as a chicken-or-egg thing: did fathering go the way of the dodo because we discarded rites of passage, or did rites of passage go the way of the dodo because we denigrate fathering?
I don't know. I think other factors came into play, such as post-war affluence, but ultimately I'm not sure it matters. One point is that there are simply no rites of passage left. Not even one. For a rite of passage into manhood to have meaning it must be something that is forbidden to girls, and none of those things are allowed to exist in the west.
We have quasi rites of passage into adulthood (18th birthday, first legal drink, drivers license), but no rites of passage into manhood. About the only thing that could even be remotely considered a rite of passage into manhood in the US is the legal requirement to register for Selective Service, and that's as simple as filling out a form and it's not enforced.
Aldabruzzo Mod 5y ago
And another thing - I like the title.
I didn't originate this phrase.
Words mean things.
We can't change definitions just because we don't like them.
And we can't make things fit within a word's definition by calling them that word. I can call a bicycle a car all day long, but my calling the bike a car does not transform that bike into a car.
This is controversial: A male is a human with the XY chromosome. We cannot make that male into a female by chopping off body parts and giving drugs to that male. We cannot remove the Y chromosome and replace it with another X chromosome. We cannot turn that man into a woman. All that has happened is that that male is now a not-male. Or, that male does not bear outward physical characteristics of a human male. He is a not-man, a not-male. He does not appear to be a male. He appears to be a female, but he is not a female.
If I tell you, lurker, that something is X, you will probably take me at my word and presume that it is in fact X. I am inviting you to take my representation at face value and rely on "Lurker, that is X." If it turns out to be not-X, either you, or I, or both of us, are a liar, or stupid, or ignorant, or don't know what we're talking about. We will question whether either of us can trust the other until trust can be established in some other way.
This is bad, because we need to be able to trust each other so that things can get done efficiently and effectively. If we don't trust each other, we can't get things done at all, or we have to do them separately or get others to do it, which results in wasted time, effort, and money.
You and I, and the rest of us, need to know the truth. It is important that it is X. If it is not X, opportunities could be lost, money and time will be wasted, and people could get hurt or killed. If it is not X, we need to know that ahead of time so that we can fix it and make it X; or deal with the fact that it is not X.
Words mean things. Words matter. Words are important.
fixmyskinplz 5y ago
Inspin. Hmm. This needs to be the word of the year.
CaringVisual 5y ago
Sounds forced and not as insulting
iamrivensky 5y ago
Insightful piece
Mountain_Pick_9052 5y ago
Oh. Wow.
sexiness is not the “new courage” and isn’t the measure of men. We look for many things in a potential partner, and yes, sexual attraction is one of them, but that’s FOR OUR PARTNER, and not THE measure of what makes a man and what doesn’t. That’s crazy. My brother is a man, a good one, but I absolutely don’t think he’s sexy even if I force myself to objectively assess his sexiness. He is how he is, and he’s just not the type of men I’m attracted to and that would ardoise me and stimulate my sex drive. Some women definitely find him attractive I’m sure, he’s married to a beautiful and very intelligent women, but he’s not my type, just like very muscular men aren’t either, and I’m talking about bodybuilders kinda muscular, but typical Instagram kinda of muscular. All women have their preferences, just like men do, and that is ok. If you would take a minute to read about how some women are so poorly treated by their partners, some men finding their wife physically disgusting after they gave birth, justifying cheating on them, dismissing their emotional needs, etc, it’s sickening, and what is even more sickening is that many of these women don’t even see what’s happening for what it truly is; being controlled and abused by a disgusting, superficial, disrespectful, irresponsible, man-child husband. Maybe we could agree that some women don’t know how to love and don’t know how to be loved... and that’s mainly rooted in their childhood. And, in the other side, a lot of men essentially go after and choose their potential partner based on physical features (femininity, reproductive signs, height, hair length and colour, breast size, curves, ass, lips, eyes, and if she has had children before.. because of course being a women that went through the most feminine experience in life decreases our value so damn much! go figure!?) they want to fuck what they consider hot chicks, that have specific criteria of beauty.. so that’s what makes a man a man in your opinion? Well, sorry, but that’s absolutely not our opinion, at all.
FYI: all the lengthy explanation you gave about what makes a man a man nowadays is all made from men’s perspective. We, women, don’t share that perspective at all. It is not true to say that what makes a man is his ability to find a willing sex partner. I completely disagree. Many men don’t have a sex partner and that doesn’t make them not-men. This is ridiculous. Does a woman that doesn’t have her periods or doesn’t birth a child less a woman? Absolutely not and most women if not all of us do think that.
Have you ever considered that all those insinuations you’re making is tightly knitted in your perspective about yourself and how you somehow understood the world and life concepts?
And what about the cowardice accusation that would make men prefer dying in combat.. do you really believe that a mother would prefer losing her son and a wife losing her husband and the father of her children than have him accused of cowardice? BS. The concept around the accusations of cowardice was invented, followed and values by men. Just like the “patriotism” nowadays. It was invented by powerful men in order to add value to the fact of dying at war, to make your brothers feel better about your loss, to ease the pain of families that lost a son, a brother, a husband and give them a sense of pride instead of pure pain and suffering, but also to encourage young people to enrol and not fear dying at war, they would only become heros and make their families proud! Exactly like toxic patriotism.
What was cowardice a century and more ago is in just making a choice for yourself, and people that live you and depend on you. You have the right to chose what battle you’re ready to die for if any, and you have the right to say “I don’t want to die at war” and do something else. As a woman and mother to 2 children that need their father (even though we’re divorced our kids still need him.. oh and before you judge me for divorcing, divorcing him and equally sharing their custody “forced” the kids to have a relationship and interactions with their dad.. dad wasn’t too nice to them when we were a family and avoided engaging with his kids and avoided parenting them because he couldn’t handle himself and it was way easier for him to just lay everything on me.. but once divorced and equally sharing their custody 50-50, he had no choice than to step up, take responsibility and be a father to them, even on the worst days.. so, there’s that), my opinion is that it’s the smartest choice one can make, especially when considering that wars nowadays are used to take control over natural ressources, control over prolific markets (guns and shit), and do not have the same purpose of freeing, protecting and/or saving people from destructive leaders, which is, for us women, the one and only reason you could put yourself at risk of great harm in a war.
There’s too often a thin line between prowess and stupidity, we women see this, but do men see it too? Men challenge themselves, they challenge their strength (a boys only school still have fights last time I checked), they challenge their leadership and power.. by themselves. So I’m sorry to tell you that everything you stated above are from a male perspective, because majority of women do not share it.
Existing-Cold 5y ago
All that to just agree with OP and admit you think you and other women should get to gate keep man hood.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 5y ago
You're so close to getting it.
It doesn't matter how you - as a woman - think manhood ought to be defined. That's the whole point. Men define manhood, and if you were a man you'd know that. Your perspective on this subject is every bit as irrelevant as mine would be on a subject that only pertained to women.
HolyGourdofJerusalem 5y ago
beat me to it...I was about to type almost the same thing.
kudos on the excellent OP and responses
[deleted] 5y ago
[removed]
lurkerhasarisen Mod 5y ago
No doubt... but if we want to live above the subsistence level there have to be expectations and load-sharing for both men and women. There's a good deal of truth to the saying that, "Patriarchy is just another word for civilization."
Personally, I like living indoors with electricity and running water, and without men making those things happen, they won't happen. As Camille Paglia famously said, " If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." If men don't pull together what we get is matriarchy and all its problems.
That's why it's important for boys to have recognized paths to manhood and for men to have assurances that their status as men is secure as long as they don't forfeit it.
[deleted] 5y ago
[removed]
lurkerhasarisen Mod 5y ago
Nonsense. There's no requirement for "abuse, shaming, and browbeating," and your failure to understand that is testament to how far removed we've become from masculinity. Manhood is not some minimal bar that men are shamed into clearing... manhood is something that boys are encouraged to aspire to and men are rewarded for excelling at.
Nobody here is saying that men should sacrifice themselves (or that women should not be expected to carry their share of the load) - I'm just pointing out that men do sacrifice themselves... and that men ought not to fall for false threats to their masculinity in order to coerce them into doing so.
If you want to sit back and watch it all burn... be my guest. We're all sitting around the same civilizational bonfire, after all. In the meantime I prefer the company of men I can trust to have my flank.